Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 21:12:12 -0700

From: Margaret Runchey

Subject: Dialogue Handout

 

I have responded to about 20 individual requests for the handout

on Dialogue.  I'm just going to post it to the list now. I hope

others will share their applications, ideas, experiences and

suggestions on how to facilitate dialogue more effectivly.  As

the footnote at the end makes explicit, the ideas in the handout

came from Senge and the Dialogue Group, not me.  Linda Teurfs and

Glenna Gerard deserve all the credit in the world for making this

process come alive at the IAF conference. I'd read Senge, but

until I experienced their workshop, it just didn't have impact. 

Their contact info is also listed and they do workshops, training

and writing on the subject. Peggy

 

RE:  Dialogue

 

There are two primary ways that groups can converse:  discussion

and dialogue.  Discussion is used to search for the best view to

support a decision.  Views are presented and defended. 

Discussion comes from the same Latin root as concussion and

percussion -- ideas banging away at each other rather like a game

of Ping-Pong.  The purpose is to win, or to have your view

prevail.

 

When groups desire a deeper appreciation of one another's

perspective or are searching for insight into an issue or

concern, using dialogue can bring them to common ground. 

Dialogue is not decisional, it is exploratory, and is used to

examine complex and subtle issues.  It can be used prior to a

decisional meeting to set the tone for the group's later work, or

perhaps to establish a shared set of values or joint

understanding of the problem that will later be resolved, but its

primary intent is to get to more reasoned transformative levels

of insight.

 

Discussion and dialogue are potentially complementary, but most

teams lack the ability to differentiate and move between the two. 

A key component of dialogue is reflection and inquiry.  In turn,

participants first pause and reflect (think about) the ideas

generated by a focus question, and then speak, asking additional

questions that get to the heart of the matter.  Sadly, it isn't

often that people stop and think before they speak. "Reflect"

refers to the redirecting of light - in this sense, to hold the

question up to the light and really look at it. Inquiry elicits

information.  Reflection permits the inspection of information

and the perception of relationships, since our brains process

information by comparing it to what we know and asking, "how is

this new piece like/different?"

 

There are three guidelines for dialogue:

 

Suspend assumptions:  Literally, hold your opinions up in plain

view, suspended for closer observation; try to think "outside the

box" - your own paradigm or internal data bank and autopilot. 

This doesn't mean that having assumptions is bad.  It simply

means that we should uncover and test them; explore the thinking

behind views, as well as the evidence that supports them.

Communication breaks down when we defend our opinions unaware

that they are just that, opinions or assumptions, instead of

facts.

 

Colleagueship:  Seeing each other as colleagues breaks down

barriers.  We listen and interact with friends on a different

level than we do with people who are not friends.  Holding up

assumptions may involve some element of personal risk, and

treating each other as colleagues acknowledges and minimizes this

by establishing a sense of safety and respect.  This doesn't mean

you have to agree.  The real power of dialogue comes into play

when there are differences.  Choosing to view adversaries as

colleagues with different views has tremendous benefit. In

colleagueship, there is no hierarchy -- all are equals.  The

practical effect, when you leave your status at the door, is that

those in senior positions must surrender the power of having

their views prevail based on seniority, and junior members must

surrender the security of nondisclosure their position provides.

 

Facilitator:  It is important for groups beginning dialogue to

have a facilitator who holds the context for the group, and helps

them become aware of and acknowledge times when they are being

drawn into discussion, and away from dialogue.  The faciliator

can intervene in ways that continue to empower the group and keep

them focused.

 

Process*

1.      Determine a focus question(s).  Using a talking stick, the

process moves sequentially around the table, each taking a turn.  No one

speaks unless they have the talking stick.  After the initial question is

posed to the starter, s/he

        A.   reflects for a moment or two, and then answers the question

        B.   reflects for a moment or two, and then poses another

question and passes the talking stick to the next person.

2.      That person pauses and reflects; answers the question, uncovers

any assumptions noticed; makes any comments they're moved to make; then

pauses to reflect on and pose another question that will further the

inquiry; and passes the stick.

 

Outcomes

 

People discover that it is very difficult to refrain from

interrupting. They find their concentration levels dramatically

increased as they recognize that a) if they have the stick, all

the attention is focused on them, which causes them to take care

in framing their responses; b) that when they don't have the

stick, it helps them to stop thinking about what they want to

say, and to really listen to the speaker; c) as questions arise

in their minds, they must look for logical connections between

what the chain of speakers are saying, in order to "get it all

out" when it's their turn; d) that people who may have never

spoken out before really do have something important to say and

that this format, while grossly uncomfortable for some, is

wonderfully freeing for those whose conversational style avoids

interrupting because "one should think before speaking" or "it is

impolite." In today's fast-paced culture, while these folks wait

for a pause or lull in the conversation, the rest (some,

uncomfortable with silence) keep talking.

 

Application

 

In many companies, a "shoot the messenger" culture exists leading

meetings to be largely a forum for people to report how great

things are going.  If an occasional problem surfaces, it is

usually followed with "but we've got it under control," or "we're

working on it."  Asking for help is viewed as a weakness, and is

only done as a last resort.  When serious difficulties are

finally revealed or exposed, it is generally because attempts to

solve them outside the spotlight have been unsuccessful and the

problem has been exacerbated by delay.  This is in distinct

contradiction to the purposes and principles of construction

partnering.  But introducing attitudinal change is no easy task.

 

Learning new ways to talk about the project, our functions and

relationships, and establishing linkages that enable us to work

in a spirit of colleagueship are what partnering is all about. 

Dialogue can move us forward in these arenas.  The introduction

of dialogue as the first agenda item at every meeting, say, ten

minutes with a talking stick and a reflective questions such as,

"What's on your mind?" and "What are some things we could be

doing?" will set the tone for later discussion, negotiation, and

conflict resolution which are carried throughout the duration of

the project.  The tangible returns are increased cooperation and

productivity, greater information sharing and understanding, and

the sense of job satisfaction that a spirit of partnerships

brings to the entire team.

 

Note: Quantum Physicist David Bohm's work on the nature and

structure of thought underpins most recent (past ten to fifteen

years) writings on dialogue.  You can learn more about dialogue

from The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of The Learning

Organization, and The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook, by Peter M.

Senge (Doubleday, available at all major retail bookstores) from

which portions of the preceding text have been drawn.  The

process described above* was designed by Glenna Gerard and Linda

Teurfs and presented at the 1995 International Association of

Facilitators Conference in Denver, Colorado.  Their publication,

Reflections on Building Blocks and Guidelines for Dialogue, is

also a valuable reference, and may be ordered from them directly

(The Dialogue Group: Gerard/714.497.9757 or Teurfs/310.822.6111).

 

Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 06:09:38 -0400

From: Doug Fox <dougfox@eventweb.com>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: [GF] What is a Dialogue?

 

Hi There,

 

Lately, I've been reading extensively about many different models

that can be implemented to conduct facilitated conversations. For

example, I've been learning about Study Circles, World Cafes,

Wisdom Councils, Open Space Technology, the Public Conversations

Project and other face-to-face meeting formats that encourage

diverse groups of people to participate in meaningful and

productive conversations with each other.

 

As I've been learning about these various facilitated

conversation formats, I've often come across the word "dialogue."

