Peace and Conflict Studies - Spring 2014

Peace and Conflict Studies Volume 21, Number 1 62 iterative rounds of conversations, usually no more than three, with each round lasting between twenty to thirty minutes (Brown & Isaacs, 2005). After the first round of conversation, participants are invited to move to another table and share their ideas with the newly-formed group (Brown et al., 2007). Usually one participant stays at the table and serves as a “host” to the new group and shares with the new participants the highlights of the earlier conversation (Brown & Isaacs, 2005). After several rounds of conversations the whole group engages in mutual reflection and a conversation to identify patterns, discuss what they have discovered, and share ideas that are meaningful to them (Brown & Isaacs, 2005). The collective knowledge is made visible by writing or drawing the ideas that surfaced throughout the process (Brown & Isaacs, 2005). These ideas, as explained later on, may lead to action. The World Café approach entails a dialogue process which is built on the assumption that people already possess the wisdom and creativity to engage challenges and also, the following seven core principles: 1) clarify purpose and parameters; 2) focus on questions that encourage collaborative participation; 3) encourage full participation; 4) cross-pollinate and connect diverse perspectives; 5) listen together for patterns, insights and deeper questions; 6) share collective knowledge; and 7) create a hospitable space (Tan & Brown, 2005). World Café is a deceptively simple process (Prewitt, 2011). Its simplicity and lack of emphasis on problem-solving is what makes it such a powerful process in surfacing implicit beliefs and social forces such as those that perpetuate unequal treatment during end-of-life care. World Café theory and practice is partly informed by Bohm’s (1996) approach to dialogue (as cited in Prewitt, 2011). Bohm (1996) posits that in order to think in new ways, society’s tacit infrastructure (e.g., assumptions, attitudes and beliefs that are rigidly and unconsciously held) need to be unearthed and understood through a dialogic process that requires the suspension of assumptions and values (as cited in Nichol, 2003). Bringing these assumptions to light and reflecting upon them could reveal “blind spots” that allow participants of the dialogue process to achieve greater collective understanding and learning (Prewitt, 2011, p. 191, as cited in Atlee, 2009; Hansen, 2008). When participants act based on this collective understanding and learning one can see the tangible results of the World Café conversations (Brown, 2001). Participants of the initial small group conversations share their new ideas with other groups and this creates the possibility of large-scale institutional and societal change (Brown, 2001; Brown et al., 2007). For example, World Café dialogue may raise awareness of how the system operates and raise consciousness about the need for institutional change. At the