The Ward Consultation Brazil
(see readings page)
The Consultation process requires (1) diversity in culture, experience, and perspective in order to gain insight into today’s complex problems and circumstances; and (2) questions that stimulate thought and conversation about things we care about.
The Consultation Design
From its beginning, the Ward Consultation design presumed that people in groups, energized by the Holy Spirit, can bring wisdom and experience to bear on real world issues.
For the Ward Consultation Brazil we are adapting ideas from a world wide movement increasingly used in business, nonprofit companies, churches, and community development
organizations.[1] The design incorporates focused dialogue around substantive questions, shared stories, and case studies; a structured inquiry task; and plenary sessions for synthesis and decision making. In the rounds of dialogue ideas build on one another, while participants explore questions and issues that matter to them in their life and work. In plenary sessions, connections among ideas are explored and questions are clarified. Knowledge-sharing, possibilities for inquiry, and opportunities for research and action are likely to emerge. As Ted Ward has often said, “To know and not to act is not to know!”
The Consultation encourages the exchange of ideas and exploration of different perspectives which can lead to questions that will guide proposals for disciplined inquiry and action in local situations. The challenge in this process is to move from the discovery and energy of the Consultation conversations to the implementation of an inquiry or an action.
Clearly, then, the Ward Consultation works only as the participants – leaders with experience in a variety of settings – come with the expectation to relate to others, to listen, to engage ideas, to offer proposals for action.
Obviously we cannot structure every moment of the
Consultation in advance because participants bring their own experience, ideas,
and questions. The purpose of the Consultation is to create opportunity for the
experience and ideas of participants to be focused productively on the theme.
Consultation Context
The setting for the Consultation is important. We are meeting at a seminary with expansive grounds in a beautiful setting. The setting allows for the comfortable face-to-face conversations and walks where relationship and ideas can emerge.
Consultation Outcomes
We have identified several possible outcomes for this Consultation. They include the probability that we will have
· Built relationships – connected with old friends and made new ones
· Listened to one another’s ministry strategies, hopes and dreams, concerns and struggles
· Discovered and considered a number of questions to ask in relation to Christian social responsibility
· Envisioned new ways of advancing God’s Kingdom and renewing the church – in partnership with one another
· Prayed together
· Developed research questions related to our mission in society
· Discussed creative approaches to evangelism, discipleship, and advocacy opportunities
· Identified ways and means to make better use of our resources
· Explored cooperative ventures at national and international levels
However, in the first round of dialogue you will be asked to indicate to your colleagues which of these outcomes are of most interest to you. Questions will then develop from these priorities.
The Use of Questions
David Cooperrider and Diana Whitney suggest that human systems grow in the direction of that which they persistently ask questions about.
[2] Questions are powerful in learning and in resolution. [3] Asked inappropriately they can stifle learning (What is this text saying about . . .?). Asked differently they can take persons to higher levels of thinking (How would you assess the position of this author in relation to . . .?). Questions can escalate conflict (Why do you do that?), or point toward resolution (What has brought us to this point and what can we do about it?).[4]
Summary of the World Café Process
Arrival and First Round of Conversation:
When everyone arrives and is seated at tables, the process is explained and guidelines described: Listen together for patterns, insights, and deeper questions; Connect ideas; Listen to understand; Contribute your thinking and experiences. (A diagram with these guidelines is at each table.) Optional: ask everyone to move to new tables so that there is a mix of experience and perspectives.
The difference between individual participation and encouraging each person’s contribution is important at the Consultation. For example, individual participation often becomes the insertion of one’s particular opinions and ideas into a discussion. However, when participants are reminded that contribution is important, they have to think about what their insight and experience actually contributes to the conversation of the whole. Correspondingly, the value of that contribution can be assessed only as it enters the group’s discussion. In other words, participants should come to realize that they bear responsibility for moving the process along. They do this through active listening, through sharing patterns they see, through offering metaphors, and by helping the group see potential blind spots.
The first round of conversation is generally exploratory as people take time to meet one another and get used to the process. Questions are given to stimulate, but not to control, the conversation. A recorder is enlisted at each table to capture the essence of the table conversation. Pens are placed at each table to allow participants to write notes, ideas, and drawings on the paper table covering.
