Debate and Dialogue
InstructionsDebate and Dialogue
You need to have read the instructions before experiencing the exercise.
Moreover, you need to be familiar with :
a) The concept of moral dilemma;
b) The concept of dialogue.
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.
What is this about?
Why is this important?
Prepare
Read the theme page about dialogue versus debate.
Experience the exercise
Evaluate
Remarks
List of contributors:
Margreet Stolper, Giulia Inguaggiato. File:VIRT2UE Debate and Dialogue exercise Instructions Trainee TURKISH.pdf 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 foster the development of dialogical skills in others and to explain 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.
By using this exercise you will be able to:
- To foster reflection in others by means of experiential learning;
- Apply and know how to use/support/encourage the dialogue as a tool for reflection processes.
The exercise can also be used as a start-up before using more in-depth reflection tools or exercises.Why is this important?
Introduction
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.
Creation of 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 the debate, give both groups few minutes to think together about arguments and their strategy to convince the other group.Experiencing 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 etc.
In case the participants are debating too politely or civilized, 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?Reflecting on the features of a debate
After 10-minutes (depending on the size of the group), stop the debate and let the group reflect on what happened and how they debated/discussed with each other. Help them to reflect mainly on the process and not only on the content of the debate. Ask participants to list features of a debate and note them down on a flip-chart. Some examples of questions you might use:
a. What was remarkable in the way you talked to each other? What did you observe/experience?
b. Were there specifics regarding the postures or tone of voice?
c. How would you characterize the interactions between the two groups? What did you observe/experience?
d. Do you feel you have a certain understanding of each other?
e. Which group was in the lead and why did this happen? (It might happen that one group is always confronting the other group, while the other group is always defending their position instead of ‘attacking’ the other group. Try to construct with the participants what contributed to this process).
While listing and reflecting on the characteristics of a debate, try to ask for examples (What did you see or experience? What was lacking?). Explain also that a debate/discussion might be fruitful in certain situations, for example: it helps to make quickly clear the initial judgments/statements/opinions regarding the moral dilemma.Introducing features of a dialogue
Turn the focus on a dialogue and present the characteristics of a dialogue (slowing down, listening instead of telling, postponing judgment, asking questions; see practical tips ), or distribute an overview of the differences between a debate and a dialogue among the participants (see practical tips).
Experiencing a dialogue
Reflecting on the features of a dialogue
Stop the dialogue after 10 minutes and reflect with the group on the differences between debate and dialogue by referring/asking questions about:
a. Experiences, feelings during the debate and dialogue,
b. The extent of understanding each other,
c. The group dynamics (who was talking, did everybody had a say etc.),
d. The understanding of the content of the case (motives; interests),
e. Other assumed results of a debate and dialogue (e.g. gaining new insights).
Reflect with the group on the differences between debate and dialogue. You may look at the additional questions in the practical tips section. Take notes of the reflection on a flip-chart.Conclusions and lessons learned
Ask participants to reflect on the value of dialogue and how to use it for fostering group reflection. Focus on the overall lessons learned related to the objectives of the exercise. You might ask questions like:
- Taking in account the objectives: what did you learn from this exercise? More specific:
i. Did you become more aware of the strengths of the concepts of dialogue and debate?
ii. Do you think the exercise was useful to learn how to use and to encourage the dialogue as a tool for reflection processes?
iii. Are there other lessons learned?
- How will the lessons learned influence your future actions?
- What do you need to foster a dialogue?
Remarks
Translations:
These instructions are available in Turkish. File:VIRT2UE Debate and Dialogue exercise Turkish translation.pdf
List of contributors:
Margreet Stolper, Giulia Inguaggiato.
We thank the WP3 members and 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.
