|
The beginnings
NWIP was founded by Scandinavian students in order to reach a wider
awareness about the dangers of Nulcear weapons, especially within the
medical community. By now it has grown to an international student
project with hundreds of people participating in trainings, workshops,
delegations and conferences. Click HERE
to read an article on the beginnings of NWIP.
Dialogues
The
Nuclear Weapons Inheritance Project is a student-to-student project
whose aim is to raise awareness
and educate university students on disarmament issues and the dangers
of
nuclear proliferation. It achieves this goal through the use of
dialogues. So far dialogues have been
held with students in
India
and Pakistan, UK, France and Russia. This has allowed us to meet
roughly 1200
students. There have been many setbacks as well as great moments and
wonderful
students participating in these sessions. The dialogue sessions are the
core of
the NWIP agenda since it is the means by which we connect with new
university
students and reach out of our circle.
The
project has been adapted to allow us to successfully reach our goals.
How does
one go about to hold a dialogue session?
Three different levels of
preparations:
-National student
group: when established, it is this
group that sets
the agenda; when a delegation can be received, which places to visit,
what type
of students
-Reading up and
prepare yourself:
takes a long time and needs to be an integral part of all our
activities,
working with the different topics and how to address them
-Make sure the
delegation has
time to get to know each other:
the timing and who does what during
the
dialogue is essential for it to be a success
A session looks something
like the following:
-Presentation of
ourselves,
the project and why we feel it is important to discuss these issues
-Medical effects:
the common
denominator for us as medical students. It has been a way of getting
started
and to evoke emotions as well as avoiding too detailed discussions on
the
complicated technicalities of nuclear weapons, something that we do
discuss a
lot
-Raise hands:
everyone that
believes that their country needs nuclear weapons to be secure, raise
their
hands! This is the large section of the dialogue where, depending on
what
questions or statements that are made, we try to touch upon as many
aspects of
nuclear weapons as possible and speak of our views regarding this
-Alternatives:
The last section
is something that we usually refer to as the Alternatives – what would
be an
alternative way of making your country secure? Finishes with a sum-up
of our
major points, referring back to the dangers of proliferation and the
devastating medical effects of these weapons, and an invitation to join
the
project
How can one tell if it has been a
successful dialogue? Different
evaluation methods have been discussed for the participants. Getting
feedback
on how they perceived the session is invaluable, putting down on paper
three
things to keep and three things to change. The overall impression that
we get
from the dialogue, how our arguments were taken, and the amount of
students
interested in joining us and turn up at the training-session is also a
strong
indicator, but not fully satisfactory, to the level of success.
Evaluation
procedures need to be more of a focus as the group expands and there
are strong
national groups working nationally – making it possible to have
sustainable
activities with a chance of measuring change in opinion over time.
Training Sessions &
Workshops
To
ensure the NWIP lasts and evolves it is not enough for an
international group of students to head out once every two years to
hold these
dialogues. The momentum gained at the dialogues is immense, keeping it
alive is
very hard. There has to be a national group of students, dedicated to
keeping
up the work, if we are to have the desired impact and proceed in our
work. Hence,
the second goal of the project is capacity building and empowerment of
students
to undertake continuous activities in the nuclear weapon states. We try
to hold
training sessions in every city where there is a dialogue. It gives us
a chance
to sit down together to explain the project outline in more detail. The
interested students have the chance to ask more questions and are not
left
asking after a dialogue session “we have learned so much and would like
to know
more but how do we get started?”. A basic outline for such a session,
having
15-25 participants:
-Introduction to
the project:
how did it start, what is the structure, the rationale behind the
project, how
do we hold dialogues * Medical effects – how do nuclear weapons produce
its
effects, both short- and long-term.
-Nuclear weapon
basics:
arsenals, treaties, ways of approaching different pronuclear arguments
-Dialogue
technique and role-play:
what is important to think about when holding a dialogue and how are we
trying
to convey our message
-A model of change:
how do we
go about disarmament and where do our activities fit in
The last and most important part is
composing a Plan of Action. This
will be made by a small group of the students that are willing to start
up work
nationally and should include: who are the members of the team, a time
when the
group will convene again, goals to achieve – e.g. hold a dialogue in
six
months, intermediate goals, funding, communication within the group
(and many
more!). By having this dual approach, dialogues and trainings, we
believe we
have found a good base to expand the NWIP but also to recruit new
students to IPPNW
as a whole.
Communication strategy
The method used has been adopted from the
Oxford Research Group and
reworked
to fit our particular settings of 50-100 students. It is important that
one has
a good strategy and rough plan while keeping an open dialogue with such
a large
group, and at the end to make good conclusions while still maintaining
the interest
of the students.
What do we mean when speaking about dialogue technique as a
communication
strategy? There are a few fundamental things that can be said to be
representative of a dialogue: active listening, mutual respect, a
deepening process,
there are agreements and disagreements. Each time when engaged in
dialogue one
has to be prepared to change some views. Holding a discussion in this
way, an
official way, in most cases prevents a discussion from becoming too
confrontational
with no exchange of opinion, advancement of the discussion and
deepening of
understanding, which would mean that there would be no chance to tie up
the
session and attract students. Sometimes of course there is a need to be
confrontational
to inspire the dialogue – a skill hard to master.
Before the dialogue the delegation sits down to plan a rough draft for
the session. It should include amongst other things: specific issues
related to
that nation that we need to be aware of, the different topics we want
to
discuss and if there are any advances towards disarmament already. The
second
part of the preparations are: presentation – who and what to include,
who will
cover what topics, who will be the chair of the meeting etc. The Chair
function
has been used to make sure that the dialogue advances and that
everyone, both
the delegation and the audience, contributes during the session.
One
can learn a
great deal about small things that are crucial when
speaking to an audience by trial and error. This has led to the drawing
up of a
list of “Do’s and Don'ts” that can be studied before a dialogue. Many
of these
points are obvious but are easy to forget when in the middle of a
session. A
few examples: present only one point at a time, speak slowly and
clearly,
respect and notify the chair if you have a contribution to make, make
sure you
have fully understood any questions posed, try to stay with your set
agenda, do
not let a few loud students get all the attention etc. Last but maybe
most
importantly, you need to be fully aware of and in control of your body
language.
by Richard Fristedt
|