Addressing Power in Conversation

Abstract

The World Café (TWC), used as an effective conversational tool around the world, shares several tenets with other participatory approaches to learning and development. It has not been critiqued, however, for its insufficient attention to reflexivity, power differentials, and structural inequalities within its process, specifically in relation to TWC facilitators. As a group of women from diverse social locations and backgrounds committed to the pursuit of social justice, we sought this opportunity to explore and investigate the transformative learning capacities of TWC, with the broader goal of enhancing its usability in education and community settings. We reviewed and critiqued TWC conversation approach, suggesting stronger links to liberatory education and transformative learning theories. Using a participatory action research process leading to cocreated knowledge, we developed an Emancipatory Learning Charter, a new tool that can enhance the transformative learning potential of TWC.

Keywords

conversation reflexivity participatory action research liberatory education transformative learning

To continue to be in good conversation over our enormous and terrifying problems is to be calling out to each other in the night. If we attend with imagination and devotion to our conversations, we will find what we need; and someone among us will act—it does not matter whom—and we will survive.

Lopez, 1996, para. 13

Introduction

This article investigates the transformative learning capacities of the World Café (TWC; TWC, 2015) in academic and community settings. TWC, an increasingly popular and internationally recognized conversation process of engaging large groups of people (Brown & Isaacs, 2005), has yet to be examined and critiqued for transformative capacities. This study was initiated during a social work doctoral program by experienced social workers who were also doctoral students and faculty, with similar interests in exploring transformative approaches to learning.

As a group of women from diverse backgrounds and social locations with experience facilitating and participating in TWC, we found ourselves connected through our support of a social justice paradigm, grounded in social work professional ethics (Canadian Association of Social Workers [CASW], n.d.). For instance, the CASW Code of Ethics underscores the centrality of individual and collective well-being, the pursuit of social justice for all, and the important role of relationships in human lives (CASW, n.d.).

As a starting point for this study, we asked ourselves: “Can society be changed through conversation or dialogue?” And if so, “what are the core underpinnings of transformative conversations?” To respond to this question, it was necessary to identify a definition for “conversations.” This term is generally interpreted as “an informal talk involving two people or a group of people” (Merriam-Webster, 2015a). Dialogue is similarly defined as a “discussion … [or] a conversation between two or more people” (Merriam-Webster, 2015b). Given the parallel usage of both terms, we use conversation and “dialogue” interchangeably within this study. From a liberatory education perspective, the theoretical lens used for this article, we determined that conversation or dialogue must be “critical and liberating” (Freire, 1970, p. 1). It was through this same framework that we examined the transformative potential of TWC. We used a participatory action research (PAR) process (Fals Borda, 1991) as a method for our analysis.

In this article, we provide an overview of TWC, followed by a summary of the theoretical and methodological underpinnings of this study. We then discuss and critique the transformative capacities of TWC by focusing on three major areas: (a) a limited emphasis on reflexivity, (b) the lack of attention to power differentials, specifically in relation to TWC facilitators, and (c) a lack of attention to structural inequities. Advancing from our critique, we discuss how TWC could be strengthened by aligning itself with a liberatory or critical pedagogy and transformative learning paradigm. We then propose a 7-point Emancipatory Learning Charter (the Charter) to supplement TWC and enhance the transformative learning capacities of this conversation process. Finally, with the infusion of the Charter, we discuss the implications of our adapted TWC process in academic and community settings.

TWC Process: An Overview

TWC, originated by Juanita Brown and David Isaacs (2005), is an increasingly popular step-by-step conversation process that has been used internationally by various stakeholders to engage large groups of people and to foster dialogue on important issues (Brown & Isaacs, 2005; Churchman & King, 2008; Goldberg, Pasher, & Levin-Sagi, 2006; Storey & Taylor, 2011; Tan & Brown, 2005; Thunberg, 2011). TWC involves concurrent and timed roundtable discussions that focus on a predetermined set of questions (Brown, Isaacs, & Margulies, 1997). According to Brown (2001), the “café” metaphor describes the context setting of informal seating at multiple small tables to encourage conversation. The “world” symbolizes an inclusive format to facilitate the communication of large numbers of people at one time.

There are seven TWC design principles, which are meant to be used together in a progressive format: (1) setting the context: the purpose, the parameters of meeting, the themes or discussion questions, and defining the participants; (2) creating hospitable space or a welcoming physical setup of the meeting; (3) exploring questions that matter; (4) encouraging everyone’s contribution; (5) connecting diverse perspectives through “cross-pollination” of ideas, allowing participants to meet and engage with new people, actively linking the essence of one’s own discoveries to those of other participants; (6) listening together for patterns and insights; and (7) sharing, or gathering, collective discoveries (Brown & Isaacs, 2005; TWC, 2015). Brown and Isaacs (2005) further assert that TWC process of “intentionally harvesting the insights … is one essential way that everyone who participates can contribute to weaving bits and pieces of their emerging collective intelligence into a coherent whole.” (p. 143)

TWC hosts have important roles as facilitators of conversational interactions. There are two types of hosts: the café hosts, who are the primary facilitators that oversee the conversational process, setting and the flow of the café event; and table hosts, who compile notes of the ideas emerging from the discussion (Brown, 2001). Since TWC conversations are designed to be largely self-managing and self-organizing, hosts are advised that they should not assume a “traditional” facilitator role, which has the potential to reduce the effectiveness and the creativity of the conversational experience (Brown & Isaacs, 2005). Instead, hosts are advised to arrange a thoughtful design of the café environment, provide clear instructions regarding etiquette and logistics, and manage time in a “gentle way.” Also, the hosts are tasked with demonstrating the capacity to procure, weave, and connect ideas emerging from the dialogue (Brown, 2001).

