Difference between revisions of "Instruction:Ac206152-effd-475b-b8cd-7e5861cb65aa"

From The Embassy of Good Science
 
(11 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{Instruction
 
{{Instruction
 
|Title=Debate and Dialogue
 
|Title=Debate and Dialogue
|Instruction Goal=This exercise supports users in identifying the features of and differences between debate and dialogue and in becoming aware of the strengths and usefulness of dialogue as a tool for reflection processes.
+
|Has Related Initiative=Initiative:8eed30fd-c2ed-44d1-9752-753092bd350e
|Has Requirements=You need to have read the instructions before experiencing the exercise.  
+
|Instruction Goal=This exercise helps participants to identify the features of, and differences between, debate and dialogue. Participants become aware of the strengths of dialogue as a tool for reflection processes.
 
+
|Has Requirements=You should have read the instructions before experiencing the exercise. You should also be familiar with :  
Moreover, you need to be familiar with :  
 
  
 
a)   The concept of [https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34 moral dilemma];
 
a)   The concept of [https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:17d406f9-0b0f-4325-aa2d-2fe186d5ff34 moral dilemma];
Line 10: Line 9:
 
b)    The concept of [https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:6217d06b-c907-4b09-af4e-b4c8a17b9847 dialogue].
 
b)    The concept of [https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:6217d06b-c907-4b09-af4e-b4c8a17b9847 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.
+
For this exercise, you should have a background in research (i.e. be employed as a researcher) or be a trainer/educator/teacher who has had experience in research in the past.
 
|Has Duration=1
 
|Has Duration=1
 
|Has Participants=20
 
|Has Participants=20
|Important For=Researchers; Trainers in training; Research integrity trainers
+
|Important For=Research integrity trainers; Researchers; Trainers in training
 
|Has Method=Face to Face; Participatory sessions
 
|Has Method=Face to Face; Participatory sessions
 
}}
 
}}
Line 19: Line 18:
 
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
 
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainee}}
 
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
 
{{Instruction Perspective Trainee
|Is About=In this exercise you will experience the value of and differences between debate and dialogue. The exercise is based on the premise that dialogue and dialogical skills are indispensable in reflection and deliberation processes in general but are particularly important  for Research Integrity. The exercise focuses primarily on experiencing the different type of interaction and reflection which debate and dialogue can stimulate. By means of debating or having a dialogue on a research integrity case you will understand and become aware of the strengths and usefulness of both interactions in reflection and deliberation processes.
+
|Is About=In this exercise you discover the value of, and differences between, debate and dialogue. The exercise is based on the premise that dialogue and dialogical skills are indispensable for reflection and deliberation processes in general, and for research integrity in particular. Participants experience the different types of interaction and reflection produced by debate and dialogue.
|Important Because=If you face a moral question, dilemma or conflict, you should be able to make a well-considered choice. In order to consider choices or make up an opinion you should be able to fully understand the context of the issue, what is at stake and for whom. Within a dialogue an attitude of slowing down, postponing judgments and asking questions is required. By engaging with others in a dialogue about a moral question, dilemma or conflict, you are forced to focus on understanding the other and make the other (and yourself) think critically about his/her way of acting and underlying motives.
+
|Important Because=If you face a moral question, dilemma, or conflict, you should be able to make a well-considered choice. In order to consider choices or form an opinion you should be able to fully understand the context of the issue, what is at stake and for whom. To have a dialogue, an attitude of slowing down, postponing judgments and asking questions is required. By engaging with others in dialogue you focus on understanding the other and helping the other (and yourself) think critically about his/her way of acting.
 
}}
 
}}
 
{{Instruction Step Trainee
 
{{Instruction Step Trainee
 
|Instruction Step Title=Prepare
 
|Instruction Step Title=Prepare
|Instruction Step Text= Watch the video to have an impression of the 'Debate & Dialogue Exercise' of the VIRT2UE Train-the-Trainer program.  
+
|Instruction Step Text=Watch the video to get an impression of the VIRT2UE 'Debate & Dialogue Exercise'.  
 
