Public Conversations Project • email: info@publicconversations.org
46 Kondazian Street • Watertown, MA 02472-2832 • www.publicconversations.org

Notes to the Reader:
The model described below was developed for the single session introductory dialogues on abortion that Public Conversations Project conducted in 1990-1992 (eighteen sessions) and 1995-1998 (ten sessions). Most of these dialogues took place on weekday evenings between 6:00 and 9:30 and involved four to eight participants who did not know one another ahead of time. Several participants were activists but few were highly visible leaders. All groups were evenly balanced with people who described themselves as “prochoice” or “prolife.” To learn more on this web site, see “An Overview of the Project’s Work on Abortion” and our resources Bibliography (especially the article “From Stuck Debate to
New Conversation on Controversial Issues”). Also, let us know if you would like to order our Handbook on dialogue on abortion. Phone: 617-923-1216.
Before the Dialogue:
Telephone Invitations . We gathered names from activist organizations and through informal networking. And telephoned potential participants. During each call, we outlined the goals of the event, described the group agreements (ground rules) that would be proposed, and addressed any questions and concerns that came up during the call. If the potential participant was interested and available, we promised to send a letter of invitation and encouraged him or her to call us if new questions or concerns came up after receiving the letter.
Written Invitations and Additional Information . All who agreed to participate received an identical letter of invitation which stated the goal of the dialogue. To foster clarity about what the event was — and what it was not — we enclosed a table: Distinguishing Debate from Dialogue. The letter also included the group agreements that would be proposed, some questions for participants to think about ahead of time, and logistical information.
The Pre-Dialogue Dinner . When participants arrived they were offered a light buffet dinner during which they and the facilitators became acquainted. Participants and facilitators were each asked to say something about themselves unrelated to having particular views on the abortion issue or to being facilitators of the dialogue. Before moving to the dialogue room, participants were asked to turn in their video release forms. (For research purposes, we videotaped sessions with the understanding that if we wished to use the tape for broader educational purposes, e.g., in a training or presentation, we would contact the participant with a specific additional request.)
Copyright © 1999 Public Conversations Project www.publicconversations.org
1

The Dialogue:
Seating and Orientation to Roles and Schedule . In the dialogue room, each participant was seated next to someone on the other side of the issue. Then one of the two facilitators made opening remarks about the structure of the evening.
Making Agreements . The facilitators reviewed the proposed agreements. These agreements, which were generally adopted with little or no discussion, pertained to:
- maintaining confidentiality.
- voluntary participation (i.e., accepting “pass” or “pass for now” as a response).
- using respectful language (in this case we asked that “pro” terms rather than “anti” terms be used to describe positions on the abortion issue).
- avoiding negative attribution, stereotyping, and other forms of communication likely to raise the listener's defenses.
- listening attentively, refraining from interrupting, and sharing “airtime.”
Opening Questions . The following three questions were asked and answered in this way:
The question was read. Participants were given a minute to think. Then each person responded. The first and second questions were answered in “go-rounds” and the third was answered “popcorn” style, i.e., as people felt ready. Participants were asked to take up to 3 minutes for questions #1 and #3 and up to 2 minutes for question #2.
Question 1: What events or other personal life experiences may have shaped your current views and feelings about abortion? Could you tell us something about one or two of these events or experiences?
Question 2: What is at the heart of the matter for you, as an individual?
Question 3: Many people who have participated in dialogues like this have said that within their general approach to this issue they have some dilemmas about their own beliefs, for example, some value conflicts or ambivalent feelings. Do you experience any mixed feelings, value conflicts, uncertainties, or other dilemmas within your overall perspective on this issue?
Questions Arising from Curiosity . We invited participants to ask questions of each other, asking them to avoid rhetorical questions, and instead, to ask each other questions arising from their genuine curiosity about the feelings, beliefs, and experiences of the people in the room.
Closing Questions . About twenty minutes before the end of the session, we posed two closing questions, each answered in a go-round format.
Question 1: What do you think you have done or restrained yourself from doing that may have contributed to this conversation going the way it has?
Question 2: Do you have any parting words you would like to say, to bring this conversation to a satisfying close?
Copyright © 1999 Public Conversations Project www.publicconversations.org
2

After the Dialogue:
Team Assessment . After the participants left the facilitators reviewed the session, discussed how they worked together and individually, and considered whether any difficult moments suggested a need to change the model in the future. They also considered whether there were any new questions they wanted ask in the follow-up call.
Follow-Up Telephone Calls . About two weeks after the session, we called participants to elicit feedback, ask about their further reflections, and learn what they might have taken from the experience into their lives.
Copyright © 1999 Public Conversations Project www.publicconversations.org
3

