Sunday, May 2, 2010

OSDE methods


Can you imagine a space where…
There is no pressure to become or pretend to be like somebody else

There is no obligation to agree with anything

There is no need to reach consensus (as this is generally shaped by those who are more articulate in the group)

There is no pressure to ‘win’ a discussion or competition to impose one’s perspective on another’s

There is no fear of being denied recognition as a whole person because you think differently

There is freedom to express one’s views with respect and to change one’s mind when one is faced with something new

There is the possibility to say to a stranger or to a friend: I don’t agree with what you say or with what you do, but I love you anyway and I am learning with you (as we do with teenage children or stubborn parents)

There is safety for learning to live with conflict, uncertainty and difference

There is support for questioning and reflection on the origins and implications of our assumptions without people feeling personally attacked, delegitimised or silenced

There is the opportunity to contemplate the inclusion of different perspectives in the (continuous) construction of our own dreams for the future

There are relationships based not on ideologies or identities but on a commitment to dialogue and to learning and reflecting together

There is the possibility of ‘cross-contamination’ without the pressure to become the other or to remain the same


OSDE GROUND RULES 

Version A (generic):
a) that each individual brings valid knowledge to the open space (everyone is a pot of knowledge!)
b) that this knowledge deserves respect (everyone should have the right to express themselves without fear of being ‘looked down’ by others and should be committed to listening to others with respect)
c) that all knowledge is related to who you are and where you come from (we construct the lenses we look through at the world in our contexts and interactions with others)
d) that all knowledge is partial and incomplete (we all see the world through different lenses that continuously change and there are no universally better or clearer lenses)
e) that all knowledge can and should be questioned through dialogue (we should engage critically with actions, thoughts and beliefs of both ourselves and others as we need different lenses – other perspectives - to challenge and transform our own views).
Version B (used in teacher education/HE):
1. That every individual brings to the space valid and legitimate knowledge constructed in their own contexts
We look at the world through lenses constructed in a complex web in our contexts, influenced by several external forces (cultures, media, religions, education, upbringing), internal forces (personality, reactions, conflicts) and encounters and relationships. The image these lenses project represent our knowledge of ourselves and of the world and therefore, whether they are close or far from what is considered ‘normal’, they have a history and their validity needs to be acknowledged within the space
2. That all knowledge is partial and incomplete
As our lenses are constructed in specific contexts, we lack the knowledge constructed in other different contexts and therefore we need to listen to different perspectives in order to see/imagine beyond the boundaries of our own lenses
3. That all knowledge can be questioned
Critical engagement in the project is defined as the attempt to understand where perspectives are coming from and where they are leading to (origins and implications). Therefore, questioning is not an attempt to break the lenses (to destroy or de-legitimise perspectives), but to sharpen and broaden the vision.

Version C (used in secondary schools):
- No one should feel left out
- There should be a good atmosphere
- No one should tell you what you should think
- No one - not even the teacher - has all the answers
- Everyone should attempt to do their best in relation to the three key challenges: staying focused, thinking hard and working as a team

Version D:
We accept that we all have knowledge to share and we continue to learn all our lives, we all know different things in different ways according to our experience and that we are ready to interrogate our assumptions and the implications of our perpectives.

General prcedures for teacher/adult education (16+):
  1. Engagement with stimulus (prompting cognitive dissonance) & Airing of views - in pairs
  2. Informed thinking – where to find out more
  3. Reflexive questions - individually (related to own perspectives)
  4. Open Space questions – in small groups (focus on different logics and power + origins and implications of perspectives)
  5. Responsible choices – in small groups (decision making processes related to the theme)
  6. Debriefing (reflection on learning process and quality of space)
1. Stimulus and airing: exposure to a stimulus presenting different and ‘logical’ perspectives on the theme. The perspectives should present different angles of the issue and prompt ‘cognitive dissonance’ in the participants, who are encouraged to react to the stimulus by exploring the origins and implications of each perspective and relate them to their own perspectives. Note: the main objective of this step is NOT to check what participants ‘think about’ the theme. Suggested timing and mode: 10 minutes of pair work