[[File:D&D2.png |link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=249umsbOIG0&list=PLabbUwyulAry4tzZ12eHl5JOJhJGiaE6k&index=4]]
 
[[File:D&D2.png |link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=249umsbOIG0&list=PLabbUwyulAry4tzZ12eHl5JOJhJGiaE6k&index=4]]
 
<br>
 
<br>
  
  
Debate and dialogue are two different communicative modes. The following video explores the differences between the two and helps develop a better understanding of their dynamics. Also, read the theme page about [https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:6217d06b-c907-4b09-af4e-b4c8a17b9847 dialogue versus debate].
+
Debate and dialogue are two different communicative modes. The following video explores the differences between the two and helps the viewer develop a better understanding of their dynamics. These differences are also described in more detail in the theme page '[https://embassy.science/wiki/Theme:6217d06b-c907-4b09-af4e-b4c8a17b9847 dialogue versus debate'].
  
 
[[File:ByVirtueof.png |link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-nI32JBOyo]]
 
[[File:ByVirtueof.png |link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-nI32JBOyo]]
 
 
}}
 
}}
 
{{Instruction Step Trainee
 
{{Instruction Step Trainee
 
|Instruction Step Title=Experience the exercise
 
|Instruction Step Title=Experience the exercise
|Instruction Step Text=The trainer will facilitate the exercise by following the steps briefly listed here below.
+
|Instruction Step Text=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)
+
#Introduction to the exercise
 
+
#Presentation of an exemplary case with a clear moral dilemma.
4.   Start a debate
+
#Creation of subgroups (you will be asked to defend one of the two options in the dilemma)
 
+
#Participants engage in a debate
5.   Reflect on the process of debating
+
#Reflection on the process of debating
 
+
#Explanation of the characteristics of a dialogue
6.   Learn about the features of a dialogue
+
#Participants engage in a dialogue
 
+
#Reflection on the differences between debate and dialogue
7.   Engage in a dialogue
+
#Reflection on the value of dialogue in group reflections.
 
 
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.
 
For a detailed description of the steps see the trainers instructions.
Line 60: Line 50:
 
{{Instruction Step Trainee
 
{{Instruction Step Trainee
 
|Instruction Step Title=Evaluate
 
|Instruction Step Title=Evaluate
|Instruction Step Text=Share your lessons learned with the others and your experience with the exercise with the trainer.
+
|Instruction Step Text=Share your experiences of participating and facilitating the exercise with the other participants.
 +
}}
 +
{{Instruction Step Trainee
 +
|Instruction Step Title=Annotated Debate vs. Dialogue Video
 +
|Instruction Step Text=The below video describes the difference between a debate and a dialogue. Click on the annotations to learn more throughout the video.
 +
|Instruction Step Interactive Content=Resource:H5P-5
 
}}
 
}}
 
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee
 
{{Instruction Remarks Trainee
Line 77: Line 72:
 
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
 
{{Instruction Steps Foldout Trainer}}
 
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer
 
{{Instruction Perspective Trainer
|Is 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.  
+
|Is About=This exercise helps trainers to develop their own, and other's, dialogical skills. The exercise is based on the premise that dialogue and dialogical skills are indispensable for reflection and deliberation processes in general, and for research integrity in particular. In learning how to facilitate this exercise, you will be able to:           
  
By using this exercise you will be able to:
+
*Conduct a dialogue and know how to support/encourage the use of dialogue as a tool for reflection processes.
 +
*Foster reflection in others by means of experiential learning;
  
-        To foster reflection in others by means of experiential learning;
+
The exercise can also be used as an ice-breaker before using more in-depth reflection tools or exercises.
 
