Example · International organisation
Whose knowledge do we need before discussing shared BCI guidance?
An international organisation uses published cases to frame participation and evidence questions
The situation
Preparing an inclusive convening
You are preparing a fictional convening on practical access to BCI communication. The meeting needs a shared evidence starting point and space for experiences that publications may not capture. Your immediate decision is how to frame the discussion and identify missing perspectives, rather than what international guidance should say
What this example starts with
- Available
- Published cases and sources can help identify documented applications and the settings they describe
- Unresolved
- Catalogue coverage does not establish whose experience shaped the work or who was unable to participate
- Constraint
- Research location, institutional visibility and lived experience must not be treated as interchangeable forms of representation
Working through the question
Inspect the starting collection
Define the application and scope in Monitor, then inspect individual sources behind the overview. Note the people, settings and practical support described. Retain uncertain and missing information so the briefing does not convert visible catalogue activity into a claim of equitable access
Separate evidence from participation
Build two questions from the reading: what is known about use, and whose knowledge is needed to interpret it. A published study involving a population does not mean its members have shaped this meeting. Unlisted regions may require further inquiry, not a conclusion that no expertise exists there
Design the discussion around gaps
Prepare accessible questions about setup, cost, assistance and continued support, grounded in the scope of the inspected cases. Invite participants to challenge those questions and supply missing context. Keep possible shared principles open until different experiences and institutional responsibilities have been examined
An illustrative take-away
A convening brief
Your brief distinguishes the evidence packet, missing perspectives and questions for participants
- Which everyday support requirements are absent from our starting material?
- Who can explain barriers that published cases do not describe?
- What would participants need to examine before proposing shared guidance?
Written for this example to show what the reader could take into their next conversation
The catalogue is selective, and a convening brief does not establish representativeness or political consensus
Try this with your own question
Your guide explains the steps, access requirements and limits for your role