# data[].attributes.body
I agree with the other posts that technology could be used to help women feel more comfortable to engage and share. This could be through anonymous surveys and online chats. Therefore opinions and feedback can be provided without fear or judgement and providers a greater more equal opportunity.

# data[].attributes.body
The Contact Hypothesis theory, female facilitation appears to encourage more positive and inclusive interactions. Female facilitators helped to create a supportive environment where participants felt comfortable sharing their views, resulting in higher levels of participation and ultimately understanding.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, bias may have impacted the results. Unconscious bias and gender stereotypes could have influenced how participants answered and I am sure would have impacted overall engagement.

# data[].attributes.body
During a recent strategy planning session, the facilitator used breakout groups, which I found made it easier for everyone to contribute. Smaller groups created a more comfortable space for people to share their ideas and helped move away from having only the loudest voices heard.

The facilitator also used butcher’s paper and Post-it notes, giving people different ways to contribute. I think this was especially helpful for quieter people who may prefer time to think before sharing their views.

To make the session even more inclusive, Aboriginal representation in the planning process, including the voices of Elders where appropriate. Providing different ways to participate, allowing time for reflection and creating a culturally safe space can lead to richer conversations and better strategy outcomes.

# data[].attributes.body
During a recent strategy planning session, the facilitator used breakout groups, which I found made it easier for everyone to contribute. Smaller groups created a more comfortable space for people to share their ideas and helped move away from having only the loudest voices heard.

The facilitator also used butcher’s paper and Post-it notes, giving people different ways to contribute. I think this was especially helpful for quieter people who may prefer time to think before sharing their views.

To make the session even more inclusive, Aboriginal representation in the planning process, including the voices of Elders, Young people where appropriate. Providing different ways to participate, allowing time for reflection and creating a culturally safe space can lead to richer conversations and better strategy outcomes.

# data[].attributes.body
During a recent strategy planning session, the facilitator used breakout groups, which I found made it easier for everyone to contribute. Smaller groups created a more comfortable space for people to share their ideas and helped move away from having only the loudest voices heard.

The facilitator also used butcher’s paper and Post-it notes, giving people different ways to contribute. I think this was especially helpful for quieter people who may prefer time to think before sharing their views.

To make the session even more inclusive, I Aboriginal representation in the planning process, including the voices of Elders where appropriate. Providing different ways to participate, allowing time for reflection and creating a culturally safe space leads to richer conversations and better strategy outcomes.

# data[].attributes.body
Technology can help create more equal ways for women to contribute, particularly when speaking up in a formal group may feel uncomfortable. Tools such as anonymous surveys, online polls, chat functions and digital feedback boards allow people to share their views without needing to speak first or compete for airtime.

It can also give participants time to think and respond in their own way. For me, the important point is that technology should support inclusive engagement, not replace genuine conversation.

# data[].attributes.body
Contact Hypothesis theory, female facilitation appears to have helped create a more balanced and comfortable environment for participation. It may have reduced some of the usual gender dynamics and encouraged women to contribute more openly.

This suggests that who facilitates a discussion can influence whether people feel respected, equal and safe to participate. The case shows that good facilitation can help reduce barriers between groups and create more meaningful engagement.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, I think some bias may have influenced the results. Men appeared more confident and spoke more often, which may reflect existing gender norms about who feels comfortable speaking up or being seen as knowledgeable.

The facilitator and the use of Zoom may also have shaped participation, as some people are naturally more comfortable speaking in groups or using technology.

For me, the key learning is that inviting everyone to participate does not always mean everyone has an equal voice. Good engagement needs to create space for quieter participants to be heard.

# data[].attributes.body
I think with any group discussion or meeting it really comes down to the planning and the facilitator in terms of engagement.

Reflecting on several meetings / workshops that were conducted in my organisation for leadership training my experience was very positive. The facilitator was very well prepared, confident and engaging with all members of the team. She wasn't afraid to talk about herself and her experiences, good and bad, to make everyone feel comfortable. She would often plan break out groups to allow staff to delve in to deeper discussions where we would then report back to the group. She was very good at remembering information you shared and then would at times come back to it to make you feel included and important. It was a large group and there was time made to mingle with other break out groups and hear other ideas. Most importantly though there was always structure to each session and a run down of what would be covered and how we were expected to interact. This gave everyone permission to engage. The only issue was on occasion there were dominant people in the break out groups that would take over the session and not give everyone an opportunity to speak within their allotted time. I think having someone in each breakout group to ensure that the task is achieved and everyone has on opportunity to engage and have their say would ensure that a more thorough analysis of the question asked is delivered back to the group.

# data[].attributes.body
The benefits for women in an online setting, is the ability to use the functions to engage whether that be via the chat function or by raising a hand so the facilitator can effectively engage with those who have something important to add. Another option is to utilise the breakout room function and split in to smaller groups for those who are not confident to speak up in a larger forum and assign a facilitator to each breakout room. The facilitator/s need to plan effectively before each session to develop a plan where each participant has an opportunity to have their say.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that personal bias did effect the results in relation to the male and female facilitators. The Case Study presented results that showed male facilitators to focus on the input and response from male counterparts, leading to men dominating discussions and speaking more whilst the female facilitator was able to engage more equally with both genders to provide a more accurate result.

