Dear Marilyn,
I am fascinated to read about your attempts to generate genuine dialogue
between industry and the public and your approach using their
publications.
I am about 3 months old in the area of human interactions/OD having spent
20 years in a research/consulting career in the environmental sciences,
mostly natural resource management. While I am still passionate about the
environment I have become aware that to begin to resolve short-term issues
in a way that went beyond meeting minimal legislative requirements called
for an attitudinal/cultural changes which meant changing ourselves at a
deep level. So after some years of thought, I stepped out of my
professional area to embrace the new field of applied human behaviour. I
am fortunate that I could do this within the same organisation so some of
the transitional difficulties were made a lot easier. I am still finding
my bearings in the vast area of OD and HI but my intuition led me almost
immediately toward Dialogue and its potential in exactly the arena you
talk about.
>I did all of this work a few years before learning about either Bill
>Isaacs' work in dialogue or The Natural Step, both of which I think would
>have enriched my framework greatly. I am very interested in learning more
>about The Natural Step and thinking about how it can be applied to this
>kind of situation. I hope this thread evolves.
I also am very hopeful that this theme of interchange on Dialogue and The
Natural Step continues.
Would you be able to tell me something about The Natural Step and where it
originated - I have not heard of it.
Stella
>With this group, I started by taking a look at their published papers to
>help them recognize how what they say is being heard by their various
>constituents as a result of the presuppositions revealed in their use of
>language. I did this not to encourage them to modify their language to
>match their constituents' thinking, but to reveal their own mental models
>(or whatever we want to call it), so that they would understand how their
>models might affect the dynamics of the conversation. It was sort of a
>reality check - do you really want to hold a dialogue? What does your
>language say about your intention? It was a revealing and challenging
>process for them.
>
>I also proposed a model to raise the logical level of the conversation to
>a point at which the concrete disagreement could be framed in terms of the
>intent of each position (this is a fairly standard approach to conflict
>resolution).
>
>While these were fine starting points for preparing one side of the
>conversation, obviously I was not working with the public side, and the
>project went nowhere.
>
>I did all of this work a few years before learning about either Bill
>Isaacs' work in dialogue or The Natural Step, both of which I think would
>have enriched my framework greatly. I am very interested in learning more
>about The Natural Step and thinking about how it can be applied to this
>kind of situation. I hope this thread evolves.
-- Dr. Stella E. Humphries, CSIRO Corporate Centre POBox 225 Dickson, ACT 2602 Australia Phone: 61-6-276 6172 Fax: 61-6-276 6688 From: hum068@hrb.csiro.au (Stella Humphries)