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’
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 – 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’ relations with Iraq.
The National Dialogue Project’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