I would like to have a better understanding of what the word

"dialogue" means to practitioners in the field. When you use the

word "dialogue," what are you saying about the nature of the

conversation and the goals you anticipate for the conversation?

How would you define the word "dialogue" in contrast to

"discussion," "debate," "argument" and other key words and

concepts that are possibly misused or misunderstood? Can you give

an example of how conversations would progress differently if one

were a "dialogue," another were a "discussion" and another were a

"debate"?

 

I look forward to your thoughts.

 

Best regards,

Doug Fox

dougfox@eventweb.com

http://www.eventweb.com

 

Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 08:04:12 -0500

From: Scott Elliff <scottcapstone@earthlink.net>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] What is a Dialogue?

 

Doug wrote:

 

" I've been learning about these various facilitated conversation

formats, I've often come across the word "dialogue." I would like

to have a better understanding of what the word "dialogue" means

to practitioners in the field. When you use the word "dialogue,"

what are you saying about the nature of the conversation and the

goals you anticipate for the conversation? How would you define

the word "dialogue" in contrast to "discussion," "debate,"

"argument" and other key words and concepts that are possibly

misused or misunderstood? Can you give an example of how

conversations would progress differently if one were a

"dialogue," another were a "discussion" and another were a

"debate"?"

 

A good resource for you would be "The Magic of Dialogue: 

Transforming Conflict into Cooperation" by Daniel Yankelovich. 

In it, he answers the questions you have posed, including

differentiating "Dialogue" from "Debate," "Discussion," and

"Deliberation."  Yankelovich aligns his thinking closely with

Webster's definition of "dialogue" as " seeking mutual

understanding and harmony," with the caveat that "dialogue" as he

describes it does not always have "harmony" as it's outcome.

 

Essentially, he positions "debate" as the opposite of "dialogue,"

and suggests that there are three distinctive features of

"dialogue" that differentiate it from "discussion," specifically: 

(1) Equality inthe absence of coercive influences (outside the

context of a dialogue, there may be large status differences, but

in the dialogue itself, equality must reign); (2)  Listening with

empathy (the ability to think someone else's thoughts and feel

someone else's feelings); and (3)  Bringing assumptions into the

open (encouraging participants to examine their own deep-rooted

assumptions, as well as those of other participants).  With

regard to the third, Yankelovich says the most striking differenc

between discussion and dialogue is the process of bringing

assumptions into the open while simultaneously suspending

judgment.

 

Yankelovich also describes fifteen strategies for dialogue in

detail.

 

I'm not sure if this is what you were looking for.  Perhaps

others can chime in.

 

============================================

Scott Elliff, CPF

Capstone Solutions

PO Box 6886

Corpus Christi, TX  78466-6886

scottcapstone@earthlink.net

============================================

 

Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 10:57:25 -0400

From: James Murphy <james.e.murphy@verizon.net>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: [GF] What is a Dialogue?

 

I agree with Scott Elliff's post about Yankelovich's "The Magic

of Dialogue" being the best place to start learning about

dialogue.

 

Williams Isaac's "Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together"

blends theory and application and is another important text.

 

For the practitioner, Linda Ellinor and Glenna Gerard's

"Dialogue: Rediscovering the Transforming Power of Conservation"

is excellent and has perhaps the best analysis distinguishing

dialogue from other kinds of conservation.

 

Of course David Bohm's "On Dialogue" is fundamental. It is also more

practical minded than one might think.

 

Jim Murphy

Chief Learning Officer

Management 2002

For our page dialogue, see http://www.manage2001.com/dialogue.htm.

 

Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 10:18:32 -0700

From: Dutch Driver <Choragus@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] What is a Dialogue?

 

As an alternative model, might I suggest the Dialogues of Plato? 

They are the 'foundation' for so many concepts we think are newly

discovered.

 

The table lists them in an organized and understandable way.

 

http://plato-dialogues.org/tetralog.htm

______________________________

Great Optimism,

 

Dutch Driver

San Bruno, CA

mailto:choragus@worldnet.att.net

 

Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 19:50:24 -0700

From: Duane Collette <dgc@CRCWNET.COM>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] What is a Dialogue?

 

Try www.publicconversations.org They have extensive experience

with dialogue in a number of controversial arenas.

 

Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 13:16:37 -0400

From: Peter Altschul <atschu@EROLS.COM>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: [GF] What is a Dialogue?

 

Hi, Doug:

 

When I facilitated dialogues between pro-life and pro-choice

activists, we were attempting for both groups to gain a deeper

understanding of what the other group (and they themselves)

believed without trying to convert anyone.

 

Debate is attempting to prove the rightness of your position.

 

And discussioN???  it's sort of in the middle.

 

Peter

 

Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 13:29:25 -0400

From: Margo Menconi <malyme@HOTMAIL.COM>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] What is a Dialogue?

 

Greetings!  I am currently at the Participatory Development

Forum.  You might look at their web site for resources. 

http://www.pdforum.

 

Margo Menconi

 

Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 21:33:41 +100

From: Jan Haverkamp <jan.haverkamp@ecn.cz>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] What is a Dialogue?

 

Wow Doug,

 

> Lately, I've been reading extensively about many different

> models that can be implemented to conduct facilitated

> conversations. For example, I've been learning about Study

> Circles, World Cafes, Wisdom Councils, Open Space Technology,

> the Public Conversations Project and other face-to-face

> meeting formats that encourage diverse groups of people to

> participate in meaningful and productive conversations with

> each other.

 

You have certainly done a lot of study. I probably have worked

through most of them one or another time, but i tend to directly

forget the title, pick up what i think is interesting in my

particular situation (and breaking quite a few TMs (trade marks)

and other protections, i suppose), and continue with my work :-)

I admire those of you who are able to keep the diverse streams

and models apart!

 

> As I've been learning about these various facilitated

> conversation formats, I've often come across the word

> "dialogue." I would like to have a better understanding of

> what the word "dialogue" means to practitioners in the field.

> When you use the word "dialogue," what are you saying about

> the nature of the conversation and the goals you anticipate

> for the conversation? How would you define the word

> "dialogue" in contrast to "discussion," "debate," "argument"

> and other key words and concepts that are possibly misused or

> misunderstood? Can you give an example of how conversations

> would progress differently if one were a "dialogue," another

> were a "discussion" and another were a "debate"?

 

... and i consider this indeed an interesting question. For me

dialogue is a key-concept in the kind of (transformational)

communication i try to reach. "Dia" = two-sided, "logos" = word

or communication... In my opinion, synergy is created when one-

directional communication is turned into two-or-more-directional

communication. When people not only listen to one another, but

also think out loud with feedback from others. (I intentionally

turn around what you might think - - not only people speaking,

but also listening... i think that both are needed. I think that

people sometimes have difficulty to listen. But only listening

doesn't bring anything as well... it only brings free advices to

the speaker. Much more important in dialogue is listening and

then trying to include it in your own experience - which needs

speaking again to get feedback on whether it makes sense or

not)...

 

Debate for me is something of a game... Also discussion and

argument... they all miss something essential in the synergetic

experience. Synergy needs learning together. Dialogue can deliver

that, debate not, discussion only little (people are too much

focused on their own agenda in that word) and in arguments even

less.

