CHQ Dialogues 2022 Assessment (R1)

PROGRAM ASSESSMENT

Chautauqua Dialogues Prepared for: The Department of Religion Prepared by: Roger Doebke With input and review by the Leadership Team October 25, 2022

1

DOUBLE DOWN ON CIVIL DISCOURSE

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 4 - DATA: Raw data about attendance, number of facilitators, etc.

Page 7 - Assessments from Participants - Extracting the data and comments from 832 assessment cards.

Page 12-Assessments from Facilitators Page 14 - Assessment of Venues Page 15 - Assessment of Focus Dialogue & Venues Page 16 - Assessment of Institutional Support Page 18 - Assessment of Facilitator Training Page 20 - Big Change Recommendations for 2023 Page 21 - The Tent Project Page 22 - The Red Bench Project Page 24 - The Listening Tool Page 27 - Promotion for 2023

3

DATA During the 2022 Season 917 people participated in a CHQ Dialogues. This average of 102 participants per week varied from a low of 67 in Week 1, to a high of 153 in Week 4.

Note the drop in participants during Week 7 was not caused by the event on August 12, as attendance on Friday was strong for all three venues, presumably because many Chautauquans wanted to meet and process the event in a group. It would be interesting to match participation in the Dialogues against the total number of gate passes sold by week. This could tell us if the participation varied by population on the grounds, the topic of the week, or the marketing e orts for CHQ Dialogues.

Total Participants 180 153

160 140

123

120

118

8

9

97

100 80

122

67

80

81

2

3

76

60 40 20 0 4

5

Week

4

ff

1

6

7

Participation by venue varied signi icantly from an average high of 16.2 at the AAHH to a low of 2.4 at Hurlbut Church. After Week 5 it was decided to drop UCC House and Hurlbut Church from the list of venues due to low attendance. Of the 14 venues, 7 of the top 8 attended venues were on Thursday or Friday, with Friday representing 3 of the top 4 attended venues. The 4 lowest attended venues were at 3:30 on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, when more than one venue was available.

Average Participants AAHH Everett Episcopal UU Presbyterian DOC Lutheran United Methodist Quaker Women's Cl ub Catholic Baptist UCC Hurl but Church

16.2 10.8 10.4 10.0 8.4 8.1 7.9 6.8 6.7 5.3 4.7 4.3 2.8 2.4 -

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

Over the nine weeks, 58 individual facilitators participated in CHQ Dialogues and provided 117 unique sessions, though in a few cases, participants were combined when attendance was low at a location near a concurrent Dialogue. When adding up all facilitator participation, including co-facilitators at a single session, facilitators participated in 202 Dialogues. Of the 58 participating facilitators, 13 individuals facilitated over half of the total Dialogues. More than half of the facilitators, 33 of the 58, participated in only one or two Dialogues. Stated di erently, a few of our loyal facilitators provide the backbone of our facilitation, while many came for only a week or two, but still took time to facilitate while at Chautauqua.

ff

f

5

Weeks of Facilitator Participation 18

17

16

16

# Facilitators

14 12 10 8 6

4

4

4

4

3

5

4

1

2 0 1

2

3

4

5

# Weeks

6

6

7

8

9

Assessments from Participants We received 832 completed assessment cards during the 2022 Season. The following information was gleaned from reviewing those responses. We asked attendees to respond to six questions and provided space for comments. Sample responses where chosen based on their being representative of numerous similar comments.

Responding to the question: Is this the irst time you have attended a session?

70% responded that this was the irst time they had attended a session with 30% saying they had attended previously.

Responding to the question: Did you consider this a good experience?

Over 99% responded “Yes” to this question.

Sample responses: “Very positive experience.” “Keep doing It.” “Discussion was organic, everyone got involved.” “I will use these techniques with my groups.” “Builds on the overall CHQ experience.” “Would enjoy such discussions after every lecture.”

“Good experience in respectful, candid dialogue among learned participants.”

“I like the idea of not sharing our expertise before participating.”

“What a lovely experience. I had always been afraid of joining a dialogue thinking that I wouldn’t know how to participate. You made it very pleasant.”

“I talked too much, but it’s because I was so stimulated.”

