Values Grid Session: Community Debate on Biodiversity

This initiative drew on participatory communication involving 3 different stages of group and individual work:

1. Participants were provided with both written and verbal instructions, including an overview on biodiversity and the purpose of the session. The moderator also provided a values grid form and personal factual data form, offering coaching on how to complete these forms. The moderator encouraged participants to interact, deciding which 3-6 issues are relevant for biodiversity in their community. The issues that participants agreed upon were written on a flipchart and then on each participant's values grid form.
2. Participants worked individually, as instructed. Specifically, each participant was asked to privately write a few key words to summarise his own position on each issue, and then to answer 7 questions: Are you proud of (do you prize or cherish) your position? Have you publicly affirmed your position? Have you chosen your position from alternatives? Have you chosen your position after thoughtful consideration of the pros and cons, and the consequences? Have you chosen your position freely? Have you acted or done anything about your beliefs? Have you acted with repetition, pattern or consistency on the issue? Each participant then completed the personal factual data form.
3. Participants then clustered into discussion groups (of 3-6 people each) and debated one topic selected from among those earlier identified by the whole group as relevant for biodiversity. Each group member discussed his position on the issue and the firmness of the position. At the end of the session the moderator collected the documents from the participants, encouraging them to informally interact over refreshments.

Organisers contend that this technique facilitates identification of issues of interest for participants (as opposed to presenting them with a pre-determined set of questions), which engaged participants in debates designed to foster changes in values and attitudes. In addition, they say that the event produced information that could be statistically analysed and used in comparative research. The fact that information was collected in written form was found to be a more cost-effective way of gathering data than recording debates, transferring the audio content into written format, and then executing content analysis of the transcripts.

Biodiversity.