Page 363 - Mike Ratner CC - WISR Complete Dissertation - v6
P. 363

the importance of space creation  too. Ultimately, the space created for dialogue I describe as

               Metasphere should be welcoming and continuously value input and participant contribution.



                       The literature references two activities that lead to effective environments and public places

               conducive to convening civic and deliberative dialogue groups. Forming a supportive environment


               for dialogues about race, aided members of the dialogue groups in quickly moving the discourse

               and exchange of stories and experiences in a place of intimacy that supported personal risk taking


               and vulnerability; described as norming and storming (Tuckman, 1965). During the dialogues on

               implicit bias held in Albany NY, participants and facilitators co-created a space where participants


               were comfortable exchanging ideas and points of view and reacting candidly about how and what

               they were feeling and experiencing with regard to comments made during the dialogue. At times

               there was considerable tension and disagreement among and between participants which could be


               described a strong, emotional, argumentative and passionate, or seen as the group storming phase.


                       In this regard, the space for dialogue consisted of the physical qualities of the meeting


               place,  and the non-physical  aspects  of comfort  and safety felt by participants  in  the dialogue

               meeting rooms. The physical qualities of public space and ones felt sense of comfort contributed


               greatly to the level of participation by attendees and their willingness to remain engaged and return

               for future dialogue sessions. Young’s (2011) characterization of public space is apropos to the


               public race dialogues: “by definition a public space is a place accessible to anyone, where anyone

               can participate and witness, in entering the public one always risks encounters with those who are


               different, those who identify with different groups and have different opinions or different forms

               of life” (p. 240). When the dialogue in the second CC session focused on race, the venue location


               seemed a source of tension for two White, female participants. For one White female participant

               the thought of being seen entering or leaving certain dialogue venues in particular neighborhoods


                                                             344
   358   359   360   361   362   363   364   365   366   367   368