Initiating the Second Round of Conversation:
To begin the second round of conversation people move to a table near them. One person, not necessarily the recorder, stays behind at each table as a host to share the essence of the table conversation with the newcomers. Travelers to other tables link the ideas from their first round of conversation to the second conversation. The purpose of the second round of conversation is to encourage people to notice patterns, themes, and to identify and record deeper questions.
Initiating the Third Round of Conversation:
For the third round, participants return to their original tables. There they share how their conversations have evolved and ask, What deeper questions do we need to ask? Each table prepares 2-3 questions that they believe are important. A recorder writes each question on a piece of flip chart paper and posts it on the wall. At some point, participants are asked to note a question that is of particular interest and to take it back to their table for discussion.
After three rounds of conversation, the group gathers for a plenary session where the participants share their findings, key insights, and also what the conversations meant to them. At this time the facilitator asks them to identify the most essential findings from the previous conversations. One table begins then other tables are invited to enter the discussion as they have a question or insight that relates. At the end of the plenary session determine if there is one overarching question that can take the group to a deeper level, or identify a researchable task, or a possibility for action.
Following the plenary participants imagine an agenda and focus for their organization’s activities this coming year. Persons may share an idea that they intend to take back to their own context.
Follow up:
Who else do we need in the conversation? What additional perspectives might bring needed insight? Who would benefit from being part of the conversation should we organize regional gatherings in the next year? What ideas for research and action have emerged? What steps do we need to clarify here in order for these ideas to develop?
What examples should we learn more about: The Bridge in Hungary whose purpose is to connect connect the various fragmented elements of culture—including the church. In a town in India, churches and political leaders work together productively. What other examples can we identify around the world as well as in Brazil and Latin America. How can we learn more about what they are doing?
Friday Afternoon Session
Some politicians/public administrators will join us for all or part of the consultation. Conversations
between church leaders, theological educators, and political leaders will be part of the whole
Consultation. However, on Friday afternoon we will focus specifically on conversation with the
political leaders about how the churches and theological schools can make the best use of society’s
resources, and how the Christian community can work effectively with societal agencies.
[1] See Juanita Brown with David Isaacs. 2005. The World Café: Shaping our Futures Through Conversations that Matter. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. The World Café is built on seven principles: the setting must support interaction and engagement; the space must be seen as hospitable; questions must be significant enough to stimulate collaborative interaction; everyone’s contribution is needed and expected; cross-pollination of ideas and exploration of diverse perspectives is encouraged while at the same time retaining focus on the core questions; participants are helped to listen together for patterns, insights and deeper questions; that which is discovered in the conversations is harvested, shared and acted upon (40).
[2] See David Cooperrider and Diana Whitney. 2005. Appreciative Inquiry: A Positive Revolution in Change. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers; and Diana Whitney and Amanda Trosten-Bloom. 2003. The Power of Appreciative Inquiry: A Practical Guide to Positive Change. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers
[3]To improve question construction see such resources as Walter Bateman. 1990. Open to Question: The Art of Teaching and Learning by Inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; Norah Morgan and Juliana Saxton. 1991. Teaching, Questioning and Learning. Routledge, Chapman, Hall Inc.; Neil Browne and Stuart Keeley. 2001. Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking (sixth edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall; Chet Meyers. 1986. Teaching Students to Think Critically. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; Stephen Brookfield. 1995. Becoming a Critical Reflective Teacher. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; Jane Vella. 2002. Learning to Listen, Learning to Teach (revised edition). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; C. Ronald Christensen, David Garvin and Ann Sweet (eds). 1991. Education for judgment. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
[4] Juanita Brown (The World Café, 91) tells the story of two different approaches to asking questions in a community development effort: The less dynamic question was “Have you thought about cleaning up the river?” Apart from being the generally unproductive yes/no form, the question would not take the people to useful thinking that leads to action. In this case, the more useful question was, “What do you see when you look at the river? How do you feel about the condition of the river? How do you explain the situation with the river to your children?” You might be able to frame other or different questions for this situation, but note the effort not to ask a question that betrays the agenda of the asker. The question invites the people to make their own judgments about the condition of the river. This approach is more risky for the community development specialist because it leaves open the possibility that the people will see the problem (and hence possible solutions) differently. But, the reality is that it is most often the people who live with the situation who can see the way through the problem more clearly. The advantage of an outsider’s perspective, of course, is when the insider has been blindsided by bias, tradition, or familiarity. That is why it is necessary to bring together people from diverse perspectives in a consultation format.