Copyright This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 727066 Unless officially marked PUBLIC, this document and its contents remain the property of the beneficiaries of the WYRED Consortium and may not be distributed or reproduced without the express approval of the Project Coordinator. netWorked Youth Research for Empowerment in the Digital society Corpus of session reports WP5_ D5.1 v1 Any dissemination of results must indicate that it reflects only the author's view and that the Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains Grant Agreement number: 727066 Corpus of Session Reports/Key Research Questions WP5_D5.1 v1 1 H2020-SC6-REV-INEQUAL-2016 Grant Agreement number: 727066 1st November 2016 – 30th September 2019 Corpus of session reports WP5_D5.1 v1 * cfr. GA – Annex I Part A – 1.3.2 WT2 – list of deliverable Deliverable description Filename WYRED_WP5 D5.1 v1 Type Report Dissemination level PU DOI 10.5281/zenodo.891177 Due Date (in months) M8 Deliverable contributors Version No. Name, Institution Role Last update 1 Early Years – the organisation for young children Northern Ireland WP5 Leader 07/07/2017 1.1 Early Years – the organisation for young children Northern Ireland WP5 Leader 17/07/2017 Corpus of Session Reports/Key Research Questions WP5_D5.1 v1 2 Table of Contents 1. Introduction to the WYRED Project __________________________________________ 3 2. Social Dialogue Phase _____________________________________________________ 4 3. List of tables ____________________________________________________________ 6 4. Description of the activities ________________________________________________ 7 5. Conclusions ____________________________________________________________ 10 6. Appendices ____________________________________________________________ 12 7. References _____________________________________________________________ 13 Corpus of Session Reports/Key Research Questions WP5_D5.1 v1 3 1. Introduction to the WYRED Project The WYRED project (netWorked Youth Research for Empowerment in the Digital society) (García-Peñalvo, 2016b, 2017; García-Peñalvo & Kearney, 2016) aims to provide a framework for research in which children and young people can express and explore their perspectives and interests in relation to digital society, but also a platform (Durán-Escudero, García-Peñalvo, & Therón-Sánchez, 2017; García-Peñalvo, 2016a; García-Peñalvo & Durán-Escudero, 2017) from which they can communicate their perspectives to other stakeholders effectively through innovative engagement processes (WYRED Consortium, 2017a, 2017b). WYRED will do this by implementing a generative research cycle involving networking, dialogue, participatory research and interpretation phases centred around and driven by children and young people, out of which a diverse range of outputs, critical perspectives and other insights will emerge to inform policy and decision-making in relation to children and young people’s needs in relation to digital society. 1.1. Work Package 5 (WP5) in context The full cycle of activity in WYRED starts with network building in WP 4, in which the children and young people (C&YP) who will participate in the research cycle are attracted and engaged and the principal themes that represent their concerns are identified. The next work package (5) focuses on social dialogue around those themes, exploring them in order to identify key research questions relating to the digital society that concern children and young people. In the subsequent work package (6), these children and young people, supported by the partners, will focus on designing and implementing research activities to explore these questions and issues in a range of different ways. WP7 focuses on the interpretation and evaluation both of the process and its resulting production types by the young research participants and partners, and of different formats and artefacts that will be used to present the results, principally insights and recommendations to different target groups at policy level and in wider society. The final phase of the cycle in WP8 focuses on the dissemination and exploitation of these results, though this work package runs throughout the project, engaging in the valorisation of the WYRED activity through workshops, event participation, online activity and association. These 5 work packages form a cycle that is aimed at generating insights relating to the perspectives and concerns of children and young people in relation to digital society. Corpus of Session Reports/Key Research Questions WP5_D5.1 v1 4 Figure 1: WYRED work packages (WP) The present report focusses on WP 5 and presents the activities of the Social Dialogues Phase. 2. Social Dialogue Phase 2.1 Objectives A key aim of WYRED is to engage young people in a process of social dialogue that gives them a voice, and help them use this process to design participatory research projects that allow them to surface and explore their concerns about the digital society in ways defined by them. After the first network building stage of the WYRED cycle, the focus passes to social dialogue: WP5 – Facilitate a set of dialogues to explore the themes in WP4 (brought out through Delphi questionnaire) to generate an open set of appropriate questions / key research questions relating to the digital society that concern children and young people which will then be investigated and researched (in as many ways as possible) in WP6. In a project such as WYRED, which involves a large number of participants from diverse contexts designing their own research-focused activities, many of whom will be from non-academic backgrounds, it is very important to ensure that the work is based on rich questions that are relevant to children and young people. It is also important to ground the research in the realities of the digital society in Europe as experienced by children and young people. The aim of this work package is to