Debate and Dialogue
InstructionsDebate and Dialogue
This exercise support trainees in identifying the features of and differences between debate and dialogue and in becoming aware of the strengths and usefulness of dialogue in the reflection and deliberation process.
- To support participants to identify and recognize the features of and differences between debate and dialogue
- To encourage participants to understand and become aware of the strengths and usefulness of dialogue in the reflection and deliberation process.
- To learn to foster reflection in others by means of experiential learning and explaining the concepts of dialogue and debate
- To apply and know how to use/support/encourage the dialogue as a tool for reflection processes
- To learn to master skills to conduct face-to-face sessions aimed at facilitating researchers to reflect on moral dilemmasParticipants need to have read the instructions before experiencing the exercise.
In order to experience this exercise you need to have a background in research (i.e. be employed as researchers) or be a trainer/educator/teacher who has had experience in research in the past.
Moreover, you need to be familiar with :
a) The concept of moral dilemma
b) The concept of dialogue
What is this about?
Why is this important?
Preparation
Read the theme page about dialogue versus debate.
Experience the exercise
The trainer will facilitate the exercise by following the steps briefly listed here below.
1. Introduction to the exercise
2. Presentation of an exemplary case with a clear moral dilemma.
3. Creation of subgroups (you will be asked to defend one of the two options in the dilemma)
4. Start a debate
5. Reflect on the process of debating
6. Learn about the features of a dialogue
7. Engage in a dialogue
8. Reflect on the differences between debate and dialogue
9. Reflect on the value of dialogue in group reflections.
For a detailed description of the steps see the trainers instructions.Evaluation
Share your lessons learned with the others and your experience with the facilitation process with the trainer.
Remarks
List of contributors:
Margreet Stolper, Giulia Inguaggiato.
We thank Rea Scepanovic, Marco Consentino, Vasalis Markakis, Armin Schmolmeuller, Ruzica Tokalic, Erika Löfström and Solveig Cornér for their constructive feedback during the process of developing!
This training has been developed by the VIRT2UE project, which has received funding form the European Union’s H2020 research programme under grant agreement N 741782.What is this about?
This exercise helps trainers to cultivate dialogical skills by others and to understand what is needed to foster reflection in others by means of dialogue. It is based on the premise that dialogue and dialogical skills are indispensable in reflection and deliberation processes in general but also for Ethics and Research Integrity (ERI) topics.
Why is this important?
Practical Tips
Introduction
Introduce the exercise by explaining its goals (recognizing a moral dilemma, experiencing the difference between debate and dialogue and understanding the value of dialogical attitude for fostering reflection in others) and explain the relationship with the practice of RI. Make clear that for this exercise it is important to focus primarily on the process of the interaction. That means that the content of the case is of secondary importance and will mainly be used to foster a process of debate and/or dialogue.
Case presentation
Present an exemplary (hypothetical) ERI case with a clear formulated moral dilemma (please see practical tips for an example). While choosing a case, be aware of the target group. Pick a case that is recognisable for the target group; it should be part of their practice. Important is to present a case which has a short description and has a clear formulated dilemma (simple formulated in 2 choices). Display the case description clearly visible on a monitor during the debate/dialogue. Participants should be able to re-read the case description at any time. Make sure you give enough information about the case, otherwise participants will start to ask questions about the case itself.
Create subgroups
Divide the group in two sub-groups and instruct each group which side of the dilemma they have to defend. There are two ways to divide: A) participants choose a side by themselves, or B) the trainer divides the group in two subgroups. Both approaches have pros and cons to take in consideration: in case of option A the participants are likely more involved to defend their position. In option B the participants have to learn to defend a position which might not be their initial choice; they are forced to search for arguments which pleas for the position they have to defend.
If you are aware of hierarchy in a group e.g. supervisors and (PhD) students, consider carefully which way you choose as moderator; it might be advisable to divide the group by the moderator. Participants are assigned to a group and might feel less troublesome when discussing with higher ranking.
If there is enough space available in the room, position the two subgroups facing each other; they literarily face each other (opposite to each other).
Before starting with step 4, give both groups few minutes to think together about arguments and their strategy to convince the other group.Experience a debate
Start a debate: invite both subgroups to convince each other that the side of the dilemma which they have to defend, is the best choice all things considered. As a moderator you can challenge the participants in case only few persons talk. In general, try not to intervene too much during the debate, even when participants start raising their voices. Stop the debate when you have the impression that it becomes too emotional and ask what is triggering them to become emotional in terms of aggressive, upset, sad etcetera. Or go to step 5.
In case the participants debating too politely or civilised, you have to intervene actively as a moderator and challenge both groups to convince each other. You might even make stimulating comments such as:
- Come on, do you really think that …….? (repeat what has been said by one of the participants)
- What makes you thinking that this argument counts?
