The Vital Conversations initiative made some progress in mediating dialogue across political and ideological differences but did not engage effectively with social or economic differences. Peer-to-peer invitations played a significant role in motivating participation from marginally engaged people and people experiencing marginalization in civic spaces. Capacity-building outcomes included strengthening attitudes and skills that support dialogue, as well as promoting feelings of empowerment and readiness for action. Participants starting with high levels of community engagement experienced stronger outcomes than those who were less engaged.
Curating conversations across difference
Vital Conversations was somewhat effective in mediating dialogue across political or ideological differences, with feedback from participants suggesting that in some cases, the ability to find ‘common ground’ was the most significant outcome of their conversation. The design of the tool and framework for the initiative helped facilitate opportunities for connection, even when differences of perspective or opinion existed, although it is possible that in some cases participants in certain conversation groups might have started with a significant amount of shared experiences and worldviews. In other cases, it is possible that the conversations only produced the appearance of common ground, where it did not actually exist.
“The conversation was thoughtful and I was surprised at the degree of community caring from each member of the group. We were a varied group of women, young men, some in business, a university student, some in social services and a retired person. Members of the group brought different perspectives but it was significant that essentially, we want similar things for our community. It was a very positive experience for me.”
Design and framing
While testing the prototypes of the Vital Conversations Card Game during pilot sessions, it became apparent that in a group setting, people tended to operate strictly within the socially acceptable norms of ‘polite conversation’. There was a great deal of respectful listening, and in the context of extreme differences of opinion, sometimes polite disagreement. Typically, a conversation topic would be introduced, each person in the group would share a comment about it and then the conversation would move on without engaging in any kind of nuanced interaction between perspectives. Participants in the pilot sessions reported feeling very ‘heard’ but did not think that they had experienced dialogue.
The prototype was adjusted to include prompts for participants to use as a jumping-off point in the conversation. The prompts included things like:
Devils Advocate: for the sake of debate, share an opposite or argumentative point of view
Complicate things: ask a hard question about this topic
What makes you say that?: can you explain how you got to your perspective or idea?
Re-Frame: what would it look like if you flipped this topic or conversation on its head?
The guidelines for the conversation were also amended to include instructions to ‘say what you think, ask hard questions, disagree and debate’. These changes in the design of the game attempted to explicitly make differences of opinion, disagreement and discomfort acceptable and expected. The changes also pushed participants to step outside of the comfort zone of ‘polite conversation’ with a new set of instructions to guide the conversation which could supersede the social norms that often stifle debate.
Because the conversation starters introduced ‘facts’ from Vital Signs, which were legitimized by a third party (although interestingly, several people reported conversations that became stuck on disputing the ‘facts’), participants could discuss an external idea, rather than a personalized opinion.. With a solutions-focused framing, the conversation was not oriented toward consensus building or identifying who or what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, but instead drove the focus toward brainstorming any and all kinds of action that might address the issues being discussed. Regardless of whether or not any kind of agreement had been reached on the topic, the format and framing of the conversation created a space where it was assumed that everyone had an interest in working through important issues and had an opportunity to feel that they were actively contributing to solutions.
These changes, in conjunction with the framing of the initiative, were a step towards more nuanced and interesting conversations where differences of opinion could surface without creating polarization and without obscuring any patches of ‘common ground’.
“I think we found out a bit about each other we didn't know. We all respected each other’s comments and worked well as a group to come up with actions. Overall, the sense of the group was the same, wanting to make change and keep our community vibrant and sage.”
“I enjoyed the conversations very much. It gave me the opportunity to connect with people of diverse backgrounds and views. I found the conversations to be sincere and educating. I did learn a little bit more about our great Peterborough community.”
“Thought it was a great way to facilitate a conversation about what is important in our community while connecting with people in the comfort of our home.”
Convening diverse groups
One of the challenges in curating conversations across difference was in convening diverse groups. The Vital Conversations initiative used a peer-led model to engage participants. While there was intentionality in recruiting a diverse pool of hosts, it was up to the hosts to invite a diverse group of guests to each conversation. Through the ‘Inviting your guests’ section of the Host Kit, hosts were encouraged to “try to invite a mix of people of different ages, genders, backgrounds, life experiences and perspectives.” Some hosts indicated that this was a barrier for them, echoing a theme that had emerged during the pilot sessions, with several individuals reporting that their social networks were not diverse enough to follow these guidelines.
