Open Circle
Guiding Questions for Conscious Participation
A question set for research coordination, project management and facilitation – to decide whether, where and how participation is sustainable.
What It's About
30 open questions along the project cycle (Frame–Design–Gather–Interpret–Share)
5 Orientations (Power & Responsibility · Knowledge & Validity · Time & Commitment · Benefit & Impact · Language & Public)
Not a course, not a method, not a checklist – "consciously not" is also legitimate
Three Cards Are Enough
Choose 1 entry point. Take 3 cards. Optional: +1 contrast card.
Entry by Orientation
Optional: 1 contrast card from another orientation
Entry by Phase
Use cards especially when a decision point is approaching.
What You Take Away
Per card: three brief notes
- What is this really about for us?
- What can/do we honestly not want to carry?
- What does this mean for our decision? now / check later / consciously not
At the end (1 minute):
- We will do:
- We consciously leave:
- How will we notice early if this tips?
Resonance Dialogue
1:1 or in teams
Draw a card
Each person draws 1 card face-down from the set.
Read silently (2 min.)
Each person reads individually. What does the question trigger? Where does it touch the project?
Exchange (5–10 min.)
Take turns sharing: What came up? What would be an honest answer? No debate – just listen and understand.
Take away
Brief notes: What are we paying attention to now? What is clear, what is open?
Valid outcome: "No participation in this phase" is also a result.
Workshop Formats for Ambassadors
Three format ideas for using the deck in teams or workshops. Click a format to view the full guide.
Myth – Reality – Price
Teams name widespread participation myths, bring them down to earth, and identify the price of pretending otherwise.
90 min. 8–15 people
Myth – Reality – Price
Teams name widespread participation myths, bring them down to earth, and identify the price of pretending otherwise.
Overview
A format to make collective assumptions about participation visible and name their consequences. The goal is not instruction, but shared clarity about what is honestly possible in the project.
Materials
- • "Open Circle" card set (optional)
- • Flipcharts or digital board
- • Post-its in three colors (Myth / Reality / Price)
Process
Collect myths (20 min.)
Everyone silently writes 2–3 sentences that often come up in the context of participation ("Everyone must have a say", "If we ask, we must implement everything"). Collect on the wall, cluster by themes.
Name reality (30 min.)
In small groups: Take 1–2 myths. What is the actual situation in your projects? What is structural, what is cultural? Note down sober reality sentences.
Make the price visible (20 min.)
What happens if we maintain this myth? What does it cost – in trust, time, resources? Each group presents their findings.
Take away (20 min.)
In plenary: Which myths do we want to actively question? What does this mean for the next project phase? Documentation as an "Anti-Myth Manifesto".
Outcome
Shared awareness of unspoken expectations and their real limits. Foundation for more honest participation designs.
Project Clinic
A team brings a current project. The group works with cards from the set to illuminate blind spots.
120 min. 6–12 people
Project Clinic
A team brings a current project. The group works with cards from the set to illuminate blind spots.
Overview
A collegial consultation format with structured reflection. A project is "treated", not to find solutions, but to see more clearly where participation is stuck.
Materials
- • "Open Circle" card set
- • Silent writing materials
- • Timer
- • Optional: Documentation by neutral person
Process
Case presentation (15 min.)
The presenting team (max. 2–3 people) describes their project, the participation intention, and a concrete question/challenge. Everyone else just listens, no questions.
Silent card reflection (20 min.)
Each person selects 1–2 cards from the set that resonated while listening. Silent notes: Why this card? What does it make visible in the context of the case?
Mirroring (40 min.)
In turns: Everyone reads their chosen question aloud, shares their perception. The presenting team listens, takes notes, doesn't ask back. No discussion, just perspectives alongside perspectives.
Resonance & take away (30 min.)
The presenting team shares: What hit us? What do we take away? Brief exchange in plenary about the process itself.
Closing (15 min.)
What did the format do to us? Where would we have liked to "solve" instead of "see"?
Outcome
No ready answers, but a clearer picture of the challenge. The team sees blind spots without falling into justification or quick solutions.
Fishbowl of Difficult Sentences
Core team sits inside, observers outside. Inner circle discusses selected questions from the set. Goal: Make power relations in the project visible.
90 min. 10–20 people
Fishbowl of Difficult Sentences
Core team sits inside, observers outside. Inner circle discusses selected questions from the set. Goal: Make power relations in the project visible.
Overview
A format for teams working together on a project but having different roles and thus different power. The fishbowl makes visible who speaks, who is silent, whose voice counts.
Materials
- • "Open Circle" card set
- • Circle of chairs (4–6 inside, rest outside)
- • Timer
- • Optional: Silent observation assignment for outer circle
Process
Preparation (10 min.)
Together select 3–4 cards from the set that currently create tension in the project (e.g. #1 “When does engagement stop feeling like co-research and start feeling like compensating for missing resources?”, #13 “Where do we need clear rules and where more room to manoeuvre, so people can participate?”). Clarify fishbowl rules: Inside speaks, outside only listens. One empty chair inside is for spontaneous contributions from the outer circle.
First fishbowl round (25 min.)
Core team (e.g., project management, coordination) sits inside, discusses the selected questions. Outer circle observes: Who speaks how long? Which questions are avoided? What is treated as "given"?
Silent reflection (10 min.)
Everyone notes for themselves: What did I hear/not hear? What surprised, irritated, confirmed me?
Second fishbowl round with switch (25 min.)
Inner and outer circle partially swap. New constellation discusses the same cards. How does the dynamic change?
Evaluation in plenary (20 min.)
What became visible? Which power relations showed themselves? Where must we speak differently, decide differently in the project? No solutions, just naming.
Outcome
Collective awareness of implicit hierarchies and speaking spaces. Foundation for more conscious participation architectures in the project.
Coming Soon
Interactive Selection → show matching question
A tool that guides you through targeted filters to the questions that fit right now.
Background
Concept & Editorial: Jan Meischner
Funded by: The development of this project is financially supported through partX – a training program for participatory research. partX is an initiative by mit:forschen! Gemeinsam Wissen schaffen. The program is implemented by Wissenschaft im Dialog and the Museum für Naturkunde Berlin, and funded by the Federal Ministry of Research, Technology and Space (Germany)
