Re: Anonymity in Meetings LO2555

BandABall@aol.com
Thu, 24 Aug 1995 11:45:34 -0400

Replying to LO2520 --

Replying to Michael McMaster's comments in LO2520 and Dave Buffenbarger's in
LO 2513,

Michael said, among other things, about anonymity,

<<One thing it provides is a forum for "voicing" to those who are shy,
incompetent at speaking, poor at dialogue or lacking in power where power
counts. As such, it has a potentially important place.>>

and Dave, in commenting on paper logging vs. computer said, among other
things,

<<The method is called rooms with long walls and many hanging
pages of flipcharts.>>

I have found a helpful way to give "voice" while maintaining visibility is
to use 5 x 7 cards, each with *one* fully written thought filled out and
posted on a wall by the participant (using sticky spray). When all the
thoughts are up, one can do some grouping (similar to KJ), some nominal
group technique (see John Warfield's comments in LO 2515), and
psuedo-voting (1=completely comfortable, 2=need a little more dialogue,
3=completely uncomfortable, can't budge without more discussion) on the
groupings. Because the media is movable, it allows for flexibility
without re-copying, but all ideas remain totally visible to the entire
group.

When the entire group is comfortable (all voting "1"), the facilitator has
a thoroughly scrubbed version of what the group thinks is important and
sequenced by group "label," (similar to KJ). What remains is a nominal
ranking of importance. This, I have found, is much easier to do after
using the cards to group, since the domains of ranking and grouping are
clearly separate.

The original input has the advantage of pseudo-anonymity. Grouping and
ranking require discussion, which has the advantage pointed out by Michael of

<<words become more real when they are spoken aloud and more real still
when they are really listened to - and more still when listened to by a
group or by many sequentially.>>

I hope this is helpful. As a practical matter, the largest group I have
facilitated using this technique is 42 participants.

Thanks again to all for your many contributions.

--
Byrd
Byrd M. Ball
Atlanta, GA
BandABall@aol.com