Participatory methodoogies: comparing Metaplan and Open Space Technology

1
Participatory methodoogiescomparing Metaplan
and Open Space Technology
Adriana Valente Irpps-Cnr, Rome,
Italy Biohead-Health Citizen Meeting Marrakech,
November 26th 2007
2
Participatory methodoogies
Different methodologies citizen juries,
consensus conference, scenario workshop, focus
group, metaplan, open space technology,
interactive technology assessment,.. In
commonenable somehow the participation of the
group you are analysing or working
with Different characteristics
representativity, independence, impact on
policies, kind, level and omogeneity of
participants,
3
Among these, metaplan and OST

• Are rather easy to develop and unexpensive
• Are very good to rise tacit knowledge
  (spec.Metaplan) or build an agenda within a
  partecipatory methodology (spec. OST)(less good
  for other purposes, eg assessing, participate
  bilancio,judging or chosing policies, informed
  survey)
• Minimise the intermediation of the researcher /
  are really participatory
• May be rather fast (2 hours for metaplan and 4
  for OST)
• Allow people (students, teachers) to get
  awareness and very fastly reason about a question
  and organise their knowledge about it (metaplan)
  or define an agenda and develope priorities
  inside(OST)

4
METAPLAN
Methodology of visual communication that allows a
group (also big, we managed with more than 40
students) to interact around a question. allows
everybody to participation stimulate hearing
and attention to others ideas  allows to
collect many points of view on a subject  makes
it easy and fast to organise all ideas
5
Work activities
1.      Introductio and presentation of the key
sentence for example, the sentence may have
this structure for me, in my own experience,
XXXX is (is not) a problem because.. and what I
think should be done is.  2.      Organisation
of groups, that work all on the same
question,and organisation of space. For each
group there is a white poster with the sentence,
a marker, some post-it
6
  First part of the work thinking and expressing
key ideas. Each participant has been given a
number of post-it for each participant 5 (more,
if less participant, less, if more participant)
participants are told to write a clear idea
related to the question (no more than 10 words).
First the work should be individual (15 min).
Papers are placed on the poster.. Each group
choses a coordinator Second part of the work.
Classification of the collected ideas. Each group
reads the post-it and define criteria with wich
to order them. The defined criteria is used to
organise post-it on the poster. about 20 minutes
. Third part of the work. Ideas are chosen.
Each one has some votes (points to write to
post-it) to assign to the ideas that consider
most interesting . Post-it may be consequentely
re-organised. 20 minutes.
7
Communication and presentation. Each group
discusses the results, participants may motivate
and better explain ideas and preferences and
modify choises. They decide how to present to the
others their work. Results are briefly presented
(5 minutes) and discussed. 30 minutes
presentations. Documentation may just consist of
posters, photogtaphs, videos or a report of
synthesis may be produced
8
Open space technology
Open Space Technology is a self-organizing
practice that enables groups of any size to
address complex issues.. people are invited to
take responsibility for what they care about it
realizes a marketplace of inquiry, where people
offer topics of interest, reflect, learn and work
together   (from Cipast definition of OST)
Harrison Owen, creator of OST it enables people
to experience a very different quality of
organization in which self managed work groups
are the norm,.. and personal empowerment a shared
experience
9
Setting up a workshop
Room organisation is not much different from
Metaplan Venue one room large enough to hold a
circle (or concentric circles) of chairs seating
all participants, possibility to ri-organise the
space for group discussionResources movable
poster and post papers
10
         Setting the agenda
traditional way Moving from a general question
(like in metaplan), the facilitator invites
anyone to come to the center of the circle, grab
a marker and a sheet of paper, and write down
his/her specific question. "My name is _____, my
issue is ______," and then the next one, while
they tape their sheet to the wall and assign it a
place (from a pre-arranged set of space/time
choices) and a time (only if OST is between many
people and takes time). This allows creating an
agenda in a short time. Then, all people moves to
the wall and signs up for the group they want to
join.
11
Discussion sessionsand report
The large circle is re organised in small
circles, in the corners of the room or elswere,
each group working on the priority chosen from
the agenda. The difference from work inside
groups of Metaplan is that here priorities
already arose, and each group must go into
details in constructing a shared plan of
initiatives to overcome the specific priority
chosen. The proposer (or another) is also
responsible for recording the main points and
conclusions reached in the session. Final version
of the group report may also be done later. If
there is time, a general presentation from all
groups and a joint discussion may be done,
otherwise the reports may be sent to all
participants.
12
Hybrid methodologies
Half between metaplan and OST Start
immediately with sub groups First, all groups
define among them some possible priorities to
deal with. Than, priorities of all groups are
collected, grouped and similarities are armonised
or eliminated (the researcher helps in this pc
in network may be used) Priorities are voted by
all participants The most voted (1-2-3?)become
possibilities to be explored again in
subgroups People change place, chosing the group
in which to work And then the activity goes on as
in normal OST (discussion, report)
13
         Results

• in a very fast way, important issues are
  identified, coming from people active
  participation
• - new ideas grow up, connected to the research
  hypothesis, but impossible to acquire
  otherwise- people feel the project as own
  project - people priorities are clarified
  inside themselves and outside-The schedue of
  the project reports is enriched by teachers
  own report (or by the students work)
• -Teachers are better involved from the beginning
  in the final stage of dissemination