EF FCP presentation - Amsterdam meeting
-
Upload
onno-hansen -
Category
Education
-
view
20 -
download
4
Transcript of EF FCP presentation - Amsterdam meeting
THE POLISH AND DUTCH TESTS
TESTED GOOD PRACTICES THE AMSTERDAM MEETING DECEMBER 4, 2014
FUNDACJA CITIZEN PROJECT/ EZZEV FOUNDATION
GOOD PRACTICE 1
Promoting individuals saying:
• Sometimes I make mistakes
• Sometimes my motivation is egoistic
• I am part of the problem
TESTED IN NL AND PL
• In writing online (NL): only offline reactions • In video online (NL): only offline reactions • On air (national radio in PL): great discussion • Live in groups (Conference Gdansk for trainers; in
workshops Gdynia with trainers, senior citizens; at school Gdansk with teacher and students) • Shame, laughter • Reflection • Great discussions with instructors, among themselves
• Informal one-on-one contact with trainers, marketers (NL): great dialogues
• With football hooligans (NL): Shame, laughter
ALTERNATIVE SENTENCES - PL (1)
Sometimes I make mistakes
• Everyone makes mistakes but the key is to fix them
• I'm not perfect. I'm only human
• It's not like I make everything perfectly, but I try to get better
• I often makes mistakes
• Experience tells me I rarely make mistakes
ALTERNATIVE SENTENCES - PL (2)
Sometimes my motivation is egoistic
• Everyone has to be satisfied, even me
• It's also in my best interest, but we can both benefit
• Often, in actions, I think only about myself
• Sometimes I notice that my motivation is egoistic
• I take care of others but I also take care of myself
ALTERNATIVE SENTENCES - PL (3)
I am part of the problem
- I'm not perfect
- I know that I've done mischief
- My habits are part of the problem with interpersonal relations
CONCLUSIONS
This good practice rather works in live contact and is ineffective online
GOOD PRACTICE 2
C2C/ citizen to citizen – dialogue training • First 90 seconds silence to feel the duration • 2 people sit opposite each other • One asks the other answers – fate decides who has which
role • Rules of behavior are established: listening, good will,
honesty, respect, patience, being interested • Goal: establish what the two have in common and on
what they differ on a given theme (social exclusion) • Duration: 90 seconds • Evaluation by a trainer afterwards
TESTED
• In workshops (Gdynia) with trainers and 2 groups of seniors:
- Lively dialogues
- Intense listening, intense searching for the right words
- The hardest for professionals: they lapse into techniques
- Hard for individuals who are in a hierarchical relationship
CONCLUSION
This good practice is great to let individuals in a non-hierarchical relationship exchange
opinions.
Professionals tend to hide behind what they’ve learned before.
GOOD PRACTICE 3
• Intervention in online discussions
- Providing moderate alternatives
- Providing doubt
- Asking for more time, more reflection (proposing “slow dialogue”)
TESTED
• Online in the Dutch Zwarte Pieten-discussie
- Great distrust – accusations of trolling
- Great aggression – you’re a hypocrite afraid to have a clear opinion
CONCLUSION
Slow dialogue does not work online.
GOOD PRACTICE 4
• Publishing essays
• Publishing questionnaires
TESTED
• Publication of articles online – on Slideshare - on the Zwarte Pieten discussion:
- [essay] 2 weeks ago: 207 views - [essay] 4 months ago: 141 views - [press release] 4 months ago: 401 views - [PPT essay] 4 months ago: 355 views - [good practices & literature overview] 4 months ago: 194 - No discussion
• Questionnaire published (Surveymonkey - distribution by well-connected members in the network):
- Participants: 110 in PL; 472 in NL - Results published (NL): 536 views - Discussion with the distributors not with the authors
QUESTIONNAIRE PL
• Questionnaire published (Surveymonkey - distribution by well-connected members in the network) - Participants: 34
• Questionnaire handed out during workshops and conference:
• Conference Gdansk for trainers – Participants: 53
• workshops Gdynia with trainers, senior citizens – Participants: 23
• Total number of participants: 110
• Age: 20 – 70+
• Mostly with higher education
QUESTIONNAIRE PL (2)
- Many respondents wrote that they either are not interested in the subject or there are more important issues not being discussed
- They describe it as a work of art, symbol of freedom, tolerance, equality
- They see proponents & opponents as normal people fighting for their rights and believes
- They think that the discussion should stop – it would be bether for everyone and there are more urging matters than rainbow
- There were few radical responses against the rainbow, that „zoophiles, murderers, thieves will be trying to make a monument for themselves”
CONCLUSION
An online questionnaire about a real taboo subject does not work but about an explosive
subject does work.
Articles on an explosive subject are read but not discussed – or maybe that’s the effect I
[Onno] have. In 6 years of being a journalist I got 2 reactions, 1 by my cousin in Australia
who found me for private reasons.
ANNEX – PL RESULTS
ANNEX – PL RESULTS (2)
ANNEX – PL RESULTS (3)
ANNEX – PL RESULTS (4)
ANNEX – PL RESULTS (5)
ANNEX – PL RESULTS (6)
ANNEX – PL RESULTS (7)
ANNEX – PL RESULTS (8)
ANNEX – PL RESULTS (9)