Radical surgery needed

I promise no rants this time. But just to recap:

We don't need the sticking plaster of reasonable adjustments in Wales. We need radical surgery.

I believe it is possible for public life in Wales to become inclusive. But...

it requires a different way of seeing the world, different way of relating with ourselves and other people, different ways of planning and different ways of organising and doing stuff.

To me, that adds up to some pretty radical surgery for public life in Wales.

Pre-op

Step 1 is to believe that inclusive public life is a) possible, b) desirable and c) is stronger than a public life that excludes so many people. If you need help getting your head round that, check out the now-finished Evolve, part of Chwarae Teg's Agile Nation project.

Step 2 is to get your head round Shared Spaces, a way of thinking about how we relate.

Step 3 is to get the most diverse bunch of mystery shoppers possible to check out, honestly, what it's like to try to be part of public life. And then tell you. Don't be devastated; we know (most of) you didn't mean to shut so many people out; you just didn't realise what you were doing.

So far, so straightforward. There are routemaps, tools and examples for all the above.

Then the fun starts.

Planning for experimental surgery

Let's start off small. How do you organise an inclusive public meeting?

I will be honest. I don't know. I haven't been to one. And I don't claim to have run one.

What I do know is that I make assumptions whenever I organise anything. We all do. And the problems come because we unconsciously assume people are like us or people we know well. So our assumptions mean we come up with something that works for us, rather than works for anyone.

Here are a few assumptions I know I used to make. And I see these assumptions at almost every public meeting I go to. We don't even notice these assumptions because they are true for most people traditionally involved in public life. So when someone pops up who doesn't fit the mould we've made, we often get a bit flustered.

We usually (unconsciously) assume:

• people drive or have access to a car
• people are fully mobile
• people can hear
• people can see
• people can read and write
• people can listen, think and plan a response all at the same time
• people have enough stamina for an 8 hour working day with only few breaks
• people use language the same way as you, and know the same jargon
• people know when and how to break into a discussion to get heard
• people know what to wear (and have access to what they think they should wear)
• people can afford to cover their own expenses, or at least pay up front and wait to get the money back

You can probably add assumptions of your own - and please do add them in the comments. It's the old Johari window effect; The dangerous part of the window is where I'm not aware of what I don't know.We made a video about the whispering service - a way to include people who don't follow public-life-speak. And to our shame, it never crossed our minds to subtitle it because none of us in Barod is D/deaf. So we excluded a whole bunch of people from a video about how to include a another (probably overlapping) bunch of people. We are very grateful to some lovely twitter friends who gently pointed this out - and I'm learning how to subtitle and video edit so we can do something about it.

First attempts at radical surgery

As Barod, we are learning and developing prototypes for more inclusive ways of running meetings. Our wonderful friends at Good Practice Wales and Working With Not To give us opportunities to test them out. 

We routinely ask, when invited to discussion meetings, for a series of things that make it easier for Barod to take part:

• people's willingness to send information and presentations in advance so we can take time to prepare (so we have space to think, reflect and check things out in advance)
• people's tolerance if we need to ask someone to slow down, repeat what they said, rephrase what they said or allow one of us to double check we have understood (so we aren't left with a choice of embarrassment at asking or remaining clueless)
• an agreement whether speakers will keep things plain, clear, slow and jargon-free, or for Barod to provide a translator for anyone who struggles with standard public life speak (so we don't look stupid just because we can't process a stream of unfamiliar words quickly)
• a minute or two's gap between a presentation or question and the start of the discussion (so we can stop, think and decide what needs saying by us)
• for everyone to put their hand up and wait to be invited to speak by the Chair (so we know where to look before someone starts speaking, we aren't trying to follow multiple conversations and you don't need to be skilled at breaking into discussion without looking like you are interrupting)

Asking for this involves compromise on both sides. We aren't asking for the gold standard of accessible meetings for people with a learning difficulty [if you want to know more about what a gold standard meeting would be like, ask Barod!]. We are asking people to value us enough to make it possible for us to be part of their meeting. And we do suggest they try these things for all meetings, as experience shows it makes for better meetings for everyone.

Towards an inclusive future?

Experimental surgery is risky. It needs to be based on the best possible information, thinking, skills and expertise. So perhaps what we need is a bunch of people who, between us, fail to fit in with any of the assumptions. If we could work out how to work together on an equal footing, then we'd have the makings of a model for inclusive public life ready to test out. 

Any volunteers? (And any offers to pay foreveryone's time?)