Youth Dialogue Facilitation Guide

By: Erika Richter April 2013

Guide to Facilitating Youth Dialogue

What is Dialogue? DIALOGUE IS NOT…

1). Debate—This is because dialogue does not involve competition, or a winning, or right side (1).

2). Negotiation—While dialogue often has many positive effects and includes an action component, dialogue does not work towards a specific end goal. Instead, it is about the PROCESS (2).

3). Discussion—In dialogue it is really important that there’s a sense of trust among the group, and that people listen with empathy. Dialogue also addresses and challenges assumptions and issues that are normally avoided in everyday conversation or discussion (3). During dialogue people contribute and respond to ideas without judgment (4).

Dialogue is a process that engages individuals from diverse backgrounds and perspectives in order to explore and critically examine difficult issues. As a result, there can be conflict in dialogue, but dialogue recognizes that conflict isn’t necessarily a bad thing, just like difference is a good thing. Dialogue allows everyone to continue to have their own perspectives, but gives participants an opportunity to share their viewpoints, learn about someone else’s perspective, and better understand the issue and its causes (5). In order to develop this greater understanding, participants share their values, fears, interests, histories, hopes and goals, and listen to others’ with empathy (6).

Why Dialogue? Is it Effective?

Page 2

How To Start and Facilitate Dialogue

Page 3

Stages of Dialogue

Page 5

DIALOGUE IS…

Page 4

Examples of Structured Activities


2

Oftentimes, the challenges that are faced by people in North America are invisible. Since there is no direct warfare currently taking place in North America, the sources of conflict become more difficult to identify. As a result, these issues often go unacknowledged (8). What makes these challenges even more difficult to identify is the fact that they rarely involve a direct actor that is causing harm. Instead, there are many systems and structures in place in North America that cause people harm. Racism, classism, and

sexism are a few examples (9). When these sources of oppression are not talked about, they are perpetuated, because people often cause harm without realizing. Also, these sources of oppression create additional challenges for certain populations and individuals in society, if these additional challenges are not recognized it can result in stereotypes and further harm towards that population (10). So, dialogue can play an extremely important role in confronting and acknowledging these types of systems of oppression.

Why Dialogue?

The benefits of dialogue extend beyond the need to address these sources of oppression. Some of the other benefits and goals of dialogue include:

1. Disruptive: Dialogue can disrupt the status quo, in terms of addressing and challenging the harmful and invisible systems currently in place. The disruptiveness of clashing perspectives is also important in dialogue, in order to gain a broader understanding of the issue and confront different perspectives. Lastly, dialogue puts the participants in charge, disrupting the traditional classroom

educational model and giving youth the power to direct their own learning.

2. Agency: This means that through dialogue youth can begin to feel like their voice has value, and can feel empowered. So dialogue can help encourage youth to take action in their communities and work towards social change.

3. Action Planning: Dialogue involves taking action to address the issue that is the focus of the dialogue. It is important that this component is also a process rather than an end goal. In extending the process beyond the dialogue sessions, the youth can effectuate change.

4. Empathy Building: When

Is it Effective?

“Dialogue participants’ increased sense of power

and determination to initiate change, combined

with the knowledge they gain from the vastly

different experiences and perspectives of their fellow members, puts dialogue in

a unique, powerful place to solve community

problems.” (7)

youth share their experiences and perspectives, and listen to the experiences and perspectives of others in an empathic way, dialogue results in the development of empathy. This empathic development can improve relations among the group members.

5. Space for Dialogue: Providing youth with an opportunity to engage in dialogue can be meaningful in itself, because it involves recognizing the importance of hearing youths’ perspectives and the importance and relevance of these issues (11).


3

How to Start and Facilitate Dialogue Thus, the tool of dialogue is incredibly

versatile and adaptable. The wide-ranging nature of the potential benefits and the reasons for conducting dialogue means that dialogue can effectuate change in a wide variety of contexts, among many different people, and in regards to many different issues. This makes dialogue a model that can easily be incorporated into many different organizational models and programming. So how can YOU start a dialogue or incorporate the tool into an existing program?

There are three key components that you will have to identify; first you will need a group of youth who are interested in and willing to get involved. Then you will need a trained facilitator, and an issue on which the dialogue can be centralized.

Here are some additional principles to help guide YOUR dialogue program:

Valuing Both Process and Content

In order for the dialogue to be meaningful the dialogue process must be sustained. If the

program is sustained it creates an environment where participants are likely to feel more comfortable sharing personal experiences (12). Moreover, the process of dialogue is equally as important as the content addressed through the sessions. Thus, building up the process over time is essential to ensure that there are opportunities to thoughtfully share, listen to, and reflect on personal experiences, similarities, sources of difference, systems of privilege and inequalities (13). Explicitly addressing the connection between process and content, is essential to dialogue, as blending the two is essential for supporting cognitive behaviour and affective growth of participants. (14).