“The boundaries were clearly stated. Respect was maintained. People were a irmed.”

ff

f

f

7

Responding to the question: On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being best, how would you rate your facilitator?

54% of the time participants gave facilitators a rating of 5.

35% of the time participants gave facilitators a rating of 4.

9% of the time participants gave facilitators a rating of 3.

1.4% of the time participants gave facilitators a rating of 2.

Thus, 89% of the time participants gave facilitators either a 4 or 5 rating 11% of the time the rating was either 2 or 3.

The lower ratings (2 or 3) did not correlate with the general experience the respondents had. Over 90% of those who gave facilitators low rates said that they considered this a good experience.

Sample responses: “I am glad I attended and look forward to attending again. Facilitator was excellent and kept the conversation going” “Best group and facilitator to date. Really did the job well.”

“I liked how the facilitator was welcoming and rea irming.”

“Our group was very active. Great to hear and see everyone encouraged to speak.”

“Cathie had a tough job, handled it perfectly.”

“Syd was excellent.”

“Thanks for having Anita facilitate.”

“Appreciate the welcoming and accepting demeanor of the facilitator.”

“Facilitators were great and led a great dialogue.”

“Kriss is an excellent facilitator.”

ff

8

“Facilitators really kept on task — in a positive way.”

Responding to the question: Do you feel any di erent about any topic discussed after hearing what others in your group had at to say?

62% responded “Yes” Sample responses: “I enjoyed hearing di erent viewpoints and was reminded how di erently CHQ is experienced and what has meaning to other’s lives.”

“Valuable to have dialogue to gain new perspectives.”

“Helpful to have others help me articulate my views.”

“A very worthwhile experience that helped me see things in new ways thanks to others participation.”

Di erent? No. Enhanced understanding, yes.

Responding to the question: Did talking about ideas you heard in the lectures help you process the substance of the lectures?

94% of respondents said the Dialogues helped them process the substance of the lectures.

Sample responses: “The subjects of the week’s interfaith lectures were discussed in a way that helped me integrate my own response. Deep listening was practiced very well.”

“It helped me to better understand the concerns of others.”

“Listening to others was very helpful.”

“Sharing our insights with each other is so helpful as is debrie ing with a new group of Chautauqua friends.”

ff

f

ff

ff

ff

9

“Discussion by other people helped pull ideas together for me.”

“It is good to process the 2:00 lectures in group discussion and to encourage personal action based on the discussions.”

“Surprisingly mind-expanding. Grateful” “I understood a lecture much more profoundly by attending the dialogue. Profound connections with others in an intimate setting.”

Responding to the question: Would you attend a Dialogue in the future?

Well over 99% of respondents said they would attend a Dialogue in the future.

Sample responses: “Leaving tomorrow disappointed I didn’t attend sooner — need to continue in 2023.”

“Educational and motivating. I will attend more.”

“Have one daily. Lots to process.”

“I wish I had done these discussions before now — the last day.”

Responding to the request for additional comments: “These dialogues play a very important role in strengthening the CHQ community.”

“Great improvement over previous years.”

“Open conversation is an asset for all of us.”

“Love the small groups.”

“Nice discussion to end a stimulating week.”

“Grateful for this opportunity as I have wanted a way to converse with others in the community.”

10

“This was excellent. I would like to connect further in this way if it can be beyond the grounds.”

“Keep these going.”

“The hour was honest, di icult and encouraging.”

“Its wonderful to have young people here!”

“Awesome discussion. Wide ranging and powerful — overall feeling. We love Chautauqua!”

“Many thanks. A highlight of my Chautauqua experience.”

“Wonderful community building. Well facilitated.”

“I heard very helpful action steps to take in our community.”

“These are the frosting on the fabulous CHQ ‘cake’ experience.”

“Amazing.”

Negative Comments: The majority of negative comments, although very few in total, related to the large size of some groups. We also received a few negative comments about the “sign-up” process. Some complained about the sessions being to short, but others thought they were too long. A couple of comments were made about the di iculty of inding the location of a venue, speci ically the Presbyterian Chapel and AAHH. A few commented that they wished there was more diversity of opinion in their group.