 

This does not mean that debates cannot have a function in

transformational and/or synergetic processes. Fish-bowl debates

can be interesting forms to clarify the question "where are we

now?". Discussions also can have this function of clarifying

power positions and possible single (non-synergetic) arguments.

Arguments can be very important to uncover emotions involved. I

have done sessions in which i designed the process such that

adversaries got the opportunity (and used it) to scream to

oneanother.... process moments in which we did *not* try to

prevent tension or indeed open arguments.... followed by process

parts in which the argument was analysed and turned into common

learning. Very intensive, but finishing in true dialogue and

synergy... Also potentially risky if you are not sure of whether

you can make the necessay bend. Until now we always were capable

to do so...

 

My two heller :-) (one heller is 1/100 crown. 30 crowns is a

dollar)

 

cau!

 

Jan Haverkamp

---------------------------------------------

ZHABA facilitators collective

http://www.zhaba.cz

---------------------------------------------

ZHABA is an affiliate of the IAF

the International Association of Facilitators

---------------------------------------------

 

Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 17:56:32 -0400

From: Margo Menconi <malyme@HOTMAIL.COM>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] What is a Dialogue?

 

In a situation like you are describing, with two apparently

opposing views on an issue, I think it is important that they

REALLY understand each other.

  This might mean...

 

1) listening carefully to each other

2) asking for clarification for UNDERSTANDING

3) being able to summarize correctly what the other party has just said

4) trying to understand WHY the other party believes/thinks the way they do

(underlying reasons, situations, values, etc.)

5) trying to find as much commonality as possible at different levels

6) where there seem to be intractable differences, try to find ways they can

co-exist or what they could cooperate on, or whatever.

 

Is this along the lines of what you were thinking?  I'm not sure I would use

debate in this case unless you just had a few representatives on each side

debate and then have guided discussions afterwards based on some of the

points raised.  I'm still not sure I would even use it then,  But maybe your

situation would allow for that and it would work okay.

 

Margo Menconi

 

Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 10:04:56 -0500

From: SHERRY LAMPMAN <smlampman@MSN.COM>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] What is a Dialogue?

 

Sorry this is so late in coming, but... in my opinion, one of the

best and most useful comparisons of dialogue and debate can be

found in the GUIDE TO TRAINING STUDY CIRCLE FACILITATORS by the

Study Circles Resource Center. Look under "publications" on the

SCRC website, www.studycircles.org

 

Sherry Lampman, M.A.

Consultant

St. Paul, MN

 

Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 14:30:29 -0400

From: Peter Altschul <atschu@EROLS.COM>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] What is a Dialogue?

 

In pondering this debate/dialogue thing, it seems to me that the

cheif distinguishing factor is that dialogues look for and

highlight commonalities while debates look for/highlight

differences.

 

Peter

 

Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 22:21:36 -0700

From: Bill Harris <bill_harris@FACILITATEDSYSTEMS.COM>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] What is a Dialogue?

 

Peter Altschul wrote:

 

> In pondering this debate/dialogue thing, it seems to me that the cheif

> distinguishing factor is that dialogues look for and highlight

> commonalities while debates look for/highlight differences.

 

"Speaking" (a word chosen to delay committing to dialog or

debate) using Argyris' Model II behavior seems to share some of

the goals of dialog, I think--free and open discussion based on

valid/validated information, but it doesn't seek to avoid

differences.

 

I've had some mighty blunt Model II "engagements" with others. 

Is the difference perhaps more in the why than the what?  That

is, it's not whether the speaking highlights differences or

similarities but whether the end purpose is to win (and force

another to lose) or to make good decisions freely (without

coercion) and with good data.

 

Just a thought.

 

Bill

--

Bill Harris                                  3217 102nd Place SE

Facilitated Systems                          Everett, WA 98208 USA

http://facilitatedsystems.com/               phone: +1 425 337-5541

 

Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 09:26:27 -0400

From: Wayne Nelson <wnelson@ICACAN.CA>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] What is a Dialogue?

 

At 2:30 PM -0400 8/8/02, Peter Altschul wrote:

 

> In pondering this debate/dialogue thing, it seems to me that

> the cheif distinguishing factor is that dialogues look for

> and highlight commonalities while debates look for/highlight

> differences.

 

In a dialogue, no one is seeking victory.  The whole group

seeking solutions / wisdom / learning together seems to be one of

the key indicators that tells you dialogue is going on.  I find

that definitions can only come when indicators of that nature are

identified.

 

Wayne

 

Nelson - 35 Westlake Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4C 4P7 - 416-690-0762

<jnelson@icacan.ca> - <wnelson@icacan.ca>

 

Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 10:14:58 -0400

From: Peter Altschul <atschu@EROLS.COM>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] What is a Dialogue?

 

Hi, Bill:

 

Your addition makes sense to me; dialogue tends to support

relationship-building even when discussing contentious issues,

while debate tends to promote competition which can destabilize

relationships.

 

Peter

 

Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 18:43:56 EDT

From: Karen Lee Lynskey <InTouchCoach@aol.com>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] Dialogue

 

Margo was right on track.  I highly recommend Senge's Fifth

Discipline's book and chapter on Diaglogue and Discussion and

it's talk about work of BOHM. Three key conditions are:

 

All participants must "suspend" their assumptions.  (they must

learn that they are making assumptions - Argyris' ladder of

inference is great model to teach)

 

There must be a "facilator who "holds the context of dialogue.

 

Many use the term dialogue because it sounds good, but it has

lost its true meaning.  I think that debate and dialogue display

different types of behavior from team members.

 

Karen Lynskey

InTouch Coaching, Inc.

 

Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 11:18:55 -0700

From: Rosa Zubizarreta <rosalegria@igc.org>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] Dialogue

 

In response to the comments on dialogue:

 

> Many use the term dialogue because it sounds good, but it has

> lost its true meaning.

 

I agree that the term dialogue is sometimes used carelessly. Yet

I'd like to suggest that this happens in both directions -- it

can be used both too narrowly as well as too loosely.

 

There are many valuable traditions within the larger field of

dialogue, including Socratic dialogue, Freirian dialogue, and

Bohmian dialogue, to name only a few. Identifying the whole field

with any one of its subsets does not help us generate a broader

understanding.

 

Instead of a definition, I'd like to share one of my favorite

metaphors, which was created by Juanita Brown. (While many know

her as the co-founder of the World Cafe, she also collaborated

with Peter Senge and Bill Isaacs on the original MIT Dialogue

project.)

 

Juanita describes dialogue as a central courtyard in our shared

human experience, which can be entered through a number of

doorways -- including indigenous councils, wisdom circles, farm

worker house meetings, non-traditional diplomatic efforts, etc,

etc. Each of these approaches has its own way of inviting people

into the generative space of dialogue, which Juanita calls "the

magic in the middle."

 

This inclusive approach seems particularly appropriate, given

that our subject is dialogue... which, in my mind, has something

to do with engaging deeply and creatively with difference, rather

than taking an adversarial approach.

 

Also -- in addition to the internet resources that have already

been mentioned, another resource is

http://www.thataway.org/dialogue. This website is a resource

center for those working on organizing and facilitating public

dialogue / public deliberation on social issues. On it, there is

a link for the first National Conference on Dialogue and

Deliberation, which will be coming up in October and may be of

interest to some readers of this list.

