Disclaimer:
Please be aware that the content herein has not been peer reviewed. It consists of personal reflections, insights, and learnings of the contributor(s). It may not be exhaustive, nor does it aim to be authoritative knowledge.
Overview
Prepared by (Name of the experimenter)
Javier Brolo
On date (Day/Month/Year)
August 2024
Current status of experimental activity
Completed
What portfolio does this activity correspond to? If any
Polarization
What is the frontier challenge does this activity responds to?
Promoting dialogue and collaboration
What is the learning question(from your action learning plan) is this activity related to?
How to promote dialogue and collaboration in scenarios of polarization?
Please categorize the type that best identifies this experimental activity:
Pre experimental (trial and error, prototype, a/b testing)
Which sector are you partnering with for this activity? Please select all that apply
Civil Society/ NGOs
Please list the names of partners mentioned in the previous question:
Experts in promoting dialogue in difficult context from diverse fields (anthropology, political science, economics, secutiry, international relations, politics, communication, indigenous peoples, youth, private sector, among others.)
Design
What is the specific learning intent of the activity?
The activity aims to learn if an adaptation of the methodology "axis of uncertainty" is useful to analyse scenarios of polarization.
What is your hypothesis? IF... THEN....
IF we adapt the methodology "axis of uncertainty" THEN a group of experts can identify drivers of polarization and analyze future scenarios
Does the activity use a control group for comparison?
No, it does not use a control group
How is the intervention assigned to different groups in your experiment?
Non-random assignment
Describe which actions will you take to test your hypothesis:
We designed a workshop with background information about public opinion on polarized topics. Then we invited a group of experts in promoting dialogue in difficult situations to a focus group where the methodology "axis of uncertainty" was implemented. The expertes needed to identify which drivers of polarization have the most impact on polarization and also which of these drivers have the most uncertainty in their outcome.
What is the unit of analysis of this experimental activity?
Focus group
Please describe the data collection technique proposed
We collected qualitative information from participants in the focus group and systematized it in a canvas using sensemaking.
What is the timeline of the experimental activity? (Months/Days)
Three weeks
What is the estimated sample size?
1
What is the total estimated monetary resources needed for this experiment?
Less than 1,000 USD
Quality Check
This activity is relevant to a CPD outcome, The hypothesis is clearly stated, This activity offers strong collaboration oportunities, This activity offers a high potential for scaling, This activity has a low risk
Please upload any supporting images or visuals for this experiment.
Please upload any supporting links
What are the estimated non- monetary resources required for this experiment? (time allocation from team, external resources, etc) If any.
We need to design the workshop, analyze data to inform the design of the workshop, we need to facilitate the workshop, systematize the results, and access to computer and digital tools.
Results
Was the original hypothesis (If.. then) proven or disproven?
Proven
Do you have observations about the methodology chosen for the experiment? What would you change?
The methodology "axis of uncertainty" was difficult to compress into a two hour workshop with high level participants. The original script was not followed precisely, so flexibility is needed to allow a smooth flow of the conversation. To do this the facilitator needs skeels to keep track of the research objectives, manage time of the interventions, and synthesise quickly the content share to ensure the conversation stays relevant while participants feel heard and comfortable. The group was quite diverse, and this was important to continue in repliations.
From design to results, how long did this activity take? (Time in months)
Three weeks
What were the actual monetary resources invested in this activity? (Amount in USD)
400 USD
Does this activity have a follow up or a next stage? Please explain
Yes. We followed up the initial workshop with a second workshop to stress test policies that promote dialogue and collaboration in the adverse and favorable scenarios developed in the initial workshop.
Is this experiment planned to scale? How? With whom?
Yes. We plan to take the results of this experiment to inform exercieses to promote dialogue and collaboration with public institutions along with the difussion of the Human Development Report
Please include any supporting images that could be used to showcase this activity
Please add any supporting links that describe the planning, implementation, results of learning of this activity? For example a tweet, a blog, or a report.
Considering the outcomes of this experimental activity, which of the following best describe what happened after? (Please select all that apply)
Learning
What do you know now about the action plan learning question that you did not know before? What were your main learnings during this experiment?
We know that to promote dialogue and collaboration it's importat to overcome the barriers imposed by polarization. We learned that key drivers of polarization include: discourse that evoques fear and hate; sanctions imposed to disidents; missinfomation; lack of emotional intelligence; interpersonal trust; capacity to defend from sanctions; and effectiveness of mediation.
What were the main obstacles and challenges you encountered during this activity?
In a polarized context, understanding polarization can be challenging. Identifying a diverse group of experts with the willingness to engage in the workshop is not trivial. The strategy used was to take advantage of previous personal relations with dialogue leaders in different fielsd with whom trust was already stablished. And ensure the implementation of the workshop was conducted in a respectful way, with clear and anticipated results that were valued to all participants. This eneded up working well, as participants appreciated the opportunity to share a space with other participants, and exchanged contacts. We were not able to fullfill expectations to create a community, but we encouraged participants to take the lead.
Who at UNDP might benefit from the results of this experimental activity? Why?
The country office in general, particularly the teams linked to the Human Development Report and Governance, benefited from gaining insights regarind how to overcome barriers to dialogue and polarization.
Who outside UNDP might benefit from the results of this experiment? and why?
The experts who participated in the workshops, were able to appropiate the insights and promote dialogue in difficult contexts in the sectors they are embeded in. A key example was a renowened economist sharing the results in workshops with leaders from the private sector. Also, the public institutions that face challenges due to polarization, particularly the General Secretariat of the Presidency and 60 other institutions in the executive were receptive of the results to guide internal decisions and public policy.
Did this experiment require iterations? If so, how many and what did you change/adjust along the way? and why?
No
What advice would you give someone wanting to replicate this experimental activity?
Check the answes to "main obstacles".
Can this experiment be replicated in another thematic area or other SDGs? If yes, what would need to be considered, if no, why not?
Yes. Forecasting scenarios is useful for other topics, for example climate change adaptation.
How much the "sense" and "explore" phases of the learning cycle influenced/shaped this experiment? In hindsight, what would you have done differently with your fellow Solution Mapper and Explorer?
The sense phase was important to inform the experience of experts regarding effective ways to promote dialogue and polarization. The exploration phase was important to gather and analyze public opinon data and make sens of the results from the workshops. The experimentation phase was important to prototype adaptations of the methodlogy, design and implement the workshops.
What surprised you?
The learnings were surpricing. Also, it is somewhat surpricing that the drivers of polarization combined the balance between a provocation and the capacity to resist that provocation. Also, it was surpricing that experts from very different fields were able to relate to each other's experiences, and felt enthusiastic about furthering these exchanges.
16Peace, justice and strong institutions
17Partnerships for the goals
Comments
Log in to add a comment or reply.