Sandy Heierbacher 717-243-5144 [email protected]

Addressing Language-Related Challenges in the Practice of Dialogue and Deliberation

Dialogue and deliberation are dynamic processes which can build and strengthen relationships, bridge gaps, resolve conflicts, generate innovative solutions to problems, inspire collaborative action, and more.

Dialogue and deliberation processes provide people with opportunities to become more fully engaged in the decision-making that takes place in their workplaces, neighborhoods, communities, and increasingly at the national and international levels. The active participation of many people across society is the backbone of a strong democracy, just as the active engagement of people at all levels of a corporation is the backbone of a resilient, successful business in today’s turbulent marketplace.

Dialogue is a process that allows people, usually in small groups, to share their perspectives and experiences with one another about difficult issues. Dialogue is not about judging, weighing, or making decisions, but about understanding and learning. Dialogue dispels stereotypes, builds trust, and enables people to be open to perspectives very different from their own.

Deliberation is a related process with a different emphasis. Deliberation emphasizes the use of critical reasoning and logical argument in group decision-making. Instead of decision- making by power, coercion or hierarchy, deliberative decision-making emphasizes the importance of examining all sides of an issue fairly, collecting and considering the relevant facts, and carefully weighing the pros and cons of various options and positions.

When choices, decisions, or recommendations need to be made, dialogue can lay the groundwork for the vital work of deliberation. Engaging in dialogue before moving to deliberation helps ensure that members of a group will be open to others’ opinions and perspectives, even when they conflict with their own. This leads to a more open and thorough examination of all possible outcomes, resulting in better decision-making.

Dialogue and deliberation are more and more commonly being utilized in schools, within corporations, by government agencies, and in communities across the globe in order to tackle issues and conflicts in new ways. Ways that enable people to share power effectively with one another and with community and organizational leaders, instead of ways that leave people feeling overpowered and frustrated. Ways that welcome and validate all perspectives on an issue rather than hearing, once again, from only the most vocal and powerful parties.

People are using dialogic and deliberative techniques to address public issues ranging from race relations in their communities and violence in their schools to handling the buildup of nuclear waste or the rapid rate of development in their region, as well as for private issues such as conflicts between groups, changes in a workplace, or personal struggles with crises. Dialogue and deliberation techniques range from intimate, small-group dialogues to large televised forums involving hundreds or even thousands of participants. A deliberative forum may last two hours, while a sustained dialogue effort can span years. Dialogue and deliberation programs are most effective when those with many different backgrounds, ethnicities, positions, abilities, education levels, and ages are involved. The true power of these processes lies in their ability to surface new insights and new, innovative solutions when all voices are brought together at the table. But while diversity is an asset to these programs, it brings with it a unique set of challenges. This paper addresses four broad challenges related to language and culture that dialogue and deliberation practitioners regularly face. These are:

- The challenge of getting culturally diverse participants in the door. - The logistics involved in having multiple languages spoken in the room. - Creating a safe space for those with other language/speech needs or differences. - Dealing with participants’ existing preconceptions, assumptions and stereotypes related to language/cultural differences.

Below I outline innovative, effective strategies that practitioners have used to address each of these challenges. Instead of a comprehensive report filled with theory and statistics, this paper provides practitioners with an overview of the language-related challenges they can expect to face, and a menu of innovative, proven solutions/strategies/tips that come straight from the experience of leading practitioners.

My goals for this project were three-fold:

- To better understand the language-related challenges that dialogue and deliberation practitioners face. - To identify and understand a range of tools and strategies that address the power imbalances and logistical challenges that exist wherever there is language diversity. - And to provide this information to the dialogue and deliberation community in a useful way.

I had the pleasure of interviewing several seasoned practitioners who have extensive experience adapting to language and cultural challenges in their dialogue and deliberation programs:

- Paul Alexander, Director of Regis University’s Institute on the Common Good - Emily Axelrod, Facilitator, Consultant, and Co-Author of You Don't Have to Do It Alone: A Complete Blueprint for Involving Others - John Engle, Director, The Experiment in Alternative Leadership - Lisa Heft, Facilitator and Consultant with Opening Space - Kenoli Oleari, Co-Director, Neighborhood Assemblies Network

The interviews provided me with a rich assortment of tools and solutions for addressing power relations and language differences in a dialogue or deliberation program. In addition, I was able to review a number of articles, tools and book chapters that address language challenges and strategies in dialogue, and those are listed at the end of this document.

