In case you were interested in including others:
Real Inclusion | Bogus Inclusion |
| No expected results or agenda | Results are expected in specific, described ways |
| Participant-driven and organized | Organized and promoted by the "included" |
| Focus is as broad and diverse as the participants | Focus is narrow, goal-oriented, often dictated by a "facilitator" |
| Seen as an essential starting point for a project | Tacked on near the end of a project, as a "luxury" if the budget allows for it. |
| Waits for voluntary involvement | Pushed through by people who want speedy outcomes |
| Embraces all emotions of participants | Discourages anger, frustration, or emotions seen as negative or unproductive |
| Experience sharing - feeds participants | Production enhancing - feeds the system |
| All people welcomed and invited to attend | Cherry-picked participants, "negative" people are told not to come, logistical screening out (limited spaces for example) |
| Goal is to include | Goal is to provide evidence of inclusion |
| Outcome is not expected, but welcomed | Outcomes are known before "Inclusion" begins (i.e. report that is planned and drafted before meetings even begin) |
| Participants ask questions about the world around them | Participants are asked questions about the world around them |
| Participants are accepted as valid upon entry | Participants must demonstrate validity |
| Participants are allowed to view and/or modify outcomes | Outcomes and reports are seen as the property of the "Includers." |
| Equality of voice | Facilitators or leaders have a favoured voice |
| Conversation is deep and meaningful | Conversation is light and task-oriented, complex conversation is discouraged |
| "I'll sit with you" | "You sit, I'll record what it's like for you to sit there" |
| Participants are responsible for what they say, good or bad | Participants are told they are "courageous," or judged as negative, or put on a false pedestal |
2 comments:
You know, I just want to add that these are just some banged out ideas off the top of my head,and are left vague for a reason. Inclusion is a dynamic process, like a river, always moving and hard to pin down. Language that we used comfortably in the past has changed, and there is always a need to "think on your feet" in this work.
Please feel free to comment here, I want people to share what their experiences of inclusion have been as well.
Some"inclusion" can inhibit positive growth. I mean, do you really want Donald Trump included in the running of our country?
Post a Comment