In the Peterborough area, our community is changing. We know this in part because there’s data that tells us a story of change – our population is growing, we’re urbanizing, we’re becoming more diverse, our economy is shifting – but we experience this change first and foremost in our day-to-day lives.

Teenagers who crave shawarma after class. Neighbours sharing new languages and recipes. Earnest ideas stuffing empty factories. Placards waving in public spaces. Increased traffic zipping past our homes. Long bus rides to school. Roads and houses built where we used to play. Churches for sale. New condos in old, empty buildings.

How we feel about these changes depends on where we’re standing. It’s almost always a mix of anxiety, excitement, dread, nostalgia, despair, optimism, outrage, courage, surprise, and, perhaps, love.  Love for our community, for everything that it is and everything that it could be.

Change is happening; that is certain, and so is the fact that we often disagree about how to deal with it. Where some see development, others see destruction. Where some see opportunity, others see exploitation. Where some see efficiency, others see loss. What we need to do as a community is to understand the changes we’re facing and find ways to work together, to use our different experiences and perspectives to find the best way forward for all of us. That’s not an easy thing to do. It’s a task that calls us to take a step back, look at the big picture and have some hard conversations.

That’s exactly what happened in Peterborough in the fall of 2017. In the face of growing polarization, cynicism and high-stakes change, more than 750 friends, neighbours and colleagues sat around a table to share a meal and have a conversation about the things that really matter in our community. We talked about how many new jobs in our community are low-paid positions like food service workers, and what it means to have a population that’s growing in the city and shrinking in the county. We talked about whether kids growing up in Peterborough will want to live here as adults. We talked about belonging, how it feels and who gets left out. And we talked about what actions we can take today, big or small, that will help build up the vitality of our community in the long-term. 

This was Vital Conversations: a civic engagement initiative led by the Community Foundation of Greater Peterborough in collaboration with the Atkinson Foundation. It started from observations about our community; we noticed that change was causing a great deal of tension. That tension has sparked some important local movements, but it has also chipped away at the social and political fabric of our community. Whether about closing schools, paving over parks or building casinos, every big decision is causing fissures to snake across our community. Divisions of age, class, location and income are entrenching the idea that difference is inherently hostile. Public dialogue seems to be growing thin, peppered with false information, lacking in nuance and context, silencing key voices. At the same time, there are growing demands for more responsive leadership and more community involvement in decision making, and those demands are getting louder.

Vital Conversations grew out of a need to nurture the civic arts in Peterborough, including dialogue, participation and critical thinking. We wanted to know if it’s possible for people who share a love of community to connect across difference, especially where there’s disagreement. How could we bring more people into civic spaces? What would it take to build our collective capacity for truly meaningful civic engagement?

We went out in to the community and we listened to people  at the grassroots , in neighbourhood associations, faith groups, sports leagues and non-profit organizations, people who are advocates, activists, organizers and teachers. We were inspired by initiatives that were exploring similar terrain, seeking ways of working through – not around – difference to spark real human connection and meaningful community engagement. The On Being Project, The People’s Supper and One Table were a few of our favourites. Sally Kohn’s Ted Talk on emotional correctness, Shakhil Choudhury’s book Deep Diversity, and a 2016 convocation address from James Ryan, Dean at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, were some of the influences that shaped our approach.

 

Based on what we learned through research, community consultation and a series of focus groups (where we tested and refined six prototypes), we developed the Vital Conversations Card Game, a unique tool for facilitating conversations. We asked people in our community to host a small group of friends, neighbours or colleagues to share a meal and play the card game. The meal could be simple, a potluck in the park, coffee at a favourite cafe, or lunch around the kitchen table, and there was funding available for people who wanted to host but were concerned they couldn’t afford to do it.

The response was incredible. Ordinary people signed up as conversation hosts, the kinds of people who coach hockey teams or volunteer at their kid’s school, who cut their neighbour’s grass, support local businesses or donate to the foodbank. There was Anna who cooked dinner for her neighbours, and Jane who booked the common space in her apartment building. Cindy used her birthday party as an occasion to play the game. Max brought some fellow grad students together over pizza and beer. Zebiba organized three conversation groups at her mosque. Sylvia invited youth to join a few seniors at a local retirement home. Allies and advocates in local organizations serving youth, people experiencing homelessness, artists, newcomers and people with disabilities hosted conversations, amplifyingthe voices of those who are often marginalized in civic spaces.

