CONSIDER DEVELOPING NEW COMMUNICATION METHODS

There are a wide variety of all-purpose methodologies for developing means to facilitate
interaction, communication, trust and agreement. Some are a bit trendy or “touchy–feely”;
some are potentially explosive—all require careful assessment and, if appropriate at all,
careful design and implementation in the hands of a skilled practitioner. The list that
follows is by no means exhaustive. These are tools that are available to the Siting
Commission, to a developer, to a community group, or to anyone interested in making
negotiation more likely or more successful.

1. Delphi methodology. This is a formal technique for encouraging consensus through
   successive rounds of position-taking. It is appropriate only where the grounds for
   consensus are clear—for helping the community clarify its concerns, for example, but
   not for helping it reach agreement with the developer.
2. Role-playing. Playing out the stereotyped roles of participants in a controversy can
   help all sides achieve better understanding of the issues. Under some circumstances
   this can greatly reduce the level of tension. There are many variations. Most useful for
   facility siting would probably be exaggerated role-playing, in which participants
   burlesque their own positions. This tends to produce more moderate posturing in real
   interactions. Counter-attitudinal role-playing, in which participants take on each other’s
   roles, tends to yield increased appreciation of the multi-sidedness of the issue. Both
   require some trust, but much can be learned even from role-playing without the
   “enemy” present.
3. Gaming-simulation. This is a variation on role-playing, in which the participants
   interact not just with each other but with a complex simulation of the situation they
   confront. Game rules control how the participants may behave and determine the
   results—wins, losses, or standoffs. Participants learn which behaviors are effective and
   
   which are self-defeating. As with any role-playing, the participants may play
   themselves or each other, and may undergo the game in homogeneous or heterogeneous
   groups. Massachusetts Institute of Technology has recently developed a hazardous
   waste facility siting gaming-simulation.
4. Coorientation. This is a tool to help participants come to grips with their
   misunderstanding of each other’s positions. A series of questions is presented to all
   participants, individually or in groups. First they answer for themselves, then
   participants predict the answers of the other participants (those representing conflicting
   interests). Responses are then shared, so that each side learns: (a) its opponent’s
   position; (b) the accuracy of its perception of its opponent’s position; and (c) the
   accuracy of its opponent’s perception of its position. The method assumes that
   positions taken will be sincere, but not that they are binding commitments.
5. Efficacy-building. This is a collection of techniques designed to increase a group’s
   sense of its own power. In some cases this includes skills-training to increase the
   power itself. In other cases, the stress is on increasing group morale, cohesiveness, and
   self-esteem. To the extent that community intransigence may be due to low feelings of
   efficacy, then efficacy-building procedures should lead to increased flexibility.
6. Focus groups. A focus group is a handful of individuals selected as typical of a
   particular constituency. This focus group is then asked to participate in a guided
   discussion of a predetermined set of topics. Often the focus group is asked to respond
   to particular ideas or proposals, but always in interaction with each other, not in
   isolation as individuals. The purpose of the focus group methodology is to learn more
   about the values of the constituency and how it is likely to respond to certain
   messages—for example, a particular compensation package in a siting negotiation.
   Focus groups do not commit their constituency, of course, but in the hands of a skilled
   interviewer and interpreter they yield far better information than survey questionnaires.
7. Fact-finding, mediation, and arbitration. These are all third-party interventions in
   conflict situations. Fact-finding concentrates on helping the parties reach agreement on
   any facts in contention. Mediation helps the parties find a compromise. Arbitration
   finds a compromise for them. These approaches assume that the parties want to
   compromise, that each prefers agreement to deadlock or litigation. They have been
   used successfully in many environmental conflicts, including solid waste siting
   controversies. The Center for Dispute Resolution of the Public Advocate’s Office
   offers these services, as do several specialized environmental mediation organizations.
8. Participatory planning. This is the label sometimes given to a collection of techniques
   for making public participation more useful to the decision-maker and more satisfying
   to the public. To a large extent the value of public participation is in the agency’s
   hands. It depends on how early in the process participation is scheduled, how flexible
   agency planners are, and how much real power is given to the community. Even if
   these questions are resolved in ways that make participation more than mere windowdressing,
   the success of the enterprise still depends on technique: on how people are
   invited, on how the policy questions are phrased, on what speakers are allowed to talk
   about, what issues for how long, on who moderates the meeting, etc. Many techniques
   of participatory planning, in fact, do not involve a meeting at all.
9. Feeling acceptance. A classic misunderstanding between communities and agencies
   centers on their differing approaches to feeling; citizens may sometimes exaggerate
   their emotions while bureaucrats tend to stifle theirs. Not surprisingly, “irrational” and
   “uncaring” are the impressions that result. Feeling acceptance is a technique for
   interacting with people who feel strongly about the topic at hand. It involves
   identifying and acknowledging the feeling, then separating it from the issue that
   aroused it, and only then addressing the issue itself.
   
10. School intervention. In situations where strong feelings seem to be interfering with
    thoughtful consideration, it is sometimes useful to introduce the topic into the schools.
    Primary school pupils, in particular, are likely to approach the issue less burdened by
    emotion, yet they can be relied upon to carry what they are learning home to their
    parents. It is essential, of course, to make sure any school intervention incorporates the
    views—and the involvement—of all viewpoints in the community. Any effort to teach
    children a single “objective” agency viewpoint will bring angry charges of
    indoctrination. Existing curricula that are themselves multi-sided can augment the local
    speakers.
11. Behavioral commitment. People do not evolve new attitudes overnight; rather, change
    comes in incremental steps. The most important steps are not attitudes at all, but
    behaviors, preferably performed publicly so as to constitute an informal commitment.
    The behavioral commitment methodology, sometimes known as the “foot in the door”,
    asks people to take small actions that will symbolize, to themselves and their
    associates, movement in the desired direction. Among the possible actions which can
    be taken: to request a booklet with more information, to urge rational discussion on the
    issue, to state that one is keeping an open mind, to agree to consider the final report
    when it is complete, to agree to serve on an advisory committee, to meet with citizens
    concerned about Superfund cleanup, etc.
12. Environmental advocacy. In a large proportion of successfully resolved siting
    controversies in recent years, respected environmentalists played a crucial intermediary
    role. Environmental organizations may need to play that role in New Jersey’s
    hazardous waste facility siting. By counseling caution on industry assurances while
    agreeing that new facilities are needed and much improved, environmentalists position
    themselves in the credible middle.
    A credible middle is badly needed on this issue, but it will take time. Now is not the time to
    ask any New Jersey community to accept a hazardous waste facility. From “no” to “yes” is
    far too great a jump. We should ask the community only to consider its options, to explore
    the possibility of a compromise. Our goal should be moderate, fair, and achievable: getting
    to maybe.

The post CONSIDER DEVELOPING NEW COMMUNICATION METHODS appeared first on My Assignment Online.

Expert Help With This Assignment — On Your Terms