2. Informed thinking: brainstorm on sources of information about the theme, mainstream and non-mainstream perspectives and access to and of public channels of communication. Suggested timing and mode: 5 minutes of group work with round up by facilitator

3. Reflexive questions: exposure to questions that refer to the individual. Note: these should not be discussed as a group activity until learners are familiar with the methodology or participants might feel they are too exposed or that they need to compete for legitimacy. Suggested timing and mode: 3 minutes of silent reflection

4. Group Dialogue Questions: exposure to questions that promote ‘critical literacy’ or formulation of questions (in an open enquiry). Suggested timing and mode: 30 minutes for discussion in small groups + 10 minutes in the whole group for a round of burning statements and questions

5. Responsible Choices: This is problem solving task which gives participants an opportunity to apply the skills and knowledge gained in the enquiry process to a real-life or simulated situation of decision making. Suggested timing and mode: 20 minutes – group work

6. Debriefing: Participants are invited to reflect on their participation and learning (what they have learned about the topic, themselves, about others, about the space itself, and about the learning process). This is also a ‘closing the open space’ ritual. Suggested timing and mode: 10 minutes – whole group (facilitator invites individuals to say a word, a sentence, nothing at all or anything they want about their learning process and the quality and safety of the space)


General prcedures for secondary schools:
1. Looking at PERSPECTIVES: image, film, cartoon, song, story
2. Drawing or writing your FIRST THOUGHTS and sharing it
3. Making QUESTIONS in pairs
4. VOTING on a question
5. TALKING about it
6. SHARING what we have learned

MATERIAL DESIGN
Guidelines for each stage of the methodology are provided below:
Stage 1. Stimulus and airing : exposure to a stimulus presenting different and ‘logical’ perspectives on the theme. The perspectives should present different angles of the issue and prompt ‘cognitive dissonance’ in the participants, who are encouraged to react to the stimulus by exploring the origins and implications of each perspective and relate them to their own perspectives. Note: the main objective of this step is NOT to check what participants ‘think about’ the theme. Suggested timing and mode: 10 minutes of pair work
Objective : breaking the ice, causing cognitive dissonance, acknowledging complexity and contingency (context dependency)
Presents :
  • More than two perspectives that 'make sense'
  • Conflict/difference of understanding
  • A 'devil's advocate' atmosphere
Challenges:
  • Moving away from romaticisation
  • Moving away from 'the right/wrong' and 'neutral/biased' or 'black/white' perception
  • Keeping it short, accessible and clear!
(lesson learned: if students perceive we have a 'direct action' agenda here the exercise is defeated)
Possible sources:
Quotations (author acknowledged), (retold) perspectives (author not acknowledged), pictures, cartoons, case-studies, poems, song lyrics, film, interview, drama (role play/facilitator in role)
Questions : provocative questions related to the stimulus inviting participants to engage critically with the stimulus (trace origins/assumptions and implications of perspectives)
E.G. (from ‘notions of development’ used in teacher education)
Who is ‘us’ and who is ‘them’ in the perspectives below? How is ‘development’ defined? What are the assumptions informing these perspectives? What are the implications of those assumptions?
“Developing countries are poor because they lack technology and education. Their systems of governance are not as mature as ours. We need to help by giving them technology, proper work habits and good education."
"When we say a country is ‘underdeveloped’ we are implying that it is backward and retarded in some way, that its people have shown little capacity to achieve and evolve. The use of the word ‘developing’ is less insulting, but still misleading. It still implies that poverty was an original historic condition based on the ‘lack’ of attributes of its people (in relation to characteristics ‘we’ have) – a mindset that was dominant in colonial times."
Stage 2. Informed thinking : brainstorm on sources of information about the theme, mainstream and non-mainstream perspectives and access to and of public channels of communication. Suggested timing and mode: 5 minutes of group work with round up by facilitator.
Objectve : to reflect on access of information and the process of public knowledge construction (media literacy).
Possible strategies:
1. The following questions as part of a handout or transperancy :
What informed your current perspective on this topic? What shapes the mainstream perspectives available to the public? Where can you find out about different perspectives? How do you make your decisions about what you think about it?
2, A short text with a summary of mainstream and alternative perspectives to be discussed
Stage 3. Reflexive questions : exposure to questions that refer to the individual. Note: these should not be discussed as a group activity until learners are familiar with the methodology or participants might feel they are too exposed or that they need to compete for legitimacy. Suggested timing and mode: 3 minutes of silent reflection
Objective : to relate the topic to participants’ lives and to give them an opportunity to acknowledge (reflect on) their own assumptions and how those might have been constructed.
Challenges :
The idea is that the perspectives that individuals bring to the space will be challenged and transformed in dialogue. Therefore, if these are expressed at this stage, it might put participants at risk of exposure or contradiction. When groups get used to the methodology and to relating to each other in a different way this stops being an issue.
Types of Questions:
  1. Do you think your country is ‘developed’? What are your parameters for evaluating development? Where do those parameters come from?
  2. What are the parameters for development (or achievement and merit) within your community (please define community in any way you want)?
  3. How does your community see itself in relation to other communities? How do you think other communities see your community and why?
  4. How do you think you contribute (or not) for the development of your country or community? Who has established the criteria of this contribution? Are there any groups that would have more difficulties of meeting these criteria?
From: Notions of Development
  1. How do you define your priorities for consumption?
  2. What most influences your needs and wants?
  3. What do you think your clothes, hair style, shoes, accessories and make-up say about you? How are those interpreted by other people?
  4. Who defines the parameters of what a successful or unsuccessful person should look like in the communities you belong to?
From: Consumerism and anti-consumerism