Below, I describe each of the four challenges separately. I then outline tips, strategies and considerations related to eight important tasks:

- Build a Diverse Planning Team - Recognize that Recruitment is a Continuous Cycle - Adjust Recruitment Efforts and Services for Different Contexts and Cultures - Prepare Participants for the Experience - Make Everyone Feel Welcome - Cultivate Adaptable and Skillful Facilitation - Provide Skilled Interpretation When Needed—or Empower Participants to Meet the Group’s Needs - Adapt Your Format to Different Cultures and Languages

Challenges

Challenge 1: Getting culturally diverse participants in the door

Recruiting participants who represent the diversity that exists in the context they are working in—whether within a particular organization, a small town, or an entire nation—is one of the most challenging and vital tasks a dialogue and deliberation convenor needs to tackle. Convenors must constantly ask themselves “who’s missing?” and “how can we get them involved?”

In many communities today, people feel deeply divided along the lines of race, education, political ideology, religion, economic status, and more. Much more. This makes it challenging for organizers who are seen as representing one segment or viewpoint in the community to gain the trust and buy-in from all sectors that is necessary for a dialogue or deliberation program to successfully recruit a representative group of participants.

It is important to adequately represent the demographics in your community—race, age, gender, languages spoken, income and education level, political ideology, religion, and so on. Representing your community’s demographics ensures that, in a way, the entire community is present in the room, and that everyone’s voice will be welcomed and heard. It also ensures that all participants will hear a range of perspectives and learn from the variety of different experiences people have related to the issue at hand. The power of dialogue and deliberation processes lies in their ability to help people with divergent views see commonalities between themselves and “the other,” and too much time cannot be spent on ensuring the participants in your program are representative of the community.

It is also vital to think about who’s missing in terms of the issue. If you are addressing educational issues, you will need to recruit students, teachers, administrators, and parents as well as community members who are not directly involved in education. And you will need to think about the different viewpoints people tend to have on the issue at hand, and make sure all “sides” are present at the dialogue—or at least represented in the materials.

Challenge 2: The logistics involved in having multiple languages spoken in the room

The most successful recruitment efforts are moot if participants in a dialogue or deliberation program cannot communicate with one another effectively. In many U.S. communities, especially in urban areas and near the southern border, representing the area’s diversity means that participants in your program will be speaking two or more languages. Multiple languages necessitate some degree of interpretation, so that every participant can have a voice, be sufficiently understood and learn from what others are saying. Whether interpretation technology is utilized, professional interpreters are recruited, or interpretation is self-organized by the group, convenors must be aware of a number of subtle but important factors that are in play.

Inaccurate interpretation can change cultural meaning, and an interpreter need not only be aware of the meaning of words, but of intonation and non-verbal communication. At the same time, listening to professional interpretation can hamper active listening and participation. The act of wearing a headset or being interpreted can make people feel marginalized and awkward.

It’s important to be sensitive to whether non-English speaking participants are feeling singled out, placed under a spotlight, or separate from the group. Every attempt must be made to create an atmosphere of safety and respect, despite whatever differences in participation are required.

Challenge 3: Creating a safe space for those with other language/speech needs or differences

Having multiple languages spoken in the room is only one of many possible language- and speech-related issues a facilitator is likely to face in a diverse dialogue. Speech impediments can cause power imbalances in a dialogue. People who are less proficient speakers or slower thought processors can feel disempowered and unsafe. Others’ shyness, soft voice, or fear of speaking in groups can cause them to feel marginalized.

Oral cultures and illiterate participants can challenge practitioners who are using issue guidebooks, providing background materials, or taking notes on flip charts. The Open Space method, which encourages participants to propose topics for discussion on paper and then peruse the papers to decide what to attend, presents a unique set of challenges for facilitators working with people who cannot read.

Facilitators are challenged to ensure that there is a level playing field for all participants in a dialogue, regardless of existing power imbalances and language and speech issues that lead to power imbalances.

Challenge 4: Dealing with participants’ existing preconceptions, assumptions and stereotypes related to language/cultural differences

Relationships of conflict are fueled by distorted perceptions that people have and assumptions they make of each other. Dialogue and deliberation processes are designed to allow participants to see past—and even overcome—their preconceptions, assumptions, and stereotypes.