facilitate a set of dialogues that explore the themes identified in the previous work package (WP4). The transcripts and recordings of the dialogue sessions will then be analysed using a range of techniques including thematic coding, corpus analysis, and other analytics processes. The results of this process will be used in online discussions by ―core groups‖ in each country, made up of a selection of the Corpus of Session Reports/Key Research Questions WP5_D5.1 v1 5 dialogue participants and the partners, in order to generate an open set of appropriate questions that will then be investigated in the activities that take place in WP6. The dialogues will allow the participants in the process to express their views, speak of their experience and identify the aspects that they would like to explore further. In order to ensure a sufficient range of arenas for dialogue this work will take place both online and off-line in workshops organised by the partners. 2.2 Targets All partners to organise and moderate in language of own country at least 3 face-to-face sessions and 3 online synchronous discussions per cycle with minimum of 15 participants. Partners will organise and moderate Asynchronous dialogue sessions activities (a minimum of 3 separate dialogue processes) in the language of their own countries, and there will also be an international set of dialogues, carried out in English in which all partners participate sharing insights and results from their own national dialogues The transcripts and recordings of the dialogue sessions will be analysed using a range of techniques to generate rich research questions that can be used in the subsequent work package 6. Key Research Questions examined to create a prioritised list. This will be done with reference to the key themes that emerged in WP4 package as well. The questions that are seen as most relevant will be the ones presented to the other core groups, and after discussion, the final shared list will be prepared. Corpus of Session Reports/Key Research Questions WP5_D5.1 v1 6 3. List of tables 3.1 Dialogue Sessions Dates of Dialogues May 2017 – end June 2017 Dialogue Sessions 26 Types of dialogues • 25 face to face and including 2 online Partner Organisations • Moves • TAU • Early Years • YEU • USAL • PYE • Boundaries • Oxfam • DOGA Number of Participants 436 Age group Categories in dialogues 1) younger than 10, 2) 10-14, 3) 15-19, 4) 20-24, 5) 25-29. Category/ Number of dialogues 1) 3 2) 3 3) 15 4) 3 5) 2 NB: some participants spanned across 2 of age categories and are recorded under lower end of the scale Length of sessions Ranging from 1 – 3 hours 3.2 Range of evidence gathering tools used in the sessions Inclusion Monitoring Forms completed for all participants Attendance Sheets x Participatory Evaluation Methods x Transcripts x Photographs x Video x Interviews Other (recording) x Corpus of Session Reports/Key Research Questions WP5_D5.1 v1 7 3.3 Completed dialogues by partner and numbers of participants Partner Total number of dialogues Dialogue 1 Dialogue 2 Dialogue 3 Dialogue 4 Total Moves 4 17 17 13 16 63 TAU 4 14 12 17 19 62 Early Years 3 15 15 16 16 YEU 3 5 8 35 48 USAL 4 90 *Using social media tools 45 *Asynchronous tools 7 8 150 PYE 2 10 7 17 Boundaries 2 16 15 (5 new) 21 Oxfam 2 9 5 14 DOGA 2 20 25 45 26 436* • *In USAL the facilitator used a blended approach in the organization of the dialogues, where the face- to-face sessions have been supported before and/or after by different online tools (Remind, Tricider, Twitter...). It is described fully in USAL Dialogue reports (Appendix 7) • *This is the total number of participants facilitated across the 26 dialogues sessions. Clarification is needed in relation to double counting. Early Years 15+ 1 participants over 3 sessions. Boundaries 21 over 2 sessions with 10 attending both 4. Description of the activities 4.1 Face to face Dialogues Corpus of Session Reports/Key Research Questions WP5_D5.1 v1 8 In order to achieve the objectives of WP5, the lead partner designed a Social Dialogues handbook (Appendix 1) with guidance for the partners to follow during the Social Dialogue phase and assistance in addressing the identified issues and concerns that could arise, using a range of techniques, when facilitating dialogues with children and young people such as: • Ability to facilitate groups face to face • Ability to facilitate groups on line • Facilitate interactive gatherings • Awareness of facilitation techniques to promote active involvement • Tools of engagement • Supporting articulation of issues of concern • Relationship building • Understanding the technology • Equal regard – diversity of perspectives • Low participation of C&YP and other stakeholders • Lack of understanding • Low degree of interaction • Not seen as relevant or interesting The guidance will be reviewed for the 2nd cycle following analysis of the session reports. Frameworks and templates (Appendices 3 – 6) were provided to ensure a consistency of approach throughout the Social Dialogue phase. The dialogues’ primary focus was to give a wide range of children and young people the opportunity to share their voices around a range of topics and themes in relation to the digital society that interest or concern them. The Dialogues engendered lively and energetic debate among young people – the themes presented by the facilitators were based on the Delphi questionnaire topics (see Delphi Report) mainly – however other areas of interest outside the digital society were also discussed and raised as issues of priority. Some partners identified possible research questions/areas of foci under the prioritized themes. (See D52 Key Research Questions – list of suggestions for the research activities arising from the Dialogues on page 13) One of the partners USAL facilitated the dialogues by using a blended approach in the organization of the dialogues, where the face to face sessions were supported before and/or after by different online tools (Remind, Tricider, Twitter...). It is described fully in USAL Dialogue reports (Appendix 7). 