PeaceLabs at the Berlin Moot: What we learned while creating an innovative workshop format

When planning the inaugural iteration of Berghof’s flagship conference, we devoted considerable thought to creating content that would be interesting and inspiring for the field of peacemaking. We also strongly believed that the conference's relevance for "reshaping peace" would largely depend on the types of formats during the event. We aimed to create an environment conducive to interaction and exchange, where listening, understanding, and learning from each other would be methodologically supported. To achieve this, the so-called PeaceLabs were at the heart of our conference. Each session lasted around three hours, dedicating more time to these workshops than is typical at other conferences.

We envisioned the PeaceLabs as a space where invited speakers would provide short teaser inputs designed to inspire attendees to think outside the box and engage in interactive exchanges across disciplines. Our aim was to bring together a carefully curated balance of different country contexts, disciplines, formal and informal institutional backgrounds, attendees with different mandates and missions, while also ensuring gender diversity. This approach made planning less straightforward, and we were concerned about participants’ willingness to dedicate up to three hours to a PeaceLab. We also worried that high-level conference attendees, who might be more accustomed to speaking on big stages, would feel undervalued by our intended structure. Additionally, as we invited input from the business sector, neuroscience, and technology, we were also wondering if the format would spark the cross-disciplinary exchanges we had envisioned.

We decided to embrace the risk, recognising that this is often necessary when trying something new, but we also acknowledged the need to respect a few key elements to keep risks manageable:

1. When designing the sessions, we had to keep in mind that the PeaceLabs would bring together participants from different disciplines who rarely interact in their everyday work. Therefore, it was crucial to present interdisciplinary input in a way that was understandable to non-experts.
2. Participants were selected based on their expertise and contacted beforehand to prepare their contributions to the interactive discussions, even if they did not have a role in speaking on the panel or giving an input presentation.
3. We also limited the number of participants to a maximum of 40-45 attendees, to facilitate exchange and interaction. Upfront registration and clear communication about this were essential.

Keeping these aspects in mind, we managed to create extremely interactive sessions with a high-profile group of participants, and despite some points for improvement, we received overwhelmingly positive feedback. We were impressed by the high level of flexibility and eagerness to learn from each other across country contexts, institutions and backgrounds among both participants and speakers.

Taking the risk and doing things differently really paid off, and our key learnings were:

• The PeaceLabs benefit from a combination of strong expertise and reputation among speakers and moderators, and a well-founded methodology that structures the discussion to be solution-oriented.
• Preparation of the PeaceLabs is key. This includes thoroughly briefing speakers and moderators, actively inviting well-versed participants who could carry the discussion based on their expertise to register for the sessions, and carefully considering which method of facilitation would be appropriate.
• As an overloaded agenda can inhibit exchange and innovation, it is crucial to be courageous and leave space for discussions, and sometimes, controversy.
• Dedicating time for a proper wrap-up and reflection with the plenary at the end should never be neglected.

With these learnings in mind, we look forward to many continuing our PeaceLabs on innovative topics at the next Berlin Moot.