Structured Activities and Dialogic Methods

Structured activities differ from the more conversational style component of dialogue in that they have a prescribed format. While the results of the activity and the direction in which it goes is not predetermined, they are more structured than dialogical conversations.

Structured activities help introduce the


4

Stages of Dialogue

concepts; aid in the process of exploring and reflecting on personal experiences; and help participants apply their broadened perspective to examine the issue (15).

Sequencing

The order in which these stages occur is also essential to the process itself. Dialogue begins on a personal level and gradually builds connections to the institutional patterns and systems (16).

Guiding Not Teaching

Facilitated dialogue does not involve formal teaching or instruction; instead it is responsive and reciprocal. The participants and the facilitator

are both teachers and learners (17).

Communication Processes

There are four main communication processes to be fostered during dialogue:

--Appreciating difference: which involves an openness to learn

--Engaging self: participation through personal sharing

--Critical reflection: analyzing one’s own perspective and those of others in relation to privilege and inequalities

--Alliance building: collaborating to work against injustices and build change (18).

STAGE 1:

Dialogue sessions initially work to build trust among the participants to develop a better understanding of the situation and the different positions that exist in the conflict (19). After outlining all the different positions that exist in the conflict, each of these positions are mutually acknowledged and participants claim responsibility for the different positions.

STAGE 2:

Then participants are exposed to the personal narratives of out-group members, and are empowered to share their own viewpoint (20). During this stage, the participants also reflect on their different social identities, and how they affect their needs, fears, values, hopes and experiences, in relation to the particular issue (21).

STAGE 3:

In the third stage, shared interests, needs and fears are identified and the participants begin to cooperate on less controversial issues (22). Through this reciprocal process of sharing perspectives and life experiences the participants are able to begin to imagine a vision for the future (23).

STAGE 4:

The fourth phase involves a discussion on creating change through joint action (24). The dialogue process is then reviewed and lessons learned are recorded.

Throughout this process the individual leadership skills of participants are fostered in order to try and ensure effective action will result (25).


5

To Engage Self Please say more. Can you help me understand your thinking here? Seems like that really affected you. Can you share more about how you felt and the impact of that experience on you?

To Cultivate Appreciation of Differences What is something that each of you appreciates about what others have been sharing?

What is something new or different that each of us has learned from all the perspectives in our dialogue? To Bridge Appreciating Difference and Engaging Self How is everyone affected by what has been said? How does that resonate with something of your own experience? As you listen and take in what everyone has shared, what are the commonalities and differences you see emerging? (30)

Guiding Questions

Examples of Structured Activities

While structured activities may not seem conventional, they are extremely effective in introducing, exploring and reflecting on concepts. Some examples include:

Each participant takes three post it notes and writes down the three identities that are most important to them on the notes. They will then discuss in small groups why these identities are important to them (26).

Another dialogical method is dyads. In a dyad two people speak with each other and practice active listening, reflection. This activity helps to build connections among the participants. One person shares for a designated time period, while the other actively listens, and then the partners switch (27).

Another structured activity often used is a privilege walk, the name of which is not

mentioned before the activity. During this activity the facilitator asks participants to line up in the middle of the room in a straight line. All participants close their eyes and a series of statements are read aloud. Participants are to step forward or backward depending on how they personally relate to the statement. For example “If you grew up with enough food to eat, take one step forward.” “If you can legally marry the person you love, take a step forward.” The statements should pertain to the focus of your dialogue. When all the statements have been read participants will be asked to open their eyes and look around to notice where others are standing (28).

These types of activities should then be debriefed using questions like “What was this activity like for people?” “What questions were raised through this process?” “How did this activity feel?” For additional guiding questions see below (29).


References

(1) (Bickmore, Kathy. 2012. “Peacebuilding dialogue as democratic education: conflictual issues, restorative problem-solving, and student diversity in classrooms.” In Debates in Citizenship Education, edited by James Arthur, Hilary Cremin, 115-131. New York: Routledge. P 118.

(2) Bohm, David, Donald Factor, and Peter Garrett. 1991. “Dialogue a Proposal.” Accessed March 10, 2013 from

http://www.david-bohm.net/dialogue/dialogue_proposal.html. P 4. (3) Yankelovich, Daniel. 2001. “The Magic of Dialogue.” The Nonprofit Quarterly, 1-3.

