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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.