Description
The Common Ground Process focuses more on community dynamics and decision-making than it does on the substance of character itself. The concept is based upon a Venn diagram, in which two individual entities overlap slightly; the Common Ground Process focuses on identifying and using those areas of overlap in viewpoints, rather than creating consensus or resolving differences. As a community process, Common Ground uses small groups and community interactions to discuss elements and character and identify the ones that are common to the most people.
Steps
The process can be adapted to fit many different groups and circumstances, but typically follows the same general pattern:
- A study committee (2-3 organizers plus facilitators) publicize and set up the process.
- At the first meeting, facilitators form small groups of diverse participants that will remain together throughout the process. Groups first respond to a question like, “What are the personal experiences that have shaped your views and beliefs on [this community’s] character?” Participants would have been invited to bring materials to share.
- At the second meeting, groups address additional questions that expand on their experiences of the place, their values and beliefs, the resources or specific things that influence them.
- Subsequent meetings focus on the main points garnered from the first meetings. Each major viewpoint has one dedicated study session, at which groups explore their points of agreement or disagreement on the issue.
- At the final session, each group reflects on the wisdom or points of agreement culled from their previous discussions. The organizing committee synthesizes the responses, which can then be distributed and used for planning.
Pros and Cons
As designed, the Common Ground process requires a relatively long-term commitment to thoughtful and respectful dialogue among participants. It is used most frequently by groups—from small church groups to major international bodies— coming together around very controversial issues (such as abortion or racial tensions). The focus is usually on the quality of dialogue and progress on an issue, rather than including the most people. It could be adapted for use in a heart and soul process by condensing the timeline (i.e. holding multiple sessions in a single workshop day) and increasing the number of facilitators, organizers, and groups involved.
Since the process is also designed to manage conflict on sensitive issues, it does not naturally work well as a way to simply identify aspects of character. It would be more effective if used later in a process, after a community had collected data and opinions, as a way to find areas of agreement and deal with potential conflicts in community character. By itself, the Common Ground Process also does not provide for implementation or long-term evaluation and adaptive management.
The major strengths of the process are its ability to bring people together around difficult issues, rather than creating controversy, and helping groups find areas of agreement. By narrowing the focus to areas upon which people do agree, Common Ground also helps to narrow down long lists of elements, or prioritize those that are most important to the community.
Examples
- Chicago, IL’s Common Ground Planning Process uses some elements of this process, though it is significantly expanded. See Case Studies.
- Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission’s Full Circle project uses the Common Ground Process in one stage.
- The international non-profit Search for Common Ground uses Common Ground processes on issues across the world, from Great Lakes management policy to forums on child soldiers.
- Boulder, CO hosts the Open Space: Our Common Ground forum, which uses the common ground process to resolve open space disputes.