1
Chapter 3 – Format (from Creating a Civil Dialogue® Event: The Necessary Framework) Civil Dialogue (CD) can be used in multiple contexts to help people communicate in civil and productive ways, especially when they face “hot topics” and need to employ “cool heads.” In a Civil Dialogue session, volunteer participants consider a provocative statement and have the opportunity to embody a position on the statement ranging from “agree strongly” to “disagree strongly.” Participants are asked to follow guidelines for civility that are explained by the facilitator. The dialogue is then extended to the broader audience who are encouraged to respond with their own opinions and questions. In this chapter, we provide practitioners a step-by-step description of a Civil Dialogue event. This includes a description of the CD format, suggestions for planning a CD event, an explanation of a CD round/session, and tips for creating a successful event. Samples of materials such as placards, programs, facilitator tracking sheets, and opening host statement are available at the Civil Dialogue website, www.civil-dialogue.com. Description of the Civil Dialogue Players and Format A CD event features five volunteer speakers in a structured discussion conducted by a facilitator in front of a small audience. The speakers are chosen from the audience. If possible, it is helpful to support the facilitator with a host and a fact checker. The host welcomes the audience, introduces the facilitator at the start of the event, and serves as house manager during the event, monitoring the audience so the facilitator can focus on the dialogue. The fact checker acts as a resource to the facilitator (not to the speakers or audience directly), searching the Internet in real time as questions arise during the dialogue.
2 Using the Internet to check facts is not foolproof; some websites are not reliable, and it’s difficult to verify the veracity of the source in real time. For this reason, we recommend that the fact checker (if called upon by the facilitator to conduct a search and subsequently announce any findings) report the source of the information as well as the findings. For example, “According to the Wall Street Journal…” or “The Congressional Budget Office website states…” We recall one occasion, with regard to the potential impact of an immigration law in Arizona, where our fact checker found two contradictory forecasts from two think tanks with opposite ideologies. We reported both, demonstrating that even those who have studied the facts didn’t agree, a discovery that emboldened our volunteer speakers. It is also important to note that “facts” can be elusive. Consider this experiment conducted by Dan Ariely, measuring the tendency to distrust facts when those facts have been “branded”: [We] wanted to find out the degree to which people would doubt obviously truthful statements when these statements were associated with a brand. We started out by asking people whether they thought that completely unambiguous statements such as “the sun is yellow” and “a camel is bigger than a dog” were true or false, and 100 percent of the participants agreed they were true. Then we asked another group of people to evaluate the same statements, with the added information that they were made by either Proctor & Gamble, the Democratic Party, or the Republican Party. Would giving these statements a corporate or political origin color our participants’ impressions and would they be more likely to suspect the truthfulness of these statements? The sad answer was yes. When we suggested that, say, the Democratic Party had issued the statement that “the sun is yellow,” our participants were more likely to question it. (“Sure it’s yellow, but it also has
3 red spots on the surface and sometimes it looks white, so is it really just yellow?”) If the Republican Party or P&G issued the statement that “a camel is bigger than a dog,” the participants again were less certain and hedged their bets. (“What if the dog is a bull mastiff and the camel is a newborn . . . ?”) By starting from a highly suspicious point of view, owing to the origin of the statement, the level of distrust was so high that it even influenced our participants’ ability to identify obviously correct statements (259). Ariely’s conclusion underscores the reason why Civil Dialogue is focused on opinions, not facts. That being said, and despite the aforementioned risks involved in fact checking in real time, we believe fact checking is worthwhile if for no other reason than the mere presence of a fact checker can help thwart the impulse to make wild claims of “the earth is flat” variety. Setting. A CD event can take place in a variety of settings, from classrooms to small theatres to living rooms. The room should be arranged into an “audience” area and a “stage” area with six chairs – five chairs for volunteer speakers who will be chosen from the audience and one chair for the facilitator. The five speaker chairs are set in a tight semi-circle so that the speakers are in a position to talk to each other as well as to the facilitator and to the audience within a conversational distance. The facilitator’s chair is placed at the open end of the semicircle, facing the five speakers. The fact checker should be placed in close proximity to the speaker and facilitator. The host should be in a position to monitor the audience and communicate to the facilitator and/or fact checker if needed.