 

best wishes,

 

Rosa

*************************

Rosa Zubizarreta, M.A.

Facilitating Creative Collaboration:

Process Consulting * Conflict Transformation * Human Systems Redesign

Phone: 707-824-8876   E-mail: rosalegria@igc.org

 

Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 16:26:21 -0700

From: Dutch Driver <Choragus@worldnet.att.net>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: [GF] Debate

 

Debate often gets cast into the mold of "proving the rightness of

my position."  This is very much the case from the point of view

of the active participants.

 

I would like to reframe this as a very public activity where the

AUDIENCE is exposed to the best lines of thinking from two

opposing points of view or lines of reasoning.

 

My friends who teach debate often require students with personal

views in opposition to a particular position to act as advocates

of the side they oppose.  It almost never fails to sensitize them

to the generalizations, stereotypes, fallacies and assumptions

they began with.

 

It is also seldom the case of group homogeneity on a given debate

or position, because I am almost certain within any given

population there are proponents of radical, liberal, moderate,

conservative or reactionary strategies.

 

Using the Pro-life and Pro-choice (both chosen as a response to a

claim higher moral grounds in a debate proposition) issue as an

example, Peter might have a two fish bowl exercises---one where

made up of entirely Pro-choice advocates tackle a strategy debate

on public policy.  Then, use the same public policy as the debate

topic for a group of Pro-life advocates.  The effect of debate is

to expose reason to public scrutiny. Then reconvene both groups

to discuss a means of going forth that probably emerged from the

debate.

 

The if both groups contain a representative of the five

strategies the audience dynamics involved likely to shift away

from the radical and reactionary into the more tolerant liberal,

moderate, conservative strategies-signaling the audience's shift

in support away from the radicals and reactionaries.

 

______________________________

Great Optimism,

 

Dutch Driver

San Bruno, CA

mailto:choragus@worldnet.att.net

 

Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 22:16:39 -0400

From: Peter Altschul <atschu@EROLS.COM>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] Debate

 

Hi, Dutch:

 

I agree with your thoughts re debates, but would add that, in my

experience at least, you describe the things as they might be,

instead of what they usually are.

 

Peter

 

Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:29:30 -0500

From: Robert Bacal <ceo@work911.com>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] Debate

 

On 29 Jul 02, at 22:16, Peter Altschul wrote:

 

> I agree with your thoughts re debates, but would add that, in

> my experience at least, you describe the things as they might

> be, instead of what they usually are.

 

Doesn't this depend on the context of the "debate"? A

presidential debate seems to have little to do with "exposing to

the best lines of thinking", while a demonstration debate by

students where nothing is riding on opinions is probably closer

to Dutch's suggestion?

 

I'm also not completely sure that the two perspectives (exposure

to thought, and winning) are mutually exclusive.

 

Visit the NEW Workhelp Forums Site for discussions on training,

consulting, human resources,conflict and more.

 

http://www.workhelp.org/phpBB2. Forums PLUS more.

 

Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:18:30 -0700

From: Dutch Driver <Choragus@worldnet.att.net>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] Debate

 

Tue, 30 Jul 2002 15:32 Robert Bacal wrote:

 

Doesn't this depend on the context of the "debate"? A

presidential debate seems to have little to do with "exposing to

the best lines of thinking", while a demonstration debate by

students where nothing is riding on opinions is probably closer

to Dutch's suggestion?

 

DD: Use of the second instance I provided is more sophisticated

use of debate.  As it draws upon the context to co-create an

emergent meaning for the audience and participants, so it is

unlikely to be used as a student exercise.

 

I'm also not completely sure that the two perspectives (exposure

to thought, and winning) are mutually exclusive.

 

DD: I would be interested in greater details to understand where

you see the commonalities and differences are.

______________________________

Great Optimism,

 

Dutch Driver

San Bruno, CA

mailto:choragus@worldnet.att.net

 

Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 22:28:22 -0500

From: Robert Bacal <ceo@work911.com>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] Debate

 

On 30 Jul 02, at 10:18, Dutch Driver wrote:

 

> I'm also not completely sure that the two perspectives

> (exposure to thought, and winning) are mutually exclusive.

> DD: I would be interested in greater details to understand

> where you see the commonalities and differences are.

 

I guess I should have posed my comment as a question.

 

Are the two perspectives (exposure to thought and attempts to

win) mutually exclusive in debate?

 

Can they function at the same time?

 

Visit the work911.com supersite at http://www.work911.com

for work related articles.

 

Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 13:46:37 +1000

From: "Kemp, Helmine" <Helmine.Kemp@ATO.GOV.AU>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] Debate

 

My personal thought is that they are mutually exclusive to a

degree.  The focus on winning, is usually based on the assumption

that I am right (which by inference is that you are wrong), which

means my discussion will be about trying to convince you of my

rightness.  This does not allow for a real exploration adn hence

understanding of the other position, afterall I do not want ot be

convinced that you are right.

 

Debate is arguing from a position and is very confrontative and,

I think, rarely results in a better understanding of the

underlying issues or the opposing sides assumptions, thoughts or

values.  The discussion/dialogue approach focuses on

understanding what lies behind the beliefs and assumptions and

gets away from the one right answer idea.  It is designed to

enhance understanding and doesn't always lead to a solution, but

probably generates a greater ability to handle the complexities

of an issue and understanding of the human elements bearing on an

issue.

 

just my thoughts

Helmine

 

Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 10:38:54 -0400

From: John Miller <jmiller@ICACAN.CA>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] debate

 

Just for fun, let me position this online discussion thread this

way...

 

"Dialogue VS Debate: Which is the better route to the truth?"

 

Phrasing the discussion as a debate invokes ironic humour -- a

"typically Canadian" sensibility I'm told. But it also provokes

readers (you-all) to think about the distinction in a new way.

Thinking in a new way is a "good" thing in my mind. Trying to win

such a debate is not. It all depends upon the context.

 

Now, to be clear about the context, I am NOT asking people to

take up the debate. I am asking you to just watch what happened

to your thinking when confronted with a debate-style question.

Phrasing a discussion as a debate has its allure; its

intellectual seduction. Many people will pounce like a lion on an

either-or proposition -- myself included. It is as if we are

thoroughly conditioned to respond to it (or perhaps we are

hard-wired to respond, but the nature vs nurture debate is so-o-o

20th century).

 

I need to be clear about the contexts confronted by the groups I

facilitate and I need to be prepared to hear and respond to the

"seduction of debate" whenever it occurs. 99.9% of the time I

respond by recasting the simple dualism of a debate to absorb a

larger truth or more variety of perspectives.

 

...john

________________________________________________

John M. Miller.

Facilitator & Technology of Participation^Á Trainer

ICA Associates Inc.

579 Kingston Road. Toronto, ON, Canada. M4E 1R3

Toll free in Canada: 1 (877) 691-1422

otherwise: 1 (416) 691-2316 X 226

fax: 1 (416) 691-2491

Website: http://www.icacan.ca

 

Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 13:36:56 -0400

From: Busby Ann <Busby.Ann@PBGC.GOV>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] debate

 

John, there is one more thing about your topic for debate

"Dialogue VS Debate: Which is the better route to the truth?" You

used the word "truth" which casts this question not into an

either/or light, but also a subjective one with that word.  What

is true for you is not truth to me, etc.  Good point though.  Be

careful what you ask for...and how you ask it!

