knowledge creation

Knowledge Creationwithin UNDP/RBLAC

by KATRIN KÄUFER

BETTYE H. PUITT

United NationsDevelopment Programme

Promoting Multi-stakeholder ConsensunBuilding as a Tool for Strengthening

Democratic Governance

DEMOCRATIC DIALOGUE REGIONAL PROJECT

Design and impression: Magna Terra editores5a avenida 4-75 zona 2, Guatemala cityTels.: (502) 2238-0175, 2250-1031 y 2251-4298Fax: (502) 2251-4048E-mail: [email protected]

Knowledge Creation within UNDP/RBLACWorking paper number 1 / “WORKING PAPER” Serie© United Nations Development Programme, 2004

1 UN Plaza, New York, 10017, United Estate of América

DEMOCRATIC DIALOGUE REGIONAL PROJECT

UNDP GuatemalaEuroplaza World Business CenterTorre IV, Nivel 105a. avenida 5-55, zona 14Tels.: (502) 2384-3100 2385-3859Fax: (502) 2384-3200/3201Guatemala, City, Central [email protected]://www.democraticdialoguenetwork.org

Regional Director forLatin America and theCaribbean: Elena MartínezRegional ProgrammeCoordinator: Freddy JustinianoCoordination: Elena Diez PintoTeam Supportin New York: Andrew Russell, Elizabeth Díaz y

Marc-André FrancheTeam Supportin Guatemala: Sonia González

Printed in GuatemalaFirst edition: october 2004

All rights reserved. This publication and its supplementary materials may not bereproduced in whole or in part or stored in or transsmitted by any information retrievalsystem, in any form or by any means whatsoever, whether mechanical, photochemical,electronic, magnetic, electro optical, phothocopies or any other means, without thepriorwritten permission of the UNDP.

5Index

Purpose ............................................................................. 7Background ....................................................................... 9

Collective Learning: Democratic Dialogue Workshops ......... 11 Workshop I ................................................................................ 12 Workshop II ............................................................................... 12 Workshop III .............................................................................. 12 Participants................................................................................. 13 Facilitation ................................................................................. 13

The Learning Network:Activities In-between Workshops ....................................... 15

Theoretical Framework for CollectiveKnowledge Creation ......................................................... 17 The Link to Practice: Co-creating Knowledge............................. 17 Workshop Characteristics .......................................................... 18 Knowledge Transfer ................................................................... 21

Outcomes of the Knowledge Creation Process ................... 25

Contents

7Knowledge Creation within UNDP/RBLAC

Purpose

As stated at the outset, in 2001, a key objective of the Regional Project is todevelop a tested, proven social technology for bringing a broad range ofstakeholder voices-in particular, the voice of civil society-to bear on theessential tasks of conflict resolution and consensus building in thedemocracies of Latin America and the Caribbean. In order to be robust anduseful in a wide variety of circumstances, this “democratic dialogue”technology must have a solid theoretical basis and must also be firmlygrounded in practical understanding. Finally, it must emerge quickly to meetthe pressing need to strengthen democratic institutions in the region. Thedevelopment process, therefore, must be innovative, bringing aninternational group of academics and practitioners together in a trulycollaborative knowledge creation exercise; in many ways, it should modelthe kind of multi-stakeholder consensus building that it seeks to develop.

A key design element of the Regional Project is that the knowledgecreation effort proceeds in accordance with a number of national democraticdialogue initiatives. The practitioners leading those projects should formthe core of the learning group. The aim of this action research approach isto provide support for the practitioners while learning with them from theirexperiences. Linking these practitioners to each other and to a broad networkof people committed to advancing dialogue methods in support of democraticgovernance, will provide support not only over the duration of this projectbut over the long term.

To summarize, the knowledge creation initiative has two majorobjectives, both aimed at strengthening democratic governance in LatinAmerica and the Caribbean:1. to co-create actionable knowledge about democratic dialogue in

cooperation with practitioners2. to create a network of practitioners and others committed to democratic

dialogue work

Elena Diez Pinto of the UNDP is an activepartner with us in designing the workshops

and the knowledge creation process. Wegratefully acknowledge her contributions.


