Framework for Civil, Constructive Conversations

I.   Ask "Why bother?" "Who cares?"
Who must be included?

II.  Describe the issue fairly  
Respect and engage all who might hold different views.

III.   Identify desirable, feasible outcomes:  "Visions Worth Working Toward"
Focus energies, avoid a task that this approach cannot handle well.

IV.  Establish guidelines, priorities, evidence
Anticipate how different kinds of arguments can be resolved.

Back to Top of Page

V.  Plan, Assess, Adjust, Do
Progress from informal steering group to action

VI.   Engage deeply
Identify, respect, and address what each person cares about most with respect to this issue.

VII.  Use technology appropriately
Take advantage of new hybrid options (synchronous & asynchronous;  online & face-to-face) for collaboration, discussion, etc.

Back to Top of Page

PREPARATION

I.   Preparation:  Ask "Why bother?" "Who cares?"
Is this a Dangerous Discussion topic worth pursuing?

What might convince us to abandon this issue - at least not to try to use this approach?  Who must we include in the conversation if we are to have a realistic hope of reaching decisions that can and will be implemented? 
See:  Prerequisites - Essential Characteristics;   DD Issues, Goals; 
Why Bother?  and  "Starter Worksheet"

Why bother? 
Why is it important to deal with this issue?

Under what conditions is it important to deal with this issue? 

Under what conditions should this issue be avoided? 

Under what conditions are the benefits associated with this issue likely to result? 
Are there any important pre-requisites that must be in place?

Under what conditions are the risks associated with this issue too likely to occur
- so that this issue should not be pursued or implemented?

Who cares?   (Who should be involved in considering this issue? 
Because they will be influenced by it? 
Because they are able to influence how it proceeds?  Other?)

Back to Top of Page

II.  Describe the Issue Fairly
Develop Anti-Inflammatory Description
Re-State Polarizing Views or Questions Respectfully

A.  Anti-inflammatory Description
Describe the issues in the least inflammatory language.  Identify important pre-requisites, conditions, stakeholders. 

Focus on Boundaries between Professional, Personal, and Political lives:

1. What are the ideal “boundaries” that should exist between “the professional,” “the personal,”  “the political,” and "the spiritual"?   How can academics best integrate [or separate] their professional, personal, political, and spiritual lives?   How, if at all, does the changing role of information technology make any difference?
    

2. Is it possible for faculty members who teach in EVERY academic discipline to engage with their students beyond the narrowest definition of the purpose and content of a single course?   Should they?  Can they avoid doing so?  Is it only those who teach in the humanities who should expect to influence students’ lives beyond the classroom?
    

3. To what extent should faculty members’ outside-the-classroom, off-campus experience and beliefs in “relevant” areas be acknowledged or discussed with students?  How/where?
    

4. What is a faculty member’s obligation to reach out to and attempt to establish a genuine personal connection with a student whose political, ideological and/or religious views are very clearly different from, and perhaps even objectionable to, his/her own? In fact, what is a faculty member's obligation to establish a genuine personal connection with _any_ student?
    

5. Where are the lines between personal blogging, political blogging, and course-related blogging?  E.g., how, if at all, does “in loco parentis” apply to what a student who lives in a campus dorm writes in a blog that resides on a commercial server?
    

6. In what ways, if any, is  “harassment” online different from “harassment” on campus or elsewhere?

Back to Top of Page
 

B.  Polarizing Views or Questions 
Restate extreme positions and provocative questions in ways most likely to enable stakeholders who are initially committed to apparently opposing views to engage in civil, constructive discussion.

1.  As professionals, faculty members should keep their personal beliefs (religious, ethical,  etc.) and political activities entirely private - outside the academy.

2.  Faculty members should encourage and permit students to express personal or political opinions only when directly relevant to specific course assignments made within the institutionally-approved curriculum.

3.  The speech and actions of each member of a learning community should always reflect his/her deepest convictions - personal, political, spiritual, etc. ["Are there any boundaries?"]

4.  No faculty member can establish a genuine personal connection with every student.  No student can establish a genuine personal connection with every faculty member.  Students and faculty members should not establish genuine personal connections.