TWC has a distinctive philosophical conceptualization (Brown & Isaacs, 2005) and a unique complement of principles, guidelines, and procedures such that it is an “innovative stand-alone methodology for dialogic inquiry” that promotes dialogue on issues that are viewed as socially relevant (Brown, 2001, p. iii). TWC theorists advance two key underpinnings related to their process, which they state are grounded in appreciative and collaborative inquiry approaches (TWC, 2015). This philosophical framework and principles differentiate TWC from “typical conversations” (Brown, 2001). First, since large-scale conversations draw on a rich diversity of public opinion, the assumption in TWC is that people should be exposed to a broad range of perspectives to engage constructively the public in meaningful conversation (Brown, 2001). A second central assumption is that people already possess the wisdom and creativity to confront even the most difficult challenges; the TWC creates the appropriate context for assisting participants in accessing this deeper knowledge, providing the opportunity to contribute their wisdom and creativity to the collective (Brown, 2001). The following quote further reflects both the goal and assumptions of TWC process:

…talking together has been a primary means for discovering common interests, sharing knowledge, imagining the future, and cooperating to survive and thrive. The natural cross-pollination of relationships, ideas, and meaning as people move from one conversation to others enables us to learn, explore possibilities and co-create together. From this perspective, conversations are action—the very heartbeat and lifeblood of social systems like organizations, communities, and cultures. (Hurley & Brown, 2009, p. 3)

TWC Stated Transformative Potential

Of key importance to a discussion on the transformative potential of TWC is whether its founding theorists espouse a transformative intent within this process. The above-stated purpose of TWC as a vehicle for meaning making positions it as a critical and inductive approach to knowledge creation. Further to this, TWC “consider(s) conversation as a core process for effecting positive systemic change.” (Hurley & Brown, 2009, p. 3) The stated intentions of TWC to foster meaning making and to promote systemic change refute assumptions of neutrality in this approach.

A growing number of community settings, corporate, governmental, health, educational, not-for-profit, and faith environments have reportedly benefited from the transformative capacities of TWC (Brown & Isaacs, 2005; TWC, 2015). Further, the transformative potential of TWC as a method is evidenced in Brown’s (2001) notes on the usefulness of TWC in developing dynamic and action-oriented community networks, its capacity to foster the cocreation of knowledge and authentic dialogues among people, who may not have otherwise met. Brown and Isaacs (2005) argue that the participatory tenets of TWC are emphasized by ongoing reflection, conversations, and collective deliberation in this process, which are catalyzed through TWC “rounds.” Participants in TWC travel through a series of café tables, or rounds, which then cumulates in collective deliberation.

The transformative claims of TWC originators are supported by Carson (2011), who suggests that TWC is an effective vehicle to address difficult and intractable problems through meaningful conversation, thereby influencing social change. In addition, Thunberg (2011) suggests that TWC can be utilized to change organizational culture in a manner that fosters the empowerment of employees and promote more democratic intraorganizational relationships.

Certain proponents of TWC connect this conversation process to existing transformative educational tools and methodologies. Aldred (2011), for instance, argues that a focus on participant engagement in collective dialogue to foster problem-solving and social change within TWC is congruent with certain aspects of Brazilian educator and activist Paolo Freire’s (1970) philosophy of critical consciousness. Freire (1970) argued that education and dialogue should foster critical thinking and action as a liberatory praxis. Aldred (2011) further emphasizes that TWC’s use as a tool for community development and the common good over individual benefits connects this approach to liberatory or popular education.

TWC offers certain distinct emancipatory characteristics such as high levels of engagement in meaningful conversations on issues of social relevance (Brown, 2001). In this vein, Goldbeg, Pashen and Levin-Sagi (2006) exemplify the practical application of TWC, which was to promote citizen participation in a public policy decision-making process in an Israeli municipality. Further to this point, Tan and Brown (2005) document the TWC instrumentality in bridging a gap between participants from different social positions in Singapore and providing a platform for collaborative and reflective knowledge building. These authors discuss how TWC promotes social transformation through enhancing the personal contribution of each participant by reducing the distance between the powerful and the less powerful during the conversation and by stimulating higher engagement level for all parties involved. Similarly, Carson (2011) refers to TWC as egalitarian, in that it acknowledges participants’ rights and capacities as citizens, and provides a sense of empowerment and worthwhile dialogue on issues that people identify as relevant.

While TWC theorists expound the transformative capacities of their approach, there is an absence in the literature that critically examines this claim. In responding to this gap, a detailed assessment of TWC’s transformative potential was conducted through the lens of critical transformative pedagogy, using a PAR process. The establishment of a theoretical framework for this study was a first step to engaging in this critique.

Theoretical Framework

According to Creswell (2007), our writing “is a reflection of our own interpretation based on the cultural, social, gender, class, and personal politics that we bring to research.” (p. 179) Thus this study is underpinned by our commitment to the core social work ethics of social justice and human rights (Hare, 2004) and our aspirations to engage in emancipatory teaching, learning, and research that aims to foster critical consciousness and transform oppressive social arrangements.