Stage 4. Group Dialogue Questions : exposure to questions that promote ‘critical literacy’ or formulation of questions (in an open enquiry). Suggested timing and mode: 30 minutes for discussion in small groups + 10 minutes in the whole group for a round of burning statements and questions
Objective : to develop critical literacy and self-reflexivity through dialogue and exposure to different perspectives (please refer to section 3 – Critical Literacy) and to prompt participants to re-constrcut their understanding of the topic
Challenges :
  1. to formulate questions that are meaningful and accessible to participants (that present illustrations and contradictions in a way that relates to their own perspectives)
  2. to avoid questions that do not promote critical engagement (e.g. What do you think of homelessness?)or that only prompt emotional responses (e.g. How did you feel when you heard about the terrorist bombings in London ?)
  3. to avoid leading questions that point to only one right answer without addressing the complexity of the issue (e.g. is violence the best solution to problems?)
  4. to avoid to demand participants to make choices (e.g. what are you prepared to change in your life now?)
Types of questions
  1. prompting definitions (how do you define development?)
  2. addressing the construction of meaning (how was your understanding constructed?)
  3. prompting participants to think about mainstream and alternative perspectives
  4. addressing complexity (different perspectives and implications)
  5. addressing origins and implications (critical literacy)
  6. addressing contradictions
  7. addressing power relations
The following dimensions can support the formulation of questions:
Perspectives
Where has the information come from to form your perspective on this issue? What are other perspectives on these issues, mainstream and ‘silenced’ or alternative? How can you find out more? What validates a perspective? Who decides?
Agents
Who are the main actors affecting this issue and what are their interests, for example, social groups, companies, countries, governments, political parties, institutions, faith communities, NGOs, etc?
Assumptions and beliefs
How would you describe the assumptions or core principles behind mainstream views? What assumptions or beliefs are behind your own views? Do these differ?
Trends
What was the situation 5, 10, 50 or 100 years ago and what are the predictions for the future (5, 10, 50 or 100 years ahead)? This period of time represents the life span of humanity today ie there are people alive today over 100 years old and people born today may live for 100 years.
Drivers, interactions and implications
What are the main forces creating or preventing change, such as demography, environmental, natural resources, market forces, regulations, elections, lobby groups, media, beliefs, military etc. What are the connections between these? How does the local relate to the global and the global relate to the local?
Contradictions and complexity
Are the perspectives you have identified contradictory? Is there something true in various perspectives that is in conflict with each other? Can both be true – at the same time different? Are there any ‘easy answers’ or ‘quick fixes’ to these issues? What has already been tried and what were the potentials and limitations?
The following questions are illustrations of the ‘critical literacy’ type:
Where is this (or are we) coming from?
What are the assumptions of reality and knowledge behind what is being said?
Does this way of seeing establish that there is only one or more interpretations of reality? Who defines what the ‘best’ interpretation of reality is? (Does any particular point of view imply it is the only way to see things? Does the mainstream view give the impression there is no other way of seeing things?)
Does this reality establish a dualist (us versus them) or a non-dualist (us all) cosmology? What are the implications of that?
Who decides what can be known (or not known) in this way of seeing? Who can produce knowledge? Who decides what is real and ideal?
What are the contradictions of this perspective?
Where is this (or are we) leading to? (what are the implications of this perspective?)
Who decides, in whose name and for whose benefit…
In terms of ethics/culture: which groups/individuals are affected? Which become more valued in society? Which become less valued as a result?
In terms of access to resources: which groups/individuals are affected? Which gain access to resources? Which lose access as a result?
In terms of political participation: which groups/individuals are affected? Which voices are valued /whose influence is increased? Which are silenced/have their influence decreased?
In terms of economic advantages: which groups/individuals are affected? Which groups/individuals profit/increase or gain revenue/employment? Which lose revenue or employment as a result?
In terms of social mobility: which groups/individuals are affected? Which gain access to social mobility? Which lose access?
In terms of basic and non-basic ‘rights’: which groups/individuals are affected? Which have their rights enhanced? Which lose their rights?
In terms of violence (or military power): which groups are affected? Which become more vulnerable? Which become more powerful?
In terms of environmental sustainability: how is the environment affected? What are the gains and losses of this situation? In terms of human conditions of survival? In terms of the conditions for survival for other life forms?
What are the local implications of this perspective?
How is the local scenario articulated with the global?
What are the future implications of these scenarios if these assumptions are reproduced?
What are the implications for human relations?
What are the implications for the achievement of justice?
What are the implications for the achievement of peace?
E.G. (from ‘notions of development’ used in teacher education)
  • What are the mainstream definitions of development/underdevelopment? What are the assumptions about the causes of development and underdevelopment according to those definitions? What are the implications of these assumptions?
  • Should all countries be aiming for one (universal) ideal of development? Who should define this ideal? What would be the implications of going in this direction?
  • What do people in societies that are considered to be part of the 'First world' have in common with those of the ' Third World '? Do you know the origins of these terms?
  • What are the connections of the mainstream understandings of development to the processes of colonisation?
  • What are the consequences of economic growth defined as accumulation of wealth? What are the consequences of undergrowth?
  • How do people/companies/governments generate wealth? Is it only a result of hard work and sacrifice? Does it involve the enforced disempowerment of other competitors or workers? Is the accumulation game fair? Who defines the rules? What are the implications of this game?
  • How does the development of one country/community affect the development or underdevelopment of other communities?
  • How do the labels developed/underdeveloped affect social relations?