Background

UNDP RBLAC is pursuing thesechallenging goals in partnership withAdam Kahane, the pioneer and leadingpractitioner of the civic scenario processfrom Global Leadership Initiative andGeneron, and with specialists in co-llective learning processes from MITand the Society for OrganizationalLearning (SoL), Katrin Käufer andBettye Pruitt. Our joint efforts beganwith the development of three“learning histories”-analytical narra-tives jointly told by first-person par-ticipants and outsider observers-ofcivic scenario projects in South Afri-ca, Colombia, and Guatemala. InNovember 2000, UNDP and itspartners convened a workshop inAntigua, Guatemala, and presentedthe learning histories as the basis fordiscussion of civic scenario buildingand other civic dialogue processes.One hundred participants, represen-ting seventeen countries and manydifferent perspectives on civic dialo-gue, attended this workshop; whereassome participants contributed exper-tise in different methodologies,others had participated in previousdialogue projects, and many werecontemplating initiating a dialoguein their own countries. In additionto the information provided in thelearning histories, the workshop se-ssions gave this diverse group first-

hand experience on several dialoguetools used in the civic scenario pro-cess, as well as an opportunity toshare experiences from a wide varietyof other civic dialogue experiences.

The Antigua workshop laid thefoundation for a broader knowledgecreation effort with three criticaldimensions: collective learning; alearning network; and a tight linkageto practice. The workshop design,using dialogue tools to promotereflection and collective thinking,provided a model for a series ofworkshops to anchor the knowledgecreation effort. At the workshop,participants started to identify arange of process options for multi-stakeholder dialogue on a nationalscale and also started to define a setof questions and challenges thatappear to be common to all suchdialogue initiatives, providing a basisfor further inquiry and experimen-tation. Out of that original partici-pant group has emerged the core ofa broad learning network that is notonly dedicated to advancing the un-derstanding of multi-stakeholderdialogue processes but also has thepotential to strengthen democraticgovernance. Additionally, the Anti-gua meeting gave impetus to newcivic dialogue projects in Latin Ame-

Democratic Dialogue Regional Project10

rica and the Caribbean - in Paraguay,Argentina, Guatemala, and Jamaica.The combination of these projectsand other ongoing dialogues in the

region provides an invaluable “lear-ning laboratory” as the projects andworkshops move forward in a parallelmanner.


Collective Learning:Democratic Dialogue Workshops

As the central element of the know-ledge creation process, UNDPRBLAC has sponsored three work-shops over a period of two years: inAntigua, Guatemala in May 2002; inPanama in December 2002; and inBuenos Aires in December 2003.Maintaining the link to practice iscentral to the knowledge creationinitiative and is possible becausethese learning workshops, the deve-lopment of a broader learningnetwork, and a number of nationaldialogue projects have been procee-ding concurrently over this period.The workshops have involved theleaders of UNDP-sponsored projectsand other non-UNDP-relateddialogue projects both in and outsidethe region. The learning these lea-ders (they) bring from the fieldprovides the foundation for workshopdiscussions, as practitioners cometogether as peers to share theirproblems and their successes. Bycollectively devising solutions toproblems and developing an under-standing of the factors contributingto success, the practitioners in thegroup can return to the field withnew ideas to employ; in a reinforcingcycle, they can bring the results oftheir experimentation back forconsideration at the next workshop.By reporting progress to the larger

network and engaging its membersin electronic dialogue, the workshopgroup and the UNDP team has beenable to enhance the collective capa-city for analysis and theory building-all of which feed back into the cycleof experimentation and reflection.

The Workshops

Workshop I (May 2002,Guatemala)The focus of this first workshop wason creating a network of practitio-ners and beginning the process ofcollective knowledge creation.Thirty-one participants from ninecountries —Argentina, the Baha-mas, Bolivia, Colombia, Guatemala,Jamaica, Paraguay, Peru, and Vene-zuela— met for two and a half days.Workshop participants shared theirexperiences in individual and small-group conversations, as well as in fivemore formal presentations on dialo-gues in Argentina, Peru, Paraguay,and Guatemala. The workshopproduced two key outcomes: theidentification of political context asa variable of critical importance indetermining the character and im-pact of democratic dialogues; and aninitial framing of a typology of dia-logue processes to help organize and


analyze the wealth of experience theparticipants contributed to the work-shop. A full report of this meeting isavailable at www.democraticdialo-guenetwork.org