 

Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 11:42:19 -0700

From: Dutch Driver <Choragus@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] debate

 

Wed, 31 Jul 2002 10:38:54 -0400 (EDT) John Miller wrote:

 

Just for fun, let me position this online discussion thread this way...

 

"Dialogue VS Debate: Which is the better route to the truth?"

 

Phrasing the discussion as a debate invokes ironic humour -- a

"typically Canadian" sensibility I'm told. But it also provokes

readers (you-all) to think about the distinction in a new way.

Thinking in a new way is a "good" thing in my mind. Trying to win

such a debate is not. It all depends upon the context.

 

DD: John you were not the first to cast this as a debate.  That

happened in Helmine's earlier message when she made a

comparison/contrast argument juxtaposing debate against dialogue.

 

I also see the irony in all this.  A quick review of my original

post on Debate invokes the reader to explore a very sophisticated

model for debate. I restrained myself from creating an

comparison/contrast argument because the heart of debate is not

an either/or proposition...the heart of debate contains three

more subtle types of argument.

 

I have mentioned two comparison (commonalities) and contrast

(differences). The third will almost always emerge from these two

precursors.  That third one is 'best' or 'better than.' It this

type of argument that makes me cringe because it is where

judgment or lack of judgment comes into play.  I all ways react

to the phrase "Best Practices" because there is often so little

judgment involved.

 

Just as I strongly react to the following.

 

Wed, 31 Jul 2002 13:39:04 -0400 (EDT) Busby Ann wrote:

 

John, there is one more thing about your topic for debate

"Dialogue VS Debate: Which is the better route to the truth?" You

used the word "truth" which casts this question not into an

either/or light, but also a subjective one with that word.  What

is true for you is not truth to me, etc.  (edited)

 

DD: This last statement about truth asserts a philosophical

proposition that holds true within the existentialist

conceptualization of "Truth."

 

Let me use an absurdist comparison to expose this for a moment.

 

What was true for Ken Lay was not true for Dutch Driver.  Yet,

Ken Lay is at the center of the Enron controversy, not Dutch

Driver.  I would argue that Ken's use of existentialist "Truth"

has him in hot water as society applies transcendentalist "Truth"

as a test of "Truths."  Hmmm there is that pesky

comparison/contrast/best triad again.

 

Well...that is absurd enough for the moment.

 

______________________________

Great Optimism,

 

Dutch Driver

San Bruno, CA

mailto:choragus@worldnet.att.net

 

Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 14:51:35 -0400

From: Busby Ann <Busby.Ann@PBGC.GOV>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] debate

 

Hmm, Dutch interesting.  Not sure I understood it all, because I

was only trying to point out that when you use "subective words"

you're going to be in a lose/lose situation.  Guess I didn't say

that, huh?

 

Just the word debate connotes to me heat-people striving to

change others to their point of view.  Dialogue implies to me

talk-you may not change my mind, but we can agree to disagree.

 

But when you use subjective words, it may not matter what you

intended to start out with debate vs dialogue, you may not have a

choice in where it goes.

 

Is that better?

 

Ann

 

Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 11:42:25 +0200

From: Jon Jenkins <jon@imaginal.nl>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] Debate

 

A useful web site is: http://www.uia.org/dialogue/webdial.htm

 

best

 

Jon C. Jenkins

Imaginal Training

Groningen, The Netherlands

www.imaginal.nl

The "International Facilitator's Companion"

 

Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 09:53:47 -0500

From: Priscilla H. Wilson <pwilson@teamtechinc.com>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] Debate

 

Myh response to the web site that Jon suggests ...WOW!! Never saw

so much intriquing stuff. Thanks Jon. Priscilla Wilson

 

Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 09:53:59 -0400

From: Ned Ruete <nruete@csc.com>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] debate and dialogue

 

Ann Busby wrote:

 

> Dialogue implies to me talk-you may not change my mind, but

> we can agree to disagree.

 

There is one thing that the word "dialogue" implies to me that I

have not seen so far in this thread (admittedly, I have only

skimmed some posts).  I don't know where I got it originally: it

was probably while reading Senge, but I can't be sure.

 

To me, dialogue is a process of team learning where, through the

sharing, hearing, combining, refining, and recombining of ideas,

concerns, constraints, and considerations, the group comes out

with understanding, knowledge, ideas, and/or a plan of action

that did not exist in any state prior to the dialogue.  This I

think is at the heart of Bohm's use of the term.  He conceived

that there is a river of truth (there's that word again!) running

under everything, and that a group in dialogue can work together

to find parts of that truth that none of them had found before.

 

Let me give an example.  At an NTL lab, one of the other

participants and I got into a dialogue about different uses of T

groups and her work with teenagers.  By the end of the dialogue

we had come up with an idea for a T-group lab for teens who are

on the verge of making critical life choices. Each of us thought

that it was the other's idea, but in actuality it grew OUT OF the

dialogue.

 

In my experience, the greatest block to this kind of dialogue is

not that we have fixed opinions, but that we expect others to

have fixed opinions. If you hear me, get a flash of insight from

it, and say, "Yes! And..." I'm likely to expect that we are in

debate, not dialogue; hear, "Yes, but...;" and not hear you

because I'm too busy coming up with my own next "Yes, but..."

 

Ned Ruete Waterford, CT USA

 

Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 09:35:38 -0500

From: Robert Bacal <ceo@work911.com>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] debate and dialogue

 

On 1 Aug 02, at 9:53, Ned Ruete wrote:

 

> To me, dialogue is a process of team learning where, through

> the sharing, hearing, combining, refining, and recombining of

> ideas, concerns, constraints, and considerations, the group

> comes out with understanding, knowledge, ideas, and/or a plan

> of action that did not exist in any state prior to the

> dialogue.

 

I like this. You seem to have two parts to the "definition";

reference to process, and reference to outcome.

 

It seems to me that referencing the process is a good way to

distinguish debate and dialogue. It also seems to me that

referencing outcomes is not a good way to make the distinction.

Perhaps combining them as you have is a good way to come at this

or not (but I'm not sure).

 

I'm not sure that the outcomes you list are determined by the

kinds of interactions or not. I think much depends on each

individual. For example, while I learn well in dialogue

situations, I probably learn just as well (the outcome part)

through either involvement or observation of presentation of

thesis/antithesis, and the reasoning behind each.

 

That two positions exist in debate doesn't force me to adapt one

or the other. It pushes me to take the raw material of the

debate, and generate the same outcomes you mention for dialogue.

 

> Let me give an example.  At an NTL lab, one of the other

> participants and I got into a dialogue about different uses

> of T groups and her work with teenagers.  By the end of the

> dialogue we had come up with an idea for a T-group lab for

> teens who are on the verge of making critical life choices.

> Each of us thought that it was the other's idea, but in

> actuality it grew OUT OF the dialogue.

 

Here's an example of the same thing happening in debate. I am

working with a co-author on a new book. Both of us tend to be

stubborn, and once in a while (during our last face-2-face) we

both get entrenched in our positions. We are sometimes good

listeners, and sometimes not. I find that when we get into debate

mode (not something either of us intentionally creates) we still

reach a point of synthesis, creating solutions out of that

disagreement, that are better than each of our original

decisions.