Whether or not language and cultural differences are at play in a dialogue and deliberation process, preconceptions, assumptions and stereotypes are present. Almost all dialogue and deliberation processes utilize ground rules and skilled facilitation to create a safe environment in the presence of stereotypes and biases, and intentionally help participants surface and move past such preconceptions. Tips and Solutions

1. Build a Diverse Planning Team

My interviewees agreed that the single most important strategy for ensuring representativeness in a dialogue and deliberation program is to establish a diverse planning group, paying special attention to representing groups whose voices tend not to be heard in the public arena. According to Kenoli Oleari, an expert in large-group methods such as Future Search and World Café, the planning team should represent all of the stakeholders in the system (the entire organization, community, network, etc.) you are trying to involve or improve.

Oleari recommends that the initial planning team work together to create clarity about their task, and then identify who needs to be involved to take on that task. The planning team should identify the stakeholder groups involved in the issue at hand, and then identify specific individuals in each stakeholder group to join them.

Lisa Heft, who is known for her expertise in the large-group method Open Space, emphasized the importance of convening a culturally diverse host team that strategizes about who’s needed and who’s missing throughout the whole arc of planning and logistics. If a planning group does not include members of the marginalized groups it hopes to reach, organizers can be seen as outsiders when they try to recruit members of those groups to participate.

According to the Study Circles Resource Center, while planning group members need not be prominent leaders in the communities you will be attempting to tap into, they should be people who are respected and well-known in their communities. People are more likely to get involved when someone they trust invites them, and when they see themselves reflected in the group in charge of the project.

To John Engle, whose work with Open Space and Touchtone Discussions in Haiti has broken new ground, the fundamental thing is that continual attention is paid to this issue. When we are mindful from the outset of the importance of diversity to the success of our program, everything from program planning to evaluation will be improved.

2. Recognize that Recruitment is a Continuous Cycle

Since new insights about who has a stake in the issue and who else should be involved are always emerging, recruitment of planners, supporters, and participants should be seen as an ongoing process. According to John Engle, a good planning committee has ongoing conversations to work out the intent of the gathering, what they’re trying to accomplish, the theme, and who needs to be there, and is open to the fact that they may discover during this process that they need to add someone to the planning committee who represents a group of people they want to have involved.

Kenoli Oleari suggests beginning the planning process by sending out a broad invitation to everyone to become involved, and then concentrating on the groups that are missing or underrepresented after seeing who responds. Here are some additional recruitment tips from Oleari:

- Follow up mailings with personal phone calls. - Beat the bushes (knock on doors and make yourself seen; be persistent). - Have one person keep track of who has signed up. - Be sure to invite funders, decision-makers, and those with a variety of skills, knowledge, and expertise. - Always ask whoever’s in the room “Who needs to be here?”

Oleari also suggests using an “open systems model” – thinking about those who are somewhat beyond the bounds of the immediate community or organization in which you are working. It can be vital to identify those with even just a small stake in the process, and acknowledge that they are a necessary part of the program.

And Lisa Heft recommends asking yourself some hard questions after the program is over so you can learn from your experience. Ask yourself “Did I invite the military?” or “Did I invite senior citizens?” – whatever group you might tend to exclude. How did your own biases effect who was invited or attracted to participate?

3. Adjust Recruitment Efforts and Services for Different Contexts and Cultures

As in any field, it is necessary to adapt your project’s “pitch” for different communities. Lisa Heft recommends not just having a single message go out. Instead, strategize and create sets of messages for youth, Spanish language speakers, business leaders, etc.

According to Paul Alexander, director of Regis University’s innovative Institute on the Common Good, successful recruitment efforts begin by going into the communities you hope to involve in the process and asking what the best strategies are for each specific community. Using this strategy, Alexander has learned that newly arrived Mexican immigrants feel most safe in monolingual situations, so it is best to begin with an intragroup dialogue with only members of that community. He also learned that since Mexican immigrants tend to listen to what their priests tell them, it is wise to approach religious leaders in Denver’s immigrant community.

Similarly, in her article “Working with Other Language Communities: Translation and Interpretation,” Laura Kaplan shared the following: In a day laborer case I worked on, a local Hispanic activist and a prominent Hispanic businessman were able to provide helpful advice about such things as where to post flyers and notices in order to reach the Spanish-speaking community, and they also helped me to understand the different intragroup politics and tensions regarding the day laborer issue we were dealing with.

Collaboration expert Emily Axelrod provided a different example. If you are tackling issues involving youth or education, approaching the PTA or Parents’ Council can not only enable you to find out how to get parents involved in the program, but can also tell you what kinds of support they may need to keep them involved, such as free child care during the program.