Workshop II (December 2002,Panama)For the second workshop in Panamathe UNDP invited twenty-sevenparticipants from seven countries,including the Philippines. Partici-pants presented two case studies, oneon Panama (Bambito: A Post-crisisDialogue in a Politically ImmatureCountry)(,) and one on the Philippi-nes (The Philippines: An EvolvingConcept and Practice of DemocraticDialogue). These cases illustrated abroad range of possibilities for demo-cratic dialogue and reinforced theconclusion of the first workshopregarding the importance of thecontext in which dialogue takesplace. A typology of contexts beganto emerge in this workshop, reflec-ting participants’ experience and alsoclosely aligned with recognized stagesin the ecology of conflict:

unmet needs ➡ problems ➡ conflict ➡ crisis

An afternoon of small-groupconversations was devoted to delvingdeeper into specific aspects of demo-cratic dialogue work, with the goalof developing “tools” –definitions,concepts, procedures, and measure-ments– to make the practice of demo-

cratic dialogue more effective andreplicable. In addition, building ona central theme of the first workshop,political scientist Braulia Thillet deSolórzano presented a theoreticalpaper on the relationship betweendemocratic dialogue and the esta-blished institutions of democracy.Her paper sparked extended dis-cussion of questions such as: Dodemocratic institutions and demo-cratic dialogue compete with eachother? Can democratic dialoguestrengthen democratic institutions?A full report on this conversationmay be found in the workshop reportat http://www.democraticdialogue-network.org.

Workshop III(December 2003, Argentina)

The third learning workshop, inBuenos Aires in December 2003, wasdesigned to build upon the work ofthe previous two meetings, with theintention of “moving from typologyto toolbox”. The typology of contextsprovided a framework for partici-pants to form working groups and,where participants shared theirexperiences in order to producespecific insights and recommen-dations with regards to procedures insituations of crisis, conflict, presen-ting problems, or latent problems(unmet needs). Three case presenta-tions supported this effort with caseson Diálogo Argentina, a dialoguethat took place in a severe crisis situa-


tion, Acuerdo Nacional Perú, a dia-logue to support national transition todemocracy in the midst of conflict ,and the ongoing Multi-party dialo-gue of Guatemala, a political dialo-gue in the midst of obvious problems.

The workshop also provided aspace for continuing the discussionon the relationship between democra-tic dialogue and established institu-tions of democracy. As a frameworkfor this conversation a panel presen-tation brought in the results of aparallel UNDP RBLAC project andreport, the State of Democracy inLatin America.

Participants

The majority of the participantsinvited to this learning workshop arepeople who are actively engaged indemocratic dialogue work, mostly inrecent or ongoing projects –in ourterminology, they are “practitioners”.Over the course of the project, wehave refined this designation byspecifying three groups of dialoguepractitioners: problem owners, mostoften elected officials with formalresponsibility for outcomes, forwhom democratic dialogue representsone possible means of addressingpublic issues; dialogue promoters,usually prominent people butwithout formal accountability foroutcomes; expert consultants, whohave dedicated careers to enablingand supporting democratic dialogueand advancing the state of the art.A smaller number of participants are

academics who are approaching thefield from at a more theoretical level.The assembled group represents arange of disciplines and dialoguemethodologies, and brings a wealthof practical experience.

Another criterion for joiningthese workshops is that participantsbe open to an interactive and colla-borative approach to learning andknowledge creation. In contrast to atraditional meeting of academics orprofessionals, there are no expertspresenting their ideas to a passiveaudience. Instead, the workshopstake shape around the problems andissues that practitioners bring fromtheir work and around mutual sha-ring of experience and best practices.In this way, workshop-participantsco-create new knowledge aboutdemocratic dialogue processes andpractices.

