中欧社会论坛 - China Europa Forum

The workshops style, animation and outputs - FAQ for prime movers -

A. The general style of the workshops

1. How many people in a workshop?

An average of 25: 20 participants, 2 interpreters, additional people with specific functions in some cases (interpreters from English into other languages; skilled animator; writer of the conclusions’ report…)

2. Is a workshop open to the general public?

NO.

In some cases, there will be some attendees chosen by the local organizer in consideration of their specific interest for international dialogue and for the topic.

Attendees neither speak nor interfere with the process.

3. Are preparatory documents available to the participants prior to the workshop?

YES.

They are posted on the Forum website, www.china-europa-forum.net (free download). There are three kinds of documents:

a) the Chinese and European issue papers (available in Chinese and English)

b) the contribution of participants (only summaries’ translations will be available in different languages, English text recommended)

c) the information documents suggested by participants (only short abstracts will be translated in different languages, English text recommended).

The full versions of the documents in b) and c) will be posted on the website in their original language.

4. Are participants requested to post a written contribution on the web site prior to the Forum?

It is not mandatory but highly recommended. It paves way for the dialogue which will take place during the workshop. It is not necessarily a document written especially for the workshop. It can be a existing synthesis of the participant’s reflection on the issue.

5. How to post a document on the web site?

Send it at fce.doc@china-europa-forum.net with reference to your name and workshop. If the document comes from another source, make sure that you have the copyright.

6. Is the method of animation of the different sessions mandatory for all sessions and for all workshops?

NO.

The workshops’ prime movers and organizers can choose the animation method that suits them best or that they are comfortable with. The style of animation can even differ from one session to another in some workshops, at the discretion of the prime movers and according the very nature of the session.

BUT the following general principles should be respected:

 No formal presentations of the written contributions will be made during the workshop. They are yet available on the web site. At most, as an introduction, the prime mover will make a short presentation of the issue paper to “set the scene”;

 All participants are on equal footing;

 Respect of “Chatham house rules”: no personal quotation in the public records of the debates;

 Each participant has to present and list their views on the main issues;

 the workshops’ conclusions have to be prepared and approved collectively;

 The conclusions have to be forwarded to the Forum organizing team immediately after the each session, using the software specifically developed for this purpose, Desmodo SimpleGrille, as soon as each session is over. Free download at the following address: http://www.exemole.fr/simplegrille

7. Even if there is no mandatory animation method, can you give some guidelines?

YES.

We recommend a “non directive” animation, aiming at: understanding one another’s’ view, identifying the main dimensions of an issue, setting a common action plan.

Any non directive method may create a sense of anxiety at the beginning and then enthusiasm. Anxiety among the participants – what are we going to do exactly?

What is expected from me? - and anxiety among the organizers – how to give rise to something useful with spontaneity?

To overcome this “anxiety of the blank page” one must keep in mind that the different steps are altogether very simple: listen to each other’s visions, capture the different dimensions of each vision; compare with others; group the different ideas around common concepts; relate the common concepts together to feature the landscape.

All non directive methods have in common to give as much freedom as possible to each participant to express their views on the world, to stimulate all the dimensions of the mind, to encourage “thinking out of the box”. Each participant takes part of the construction of the main issues.

In non directive methods, the starting point must be open and sufficiently vague: the identification of the key issues is the very output of the dialogue instead of being the starting point.

For example, the short presentation of each workshop presented on the Forum web site is vague enough to invite each participant to elaborate its own view of the topic. It invites the participants to think for themselves and to think themselves as stakeholders of the transformation of the world.

8. What are the outputs expected from this non directive methodology?

a) At the level of the workshops the objectives are:

 to increase mutual understanding;

 to build the mental map of what is at stake at world level and in relation with each society;

 to agree on a certain number of common issues specific to the workshop;

 to identify, in China and Europe, the most relevant and promising experiences;

 to define the future orientations to progress on these issues in China and in Europe;

 to set the first concrete steps to continue the dialogue and the mutual enrichment and address the identified issues.

b) At the level of the plenary meeting and of the Forum as a whole, the objective is to progress towards a shared vision of the major challenges facing both societies, to enhance their capacities to cooperate with more confidence on common issues,

to identify the framework of further fruitful cooperation between the two continents.

