If you have identified polarisation or outrage that might impact your deliberation, there may be some work to do before the issue is brought to the deliberation stage.
This work can be complex and time-consuming and getting to the point where you are ready for deliberation may take years or decades depending on the context.
It’s important to note that polarisation does not necessarily need to be “solved” or “dealt with” before a process can begin. Understanding and learning is essential beforehand but during the process polarisation sometimes only needs to be (respectfully) acknowledged and managed.
Mosaic Lab has the following advice
Where people hold polar opposite views, it’s important to gain a deeper understanding of the community’s polarisation before choosing a process (deliberative or otherwise) to deal with the issue. This can be done as part of a wider engagement process of interviewing a range of community members and documenting the different perspectives that people hold on the topic.
“Responding to Community Outrage: Strategies for Effective Risk Communication” by Peter M. Sandman is a seminal work focused on the field of risk communication, especially on how to effectively communicate risks to communities that are upset or outraged.
The book outlines Sandman’s Risk Communication Model, which distinguishes between the technical assessment of risk and the psychological perception of risk. Sandman posits that the level of concern or outrage felt by the public about a particular issue is often influenced more by factors unrelated to the actual, technical risk involved. These factors can include trust in the institution or company communicating the risk, the fairness and transparency of the process, and the degree of control people feel they have over the risk.
Sandman’s main argument is that effective risk communication must address both the technical aspects of the risk and the community’s emotional response to it. He offers a variety of strategies for communicators to better engage with their audiences, aiming to decrease outrage and improve understanding and cooperation. These strategies include being honest and transparent, acknowledging and addressing emotions, listening to and involving the community in the decision-making process, and providing clear and actionable advice on how individuals can protect themselves or reduce their risk.
Here’s a list of key strategies outlined in Sandman:
These strategies emphasize the importance of treating the community with respect, understanding their concerns, and communicating in an open, honest, and empathetic manner. Effective risk communication is not just about conveying facts but also about building and maintaining trust.
“Polarity Management: Identifying and Managing Unsolvable Problems” by Barry Johnson introduces the concept of polarity management, which is a framework used to address issues that cannot be solved in the traditional sense but rather managed over time. These issues, or polarities, are interdependent values that exist in a state of tension with each other.
Johnson argues that many of the challenges we face in organizations, communities, and personal lives are not problems to be solved, but polarities to be managed. A classic example of such a polarity is the need for change versus the need for stability. Both elements are essential, and focusing exclusively on one at the expense of the other can lead to failure.
The book outlines a methodology for identifying polarities and demonstrates how to manage them effectively. This involves recognizing the values inherent in each pole, understanding the negative consequences of overemphasizing one pole and developing strategies to leverage the strengths of both poles.
It challenges the either/or thinking that often dominates problem-solving efforts and replaces it with a both/and perspective that embraces complexity and fosters more adaptive and resilient systems. This has applications to many fields but is well suited to deliberation.
Polarity Management is a continuous process of identifying, mapping, assessing, learning, acting, and adjusting.
It emphasises the importance of recognizing and valuing the benefits of both sides of a polarity, rather than seeking a permanent solution to what is essentially an ongoing dynamic. By following this methodology, organisations and individuals can navigate complex issues more effectively, leading to more sustainable and balanced outcomes.
