Early insights into hearing stories meaningfully

In the second phase of our work with Dusseldorp Forum and Hands Up Mallee around storytelling for systems change, we are exploring how to create the conditions for stories to be heard by those who need to hear them. 

As we near the end of the listening phase, we’ve heard from government officials and philanthropic funders about:

• How stories are currently perceived and used by governments and funders to understand, evaluate, and engage with community-led systems change work.

• Whether governments and funders connect with the idea of stories as a form of intervention - a lever for change in their own right.

• The opportunities and barriers to governments and funders hearing and valuing stories about community-led systems change work.

Listening to a range of perspectives across government departments from around the world including Europe, North America, and the Asia Pacific has been fascinating. In this blog, we share some of the insights we are learning.

Perception of story

The overall sentiment for and relevance of stories within government and philanthropy are mixed: 

• There is limited efficacy in stories

• Stories can act like gel packs, boosting energy during a marathon for public servants delivering programs

• Sometimes the right story told at the right time to the right person can be a lever for change on its own

‘’I do see policymakers reacting to story, particularly those with lived experience. But how sticky is this response? How can the story last longer than a one-off policy intervention for a particular community?’’ - Professor Tim Reddel, Institute for Social Science Research

It is clear that there is no mechanism in government to hear or use stories consistently and meaningfully. While some formal avenues exist for stories to be heard, such as royal commissions and parliamentary inquiries, there must be more mechanisms to do so in day-to-day work. As part of this work, we will explore what needs to happen for this to be embedded into policymaking processes.  

The tension between qualitative and quantitative

We continue to hear about the tension between quantitative data and qualitative storytelling, evaluation, and action. Generally, there exists a strong bias towards quantitative data due to perceptions that it is robust, reliable, and impartial.

"We had 100 stories about place-based work, but that couldn’t compete with the factoids. For every dollar spent, you save x amount. Always felt like the quant was up against you.’’

Across our listening sessions, we have heard variations of:

•  ‘Individual stories without context don’t feel relevant’.

•  ‘Someone else’s stories are used to advocate for a particular issue’.

•  ‘When people tell stories, it’s because they have vested interests in you believing that’.

This lack of trust in the story, the storyteller, and their perceived bias or agenda is a huge barrier to decision-makers and funders valuing stories. 

We've also heard that the same perceived deficiencies could be applied to data too, though it is not acknowledged in the same way. A public servant who is a data specialist mentioned, ‘I am believed because of my role in data. It seems trustworthy and there is a belief that numbers don’t lie. But those who construct the numbers can lie or misconstrue the numbers’. This tension is an avenue we will look to explore further.

Combining data and story  

We’ve heard decision-makers are most receptive to stories when they are interwoven with quantitative metrics and data. However, it is becoming clear that this is not easy:

“[You] can have an oil and water effect between story people and data people. They don’t collaborate well or combine in a meaningful way.’’ 

Mostly, those who work with data don’t have the skills to work with community and story, nor does government recruit for these skills. A thread we’re looking forward to pulling is the role storyholders play. Storyholders are different from storytellers, working within and alongside government as stewards of stories by:

• Translating stories in a way that honours the investment people have made in telling their stories. 

• Exploring the strategic distinction between honouring the story and communicating it clearly.

• Navigating the barriers of capturing stories and working out how to communicate them inwards to inform decision-making. 

“Honouring the story means feeling responsible for ensuring the story translates into change and action.” - Frances Martin

The next step: sensemaking

We look forward to hosting a collective sensemaking workshop in the coming weeks. We are committed to working in the open and acting as a learning partner. So, we will not be synthesising what we’ve heard ourselves. Instead, we’ve invited those we’ve heard from during this listening phase to come together and collectively make sense of what we’ve been hearing and gather insights. 

This will be an opportunity to develop practical tools and processes to build story listening capacity within government officials and funders and explore their willingness to engage with stories.