We used a liberatory or critical pedagogy (Freire, 1970; Giroux, 2010) and transformative learning theoretical framework (Elias, 1997; Mezirow, 2000) as a compass to guide our TWC critique. Liberatory or critical pedagogy, rooted in Freire’s (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed, is education that assists learners to “develop consciousness of freedom, recognize authoritarian tendencies, and connect knowledge to power and the ability to take constructive action.” (Giroux, 2010, p. 2) Transformative pedagogical methods aspire to foster learning by “expand[ing] of consciousness through the transformation of basic worldview and specific capacities of the self” (Elias, 1997, p. 3). In this vein, Cranton and Taylor (2012) define transformative learning as a process of examining, questioning, and revising the perceptions that we bring to our experiences. They further assert that:

Those perspectives include distortions, stereotypes, and prejudices. They guide our decision making and our actions until we encounter a situation that is not congruent with our expectation. At that point, we may reject the discrepant perspective or enter into a process that could lead to a transformed perspective. (p. 7)

Method

We conducted a two-phase approach to developing and implementing this study. First, we examined all scholarly literature on TWC in SocINDEX and Google Scholar databases, published in peer-reviewed journals and the grey literature in the English language. We conducted our search using the keyword “world café.” The search yielded 13 and 44 articles using SocINDEX and Google searches, respectively. The articles were evaluated for three key focus areas: (1) TWC design and process, (2) a link to liberatory and critical pedagogy, and (3) evaluation of transformative learning. In order to establish a comparative framework, from which to assess the transformative potential of TWC, we conducted searchers to identify literature on liberatory and critical pedagogy and transformational learning.

The second step of our critique was conducted through a PAR process (Fals Borda, 1998), to examine collectively, analyze, and enhance the transformative potential of TWC. Our learning consisted of seven social work practitioners, six of whom were doctoral students and one faculty member. PAR was chosen as a methodology due to its association with liberatory education and critical pedagogy (Freire, 1970). PAR is rooted in critical theories with a focus on reflexivity, analysis, and debate (Agger, 2006). A core feature of this methodology includes the intention to address power differentials that create injustice (Eichler, 1997; Fals Borda, 1988). PAR emerged from popular liberation movements against imperialism in Latin America and other efforts to address inequitable social arrangements (Fals Borda, 1988). PAR is also frequently utilized to address issues of marginalization and oppression (Dupont, 2008; Maguire, 1996; Varcoe, 2006). We found PAR to be the most suitable methodology to respond to the objectives of the study, as PAR theorists advocate for action-based and coproduced investigation (Partridge, 2015).

The key underpinnings of PAR include a focus on discourse, social justice, emancipation, the centrality of self-awareness (Agger, 2006; Fals Borda & Rahman, 1991; Tuhiwai Smith, 1999), and the need to account for power, inequality, and oppression (Reid & Frisby, 2008). With these key PAR concepts in mind, we sought to engage in collective reflection, discussion, and reconceptualization (Freire, 1970; Maguire, 1996) of TWC that would enhance its usability in academic and community learning environments.

Our conversation began by sharing our own experiences of facilitating and participating in TWC events. This was an opportunity to exchange perspectives on its transformative potential in both community and academic settings. Our key TWC experiences included participating in various events and hosting TWC in multiple contexts: as a strategic planning tool for social service organization; as an awareness campaign to foster public conversations on domestic violence with public library users; and as a teaching and planning approach to assist our undergraduate and graduate students to develop community engagement plans.

Our PAR process was grounded in cultural, social, gender, class, and personal politics. Our guiding theoretical framework, outlined in the preceding section, supported the development of a five-step knowledge creation process. This process involved: (1) individually documenting our own beliefs, values, and approaches to social justice, connected to our social location, positioning, and experiences; (2) sharing and discussing these values, concepts, and experiences in an audio-taped conversation with members of our learning group; (3) transcribing verbatim this conversation and sharing it with everyone in our group for further reflection; (4) analyzing the transformative potential of TWC based on our understanding of liberatory education and transformative learning; and (5) developing the Charter to position and guide the implementation of a more transformative adaptation of TWC.

These participatory knowledge creation steps were developed to enhance our critical consciousness (Freire, 1970) and the collective consciousness (Freire, 2005) of our group through discussing and critiquing our personal and collective standpoints. This PAR process included opportunities for interrelational reflexivity (Gilbert & Sliep, 2009), where our assumptions and values were explicitly articulated in ways that were “open, permeable, and better validated” (Cranton, 2006, p. 630). From this process, we identified three key areas of critique regarding TWC’s transformative potential: (a) a limited emphasis on reflexivity, (b) the lack of attention to power differentials, specifically in relation to TWC facilitators, and (c) a limited capacity to address structural inequities embedded within TWC. From this critique, we identified seven transformative learning principles as an enhancement to TWC, enshrining them in the Charter. The following section presents both the salient critiques and the Charter.

Results

Critiques of Transformative Potential of TWC

Little published research or evaluation articles are focused specifically on the liberatory or transformative learning capacities of TWC (Fouche & Light, 2011; Partridge, 2015). Most of the available publications on TWC center on the four key areas: (1) describing its implementation as a community engagement tool in various settings and countries (Broom, Brady, Kecskes, & Kildea, 2013; Goldberg et al., 2006; Tan & Brown, 2005); (2) articulating the lessons learned from TWC implementation process (Prewitt, 2011); (3) documenting the utilization of TWC to address specific goals such as organizational change (Thunberg, 2011); and (4) showcasing the use of TWC in addressing inequalities in service provision (Font-Guzman, 2014). Although there is a strong conceptual argument in the literature to support the transformative potential of TWC (e.g., Aldred, 2011; Brown, 2001; Carson, 2011), the dearth of evaluation literature focused on how this claim translates into transformative outcomes of TWC warrants an assessment of TWC as a transformative learning method.