Given the collaborative nature of our meeting design process and the high degree of customization of our meeting designs, we can offer no “typical” meeting format. However, many meetings — in particular meetings that bring a group together for the first time — have the following phases.
PHASE
ENTRY
OPENING
COMMENTS
INTRODUCTIONS
AGREEMENTS
OPENING
QUESTIONS
POSED BY
FACILITATORS
PARTICIPANTS
ASK QUESTIONS
ARISING FROM
THEIR CURIOSITY
OBJECTIVE
To greet people as they enter in a manner that is welcoming and hospitable.
To welcome people as a group, remind them about the objectives of the meeting and, perhaps, its history, and to say a few words about the structure and time boundaries of the meeting.
To help people become known to each other as people.
To achieve consensus in the group about how participants want to relate to each other during the meeting. This involves either accepting or revising proposed agreements that have been included in pre-meeting communications. (This phase may occur before introductions.)
To generate a shared pool of information about the concerns and interests of those in the room; to reveal information ordinarily silenced on the issue; to encourage participants to reflect upon and speak from their experience; and to enhance curiosity about others’ views.
To encourage listening guided by curiosity and interest and to support and expand upon speaking that is fresh and engaging.
MIDDLE PHASE
NEXT STEPS
REFLECTIONS
AND PARTING
WORDS
The objectives for this phase are highly dependent on the groups’ objectives for the meeting and on what has occurred in the meeting so far. The spectrum of possibilities is wide, ranging from highly structured exercises to very open discussions.
To assess whether what has occurred has stimulated ideas for actions and, if so, to achieve consensus about what should happen and who will do what to make it happen.
To give participants an opportunity to reflect on and speak about their contributions to the process, learning, and shifts in understanding and to express appreciation for what others have offered. This is also a time to say anything that feels left over or incomplete and, perhaps, to note what has been especially useful or might be improved.
Copyright © 1999 Public Conversations Project www.publicconversations.org
4

Introductory Go-Rounds
We often ask participants, in turn, to say their names and tell the group something about themselves. Sometimes we model responses, e.g, “If I were answering this question I might say…”
Some introductory go-rounds we have used are:
Please tell us in a sentence or two about something you had to give up or set aside in order to be here now; anything that may be competing for your attention as you try to settle in, or anything that you need to let go of to be present.
Tell us something you would like us to know about you; something that you consider to be a strength of yours, something that you value about yourself, possibly a personal quality that may be a resource for this process.
Please tell us something about yourself that is important to you and not directly related to the issue we are here to discuss; something about a passion, an interest, a hobby, or a pre-occupation in your life.
Questions to Consider for the Opening Phase
1) Do you have any fears or concerns about participating in these conversations that you would like to identify as we begin? What enabled you to come today despite your fears and concerns?
2) Do you have hopes for these conversations that you are willing to speak about at this time? What could happen while we are here that would strengthen your hopes?
3) Can you tell us something about one or more of the life experiences that are connected in your mind with your commitment to the issues we are here to discuss?
Design and Facilitation Tips
GIVE PEOPLE TIME TO THINK.
After we pose a question, we try to give people time to think before anyone responds. This time for reflection allows participants to decide what they will say. Having decided that, they can listen carefully to what others say. When their turn comes to speak, they are more likely to speak their own considered thoughts rather than simply a reaction to what others have said.
SPECIFY AN AMOUNT OF TIME TO TALK.
We typically give participants a specific (and fairly short) amount of time to respond to each question. This prevents wide variations in “air time” and monopolization of the floor by a few participants. The amount of time allotted can vary from question to question. We often involve participants in time management by asking them to pass a watch. The person who has just spoken keeps time for the next speaker.
Copyright © 1999 Public Conversations Project www.publicconversations.org
5

OFFER A STRUCTURE FOR SPEAKING AND LISTENING.
We often use a “go-round” format in which people speak after the person sitting next to them has finished. This format allows people to focus their energy on speaking and listening, rather than on trying to decide when to speak. (If people are not ready to answer a question when their turn comes, they can “pass” and will be given another opportunity when the others have finished.) By prior agreement, when a speaker learns that time is up, he or she wraps up, adding a concluding sentence if needed. An alternative to the “go-round” format is the
“popcorn” format, which allows participants to determine the order of their talking; they simply speak up when they feel ready.
Copyright © 1999 Public Conversations Project www.publicconversations.org
6

1
1) Speak personally, for yourself as an individual, not as a representative of an organization or position.
2) Avoid assigning intentions, beliefs, or motives to others. (Ask others questions instead of stating untested assumptions about them.)
3) Honor each person’s right to “pass” if he or she is not ready or willing to speak.
4) Allow others to finish before you speak.
5) Share “air time.”
6) Respect all confidentiality or anonymity requests that the group has agreed to honor.
2
7) Stay on the topic.
8) Call people and groups by the names that they prefer.
3
1 We often use the term “agreements” instead of “ground rules” to underscore the participants’ ownership of their process. The agreements we propose are tailored to address the hopes and concerns expressed by participants in the planning phase. The list we propose becomes the group’s agreements only after the group has amended and adopted them at the beginning of the meeting.
2 Many groups make a provisional confidentiality agreement at the beginning of the meeting when they do not yet know what will happen. Example: “Unless we change our confidentiality agreement at the end of the meeting, no one here can say who was here or anything that was said. At the end of the meeting we will revisit the issue of confidentiality and may change the agreement if all agree to do so.”
3 For example, a participant may prefer to be called “African-American” rather than “Black” or “pro-life” rather than “anti-abortion.”
Copyright © 1999 Public Conversations Project www.publicconversations.org
7