9. With such non directive methods, how can one be sure that the organizers really capture the essential points and give an “honest” output, respecting the richness of the dialogue including divergences among participants?

This is a decisive point. It must be made clear that the conclusions will really be the output of the work of the group. In order to create confidence, the best way is to use methods through which the different steps listening / classifying /grouping/ relating, are achieved collectively. If not, some time must be devoted, at the end of each session, to reach to an agreement among participants on an executive summary and to make sure that the diverging opinions have not been scratched off.

B. Animation methodology

Here are some suggestions to the organizers in order to help them choose tools and methods they are comfortable with.

1. How to record what is being said by each participant?

Two alternative ways to capture the essence of the debate:

a) The extraction of the main ideas is done by a “reporter”. The reporter, chosen or not among the participants, at the beginning of the sessions will be the most “focused” listener. He or she listens to what the participants say, identifies the main ideas, formulate them in short sentences, and enter them in the computer through the SimpleGrille and display them on the screen in order for the group to comment, make changes and agree on each entry. Once this step is completed the

participants can move on to the next steps : classification and grouping of the proposals.

b) The extraction is done by each participant. Here again, two possibilities:

 each participant makes successively the effort to synthesize what they have to say in a list of ideas or proposals (using the format requested by SimpleGrille either on a computer or on paper).

 all the participants write down simultaneously their ideas using the same kind of support (SimpleGrille on a computer or paper version of the grids). Then each participant gives oral details on his or her contribution.

There is no such thing as a “best method”. The choice among these alternative methodologies has to be made by each workshop’s prime movers.

2. Should a workshop use a typical “frame” to facilitate classification and grouping of the ideas? Should the frame be common to all workshops?

A checklist can be helpful to overcome one’s anxiety, participants and organizers. However it could also lead to what we are trying to avoid: a directive animation of the debates resulting in the emphasis of the point of view of the organizers. So, yes to a « guiding frame » such as a series of open questions to stimulate the debate without preconditioning the answers.

There are three kinds of frameworks:

a) A framework specific to a workshop. The grid reflects the current state of the reflection on the issue and should result from an agreement between the Chinese and the European prime movers based on their issue papers. The questions

should remain extremely open.

b) a framework common to a set of workshops and covering various aspects of a given issue. This kind of grid would present the issue from different perspectives:

 values, knowledge, information, etc… What we call “representations”

 society, social evolution, etc. What we call “society”

 economy, production, exchange, etc… what we call “economy”

 the way a society is regulated and manages itself, what we call “governance”

 the relationships between societies and biosphere, what we call “environment”.

This type of framework has been used to create the nine “groups of workshops” (four socioprofessional groups; five theme based groups) of the Forum.

c) a framework common to a set of workshops and related to the very nature of the Forum.

Such as:

 present challenges ?

 Foreseen future challenges?

 What are the roots?

 What could we do, what are our responsibilities?

 Are there promising experiments?

 How could we empower each other through exchanges to better assume our responsibilities?

The second kind of frame could be relevant for theme based workshops whereas one has to look at the different aspects of the issue of the workshop.

The third kind of grid could be relevant for socioprofessional workshops.

In any case, the frame should not be “closed” and always leave space for a “other” field which gives the possibility to any participant to “think out of the box”.

3. Should a workshop look for a professional « animator » and a professional « reporter » or should it rely on its own human resources?

It is up to the organizers and prime movers to decide. Generally speaking, the animator and the reporter should be two different person as their role requires skills. The animator has to stimulate free thinking, expression and dialogue; the reporter has to achieve the different steps – extract, classify, group – in a collective way.