Through our analysis of the literature on TWC and our five-step PAR process, we believe that there are three key issues that hinder the transformative potential of this innovative conversation method. We argue that TWC pays limited attention to reflexivity, particularly that of the café facilitators/hosts. This decreases the transformative learning potential of TWC by omitting the role of power and power differentials within TWC process and minimizing its effect. From a liberatory education perspective (Freire, 1970), limited attention to the role of power differentials in TWC process hinders its capacity to address structural issues and barriers and effect social change. These limitations, explained in detail below, deter the TWC from fully promoting social transformation goals, despite its stated aspirations. Below we examine the above-stated critiques of TWC through a comparative analysis of this method with the tenets of liberatory or critical pedagogy and transformative learning.

The role of reflexivity

As noted, TWC originators contend that reflexivity is a beneficial feature of this approach (Brown, 2001; Brown & Isaacs, 2005). In assessing this claim, a comprehensive analysis of reflectivity is required. According to the literature, reflexivity highlights an individual’s process of understanding of how experience and knowledge shape her or his worldview and positioning (Carter & Little, 2007; Gilbert & Sliep, 2009). Alvesson and Sköldberg (2000) argue that both reflection and reflexivity, which are often used interchangeably (Gilbert & Sliep, 2009), are concerned with positions taken in the construction of meaning. Educators and researchers are considered reflexive “when they pay attention to: themselves as ‘constructing subject(s) and the social context … through language, paradigms, [and] communities of practice … ” (Gilbert & Sliep, 2009, p. 246)

Practicing reflexivity in education is congruent with Freire’s (1970) view of the development of critical consciousness and the expansion of critical consciousness (Elias, 1997) from a critical pedagogy standpoint. This perception echoes Mezirow’s (2000) view of the “transformation of our entire perspective (habit of mind)” (p. 133) as an aspiration of transformative learning. Reflexivity, from a transformative learning standpoint, is “a process by which previously uncritically assimilated assumptions, beliefs, values, and perspectives are questioned and thereby become more open, permeable, and better validated.” (Brookfield, 2012, p. 142) Gilbert and Sliep (2009) add that in the context of social action and the desire to work collectively to transform current practices, those involved in the social action are obliged to develop a critical consciousness of their own intentions and assumptions. Mezirow argues that this rational process of critically assessing one’s assumptions facilitates the implementation of the transformative learning (Dirkx, Mezirow, & Cranton, 2006).

We believe that a liberatory or transformative approach to reflexivity is particularly relevant to TWC as a process of dialogical inquiry that is positioned to be a vehicle for systems change or transformative social action. TWC practitioners need to be thoroughly engaged in a reflexive process with others in the group, using an interrelational reflexivity approach to ensure their accountability to the collective process (Gilbert & Sliep, 2009).

The main methodological papers, related to TWC, outline the importance of participant reflexivity (Brown, 2001, 2002; Brown & Isaacs, 2005; TWC, 2015). There is no reference, however, in the seven TWC design principles to a specific process to facilitate reflexivity within TWC. Although TWC theorists encourage participants to contribute their ideas and perspectives while exploring conversations that matter (TWC, 2015), they do not suggest reflecting on how the participants arrived at their perspectives and ideas. A lack of acknowledgment of the roles that social locations and experiences play in shaping knowledge is a foundational omission within TWC.

The lack of a mechanism to foster reflexivity within TWC might negatively affect the transformative outcomes of TWC conversations. Evidence of this omission is suggested by the limited levels of reflection and learning by the participants, as reported by Thunberg (2011) in two studies in Norway and Sweden; these studies involved both employees and managers in a process to improve workplace settings. Thunberg (2011) highlights the negative impact of the presence of managers on participation levels in these studies, concluding that, “reflective learning is a … complex phenomenon because conscious or unconscious participation of senior management can significantly influence reflective learning processes.” (p. 319)

Further, it appears problematic that TWC theorists do not explicitly address or even mention any commitment to reflexivity on the part of TWC hosts who occupy central roles in the process. This centrality of the hosts in TWC is clearly seen in Brown and Isaacs’s (2005) explicit instructions that TWC hosts should develop meaningful conversation questions and use insightful narratives to explore new ideas. The privileged roles of hosts are also evident in the guidelines given to them to refrain from interfering in the conversation process (TWC, 2015), although there is only a surface analysis of the inherent status of these hosting roles. Reflexivity, therefore, is pivotal in the host role, as means of reconciling this power through connecting values to practice (Reid, 2004). Lack of reflective process may produce power imbalance, which is discussed below.

Limited attention to power differentials within TWC

The need to consider power dynamics within TWC creates obstacles to its transformative capacity. This is of particular concern in the limited attention paid to the positional power of the TWC hosts. Hosts are tasked with assuring that the seven key principles of TWC are translated into action, promoting multiple insights during the table conversations as well as in the harvest stage and during the concluding conversational process (Brown, 2001). Personal values, beliefs, and relationships of power will come into play throughout the implementation of these roles, and in particular within the final stage when ideas are harvested and conclusions drawn.

TWC theorists demonstrate an awareness of the potential impact of the hosts on TWC processes by an attempt to minimize their involvement by defining their roles as “nonintrusive” (Brown, 2001; Brown & Isaacs, 2005). However, from a liberatory education perspective, the development of critical consciousness (Ellias, 1997; Freire, 1970) would be necessary to understand the intrusive potential of the hosting role. From our analysis, we argue that the concept of nonintrusiveness is an impediment to the transformative capacity of TWC as it lacks definition and accountability and is not linked to a process of critical consciousness. Some key questions for host accountability can include: How do TWC hosts understand and act on the principle of nonintrusiveness? How do TWC hosts examine, articulate, and act on their socially constructed identities in relation to others in TWC process? Do they privilege all insights and discoveries equally? Of the identified insights and discoveries, do they choose to emphasise some over others according to what seems of greater importance to them? Are they aware of their own values, political stances, and personal agendas related to the issue under discussion? How capable are they not to implicitly or explicitly infuse their own agendas during the “harvest” stage?