# data[].attributes.headline
Considering the Contact Hypothesis theory

# data[].attributes.subject
Considering the Contact Hypothesis theory

# data[].attributes.body
As the results showed there was greater participation from the female representatives when there was a female facilitator. The report highlighted that the male facilitator was more likely to capture the views initiated by men. Considering the Contact Hypothesis, effective contact requires that the interacting groups perceive each other as equals and the female facilitator was able to achieve this by equally focussing on both female and male contributors and ensuring fairness of outputs.

# data[].attributes.body
In one group meeting I was part of, the facilitator had a big impact on whether I felt comfortable speaking.

When the facilitator was more relaxed and encouraged everyone to share, I felt more confident contributing. But in sessions where one or two people dominated, and the facilitator didn’t step in, it was harder to speak up. I found myself just listening instead.

To make it more inclusive, a few changes could help:

The facilitator actively inviting quieter people to speak

Setting clear rules so no one dominates

Giving people thinking time before answering

Using smaller groups so it feels less intimidating

Overall, the facilitator really sets the tone. If they manage the discussion well, everyone has a better chance to participate.

# data[].attributes.body
Technology could help women feel more comfortable sharing opinions in a few ways.

For example:

Using anonymous chat or polling tools so people can share ideas without feeling judged

Allowing written contributions (like chat boxes or forums) instead of only speaking

Letting people prepare responses beforehand (like pre surveys or shared documents)

Using structured turn taking tools so everyone gets equal speaking time

The article also mentions that online settings can “open up” participation for some people, but they don’t guarantee equality on their own. So, technology helps, but it still needs good facilitation to work properly.

# data[].attributes.body
Using the contact hypothesis, the case suggests that female facilitation can improve participation and equality.

The Contact Hypothesis says that interaction between groups can reduce inequality if the environment is supportive and fair. In this case, female facilitators seemed better at balancing participation and making sure both men and women contributed more equally.

So, I believe female facilitators helped create a more inclusive environment where different voices were heard, which is exactly what the theory predicts, better conditions lead to more equal participation.

# data[].attributes.headline
Yes, I think bias and heuristics likely impacted the results.

# data[].attributes.subject
Yes, I think bias and heuristics likely impacted the results.

# data[].attributes.body
Even though the study tried to be fair and balanced, gender norms still played a role in how people behaved. For example, men often spoke more, spoke first, and dominated some discussions, which could influence what ideas were heard and carried through.

Also, facilitators (especially depending on their gender) seemed to shape whose ideas were captured in the outcomes. That shows a kind of unconscious bias people may not realise they’re favouring certain voices.

So overall, even with a structured process, social habits and assumptions (like who feels more confident speaking) probably affected the results.

# data[].attributes.body
I am reflecting on a staff workshop where the female external facilitator was helping the group to capture their thoughts on a new values/identity statement for our NFP organisation.

Aspects of the facilitator’s approach that helped me to contribute as a participant:

upbeat and positive tone with an appropriate touch of fun/playfulness

communicated belief that the group participants had a lot to offer as they lived the values already and were keen to help promote alignment in actions/decisions in our organisation

the meeting space was well organised and conducive to group interaction

the expertise of the facilitator was known to the group but was not imposed on the process

facilitator encouraged participants to choose two out of seven categories to explore – this gave a helpful boundary to the group task

encouraged contributions from all participants – not based on seniority/status in the organisation

set “rules of engagement” for the group process

communicated a clear statement of purpose for the workshop

described next steps, including how the input from the group would be used, up to the level of the organisation's board.

Changes to promote inclusivity in this process:

give some individual thinking time for personal responses before groups interacted (even an option to reflect prior to the workshop)

appoint a diverse mix of group facilitators and

provide some orientation to their role prior to the workshop.

# data[].attributes.body
Technology can be used to help democratise the group and reduce the contribution of more dominant and verbal members.

One approach involves all group members first working individually and privately on digital post-it-notes (e.g. MS Whiteboard), posting their thoughts and suggestions, before these are revealed to the group. Group members can also add comments on the digital whiteboard in responding to or building on the suggestions of others.

This would help to draw out the full range of contributions from women who feel uncomfortable in proactively sharing their views. It would also assist the facilitator to address groupthink bias and to promote empathy and perspective taking by male group participants.

# data[].attributes.body
1)      Female facilitators were more able, on average, to promote equitable participation in the process than their male counterparts.

The Contact Hypothesis helps to explain this phenomenon. By promoting the conditions that support positive group interaction – equal status, shared goals, cooperative team environment, promoting and modelling personal accountability for own biases/prejudices and promoting understanding and empathy for other group members – the levels of prejudice decreased and capacity to collaborate as a group increased.

# data[].attributes.body
1)      The results of the study support the hypothesis that social norms in relation to gender negatively impact the representation and participation of women in the online citizen panels.

In addition to gender bias (a form of stereotypical bias), the results may have been impacted by power dynamics, with participants of lower perceived status being less able to have their views heard and to contribute to group discussions. Dimensions of bias may have been compounded for participants through intersectionality – female participants from CALD backgrounds for example.

Another dimension of bias involves the personal bias of panel facilitators – the lead facilitator and breakout room facilitators. The study found that female facilitators were more likely to promote equitable participation compared to their male counterparts.

The study has been impacted by socioeconomic bias – the mix of panel participants in Greater Melbourne represents a group with much higher levels of education compared to the total population in this geographical area.