Wednesday, September 09, 2015

Inclusion vs Bogus Inclusion

In case you were interested in including others:

Real Inclusion
Bogus Inclusion
No expected results or agendaResults are expected in specific, described ways
Participant-driven and organizedOrganized and promoted by the "included"
Focus is as broad and diverse as the participantsFocus is narrow, goal-oriented, often dictated by a "facilitator"
Seen as an essential starting point for a projectTacked on near the end of a project, as a "luxury" if the budget allows for it.
Waits for voluntary involvementPushed through by people who want speedy outcomes
Embraces all emotions of participantsDiscourages anger, frustration, or emotions seen as negative or unproductive
Experience sharing - feeds participantsProduction enhancing - feeds the system
All people welcomed and invited to attendCherry-picked participants, "negative" people are told not to come, logistical screening out (limited spaces for example)
Goal is to includeGoal is to provide evidence of inclusion
Outcome is not expected, but welcomedOutcomes are known before "Inclusion" begins (i.e. report that is planned and drafted before meetings even begin)
Participants ask questions about the world around themParticipants are asked questions about the world around them
Participants are accepted as valid upon entryParticipants must demonstrate validity
Participants are allowed to view and/or modify outcomesOutcomes and reports are seen as the property of the "Includers."
Equality of voiceFacilitators or leaders have a favoured voice
Conversation is deep and meaningfulConversation 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 badParticipants are told they are "courageous," or judged as negative, or put on a false pedestal