They are the heroes of this story – the everyday people who stepped up to host the conversations. We gave them a tool and some simple guidelines and they did the rest. Because of their leadership, 109 conversations were held in the region over the course of a month. In total, over 750 people participated. People told us that they loved the opportunity to sit down, slow down, and have a meaningful conversation. They told us that they learned a lot about their community. They said that they made new connections and gained new perspectives. Most people walked away better equipped for community dialogue, empowered to take action in the community.

Those 109 conversations generated 654 ideas for actions that could help build a better future for our community. Despite our unique perspectives, despite our individual sense of what community is and the differences in our experiences and identities, there was a great deal of common ground in those ideas. So much, in fact, that we were able to summarize the ideas into a list of just ten community priorities – our community’s to-do list – published as 10 things to do to build a vital community.

Reading the ideas, notes and comments that came from each of those conversations is incredibly inspiring and deeply moving. There’s an authentic passion and dedication that emanates from those words, whether they were scrawled by hand or typed out in orderly bullet points. While there is anger, frustration and confusion in those notes, there is also hope, excitement and an earnest willingness to dig in. The responses from those 109 conversations made it powerfully obvious how much people truly care about our community.

Vital Conversations grew out of discussions around better ways to engage more people in community building. Along the way, we kept asking ourselves: is dialogue even possible? Can we actually build bridges across difference? Do people care enough to have hard conversations and get involved in new ways? Are there ways to tap into the experiences and knowledge of people who are disengaged and under-engaged? The feedback from Vital Conversations helped answer those questions – in short, yes! Vital Conversations also gave us valuable insight into how people understand and experience our community, what their hopes for our shared future look like and how we can build it together.

We learned that our local connections to grassroots and non-profit organizations are an invaluable resource worth investing in. We saw how significant peer-to-peer relationships can be in motivating community engagement; people who are connected to neighbours, friends and groups are more likely to participate. We noticed that capacity building works best in action, and over the long-term. We discovered that we needed to know more about the complicated ways that individuals form private opinions and behave in public spaces, and what barriers are actually getting in the way of civic engagement. We saw some promising signs that simply reminding people that ‘we can be different in some ways and the same in others’ helps pave the way for small patches of common ground to emerge. 

But perhaps the most important thing we learned, was that people truly care about their community and they genuinely want to make a difference. That’s a powerful common denominator and a compelling antidote to cynicism and disconnection. Our communities are changing — for better and for worse. We experience those changes in unique ways in our day-to-day lives. We each feel differently about it, and we disagree about the best way forward. That’s a challenging environment to navigate. But a shared love for community and desire to make our communities better places (even if we disagree on what that looks like) is a remarkable place to start.

The Vital Conversations initiative was a month-long civic engagement campaign in the City and County of Peterborough. Led by the Community Foundation of Greater Peterborough in partnership with the Atkinson Foundation, the initiative brought more than 700 people together in October 2017 for small-group peer-led conversations facilitated by a unique tool — the Vital Conversations card game. The initiative was intended to curate conversations across differences, support civic engagement for people ‘on the edges’ and build capacity for dialogue in the Peterborough community.

Vital Conversations made some progress in mediating dialogue across political or ideological differences. Feedback from participants suggested that in some cases the ability to find ‘common ground’ was the most significant outcome of their conversation. Both the unique design of the tool and the initiative’s framework helped facilitate opportunities for connection, even when differences of perspective or opinion existed; although, in some cases, the conversations may have produced the appearance of common ground where it did not actually exist.

Vital Conversations was able to connect with people who are marginally engaged and engage with people who experience marginalization in civic spaces (as a result of social and economic factors such as class, gender, age, sexual orientation, racialization, employment status, ability, etc.). There was a high level of diversity among participants, but limited participation from First Nations, Metis, Inuit and Indigenous peoples, as well as people living in rural communities. The use of invitations served as a valuable mechanism for connecting with marginally engaged individuals, while activating community partnerships and implementing accessibility measures allowed the initiative to better include marginalized voices.

Designed to offer opportunities to practice community dialogue, the Vital Conversations initiative strengthened attitudes and skills that support dialogue and 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 positive outcomes; however, the short-term nature of the initiative and lack of connection to action opportunities may reduce or counter the impact of these outcomes in the long-term.