5. Responsible Choices : This is problem solving task which gives participants an opportunity to apply the skills and knowledge gained in the enquiry process to a real-life or simulated situation of decision making. Suggested timing and mode: 20 minutes – group work
Objective: to apply the skills and knowledge gained in the enquiry to a real-life or simulated situation of decision making, complexity and uncertainty and to develop a notion of responsible agency (as accountable reasoning)
The rationale of this stage is to demonstrate how dialogue and a process of questioning can fundamentally change decisions and courses of action. The facilitator can ask participants whether their decisions would have been different if they had they not participated in the collective learning process.
E.G. (from ‘notions of development’ used in teacher education)
You are working with a group of young people who want to make a difference in the world. They believe that underprivileged people are poor because they lack education, so the group has identified a slum in Ethiopia and are fundraising for a trip to enable them to spend some time in the country educating the people in that community. You have a 2-hour workshop to help them reflect about their assumptions, aims and objectives. You do not want them to lose their motivation to act and think independently, but you want them to act in an informed, responsible and ethical way. What would your workshop outline look like?
E.G. (from ‘notions of development’ used in secondary schools in the UK )
You have received £2000 from the Youth Agency to develop a project with pupils from a school in Venezuela . The school has got far less resources than yours and the pupils you are working with are the same age as your group. You want this partnership to give a sense of worth to both sides and create genuine dialogue and long-lasting friendships. What are your options for good use of this funding? What are the advantages, risks and limitations of each of these options? What will you do with the funding?