The second area of concern relating to power differentials in TWC is a lack of attention to intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989) and oppression (Dominelli, 2002) on social interaction and meaning-making. Crenshaw (1989) referred to intersectionality as the overlapping oppression of racism and sexism; this concept can be extended to other forms of oppression. Accounting for intersectionality is a core principle of participatory approaches (Reid & Frisby, 2008). Yet, although TWC has been used to interrogate race, gender, and class (Shaw, 2015), a reflexive analysis of social locations and experiences has not been an explicitly stated fundamental guiding principle of TWC.

TWC acknowledges diversity, including differences in perspectives (Brown, 2001), and promotes an approach to “using the differences of ideas, opinions, histories, and cultures that exist among human beings to solve problems is a vital component of the dialogic effort.” (TWC, 2015) Further, Carson (2011) refers to TWC as egalitarian, in that it acknowledges participants’ rights and capacities as citizens. However, if TWC participants do not experience equality in their social arrangements outside of TWC context, how can it be possible to host an egalitarian conversation? TWC neglects to articulate the impact of prior experiences brought forward by participants and hosts to TWC process and how these may be shared with others who have different or more privileged experiences. Power and oppression impact how participants may engage in conversations and what they may prioritize within these conversations (Reid & Frisby, 2008).

One of the outcomes of transformative learning is a fundamental change in one’s frame of reference (Dirkx et al., 2006). Thus, from a transformative learning perspective, the absence of a critical lens on power differentials within and outside of TWC will inhibit an expansion of consciousness (Mezirow, 2000). Transformative learning for the purposes of social transformation includes a “productive disruption in uncritically assimilated beliefs to reveal the discrepancy between dominant and reiterated norms, values and actions, and the lived experience and realities of oppression and inequality.” (Taylor & Cranton, 2012, p. 77) In this regard, TWC does not adequately respond to the queries on power and position.

It is our belief that in order to truly interrogate power and establish the potential for a transformative conversation, those who employ TWC must engage in critical self-reflection. This includes a commitment to address the imbalances of power and centralize marginalized knowledge within a critical transformative learning approach (Mezirow, 2000) and as articulated by PAR approaches (Hesse-Biber & Piatelli, 2007; Reid & Frisby, 2008). There is no specific mechanism, however, embedded in TWC, to systematically foster reflection and examination of preconceived notions, personal bias, and positions of power of participants and hosts alike, which will impact consciousness development and the quality of open dialogue within the conversation process.

Lack of focus on structural inequality to facilitate social change

Building on the critiques related to reflexivity and power differentials, it is our belief that TWC’s lack of accounting for structural inequality limits its potential to foster social change. This view is supported by Aldred (2011) who noted a concern for “the concealment of structural inequalities, problematic notions of empowerment, and … the cooptation of critique” in TWC (p. 13).

There are two spheres of structural inequality that go unnoticed by the TWC approach: One is the impact of the “external world” that is happening outside the parameters of TWC setting, and the second omission is an understanding of how this external world will impact TWC conversations and related outcomes. This view is supported by Freiden (1963) who advances that liberation is rooted in the reflection of everyday life. We suggest real-life practice examples substantiate our critique, supporting the view that conversations are embedded in structural inequalities demonstrated in everyday life: (1) the impact on parenting conversations when participants are both heterosexual and same-sex parents who experience their roles from these standpoints; (2) conducting conversations on improving staff morale when some staff are low-income wage earners and others middle-income earners; and (3) engaging neighbourhood residents in conversations to prioritize community enhancement projects in a racially and linguistically diverse community. These examples are echoed in the literature, through reflexive accounts by Reid (2000), and Fals Borda and Rahman (1991), who emphasized the presence of structural inequalities and power-based conflict within their collective processes, despite liberatory intentions.

As per these examples, it is impossible to ignore that structural inequality exists within these conversation groups. This perspective is supported by Crenshaw (1989) who delineated that the confluence of experiences and the social location is directly linked to the creation and interpretation of knowledge. Further to this, conversations with groups that are more homogenous in social positioning (e.g., exclusive parenting groups for heterosexual or same-sex parents) would not address the other multifaceted relations of power when reviewed through an intersectional lens. Power differentials cannot be neutralized through the design principles and positive intentions of TWC.

Transformative theories, processes, or methodologies are those that critically analyze existing social conditions with the intent of promoting social justice (Agger, 2006). For example, the rationale for engaging in PAR process is the eradication of structural inequality and oppressive social conditions (Lorenzetti & Walsh, 2014, McCall, 2005; Stephens, 2014). A search of the literature on TWC did not produce evidence of theoretical discussions or research with an explicit grounding or analysis of social injustice. While TWC delivers on its promise as a methodology to convene small or large groups around “important questions” or “conversations that matter” (Brown, 2001), this is not a claim to effect social change or act as a vehicle for social transformation. This supports Carson’s (2011) concern that TWC’s promise to affect social change exceeds the ability to accomplish it.

In summary, we argue that that TWC’s claims and capacities as a vehicle for social transformation are hindered by an absence of a specific method to ensure reflexivity, the limited attention to the role of power and power differentials, and the omission of the structural analysis of social arrangements. Below, we suggest and demonstrate how TWC can be used as a foundation for the emergence of a comprehensive, transformative learning methodology and critical pedagogy tool to foster the effective implementation of a transformative learning process.

From Critique to Enhancement of TWC Process: The Emancipatory Learning Charter

Acknowledged or not, conversations are replete with power dynamics. The principles and tools of PAR are offered to identify, account for and mitigate the negative impacts of power relations within conversations, and enhance the viability of TWC as a social transformation process. The Charter, described below, emerged from this critique as a means or a mechanism to enhance transformative capacities of TWC.