Feedback, evaluation and reflection on the Vital Conversations initiative suggests that the ability to build and leverage real, meaningful relationships is at the heart of building capacity for civic engagement. For that reason, civic engagement capacity building initiatives work best at a human scale, rooted in the specific context of communities and moving at an organic, emergent pace. Lessons learned from the Vital Conversations initiative on curating conversations across difference, supporting civic engagement at ‘the edges’ and building capacity for grassroots dialogue and action have been summarized in seven key insights:

Invest in networks

Investing time and resources to build and sustain diverse networks with connections to marginalized communities will enrich civic engagement initiatives and enhance equity in civic spaces.

Build social capital

Fostering social and community connectedness is an important pre-requisite for broadening civic engagement. Strategies that build and nurture social capital help to lay the groundwork for a more sustainable civic landscape.

Connect to action

Building capacity for civic engagement is a process of generating momentum through empowering experiences that lead people toward a desire to ‘do more’ and to see change happening. Civic engagement that does not have clear connection to action may actually result in disempowering outcomes over the long-term.

Commit to the long-term

Building capacity for grassroots civic engagement is ongoing work involving strategies that go both wide and deep, bringing more people into civic spaces while also increasing levels of engagement.

Think like a psychologist

Insights from the field of behavioural science can enrich civic engagement initiatives, shedding light on the ways that individuals form opinions, process new information, behave in groups, encounter difference, engage with conflict and move to action.

Name difference & define common ground

A framework that can proactively name areas of difference while also defining some form of common ground creates a heuristic device that allows for the possibility of connecting across difference.

Understand the real barriers to engagement

A stronger understanding of the complex barriers to civic engagement is needed to create equitable opportunities to broaden and deepen grassroots civic engagement in communities.

Methodology

The quantitative data in this report is drawn from two evaluation surveys – one for participants (n=85) and one for those who did not participate (n=17) – as well as other program data including registration information, funding applications and communication materials. Given the nature of this pilot grassroots initiative, the formal validity of the data is low and should be interpreted with caution. Triangulation with qualitative data, including anecdotal evidence and informal feedback, along with practitioner observation and reflection has been used to strengthen the analysis and insights offered.

On dialogue

Vital Conversations has been conceptualized as a community dialogue project, based on the assumption that dialogue is a valuable and necessary tool for civic engagement, particularly in making connections across difference. There are many pitfalls to community dialogue, and in certain political climates the concept of dialogue has been weaponized in attempts to legitimize harmful and hateful ideas and practices. An equity lens is a useful tool for recognizing this dynamic and the ways that it might influence the implementation or interpretation of community dialogue processes. This lens can also help us focus on how people experiencing marginalization might perceive, experience or be impacted by attempts to foster dialogue.

Licensing

The Vital Conversations Card Game is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. For more information, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ or contact the Community Foundation of Greater Peterborough.

The Vital Conversations initiative was a month-long civic engagement campaign in the City and County of Peterborough. Led by the Community Foundation of Greater Peterborough in partnership with the Atkinson Foundation, the initiative brought more than 700 people together for small-group peer-led conversations facilitated by a unique tool — the Vital Conversations card game. The initiative was intended to curate conversations across differences, support civic engagement for people ‘on the edges’, and build capacity for dialogue and civic engagement in the Peterborough community.

The conversations were centered around three themes, which were based on insights drawn from Greater Peterborough’s Vital Signs:

1. Building a local economy for everyone
2. Making a commitment to belonging & inclusion
3. Understanding urbanization and rural realities

Each conversation generated Vital Actions’ ideas for actions that can help build up community vitality, which are summarized in a list of community priorities: 10 things to do to build a vital community. The Community Foundation is using that list to direct community grants. This list also helped launch the Vital Community Fund in February 2018 — a community resource to support actions on Peterborough’s top priorities, as a way to sustain the initiative’s momentum.

Background

The Community Foundation of Greater Peterborough is a public foundation and charitable organization that mobilizes knowledge, assets and relationships to improve quality of life in the City and County of Peterborough. Since 2013, the Foundation has been producing Greater Peterborough’s Vital Signs, a statistical snapshot of community vitality that identifies local strengths, needs and opportunities for change. While Vital Signs has been successful in painting a picture of where the Peterborough community is at, the Community Foundation recognized a need to go further, engaging in the more challenging task of translating community knowledge into an actionable vision for the community’s future. Part of that challenge lies in convening community dialogue and facilitating meaningful civic engagement.

