Keystone Dialogues

Keystone dialogues are carefully constructed deliberative meetings that address politically controversial and technically complex aspects of an issue at hand. Policy dialogues seek to exchange information and build consensus recommendations between public, private, and civic sector thought leaders who are in a position to forge alliances, make decisions, or strongly influence the trajectory of a possible solution-challenging issue. These dialogues bring diverse interest groups to the table, focus on a regulatory, policy, or planning issue that is of common interest, are usually guided by a facilitator or mediator, have a life cycle with a beginning, middle and end, and seek to formulate practical solutions to complex problems−i.e. a guidance to government, a proposed rule or regulation, or a plan or strategy.

Why Are Policy Dialogues Needed?

The idea of democracy is founded on the persistent belief that citizens can, through effective deliberation, govern themselves. Democracy (from the Greek demos, “people,” and kratos “rule”) assumes that ordinary people have the capacity, the means, and the will to participate in the shaping of key decisions that affect their own welfare. They do this through both elected representation and effective deliberation in informal decision-making mechanisms that influence formal processes.

Why Keystone? The Key is “Dialogue by Design”

The Keystone Center has conducted policy dialogues on matters ranging from chemical weapons dismantling, food fortification in Asia, clean-up and restoration of the Snake River watershed, and the shaping of potential U.S. responses to global climate change.

The Keystone Center will custom a dialogue to your group’s needs, utilizing Keystone facilitators who specialize in:

• Strategies for bringing multiple viewpoints in a given topic or issue area to the table to ensure a rich diversity of ideas;
  
  
• Methods for problem “naming” and “framing,” i.e. structuring the way controversial issues are stated;
  
  
• Critical inquiry tools that foster examination of data sets, some of which may be conflicting or incomplete;
  
  
• Procedures for grappling with divergent values, worldviews, and ideologies; and
  
  
• Consensus-building and agreement-making methods that bring about specific joint decisions.
  

Policy Dialogues Usually Involve:

• An emerging or ripe dispute—often this means that the full diversity of participants have become frustrated with the traditional adversary process and that they are willing to try a different approach;
  
  
• Multiple stakeholders, not all of whom may have a standing in an existing or prospective lawsuit;
  
  
• Stakeholders who are willing to sit in council on a tough issue and address it in a disciplined manner;
  
  
• A negotiated mission or goal;
  
  
• Contending values and ideologies;
  
  
• Complex scientific and technical issues; and
  
  
• Challenging substantive, procedural and psychological dynamics.

For more information please contact Mike Hughes, Director, Center for Science and Public Policy and Senior Facilitator at 303-468-8861.

back to top