We have retained the assessment cards and they can be made available for viewing.

f

ff

f

ff

11

Assessments from Facilitators: 1. “Roger’s discussion of vocation yesterday spoke to me. I retired in 2019 from a collaborative family law practice after 40+ years as a lawyer. Later that summer at Chautauqua, I heard Richard Rohr discuss how the second half of our lives may focus more on “being” than on “doing.” Re lecting on “being" helped me not only to transition into retirement but also helped me to prepare for 2020 when my contacts were limited to my children and grandchildren all of whom committed to a strict protocol. But recently, as we have emerged from the restrictions of the pandemic, I have found myself remembering what I enjoyed most about my work. And what I enjoyed most, was the sense of “ low” I experienced from a collaborative session when all the participants were engaged together in a conversation that resulted in one or more “aha” moments. I had the same feeling of low at my last two dialogues during week 4 and week 8. And Roger’s discussion about vocation helped to see that perhaps I could “be” and “do” at the same time. Certainly, I realized that the feeling of low that I experienced in my work is what would sustain me in any vocation I undertake.”

Paula Hopkins

2. “I have only been part of Chautauqua since 2018 and this year is the irst year I felt I really belonged. So many folks seemed to have long term relationships that I did not know how to "jump into." It is by volunteering with the dialogues and joining several other activities that I inally made a deeper connection. It reminds me of church and how I worked with the congregation to include newcomers and yet they returned to their familiar groups. One thing that helped was getting relative newcomers to welcome newcomers.” Barbara Williams

f

f

f

f

f

f

12

3. “The Dialogues had a signi icant impact on me, personally. I found myself listening to the lectures and sermons with a broadening perspective. I seemed to be asking myself, more consciously, How is someone with a di erent personal pro ile hearing these words or responding to this experience in his/her own way? Among the participants in my groups were Catholics, Protestants of several persuasions, Jews, Muslims, a Buddhist, an African-American, and immigrants (from Pakistan, Caribbean Islands, Ireland, China [adopted from], and Eastern Europe).”

4. “Many thanks for the thoughtful, supportive experience you created for me and other newbies to the Dialogues process. I look forward to participating again next summer with more con idence and new appreciation for the whole experience.” Margery Buxbaum 5. I want to mention that I am writing new book, and see an opportunity to lift up the value of facilitating di icult discussions. Will update you once things get a bit farther down the writing road. It strikes me that this kind of thoughtful listening and a irmation of other’s ideas and understandings provide a genuinely authentic path to healing our country and world. Again, thank you for including me in this absolutely essential process of hearing one another! Mary Farr 6. I want to thank you all for everything you did to produce a ine CHQ Dialogues program this summer, especially given the challenges this summer turned out to have for everyone at Chautauqua. I appreciate your including me among the facilitators, especially since I had not had the regular facilitator training. Barbara Williams was most gracious in bringing me into the facilitation process the irst session I attended, and I appreciated her approach. Barbara Child

ff

f

f

f

ff

f

ff

f

13

Assessment of Venues We are grateful for the participation of our denominational houses. Twelve denominations contributed their space each week of the season. Hurlbut Church was also used for the irst three weeks and the Hall of Missions was used for eight weeks to host the dialogues for the Saturday Women’s Club lecture. For the 2023 season we experienced engaging with a number of new hosts and in some cases multiple hosts at a house during the season. Even though our leadership team worked as a liaison for the venues we know we need to work more with house hosts and their boards to make the sessions at their venue the best they can be. Several of the houses did an exceptional job of hosting, but some could have done better and we feel it is our job to help in the process. We did provide materials for house guests they received at their orientation meetings upon arrival. We also worked with the hosts to arrange seating, establishing a quiet area and appropriate signage on the day of the Dialogue at their venue.

Venues nearest the AMP on Friday afternoons don’t work because of the rehearsals by Friday night entertainment groups. The noise levels are simply too great.

f

14

Assessment of Focused Dialogues: We continued to work with the African American Heritage House to provide Dialogues focused on their Wednesday speaker. The speaker they invited each week to speak in the Hall of Philosophy on Wednesday was followed by a Dialogue at the AAHH on Thursday. Focusing on the Wednesday lecture produced (1) more intense conversation, (2) more self-evaluation by participants, (3) a deeper learning process. This format produced the largest attendance of any of the Dialogues. In fact, the groups were too large and it was not possible to split the group because there was no other venue close by. In fact, the most common complaint from participants was that the groups were too large. Two solutions should be considered. First, if we follow the idea of having the dialogues immediately following lectures, we would want to hold the dialogues at venues close to the Hall of Philosophy on Wednesdays. Second, if the desire is to keep the Thursday time slot and the venue at the AAHH we should consider asking AAHH to erect a tent on the lawn next to the house so we can split the groups easily.

