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Please be aware that the content herein has not been peer reviewed.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 "policy stress test" is useful to analyze ways to promote dialogue and collaboration under different scenarios of polarization.
What is your hypothesis? IF... THEN....
IF we adapt the methodology "policy stress test" THEN a group of experts can propose effective ways to promote dialogue and collaboration under different scenarios of polarization.
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 a literature review of alternative policies to promote dialogue and collaboration. Then we invited the group of experts that previously participated in the construction of scenarios to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative ways to promote dialogue and collaboration under different scenarios of polarization. The experts needed to identify which policies offered more opportunities and less risks.
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 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 "policy stress test" 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 skills to keep track of the research objectives, manage time of the interventions, and quick synthesis of the contents to ensure the conversation stays relevant while participants feel comfortable. The group was quite diverse. It's important that the selection of participants was not random. Although participants needed to meet technical criteria regarding expertise in promoting dialogue, and diversity of experiences, they were also selected based on having a previous relationship of trust with the facilitator.
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. This activity followed a previous workshop to develop polarization scenarios. Also, this activity was followed by a report intended to influence public policy.
Is this experiment planned to scale? How? With whom?
Yes. The results from this experiments were intended to complement the launch of the Human Development Report and offer guidance to public policy to improve the relations among public institutions and towards society.
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 there are a wide range of alternatives to promote dialogue and collaboration. However, some are more appropriate in scenarios of high polarization, while others in scenarios of low polarization. In scenarios of low polarization, it's useful to not treat dialogue with all the formalities as this will miss opportunities. In those opportunity cases, it's valuable to increase the number and diversity of participants. Also, it's useful to incorporate digital technologies and disruptive exercises to increase the diversity of ideas and move more quickly to action. On the other hand, in challenging scenarios it's important to be prudent regarding sensitivities. It's important to prepare conditions for dialogue, take into account symbolysis associated with respect, maintain congruence between speech and action, enforced the mutually agreed rules, reduce barriers for honesty and manage difficult emotions.
What were the main obstacles and challenges you encountered during this activity?
Time constraints were an initial challenge. Also, it is challenging to gather a group of diverse experts in a context of high polarization, so to increase chances of success actors with previous relations. Also, it was difficult for participants to stay on topic, they often wanted to give long speeches, or only observe. Moreover, the list of alternatives considered for the scenarios were all consider valuable, so it was difficult to prioritize among them, so multiple prompts were needed.
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. These teams can use the methodologies and findings in other activities.
Who outside UNDP might benefit from the results of this experiment? and why?
The experts who participated in the workshops are able to use the methodologies and results. Also, public officials whose work is challenged by polarization can use the results to consider alternative ways to address the need for dialogue and collaboration.
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?
Consider the recommendations laid out in "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. Policy stress test can be used for other goals beyond promoting dialogue and collaboration in scenarios of polarization.
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 exploration stage was important to identify policies promote dialogue to be evaluated. The sense was important to gather the experiences and recommendations from experts. The experimentation stage was important to design the workshops to test the methodology and evaluate the results.
What surprised you?
I was particularly surprised by the remarks about how important the coherence between action and speech are to gain trust, also the need to think about shared futures, as well as the importance of symbolic communication.
16Peace, justice and strong institutions
17Partnerships for the goals
Comments
Log in to add a comment or reply.