 

There's a flow to the debate. First from entrenched positions to

an eventual shifting of those positions (unfreezing) to the

generation of new ideas.

 

> In my experience, the greatest block to this kind of dialogue

> is not that we have fixed opinions, but that we expect others

> to have fixed opinions. If you hear me, get a flash of

> insight from it, and say, "Yes! And..." I'm likely to expect

> that we are in debate, not dialogue; hear, "Yes, but...;" and

> not hear you because I'm too busy coming up with my own next

> "Yes, but..."

 

I agree with this. While I think dialogue is a less painful way

to reach outcomes, I also think that the "yes, but" interactions

can be useful to reach exactly the same outcomes.

 

Visit the NEW Workhelp Forums Site for discussions on training,

consulting, human resources,conflict and more.

http://www.workhelp.org/phpBB2. Forums PLUS more.

 

Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 10:57:02 -0400

From: Busby Ann <Busby.Ann@PBGC.GOV>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] debate and dialogue

 

Ned, I'll buy that.  In fact, your statement, "the group comes

out with understanding, knowledge, ideas, and/or a plan of action

that did not exist in any state prior to the dialogue" is

probably the major difference between dialogue and

conversation-in my mind, anyway.  Dialogue starts with a

purpose/goal/problem to be developed/worked out, whatever.  But

can'g dialogue happen between 2?  Does it have to be a group (I'm

assuming 3 or more)?

 

Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 11:08:06 -0400

From: Sue Starr <starr@KLONDIKER.COM>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] debate and dialogue

 

I've read one description somewhere (can't remember...so

unfortunately can't give credit appropriately)...perhaps in

Dialogue - Rediscovering The Transforming Power Of Conversation,

Linda Ellinor and Glenna Gerard - their website is

http://www.thedialoguegrouponline.com/ and it gives their

definitions that's been helpful to me.  It has to do with the

application of dialogue in decision-making, problem-solving...and

isn't the only way I use dialogue processes,

 

If we look at some problems being convergent (there may be one

best answer - what's the most effective self-propelled form of

land transportation ? - bicycle - perhaps)

 

...and some problems being divergent (there may be many answers -

What education system would most effectively support learning? or

What health care system would most effectively serve an aging

population?)

 

For convergent problems, we might use brainstorming, multi-voting

(dotmocracy?), or other convergent techniques - a group coming to

one answer

 

For divergent problems, dialogue is helpful, if we understand it

as a 'curious, open and honest, wondering, wandering together'

about possibilities. - a group generating many answers

 

In practice what I've seen when I experiment with those who

haven't experienced dialogue before, is a clear difference

between conversations with each other - and conversations with

the 'centre of the circle' with silences in between.

 

...well this sounds kind of rambling - perhaps like dialogue with

myself, but I'm sending it off anyhow

 

Sue Starr

Whitehorse Yukon

 

Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 10:41:36 -0700

From: Rosa Zubizarreta <rosalegria@IGC.ORG>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] debate and dialogue

 

Ned wrote:

 

>To me, dialogue is a process of team learning where, through the sharing,

>hearing, combining, refining, and recombining of ideas, concerns,

>constraints, and considerations, the group comes out with understanding,

>knowledge, ideas, and/or a plan of action that did not exist in any state

>prior to the dialogue.

 

that's great!  i think this is what i meant earlier, by "engaging

deeply and creatively with difference."

 

when i spoke out earlier for a pluralistic view of dialogue, it

was partly informed by Nicholas Burbules' excellent work on the

subject....Dialogue in Teaching: Theory and Practice, Teacher's

College Press, 1993. Despite the title, it's mostly a work of

critical theory... he creates a very useful four-square grid by

juxtaposing two dimensions -- the convergent / divergent one,

mentioned by Sue, as well as the inclusive/ critical one.

 

which means that you end up with four different "modalities" of

dialogue... convergent-inclusive, convergent-critical,

divergent-inclusive, and divergent-critical. he then offers

useful examples of each...

 

most significantly however for me, is that he places dialogue in

the context of RELATIONSHIP... he offers this great quote from

Nel Noddings in his book:

 

"What I am advocating is a form of dialectic between feeling and

thinking that will lead in a continuing spiral to the basic

feeling of genuine caring and the generous thinking that develops

in its service. Through such a dialectic, we are led beyond the

intense and particular feelings accompanying our own deeply held

values, and beyond the particular beliefs to which these feelings

are attached, to a realization that the other-who feels intensely

about that which I do not believe - is still one to be received

 

[such] dialogue is vital in every aspect of education."

(p.186,"Caring: a feminine approach to ethics and moral

education", Nel Noddings, UC Press 1984)

 

and, one might add, vital in every aspect of life on this planet,

especially in these times....

 

*****

 

Anyway, i think this emphasis on "relationship" has been helpful

to me in understanding why different forms of dialogue might look

very differently, externally.... as so much of what supports

relationship is contextual.

 

for example, two people who are involved in what looks from the

outside like a "debate" might sincerely feel that they are

engaged in a collaborative enterprise, and jointly seeking a

shared truth. They may be good friends, or colleagues who hold

great respect for each other, and may feel that they are

proceeding very much within the spirit of a Socratic dialogue.

 

yet if someone whom i don't know proceeded to question me in a

similar manner, i might feel very defensive, in need of

protecting myself, and not feel at all that i was being invited

to join a "dialogue"!

 

So, models can be very useful, and, as facilitators, it can also

be very useful to look at what is actually taking place between

particular people in a given circumstance...

 

best wishes,

 

Rosa

 

Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 13:17:57 -0500

From: Robert Bacal <ceo@work911.com>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] debate and dialogue

 

On 1 Aug 02, at 10:41, Rosa Zubizarreta wrote:

 

> Anyway, i think this emphasis on "relationship" has been

> helpful to me in understanding why different forms of

> dialogue might look very differently, externally.... as so

> much of what supports relationship is contextual.

 

Thank you! That's excellent and puts our discussion within a very

human concrete context. It''s moved my understanding along.

 

Visit the NEW Workhelp Forums Site for discussions on training,

consulting, human resources,conflict and more.

http://www.workhelp.org/phpBB2. Forums PLUS more.

 

Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 15:01:57 -0400

From: Busby Ann <Busby.Ann@pbgc.gov>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] debate and dialogue

 

I can't agree more, Rosa & Robert-this is so simple yet so

fundamentally true. Everything is contextual-and since learning

is my field, I'm always telling my folks to put their concepts

into a working context so the employee can use it at work.

 

This is really beautiful.

 

"as so much of what supports relationship is contextual."

 

Thank you! That's excellent and puts our discussion within a very

human concrete context. It''s moved my understanding along.

 

Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 21:40:53 +100

From: Jan Haverkamp <jan.haverkamp@ecn.cz>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] debate and dialogue

 

Ahoj Rosa,

 

> Anyway, i think this emphasis on "relationship" has been

> helpful to me in understanding why different forms of

> dialogue might look very differently, externally.... as so

> much of what supports relationship is contextual.