We also provided focus dialogues for the Women’s Club Saturday Lecture Series. The number of attendees grew as the season progressed and good sessions were reported.

15

Assessment of Institutional Support All of our Leadership Team agrees that support from Institutional Sta was excellent in every way. Support was provided by the Institution in two ways, one tangible and one intangible. Many of these support elements were tangible. It came from various departments performing speci ic tasks. Ray Downey designed the new logo and Jordan Steves managed the email recruitment soliciting new facilitators. James Freay provided both print services and supplies. Michael Earle engaged our leadership team to learn about the program and video taped two sessions at AAHH to use during the o -season promotion of the Institution. Across the board, Sta did everything they could to make the Dialogues a success.

Also tangible was the senior sta support. Primary support was provided by Maureen Rovegno, Amit Taneja and Mellisa Spas. One or more senior sta attended our Monday Facilitators Lunch at Hurlbut Church each week. They always welcomed the Facilitators, told them about the Institution’s support for and commitment to the Dialogues. Sta also provided appropriate assistance in answering questions that dealt with larger issues and concerns.

• Sta was instrumental in promotion of the Dialogues. Signs for every venue were provided and proved very bene icial in promoting the Dialogues and identifying the host venues.

• Sta agreed during the season to several important initiatives including sign-ups before and after lectures on the Plaza at the AMP. • Sta enhanced the presence of the Dialogues on the Institution website.

• Sta supported a trial registration system using QR codes.

• • Sta was receptive to requests for additional promotion with display ads in the Daily on a regular basis.

ff

ff

ff

ff

ff

ff

f

f

ff

ff

ff

ff

ff

16

• High quality facilitator “badges” were provided by the Institution and facilitators were encouraged to wear them throughout the week. This had the e ect of acknowledging the facilitators and invited the public to engage them with questions about the program.

• Sta announced the Dialogues at all 10:45 and 2:00 Lectures and had a video slide about the Dialogues running before the 10:45.

• Sta arranged for a feature article in the Daily.

• CHQ Dialogues was invited to participate in the ive Sunday Community Group Fairs on Bestor Plaza. Numerous Facilitators engaged with visitors who sought more information about the program.

• Facilitators were invited and did participate in special diversity training by Amit Taneja, Chief Diversity O icer of the Institution.

The intangible was the a irmation and encouragement provided by Sta .

• Preseason, Maureen and Amit worked diligently with the Dialogues leadership to de ine what could be done to make the Dialogues more relevant and more visible.

The results during the season were evident. Many Chautauquans expressed renewed interest in the program and lauded the commitment of the Institution. President, Michael Hill made speci ic reference to the Dialogues in both his opening and closing 3 Taps presentations. He also provided a welcome letter to all facilitators at the beginning of the season.

• Sta members who were not directly involved with the Dialogues made a speci ic point of telling us how much they supported the program.

•

f

ff

ff

f

ff

ff

f

ff

ff

ff

f

17

Assessment of Facilitator Training The o -season training completed in preparation for the 2022 season followed the format of those presented for the 2019 season. We had a total of 82 people who participated in the training. We edited the Manual and prepared new training materials for 2022. Facilitators reported that the materials used in training had substantial in luence on their growth and skill level in leading the dialogues. It is apparent that there is a strong need to continue to train new facilitators by o ering an introductory online class. Therefore, we will repeat this level of training for people who want to join in for the irst time or get a refresher.

There is also an opportunity to create a Level 2 online class for those facilitators who have completed the basic class and have had the irst hand experience of facilitating dialogues at Chautauqua. Envisioned as a more inter-active experience the Level 2 class will address honing skills and discussing how to engage in the “real life” challenges of active facilitation.