A lack of diversity in social networks is something worth considering in and of itself; however, feedback gleaned from the six pilot sessions and the eight conversation groups at the launch event adds some depth to this theme. ‘Everyone here is the same’ and ‘we all think the same thing’ were extremely common themes in the feedback received following the pilot sessions, even when the practitioner’s observations of the conversations countered those perceptions. A ‘lack of diversity’ was pointed out by participants at four of the six pilot sessions and by multiple participants at the launch event, despite the fact that each of those groups were curated to include a fairly diverse representation of individuals, in terms of age, gender, employment status, sexual orientation, class, ethnicity and place of birth.
It is important to note that there were some very clear gaps in representation in all aspects of the Vital Conversations initiative. Specifically, there was low participation from First Nations, Metis, Inuit and Indigenous people living in the Peterborough area and there was also low participation from people living in rural communities. Certainly, any feedback related to the topic of diversity and representation was taken seriously. In some cases, participants were willing to share very valuable and constructive feedback, along with opportunities to connect with communities who were not represented.
Additionally, the conversations that ensued from this kind of feedback revealed a tendency to view diversity through a ‘visible’ lens (what meets the eye), and an ‘othering’ lens (what is considered ‘outside the norm’). There was also a tendency to view diversity as an absolute ideal (the notion of ‘perfect’ diversity). In some ways, this can be a helpful approach. It is important to strive beyond tokenism for opportunities and relationships that invite, welcome and affirm diversity.
An absolutist or idealistic approach to diversity can also be a hindrance. It makes it difficult to distinguish between a lack of diversity and a perceived lack of diversity, where difference may exist but could be obscured or marginalized, and it can be difficult to activate and engage with whatever kinds of diversity exist in a given space at a given time.. In the case of the Vital Conversations initiative, it appears that there were gaps in the diversity of participants, but the more significant shortcoming was the lack of framework offered to activate and engage with diversity in conversation groups.
The disappearance of difference and the appearance of agreement
It is worth considering if, in some cases, Vital Conversations obscured or marginalized difference to create the appearance of ‘common ground’ where it did not actually exist. The tendencies of participants to default to the conventions of ‘polite conversation’ and overemphasize the sameness of the group, along with the hesitation from some hosts to engage with diverse groups, suggest that group behaviour and social norms (including power dynamics) shaped the process and outcomes of the conversations. While the design of the initiative may have been successful in creating a space for connection across political and ideological differences, it did not offer a framework to actively engage with social and economic differences in a productive way.
Presumably, most hosts did not have the training or skills to manage the kinds of power dynamics that inevitably emerge in diverse spaces, and the format for the conversation starters did not explicitly invite people to connect to and speak from their personal experiences or social positioning[1]. The relatively short, one-off nature of the conversations did not leave enough time to build open, trusting relationships among individuals (where they did not already exist). Given these shortcomings, it is very reasonable to expect that in many conversation groups, whatever diversity might have been present was not activated in a meaningful way, and more importantly, may have been silenced. Longer-term ongoing engagement with the same small groups could increase the likelihood of creating meaningful connections across difference. Ongoing engagement could also be bolstered by design and framing choices that name and embrace socio-economic difference, with skilled facilitation to help groups navigate social power dynamics.
Engaging people on the edges
The Vital Conversations initiative was able to connect with people who are marginally engaged (defined as those who are aware of community issues but not directly involved in civic activities) and people who experience marginalization in civic spaces (with significant limitations to participation from people living in rural communities, as well as low levels of engagement with First Nations, Metis, Inuit and Indigenous people). The use of invitations served as a valuable mechanism for connecting with marginally engaged individuals, while activating community partnerships and implementing simple accessibility measures significantly broadened the reach of the initiative to include marginalized voices.
Inviting participation
Results from a follow-up survey of people who hosted or attended a Vital Conversations event suggest that more than one third of participants were marginally engaged, reporting lower than average levels of community engagement (under 50 on a scale of 1-100 where 100 is ‘high’). When asked to share their motivation for participating in Vital Conversations, those who reported the lowest levels of engagement (0-25) refer exclusively to one simple reason: they were invited by a peer or an organization they trust and respect. For those with moderate levels of community engagement (26-50), an invitation – whether it was to be a host or a guest – was the primary motivation for participating. Invitations continue to be cited as a common motivation for participation by those reporting higher levels of community engagement (50 – 100), with philosophical reasons, such as a desire to contribute to the community or a belief in the importance of dialogue, becoming more prevalent at the top end of the scale.