Back to Top of Page

III.  Identify Desirable, Feasible Outcomes:  Worthwhile Results
List desirable, feasible outcomes of participating in “Dangerous Discussions” activities for this issue.
[At the very least, deflate the hype and defuse artificial disagreements – restate the issue and challenge in more realistic and less inflammatory ways.  And then accomplish something that is visibly and demonstrably useful!]

What are some of the desirable outcomes that would be easiest to agree on and accomplish?  [Select one or two, agree on a plan, and get working!]

What are some of the desirable outcomes that are feasible, but would be most difficult to accomplish? 
[Agree on a realistic timetable and plan for one or two of the most important of these and defer others.]

What are one or two of the desirable outcomes that are so difficult that we should exclude them from these efforts (perhaps find some other way of proceeding or simply learn to live with the disappointment).

EXAMPLES:

• Email vs. F2F for Faculty-Student Contact (Office Hours?)
  The most specific question emerging from my work in this area with Whitman College is:
  “Can we establish a policy that students who send email to faculty between midnight and 6AM may not expect responses during that period?”  Email can easily pierce the veil between home and office.  At Whitman and other colleges/universities where there is a longstanding commitment to encouraging frequent and significant communication between students and faculty, this can be a very mixed blessing.

• Students uncomfortable expressing support for war in Iraq in classroom

• Christian student organization distributing info via Whitman College mailboxes, etc. - info invites participation [proselytization?]

Flashlight Online Survey - designed to enable Whitman College participants to identify easy/difficult outcomes and prepare to set priorities for their work together.

Preliminary Results of Flashlight Online Survey for Whitman College 3-6-2006

1.  ...Actions

2.  ...Policies

Back to Top of Page

IV.  Establish Guidelines, Priorities, Evidence
Identify the kinds of evidence that can be made accessible and useful to participants. 
What other factors matter?  What "trumps" evidence? 
E.g., what priorities might modify the influence of evidence on important decisions about this issue?

1.  ...

Generic Questions

1.  What evidence is already available and likely to help make relevant decisions?

2.  What kinds of additional evidence would be likely to help make relevant decisions?

3.  Why are people unlikely to be influenced by apparently relevant evidence?  What other factors are likely to influence relevant decisions?

4.  What priorities (institutional, personal, ...) might make some kinds of evidence irrelevant?  might influence the impact of evidence?

Back to Top of Page

ACTION

V.  Plan, Assess, Adjust, Do

Back to Top of Page

VI.  Engage Deeply:  What do YOU care about most?  Personally, professionally, ...?[See also "Fundamental Questions"]

1. What do you most want to gain? [Regain?]
What do you care about?
For your students? colleagues? institution? yourself?
Whom do you care about?

2. What do you most cherish and want not to lose?

Back to Top of Page

VII.  Use Technology Appropriately

Inter-dependent Applications, Automated, Easy to Develop/Share Info! [TLT-SWG]

Writely Shared Document/Workspace
"Writely" allows you to edit documents online with whomever you choose, and then publish and blog them online.   Click here for intro, help, FAQs, etc.
 

Back to Top of Page

ONLINE RESOURCES  - Examples of Online Tools
Selected because they can be used to support civil, constructive conversations and related activities about Dangerous Discussions Issues - and they are "Low-Threshold" - easy to learn, use;  low incremental cost.

• Writely Shared Document/Workspace
  "Writely" allows you to edit documents online with whomever you choose, and then publish and blog them online.   Click here for intro, help, FAQs, etc.
   

• Blog:  Recognizing & Respecting Truth
  Above is a blog developed to invite contributions of ideas, resources for this theme.
  Also available:  Introductory info, resources, etc. about educational blogging, free tools (especially "Blogger")
   

• Exploration Guide:  Many Ways of Improving Teaching/Learning
   

Back to Top of Page
 

ISSUES/QUESTIONS

Why Bother?

Inquiry, Evidence, Argument:  “The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?”
[What is the original source of this line?]

Are different methods of inquiry, different methods of argument, and different definitions of evidence appropriate in different realms?  On campus vs. off campus?  In different academic disciplines? 
What factors  (institutional priorities, personal beliefs, political power...) might make some kinds of evidence irrelevant?  Might influence the impact of evidence?