Hal Simmons of our leadership team has designed an application form for all new facilitators. We learned in 2022 that we just didn’t know enough about the new people coming in and didn’t have the time to get to know them before making assignments.

Because of the remote nature of our engagement with new facilitators we have learned that we cannot rely on any assumptions about their skill level. We therefore plan to assign all new facilitators to the Observer status to start with, followed by cofacilitating for the number of session necessary based on personal assessments.

Thereafter they will be designated as a Facilitator or released from the program. From our pool of experienced facilitators we plan to select people we will designate Senior Facilitator and use this group more for training and auditing.

We recognize the importance of presenting a consistent product, one that follows the Facilitators Manual. The only way to ensure consistency and quality is to audit the performance of our facilitators. To this end we intend to make this part of our program

ff

f

f

ff

f

18

more robust in 2023. Senior Facilitators will devote more time to observing dialogues and meeting with facilitators to conduct evaluations.

We will also provide better tools for our facilitators. In reviewing the note taking from 2022 it is evident that our attendance sheet is not the useful tool it should be for facilitators to take the kind of notes they need to facilitate the conversations. Notes are an important part of not only starting the conversation but knowing where to take it and we will aim will to provide a more sensible road map to accomplish great dialogues.

Race Competency Training For All Facilitators One of our objectives for 2020 (which became 2023) was to ind a way to incorporate race competency training for all facilitators. In 2022 many of our facilitators attended the training o ered by Amit Taneja.

Perhaps it was the content of the programming and themes of the Institution, perhaps the emergence of the African American Heritage House, or both, that made race a common issue participants wanted to discuss in the Dialogues during the 2019 season and again in 2022. Our awareness may also be tied to the fact that the dialogues at the AAHH were coupled to the sponsored lecture which speci ically addressed race each week. In any event, it cannot be denied that race was and most likely will be an issue to be discussed in the Dialogues which mandates that the facilitators gain a level of race competency. To this end, we expect to work with Amit Taneja to incorporate this training into our spring schedule.

Our weekly lunch kicko meeting for facilitators proved invaluable and we would like to continue them. In fact we believe them to be so important that we think they should be mandatory. They became an important part of sharing, training and camaraderie. If we adopt having noontime dialogues every day the Monday Facilitator lunch would most likely start no later than noon sharp.

f

f

ff

ff

19

DOUBLE DOWN A BOLD AGENDA FOR 2023

Big Change Recommendations for 2023 Frequency and Location of Dialogues Add Dialogues Immediately after the 10:45 and 2:00 Lectures Five Days a Week at those Venues closest to the Lecture Platform.

Registration System No sign-up — just show-up Allocated number of chairs will limit number that attend.

Signage at each venue that will announce full sessions.

“PLEASE DO NOT DISTURB” “Sorry we couldn’t accommodate you, this session is full”

20

The Tent Project We proposed that two tents be erected as demonstration venues in high tra ic areas. Our irst choice would be to locate two on Bestor Plaza or alternatively, one in Bestor Plaza and one in Lincoln Park. Both would be custom tents with a 15 person capacity. Each tent would carry the CHQ Dialogues logo and a pedestal sign giving the times when walk-in dialogues would be conducted. The intention would be to use both tents for 12:15 sessions following the 10:45 lecture. If both tents are located within Bestor Plaza we believe that the immediate availability of food would enhance attendance. We have thought about asking Lumi Cafe if they would do something to help with the food.

ff

f

21

The Red Bench Project

We propose forming a partnership with iAct, Interfaith Action of Central Texas (interfaithtexas.org), whose mission statement alines with that of Chautauqua: Mission Statement: We believe the work of bridging the faith divides of our community is not just a “nice” thing to do — it is essential. Any honest assessment of the threats to our children’s future would take into account the very real possibility of interfaith con lict. But, while the threat is global — our response must also be local.

We believe that the work of “cultivating peace and respect” cannot be left to diplomats and dignitaries — we, the faithful, have to play a leading role.

We invite all good-hearted people to join us in this work. You may be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Baha’i, Unitarian, Sikh, secular, or simply a spiritual seeker — but your voice, your talents, and your commitment will be welcomed by the iACT community.

