Kristina Wimberley – Copenhagen
When I worked with UNICEF and WHO (1998-2002) I became completely “converted” to VIPP. However, I am wondering whether it is just as applicable in a Danish setting. In Denmark, there is an “ideology of sameness” which means that everyone should – ideally – be equal. This is expressed in many ways, but typically it involves sitting around a table at the same eye level and talking, and talking, and talking in a cosy atmosphere…. When I facilitated a session using VIPP last week, one feedback I got was that they felt that I was “distanced” from the group because I didn’t join the others in their discussions. This was because I was standing up a lot of the time and not sitting down with them. Clearly, I would do that more another time, but it got me thinking about whether I broke an unspoken cultural rule. Has anyone else experienced something similar?
Feb 5, 11:27 PM
Timmi Tillmann
In group situations exist cultural preferences and I would not deny the possibility that you may have broken a cultural rule. However, there is also another explanation: Did you make your role transparent and explain beforehand that you will be the facilitator and that the aim of this role is to make group discussions more effective and more democratic? This usually works to evoke a different reaction. Once participants feel the advantage of facilitation, they will accept it, in my experience.
Then, you may think about the value of sameness and power relations – did you affect the power balance or relations within the group by taking a different role? I have experienced that “talkshops” do not lead to action (NATO – No Action, Talk Only), participants are used to it, do not have to change their attitudes and it does not affect the status quo. By adding visualisation and key questions to organise the discussion the participants may feel challenged and uncomfortable. Such methods have been used in a lot of social development agencies across Europe and also in the private sector in some countries.