4. Can the organizers of the Forum provide the workshops with technical tools for the reporter?

YES.

The Foundation Charles Leopold Mayer with the company Exemole have over the years developed a software for conceptual mapping called Desmodo (desmography means in Greek the art of representing relationships). This software will be used to

pass from the workshops outputs of each session to the synthesis presented at the plenary.

An application, specifically designed for the reporting of the workshops’conclusions has been developped : it is called Desmodo SimpleGrille and can be used during the workshop to directly show on the screen the main ideas and to achieve collectively the three steps of « extracting », « classifying », « grouping ».

Free download at the following address: http://www.exemole.fr/simplegrille

C. Forward the conclusions of each workshop to the organizing committee at the end of each session.

1. How to write the conclusions ’ report?

Conclusions’ report should be presented as a « list of keypoints ». Each keypoint should not be longer than one sentence and contain only one key issue. Usually, it is written in the form of « subject + verb + complement » when it is a statement and in the form « infinitive of the verb + complement » when it is a proposal. Make sure that the sentence keeps a meaning and an interest when extacting from the report.

This is essential for the synthesizing process of all the contributions coming from all the workshops. Each sentence will be isolated in the process and has to « make sense » out of the framework of the workshop it comes from. For example one

should not only write as a proposal: « promote sustainable development » but be more specific on the stakeholders involved and on the action to be taken. For example: « exchange experiences on waste recycling in industrial cycles ».

The application Desmodo SimpleGrille has been developped to respond to these specifications.

Four tabs appear on the left side of the screen and correspond to the four half days of a workshop:

 Major issues : identify a list of five (maximum seven) major issues on the topic of the workshop

 Experiences : share and present significant experiences or achievments in the field of the workshop (optional)

 Recommended actions: priority actions: the actions reported in this field will be part of the general synthesis presented at the plenary sessions. This list should reflect the consensus obtained between all the participants

 other actions: this list is optional and could possibly contain the various proposals which have not received the approval of the entire group. This can be interesting material for further analysis.

 Concrete action plan: This will be typically the roadmap for the participants of the workshop to keep the workshop alive and active during the period in between two biennials. The action plan will guide the at-distance work.

 Four common challenges: in this section the participants will report how their workshop can contribute to one or more of the four challenges: Harmonious society, sustainable development, Values, opening-up, modernity and identity, Integrated and participative governance, The place of China and Europe in the world.

There is no obligation for the workshop to report contributions to all of the four challenges. When a workshop has nothing to say on a challenge; nothing is reported.

2. When should the conclusions be written?

Right after the end of the session mentioned in question 9 part A. The best senario whould be to display the participants’ draft on the screen and then to directly write collectively the conclusions. If the workshop decides to use a paper board instead of a screen, the report should be typed immediately after a consensus is reached.

3. In which language should the conclusions be forwarded?

English and Chinese versions are mandatory and as much as possible a French translation. This will depend on the workshop. The organizers should make sure that the computer set for the recording of the conclusions is equipped with both Chinese and Western keyboards so that the conclusions can be entered in 3 languages (Chinese, English and French).

4. To whom forward the conclusions?

The files should be forwarded to report@china-europa-forum.net as soon as possible. Faxes are to be sent at 0033 1 43 14 75 99.

5. Aren’t the conclusions’ reports too synthetic?

Yet they are. This is the rule of the game, in order to present in the plenary a synthesis taking into account everything that was said in all the workshops.

A half-page conclusions for each session means two pages for each workshop. Of course, if the organizers of the workshops want to write a more detailed report on the workshop and its conclusions, for example to highlight convergences and differences, it is very welcomed. Such report will be widely spread by being posted on the Forum website www.china-europa-forum.net, just as it is the case for the issue paper of the workshops and for the participants’ written contributions.

6. Whom to contact in case of problem?

Send a mail to report@china-europa-forum.net. You will be answered asap and your comments will enrich the FAQ section.