The Common Ground Network for Life and Choice Manual

More documents

Recommendations

Info

of an action project can be daunting if the group feels itself limited in time and/or expertise, or has divergent interests among members. In some instances, groups have subdivided for purposes of action projects while preserving their identity as a whole. The next section explains how the Network and the Buffalo Coalition for Common Ground arrived at a project that met both its interest in, and its capability for, acting on an important local issue, by expanding the pool of interested participants. In the process we created a model for community dialogue. Common Ground on Teen Pregnancy In 1996 the Network and the Buffalo Coalition for Common Ground (BCCG) sponsored a community-wide dialogue on teen pregnancy prevention for a broad spectrum of the Buffalo community where there was firm disagreement over prevention approaches (e.g.. “abstinence only” versus birth control.) The purpose was to more fully define the problem, surface overlapping concerns and locate common strategies that could be acted upon. The desired outcome was new and fruitful relationships between segments of the community that had been unwilling to work together in any way. The motivation for the project came from deep concern about a sustained high rate of teen pregnancy and its consequences for the community. This subject had repeatedly emerged as an area of common ground between pro-choice and pro-life advocates. However, a lack of expertise and insufficient direct involvement with the issue among BCCG members had thwarted the group’s efforts to formulate an effective action plan. Key community stakeholders and activists on teen pregnancy prevention were not in the group. The Network suggested and BCCG agreed to assume the role of neutral convener for a larger community forum. What BCCG offered was its expertise and credibility in the process of getting people of differing and conflicting perspectives to work together and its mixed prochoice/pro-life constituency. This mixed constituency provided access to the various elements of the community whose participation was needed, and also built trust that this project was not an effort to coopt anyone, or force a compromise, since the overlap between positions on abortion and teen pregnancy prevention strategies was large. The needed special knowledge and
direct involvement with teen pregnancy prevention came from the invited participants who were identified through extensive interviews with knowledgeable people in the community. The meeting process designed by the Network combined the key elements of common ground dialogue with established methods for generating ideas and options and arriving at concrete action steps in a large and diverse group. Participants were given a grounding in the concepts and ground rules we use for abortion-related dialogue, but with the issue being teen pregnancy prevention. The same level of care was taken in recruiting a balance of participants and in forming discussion groups and the teen and parent panels. We insured that there was a diversity of backgrounds and perspectives on teen pregnancy prevention and that the poles in the debate were represented. We were also intentional about placing in the same group individuals who would particularly benefit from having lines of communication opened between them. As hoped, new networks and alliances were forged at this event. Since 1996, two more similar projects have taken place in partnership with the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, a national non-profit organization. Appendix 5.3 is the design of what we now call the Structured Community Dialogue (SCD) process as we used it in a project in Arizona in early 1999. (A description of an earlier SCD in San Bernardino, California appears in the Campaign’s publication, “While the Adults are Arguing the Kids are Getting Pregnant”.) Contact information for the Campaign is in Chapter 9. The day and one-half long design is ambitious for what it aims to achieve in that space of time, but we decided upon this meeting length when we concluded that this was the maximum feasible if we wanted to get optimum community representation. The full agenda put a premium on recruiting skilled small group facilitators (we were able to recruit a fine volunteer team) and giving them a thorough orientation. A team of two handled the lead facilitation. The number of SCD participants has ranged from 50 to 100. Addressing a Pressing Local Issue The presence of a pressing local issue, particularly one on which the pro-life/pro-choice
