Who Owns the Conversation?

It feels to me like there’s a long way to go in understanding the purpose of community conversations as a tool to build community rather than engage.

I heard a story the other day about an institution that was seeking to develop some community led work in a neighbourhood, that also had some top down reporting requirements.  That in itself is always a tricky challenge.

So they’ve been doing engagement type activities.  Officers and services showing up in community space, setting up a table and talking with anyone who comes through the door.  I remember once writing a guide to consulting with children called, ‘getting past the swimming pool’, and it often makes me wonder if these types of events don’t produce the same kind of outcomes.  Conversation is less likely to flow about community life and more likely to be focussed on whatever uniform the professional is wearing.  Obviously, there’s a place for that, but not at the start I’d argue, and I’ve learned too.  Sitting in the street, talking in bumping spots, opens up a whole range of different conversations, ones that are more focussed on the primary assets and what local people care enough about to act on together.

I suppose the question at the core of this, is, What is the purpose of the conversations and who do they belong to?  Will a board of people extract them, analyse them and decide how they’ll solve local problems, with a box ticked that local people are involved because a community organisation is on the board?  Or are we creating spaces in which community members can share the learning themselves?  

I heard too a story about a local person going to one of these such partnership boards, with their local insights and leaving feeling embarrassed and shamed.  They were the only one from the community. We’ve a long way to go if we believe that this is co-production.  And even further if we believe this to be community led.