+
|Important Because=When facing a moral question, dilemma, or conflict, one should be able to make a well-considered choice. In order to consider choices or form an opinion one should be able to fully understand the context of the issue, what is at stake, and for whom. To have a dialogue, an attitude of slowing down, postponing judgments and asking questions is required. By engaging with others in dialogue you focus on understanding the other and helping the other (and yourself) think critically about his/her way of acting.
-         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.
 
|Important Because=In situation of facing a moral question, dilemma or conflict, one should be able to make a well-considered choice. In order to consider choices or make up an opinion one should be able to fully understand the context of the issue, what is at stake and for whom. Within a dialogue an attitude of slowing down, postponing judgments and asking questions is required and therefore participants are forced to focus on understanding the other and make the other (and oneself) think critically about their way of acting and underlying motives.
 
 
|Has Practical Tips=<br />
 
|Has Practical Tips=<br />
 
{{{!}} class="wikitable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
 
{{{!}} class="wikitable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
{{!}} width="611" valign="top"{{!}}'''Case example '''which you may  use:
+
{{!}} width="611" valign="top"{{!}}'''Case example '''which you can use:
  
You are applying for a grant to fund your research on a very specific, scientific subject. One of your colleagues is  known for being very good at writing convincing applications. You ask him for help, as you really need the grant. He is very willing to give you a hand and rewrites your application. When reading his changes you get the feeling that it is very ambitious and it promises a lot which you might not be able to  deliver.  
+
You are applying for a grant to fund your research. One of your colleagues is  known for being very good at writing convincing applications. You ask him for help, as you really need the grant. He is very willing to give you a hand and rewrites your application. When reading his changes, you get the feeling that it is very ambitious and it promises a lot which you might not be able to deliver. However, you have to admit that the application is really impressive and convincing. The deadline for handing in the application is tomorrow. What do you do?
  
However, you have to admit that the  application is really impressive and convincing. The deadline for handing in  the application is tomorrow. What do you do?
 
  
 +
A)    Tell the colleague you are very happy and submit it as it is.
  
A)   Tell the  colleague you are very happy and submit it as it is.
+
B)     Submit the original version.  
  
B)    Take the  original version and submit it.
+
'''Overview of differences between Debate and  Dialogue'''  
 
 
'''Overview differences between Debate and  Dialogue'''
 
 
{{{!}} class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
 
{{{!}} class="wikitable" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
 
{{!}} width="168" valign="top"{{!}}
 
{{!}} width="168" valign="top"{{!}}
Line 107: Line 97:
 
{{!}}-
 
{{!}}-
 
{{!}} width="168" valign="top"{{!}}'''Aim'''
 
{{!}} width="168" valign="top"{{!}}'''Aim'''
{{!}} width="359" valign="top"{{!}}Looking for the ‘best’ answer from a one-dimensional understanding    of the reality, trying to convince others, make other understand you
+
{{!}} width="359" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="392" valign="top"{{!}}Starts from the idea that doing morally good is multi-interpretable;    we all contribute in understanding the issue; we all have something to say    about it.
+
*Make others understand you
 +
*Convince others that you have the ‘best’ answer
 +
{{!}} width="392" valign="top"{{!}}
 +
*Understand others
 +
*Develop understanding of an issue from multiple perspectives
 
{{!}}-
 
{{!}}-
 
{{!}} width="168" valign="top"{{!}}'''Characteristics'''
 
{{!}} width="168" valign="top"{{!}}'''Characteristics'''
{{!}} width="359" valign="top"{{!}}Speeding, criticising others and defending yourself, judgments and   conclusions, repetition of views/standpoint, raising voices, focus on effective and objective knowledge
+
{{!}} width="359" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="392" valign="top"{{!}}Trying to understand the other (claim   of knowledge), slowing down, listening to each other, focus on making   pre-suppositions explicit, space for ‘not-knowing’
+
*Speed
 +
*Criticize others and defend yourself
 +
*Judgments and conclusions
 +
*Repetition of views/standpoint
 +
*Raised voices and interruptions
 +
*Focus on effective and objective knowledge
 +
{{!}} width="392" valign="top"{{!}}
 +
*Try to understand the other (claim of knowledge)
 +
*Slow down
 +
*Listen to each other
 +
*Focus on making presuppositions explicit
 +
*Space for ‘not-knowing’
 
{{!}}-
 
{{!}}-
 
{{!}} width="168" valign="top"{{!}}'''Attitude'''
 
