SDDP URVT 19 12 2008: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
=='''SDDP_URVT Identifying the challenges and barriers to the asylum procedure in Cyprus'''== | =='''SDDP_URVT Identifying the challenges and barriers to the asylum procedure in Cyprus'''== | ||
| Line 10: | Line 9: | ||
|Triggering_Question=What challenges / obstacles are we facing as stakeholders in our efforts to establish and operate a more balanced and effective asylum procedure in Cyprus? | |Triggering_Question=What challenges / obstacles are we facing as stakeholders in our efforts to establish and operate a more balanced and effective asylum procedure in Cyprus? | ||
|project=[[Unit for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Torture]] | |project=[[Unit for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Torture]] | ||
|editor= | |editor= | ||
|author= | |author= | ||
|total_duration= 5hrs | |total_duration= 5hrs | ||
|stats= | |stats= | ||
|dates= 19/12/2012 | |dates= 19/12/2012 | ||
|link= | |link= | ||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 25: | Line 24: | ||
All participants will take part in a structured democratic dialogue and, through the long and rich experience, we are able to help develop a common vision for a better understanding of the challenges of the asylum process in Cyprus. At the end of the workshop, the process will have created a "map of challenges" based on consensus and common ground of ideas for all participants. The map will illustrate the influence and interconnection between different ideas. And will therefore be used as a basis for creating strategy and an action plan. The method requires the use of a "triggering question" which defines the structure of the dialogue. | All participants will take part in a structured democratic dialogue and, through the long and rich experience, we are able to help develop a common vision for a better understanding of the challenges of the asylum process in Cyprus. At the end of the workshop, the process will have created a "map of challenges" based on consensus and common ground of ideas for all participants. The map will illustrate the influence and interconnection between different ideas. And will therefore be used as a basis for creating strategy and an action plan. The method requires the use of a "triggering question" which defines the structure of the dialogue. | ||
<u>The [[Triggering Question]] (TQ) for this SDDP was: </u> | <u>The [[Triggering Question]] (TQ) for this SDDP was: </u> | ||
* '''What challenges / obstacles are we facing as stakeholders in our efforts to establish and operate a more balanced and effective asylum procedure in Cyprus?''' | * '''What challenges / obstacles are we facing as stakeholders in our efforts to establish and operate a more balanced and effective asylum procedure in Cyprus?''' | ||
In response to the TQ, the participants came up with 66 obstacles, which were categorized in 7 clusters. Following the voting process, 16 ideas received one or more votes, but only 10 ideas, that received 14 or more votes, were structured to create the influence MAP shown below. <br> | In response to the TQ, the participants came up with 66 obstacles, which were categorized in 7 clusters. Following the voting process, 16 ideas received one or more votes, but only 10 ideas, that received 14 or more votes, were structured to create the influence MAP shown below. <br> | ||
According to the participants of the SDDP URVT, the obstacles with the greatest negative influence on the efficiency of asylum procedure in Cyprus is: <br> | According to the participants of the SDDP URVT, the obstacles with the greatest negative influence on the efficiency of asylum procedure in Cyprus is: <br> | ||
* Idea #6, The lack of well-trained staff in relation to matters | * Idea #6, The lack of well-trained staff in relation to matters | ||
asylum to stakeholders <br> | asylum to stakeholders <br> | ||
* Idea #4: Lack of cooperation, at a strategic level, between relevant stakeholders | |||
[[File:URVT- | [[File:URVT- SDDP1.jpg|thumb|center|upright=5.0|alt=MAP for SDDP URVT.|Influence MAP for SDDP URVT.]] | ||
| Line 42: | Line 45: | ||
The workshop will be conducted through the methodology of "Structured Dialogic Design Process" (Structured Dialogic Design Process, SDDP) known as Structured Democratic Dialogue. The SDDP allows the team involved to discuss an issue with a structured and democratic way that allows us to achieve practical results. It is a deeply reasoned, scientific, psycho-social methodology has evolved over the past 30 years in its current form. Helps build consensus and solve complex problems. | The workshop will be conducted through the methodology of "Structured Dialogic Design Process" (Structured Dialogic Design Process, SDDP) known as Structured Democratic Dialogue. The SDDP allows the team involved to discuss an issue with a structured and democratic way that allows us to achieve practical results. It is a deeply reasoned, scientific, psycho-social methodology has evolved over the past 30 years in its current form. Helps build consensus and solve complex problems. | ||