The Charter is a set of seven collectively designed principles, each of which attends to particular elements of the critique, resonating with our commitment to the multiple and overlapping role of social work professional/educator/learner, committed to critical pedagogy principles. While the charter focuses on formal education, it can be extrapolated to any group process such as conversations, community development, and social research. These seven principles are outlined below.

Principle # 1: Educators are people, and people are subjective

This first principle suggests that it is the ethical responsibility of educators and group facilitators alike to identify, discuss, and reflect on their values, beliefs, and biases (Mezirow, 2000) to critically consider and expand their own consciousness and that of the collective; consideration is needed as to how they can act as both a hindrance and a resource to the group process. Therefore, all forms of education should recognize subjectivity and identify bias. Educator must understand and incorporate ways in which their subjectivities impact education perspectives and methodologies. In this context of TWC, this principle includes both hosts and participants.

Principle # 2: Educators should recognize intersecting identities

According to Principle # 2, individuals have diverse and intersecting identities from which multiple oppressions and privileges can exist and emerge. Social location and intersectionality are key considerations and vital reflections in the transformative processes. As a participatory process, TWC should explicitly acknowledge and allow for a mechanism to discuss identities, intersectionality, and how these may impact the TWC group process (Reid & Frisby, 2008). Within TWC context, the hosts could incorporate this principle in initial discussions with participants, setting the context to addressed forms of privileged knowledge or experiences associated with those who hold dominant social locations.

Principle # 3: Educators should be reflexive

Principle # 3 asserts the need to be reflexive in all forms of group conversations. Consistent with the important role assigned to critical reflection in a transformative learning paradigm (Dirkx et al., 2006), it is imperative for educators to consider how their subjective interpretations or biases affect every aspect of their research and practice, from problem identification, to participant recruitment, to data collection or knowledge creation, analysis, and writing. In TWC, the choice of questions, participants, context and other process decisions require a commitment to reflexivity. Hosts and other organizers of TWC should ensure that diverse perspectives are acknowledged and included within TWC discussions. Hosts and organizers should encourage participants to be open to perspectives that may be different from their own.

Principle # 4: Educators should be committed to liberatory education

Principle # 4 implies that education has the potential to provide insight and analysis into the inequities that exist within society and can offer potential solutions. In order for education to benefit participants, the community and broader society, the cocreation of knowledge, understanding, and negotiated meanings should be viewed as essential catalysts for enduring social change. Knowledge is useful when it has the potential to expand personal and collective consciousness, which expands the notion of the possible and refutes the inevitability of oppressive social conditions (Freire, 1970); these changes permit us to move in new directions toward improving our local communities and ultimately impacting our global community. Knowledge acquired through TWC process should focus on the elements of personal and social transformation.

Principle # 5: Educators need to address systemic barriers to participation

According to Principle # 5, educators have the ethical obligation to ensure that diverse and marginalized voices are heard and accounted for, by acting as an ally and advocate with those who experience oppression barriers. For example, educators have the responsibility to address language barriers or first-language processes, so that participants can fully express themselves. Educators are also obligated to address other potential barriers to meaningful participation, making inclusion equally accessible and possible for all participants. This involves meeting with participants in locations that are accessible to them and providing resources such as transportation, food, remuneration, and childcare. TWC organizers and hosts should make concrete efforts to assess and address potential participation barriers prior to and within TWC process. Inclusiveness and accessibility extend to addressing barriers at a systemic level.

Principle # 6: Educators should acknowledge their privilege and power

Principle # 6 is founded on our belief that ethical educators acknowledge their status as colearners and should not adopt roles as teachers or experts within the learning process. TWC is grounded in the acknowledgment of participants having wisdom and creativity; however, it is also important to acknowledge that educators have the privilege, not the right, to be engaged in knowledge cocreation, which is often the result of experiences that are shared by “others” (participants). It is important that educators carefully consider the social responsibility attached to this privilege: They are the ones who select the venue, the time, and the questions are important for discussion; they are the ones who assist in the consolidation of all participants’ ideas into cocreated knowledge. As colearners, educators should incorporate a critical antioppressive lens that includes an ongoing analysis of self-development and reflection on the inequities within systems and institutions that influence social interaction (Freire, 1970; Giroux, 2010). This principle will assist in mitigating the conscious or unconscious misuse of power within processes such as TWC.

Principle # 7: Education is activism

According to principle # 7, education is social action. Thus, educators are actors engaged in social action. Education is not neutral nor is it a-political; therefore, all education could be framed within a social change perspective based on the aspirations of social justice. TWC echoes these ideas when it argues that conversation is action and the potential outcomes of TWC are social innovation (TWC, 2015). However, TWC does not directly claim social change as a primary goal of this approach to conversations. To claim its emancipatory and transformative potential, a direct link between conversations and social activism or social change should be an explicit objective of TWC.

Conclusion

Dirkx (2015) stated that “transformative education needs to be continuously informed by a deepening understanding of what it means for learning and change to be transformative” (p. 195). Following this rationale, we examined the conceptualization and implementation of TWC as a transformative learning process. We used liberatory or critical pedagogy as a guiding theoretical framework (Freire, 1970; Giroux, 2010) and a five-step PAR process to examine and critique the transformative potential of TWC. From this analytical process, three areas of critique emerged: (1) lack of explicit emphasis on reflexivity, particularly in relation to TWC hosts; (2) limited attention to power and power differentials within TWC process; and (3) omission of the impact of structural inequalities on the transformative capacities of TWC.

