LIFEscape

Introduction - building confidence

To have participative planning process needs time and planning to start. Here we will present some ideas for a smooth beginning of the process.

See all tools
  • Home
    • About the Forum
    • Members
    • LIFEscape project
  • Participative landscape planning
    • Why participate?
    • Stakeholder perspective
    • Toolbox >
      • Introduction
      • Information
      • Consultation
      • Dialogue
      • Participation
      • Citizen control
  • Pilot activities
    • Poland >
      • Activities
      • Photo gallery
      • Policy
    • Lithuania >
      • Activities
      • Photo gallery
      • Policy
    • Sweden >
      • Activities
      • Photo gallery
      • Policy
    • Denmark >
      • Activities
      • Photo gallery
      • Policy
  • European Landscape Convention
    • Award
  • Contact us

Communication – group dynamics

9/14/2013

0 Comments

 
Picture
The first condition for participation is good communication.

The meeting and how it is carried out is consequently very important. It is about simultaneously accomplishing creativity, democracy and effectivity, which may not be very easy. Furthermore, it is important that not just a few speak, but everyone’s views should be brought forth. It is about having a distinct agenda for the meeting, so everyone agrees on the aim and the implementation. Everybody is not equally good at communicating, but there is a lot you can learn in order to improve your skills. There is, of course, also the opportunity of bringing in communicators and process leaders to help out in the work. Sometimes it may be a good thing to have neutral leader of the meeting to make more people engaged. Also furnishing, the room, time, group dynamics, consumption, etc. are important for creating good communication. It could also be important to know the master suppression techniques in order to avoid them. Those are the five (Berit Ås, 1976): 
  • Making invisible (silencing or marginalising the oppositional by ignoring them); 
  • Ridicule; 
  • Withholding information; 
  • Double bind (being faced with a choice and getting disrespected or punished irrespective of whichever choice is made); 
  • Heap blame/put to shame. 
As opposites of those there are five confirmation techniques: Visualising; Adherence; Inform; Double reward; Confirm reasonable standards (developed by PhD students at Stockholm University).

0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Author

    Per Blomberg, author of the handbook in participative landscape planning.

    Archives

    September 2013

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.