This document has been drafted within the framework of the European project Talking about taboos.The project has been funded with support from the European Commission. The document reflects the view only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

1. THE POLISH AND DUTCH TESTS
TESTED GOOD PRACTICES
THE AMSTERDAM MEETING DECEMBER 4, 2014
FUNDACJA CITIZEN PROJECT/
EZZEV FOUNDATION

2. GOOD PRACTICE 1
Promoting individuals saying:
• Sometimes I make mistakes
• Sometimes my motivation is egoistic
• I am part of the problem

4. TESTED IN NL AND PL
• In writing online (NL): only offline reactions
• In video online (NL): only offline reactions
• On air (national radio in PL): great discussion
• Live in groups (Conference Gdansk for trainers; in
workshops Gdynia with trainers, senior citizens; at school
Gdansk with teacher and students)
• Shame, laughter
• Reflection
• Great discussions with instructors, among themselves
• Informal one-on-one contact with trainers, marketers
(NL): great dialogues
• With football hooligans (NL): Shame, laughter

5. ALTERNATIVE SENTENCES - PL (1)
 Sometimes I make mistakes
• Everyone makes mistakes but the key is to fix
them
• I'm not perfect. I'm only human
• It's not like I make everything perfectly, but I try to
get better
• I often makes mistakes
• Experience tells me I rarely make mistakes

6. ALTERNATIVE SENTENCES - PL (2)
 Sometimes my motivation is egoistic
• Everyone has to be satisfied, even me
• It's also in my best interest, but we can both
benefit
• Often, in actions, I think only about myself
• Sometimes I notice that my motivation is egoistic
• I take care of others but I also take care of myself

7. ALTERNATIVE SENTENCES - PL (3)
 I am part of the problem
- I'm not perfect
- I know that I've done mischief
- My habits are part of the problem with interpersonal
relations

8. CONCLUSIONS
This good practice rather works in live contact
and is ineffective online

9. GOOD PRACTICE 2
C2C/ citizen to citizen – dialogue training
• First 90 seconds silence to feel the duration
• 2 people sit opposite each other
• One asks the other answers – fate decides who has which
role
• Rules of behavior are established: listening, good will,
honesty, respect, patience, being interested
• Goal: establish what the two have in common and on
what they differ on a given theme (social exclusion)
• Duration: 90 seconds
• Evaluation by a trainer afterwards

11. TESTED
• In workshops (Gdynia) with trainers and 2
groups of seniors:
- Lively dialogues
- Intense listening, intense searching for the right
words
- The hardest for professionals: they lapse into
techniques
- Hard for individuals who are in a hierarchical
relationship

12. CONCLUSION
This good practice is great to let individuals in a
non-hierarchical relationship exchange
opinions.
Professionals tend to hide behind what they’ve
learned before.

13. GOOD PRACTICE 3
• Intervention in online discussions
- Providing moderate alternatives
- Providing doubt
- Asking for more time, more reflection
(proposing “slow dialogue”)

14. TESTED
• Online in the Dutch Zwarte Pieten-discussie
- Great distrust – accusations of trolling
- Great aggression – you’re a hypocrite afraid
to have a clear opinion

15. CONCLUSION
Slow dialogue does not work online.

16. GOOD PRACTICE 4
• Publishing essays
• Publishing questionnaires

17. TESTED
• Publication of articles online – on Slideshare - on the
Zwarte Pieten discussion:
- [essay] 2 weeks ago: 207 views
- [essay] 4 months ago: 141 views
- [press release] 4 months ago: 401 views
- [PPT essay] 4 months ago: 355 views
- [good practices & literature overview] 4 months ago: 194
- No discussion
• Questionnaire published (Surveymonkey - distribution by
well-connected members in the network):
- Participants: 110 in PL; 472 in NL
- Results published (NL): 536 views
- Discussion with the distributors not with the authors

18. QUESTIONNAIRE PL
• Questionnaire published (Surveymonkey - distribution by
well-connected members in the network) - Participants: 34
• Questionnaire handed out during workshops and
conference:
• Conference Gdansk for trainers – Participants: 53
• workshops Gdynia with trainers, senior citizens –
Participants: 23
• Total number of participants: 110
• Age: 20 – 70+
• Mostly with higher education

19. QUESTIONNAIRE PL (2)
- Many respondents wrote that they either are not interested in the
subject or there are more important issues not being discussed
- They describe it as a work of art, symbol of freedom, tolerance,
equality
- They see proponents & opponents as normal people fighting for their
rights and believes
- They think that the discussion should stop – it would be bether for
everyone and there are more urging matters than rainbow
- There were few radical responses against the rainbow, that
„zoophiles, murderers, thieves will be trying to make a monument for
themselves”

20. CONCLUSION
An online questionnaire about a real taboo
subject does not work but about an explosive
subject does work.
Articles on an explosive subject are read but
not discussed – or maybe that’s the effect I
[Onno] have. In 6 years of being a journalist I
got 2 reactions, 1 by my cousin in Australia
who found me for private reasons.

21. ANNEX – PL RESULTS

22. ANNEX – PL RESULTS (2)

23. ANNEX – PL RESULTS (3)

24. ANNEX – PL RESULTS (4)

25. ANNEX – PL RESULTS (5)

26. ANNEX – PL RESULTS (6)

27. ANNEX – PL RESULTS (7)

28. ANNEX – PL RESULTS (8)

29. ANNEX – PL RESULTS (9)