We believe that a future of peace and respect begins with you — and that together we can all be the “i” in iACT… our individual actions can and will make a di erence — join us as we cultivate peace and respect through interfaith dialogue, service, and celebration!

f

ff

22

“The Red Bench is an ongoing dialogue program designed to address one of the most pressing needs of our time: improving interfaith understanding and civil discourse in our society.”

We believe this is a way in which we can bring civil discourse to the public square, that being Bestor Plaza, Miller Park, Alumni Hall and Lincoln Park. It is designed to invite conversation by saying, if you sit here, you are inviting conversation. As iAct puts it, “The Red Bench is a symbol of a place for conversations that cultivate peace and respect.” At Chautauqua the Red Bench also would provide a “porch” for those who may not have a porch to use for conversation.

23

The Listening Tool The sta and the Board of Trustees have created the 150 Forward Plan in collaboration with the Chautauqua Community. It is both aspirational and pragmatic. It features idealistic values and societal challenges with equal aplomb.

Since this document was formulated some “on the run” changes have taken place that are worthy of noting. First, the President of the Institution delivered his closing 3 taps remarks that doubled-down on the idea of what the Institution is and what it isn’t. The idea is that Chautauqua is a platform for thoughtful presentations and for audience engagement through dialogue. Contrasting Chautauqua with other organizations, President Hill was emphatic that this was a place that fostered dialogue not debate. He made the point that the objective was not to bring people from the extremes of opinion together to “sell” their ideology, rather to focus on the vast middle ground of opinion represented by the majority of people.

The vision that Chautuaqua will not imitate cable news by inding speakers with the most divergent opinions who will demonstrate vindictive behavior in order to create drama for the audience makes Chautuaqua distinctive. It also makes Chautauqua more relevant in examining the challenging issues of our time. The very fact that Sta has continued to emphasize that our audiences need to respect the divergent opinions within the audience by not cheering for their side during a presentation is markedly di erent.

This brings forth a critical challenge. How do we create a culture of “listening” and then engaging with each other in dialogues One thing we have learned from our Chautauqua Dialogues program has been that participants frequently don’t have an organized way of listening to what they hear from the speakers. While there is probably no perfect way to listen there can be an organized way. One that leads to greater

ff

f

ff

ff

24

appreciation and understanding of the speaker’s points and one that leads to an elevated level of dialogue.

Breaking down a speaker’s presentation into three categories can give us greater insight into the nature and value of the speaker’s thoughts. Imagine taking a journal with you to each presentation you plan to hear in the coming season. Each page of your journal would be divided into three sections, entitled “Experiences, Observations and Data”. As you listen to the speaker you will note their points supporting their arguments into these three sections. “Experiences” relates to those statements the speaker makes that represent their personal experience. These are the irst level of truths because they relate only to the speaker’s experiences and are factual only to the extent that the speaker personally “experienced” them. Second, although observations are an integral part of the scienti ic process it is important to distinguish between organized and un-organized types. The organized type of observation used in scienti ic terms can lead to data to support an opinion. On the other hand, observations can be no more than an experience quanti ied. Even numerous observations don’t make something true beyond being true in some particular instances. Data, of course, is what

MY CHQ LECTURE JOURNAL

f

f

f

f

25

we all hope for. Something that approaches a truth that we can rely on, make judgments from , etc.

We know from our personal experiences that lectures we hear at Chautauqua can be transformative experiences. We never know when a speaker is going to connect the dots in a way that resonates so strongly with us that we start to think di erently, act di erently and choose to go down a di erent path in life. Recording these experiences can be used to refresh our memories of the important points of the lecture and provide a basis for later discussions.

The Listening Journals can be a CHQ Product in the form of the Exam Blue Books we all know, and we suggest they be sold at the Bookstore for $1.00 each or packs of 5 for $3.99.

The life changing power of timing.

Opportunities that might transform our lives so rarely happen at the time we expect them to.

ff

ff

ff

26

PROMOTION FOR 2023 If adopted, the initiatives we are proposing will require publicity and promotion in order to create awareness of not only what we are doing, but why we are doing it. And, needless to say, since our weekly population is now composed of so many folks who are at Chautauqua for a week or two, our promotion e orts need to be oriented to repeats, week after week. We believe that a daily column in The Chautauquan explaining the opportunities as well as listing them is appropriate.

ff

27