Peterborough has an active civil society that – in recent years – has been engaged in several highly polarized public debates sparked by issues like school closures, urban development and the sale of public utilities. Dialogue around these important public issues has, at times, been dominated by misinformation, negative reactivity and an entrenched ‘us-vs-them’ approach that excludes diverse voices and nuanced perspectives from the conversation. The Peterborough area is growing and changing, and there are more of the kinds of challenges and opportunities that can spark division and feed polarization looming on the horizon. Alongside mobilizations around single-issue campaigns, there has been evidence of growing levels of cynicism and frustration within the community.

In this context, the Community Foundation saw an opportunity to help set the stage for the kind of deliberative, asset-based and longer-term civic engagement that is essential in building and maintaining a vital community. After months of discussion, research and planning, Vital Conversations was developed as a collaborative initiative of the Community Foundation and the Atkinson Foundation – conceptualized as a way to activate community knowledge in Vital Signs, support community capacity for dialogue, and foster civic engagement.

The Vital Conversations initiative was conceived as a community dialogue project, based on the need to find ways of relating, talking and working together across differences to build a vital community. Dialogue can be a transformative experience, providing opportunities for individuals to practice skills in listening, analysis, self-reflection and relationship building. Intergroup dialogue projects have been shown to change prejudicial attitudes and behaviours, improve polarized relations and promote positive views on difference and diversity. Individuals who engage in dialogue programs have shown evidence of increased levels of civic and political engagement following their participation[1]. There were three primary goals for Vital Conversations:

Curate conversations across difference

Using a proactive, asset-based approach and shared values as common ground to reframe important community issues, the initiative aimed to foster connections between diverse people, reducing polarization and creating opportunities to explore nuanced perspectives through dialogue.

Support civic engagement for people on ‘the edges’

Vital Conversations aimed to deepen and diversify participation in civic activities by connecting with people who are marginally engaged (aware of community issues but not directly involved in civic activities) and people who experience marginalization in civic spaces. By adopting an accessible, peer-led format and conducting strategic outreach, Vital Conversations aimed to amplify diverse voices in community dialogue and act as a bridge to broader civic engagement.

Build capacity for dialogue and civic engagement

The Vital Conversations initiative was designed to create opportunities to practice dialogue in a safe, accessible space. By learning through action, participants could develop the skills and confidence that are required to engage in civic activities, and increase the likelihood of ongoing civic engagement.

1 Dressel and Rogge. Evaluation of Intergroup Dialogue: A Review of the Empirical Literature. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 26.2, 2008

How a Vital Conversation works

Vital Conversations were small-group peer-led conversations hosted in informal spaces such as homes, break rooms, restaurants, cafes and community spaces. All conversations were initiated by a community member who signed up as a host. The host picked the date, time and location, and invited the guests. Using the Vital Conversations Card Game, the host facilitated a conversation, culminating in a brainstorming activity where the group identified ideas for actions that could help address the issues discussed and contribute to building up the vitality of the community as a whole. These ideas were recorded by the host on a Vital Actions form and submitted to the Community Foundation following the conversation. These actions were then analysed and summarized into a list of ten community priorities, published as 10 things to do to build a vital community.

About the Vital Conversations Card Game

Developing a tool for Vital Conversations

The Vital Conversations initiative required a tool that could facilitate a meaningful conversation for a small group of diverse individuals. It had to be easy to use in a peer-led context, assuming little to no facilitation experience of the host. It also had to appear straightforward enough to overcome any ‘expertise’ barrier that hosts might place on themselves by assuming ‘I’m not qualified to do that’. The tool needed to be simple enough to provide structure to a conversation without overburdening it with process. In order to attract diverse engagement, it had to be appealing and enjoyable, yet pointed enough to dive into meaningful, difficult and contentious conversations about real issues.

The concept of gamification offered a unique framework for the development of the tool, which was initially inspired by a study of conversation-based board games. After designing and testing a series of six prototypes, the Vital Conversations Card Game emerged as the central tool to facilitate the Vital Conversations process.