1
1.
If you feel cut off , say so or override the interruption. (“I'd like to finish…”)
2.
If you feel misunderstood , clarify what you mean. (“Let me put this another way...”)
3.
If you feel misheard , ask the listener to repeat what she heard you say, then affirm or correct her statement.
4.
If you feel hurt or disrespected, say so. If possible, describe exactly what you heard or saw that evoked hurt feelings in you. (“When you said x, I felt y...“ where “x” refers to specific language.) If it is hard to think of what to say, just say, “OUCH” to flag your reaction.
5.
If you feel angry , express the anger directly (e.g., “I felt angry when I heard you say x...”) rather than expressing it or acting it out indirectly (e.g., by trashing another person’s statement or asking a sarcastic or rhetorical question.)
6.
If you feel confused , frame a question that seeks clarification or more information. You may prefer to paraphrase what you have heard. (“Are you saying that...?”)
7.
If you feel uncomfortable with the process, state your discomfort and check in with the group to see how others are experiencing what is happening. (“I’m not comfortable with the tension I’m feeling in the room right now and I’m wondering how others are feeling.”) If others share your concerns and you have an idea about what would help, offer that idea. (“How about taking a one-minute Time Out to reflect on what we are trying to do together?”)
8.
If you feel the conversation is going off track , share your perception, and check in with others. (“I thought we were going to discuss x before moving to y, but it seems that we bypassed x and are focussing on y. Is that right?”) If so (“I’d like to get back to x and hear from more people about it.”)
1 These self-help tools were derived from discussions with participants about difficult moments and what they might do in the future in similar situations.
Copyright © 1995 Public Conversations Project www.publicconversations.org
8

A. Prevent: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of intervention.
What are some means of prevention?
1. A collaborative mindset among participants leads people to share responsibility for what happens.
2. General expectations of participants are included in the invitation, repeated at the beginning of a meeting, and explicitly accepted.
3. Agreements are explicitly made, covering many aspects of individual action and group interaction.
4. Specific expectations and agreements may be developed as the group evolves.
B. Prepare: Show participants how they can meet challenges.
1. Participants may be asked to recall what has been useful to them in prior experiences with conflictual situations.
2. Participants may be given suggestions (self-help tools) about what they can do when faced with challenging moments in a group.
C. Be legitimate: Use interventions that are authorized by the group.
1. General agreements for the entire dialogue.
2. Specific agreements about each section of the dialogue.
3. A role description for the facilitator that has been approved by the group.
D. Be compassionate by being flexible not rigid, positive not punitive, inquisitive not judgmental, transparent and human, rather than cryptic and mechanical.
1. Be flexible. Intervene for the well-being and progress of the group. Intervene more frequently at the outset to set precedent for behaviors specified by the agreements.
Later, don’t intervene on every infraction. Be alert and flexible.
2. Be positive. Instead of naming infractions, suggest a relevant alternative that is in keeping with the agreements. If someone is taking a lot of air time, you might ask if those who have not spoken would like a chance to speak. If someone speaks in generalities about the experience of others, you might ask, “how did you experience that?”
3. Be genuinely curious about group processes and needs. If there is a dilemma about how to proceed, name it and propose a time-limited conversation about options.
4. Be transparent and human. If you are uncertain about how to respond or what to do, inquire about the ideas and perspectives of your team members and/or the participants.
Copyright © 1999 Public Conversations Project www.publicconversations.org
9

1) What were the highlights of the dialogue for you?
2) Did anything (else) especially interest, move, or surprise you?
3) Was anything difficult or uncomfortable? (If so) Can you think of any way the facilitators could have helped with this? Can you think of any way the difficulty could have been prevented?
4) Do you have any (other) specific feedback for the facilitators? How fair and balanced was each of them?
5) Do you have any feedback for us about the invitation or the pre-dialogue exchanges?
6) Do you anticipate that your experience in the dialogue will affect your thinking, speaking, or actions related to this issue? If so, how?
7) Overall, how would you rate your dialogue experience on a 1-5 scale where 5 is
Outstanding and 0 is Wish I had Not Come?
8) Would you have any thoughts to share with someone who is not sure about participating in a similar dialogue?
Copyright © 1999 Public Conversations Project www.publicconversations.org
10