4.2 Online Dialogues The development of the WYRED Platform and the lack of experience of the members of the consortium on moderating/facilitating on line dialogues has been addressed with a forward plan for the online dialogues as follows: Corpus of Session Reports/Key Research Questions WP5_D5.1 v1 9 4.2.1 Aims of the online dialogues To promote engaging conversations around the subjects that have been identified as important in the Delphi process. To consolidate young people’s engagement with WYRED. To identify key questions for exploration that derive form the discussion around these themes. For some, opportunities for language practice. 4.2.2 Considerations Though the dynamics of online interaction are different to face to face (F2F), many principles remain similar: there is a need to create a safe space for interaction, where all views are respected, a need for “rich” questions that open up the conversation and move it forward, a need to encourage and then recognise participation by all, and the capacity to be still and listen when the conversation has developed its own life. These will be asynchronous conversations, anyone can contribute any time, but in order to give them a certain dynamic, it is useful to limit the duration. Few of the members of the consortium have experience of this kind of activity and it is suggested therefore that the partners practice together on the platform over July and August before beginning the online activities with children and young people 4.2.3 Procedure An online asynchronous conversation can be said to have a narrative “arc” as follows: First the group comes together, and at this point the different people participating present themselves in some way. This is similar in F2F but here there is a need for some detail, set out in a message, to give some flesh to each name, an identity for the conversation. This can be simply a request for a brief self-description, to game- like activities such as “Two truths and a lie”, or similar, what is important is a stage in which the “empty” online space is populated by the participants. •Next the moderator sets out the space, and defines it, this could be by defining a task to be done or an objective. At this point it is useful to make clear any expectations that there might be about the conversation that is to take place. It is frequently valuable to indicate that what is expected is exchange, as opposed to single message responses. What is done here is to define the “space” of the conversation. This includes seeding the subject, with a question, a text or a video or a photo, and a request for some kind of action/reaction from the participants. In this way, the conversation is framed and directed. In some cases, this is all that is required, however explicit instructions can be helpful, for example asking for a response, and a response to another message posted by someone else. Corpus of Session Reports/Key Research Questions WP5_D5.1 v1 10 After this initial message, the participants respond, posting their own messages and responding to others. It is frequently necessary for the moderator to facilitate this, encouraging those who are silent to post, and responding to those who do, where necessary, to model the interaction expected and populate/catalyse the conversation. Though the space and the rhythm of interaction is different, many of the strategies used here are like those of the online conversation. Once initial responses have taken place, the conversation can follow its own paths, led by the comments made by the participants, at this point the moderators’ role is to “hold the space”, sometimes redirecting, sometimes listening, sometimes referring to earlier comments, or voices that are not being heard as much, and sometimes throwing in new questions to revitalise the conversation, or ensure that certain areas are explored. In our context, where these dialogues are ideally going to generate questions to explore in the research phase, an additional role of the moderator is to identify possibilities, comment on them, and flag them for later reference. Closure. To keep them tight it is useful to bound these conversations, and have a closure date. As this arrives the moderator’s role is to summarise, mentioning questions that have arisen and asking for comments on the summary, issues that may have been omitted, clarifications and so on. 5. Conclusions 5.1 What went well within the dialogues (Feedback from partner reports) Twenty – five dialogue sessions took place by end of June 2017 across 9 partners with a wide range of nationalities taking part. Lively and interactive discussions were had by C&YP. A good degree of commitment was displayed. C&YP felt empowered and could relate to the subject matter as they were living through the experiences. Relaxed and warm atmosphere created. Active participation. C&YP proved themselves to be active decision makers. They were willing to be challenged in relation to their ideas and concepts. Sound relationships were formed between groups of young people. Sensitive reflections from first hand experiences. C&YP actually facilitated the dialogues themselves. Individual work gave confidence to take part in group work. C&YP saw themselves as part of society and took responsibility of using outcomes to change the status quo. C&YP felt heard and listened to in the process. The process of social dialogue allows for engaging and building alliances. The diverse nature of some groups reflected the inclusive nature of the WYRED project. C&YP explored themes relating to the digital society and each partner identified how important these themes were to their C&YP. The dialogues also raised issues outside the identified areas in the Delphi questionnaires. Other issues were raised not directly related to