Facilitation

A team representative of the part-nership among The Global LeadershipInitiative, Generon, SoL, MIT, andUNDP facilitates the workshops andsupports the learning process with aworkshop report. Building upon thereport of the 2000 Antigua work-shop, this document has been gro-wing and evolving over the two-yearduration of the Regional Project.The report captures key ideas aboutuseful tools and their applications,best practices, problem solutions, inaddition to the stories of practical


applications that help to make theideas usable. The report also helps tomaintain continuity and momentumfrom workshop to workshop. It doesthis, for example, by providing a basis

for continuing discussion amongparticipants, and by enabling newparticipants to effectively gain know-ledge on prior work, with a fullaccount of past proceedings.


The Learning Network:Activities In-between Workshops

As described, throughout most of thetwo years of the Regional Project, thenumber of actual workshop partici-pants has been relatively small andlimited primarily to active practitio-ners in regional democratic dialogueprojects. In the long run, however,the number of people we intend tobring into the knowledge creationprocess is much larger. To obtain themost comprehensive, robust, andefficient outcome as possible, it isnecessary to increase the number ofpractitioners. Maintaining conti-nuity and momentum at both levelsis the primary goal of network buil-ding in the project.

A network of practitioners andlearners. Creating a broad networkof co-learners and practitioners ofdemocratic dialogue is a key objec-tive of the Regional Project. Theworkshop participants, of course,form a critically important part ofthis network. Between workshops,UNDP RBLAC and its partners haveworked to sustain their connectionto the project and each other throughpersonal contact by the RegionalProject staff, based in Guatemala,through circulation of the workshopreport and related email correspon-

dence, and through the creation of aproject web site.

UNDP RBLAC has expandedthe network by bringing its residentrepresentatives into the process ofevaluating workshop results andshaping the project to address theneeds of people working on theground in the region to advance theuse of democratic dialogue. Inaddition, in July 2003, UNDPRBLAC convened a meeting in NewYork, to invite into the learningnetwork potential organizationalpartners from both inside and outsideUNDP. This group agreed to con-tinue meeting and to work in parallelwith the learning workshops on a fewspecific issues such as, evaluation.

The UNDP web site: http://www.democraticdialoguenetwork.org.Early in the Regional Project, UNDPRBLAC established a site dedicatedto this initiative, providing readyaccess to all of the materials produ-ced in connection to the workshop -all reports as well as the case studiesand academic papers. In 2003,UNDP expanded this site to providean interactive discussion space. Thefirst web-forum to be held at this siteaddressed the topic of the emergingtypology of dialogue.


Theoretical Framework for ColletiveKnowledge Creation

2 See G. Carstedt, “About SoL,” Reflections: The SoL Journal of Knowledge, Learning, and Change 1:1(1999): 2.

3 E. Wenger, Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge, Mass.: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1998.

1. The Link to Practice:Co-creating Knowledge

Knowledge creation is one center-piece of the Regional Project. Howe-ver, we must be clear that the goal isto produce actionable knowledge-concepts and tools grounded intheory but informed by practice andtested in the field. Engaging prac-titioners in the knowledge creationprocess and creating a learning cycleof action, reflection, and new actionare key for accomplishing the projectobjectives.

1.1 SoL (Society forOrganizational Learning)

The methodologies upon which theknowledge creation initiative buildsare connected to the work of SoL,the former MIT-OrganizationalLearning Center. SoL is a global lear-ning community that is dedicated tobuilding knowledge about funda-mental institutional change throughthe integration of

1. Research (disciplined pursuit ofdiscovery and understanding)

2. Capacity building (developingnew individual and collectivecapabilities)

3. Practice (the application of con-cepts and tools in pursuit of spe-cific ends)2

The integration of these threeareas allows for a knowledge creationprocess that is theoretically solid andequally applicable. Knowledge emer-ges from the interaction of reflectionand practice and is embodied in ca-pacities that individuals can learnand use in their daily work.

1.2 Communities of Practice

A knowledge creation process thatclaims to generate applicable andtransferable knowledge must be aco-creation process that involvespractitioners and researchers. The theo-retical framework for this approachis founded on the idea of communitiesof practice,3 originally developed by


4 The theory of knowledge creations this cycles goes back to the work of David Kolb (D Kolb,Experimental Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1984), Peter Senge (P. Senge, TheFifth Discipline Fieldbook, New York, NY: Doubleday Currency, 1994), and Ch. Argyris and D.Schoen (Ch. Argyris and D. Schoen, Organizational Learning II, Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley,1996)

5 Ch. Argyris., R. Putnam and D. McLain Smith. Action Science. Concepts, Methods, and Skills forResearch and Intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985.