4
Neutral/Undecided Agree Somewhat
Disagree Somewhat
Agree Strongly
Disagree Strongly Facilitator
Fact Checker Host It is helpful to have large placards on the chairs or behind the chairs on fully extended music stands to help the audience identify each position throughout a round of dialogue. It can also be helpful to print the placards two-sided to allow volunteer speakers a choice. “Neutral” and “Undecided,” for example, both fall in the center of the agree-disagree spectrum, but they are subtly different positions. Printing “Neutral” on one side of the placard and “Undecided” on the other gives participants an opportunity to specify one position or the other. Also, it is sometimes a challenge to find participants who are willing to engage the dialogue from an extreme position. Making the “Strongly Agree” and “Strongly Disagree” placard reversible, with the other side marked simply “Agree” or “Disagree,” might encourage participation. If placards are not available, the facilitator can define the chairs accordingly as potential speakers identify the positions they would be willing to take.
5
Pre-show. A pre-show is not required, but audiences have responded positively to preshow PowerPoint displays of quotes about democracy and dialogue from politicians, civic leaders and satirists, both historical and contemporary. Additionally, you may want to offer audiences a slide show with general information about the topic of the CD event so that they feel more prepared and invested in the dialogue. However, we caution against presenting too much material in advance of what is designed to be a spontaneously conversation. If you were to present well-articulated opinions from pundits, for example, the volunteer speakers might be tempted to regurgitate these previously developed opinions rather than speak extemporaneously based on how they felt about the issue and how much they knew about it when they walked into the room. Think about the state of mind a voter is in when walking into a voting booth; there is no further opportunity for study, but there is a meaningful opportunity to take a stand, and the moment is now. Program/handout. Providing a printed program or handout can be helpful in a number of ways. It can provide audience members a place to take notes during a session of CD (we recommend having pencils available), it can offer an outline of the sequence of steps that take place in each round of CD, note the ground rules for civility, and it can provide suggested
6 reading, links, and/or follow up action items that encourage dialogue beyond having attended a session of CD. We do not recommend that the printed program include the exact wording of the statement(s) to be discussed; it is better to use a general topic such as “Reacting to the Presidential Debate.” Keeping the printed program vague will help prevent audience members from getting ahead of the facilitator and preplan an argument. Also, if you plan to hold CD events frequently, it is even better to leave the topic out of the program entirely, not even the date of the event, so the printed programs can be re-used. (The place for generating interest in the theme of the CD event is in your publicity efforts.) Visit civil-dialogue.com for a sample printed program for a CD event. Planning a Civil Dialogue Event Ideally, a CD event utilizes a minimum of three organizers who can participate as host/house manager, facilitator, and fact checker. This team should work together closely prior to the event to craft or locate “hot topic” statements and conduct thorough research. All members of the team should be trained in the CD process, knowledgeable of the CD topic for the event, and familiar with the organization or group that is sponsoring the event. When choosing a statement to consider, the CD team should pick strongly worded, onesided, declarative statements. A CD event is intended to explore the most polarizing issues of our time and strongly worded statements are the most effective. Statements can be direct quotations from media sources or original statements crafted by the CD organizers. Avoid using lengthy and wordy statements since participants might get trapped in a discussion of semantics and not the topic itself. We typically draft and scrutinize our statements as a team in order to produce a good quality statement that can strongly engage an audience in discussion.
7 Choosing a location for the CD event is easy since the format is intended to be used in a variety of contexts and locales. No matter where a CD event is conducted, seating arrangements and acoustics should be considered so that everyone is able to fully participate in the dialogue. It is often useful to have an elevated stage for the dialogue itself or a raked seating arrangement for the audience. In most instances, we do not recommend video or audio taping the CD event. While such documentation of a session might be useful, the very presence of recording devices may alter the safe environment that CD advocates as essential to civil communication. Consider positioning these restrictions as a celebration of face-to-face interaction rather than a rebuke of technology. A Civil Dialogue Round/Event A round of CD typically lasts about 30-40 minutes. In some settings, such as a 50-minute class, time may only allow for one round. Public events often consist of two or even three rounds. The following outline provides the process and timeline for a CD event:
The host introduces the event. (A sample host introduction can be found at civildialogue.com.) (5 minutes) o
Welcomes the audience and introduces the goals of a CD session. •
Goal 1: To explore “hot topics” with “cool heads.”
•
Goal 2: To honor all points of view without demonizing.
