|
|
|
When organising a policy dialogue, consideration should be given to: the type of meeting chosen and how the discussion will be organised and managed in advance of the dialogue; the use of pre-circulated materials; setting the agenda; planning who will facilitate or chair the dialogue; deciding the extent to which the dialogue will be open or closed; and other general, practical arrangements.
Face-to-face meetings are the best way to achieve the objectives of most policy dialogues. However, additional telephone or virtual meetings may also be possible as a way to facilitate the involvement of a wider range of participants or to clarify a specific aspect of a problem or its potential solutions. Options for the involvement of stakeholders prior to a policy dialogue are considered in Guide 1. Getting Started and Guide 8. Informing And Engaging Stakeholders and in the SUPPORT Tool on organising and using policy dialogues provided in the ‘Additional resources’ section of this guide.3 Options for doing this after a policy dialogue are also considered in Guide 8.7
Face-to-face meetings may be structured in various ways. The
nominal group technique, for example, involves the collection of
ideas from each participant which are then systematically played
back to the group by a facilitator in a way that ensures that all
ideas are addressed openly.5 Because of the
complexity of the issues and objectives addressed in most policy
dialogues, discussions focused around specific issues are likely to
be helpful (e.g. the problem, each option, and the implementation
considerations), but the discussions themselves should not be
structured. Any structure that is chosen should be designed to
maximise the contributions of all participants and the interactions
between them. Using a structure that explicitly separates
consideration of different types of evidence may increase the
possibility of tracing the outcomes of the dialogue back to the
evidence.1,7
To ensure that discussions are sufficiently well-informed by a
policy brief, the policy brief should ideally be circulated far
enough in advance of the dialogue for the participants to read it
and reflect upon it. Generally a minimum period of at least two
weeks should be allowed for this. More time may be desirable if,
for example, participants will need time to consult with their
constituencies. Sometimes a dialogue may need to be organised at
short notice due to the urgency of the problem or the presence of
political expediency.
It is desirable for participants to have read a policy brief in
advance of the meeting and they should be informed that this is
expected. Preparation like this allows time for greater reflection
and even consultation prior to the dialogue, as well as more time
for discussion during the dialogue. On occasion, however, it may
not be reasonable to expect participants to have read the policy
brief in advance either because of the timing of the dialogue or
because of their own professional time commitments.
Other materials that could be circulated in advance of a meeting
include the agenda and the list of the participants. And while it
may also be desirable to circulate additional relevant background
documents, care should be taken not to overwhelm participants with
too much information. Circulating additional background documents
could distract attention from the key information (which should be
summarised in the policy brief), or they may discourage more
careful reading of the policy brief.
The agenda should allow as much time as possible for interactive discussions and a minimum amount of time for presentations. Care should be taken not to talk at participants and it may, in fact, be best to prevent convenors or participants delivering presentations during the dialogue process. An example of an agenda for a policy dialogue is provided in the ‘Additional resources’ section of this guide. If it cannot be assumed that a policy brief has been read beforehand, then time should be given for participants to read the policy brief during the dialogue meeting. It may be desirable to introduce each discussion with a summary of the key relevant information from the policy brief, and then inviting comments on these from participants. If it can be assumed that a policy brief has been read beforehand less time is needed when introducing each discussion.
Generally the agenda should include deliberations about the
problem, about each option for addressing the problem, about
implementation considerations, and about the next steps to be
taken. The agenda should be organised in a logical way, such that
there are separate deliberations related to each section of the
policy brief. There may be reasons to organise the agenda
differently, for example it may be considered advantageous to
discuss implementation considerations at the same time as each
option. Depending on the timing and objectives of the dialogue it
may be desirable to give more time to particular considerations
than to others. It may be useful, for example, to spend more time
discussing the problem early in the policy development process or
if there are conflicting views or important uncertainties regarding
the problem. Conversely, it may be desirable to spend less time
discussing the problem and more time discussing solutions, if a
shared understanding of the problem already exists.
When deciding how long a policy dialogue should be, a balance must
be found between allowing sufficient time for a fruitful discussion
with the participation of all of the participants, and the need to
minimise demands on their time. An appropriate length is likely to
be between one and two days but this may vary depending on the
objectives of the dialogue, the schedules and travel arrangements
of the participants, and the degree of controversy surrounding the
content.
A skilled, knowledgeable, and neutral chair or facilitator is needed to ensure that the available time is used effectively and that the policy dialogue is well run. They will need the experience and skills to:
The facilitator should try to prevent individual participants
dominating the discussion or influencing it inappropriately,
perhaps by drawing on their own perceived authority (e.g. their
position or research background), talking too much, or cutting
others off.
Facilitators should have some knowledge of the problem, the potential solutions and the context, be able to interpret the contributions and dynamics of the discussion appropriately, and know when and how to intervene.
Neutrality is also required to ensure that all participants feel that their contributions will receive a fair hearing and to avoid the dialogue being manipulated – or perceived as being manipulated – to support a particular viewpoint.
The degree to which the dialogue is open or closed may also affect how participants contribute, and a balance between transparency and privacy must be found. Privacy may be needed to allow the discussion to flow freely and for the participants to be comfortable enough to admit ignorance, enquire openly, or try out new ideas. While transparency may be generally desirable, it may inhibit contributions and encourage participants to “play to the audience”. One way of achieving a balance is to be open about the procedures but to keep the actual deliberations closed (apart from the agreed outputs). If this latter option is chosen, clear rules should be discussed and agreed at the beginning of the dialogue. For example, the Chatham House Rule may be applied, which states that: “Participants are free to use the information received during the meeting, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed” (www.chathamhouse.org.uk/about/chathamhouserule). This rule ensures that participants can use and act on what they have learned while ensuring they have sufficient privacy to allow them to contribute freely and openly at the dialogue.
In addition to planning the structure of the dialogue and the conduct required in ways that maximise the likelihood of achieving the objectives, it is important to ensure that suitable practical arrangements are made. This includes being clear about who is responsible for these, securing a venue that is convenient and conducive to discussion (with break-out rooms if needed), managing travel arrangements for the participants, finding suitable seating arrangement (ideally a boardroom style), making sure that the meeting room is easy to find (e.g. putting up signs or providing instructions), and giving attention to organisational details including the provision of name tags, refreshments, writing materials, and translation services, when needed.
Example of a policy dialogue in Zambia |
|
|
|
Lonia Mwape talks about a policy dialogue held in Zambia. |