6 Argyris, Ch. Knowledge For Action. A Guide to Overcoming Barriers to Organizational Change. SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1993,

former Institute for Research onLearning, Menlo Park, California. Inhis work on communities of practice,Etienne Wenger argues that learningis fundamentally experiential, social,and embedded in work practices.The participants of workshops I-IIIare practitioners-the initiators andleaders of multi-stakeholder consen-sus building efforts in their countries.The workshops provide them withreflective space and a learningcommunity composed mainly ofother practitioners.

1.3 Action Learning

All social learning processes arebased on iterative processes of actionand reflection-on establishing afeedback loop between the two.4 AsChris Argyris points out, understan-ding cannot be separated fromknowledge-in-action.5/6 We refer tothis link as action learning. Thestructure of the UNDP RBLACknowledge creation effort reflectsthis understanding. The workshopsserve as a learning infrastructure forpractitioners by allowing them toreflect on their experience in thefield. After each workshop, practitio-ners return again to that work, imple-

ment and test what they have lear-ned in the workshops, and then bringnew experience to the next work-shop.

2. Workshop Characteristics

“Peace by peaceful means,” is an ideaGandhi used to teach, where themeans need to reflect the end goal.This fractal principle underlies eachelement of our workshop design. Thestructure and method of the fourknowledge creation workshops drawon many of the same principles thatunderlie multi-stakeholder dialogue,such as fostering meaningfulconversation, collective vision andshared commitment, and ultimatelyeffective action in the world.

2.1 Dialogue:the Art of Thinking Together

The term dialogue has its origin inthe Greek words dia • logos, whichtranslates as through the word. Basedon the work of the quantum physicistDavid Bohm, who throughout hisacademic life sustained an interest inunderstanding the nature of commu-


7 D. Bohm, On Dialogue. Ojal, Ca.: David Bohm Seminars, 1990, p. 1.8 See W. Isaacs, Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together. New York, NY: Doubleday Currency, 1999.9 See also www.dialogonleadership.org sponsored by Sol and McKinsey & Comp.10 C.O. Scharmer and K. Käufer: Dialogue as a Social Technology. Understanding underlying Dynamics,

Cambridge, Mass, forthcoming 2003; C.O. Scharmer: Self-Transcending Knowledge. OrganizingAround Emerging Realities. In: I. Nonaka and D. Teece: Managing Industrial Knowledge. Creation,Transfer and Utilization. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publication, 2001.

11 J. B. Miller and I. P. Stiver, The Healing Connection. Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press, 1997.

Figure 1: Four phases of conversation10

nication, we define dialogue as the“flow of meaning” in a group “out ofwhich will emerge some newunderstanding.”7 In action research,we think of dialogue as “the art ofthinking together.”8 Dialogue isdifferent from discussion, debate, andnegotiation- it involves sharing ideasand also the assumptions-or mentalmodels-underlying them in a non-judgmental atmosphere that createsspace for self-examination, openingthe way to mutual understanding andshared commitment to action. Be-cause all lasting change requiresaccessing the deeper levels of belief,experience, and feelings that governhuman behavior, dialogue is a coresocial technology for any kind ofchange process.9

2.2 The Process of Conversation

When groups engage in a dialogueprocess, the quality of relationshipsamong the participants typically mo-ves through phases of conversation.These phases differ in terms of thecharacteristics of the interaction, asdescribed in the diagram below.

Relational Theory proposes amodel of human development-”growth in connection”—that em-phasizes the critically important roleof social, relational interactions inthe growth process.11 Table 1 suggestshow this theory illuminates the dy-namics underlying the four phases ofconversation.


12 Joyce K. Fletcher, Disappearing Acts: Gender, Power, and Relational Practice at Work. Cambridge,Mass.: MIT Press, 1999. See also Rhona Rapoport, Lotte Bailyn, Joyce K. Fletcher, and Bettye H.Pruitt, Beyond Work-Family Balance: Advancing Gender Equity and Workplace Performance. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass, forthcoming, 2002.

