Vanessa Andreotti Global Education Derby/Mundi Nottingham University The methodology of Open Spaces for Dialogue and Enquiry (OSDE): Conceptual Framework Vanessa Andreotti Global Education Derby/Mundi Nottingham University Vanessa Andreotti Centre for the Study of Social and Global Justice School of Politics and International Relations The university of Nottingham

Context: Development Education The DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ASSOCIATION defines development education as lifelong learning that: explores the links between people living in the "developed" countries of the North with those of the "developing" South, enabling people to understand the links between their own lives and those of people throughout the world increases understanding of the economic, social, political and environmental forces which shape our lives develops the skills, attitudes and values which enable people to work together to take action to bring about change and take control of their own lives works towards achieving a more just and a more sustainable world in which power and resources are more equitably shared.

Context: Development Education Focus: North-South relations/interdependence Global citizenship education (participation and responsibility towards the wider community) Curriculum: the ‘Global Dimension’ – introduction of global issues and perspectives in all subjects: Government (DFID): beyond compassion and charity towards an understanding of interdependence “education should empower young people with the knowledge, skills and understanding to play an active role as global citizens”

The OSDE methodology Set of procedures to structure safe spaces for dialogue and enquiry about global issues and perspectives focusing on interdependence Not telling people what to think or what to do Encouragement of critical engagement Critical = tracing origins and implications Development of specific thinking skills

OSDE: Understanding the Theory

OSDE: Understanding the Theory

OSDE: Understanding the Theory Our Lenses (the cellophane)… Construct our perception of reality Represent our assumptions about what is real, ideal and knowable – the categories through which we make sense of the world (ontologies and epistemologies) Are not neutral, nor transparent – neither can they be removed (only transformed) Are constructed in our contexts Are influenced by the sets of meaning which we are exposed to (our cultures, class, gender, etc…) Are the tools that we inherit to know/create our worlds

Lenses: implications

Lenses: implications Production of Meaning: definition of what is real/ideal, good/bad, beautiful/ugly, what can/can’t be known – the strength of cultural reproduction, contestation and transformation Construction of Identities: ‘us’ and ‘them’ (alterity) – how we feel about who we are in relation to others Social relations (ethics): grounds of engagement with others (respect, solidarity, equality, equity, ‘tolerance’…) Distribution of wealth and labour: worth of individuals, deservedness, merit, access Politics: voices heard and influence in decision making

Pedagogical implications Not the search for one absolute (non-biased/neutral) interpretation of reality, but… Critical Literacy Where is this coming from? Where is this leading to? …the examination of origins and implications of assumptions (perspectives/lenses/discourses)

Comparison: ‘Reading’ approaches Traditional Reading Critical Reading Critical Literacy

Comparison: ‘Traditional’ Reading Does the text represent the truth? Is it fact or opinion? Is it biased or neutral? Is it well written/clear? Who is the author and what level of authority/legitimacy does he/she represent? What does the author say? Focus on the ‘quality’ and ‘authority’ of the content

Comparison: ‘Critical’ Reading What is the context? To whom is the text addressed? What is the intention of the author? What is the position of the author (his/her political agenda)? What is the author trying to say and how is he/she trying to convince/manipulate the reader? What claims are not substantiated? Focus on context, intentions, communication and ‘reflection’

Comparison: ‘Critical Literacy’ What are the assumptions behind the statements? How does the author understand reality? What is shaping his/her understanding? Who decides (what is real, can be known or needs to be done) in whose name and for whose benefit? What are the implications of his/her claims (past/present/future: social, environmental, economic, etc…)? What are the sanctioned ignorances (blind spots) and contradictions? Focus on knowledge production, power, representation, implications and reflexivity

Reflection versus Reflexivity Decision Why do I want to do this? What are my assumptions? Reflection Decision How were my assumptions constructed? What are the implications of thinking in this way? Are there other ways of looking at the issue? Reflexivity

OSDE: grounding principles a) that each individual brings valid knowledge to the open space (everyone is a pot of knowledge!) b) that this knowledge deserves respect (everyone should have the right to express themselves without fear of being ‘looked down’ by others and should be committed to listening to others with respect) c) that all knowledge is related to who you are and where you come from (we construct the lenses we look through at the world in our contexts and interactions with others) d) that all knowledge is partial and incomplete (we all see the world through different lenses that continuously change and there are no universally better or clearer lenses) e) that all knowledge can and should be questioned through dialogue (we should engage critically with actions, thoughts and beliefs of both ourselves and others as we need different lenses – other perspectives - to challenge and transform our own views).

OSDE: structure of an enquiry Engagement with stimulus (prompting cognitive dissonance) Airing of views - in pairs Informed thinking – where to find out more Reflexive questions - individually (related to own perspectives) Open Space questions – in small groups (focus on different logics and power + origins and implications of perspectives) Airing of burning questions and views Responsible choices – in small groups (decision making processes related to the theme) Debriefing (reflection on learning process and quality of space)

OSDE FAQ: Most Frequently Asked Questions Does this learning process translate into ‘action’? Is it too rational? Does it lead to confusion and/or paralysis? Does it produce measurable outcomes? Does it question the authority of the teacher in the classroom? Won’t we help more (the Third World) if we get pupils to take action (instead of focusing on reflection)? What is your (hidden) agenda?

OSDE: Agenda Integrated Logic of rights, justice and autonomy Trends of thought Logic of rights, justice and autonomy Logic of care, relationship and responsibility Judgemental ranking Relational (non-hierarchical) thinking worldcentric Gilligan’s model: Other perspectives matter Rights and justice to all human beings Care and compassion to all human beings ethnocentric Only the perspectives of my equals matter Rights and justice for my group, tribe, nation, continent Care and compassion for my group, tribe or nation egocentric Only my perspectives matter Selfish in agentic ways Selfish in communal ways

More about the OSDE theory/practice and the International Research? Contact: Vanessa Andreotti Research Fellow/Education Co-ordinator Centre for Social and Global Justice Nottingham University www.osdemethodology.org.uk taxvoa@nottingham.ac.uk