> for example, two people who are involved in what looks from

> the outside like a "debate" might sincerely feel that they

> are engaged in a collaborative enterprise, and jointly

> seeking a shared truth. They may be good friends, or

> colleagues who hold great respect for each other, and may

> feel that they are proceeding very much within the spirit of

> a Socratic dialogue.

 

This strikes a spark in me - as you can expect, a cross-cultural

one. The first time i was forced to shout to someone to get

something done felt like a kind of rape (it has cost me week to

get over it). It was in Romania - and it was really not possible

to get something shifting in somebodies head in any other way.

 

Later i have been drawn into more of these situations in Central

Europe - the more East / Southward, the more often... until i

found out that this is an accepted mix-form of emotion and...

indeed.... dialogue! It is a form of trying to pin what is

important what is not while searching for the arguments around

it.

 

I must admit that for me as a born consensus oriented Dutchman,

such shouting dialogues (sometimes observed as quarrels) cost me

hours of my life, even if they only take 10 minutes... but i

needed to learn to use it and not be (too) upset by them.

 

The biggest problem is in true cross-cultural settings. Some

people cannot get into true dialogue when the emotions are

blocked off - this accounts, i think, for many of the silent

"Easterners" in mixed groups. Others get completely confused when

someone is getting loud in a dialogue and feels extremely rudely

attacked. These are for me reall challenges :-)

 

cau!

 

jan haverkamp

 

---------------------------------------------

ZHABA facilitators collective

http://www.zhaba.cz

---------------------------------------------

ZHABA is an affiliate of the IAF

the International Association of Facilitators

---------------------------------------------

 

Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 21:40:53 +100

From: Jan Haverkamp <jan.haverkamp@ecn.cz>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] debate and dialogue

 

Ahoj Sue and other,

 

> If we look at some problems being convergent

> ...and some problems being divergent

 

This is a very helpful input, i'd say. Dialogue does not

necessarily have to lead to consensus. Consensus does need

dialogue, but it can also lead to clarification of difference. In

both cases there is something afterward that was not there before

(Ned's remark).

 

> In practice what I've seen when I experiment with those who

> haven't experienced dialogue before,

 

But this stroke me as weird... or rather "dialogue (TM)" talk

(that is - the claim of the word for one method)...

 

Or are you US-people really in a state that some people may not

have experienced dialogue before???? A 7 year old daughter

talking with her 42 year old father about whether or not to go by

bike is a dialogue. For me the concept of dialogue in change

situations is mostly one of the most easy ones to let the group

get hands on, because *all know what it is*. They may often not

be aware that they have been engaging in debate or argument or

monologue or whatever just before that moment, but getting them

on the point that they recognize what dialogue is is almost the

easiest there is... Or am i missing out something now?

 

What is always striking is for me the recognition that in certain

situations people have not been engaged in dialogue for a long

time - and to be honest - mostly by avoiding communication

alltogether, rather than by engaging in an hierarchical order

style of communication, debate or any other sort... when one type

of communication is happening, dialogue very often sips in

anyway. And it is always wonderful to recognize these (sometimes

small) moments together and use them to inspire new dialogue...

 

cau!

 

jan haverkamp

 

---------------------------------------------

ZHABA facilitators collective

http://www.zhaba.cz

---------------------------------------------

ZHABA is an affiliate of the IAF

the International Association of Facilitators

---------------------------------------------

 

Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 21:17:19 -0400

From: Wayne Nelson <wnelson@ICACAN.CA>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] debate and dialogue

 

What is this?

What is that?

 

The 3 blind men

asked the elephant

who snorted and said

 

"Nothing is anything

 

until we all look at it

together,

gain an understanding of it

together

and we give it a name

together.

 

So let's talk."

 

Wayne

 

Nelson - 35 Westlake Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4C 4P7 - 416-690-0762

<jnelson@icacan.ca> - <wnelson@icacan.ca>

 

Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 09:49:37 +1000

From: "Kemp, Helmine" <Helmine.Kemp@ATO.GOV.AU>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] debate and dialogue

 

Rosa;

 

What an interesting perspective, and how true.  So often the kind

of dialogue, discussion etc is done within the context of the

relationship we have wih that person and different rules and

approaches are applied.

 

Recently I attended a conference at which Susan Scott (based in

Seattle) spoke and her topic was "fierce converstaions".  She is

writing a book, due out in September (by the same title) and she

talks about achieving success at work or in life - one

conversation at a time.  Her emphasis was on establishing truth

in the way we communicate.  One of her quotes that I could really

relate to was "The converstaion is not about the relationship, it

is the relationship".

 

Her website www.fierceconversations.com

 

cheers

Helmine

 

Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 12:58:03 -0400

From: Ned Ruete <nruete@CSC.COM>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] debate & dialogue

 

From Mike:

 

> often in successful facilitations, i notice that we move from

> debate to dialogue.  minds that are conditioned to clash

> discover - to their joy - that collaboration leads to

> co-creation.  debate usually tries (& often fails) to find

> solutions to existing/past problems.  but steam is let off &

> that's fine. dialogue discovers new paths.  & that's magic.

> onwards,

 

Is it a _little bit_ like debate is about positions and dialogue

is about interests?  When we can let go of our positions and talk

about our interests, concerns, and constraints, we can co-create

a new position that everyone can agree to try out for at least a

while?

 

Ned

 

Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:21:07 -0500

From: Sandy Heierbacher <sandy@thataway.org>

To: sandy@thataway.org

Subject: important news for dialogue & deliberation practitioners

 

I have compressed a lot of important, timely information into

this email message.  I hope you find this message both

interesting and useful.  I look forward to hearing back from many

of you about the first two items on the following list.  I hope

this message finds you well!

 

- Announcing the National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation

 

- Resources sought for new National Dialogue Project focusing on

Iraq

 

- A December workshop in San Francisco run by the Coexistence

Initiative to glean learnings from D&D practitioners&#8217;

experiences fostering 9/11 dialogues

 

- Deliberative Democracy Consortium Seeks Staff Director

 

- LISTEN, Inc. Searching for Executive Director

- Funding Opportunity for Anti-Bias Work (proposals due Friday!)

 

Thank you,

 

Sandy Heierbacher

Director, Dialogue to Action Initiative

Director, 2002 National Conference on Dialogue & Deliberation

802-254-7341

sandy@thataway.org

 

Announcing The National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation!

 

The Coalition of organizations and individuals who worked

together to make the first National Conference on Dialogue &

Deliberation happen in October has decided to continue working

together as the National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation

(NCDD).  The conference brought together practitioners and

theorists from across the spectrum of D&D practice for the first

time, and we are committed to continuing to foster collaboration

and building understanding and cohesion in the field.

 

The new NCDD website is now up, at www.thataway.org (same URL as

the Conference and as the Dialogue to Action Initiative), and is

worth a visit.  The site currently features:

 

- a Resources Section featuring all of the carefully compiled

info given to conference participants (definitions of key terms,

training opportunities for D&D practitioners, web resources, and

much more)

 

- descriptions of the 12 action groups that emerged from the

conference, and contact info so you can get involved

 

- summary and results of the 3 large-group sessions at the

conference that took participants through a dialogic process of

thinking about what needs to be done to strengthen and unite our

growing field

 

- a listing of the 56 excellent breakout sessions (soon to also

have links to summaries, notes and handouts from the sessions)

 

- the NCDD Online Community, a service provided by EdGateway

(thanks to conference participant Laurie Maak!) which will allow

action and discussion groups to communicate via the website and

their inboxes, and will permit everyone who registers to stay

aware of what all of the groups are doing, hopefully making our

work and our community both transparent and welcoming.