“I have a great deal of respect for the host who invited me and she explained that she had assembled guests that she thought would well represent different perspectives on pressing community issues. I attended to represent my point of view but also out of a sense of interest and curiosity in how others saw current community challenges.”
There were two main types of invitations used as part of the Vital Conversation outreach strategy. Primary invitations came from the Community Foundation and were directed at individuals who were identified as potential hosts. These invitations were always personalized and were distributed primarily to individuals with pre-existing relationships with the Foundation via email, mail and phone. Primary invitations were also sent to individuals without pre-existing relationships with the Foundation, primarily through direct messaging on social media platforms. Secondary invitations came from people who had signed on as hosts, inviting peers to their conversation. Sample invitation text was provided to hosts, which could be printed or copied into an email.
Both types of invitations were effective in driving engagement with the Vital Conversations initiative, but it was the secondary, peer-to-peer invitations that were responsible for driving participation among ‘marginally engaged’ community members. Invitation was a significant factor even for those who did not participate in Vital Conversations. Lack of social connection (i.e. no invite received or no one to invite to a conversation) was the second most common reason for not participating in Vital Conversations (the most common being ‘time constraints’).
Reducing barriers to participation
By activating community partnerships and implementing simple accessibility measures, The Vital Conversations initiative was successful in engaging with many communities who are often marginalized in civic spaces. Estimations based on survey responses suggest that 48% of participants identified as belonging to marginalized groups, including those who identified as LGBTTQ2+ (31%), newcomer (22%), immigrant (24%), First Nations, Metis, Inuit or Indigenous (5%), low income (32%), youth under 30 (25%), people living with a disability (15%) and people living in a rural community (18%)[2].
In an effort to maximize the accessibility of the Vital Conversations initiative, a large-print version of the card game was produced, and all documents were formatted to meet accessible document design guidelines. Two community groups accessed the large-print decks, allowing more people with vision impairments to participate. Honoraria of up to $100 were available to any host facing financial barriers to participation, to be used at the host’s discretion to offset costs such as purchasing food, renting a community space, or providing transportation. Ten hosts accessed this no-strings-attached funding. These simple accessibility measures reduced some barriers to participating in Vital Conversations, while also sending inclusive signals to the broader community.
Another effective strategy for engaging people on the edges was activating the Community Foundation’s network of local non-profit partners. The Foundation called on a diverse network of charities and non-profit organizations with connections to marginalized groups in the community, asking the organizations to host a conversation with their members. Funding of up to $500 was available to support the costs of hosting a conversation. Many partners eagerly supported the initiative, motivated by a desire to amplify their communities’ voices in a civic engagement process, particularly one that would influence granting priorities and advocacy activities at the local Community Foundation.
“I decided to host a vital conversation to allow the youth that I work with to have the opportunity to share their experiences and ideas about their community. I believe that youth, especially marginalized youth, are often dismissed or excluded from decision-making processes that impact their lives. I know that these youth care deeply about our community and have a lot to contribute, so I was glad to have the opportunity to provide that for them.”
“We’re hosting a conversation within our public housing communities to allow a population access to the decision making process that they might not have otherwise. The perspective that will be included in this dinner will enrich the conversation and give a voice to an often marginalized population.”
In total, 16 local organizations hosted 28 conversations, bringing a critical mass of participants to the initiative and underlining the strategic value of engaging with marginalized groups ‘where they are’. It also emphasizes the strategic value of building strong and diverse networks. Not surprisingly, organizations with pre-existing connections to the Community Foundation were more likely to take on the challenge of hosting a conversation, while a lack of strong relationships with organizations led by and serving rural, First Nations, Metis, Inuit and Indigenous peoples translated into low participation by these groups in the Vital Conversations initiative.
It is also worth noting that there were at least two organizations, serving some of the most vulnerable and marginalized people the community, who were interested in hosting a conversation, but unable to take on the role due to a lack of organizational capacity. In these situations, more effort to reduce the specific barriers faced by each individual organization might have led to a more inclusive process. Given the systemic challenges faced by grassroots organizations led by and serving marginalized groups, specific efforts to accommodate them must be made. Supporting the capacity of these organizations to engage in local networks will reduce the risk of perpetuating marginalization at the community level.