Dirkx (in Dirkx et al., 2006) argues that “transformative learning experiences are usually associated with a profound change in one’s cognitive, emotional, or spiritual way of being.” (p. 133). Mezirow (in Dirkx et al., 2006) supports this statement, adding that it is the outcome of transformation that “saves transformative learning from being reduced to a vision … or a desire (p. 133).” Consistent with this line of thought, we argue that TWC’s aspirations to be a vehicle for social transformation are hindered by an absence of a specific method to ensure self- and interrelational reflexivity of TWC hosts, as well as lack of attention to the role of power and power differentials, and the omission of the structural analysis of social arrangements.

We introduce the Emancipatory Learning Charter as a useful 7-point instrument or mechanism to practice a reflexive process throughout TWC experience and to help offset the above-mentioned TWC limitations. The Charter was developed as a response to our concerns arising from our collective critique of the claimed transformative potential of the original TWC. It emerged through our PAR process and the analysis of the scholarly and gray literature on TWC. We have conceptualized the Charter as a “guiding element” to position TWC as a transformative methodology, providing core principles that should be accounted for throughout a learning process. We offer the Charter not as a new method but rather to be used in addition to the original TWC design principles. The Charter principles can also be used to enhance education and social development approaches that emphasize social change or social transformation as a goal.

The Charter, therefore, is an innovative tool that represents a significant step toward accounting for the complexities related to power interactions within TWC. The seven principles of the Charter synchronously support the translation of the transformative potential and aspirations of TWC into practice. The Charter raises awareness and recognition of intersecting identities of all participating parties as well as acceptance of multiple discourses held by the hosts and participants. It emphasizes the need to accept and embrace unknown influences and the importance to acknowledge educators as privileged learners that are accountable for fostering critical reflexivity and inclusiveness during the conversation process. We argue that systematic reflexivity and attention to potential influences of power and structural inequalities on the interpretation of collective findings in TWC process will help to promote the transformative aspirations of TWC toward the praxis level of achieving the goal of social transformation.

Therefore, we believe that adopting the Charter compliments enhances TWC and can be used in settings committed to the democratization of knowledge, collaborative learning, and antioppressive practice. We have found that the Charter provides an enhanced educational tool in our studies, research, and social work professional practice. It serves as a gatekeeper of potential power abuse within the process of collaborative learning. Therefore, it provides an educational model of antioppressive practice with the focus on the democratization of knowledge through uniting students, teachers, community practitioners, and researchers in a collective learning act.

The Charter, however, is not without limitations. This tool was developed by a group of female social work students and faculty in one doctoral program at a Canadian university, who have similar educational backgrounds and who share social work professional values; these include antioppressive practice, social justice orientations, and a commitment to critical theory and liberatory pedagogy. The utilization and effectiveness of this Charter should be tested in other academic settings, community, and business organizations, or with other interdisciplinary practitioners, researchers, and educators. Therefore, further validation of the Charter in other TWC projects is warranted to understand better how this tool may be useful to foster social change.

Despite the limitations, we believe that TWC method together with the Charter principles is a powerful tool to foster transformative learning and social change by creating a space, in which to awaken consciousness, illuminate dominant ideology, act on human agency, and work to reconstitute a more inclusive and interconnected human experience. Further research and evaluation into the transformative outcomes of TWC and the Charter are warranted.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge Rita Dhungel, PhD (c); Cari Gulbrandsen, PhD (c); Valerie Heerema, PhD; (c), Lynne Ratzke, MSW; and Jessica Shaw, PhD, for their valuable contributions to this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Agger

(2006). Critical social theories: An introduction. New York, NY: Paradigm.

Aldred

(2011). From community participation to organizational therapy? World Café and appreciative inquiry as research methods. Community Development Journal, 46, 57–71. doi:10.1093/cdj/bsp039

Alversson

Skolberg

(2000). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Brookfield

(2012). Critical theory and transformative learning. In Taylor

E. W.

Cranton

(Eds.), The handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 131–146). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Broom

Brady

Kecskes

Kildea

(2013). World Café methodology engages stakeholders in designing a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. Journal of Neonatal Nursing, 19, 253–258. doi:10.1016/j.jnn.2012.12.002

Brown

(2001). The World Café: Living knowledge through conversations that matter (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Fielding Graduate University, Santa Barbara, CA.

Brown

(2002). A resource guide for hosting conversations that matter at the World Café. Mill Valley, CA: Whole Systems Associates.

Brown

Issacs

(2005). Creating hospitable spaces: The World Café. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Brown

Isaacs

Margulies

(1997). The World Café: Creating the future one conversation at a time. Mill Valley, CA: Whole Systems Associates.

10.

Canadian Association of Social Workers. (n.d.). What is social work? Retrieved from http://www.casw-acts.ca/en/what-social-work

11.

Carson

(2011). Designing a public conversation using the World Café method. Social Alternatives, 30, 10–14.

12.

Carter

S. M.

Little

(2007). Justifying knowledge, justifying method, taking action: Epistemologies, methodologies, and methods in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 17, 1316–1328.

13.

Churchman

King

(2008). Academic work in transition: Hidden stories of academic identities. “Insightful Encounters—Regional Development and Practice-based Learning” Conference on Regional Development and Innovation Processes, March 5-7, Porvoo-Borga, Finland.

14.

Cranton

(2006). Understanding and promoting transformative learning: A guide for educators of adults (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.

15.

Cranton

Taylor

E. W.

(2012). Transformative learning: Seeking a more unified theory. In Taylor

E. W.

Cranton

(Eds.), The handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 3–20). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

16.