Playing the Vital Conversations Card Game

The Vital Conversations Card Game consists of 40-card deck, designed for groups of six to eight people. Printed decks of cards (including large print versions) were available to hosts, as well as a printable .pdf version. Each deck included:

1. Guidelines for a respectful, interesting conversation
2. Ten conversation starters
3. Prompts to help move the conversation along and brainstorm actionable ideas
4. A set of take-away cards with suggestions and contact information for ongoing engagement

The conversation starters focused on three themes, based on insights drawn from local Vital Signs data:

1. Building a local economy for everyone
2. Committing to inclusion
3. Understanding urbanization and rural realities

These conversation starters were framed to connect to both lived experiences and perceptions of the community. . The conversation starters were framed as complex issues to emphasize the need for ‘slow thinking’ and big-picture perspective taking.

Resources for conversation hosts

A Host Kit was developed along with the card game to provide additional background and guidance to hosts. The kit included information about the Community Foundation and Vital Signs – information on funding and support for hosting, instructions on planning and hosting a Vital Conversation, links to facilitation resources, printable invitations and a Vital Actions feedback form. The materials prompted hosts to consider accessibility needs of their guests, made suggestions for inviting a diverse group to the conversation and invited hosts to connect through social media to broaden the impact of individual conversations.

Outreach strategies

Initial outreach activities were focused on recruiting a diverse group of hosts to lead 100 small-group conversations. Several tactics were used to recruit hosts:

Direct asks

Personalized emails and letters were sent to individuals within the Foundation’s network asking them to host a conversation or to suggest someone they knew who would make a great host. This method was highly successful and attracted at least one third of hosts. In many cases, those who were asked but unable to host or participate made an effort to stay in touch with the initiative.

Social media campaign

Emotionally engaging social media content was generated to tap into the local zeitgeist. This material leveraged feelings of frustration with the way things are going, uncertainty about the future of our community and a genuine desire to make a difference. All the content was oriented toward driving simple engagement (likes and shares) rather than attempting to generate debate or dialogue in the digital sphere. Every time an individual in the Peterborough area interacted with Vital Conversations content, their interaction was followed up on as soon as possible with a personalized direct message inviting them to sign up to host a conversation. This was a successful approach, attracting many of the hosts who were outside of the Foundation’s direct networks.

Influencers

The Community Foundation recruited a diverse group of five volunteers with positive reputations, strong social media platforms and an asset-based approach to community building. The ambassadors were the initial face of the Vital Conversations outreach campaign, and were featured in promotional photos and videos posted online. Each volunteer committed to promoting Vital Conversations through their own accounts, as well as hosting and sharing a conversation. This approach was successful in amplifying digital outreach and was also in rapidly exposing the Vital Conversations initiative.

Community partnerships

Local charities and non-profit organizations who connected with marginalized communities were invited to host conversations with their members. Funding for these organizations was available to offset the costs of venues, food and staffing. Many of these organizations had pre-existing relationships with the Community Foundation, and welcomed an opportunity to amplify their members’ voices in a civic engagement process that would shape the Foundation’s granting and advocacy priorities. Several of the organizations hosted multiple conversations and engaged approximately one third of all participants in the Vital Conversations initiative.

Earned media

Messaging around the Vital Conversations initiative was framed for traditional media, which resulted in strong local and regional coverage of the initiative in print, digital, radio and television.

Building buy-in and support for advocacy

 Given that the Community Foundation planned to use the results of Vital Conversations to direct local community grants and advocacy activities, there was a need to build awareness and foster involvement with local community leaders. This was accomplished by inviting elected, grassroots and business leaders to the official Vital Conversations launch event where they had an opportunity to learn about the initiative and engage in the conversation process first-hand.

Following the culmination of a month of conversations, the Community Foundation hosted a community celebration, which included Vital Conversation participants, local community leaders and media influencers. The results of the conversations, a list of ten community priorities, was released at this event, along with the announcement of the Vital Community Fund, established by the Community Foundation to sustain the momentum of Vital Conversations by investing in organizations and activities working on the community’s top priorities. This wrap-up event served to steward connections to participants, connect individuals to action opportunities and promote the accountability and transparency of the initiative.