6. Debriefing : Participants are invited to reflect on their participation and learning (what they have learned about the topic, themselves, about others, about the space itself, and about the learning process). This is also a ‘closing the open space’ ritual. Suggested timing and mode: 10 minutes – whole group (facilitator invites individuals to say a word, a sentence, nothing at all or anything they want about their learning process and the quality and safety of the space)
Objective : to give participants the opportunity to reflect on their own learning outcomes and the quality and safety of the space
The facilitator can ask each participant to say a word, a sentence or anything they feel like about their learning process. Having the questions below on the handout or a transperancy may help:
Think about your learning process today. What have you learned about yourself? What have you learned about others? What have you learned about knowledge and about learning? Do you feel you and other participants could express themselves in an open and safe space? What could be done to improve the learning process of the group and the relationships within the space? 

EDUCATIONAL AGENDA
Key Assumptions:
More accountable reasoning (is and prompts) more responsible action
Understanding where we are coming from (the social-cultural conditioning of our ways of seeing) and the potential implications of what we are doing is necessary if we want to try to avoid reproducing the mechanisms that might have created the problems we are trying to ‘solve’ in the first place (in which case our intervention might worsen the situation). This is best illustrated in examples where people in the ‘North’ (First World) try to help or export solutions to the ‘South’ without understanding the context or the local and global implications of their interventions.
Learning to unlearn* (is and prompts) a decolonisation of the imagination
Understanding the construction of our lenses allows us to re-construct them, making it possible to ‘think outside the box’ and imagine different ways of being, seeing, relating to others and imagining a collective future (* critical literacy).
Learning to ‘read’ the world through different cultural logics (is and prompts) empathy and solidarity
We aim to create a space where people feel safe to relate and be open to difference: going beyond the anxiety created when we try to change the other to make him/her the same as ourselves. Within this space there is no battle of wills or competition for legitimacy – everyone is acknowledged as a ‘whole’ person regardeless of what they think or say.
Learning to cope with complexity and uncertainty is the first step to learning to live, to be and to do together
We are conditioned to believe that conflict is negative and destructive and that it needs to be controlled and avoided. However, it is difference that creates conflict and without conflict there is only sameness. Without conflict there is no newness, no growth, no change. Being opened to the new is looking at conflict from a radically different perspective: as something natural, constructive and necessary for transformation. The Kashinawa – an indigenous nation in Brazil – illustrate this with the metaphor of the Anaconda: she constantly changes her skin to remain the same. In the same way, we need the ‘new’ (difference) to transform our skins and lenses in order to continue to evolve and to face the challenges of survival.
Going beyond individualism and ethonocentrism towards global (planetary) integrated ‘citizenship’ (as stewardess/hospitality)
Gilligan’s model of integrated planetary citizenship is used (critically) in this initiative to illustrate the agenda of the methodlogy. Gilligan suggests that, apart from our cultural bias, two kinds of logics (or reasoning) are always within us in our struggle for a better life and that, depending on the context that we are interacting with, one is usually predominant:
• a logic of control, judgement and ranking (of the world, of others, of ourselves) that can be related to discourses of rights, justice and autonomy
• a logic of relational thinking that is non-hierarchical (and resists ‘control’) that can be associated with discourses of love, care and responsibility