•
Goal 3: To foster participation in civil communication.
•
How CD works: consider a statement, volunteers from the audience to fill the five chairs, elements of a round (as listed in the program).
8
•
Introduces the fact checker and explains his/her role.
•
Introduces the facilitator.
The facilitator introduces the ground rules of civility. o
By agreeing to these communication guidelines, we create a safer place for dialogue. •
Participants can be passionate but not hostile.
•
Focus on how the statement makes you feel; you don’t have to be an expert to have an opinion – like voting.
• o
o
Avoid framing the dialogue as an argument to be won or lost.
Participants should use truthful speech that does not attack others. •
“I” language shows conviction; “You” language implies critique.
•
Use your own words and avoid slogans that advocate your position.
•
Disagree without demonizing.
Participants should listen respectfully while others speak. •
Listen with empathy rather than criticism.
•
Listen patiently; do not interrupt.
•
Do not engage in fake listening as you plan out what you want to say next.
9
The facilitator reveals the provocative statement. (2-3 minutes) o
Allows the audience to ponder the statement.
o
Offers clarification/discussion of terms in the statement.
o
Potentially offers historical or other pertinent information about the statement.
o
Calls for volunteer speakers to embody their position in the semi-circle of five chairs.
The facilitator prepares the speakers for the dialogue. (2-3 minutes) o
Asks speakers to state their names.
o
Briefly confirms that the speakers understand the ground rules.
o
Chooses the order for the opening statements (“Linda, you were quick to take the ‘Strongly Disagree’ chair, so let’s start with you.”).
Each speaker offers an opening statement. (5 minutes: approximately 1 minute each)
The core dialogue. (10-15 minutes) o
The five speakers talk to each other with minimal interruption.
o
The facilitator can call for a fact check.
o
The facilitator may need to intervene to ask questions, encourage clarification of statements, or diffuse a combative situation.
The dialogue is opened to the audience. (5-10 minutes)
10
o
The facilitator invites audience questions/comments.
o
The five speakers are not excluded from this interaction.
The facilitator returns to the speakers to closes the round. (5 minutes) o
Speakers offer closing statements. (1 minute each.)
o
Speakers are thanked and return to their seats.
A wrap up summary/statement is offered by the facilitator. o
If another round is pending, the facilitator reveals the statement to be examined, then calls for a short break.
o
If the session has concluded, the facilitator turns the event back to the host.
The host closes the event. o
Encourages feedback from the audience through survey/email.
o
Directs the audience to additional resources on the topic. Tips to Create a Successful Civil Dialogue Event
Our experience suggests that the ideal running time for a CD event appears to be about 90 minutes without an intermission. If audience members are eager to participate, it is possible to stage three rounds in that amount of time. However, there are times when the facilitator may need to employ the pedagogic tool known as “wait time,” particularly in the first round, creating a comfortable atmosphere and giving participants an extra moment or two to bring themselves to volunteer as speakers. Similarly, during a round of CD, some participants may need to be
11 prodded, cajoled, or encouraged. At times, it may be necessary to ask if someone would be willing to explore what it would be like to occupy a certain chair, even if one’s own beliefs differ. If these conditions arise, experience shows that it is better to let the round play out in a more expansive way, even if it means that the event has to be limited to two rounds. Often we have limited a CD event to two rounds and then allowed attendees of the event to spend the remaining time talking informally with one another about the topic and the CD format. For more information about Civil Dialogue events, tips for hosting a Civil Dialogue session, and specifications for placards and programs, please visit civil-dialogue.com.
---------Ariely, Dan (2009-06-23). Predictably Irrational, Revised and Expanded Edition: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions. HarperCollins e-books. Kindle Edition.
Here’s another possible paragraph, not sure it’s needed, which is why it’s here as a postscript for Clark and Jen to consider:
We recommend thinking of the fact checker as a resource to the facilitator, not directly to the volunteer speakers or audience. If someone other than the facilitator calls out for a fact check, the facilitator should intervene, make a decision on whether that’s a good idea, and regain control
12 by challenging that person, saying something like, “What’s behind your skepticism?” In any event, the fact checker should not offer any findings unless called upon by the facilitator.
Also we have this quote related to facts, but the source is secondary, so maybe we save it for discussion in class: “There are no facts, only interpretations.” Friedrich Nietzsche http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/facts.html 10-15-11