“I recently used LDD when holding a dialogue space at a conference for social work researchers. The invitation to delegates was to come along to a 2hr facilitated dialogue to talk about anything that was important to them.
I used the dynamic dialogue/soft shoe shuffle to explore the topic had been decided on. I started by setting up how it would work - this is a dialogue on its feet and I am going to ask anyone who has a view on the topic we’ve chosen to share their view. I will stand next the person speaking and gently turn up the volume’ of what they have said by re-stating their view. I will then invite anyone who agrees with that view to stand alongside the person who has spoken. If you don’t agree don’t move and I will ask your view. We finished with a round of awarenesses that we recorded and transcribed later.
Participants were struck by the power of amplification and reflected that they felt understood (most were speaking in their second or third language) ‘I think the technique that you used is brilliant. And hearing what I was saying through your words was an experience in itself. It’s like translating all the nonsense into something that makes sense.’
There was also a sense of the tool creating clarity and sharpening the exchange - ‘the methods help a lot a lot, they structure it. I was super impressed by your ability to bringing it on the point. I enjoyed that very much.’
The use of the dynamic dialogue also allowed people to slow down, to listen, to reflect and to form meaningful connections.
One participant said ‘for me the first thought that came to my mind was how brilliantly the connections were nurtured, because I think there’s a lot of talk of how difficult it is to make real connections. But my experience today was that it was really easy to do that, because we really opened ourselves to it, it’s not that difficult.’
My learning was that dynamic dialogue was a brilliant tool for creating deep connection quickly amongst people who, for the most part, don’t know each other. There were deep and personal experiences shared in a very short space of time which I found profoundly moving. I also noticed that in an academic environment where people are more used to be in their heads, the Dynamic Dialogue offered an embodied experience and a space where emotions were welcome and people really valued that.
I have also been using DD in the context of a pilot prisons project called ‘The Conversation’ run by Spark Inside. The aim of the pilot was to bring staff and prisoners together ‘to improve living and working conditions on their residential unit’.
In the first session, we had 4 officers and 7 prisoners. The atmosphere was fizzy, there was anticipation mixed with nerves and a dose of distrust and scepticism.
We started by using the LDD check in - my hope for today and a part of me that doesn’t want to be there. Some of the group acknowledged that they didn’t want to be there and one of the officers named that ‘this feels awkward, I’m not gonna lie.’ We moved on and shared the image of the iceberg and the waterline.
There was lots of chat and fidgeting and I realised we were starting to lose the group’s attention. I interrupted my co-facilitator to name what was happening - I said ‘sitting here together like this in a circle is weird isn’t it? This isn’t the norm and it feels strange’. I perceived a collective sigh followed by a settling of energies.
The role of awkwardness that the officer had named in the check-in was now clearly above the waterline and in our shared collective consciousness.
We went into the Dynamic Dialogue with energy and started by establishing safety rules but there was a sense of impatience and desire to move into the dialogue. We started by asking: ‘what is it like to live and work on 6A?’.
Prisoners shared their frustrations at the lack of resources, symbolised by a table tennis table that had been broken for months. One said, it felt like ‘suffering for people I’ve not even met’. Staff recognised their frustrations but shared that as officers they had no power to replace the table tennis table nor did they decide at what time prisoners would be locked up in their cells. One officer said ‘we are just trying to make things run smoothly’ which generated full agreement in the group.
There was some recognition from the prisoners that the officers in the room were not responsible for decisions made by more senior staff members. One prisoner spoke directly to an incident where an officer (who was participating in the session on his first day back at work after taking some time off) had been attacked by a prisoner (not in the room) by saying, ‘it wasn’t personal, it was about X’s frustration with the system and the (staff) higher ups’. This was a powerful moment, where something that everyone in the room was aware of but up until that point had been under the waterline, was spoken and the possible reasons for it were shared.
We finished the session with a round of insights and awarenesses and I was struck by how much understanding and empathy there was between officer and prisoners. One officer said ‘we’re on the same side with lots of things. Perhaps more than we thought.’
We went on to work with the group for a further two sessions using Dynamic Dialogue and invited some more senior staff and other prisoners to join the sessions. By the end of the pilot there were high levels of commitment to the project and a greater understanding between participants. One prisoner who had been at all three sessions said, ‘there’s a big difference in the group and a better relationship with staff.’ An officer reflected ‘I’m excited for the future and what we can do. I want to make it better for us all.’”