All of my interviewees agreed that it is critical to anticipate what might be barriers to participation. Depending on who’s involved, you may need to provide food, transportation, childcare, interpretation services, etc. And John Engle reminds us to pay attention to the setting. People will notice if you are planning to hold the dialogue in a hotel, or if a community center or school is hosting the event. Lisa Heft also suggests sending “ambassadors” out to different communities to network and recruit for your program. Alexander recommends identifying both formal and informal leaders in the community who can serve as “middlemen” to the community you are hoping to reach. If you are tackling youth issues, why not approach the leaders of local gangs? If you are recruiting in Spanish-speaking communities, find a leader who speaks Spanish and knows the community.

Kenoli Oleari advises us to pay attention to what’s appropriate for the constituency we are working with, and to what they value. If you want to involve the local Mayor, find an appropriate way for him to be seen and heard if he participates in the process.

Alexander suggests the importance of including and emphasizing a “community organizing” component to your program in order to get the people that would otherwise not participate. A well-planned program that includes stages for dialogue, deliberation, and action – and does not expect the participants to self-organize the action stage without any support – is much more attractive to those who want to see real changes occur in their community or organization.

4. Prepare Participants for the Experience

It is important to take the time to prepare people for your dialogue and deliberation program – especially those whose language or cultural differences could potentially make them feel marginalized.

Lisa Heft recommends holding pre-event orientations in each of the languages that will be spoken in the room. Kenoli Oleari suggests communicating with participants before the event begins so they know what to expect and how the program will flow. Distributing materials ahead of time is also a good way to give people extra time to read and process the materials if they need it.

Heft provided a great example of how young people were made to feel comfortable and empowered in a large conference on policy issues. Before the main program began, the organizers had the youth co-create a vision of what their city should look like, and a poem about that vision that they would open the conference with. The next day, the young people welcomed the other participants to the event by sharing their vision, and felt completely comfortable in the space they had worked in together the previous day. This type of preparation work can easily be adapted for groups with language differences.

Emily Axelrod emphasizes the importance of educating all participants – not just those we anticipate may be or feel marginalized. She explains that when a diverse group of people comes together around an issue they are passionate about, it’s important to talk upfront about the fact that people have differences and that we will hear many different opinions, and that we ask them to respect and honor where people come from and that they have different experiences. This encourages participants to accept the differences that emerge, and to move forward on the commonalities.

The Public Conversations Project offers a powerful Exercise on Stereotyping in which participants, in sub-groups (i.e. pro-life and pro-choice) or individually (i.e. when there are multiple stakeholders), identify the most inaccurate or hurtful stereotypes they feel those with different views have about them. Sharing these stereotypes and how the stereotypes effect them helps all members of the group become more aware of the assumptions we make about others who don’t share our views. Oleari suggests letting people know ahead of time whether the program will be conducted in English or in multiple languages, and whether interpretation services will be provided or if interpretation will need to be self-organized by the participants.

In multi-day Open Space meetings, Heft has experienced success with ongoing check-ins and reviews. She suggests taking time over a hot breakfast “with good coffee” to demystify the previous day’s events, outlining key insights and themes and letting people know what to look for today.

And the European ZHABA facilitators collective offers a completely different suggestion. For over a dozen years, ZHABA’s facilitators have had success using a simple set of non-verbal signs with multilingual groups. According to ZHABA, teaching the group to use between five and ten hand signs to convey such thoughts as “I would like to say something,” “I agree with the speaker,” “I oppose/block the decision,” “I have a suggestion to improve the process” and “slow down; you’re talking too fast” can save time, increase participation levels and add to the quality of the decision-making process.

5. Make Everyone Feel Welcome

It is easy to overlook this simple but vital strategy. When he organizes World Cafés, Kenoli Oleari makes sure facilitators and interpreters are sent to the front doors to welcome people to the program.

When participants are traveling from afar, Lisa Heft recommends welcoming participants to the land by acknowledging and emphasizing the local culture. Be careful not to make people participate in cultural activities that may conflict with their religious or cultural values or principles, she warns, but do remind people of where they are and show respect to the people hosting the event.

The Study Circles Resource Center suggests giving people time to share information about their culture at the beginning of a dialogue program. Ask them to bring something that will help people learn about their culture, or ask them to tell the story of their name.

