322
S. Almerigi et al.
The Consensus Workshop Method provides the structure for the ICA visioning
process. This method was designed to “enable people to think together, to plan and
to work together as teams” (Stan fi eld 2002 , 5). As a step-by-step process, it begins
with a focus question. In the case of visioning, the question usually regards what
stakeholders would like to see ‘in place’ in the next 5–10 years with reference to a
certain topic or arena. Participants are fi rst asked to brainstorm ideas individually,
and then repeat the activity in small groups with a focus on what will have changed
after a speci fi ed time period if their personal vision has come about. In the small
groups the best ideas are chosen and written on cards (one idea per card). These are
then given to the facilitator who – guided by the entire group – organizes the ideas
into clusters of similar ideas on a sticky wall.
2 Little-by-little, like-minded ideas are
grouped on the wall until none are left.
The intent of clustering is to encourage inquiry within a group in contrast to
what is often the case in groups where group members advocate and defend positions. A good advocate recommends a speci fi c perspective, is convinced that one
position is right and seeks support for that view from others. An inquirer comes to
a topic with an open mind in search of a greater understanding of, or new meaning
to an old established truth (Stan fi eld 2002 ). As inquiry, the Consensus Workshop
invites intuition and associations to reveal connections between ideas that are not
always immediately obvious. According to Stan fi eld ( 2002 , 71), “It seeks a breakthrough of insight that is contained in the data but is also beyond the data.”
Therefore, in the ‘naming step’ that follows, the facilitator pushes the group to give
a title to each of the clusters. In this step, the group reads the cards in the cluster
and then tries to fi nd the meaning suggested through the collection of cards. The
ICA refers to the clustering and naming process as ‘gestalting’. It is about achieving breakthrough insights that spring from the juxtaposing of many pieces of data.
The titles given to the clusters become the groups’ shared positive vision of the
combined group’s hopes and desired outcomes (Holman et al. 2007 ). The fi nal step
of the process includes a discussion in which the group re fl ects on the signi fi cance
of the work that has been produced.
For the purpose of developing a vision for marine EBM in the Wider Caribbean,
participants were assigned into four breakout groups, each representing an area
of interest or responsibility. These sessions represented the following elements
of the Caribbean Sea ecosystem: (1) the continental shelf; (2) offshore pelagic
resources; (3) coral reef resources; and (4) regional governance. These topic
areas were chosen because they are the major marine ecosystems of the Wider
Caribbean Region within which EBM would need to be undertaken. Care was
taken to ensure that there was a diversity of participants in each topic area.
Participants were assigned to groups based on their background and experience.
They were, however, offered the opportunity to change if they preferred to be in
a group with a different topic. It was recommended that people fi nd someone
from the desired group to exchange with so as to not reduce the size of the groups.
Each breakout session undertook a visioning exercise, led by a facilitator trained
2 A nylon sheet sprayed with a non-permanent adhesive that allows for the repositioning of cards
by a facilitator.
S. Almerigi et al.
The Consensus Workshop Method provides the structure for the ICA visioning
process. This method was designed to “enable people to think together, to plan and
to work together as teams” (Stan fi eld 2002 , 5). As a step-by-step process, it begins
with a focus question. In the case of visioning, the question usually regards what
stakeholders would like to see ‘in place’ in the next 5–10 years with reference to a
certain topic or arena. Participants are fi rst asked to brainstorm ideas individually,
and then repeat the activity in small groups with a focus on what will have changed
after a speci fi ed time period if their personal vision has come about. In the small
groups the best ideas are chosen and written on cards (one idea per card). These are
then given to the facilitator who – guided by the entire group – organizes the ideas
into clusters of similar ideas on a sticky wall.
2 Little-by-little, like-minded ideas are
grouped on the wall until none are left.
The intent of clustering is to encourage inquiry within a group in contrast to
what is often the case in groups where group members advocate and defend positions. A good advocate recommends a speci fi c perspective, is convinced that one
position is right and seeks support for that view from others. An inquirer comes to
a topic with an open mind in search of a greater understanding of, or new meaning
to an old established truth (Stan fi eld 2002 ). As inquiry, the Consensus Workshop
invites intuition and associations to reveal connections between ideas that are not
always immediately obvious. According to Stan fi eld ( 2002 , 71), “It seeks a breakthrough of insight that is contained in the data but is also beyond the data.”
Therefore, in the ‘naming step’ that follows, the facilitator pushes the group to give
a title to each of the clusters. In this step, the group reads the cards in the cluster
and then tries to fi nd the meaning suggested through the collection of cards. The
ICA refers to the clustering and naming process as ‘gestalting’. It is about achieving breakthrough insights that spring from the juxtaposing of many pieces of data.
The titles given to the clusters become the groups’ shared positive vision of the
combined group’s hopes and desired outcomes (Holman et al. 2007 ). The fi nal step
of the process includes a discussion in which the group re fl ects on the signi fi cance
of the work that has been produced.
For the purpose of developing a vision for marine EBM in the Wider Caribbean,
participants were assigned into four breakout groups, each representing an area
of interest or responsibility. These sessions represented the following elements
of the Caribbean Sea ecosystem: (1) the continental shelf; (2) offshore pelagic
resources; (3) coral reef resources; and (4) regional governance. These topic
areas were chosen because they are the major marine ecosystems of the Wider
Caribbean Region within which EBM would need to be undertaken. Care was
taken to ensure that there was a diversity of participants in each topic area.
Participants were assigned to groups based on their background and experience.
They were, however, offered the opportunity to change if they preferred to be in
a group with a different topic. It was recommended that people fi nd someone
from the desired group to exchange with so as to not reduce the size of the groups.
Each breakout session undertook a visioning exercise, led by a facilitator trained
2 A nylon sheet sprayed with a non-permanent adhesive that allows for the repositioning of cards
by a facilitator.