To what extent can or should a faculty member control the kinds of argument permitted in a classroom discussion?  In an online discussion?

New Technologies, New Boundaries, New Connections
What are the new challenges and opportunities provided by the rapidly emerging computer technology options for "blogging,” “podcasting,” and other new forms of telecommunications, information exchange, and social networking? 
Where are the lines between personal blogging, political blogging, and course-related blogging?

New Definitions of Appropriate Behavior
To what extent must we all simply accept emerging new patterns of speech and behavior on the Internet?   To what extent can and should anyone guide or control these patterns? 

Is  “harassment” online different from “harassment” on campus or elsewhere?

New  Professional/Personal/Political Boundaries
What, then, _are_ the ideal “boundaries” that should exist between “the professional,” “the personal,” “the political,” and "the spiritual"?  

To what extent should faculty members’ outside-the-classroom, off-campus experience and beliefs in “relevant” areas be acknowledged or discussed with students?  How/where?

Individual vs. Institutional Rights and Responsibilities
In determining, encouraging, or enforcing new standards of appropriate behavior, what are important differences between individual rights and responsibilities vs. institutional rights and responsibilities?

How, if at all, does “in loco parentis” apply to what a student who lives in a campus dorm writes in a blog that resides on a commercial server?  The college or university probably has no direct control of the blog at all, but might have control of the student’s access to the Internet.

Back to Top of Page

READINGS, REFERENCES, DEFINITIONS

I.  Definitions of Authentication and Authenticity

Authentication in computing/Internet:  “…the process by which a computer, computer program, or another user attempts to confirm that the computer, computer program, or user from whom the second party has received some communication is, or is not, the claimed first party. - Wikipedia, 2/10/06

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authentication

Authenticity in education:  “Being authentic means that what you see is what you get.  What I believe, what I say, and what I do are consistent.  Of course creating that consistency is a lifelong challenge as we encounter new experiences, new persons and new information.” – Chickering, p. 8, in Encouraging Authenticity & Spirituality in Higher Education.

II.  Encouraging Authenticity and Spirituality in Higher Education
Arthur W. Chickering, Jon C. Dalton, Liesa Stamm, 2005, Jossey-Bass

III.  Ender's Game, by Orson Scott Card

Full text of novelette available at:  
http://www.hatrack.com/osc/stories/enders-game.shtml

Ender’s Game first appeared as a science fiction novelette in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_Science_Fiction

Analog magazine, August, 1977.  Extended and published as a full novel in 1985. 
Comments and criticism (some provocative criticism and identification of controversial issues raised by the story and how it has been used) in Wikipedia at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ender's_Game

IV.  Something about the Turing Test …

“…In the Turing test, a judge has conversations (via teletype) with two systems, one human, the other a machine. The conversations can be about anything, and proceed for a set period of time (e.g., an hour). If, at the end of this time, the judge cannot distinguish the machine from the human on the basis of the conversation, then Turing argued that we would have to say that the machine was intelligent.”

a.  Dictionary of Cognitive Science, Univ. of Alberta, Michael R. W. Dawson, David A. Medler

http://www.bcp.psych.ualberta.ca/%7emike/Pearl_Street/Dictionary/contents/T/turing_test.html  as of 2-5-2006 

V.  1^st chapter of George Lakoff’s _Don't Think of an Elephant_

Know Your Values and Frame the Debate

http://www.chelseagreen.com/2004/items/elephant

Note:  the Lakoff chapter may be irritating to some people, but his concept of “framing” is very useful for working on the kinds of issues we’ll be exploring.

Back to Top of Page

If you have any questions or comments about this workshop, please contact Lisa Star at online@tltgroup.org

Please send your questions or suggestions for improving our online workshops - including topics or leader/presenters that you would like us to include.

Send to Steve Gilbert at: 
GILBERT@TLTGROUP.ORG

Back to Top of Page

• Good news, bad news from/about leader presenters.
• Good news, bad news from/about registrants.
• Good news, bad news from/about TLT Group staff, friends, et al...
• Photos welcome!  Tasteful!

Back to Top of Page