Emily Axelrod recommends that convenors think of the setting they are in as their home, and treat people accordingly. Greet people at the door, provide some kind of personal touch, walk around and check on how people are doing and respond to anything that is troubling. Basically, make sure people are comfortable and continually invite them to do what they need to do to be comfortable and to let the organizers know how they can help.

And Lisa Heft recommends a simple but powerful opening: welcome people to the event, and then ask everyone else in the room to stand up and welcome people in all of the other languages that are spoken in the room.

6. Cultivate Adaptable and Skillful Facilitation

It is important for facilitators to be able to adapt to the situations they find themselves in. If you are immersed in a culture that is not your own, you may not learn that something is culturally inappropriate or ineffective until you’re in the middle of the process. My research and interviewees provided many great tips for facilitators working in multilingual settings:

 Speak slowly and clearly, using short words and sentences and a well-modulated voice.  Ask participants and interpreters to raise their hands if you start talking too fast.  Use one example instead of four to avoid long, complex translations.  Use universal terminology (no jargon, not regional specific, not vernacular) so interpreters can do their job effectively.  Stop and ask if you are understood. If not, have participants discuss the issue among themselves, in their own language if possible.  Use culturally appropriate metaphors.  Lecture less and encourage more interaction.  Walk the room instead of standing in one place.  Be more animated and use facial expressions to convey meaning.  Provide written as well as spoken instructions and summaries (on flip charts, etc.).  Observe non-verbal communication even when you don’t understand what is being said.  Be sensitive about cultural needs and schedules, such as the need for Muslims to take prayer breaks.  Find ways to honor all customs that are present, such as having leaders from three different religions welcome the group.  Have participants introduce themselves to one another and find out who’s in the room.  Make sure everyone has a chance to speak, both in their small group and in the large group if possible. Ask them to say their name and where they are from or what they hope or expect from the event.  Tell participants what your assumptions are, and what the parameters and guidelines are for the event. Let them know what to expect.  Tell people that this is a chance to understand the whole by listening to all of the perspectives that people in the room have. Let them know that they’ll hear from many different viewpoints.  When people separate themselves from the group or scapegoat themselves, say “does anybody else in the room feel that way?” in the large group. Undoubtedly someone else does, and it is hard to feel alienated when you are not alone.  Emphasize that this is not a process where you are called upon to have to convince anyone of anything. Ask them to speak what is true for them, and to pay attention to new understandings or realizations that come up for them.

Lisa Heft also suggests that ground rules can and should be adapted so you can better meet the needs of a multilingual group. For instance, participants may be asked to speak at a slower rate – either for the benefit of an interpreter or for participants who do not have as strong a command of the language. Ground rules can help ensure that all participants are mindful of the challenges inherent in a multilingual or multicultural dialogue. When engaging marginalized groups in public dialogue and deliberation, it is especially important for a dialogue organizer to learn about the group’s culture and history in order to be sure to use culturally competent and sensitive methodologies.

Emily Axelrod and Paul Alexander both emphasized the importance of educating facilitators about cultural differences. Facilitators should be prepared for the cultural traits, behaviors and idiosyncrasies of participants so they can respond quickly to unexpected challenges. The Study Circles Resource Center recommends that facilitators be made aware of the ways that cultural differences emerge when people from different cultures interact, and outlines differences in communication styles, attitudes toward conflict, approaches to completing tasks, decision-making styles and approaching to “knowing.”

7. Provide Skilled Interpretation When Needed—or Empower Participants to Meet the Group’s Needs

When multiple languages are being spoken in the room, or when a facilitator is brought in who does not speak the language of the participants, interpretation services may be necessary. There are two main types of interpretation to consider: simultaneous interpretation and consecutive interpretation.

One or more bilingual interpreters can provide “simultaneous interpretation” services, translating what is said orally into another language at virtually the same time and rate of speech as the person speaking. Since this requires equipment such as headphones, microphones, amplifiers, etc., the cost of these services can be prohibitive.

“Consecutive interpretation,” which requires no equipment, is much less costly. Here, one translates speech verbally into another language, after the speaker is done. The interpreter takes notes while the speaker talks and then delivers the interpretation while the speaker is silent. This type of interpretation is often used when the facilitator does not speak the language of the participants.

Although costs are always a concern when interpretation is needed, my interviewees had two very different, very helpful suggestions for overcoming this barrier:

1. Borrow interpretation supplies and technology from those who typically own them but don’t always need them: schools, police departments, interpreter agencies, nonprofit interpreter networks, etc.