Building capacity for grassroots civic engagement
The Vital Conversations initiative was designed to offer opportunities for community members to practice nuanced discussions on important community issues with the intention of improving dialogue skills and increasing engagement in civic activities. The initiative strengthened attitudes and skills that support dialogue, and supported readiness for action among participants. Individuals who had positive experiences in their conversation, and people starting with higher levels of community engagement saw the strongest outcomes in capacity building.
The small-group format, the use of a ‘game’ as facilitation tool, and the proactive, asset-based framing of the initiative likely contributed to the progress in meeting these goals; however, the short-term nature of the initiative and lack of connection to action opportunities may result in countering these positive outcomes in the long-term. A deeper understanding of divergent outcomes for individuals starting with lower levels of community engagement is needed to develop theories and approaches to building capacity in an equitable manner.
Improving attitudes, skills and readiness for action
Results from an evaluation survey shared with Vital Conversations participants indicate positive changes in attitudes that support civic engagement. 59% of respondents reported an increased willingness to hear out different perspectives and engage in nuanced discussions of complex issues. 30% reported an increased level of confidence discussing community issues, and 16% of participants responding to the survey identified a feeling of empowerment as the ‘most significant change’ coming out of their conversation. Only 1% of participants left their conversation feeling that community dialogue is a waste of time.
In terms of strengthening skills for dialogue, 62% of survey respondents reported a deeper understanding of community issues as the most significant change experienced through their conversation, while 30% reported new or improved skills for having difficult conversations. 9% of respondents indicated that their experience with Vital Conversations was not useful or relevant in the community.
“These conversations have been a real eye-opener with regards to the issues and the possibilities.”
“Folks really found the game interesting and informative. One participant commented that since playing the game she has seen several community occurrences connected to the topics of the conversations.”
“We all felt like our opinions and suggestions were being heard. Sometimes in a larger setting it can be intimidating to speak out, but in a more intimate setting we were able to have some really great and respectful conversations!”
Survey results indicate a strong initial readiness for action from participants: 66% of respondents reported feeling energized and willing to act on the issues they discussed. 30% reported an increased likelihood of participating in community discussions in the future. 19% reported action planning as their conversation’s most significant change. 12% even said they left their conversation with an action plan in place. At the same time, 22% of respondents said that they did not feel willing or able to act on the issues they discussed.
“For me, the most significant change was gaining a sense that participation is not futile.”
“There were new connections, and people feeling empowered and encouraged to continue to ‘be the change’ despite historical frustrations.”
“ . . . a renewed enthusiasm for the issues being discussed was evident.”
When survey results are broken down, there are several patterns of divergent results that are worth noting. In general, men tended to report weaker outcomes compared to women and other genders. Those who participated as hosts reported slightly stronger outcomes compared to those who participated as guests in conversations. Interestingly, respondents whose prior community engagement included ‘commenting on social media’ reported slightly stronger capacity building outcomes.
Participants who started with low and moderate levels of community engagement reported noticeably lower outcomes than those who started with higher levels of engagement, including being less likely to report a positive, enjoyable experience in their conversations. Those with the highest levels of community engagement were more likely to have a positive experience in their conversation, and reported the strongest capacity building outcomes.
Practicing the art of dialogue
The small-group format, the use of a ‘game’ as a facilitation tool, and the proactive, asset-based framing of the initiative contributed to an opportunity to practice dialogue in an accessible, positive manner. It appears that the opportunity to practice dialogue is what supported capacity building outcomes, likely by reinforcing the notion that dialogue can be worthwhile and even enjoyable.
A small group proved to be a good setting to practice dialogue, bringing multiple perspectives together while maintaining a human-scale conversation. In most cases, the result was a positive experience for participants. Using the Vital Conversations Card game to facilitate conversation and provide ‘facts’ allowed the groups to focus on learning a process rather than relying solely on pre-existing conversational habits or assumptions about community issues. The format of the conversation encouraged the exploration of nuance and complexity, while a brainstorming approach to solutions reduced pressure to find or agree on the ‘right answers’.