Accessed January 5, 2013. P 1-2. (4) Saunders, Harold. 1999. A Public Peace Process: Sustained Dialogue to Transform

Racial and Ethnic Conflicts. New York: St. Martin’s Press. P 82. (5) Saunders, Harold. 1999. A Public Peace Process: Sustained Dialogue to Transform

Racial and Ethnic Conflicts. New York: St. Martin’s Press. P 81. (6) ” Saunders, Harold. 1999. A Public Peace Process: Sustained Dialogue to

Transform Racial and Ethnic Conflicts. New York: St. Martin’s Press. P 84. (7) United Nations. 2007. Participatory Dialogue: Towards a Stable, Safe and Just

Society for All. New York: United Nations Publication. P 17. (8) Wildman, Stephanie, and Adrienne Davis. 1994. “Language and Silence: Making

Systems of Privilege Visible.” Santa Clara Law Review, 35: 881-906. P 885. (9) United Nations. 2007. Participatory Dialogue: Towards a Stable, Safe and Just

Society for All. New York: United Nations Publication. P 51. (10) Wildman, Stephanie, and Adrienne Davis. 1994. “Language and Silence: Making

Systems of Privilege Visible.” Santa Clara Law Review, 35: 881-906. 884). (11) Richter, Erika. 2012. “Youth Dialogue in a North American Context of Structural

Violence: A Pedagogical Tool for Social Change.” Undergrad. Thesis., McMaster University.

(12) Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE). 2007. “Special Issue: Intergroup Dialogue in Higher Education: Meaningful Learning About Social Justice. ASHE Higher Education Report, 32:1-128. P 20.

(13) Nagda, Biren (Ratnesh). 2006. “Breaking Barriers, Crossing Borders, Building Bridges: Communication Processes in Intergroup Dialogues.” Journal of Social Issues, 62: 553-576. P 554.

(14) Maxwell, Kelly, Biren (Ratnesh) Nagda, and Monita C. Thompson. 2011. Facilitating Integroup Dialogue: Bridging Divides, Catalyzing Change. Sterling: Stylus Publishing. P 2.

(15) Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE). 2007. “Special Issue: Intergroup Dialogue in Higher Education: Meaningful Learning About Social Justice. ASHE Higher Education Report, 32:1-128. P 21-22.

(16) Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE). 2007. “Special Issue: Intergroup Dialogue in Higher Education: Meaningful Learning About Social Justice. ASHE Higher Education Report, 32:1-128. P 24.

(17) Maxwell, Kelly, Biren (Ratnesh) Nagda, and Monita C. Thompson. 2011. Facilitating Integroup Dialogue: Bridging Divides, Catalyzing Change. Sterling:


7

Stylus Publishing. P 7. (18) Nagda, Biren (Ratnesh). 2006. “Breaking Barriers, Crossing Borders, Building

Bridges: Communication Processes in Intergroup Dialogues.” Journal of Social Issues, 62: 553-576. P 563.

(19) Nagda, Biren (Ratnesh). 2006. “Breaking Barriers, Crossing Borders, Building Bridges: Communication Processes in Intergroup Dialogues.” Journal of Social Issues, 62: 553-576. P 569.

(20) United Nations. 2007. Participatory Dialogue: Towards a Stable, Safe and Just Society for All. New York: United Nations Publication. P 12.

(21) ASHE 2007, 26 (22) Ropers 2004, 258 (23) United Nations. 2007. Participatory Dialogue: Towards a Stable, Safe and Just

Society for All. New York: United Nations Publication. P 6. (24) Saunders, Harold. 1999. A Public Peace Process: Sustained Dialogue to

Transform Racial and Ethnic Conflicts. New York: St. Martin’s Press. P135 (25) Bohm, David, Donald Factor, and Peter Garrett. 1991. “Dialogue a Proposal.”

Accessed March 10, 2013 from http://www.david-bohm.net/dialogue/dialogue_proposal.html. P11. (26) Program on Intergroup Relations. 2009. “Race/Class Process/Content Outline.”

University of Michigan. P10. (27) Program on Intergroup Relations. 2009. “Race/Class Process/Content Outline.”

University of Michigan. P 11. (28) Program on Intergroup Relations. 2009. “Race/Class Process/Content Outline.”

University of Michigan. P 19. (29) Program on Intergroup Relations. 2009. “Race/Class Process/Content Outline.”

University of Michigan. P 12. (30) Maxwell, Kelly, Biren (Ratnesh) Nagda, and Monita C. Thompson. 2011.

Facilitating Intergroup Dialogue: Bridging Divides, Catalyzing Change. Sterling: Stylus Publishing. P xvii.

Documents

Youth Dialogue Facilitation Guide