Paul Alexander provided this suggestion, and advised not to skimp on the interpreters themselves. It’s important for interpreters to be able to listen and speak at the same time, and you need someone who knows the nuances of the process. He warned that people who don’t interpret professionally can unintentionally change the meaning of what was said.

2. Conversely, several other interviewees claimed that participants will often self-organize any interpretation that is needed. When you create an atmosphere of participation and responsibility, participants will take care of their own and one another’s needs.

When one or more participants need interpretation help into the same language, John Engle suggests simply inviting people who are bilingual in both languages to raise their hand if they are willing to help out. Even when interpreters are provided, participants often waive them away to take care of their own needs. According to Lisa Heft, if interpreters are waived away, their presence still tends to be deeply appreciated.

Kenoli Oleari outlined how dozens of interpreters were utilized during large-group dialogues at UN World Environment Day in June 2005 in San Francisco. Delegations attended the event from all around the world, and when there were multiple discussions occurring at once, the interpreters who weren’t needed to help tables or individuals would distribute themselves around the room. They would pay attention to what languages were being spoken and whether some people were having difficulty speaking the primary language, and would sit down with those they suspected may need help. Often just saying “I’ll be here if you need me” was all that was needed to put a participant at ease.

In addition to direct interpretation, interpreters at World Environment Day found themselves helping people understand each other, rehashing instructions, providing context, and explaining cultural anomalies (“Why are they doing that?”). Most interpreters who joined a table were well utilized, often working themselves out of a job by helping people get comfortable, understand the process, feel more able to manage themselves in that context, and feel comfortable calling someone over to help them if needed.

Oleari feels that highly skilled professional interpreters are not necessarily better interpreters than participants or facilitators would be. He suggests recruiting volunteer facilitators who are native speakers of the languages you need translated. Recruiting from local grassroots networks is often an effective strategy for this.

Laura Kaplan of the Center for Collaborative Policy points out that if you have language needs, chances are that the schools, courts and hospitals in your area already provide services in multiple languages. She suggests contacting those institutions—and others such as churches, service agencies, and language schools or universities—to see what resources they have or could recommend. “Through these channels,” Kaplan says, “you might be able to find a volunteer from the community who cares about the issue you need to address and would be happy to help out with translation of documents or interpretation at small meetings.”

Lisa Heft cautions those who bring in volunteer interpreters to watch for overzealous behavior. People will volunteer for the role because they are passionate about the issue, which means it may be a struggle for them to stay true to their role as interpreters and not join the conversation. Heft warns that volunteer interpreters can get so passionate during the discussion that the participants do not get as much airtime as they should, and recommends that you bring them together and set careful expectations.

Describing his experience with the Latino community in Denver, Paul Alexander explained that there is not a lot of agreement at this point about whether it’s best to use a single English-Spanish interpreter or to have someone doing simultaneous translation. Different groups seem to want different types of interpretation. Although the headsets that make simultaneous translation possible can save time and allow the conversation to flow more naturally, members of the Latino community have expressed concern that the headsets make them feel like second class citizens.

If you do provide simultaneous interpretation at an event, Heft advises to be sure that your headsets all come from one company since different types can be incompatible, and suggests that a technical person be present at all times to repair and double-check headsets and other technology. She also advises that you help the interpreters be a part of the process as much as possible. Ensure that simultaneous interpreters are able to see and hear the facilitator clearly. Meet with them before the event to let them know what the group will be doing and when, and at what times they will be utilized in different ways and when their breaks will be. And encourage facilitators at small tables to acknowledge and include the interpreters working at their tables so they feel more comfortable in the group.

If possible, you should also meet with monolingual participants prior to the meeting. Take advantage of this opportunity to acknowledge that they will have more challenges than others in participating, to encourage them to let you or others in the group know if they don’t understand what is being said and to encourage them to use the interpreter’s services to speak whenever they want.

The Study Circles Resource Center provides this helpful list of quick tips for facilitators working with interpreters:

- Remind interpreters that their job is to translate accurately, not to add their own opinions. - Give interpreters written materials ahead of time, and go over the process with them. - Make sure the interpreter feels comfortable letting the facilitator know if s/he needs more time. - Speak in short sentences and keep ideas simple. (This gives the interpreter time to catch up.) - Pay attention to the interpreter. Even if you don’t speak the language, you can tell if s/he is translating everything, or not. - After every session, ask interpreters to translate ground rules and notes that were posted on newsprint.