She also suggests that there are stages of development within these logics: egoistic, ethnocentric, worldcentric and integrated. Each of these stages ‘open up’ to more perspectives and groups and culminate in an ‘integrated’ stage (which is associated to planetary citizenship), where the two logics are balanced and the perspectives of all life forms (even if they cannot be expressed through language) are taken into account in order to guaranty everyone’s right of survival and the survival of the planet itself (as some indigenous non-humanist cultures already do). See the diagram:
This model can be interpreted as putting together complementary and contradictory forces in a dynamic flux: one trying to order and control the world (a centripetal force) and the other trying to contest this ordering (a centrifugal force). Equilibrium is the ideal scenario – but it is never stable (the flux and play/conflict of the forces is what prompts evolution).
A radical form of democracy - the inclusion of every form of life in the agenda of decisions about our collective future - seems to be the goal in Gilligan’s model. This project regards this goal as one possible horizon, but we invite partners and participants to engage in the construction of other possibilities as well!


Critical literacy in Global Citizenship Education:
www.criticalliteracy.org.uk
Through Other Eyes:
www.throughothereyes.org.uk
Critical Literacy in English Language Teaching
www.criticalliteracy.org.uk/elt
Learning about Others Learning about Ourselves project: www.learningaboutothers.org.uk
OSDE Units
OSDE Presentations
Key documents
Links

DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION 

This methodology has been developed in a project based on the DFID Strategy Paper Building Support for Development which states that:
…development awareness has failed to make the breakthrough in public perceptions which, for example, environmental education has made in recent years. If we are to achieve this breakthrough, the key lies in going beyond attitudes to development based on compassion and charity, and establishing a real understanding of our interdependence and of the relevance of development issues to people’s everyday lives.
This official document is one of the foundations of development education in the UK, which, according to the Development Education Association (DEA) has the following objectives:
• to explore the links between people living in the "developed" countries of the North with those of the "developing" South, enabling people to understand the links between their own lives and those of people throughout the world
• to increase understanding of the economic, social, political and environmental forces which shape our lives
• to develop the skills, attitudes and values which enable people to work together to take action to bring about change and take control of their own lives
• to work towards achieving a more just and a more sustainable world in which power and resources are more equitably shared.
The concept of interdependence is central to development education. Interdependence can be understood in different ways. Within this project, it has two dimensions: on the one hand, it refers to the ways in which decisions made at different levels in the Global North and South affect how power, resources, wealth and labour are used and distributed in the world. On the other hand it relates to how ways of seeing and being (cultures) of different groups affect how people see themselves and see and relate to others – and how this affects the reproduction of inequalities. 

Understanding the complex processes and different logics of these connections is crucial in developing skills for responsible and informed ‘global active citizenship’ and for promoting critical and independent thinking and action in education.

OSDE Justification

The link between the cultural and material forces that shape our lives is a central concern in this project. We believe that tracing the origins and implications of our ways of seeing and being – and of our positions in the world - is fundamental in preparing individuals and communities to intervene responsibly towards justice, peace and equality. Addressing complexity, understanding interdependence and learning to question and use different modes of thinking may help learners see themselves as integral to the picture they are trying to change (both as part of the problem and the solution) and prevent the reproduction of mechanisms that generate or maintain the problems that are addressed. 

Therefore, we have adopted an approach based on ‘communities of enquiry’ to create a methodology to structure ‘open spaces for dialogue and enquiry’ about social and global justice and our collective responsibility. In these spaces, learners can engage critically with their own and other people’s perspectives without being told what to think or what to do. Openness, in this case, refers to the collective aims of the group: rather than building a community based on an identity or an ideology, what binds the community together is a process of self-transformation, of ‘learning to live together’ (engagement and relationship with difference) and of imagining beyond our ‘selves’ and cultures. Reflection (thinking about assumptions), reflexivity (thinking about where assumptions come from and their implications) and enquiry are central strands of this process.

Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , ,