EF FCP presentation - Amsterdam meeting

THE POLISH AND DUTCH TESTS

TESTED GOOD PRACTICES THE AMSTERDAM MEETING DECEMBER 4, 2014

FUNDACJA CITIZEN PROJECT/ EZZEV FOUNDATION

GOOD PRACTICE 1

Promoting individuals saying:

• Sometimes I make mistakes

• Sometimes my motivation is egoistic

• I am part of the problem

TESTED IN NL AND PL

• In writing online (NL): only offline reactions • In video online (NL): only offline reactions • On air (national radio in PL): great discussion • Live in groups (Conference Gdansk for trainers; in

workshops Gdynia with trainers, senior citizens; at school Gdansk with teacher and students) • Shame, laughter • Reflection • Great discussions with instructors, among themselves

• Informal one-on-one contact with trainers, marketers (NL): great dialogues

• With football hooligans (NL): Shame, laughter

ALTERNATIVE SENTENCES - PL (1)

Sometimes I make mistakes

• Everyone makes mistakes but the key is to fix them

• I'm not perfect. I'm only human

• It's not like I make everything perfectly, but I try to get better

• I often makes mistakes

• Experience tells me I rarely make mistakes

ALTERNATIVE SENTENCES - PL (2)

Sometimes my motivation is egoistic

• Everyone has to be satisfied, even me

• It's also in my best interest, but we can both benefit

• Often, in actions, I think only about myself

• Sometimes I notice that my motivation is egoistic

• I take care of others but I also take care of myself

ALTERNATIVE SENTENCES - PL (3)

I am part of the problem

- I'm not perfect

- I know that I've done mischief

- My habits are part of the problem with interpersonal relations

CONCLUSIONS

This good practice rather works in live contact and is ineffective online

GOOD PRACTICE 2

C2C/ citizen to citizen – dialogue training • First 90 seconds silence to feel the duration • 2 people sit opposite each other • One asks the other answers – fate decides who has which

role • Rules of behavior are established: listening, good will,

honesty, respect, patience, being interested • Goal: establish what the two have in common and on

what they differ on a given theme (social exclusion) • Duration: 90 seconds • Evaluation by a trainer afterwards

TESTED

• In workshops (Gdynia) with trainers and 2 groups of seniors:

- Lively dialogues

- Intense listening, intense searching for the right words

- The hardest for professionals: they lapse into techniques

- Hard for individuals who are in a hierarchical relationship

CONCLUSION

This good practice is great to let individuals in a non-hierarchical relationship exchange

opinions.

Professionals tend to hide behind what they’ve learned before.

GOOD PRACTICE 3

• Intervention in online discussions

- Providing moderate alternatives

- Providing doubt

- Asking for more time, more reflection (proposing “slow dialogue”)

TESTED

• Online in the Dutch Zwarte Pieten-discussie

- Great distrust – accusations of trolling

- Great aggression – you’re a hypocrite afraid to have a clear opinion

CONCLUSION

Slow dialogue does not work online.

GOOD PRACTICE 4

• Publishing essays

• Publishing questionnaires

TESTED

• Publication of articles online – on Slideshare - on the Zwarte Pieten discussion:

- [essay] 2 weeks ago: 207 views - [essay] 4 months ago: 141 views - [press release] 4 months ago: 401 views - [PPT essay] 4 months ago: 355 views - [good practices & literature overview] 4 months ago: 194 - No discussion

• Questionnaire published (Surveymonkey - distribution by well-connected members in the network):

- Participants: 110 in PL; 472 in NL - Results published (NL): 536 views - Discussion with the distributors not with the authors

QUESTIONNAIRE PL

• Questionnaire published (Surveymonkey - distribution by well-connected members in the network) - Participants: 34

• Questionnaire handed out during workshops and conference:

• Conference Gdansk for trainers – Participants: 53

• workshops Gdynia with trainers, senior citizens – Participants: 23

• Total number of participants: 110

• Age: 20 – 70+

• Mostly with higher education

QUESTIONNAIRE PL (2)

- Many respondents wrote that they either are not interested in the subject or there are more important issues not being discussed

- They describe it as a work of art, symbol of freedom, tolerance, equality

- They see proponents & opponents as normal people fighting for their rights and believes

- They think that the discussion should stop – it would be bether for everyone and there are more urging matters than rainbow

- There were few radical responses against the rainbow, that „zoophiles, murderers, thieves will be trying to make a monument for themselves”

CONCLUSION

An online questionnaire about a real taboo subject does not work but about an explosive

subject does work.

Articles on an explosive subject are read but not discussed – or maybe that’s the effect I

[Onno] have. In 6 years of being a journalist I got 2 reactions, 1 by my cousin in Australia

who found me for private reasons.

ANNEX – PL RESULTS

ANNEX – PL RESULTS (2)

ANNEX – PL RESULTS (3)

ANNEX – PL RESULTS (4)

ANNEX – PL RESULTS (5)

ANNEX – PL RESULTS (6)

ANNEX – PL RESULTS (7)

ANNEX – PL RESULTS (8)

ANNEX – PL RESULTS (9)