In her article “Working with Other Language Communities: Translation and Interpretation,” Laura Kaplan provides a helpful chart that compares some of the important advantages and drawbacks of the different types of translators and interpreters you can utilize. The chart shows, for example, that although professional translators and interpreters generally have very high language skills and are most likely to be perceived as impartial by all sides, the cost can be prohibitive and a professional might not be able to understand and accurately convey scientific, technical, or policy information as well as those closer to the issue could.

8. Adapt Your Format to Different Cultures & Languages

In her chapter on Successfully Facilitating Multicultural Groups in the IAF Handbook of Group Facilitation, Christine Hogan emphasizes that no single facilitative process or technique will work in all cultures or with all groups, and advises convenors to consider participants’ gender, cultural background, thinking and communication styles, health and disability status, age range, language proficiency, past experiences and values when designing programs.

Consider how you may be able to adapt your program to the needs of your participants. One option is to break people into groups based on their native language. Having participants work in language-based groups for even just a small portion of the program can help give language minorities increased confidence, a needed reprieve, and a chance to say what they may not have been able to express in the dominant language.

Paul Alexander emphasizes that allowing participants to speak their native language for at least a portion of the program can increase their comfort level significantly. He has had success holding an initial dialogue in Spanish in a local church, restaurant or community center facilitated by a Spanish-speaking leader the group trusts. This creates a sense of safety, empowerment and engagement that can make people much more willing to get on a bus for a multilingual dialogue at Regis University. Similarly, Kenoli Oleari suggests assigning participants to workgroups based on language.

Lisa Heft pointed out that the large circle of chairs used in Open Space can be a barrier for deaf people, since the facilitator walks around the circle and has their back to different people at different times. A U-shaped configuration may work best with groups that include deaf and hearing impaired people, so that interpreters and lip-readers can have a clear sight-line to the facilitator at all times. Written materials and flip charts can help in this situation as well.

The use of multiple modalities is another tactic that many facilitators find valuable. Instead of relying solely on verbal communication, a facilitator can make use of visuals and sound and can even encourage participants to express themselves through movement, art and nonverbal communication.

When prepared thoughtfully, written materials can be quite helpful. Materials can be written in multiple languages, and can rely heavily on photographs and artwork to convey ideas. Handouts, dialogue guides, background articles, and other written materials should be prepared in such a way that they can be utilized and understood by all participants.

Illiteracy among participants provides its own set of challenges. John Engle has developed some innovative strategies for facilitating Open Space Technology with less literate groups in Haiti. Open Space encourages participants to propose various topics of discussion themselves and decide which sessions they wish to attend by looking over the posted topics and where they are each being held.

Here are some ideas from John Engle and Lisa Heft for facilitating methods like Open Space in less literate cultures such as third world countries and prisons:

 Instead of assigning topics to areas “A, B, C” assign them to “tree, fish, star” and draw the images on signs instead of writing out the words.  Present the topics and locations verbally as well as in writing (“I want to talk about youth violence, and I’ll be near the fish.”)  Alternatively, once all topics have been proposed, have participants follow the person whose topic they want to explore.  Start with a smaller number of topics since people are more likely to remember 5 things than 15 things.  In addition to documenting things in writing, encourage people to tell stories about what’s happening throughout the event.  Use short skits to demonstrate the principles of the event (in Open Space, have three people sitting together with one person talking, then one person leaves to demonstrate the Law of Two Feet). Engle advises that facilitators take care not to alienate those who are illiterate by using writing, signage and notetaking excessively. It should be clear that there is a level playing field, where everyone has access to what’s being said and is able to voice their opinions. If you do something that appears to not meet those two requirements, explain why.

The Study Circles Resource Center advises facilitators working with illiterate participants to restate the goal of each session every time they meet and to be prepared to read the viewpoints in the Study Circles dialogue guide to the group if necessary. SCRC suggests asking people to rephrase or summarize what was said to make sure everyone understands, and to avoid using jargon and acronyms as much as possible. Giving people extra time to collect their thoughts before they speak can be appreciated as well.

Emily Axelrod emphasizes the power of simply asking people how they want to deal with the language challenges. She once facilitated workplace dialogue where many people spoke Portuguese and others spoke English. When she asked them how they wanted to handle the language issue, the Portuguese participants asked to receive the written material (in English) ahead of time and asked to bring an English-speaking family member with them to the dialogue. The family members went over the materials with them at home, and then served as private interpreters to the participants.