Crenshaw

(1989). Demarginalizing intersections of race and sex: A black feminist critique of anti-discrimination doctrine, feminist theory and anti-racist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 140, 137–169. Retrieved from http://philpapers.org/rec/CREDTI

17.

Creswell

J. W.

(2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

18.

Dirkx

J. M.

(2015). Editor’s notes. Journal of Transformative Education, 13, 195–196. doi:10.1177/1541344615594698

19.

Dirkx

J. M.

Mezirow

Cranton

(2006). Musing and reflections on the meaning, context, and process of transformative learning: A dialogue between John M. Dirkx and Jack Mezirow. Journal of Transformative Education, 4, 123–139. doi:10.1177/1541344606287503

20.

Dominelli

(2002). Feminist social work theory and practice. New York, NY: Palgrave

21.

Dupont

(2008). Beyond doing no harm: A call for participatory action research with marginalized populations. Critical Criminology, 16, 197–207. doi:10.1007/s10612-008-9055-7

22.

Eichler

(1997). Feminist methodology. Current Sociology, 45, 9–36.

23.

Elias

(1997). It’s time to change our minds: An introduction to transformative learning. ReVision, 20, 2–6.

24.

Freiden

(1963). The feminine mystique. New York, NY: Norton

25.

Hurley

T. J.

Brown

(2009). Conversational leadership: Thinking together for a change. The System Thinker, 20, 2–7.

26.

Fals Borda

(1988). Knowledge and people’s power: Lessons with peasants in Nicaragua, Mexico and Colombia. New Delhi: Indian Social Institute.

27.

Fals Borda

Rahman

A. M.

(1991). Action and knowledge: Breaking the monopoly with participatory action-research. New York, NY: Apex Press.

28.

Font-Guzman

J. N.

(2014). Moving “beyond neutrality” and cross-cultural training: Using World Café dialogue to address end-of-life care inequalities. Peace and Conflict Studies, 21, 49–68.

29.

Fouche

Light

(2011). An invitation to dialogue: “The World Café” in social work research. Qualitative Social Work, 10, 28–48.

30.

Freire

(1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Seabury Press.

31.

Freire

(2005). Education for critical consciousness. New York, NY: Continuum.

32.

Gilbert

Sliep

(2009). Reflexivity in the practice of social action: From self to inter-relational reflexivity. South African Journal of Psychology, 39, 468–479.

33.

Giroux

(2010). Lessons from Paulo Freire. Chronicle of Higher Education, 7, 1–6. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/article-content/124910/

34.

Goldberg

Pasher

Levin-Sagi

(2006). Citizen participation in decision-making processes: Knowledge sharing in knowledge cities. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10, 92–98. doi:10.1108/13673270610691206

35.

Hare

(2004). Defining social work for the 21st century. The International Federation of Social Workers’ revised definition. International Social Work, 47, 407–424.

36.

Hesse-Biber

S. N.

Piatelli

(2007). From theory to method and back again: The synergistic praxis of theory and method. In Hesse-Biber

S. N.

(Ed.), Handbook of feminist research: Theory and praxis (pp. 143–152). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

37.

Lopez

(1996). Eden is conversation. Retrieved from http://www.barrylopez.com/_eden_is_a_conversation__59075.htm

38.

Lorenzetti

L.A.

Walsh

C.A.

(2014). Is there an “F” in your PAR? Understanding, teaching and doing action research. The Canadian Journal of Action Research, 15, 50–63.

39.

Maguire

(1996). Proposing a more feminist participatory research: Knowing and being embraced openly. In de Koning

Martin

(Eds.), Participatory research in health: Issues and experiences (pp. 27–39). London, England: Zed Books.

40.

McCall

(2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs, 30. doi:10.1086/426800. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/10.1086/426800

41.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (2015a). Conversation. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/

42.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (2015b). Dialogue. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/

43.

Mezirow

(2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

44.

Partridge

(2015). Evaluation Café: A review of literature concerning World Café methodology used as an evaluation tool in education. Staffordshire, UK: Staffordshire University.

45.

Prewitt

(2011). Working in the café: Lessons in group dialogue. The Learning Organization, 18, 189–202.

46.

Reid

(2000). Seduction and enlightenment in feminist action research. Resources for Feminist Research, 28, 168–188.

47.

Reid

(2004). Advancing women’s social justice agendas: A feminist action research framework. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3, 1–22.

48.

Reid

Frisby

(2008). Continuing the journey: Articulating dimensions of feminist participatory research (FPAR). In Reason

Bradbury

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of action research (pp. 93–105). London, England: CA.

49.

Shaw

(2015). Race, class, and gender. The World Café Online Community. Retrieved from http://www.theworldcafecommunity.org/group/cafesantacruz/forum/topics/race-class-gender

50.

Stephens

(2014). Beyond the barricades: Social movements as participatory practice in health promotion. Journal of Health Psychology, 19, 170–175. doi:10.1177/1359105313500245

51.

Storey

Taylor

(2011). Critical friends and the Carnegie Foundation Project on the education doctorate: A Café conversation at the UCEA. Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences, 3, 849–879.

52.

Tan

Brown

(2005). The World Café in Singapore: Creating a learning culture through dialogue. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41, 83–90.

53.

Taylor

E. W.

Cranton

(Eds.). (2012). The handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

54.

The World Café. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.theworldcafe.com/about-us/

55.

Thunberg

O. A.

(2011). World cafes and dialog seminars as processes for reflective learning in organizations. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 12, 319–333. doi:10.1080/14623943.2011571864

56.

Tuhiwai Smith

(1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. London, England: Zed Books.

57.

Varcoe

(2006). Doing participatory action research in a racist world. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 28, 525–540. doi:10.1177/0193945906287706