The workshops | The SDDP workshops contribute the following ways: | ||
* To help participants reach a common understanding of the problem. | * To help participants reach a common understanding of the problem. | ||
| Line 50: | Line 53: | ||
* to establish lasting ties based on respect, trust, and cooperation. | * to establish lasting ties based on respect, trust, and cooperation. | ||
The workshops | The SDDP workshops achieve these results through respecting the autonomy of all participants and the use of a toolkit consensus including discipline, technology, and graphics ideas that allow participants to control the discussion. The SDDP methodology developed to help understand and solve complex social systems (complex societal systems). It has been adopted successfully around the world in situations of uncertainty and conflict. At European level, the method has been used by four European networks of experts with participation of about 20 countries each time. | ||
== Organizers and partners== | == Organizers and partners== | ||
| Line 58: | Line 61: | ||
==External Links== | ==External Links== | ||
[[Category: | [[Category:Future Worlds Center Projects]] | ||
Latest revision as of 00:23, 10 May 2022
SDDP_URVT Identifying the challenges and barriers to the asylum procedure in Cyprus
|
Executive Summary
The workshop organized by the Unit for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Torture in collaboration with Future Worlds Center. This workshop aimed to examine the current asylum procedure and the determination of an ideal future development processes. It was used the method of Democratic Structured Dialogue.
The workshop aims to bring together all involved governmental and non-governmental organizations working with asylum in Cyprus, namely the Asylum Service, the Fund, the Reviewing Authority, the Ministry of Labour, the Police, the Department of Welfare, the Department of Civil Registry and Migration and UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
All participants will take part in a structured democratic dialogue and, through the long and rich experience, we are able to help develop a common vision for a better understanding of the challenges of the asylum process in Cyprus. At the end of the workshop, the process will have created a "map of challenges" based on consensus and common ground of ideas for all participants. The map will illustrate the influence and interconnection between different ideas. And will therefore be used as a basis for creating strategy and an action plan. The method requires the use of a "triggering question" which defines the structure of the dialogue.
The Triggering Question (TQ) for this SDDP was:
- What challenges / obstacles are we facing as stakeholders in our efforts to establish and operate a more balanced and effective asylum procedure in Cyprus?
In response to the TQ, the participants came up with 66 obstacles, which were categorized in 7 clusters. Following the voting process, 16 ideas received one or more votes, but only 10 ideas, that received 14 or more votes, were structured to create the influence MAP shown below.
According to the participants of the SDDP URVT, the obstacles with the greatest negative influence on the efficiency of asylum procedure in Cyprus is:
- Idea #6, The lack of well-trained staff in relation to matters
asylum to stakeholders
- Idea #4: Lack of cooperation, at a strategic level, between relevant stakeholders
Methodology
The workshop will be conducted through the methodology of "Structured Dialogic Design Process" (Structured Dialogic Design Process, SDDP) known as Structured Democratic Dialogue. The SDDP allows the team involved to discuss an issue with a structured and democratic way that allows us to achieve practical results. It is a deeply reasoned, scientific, psycho-social methodology has evolved over the past 30 years in its current form. Helps build consensus and solve complex problems.
The SDDP workshops contribute the following ways:
- To help participants reach a common understanding of the problem.
- To uncover the root causes (roots of the problem).
- Contribute to the consensual adoption of action plans.
- To create groups dedicated to the implementation of projects.
- to establish lasting ties based on respect, trust, and cooperation.
The SDDP workshops achieve these results through respecting the autonomy of all participants and the use of a toolkit consensus including discipline, technology, and graphics ideas that allow participants to control the discussion. The SDDP methodology developed to help understand and solve complex social systems (complex societal systems). It has been adopted successfully around the world in situations of uncertainty and conflict. At European level, the method has been used by four European networks of experts with participation of about 20 countries each time.
Organizers and partners
The workshop was coordinated by specialist colleagues Future Worlds Center. The Steering Group has extensive experience in structured interactive workshops and has worked with many different target groups. They have coordinated more than 30 workshops, 5 of which were international.