 

The site also includes information on how you can become a part

of the National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation &#8211; and

we hope you do join us!

 

Resources sought for new National Dialogue Project focusing on

Iraq

 

One of the action groups that came out of the National Conference

on Dialogue & Deliberation this October is the National Dialogue

Project, which was created to enable citizen D&D efforts of all

sizes to have a greater impact and build towards a collective

voice.  The group is beginning its work with an issue of great

relevance and prime importance in our country - the United

States&#8217; relations with Iraq.

 

The National Dialogue Project&#8217;s website will soon house

information that will help people run dialogues on this topic,

tips on how to gain media attention and influence decision-makers

on a local level, and a feedback form that will allow us to

collect data from people who have run dialogues on Iraq.

 

We would love your suggestions for resources that can be put on

the website, such as:

 

- dialogue guides on Iraq

- unbiased info on the subject

- summaries of different viewpoints

- tips/resources for gaining media attention

- tips/resources for involving and informing decision-makers

 

We would also love to know if you are interested in joining this

Project, in sharing the results of your Iraq dialogues (past,

present or future) with us, in helping us spread the word to

other D&D practitioners, or in helping us compile the results of

the dialogues.

 

Please email Pam Garfield of Demos with your resource suggestions

ASAP, at pgarfield@demos-usa.org. If you have other questions or

want to get involved, contact Aliah MaJon of Days of Dialogue and

the Shamballa Group, at shamballa@adelphia.net or 213-439-9640

x26.

 

Some other timely news for D&D practitioners:

What Have Practitioners Learned from Fostering 9/11 Dialogues?

 

In an effort to provide practitioners with an opportunity to

reflect on their work and to discuss challenges in the field, The

Coexistence Initiative (TCI) and Transforming Violence are

bringing together facilitators, moderators, and conveners who

have organized, fostered, and promoted dialogues in different

communities over the past year.

 

http://www.coexistence.net/

 

Fostering Dialogue After 9/11:  Changes, Opportunities & Lessons

Learned will take place in San Francisco, California, from 9:30

to 1:30 on December 10, 2002, and will examine the development of

community dialogues and discussions since 9/11.  Participants

will be asked to extract and share key lessons and resources from

their experiences.  Individuals who have worked with different

communities and from different coexistence perspectives are

welcome to join.

 

This workshop - a section of a three-part project - will build on

a similar meeting held in New York (April 2002) and will be

followed by a third workshop (early 2003).  It is geared towards

identifying changes in methodology, highlighting gaps in the

field, sharing resources, and discussing obstacles, successes,

and lessons learned.  The results of these meetings will be

disseminated widely.  For more information, contact Craig

Bischoff at cbischoff@coexistence.net or 212-303-9445.

 

Deliberative Democracy Consortium Seeks Staff Director

 

The Deliberative Democracy Consortium is seeking candidates for

its first Staff Director.  This is a part-time (3 days/week),

salaried position with benefits.  Starting date is December 12,

2002.  The person hired for this will most likely work out of the

AmericaSpeaks office in DC.

 

A full position description is posted at:

 

http://deliberative-democracy.net/position_announcement.html

 

LISTEN, Inc. Searching for Executive Director

 

Based in Washington, DC, LISTEN is a national capacity building

nonprofit organization whose mission is to develop youth

leadership and strengthen the social capital of urban youth, ages

14-29, for civic engagement and community problem solving.

LISTEN's programs and services address the erosion of civic life

in poor urban communities and the underdevelopment of new

indigenous leadership in these same communities.  For more info,

go to www.lisn.org.  Correspondence can be sent via email to

melissa@newcapitalist.com, via fax at (212) 214-0902, or via

postal mail to 2840 Broadway, Suite 312, New York, NY 10025.

 

Funding Opportunity for Anti-Bias Work

 

The September 11th Anti-Bias Project is a joint initiative of The

National Conference for Community and Justice (NCCJ) and the

ChevronTexaco Foundation to identify and support innovative and

replicable approaches to combat the bias, bigotry, and racism

being faced by those individuals and groups, especially South

Asians, Muslims and Arabs, who have experienced heightened

discrimination in the wake of the September 11th attacks. To view

the Request For Proposal (RFP), go to www.nccj.org.

 

NCCJ and the ChevronTexaco Foundation are committed to funding

replicable models of efforts that do one or more of the following

for effected communities: educate the general population

regarding their issues, create leadership outreach opportunities,

promote inclusive collaborations, or affect systemic change. 

See the RFP for application instructions. If you have any

questions, contact Danielle Glosser at dglosser@nccj.org.

Proposals received or postmarked after November 22, 2002 (this

Friday!) will not be considered for funding.

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

You have received this announcement from the programs hosted at

www.thataway.org either because we have been in contact before,

or because we felt that you would be interested in the info

provided in this email for dialogue and deliberation leaders. 

If we were mistaken, please reply to this message and let us know

so we can remove your address from the list.  Also let us know if

you receive this message twice, or at the wrong email address. 

Thanks, and be well!

 

From loislang@COMCAST.NET Wed Apr 07 12:34:20 2004

Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 15:10:40 -0700

From: Lois Lang <loislang@COMCAST.NET>

To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu

Subject: Re: [GF] (GF) Dialogue technique

 

Hi Pat, I review some of the following concepts with a group and then

they begin working with issues that are important to them - trying out

both dialogue and discussion to get a feel of the difference.

 

Dialogue is identified as 1) Seeing the whole that encompasses the

parts, 2) learning through inquiry and disclosure,  3)Seeing connections

and relationships, 4) creating shared meaning among many and 5)

Inquiring into assumptions.  In contrast discussion/debate is identified

as 1) Justifying/defending assumptions, 2) breaking issues/problems into

parts,

3) seeing distinctions and differences, 4) Persuading, selling, telling,

and

choosing one meaning among many

 

Dialogue

Discussion/debate

Looks and sounds like:                                          Looks

and sounds like:

 

1. questions                                            1. statements

 

2. listening                                            2. taking a

stand

 

3. reflecting                                           3. persuasion

 

4. reaching agreement                                   4. arguing

 

5. overarching ideas & insights                 5. details

 

Lois Lang, Psy.D.

Lang & Associates, Inc.

209-952-1143 (office)

209-473-2472 (fax)

209-608-5465 (mobile)

loislang@comcast.net

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Pat Lindemann [mailto:lindemann_scs@yahoo.com]

Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 1:41 PM

To: loislang@comcast.net

Subject: (GF) Dialogue technique

 

Lois,

Just read your post on the GF list- I was particularly

interested in the Dialogue technique, but I don't own

the book.  Could you summarize how that works?  It

sounds very interesting and productive.

 

thank you!

Pat

 

__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway

http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/

 

Unsubscribe: Send SIGNOFF GRP-FACL to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ALBANY.EDU

Subscribe:   Visit http://www.albany.edu/cpr/gf