Timeline

July 2017

Six pilot sessions were held to test and develop the prototypes for the Vital Conversations Card Game

September 2017

Outreach activities began with the goal of recruiting community members to host 100 conversations

October 2017

A month of Vital Conversations was officially launched at a lunch attended by over 80 community leaders and hosted by the Community Foundation. 109 Vital Conversations took place in the Peterborough area throughout the month

November 2017

An evaluation survey was distributed to participants, collecting feedback on the process and outcomes of the initiative. A separate survey was distributed to community members who knew about the initiative but did not participate

December 2017

Ideas from each conversation’s Vital Actions form were collected, analyzed and compiled into a list of ten community action priorities

February 2018

Vital Conversations participants attended a community celebration releasing the results of Vital Conversations, 10 things to do to build a vital community. This event included opportunities to connect to ongoing action in the community

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.

Feedback, evaluation and reflection on the Vital Conversations initiative suggests that the ability to build and leverage real, meaningful relationships is at the heart of building capacity for civic engagement. For that reason, civic engagement capacity building initiatives work best at a human scale, rooted in the specific context of communities and moving at an organic, emergent pace. Lessons learned from the Vital Conversations initiative on curating conversations across difference, supporting civic engagement at ‘the edges’ and building capacity for grassroots dialogue and action have been summarized into seven key insights.

Invest in networks

Investing time and resources to build and sustain diverse networks with connections to marginalized communities will help ensure that there is a broad array of trusting, respectful relationships to enrich civic engagement initiatives. Strong networks promote intersectional approaches with greater impact, providing input and feedback on the identification of community priorities and the development of initiatives as well as broadening engagement to include larger range of community members. Sharing and re-distributing resources, especially with organizations that are led by and serving marginalized communities, is an important aspect of sustaining and activating networks, since inequities or gaps within networks can be amplified at the community level.

Build social capital

Fostering social and community connectedness is an important pre-requisite for broadening civic engagement. Having access to robust social networks based on real, person-to-person relationships can support an individual’s likeliness and capacity to engage in civic spaces, in part by building a sense of connection, responsibility and accountability in the ‘common good’. Strategies that build and nurture social capital will help to lay the groundwork for a more sustainable civic landscape.

Connect to action

Building capacity for civic engagement is a process of generating momentum, as empowering experiences lead people toward a desire to ‘do more’ and to notice change. Civic engagement that does not have clear connections to action and change may actually result in dis-empowering outcomes in the long-term. Initiatives should always communicate expectations and outcomes clearly and consistently, and whenever possible, connect participants to tangible opportunities for deeper involvement. This can be accomplished through partnerships with community organizations or initiatives seeking grassroots capacity, or by designing an ongoing component for short-term initiatives.

Commit to the long-term

Building capacity for grassroots civic engagement is ongoing work. It involves strategies that go both wide and deep, bringing more people into civic spaces while also deepening levels of engagement. One-off initiatives are not well suited to building the kinds of relationships or skills that are needed for long-term engagement. While constraints around resources and external timelines can often shape the nature of initiatives, a networked approach to engagement can help promote the kind of continuity that is needed to sustain the momentum of civic engagement initiatives.

Think like a psychologist

Insights from the field of behavioural science can enrich the theory and strategy of civic engagement initiatives. Behavioural science can help organizers better understand how individuals form opinions, process new information, behave in groups, encounter difference, engage with conflict and move to action. Low-barrier access to this kind of information is crucial to conceptualizing and designing any kind of civic engagement initiative and can be of significant benefit in evaluating grassroots initiatives.

Name difference & define common ground

A framework that can proactively name areas of difference while also defining some form of common ground can open up the possibility of connecting across difference, allowing people to move past an ‘either/or’ way of relating, inviting nuance and creating space to think and act together. Common ground does not have to be profound – it could be as simple and broad as ‘we all care about this community’ – but it should be something that feels authentically universal in the context, without attempting (or working inadvertently) to diminish diversity or resolve differences.

Understand the real barriers to engagement

A stronger understanding of barriers to civic engagement is needed to create equitable opportunities for civic engagement. It is important to dedicate time and resources to understanding the specific and complex barriers that exist, how they play out in the lives of individuals and what kinds of strategies and tactics work best to address them. Of course, this work is best led by those with first-hand experience of these barriers and may require innovative approaches to designing and framing civic engagement initiatives.