Page 1 and 2:
The Common Ground Network for Life
Page 3 and 4:
Common Ground Concepts Appendix 1.1
Page 5 and 6:
over abortion. The Network came int
Page 7 and 8:
together out of a mutual commitment
Page 9:
About the Authors Mary Jacksteit wa
Page 12 and 13:
others are “wrong.” Debate tend
Page 14 and 15:
other people with the same label, d
Page 16 and 17:
etween people related to one anothe
Page 18 and 19:
Appendix 1.1 THE COMMON GROUND DIAL
Page 20 and 21:
• Dialogue questions, not “topi
Page 22 and 23:
Appendix 1.3 The Search for Common
Page 25 and 26:
CHAPTER TWO: GETTING STARTED People
Page 27 and 28:
eferred interested people to the lo
Page 29 and 30:
4. Offer and accept views without a
Page 31 and 32:
CHAPTER THREE: PLANNING FOR DIALOGU
Page 33 and 34:
Another type of workshop might have
Page 35 and 36:
Dialogue Workshop. Based on experie
Page 37 and 38:
hour training session for workshop
Page 39 and 40:
First Small Group Dialogue After th
Page 41 and 42:
may be particularly concerned that
Page 43 and 44:
Appendix 3.1 WORKSHOP PLANNING MEET
Page 45 and 46:
Appendix 3.2 Dialogue Workshop Mate
Page 47: 9:00 am Check-in, Welcome, Large gr
Page 51 and 52: Appendix 3.4 Sample letter to small
Page 53 and 54: Appendix 3.6 COMMON GROUND DIALOGUE
Page 55 and 56: Session Time: 30 minutes.
Page 57 and 58: (5 meaning strongest agreement and
Page 59 and 60: COMPARISON OPINION SURVEY If you ar
Page 61 and 62: 5 4 3 2 1 (5 meaning strongest agre
Page 63 and 64: Appendix 3.9 OPINION SURVEY RESULTS
Page 65 and 66: Appendix 3.10 Exploring Stereotypes
Page 67: COMMON GROUND WORKSHOP Evaluation Q
Page 70 and 71: language, insuring understanding be
Page 72 and 73: address another aspect of structuri
Page 74 and 75: also to: (1) find out how others fe
Page 76 and 77: The dialogue design presented in th
Page 78 and 79: f) Encouraging people to use "I" me
Page 80 and 81: 12:15-1:00: LUNCH. This is not a "w
Page 82 and 83: [5 min] -Communicate care for the s
Page 84 and 85: someone has said earlier. It might
Page 86 and 87: Appendix 4.4 WORKSHOP FACILITATOR T
Page 88 and 89: the Part A or Part B sheets. Partic
Page 90 and 91: 3) How can you not care that poor w
Page 92 and 93: 1) We [Feminists for Life] think we
Page 95 and 96: CHAPTER FIVE: “WHAT NEXT?” Freq
Page 97: dialogues: • Reducing the rate of
Page 101 and 102: very happy to find a fresh and posi
Page 103: • Periodically sponsoring a day-l
Page 106 and 107: leaders in the nearby town of Amher
Page 108 and 109: • Working together to remove the
Page 110 and 111: Cohen and another group member to j
Page 112 and 113: Appendix 5.4 A Structured Community
Page 114 and 115: to the prevention of teen pregnancy
Page 116: Before starting, tell the group tha
Page 119 and 120: Structuring an email dialogue Organ
Page 121 and 122: it is important to stress the signi
Page 123 and 124: listserve and, possibly, the facili
Page 125 and 126: would be attending at their own exp
Page 127 and 128: impartial. To the extent possible,
Page 129 and 130: Engaging one's adversaries in a pos
Page 131 and 132: Appendix 6.1 On-Line Dialogue Dear
Page 133 and 134: Time frame. In order to give the gr
Page 135 and 136: CHAPTER SEVEN: ADAPTING THE DIALOGU
Page 137 and 138: undermine the genuineness of the di
Page 139 and 140: Discussion in small groups follows
Page 141 and 142: Afternoon Small Group Session [This
Page 143: Appendix 7.1 A Day of Dialogue on G
Page 146 and 147: otherwise. Another problem is that
Page 148 and 149:
Appendix 8.1 COMMON GROUND CONFEREN
Page 150 and 151:
ealize," agrees Frederica Mathewes-
Page 154 and 155:
CHAPTER NINE: RESOURCES There are c
Page 156:
PO Box 203, 697 Pomfret St. Pomfret
show all

The Common Ground Network for Life and Choice Manual

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?