“People are shy of their own abilities and what they might contribute when thrown into an environment unfamiliar to them. I thought the casualness of the exchange to which I was invited was a brilliant idea to enable inclusion of people who might have something to contribute but find the culture of volunteerism intimidating because of unfamiliarity.”
Throughout the process, participants reported feeling that they learned valuable information and skills and that they were contributing to the group and the community. They reported feeling ‘heard’, that their voices and knowledge mattered and that they were not alone in their desire to build a better community. Many participants left their conversation feeling competent, connected and empowered, leading to the positive capacity building outcomes reported. Not surprisingly, many of those who participated in Vital Conversations because of a strong desire to contribute to the community or due to a belief in the importance of dialogue reported stronger than average outcomes.
“I think there are participants who may not have voiced their concerns previously and I believe through taking this action they would look for ways to support change in our community.”
“I think everyone got to see a different side of the community. People felt that someone cares about what they think.”
Connecting dialogue to action
Connecting Vital Conversations to actionable change was an important factor in attracting participation. Feedback from the prototype phase clearly indicated that community members are not interested in engaging in dialogue for its own sake, but desired tangible action as a result of their participation. Interestingly, many participants indicated that contributing to a public report would satisfy their desire for action. Following the month-long initiative, many participants again expressed a strong desire to connect to opportunities for action.
This suggests that the outcomes of this initiative are closely tied to participants’ desire for action and change. If participants were to feel that their participation in the Vital Conversations initiative did not translate into any meaningful action or change – that their efforts were wasted – the positive outcomes reported immediately following the conversations might be reduced or even reversed in the long-term. The Vital Conversations initiative attempted to mitigate this potential outcome by providing very clear expectations around the use of action ideas generated through the initiative (to inform granting priorities and advocacy activities for the Community Foundation), and by providing direct connections to ongoing capacity building opportunities and grassroots community organizations at the wrap-up event. Nevertheless, it is the perception of action and change which will influence whether or not the positive gains in capacity are sustained. Initiatives which hope to build grassroots capacity should include plans for ongoing communication with participants (especially where action and change may be delayed or unclear) and where possible, connect participants to opportunities for continued engagement.
Understanding divergent outcomes
In general, participants who reported starting with high levels of community engagement were more likely to report a positive experience in the conversation and stronger outcomes in capacity building, while those who started with lower levels of community engagement tended to have a less enjoyable experience and report weaker outcomes. Although it was a small proportion of survey respondents who reported feeling that community focused conversations are a waste of time, it is notable that everyone reporting this outcome started with low levels of community engagement.
Despite efforts to design the Vital Conversations Card Game to be an accessible tool, it is possible that it required (or appeared to require) a level of expertise and civic literacy that was inaccessible for some people who were not already well versed and engaged in community issues. It is also possible that people with lower levels of engagement were less confident and comfortable engaging in this type of format. It is worth considering if people with lower levels of engagement face structural barriers to civic participation that were reproduced in Vital Conversations; however, data drawn from the evaluation survey suggests that participants who identified as belonging to a marginalized group were not more likely to report low levels of engagement or indicate weaker or adverse outcomes.
Additionally, it is worth considering if these results suggest that the process of capacity building is a compounding experience, following a laddered model of engagement. Although the outcomes reported by those starting with lower levels of engagement were not as strong as those experienced by highly-engaged participants, the outcomes may still be relatively significant to the individuals, representing meaningful steps in an individual’s process of developing their personal capacity for civic engagement. In any case, the risk of dis-empowerment appears to be higher for participants starting with lower-levels of engagement, and this is a rather unacceptable risk for any initiative that aims to bring marginally engaged people into civic spaces and support long-term engagement.
Designing laddered capacity-building processes that can be accessed at multiple levels may provide more flexibility for individuals who have different needs and motivations in building capacity for civic engagement. A deeper understanding of the actual barriers faced by marginally-engaged individuals, and the strategies and tools that can mitigate those barriers is needed. Longer-term and ongoing processes may help to level out diverging outcomes, and trained facilitators – who can recognize and intervene in socio-economic power dynamics – could support those facing structural barriers to participation.
[1] This was in part a conscious decision, knowing that hosts would have little or no facilitation experience while dealing with difficult, contentious topics. There was a recognition that in diverse groups, personalizing the conversation too much could lead to tokenizing and interrogating any individuals with lived experience of marginalization.
[2] Because individuals may identify with more than one group, percentages do not add up to 100.