LC 00350: verschil tussen versies
Geen bewerkingssamenvatting |
Geen bewerkingssamenvatting |
||
| Regel 1: | Regel 1: | ||
The reflection process serves the purpose of transforming experiences and insights obtained from implementation processes to a vision of cultural identity. This is not a vision in an abstract sense, but contains elements that could be part of the assessment framework. However, these elements should be seen as unsolicited advice. The owners of the democratic and strategic processes carry the ultimate responsibility for the content of the assessment framework. Because the advice is grounded in mutual understanding as a result of implementation processes in which the government took part, the government is actually not really in the position to ignore the advice. | The reflection process serves the purpose of transforming experiences and insights obtained from implementation processes to a vision of cultural identity. This is not a vision in an abstract sense, but contains elements that could be part of the assessment framework. However, these elements should be seen as unsolicited advice. The owners of the democratic and strategic processes carry the ultimate responsibility for the content of the assessment framework. Because the advice is grounded in mutual understanding as a result of implementation processes in which the government took part, the government is actually not really in the position to ignore the advice. | ||
{{Include lesson learned|Lesson learned=LL 00025|Description=Stakeholders' worldviews may differ.|Reference=LC 000346}} | |||
It is important to stress that the government should not be the owner of the reflection process because if it is, the authority of the assessment framework would diminish. However, the reflection process can be organized on behalf of the government. Alternatively, if the government chooses not to be involved, the reflection process can be initiated by parties in a society. Whatever the case may be, the reflection process can best be seen as a form of deliberative democracy (see second ring: …) in which the voice of society as a whole is heard and taken seriously. | It is important to stress that the government should not be the owner of the reflection process because if it is, the authority of the assessment framework would diminish. However, the reflection process can be organized on behalf of the government. Alternatively, if the government chooses not to be involved, the reflection process can be initiated by parties in a society. Whatever the case may be, the reflection process can best be seen as a form of deliberative democracy (see second ring: …) in which the voice of society as a whole is heard and taken seriously. | ||
| Regel 8: | Regel 8: | ||
''CoW illustreren aan de hand van een voorbeeld''. | ''CoW illustreren aan de hand van een voorbeeld''. | ||
{{LC Book config}} | {{LC Book config}} | ||
{{Light Context | {{Light Context | ||
| Regel 25: | Regel 26: | ||
|EMM access control=Access:We got to move, | |EMM access control=Access:We got to move, | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{LC Book additional}} | {{LC Book additional}}<accesscontrol>Access:We got to move</accesscontrol> | ||
Versie van 27 mei 2020 12:09
The reflection process serves the purpose of transforming experiences and insights obtained from implementation processes to a vision of cultural identity. This is not a vision in an abstract sense, but contains elements that could be part of the assessment framework. However, these elements should be seen as unsolicited advice. The owners of the democratic and strategic processes carry the ultimate responsibility for the content of the assessment framework. Because the advice is grounded in mutual understanding as a result of implementation processes in which the government took part, the government is actually not really in the position to ignore the advice.
Geleerde les: Constructive dialog
Samenvatting:
A constructive dialog can take place on the basis of first and second order boundary judgments.
Context:
Stakeholders' worldviews may differ.
- Kijk naar grensoordelen en vooral waarom grenzen zijn getrokken zoals ze zijn getrokken;
- De dialoog moet gaan over de waarom vraag met als concrete voorbeelden eerste-orde observaties.
It is important to stress that the government should not be the owner of the reflection process because if it is, the authority of the assessment framework would diminish. However, the reflection process can be organized on behalf of the government. Alternatively, if the government chooses not to be involved, the reflection process can be initiated by parties in a society. Whatever the case may be, the reflection process can best be seen as a form of deliberative democracy (see second ring: …) in which the voice of society as a whole is heard and taken seriously.
A deliberative democracy can take on many forms, including referendum and citizens council. One specific form is discussed here that befits the ST process. It is called the Council of Wisdom (CoW). In particular, the concepts of assessment framework and mutual understanding play a central role in a CoW. The CoW, as it name suggests, consist of wise people from the ranks of professionals, entrepreneurs, government, researchers, and experience experts. They have the desirable trait of having the willingness to see things broadly and across party lines. Their task is to transform mutual understanding into a well-founded vision on cultural identity expressed in terms of the assessment framework. Since the CoW has no monopoly on wisdom, the vision is open for discussion in all kind of forms, such as a broad dialog or internet consultation. Once this consultation round is over, the revised, widely supported vision is handed over to the government as an unsolicited advice.
CoW illustreren aan de hand van een voorbeeld.
- Lees hiervoor:
- Lees hierna:
Dit is een beveiligde pagina.