Heft also pointed out the fact that marginalized groups often tire of playing the role of teacher to the dominant group, and can be put in an awkward position when too many people are trying to play the role of the “ally,” making sure they get the chance to speak (sometimes more than their share of the time) and defending them at inappropriate times. She suggests checking in with youth, international participants, and people from other underrepresented groups to see how they’re doing. Simply asking “Is this weird for you?” can surface a lot of information.

Providing ways that people can look after each other can also be an effective strategy. Heft suggests thinking of ways people can know who to approach for support, or who may need additional support. She has used stickers with chicks and dinosaurs on them to indicate whether people have been to other events or this is their first time. Ribbons for name tags (“New Attendee,” “Ask Me,” etc.) are a more conventional option. Another good tactic is to have people indicate what languages they speak on their name tags.

Paul Alexander sometimes adds an educational or awareness piece to his dialogue programs in order to bring obvious cultural differences out in the open at the start of the program. Cross-cultural or diversity activities can surface issues of time, communication style, personal space, and so one.

Similarly, the Study Circles Resource Center recommends helping participants appreciate different communication styles by having them talk together about things like body language, traditions of listening, and speaking out. And SCRC suggests asking participants how culture and race affects the way they view the ideas that come out of the discussion and the role they may play in developing and carrying out action options.

Conclusion

In this shrinking world, the ability to handle language and cultural differences is a competency that dialogue and deliberation facilitators and organizers should aim to master. In her article “Tips for Facilitating a Group Dialogue When You Don’t Speak the Language of the Participants,” Michelle Charles notes that with our nation’s rapidly changing demographics, dialogue and deliberation facilitators will increasingly be expected to address the needs of foreign language communities for training and assistance in our democratic practices.

Inclusivity and accessibility must be guiding principles during the planning stage of dialogue and deliberation programs, in the recruitment of participants and facilitators, in the development of background materials, during the program itself, and during follow up. Attention must also be paid to the fact that language differences often go hand-in-hand with class and income disparities.

It is my hope that this paper helps dialogue and deliberation practitioners handle these challenges in smarter, more effective ways, and that better decisions are made and wiser actions are taken because of it. I’d like to thank my interviewees for their time and willingness to freely share their experiences and learnings with me. And I’d like to thank those whose resources and writings helped increase my awareness of the myriad considerations involved in planning public engagement programs when participants represent multiple languages and cultures.

Resources

American Translators Association. Also see ATA’s directory of nearly 6000 translation and interpretation professionals at www.americantranslators.org/tsd_listings/. Each listing provides the individual's language, location, specialties, experience, and contact information. www.atanet.org

Charles, Michelle (2004). Tips for Facilitating a Group Dialogue When You Don't Speak the Language of the Participants. Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal, 6, 53- 58.

Chasin, Richard, MD (1999). The Exercise on Stereotyping. The Public Conversations Project. www.publicconversations.org

Engle, John (2001). Open Space for People Unable to Read. http://www.beyondborders.net/OSIlliterate.htm

Hogan, Christine (2005). Successfully Facilitating Multicultural Groups. In Schuman, Sandy (Ed.), The IAF Handbook of Group Facilitation, Jossey-Bass, 255-280.

Haverkamp, Jan (1999). Non-Verbal Communication – A Solution for Complex Group Settings. ZHABA Facilitators Collective website. www.zhaba.cz/materials/articles/nonverbal.html

And accompanying page Hand signs: A series of hand signs to improve communication in workshops by consciously using non-verbal communication. Zhaba Facilitators Collective website. www.zhaba.cz/materials/misc/handsigns.html Kaplan, Laura (Fall 2005). Working with Other Language Communities: Translation and Interpretation. The Collaborative Edge, a quarterly newsletter of the Center for Collaborative Policy. www.csus.edu/ccp/newsletter/2005/Fall/#toolkit

Martens, Kim, Rita Schweitz and Kenoli Oleari (2006). Training Indonesian Facilitators to Lead Community Planning for Women and Children. In Handbook of Large Group Methods. Wiley & Sons.

Partnow, Susan (2006). When English is a Second Language: Suggestions for Improving Communication. Partnow Communications.

Schoem, David and Sylvia Hurtado, Editors (2001). Intergroup Dialogue: Deliberative Democracy in School, College, Community and Workplace. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Study Circles Resource Center. Online tips sheets: “Tips for Facilitating Study Circles for People Who Cannot Read” and “Tips for Facilitating Study Circles for Multicultural Groups.” Available at www.studycircles.org.