|
Introduction:
Robert Stains, program director of the Public Conversations Project,
discusses the difference between visible and invisible products of dialogue. He notes
that while respectful conversation and the transformation of people's attitudes are
in a sense invisible, they are nonetheless quite valuable. The problem is that the lack of
visible outcomes often makes it difficult to get funding.
| |
This rough transcript provides a text alternative to audio. We apologize for occasional errors and unintelligible sections (which are marked with ???).
Invisible vs. Visible Products
Robert Stains
Program Director, Public Conversations Project, Watertown, Massachusetts
| |
Q: What are the most common obstacles to the success of your work?
A: Overall, as a culture, I think,
there's a great product orientation. I think that the products that are valued
are the products that are observable. So being able to see, even at the dialogue
conference, often when people made the delineation between dialogue and action,
even there, I felt that it was the manifestation of a product-oriented approach,
as if dialogue, shifting understanding, and shifting one's own mental framework was not
action because it is not visible. We talk about invisible and visible actions.
We tend to trade much more in invisible actions, but our culture prizes
visible actions. That's a really big barrier, especially to funding, where we
are trying to describe the effects of what we do, and how the world is going to
be a better place, and so forth.
Q: So you were saying that you have a long line of people coming to ask you
to intervene. Do they understand that difference between the product and the
visible and the invisible?
A: Yeah, the people that seek our services out understand us pretty well.
They tend to be involved in conflicts where the cost of the conflict is so high
that just getting people into the room for a conversation is a worthy enough
goal, because it's to that point in the conflict. In some instances we've been
involved in people have spat on each other, physically pushed each other around,
and that's the extent of their interaction. Just to get them to have a
respectful conversation is pretty cool.
Q: After the abortion doctor's murder here in the Boston area, I'd be willing
to venture that there would have been any number of organizations that would
have been willing to throw money to some sort of initiative that would work to
assuage the tensions at that point. I'm wondering if you think that it's almost a
reactive thing that people aren't willing to put money into proactive programs
that don't have visible outcomes, but they're more willing to do it after a
terrible thing like violence or a murder takes place?
A: Yeah, I think that's true in a lot of areas. Before I came to PCP, I was
working for National Homelessness Foundation, which was sort of a pass through
for money. We found that when there was a death, like a homeless person would
starve to death, or freeze to death, people were more willing to fund a project,
and then it would die down. I think that we're just subject to the same sort of
cycles that other public service organizations are.
Q: Do you think that cycle makes it look like these projects are less
valuable because they are always done after the fact? I mean, if you could do
your work and be proactive and get initiatives before a crisis erupted.
A: Right, but it is hard to find a funder. For a while, Hewlett was funding a
lot of initiatives like ours. They were funding us for infrastructure
development and that kind preventive work. It was really great that they were
doing that work. Its tough to find a funder that will pay for something, the
outcome of which you cannot describe, or even guarantee that there's going to be
any change.
|