Table 1: Relational FieldStructure: Example Conversation

Talking Nice

■ Dominant Logic: Rule repeating,politeness

■ Listening as projecting mentalmodels

■ Relational Dynamic: Focus is onself as perceived by others;“wanting to be liked”

Talking Tough

■ Dominant Logic: Debate, clash,conflict

■ Listening from outside (as“reloading”)

■ Relational Dynamic: Focus onadvocacy and self; fighting forpower and legitimacy

Reflective Dialogue

■ Dominant Logic: Inquiry, ques-tioning

■ Listening from within (empathiclistening)

■ Relational Dynamic: Mutuality;self-in relation

Generative Dialogue

■ Dominant Logic: Self-transcen-ding, co-creating

■ Listening from the highest futurepossibility that is wanting to e-merge

■ Relational Dynamic: Collectivegrowth

2.3 Fluid Expertise

The operative dynamic of the work-shops will be fluid expertise, with therole of expert shifting from person toperson according to who has know-ledge or experience relevant to thesubject at hand. This concept comesout of recent research applyingrelational theory to the workplace.When working together in thismode, individual members of a groupmove in and out of expert and non-expert roles, “with a genuineopenness to being influenced by andlearning from others.”12 The dynamicof mutuality and the human connec-tions it produces typically unleash agreat deal of energy and creativity.These kinds of interactions are essen-tial elements of truly collaborativeefforts such as the collective know-ledge creation process envisioned inthe Regional Project.

2.4 Tacit and Explicit Knowledge:Toolboxes and Storytelling

The knowledge creation effort aimsat bringing forth the tacit as well as


13 I. Nonaka, and H. Takeuchi. The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Createthe Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 1995.

14 M. Polanyi, The Tacit Dimension, New York: Doubleday & Co., 1967.15 J. Fletcher, Disappearing Acts.16 See Peter Senge and others, The Dance of Change (New York: Doubleday, 1999); G. Roth and A.

Kleiner, “Organizational Reflection: Developing Organizational Memory through LearningHistories,” Organizational Dynamics 27:2 (1998): 43-60; and A. Kleiner and G. Roth, “How toMake Experience Your Company’s Best Teacher,” Harvard Business Review 75:5 (1996): 172-77.

the explicit knowledge that prac-titioners bring into the workshops.13

Explicit knowledge describes know-what.. The challenge in making itactionable is one of relevance-determining what kind of explicitknowledge is relevant in eachspecific circumstance. This is thekind of information we aim tocapture in a methodological toolboxand in the workshop report. Tacitknowledge, in contrast, is embodiedunderstanding.14 This knowledge isconnected to action-it is knowledgein use. The action portion of theRegional project will generate tacitknowledge as it develops the skillsand experience of practitioners in thefield. The challenge in this case willbe to bring the results of this capacitybuilding into the workshops and theworkshop report, so that tacit under-standing can become replicable. Thisis where we expect storytelling toplay a critical role, providing a vehi-cle for drawing tacit knowledge outof concrete experience in a form thatothers can use.

3. Knowledge Transfer

The project aims at creating newknowledge and also at developing aformat that will allow for the transfer

of knowledge so that it may be usedin different settings.

3.1 Language of Competence

In addition to the above, this knowledgecreation effort aims at developing alanguage of competence for thesocial technologies important todemocratic dialogue.15 Fletcherargues that valuable relational prac-tices, such as mutual empowermentand fluid expertise, have been invisi-ble because we lacked the languageto describe and capture them. Yetthese are precisely the kind ofpractices that are needed to bring awider range of voices into the dis-course on national policy andgovernance. Our goal is to co-createa language of competence for demo-cratic dialogue together with prac-titioners who can test both thepractices and the descriptive lan-guage in the field.