the digital society. The issues that groups chose clearly mattered to them. In some cases (school environment where involvement of the teacher was very valuable) participation was voluntary and more participants got involved over the sessions indicating a growth pattern. Research questions identified lend themselves to manageable and accessible projects. Corpus of Session Reports/Key Research Questions WP5_D5.1 v1 11 5.2 Recommendations from facilitating the dialogues (Feedback from partner reports) • Using this type of dialogue to collect evidence from C&YP. • To open dialogue activities to a broader community – e.g. music, arts, literature. • Adequate time needs to be given for fruitful dialogues to happen. • Timings of dialogues to be considered in line with academic calendars. • Be prepared for C&YP to change their minds. • To include the concept of global citizenship and the SDG framework as a way for young people to better conceptualize their potential role in society. • Keep a balance between innovative and already experimented methods when evaluating. • The use of online dialogues would complement the face to face dialogues. • Facilitators need to have a bank of activities and ideas for energizers and discussion seeders at their fingertips • Have a variety of resources available to the facilitators to keep momentum up during the dialogues. • Value of face to face interactions and dialogue • Pursue possibilities of bi-lateral and multilateral exchange opportunities. • To communicate the possibility of taking action and responsibility to change things. • To use the dialogue process to involve young people in consultations to create or change policies. • Make sure that there are translation resources and if possible interpreters when working with diverse groups of C&YP within one group. • For ‘homogeneous’ groups, take into account how to offer them spaces for reflection on their own issues before moving towards a bigger audience. • The dialogues created interest in C&YP being more involved with the WYRED project in the future. • At the moment, our experience with face to face dialogues seems good and each partner has organized and reported the results of these activities. The next step is to see how to organize online sessions, so to document also at distance synchronous and a-synchronous interaction with the young participants. • In order to engage C&YP where there is a gatekeeper and maintain interest, it is important to use a ‘light touch’ initially i.e. using recording of the session rather than more intrusive methods of gathering evidence. 5.3 Recommendations for the rollout of the Online dialogues • During July, the partners will test the platform and use it both to check the system and to get familiar with the environment, but in particular to be trained in the online interaction methodology. • USAL experience – using the ‘blended approach’ between online and face to face dialogues could be a strategy for all the partners to use. • After the short internal training the platform will be tested with "core reduced groups of discussion", made up of a selection of face to face dialogues participants (according to the project proposal). They will be organized by country/language and there will be also an international group. The objective of Corpus of Session Reports/Key Research Questions WP5_D5.1 v1 12 this test is to have a real (reduced) pilot before officially announcing the platform in Autumn 2017 and at the same time will allow the partners to document the online dialogues due for the first cycle. 6. Appendices 1. WP5 Social Dialogue Handbook/Guidance 2. Outline of the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) 3. WP5 Social Dialogue Session Sample- Duration 1- 2 hours 4. WP5 Six Session Framework in line with NGT 5. WP5 Social Dialogues Report Template 6. WP5 Sample Attendance Sheet for Dialogues 7. Showcase Workshops (Oxfam) 8. WP5 Corpus of Session Reports by Partner All the documents of this list are available at: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B2FDfkorWOO7UXBkNmxyOTlVckE?u sp=sharing Corpus of Session Reports/Key Research Questions WP5_D5.1 v1 13 7. References Durán-Escudero, J., García-Peñalvo, F. J., & Therón-Sánchez, R. (2017). An architectural proposal to explore the data of a private community through visual analytic. Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality, TEEM 2017, Cádiz, Spain. García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2016a). WP3 WYRED Platform Development. Retrieved from http://repositorio.grial.eu/handle/grial/732. doi:10.5281/zenodo.208374 García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2016b). The WYRED Project: A Technological Platform for a Generative Research and Dialogue about Youth Perspectives and Interests in Digital Society. Journal of Information Technology Research, 9(4), vi-x. García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2017). WYRED Project. Education in the Knowledge Society, 18(3). García-Peñalvo, F. J., & Durán-Escudero, J. (2017). Interaction design principles in WYRED platform. In P. Zaphiris & A. Ioannou (Eds.), Learning and Collaboration Technologies. Technology in Education. 4th International Conference, LCT 2017. Held as Part of HCI International 2017, Vancouver, BC, Canada, July 9–14, 2017. Proceedings, Part II (pp. 371-381). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. García-Peñalvo, F. J., & Kearney, N. A. (2016). Networked youth research for empowerment in digital society. The WYRED project. In F. J. García-Peñalvo (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (TEEM’16) (Salamanca, Spain, November 2-4, 2016) (pp. 3-9). New York, NY, USA: ACM. WYRED Consortium. (2017a). WYRED Research Cycle Infographic. European Union: WYRED Consortium. doi:10.5281/zenodo.572622 WYRED Consortium. (2017b). WYRED Research Cycle Overview Infographic. European Union: WYRED Consortium. doi:10.5281/zenodo.572633