3.2 Learning Histories

The learning history is an actionlearning methodology developed atthe MIT Organizational LearningCenter as a tool for promoting andfacilitating reflection in action


17 For a theoretical overview, see H. Bradbury and C. Mainemelis, “Learning History and OrganizationalPraxis,” Journal of Management Inquiry, 2001 forthcoming.

learning initiatives.16 It draws heavilyon oral history techniques and ontwo streams of organizational lear-ning theory: one which addresses thecritical integration of action andreflection in creating usable; and theother which argues for a particularrole for reflection on past actions asproviding leverage for change.17 Theconcept of bringing forth tacit know-ledge through storytelling is alsorelevant to this methodology. Alearning history tells the story of achange initiative as a “jointly-toldtale,” incorporating the perspectivesof both participants and externalobservers, clearly demarcated in atwo-column format. It promotesreflection, in the first instance,through the process of the oral histo-ry interviews and, secondarily,through preparation and dissemina-tion of the learning history docu-ment which can be read and discu-ssed, both by the interviewees andby others. As part of the first phaseof work on the Regional Project,UNDP commissioned learninghistories of civic scenario projects inSouth Africa (Mont Fleur), Colom-bia (Destino Colombia), and Gua-temala (Visión Guatemala), whichhelped to provide the basis for reflec-tion and discussion at the 2000Antigua workshop.

3.3 The Workshop Report

The methodology we are using inconstructing the workshop report-

the first installment of which reportson the 2000 Antigua meeting-drawson the learning history idea. Thus,it is not intended to be simply adocument for communicating theactivities and conclusions of theRegional Project, but a resource forreflection by project participants asthe project unfolds. Like learninghistories, the report uses a two-column format to facilitate bringingthe voices of workshop participantsdirectly into the document throughquotations drawn from meetingtranscripts and oral history inter-views. In this case, however, thequotations will not carry the narra-tive, but will amplify it. Our plan forworking interactively and collabo-ratively with workshop participantsto shape this document as it evolvesover the course of the RegionalProject draws on the concept of fluidexpertise. We envision active enga-gement of the entire workshop groupin shaping the content of the report.

3.4 Case Study Methodology

Over the course of the project, theworkshop facilitation team, incooperation with UNDP RBLAC,has developed a case study metho-dology to help provide consistencyin the cases presented in the work-shops and to provide a basis for con-tinuing recuperation of cases asdialogue projects continue to unfoldin the region. The distinctive featu-


res of the case methodology are thefollowing:

■ Cases use a two column format thatallows for a combination of thecase plot with a reflective voice

■ The cases make extensive use ofthe original voice of the parti-cipants

■ Case preparation is iterative, allo-wing the interviewees to partici-pate in shaping the interpretationof events

■ Dialogue-interviews, which aim atuncovering the deeper andunderlying layers of an event, areused whenever possible


Outcomes of the KnowledgeCreation Process

Through its focus on practice andexperimentation in the field, thiseffort aims to produce not just animproved conceptual understandingof multi-stakeholder dialogue, butconcrete, practical information onhow it can be used to strengthendemocratic institutions. Rather thana single methodology applicable toall places and situations, the goal isto develop a deep understanding ofthe array of methods available-theparticular strengths of each, and theissues that cut across all. The desiredoutcome of this stage of knowledgecreation is to produce a typology thatfacilitates an understanding withrespect to how democratic dialoguecan be used effectively in differentproblem contexts, combined with a“toolbox” that offers more opera-tional support - concrete suggestionsfrom which people can draw to fittheir specific needs, feeling confidentthat the tools have been tested and

proven effective. These outputs willhelp to make multi-stakeholderdialogue a tool of first resort in socie-ties seeking democratic solutions tocomplex problems.

Another important outcome isthe learning network itself-a networkof well-informed people committedto advancing dialogue and strengthe-ning democratic institutions, not justin Latin America, but also on a glo-bal basis.

The site is:www.democraticdialoguenetwork.org.

To facilitate dissemination ofthe project’s results, and to continueto expand the network by supportinginterested people in continuing thework, the project produces an arrayof materials and makes them widelyavailable on this web site.

The edition of Knowledge Creation within the UNDP/RBLACwas printed by Magna Terra editores in october 2004.

knowledge creation

Documents

knowledge creation process

collectiveknowledge

25contents7knowledge

knowledge transfer

workshop characteristics

democratic dialogue

guatemala citytels

collective learning