{{!}} width="168" valign="top"{{!}}'''Attitude'''
{{!}} width="359" valign="top"{{!}}Try to convince the other, making yourself understandable/visible,    speaking up often (and loudly), repeating arguments, interrupting
+
{{!}} width="359" valign="top"{{!}}
{{!}} width="392" valign="top"{{!}}Asking (in-depth) questions, active    listening, postponing judgments, try to think with ‘one head’
+
*Try to convince the other
 +
*Make yourself understood/visible
 +
{{!}} width="392" valign="top"{{!}}
 +
*Ask (in-depth) questions
 +
*Active listening
 +
*Postpone judgments
 +
*Try to think with ‘one head’
 
{{!}}}
 
{{!}}}
'''Instructions step 8''':  
+
'''Instructions step 8''':   
 
 
Questions that might help to deepen the reflection on a dialogical attitude are:
 
 
 
o   How did you experience the differences  between a debate and dialogue?
 
  
o   How did you feel during the debate and  dialogue? Was there a difference? What made the difference?
+
Questions that might help guide a reflection on a dialogical attitude:
  
o   Who or which group was the most talkative and what was the reason for it? (Why did it happen?)
+
**
 
+
*Did you experience a difference between a debate and dialogue
o   Where there participants who didn’t  participate in the debate or dialogue, or during both? If so, ask those participants what made them staying out of the debate and/or dialogue. Or first ask the group in general why they think those participants didn’t  participate in the debate and/or dialogue.
+
*Who, or which group, was the most talkative and what was the reason for it? (Why did it happen?)
 
+
*Were there participants who didn’t  participate in the debate or dialogue? If so, ask those participants what made them stay out of the debate and/or dialogue. Or first ask the group why they think some people did not participate in the debate and/or dialogue.
o   Did you get a better understanding of the arguments, motives, interest of the other group/side of dilemma during the debate or during the dialogue? What contributed the most in (not)  understanding the other group/participants? (Ask for concrete examples).  
+
*Did you understand the arguments, motives, interest of the other group/side during the debate or the dialogue? What influenced the ability to understand the other? (Ask for concrete examples).
 
+
*Are there other things you experienced as remarkable/specific for a debate or dialogue?
o   Are there other things you experienced as remarkable/specific for a debate or dialogue?
 
 
{{!}}}
 
{{!}}}
 
}}
 
}}
 
{{Instruction Step Trainer
 
{{Instruction Step Trainer
 
|Instruction Step Title=Introduction
 
|Instruction Step Title=Introduction
|Instruction Step Text=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.
+
|Instruction Step Text=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 importance for research integrity. 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.
 
}}
 
}}
 
{{Instruction Step Trainer
 
{{Instruction Step Trainer
 
|Instruction Step Title=Case presentation
 
|Instruction Step Title=Case presentation
|Instruction Step Text=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).  
+
|Instruction Step Text=Present an example (hypothetical) research integrity case with a clearly 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 recognizable for the target group - it should be part of their practice. It is important to choose a case which is short and has a clearly formulated dilemma (2 clear 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.  
+
Display the case description clearly 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.  
 
}}
 
}}
 
{{Instruction Step Trainer
 
{{Instruction Step Trainer
 
|Instruction Step Title=Creation of subgroups
 
|Instruction Step Title=Creation of subgroups
|Instruction Step Text=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.  
+
|Instruction Step Text=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 split the group: A) participants choose a side themselves, or B) the trainer divides the group in two subgroups. Both approaches have pros and cons to consideration. With option A, the participants are more likely to believe in and strongly defend their position. With option B, the participants have to learn to defend a position which they might not agree with.  
  
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 you are aware of power differences in a group e.g. supervisors and (PhD) students, it might be advisable for the moderator to divide the group. Participants assigned to a group might feel less pressure when defending their position against people more powerful than them.  
  
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).   
+
If there is enough space available in the room, position the two subgroups facing each other; they should literarily stand facing each other.   
  
Before starting the debate, give both groups few minutes to think together about arguments and their strategy to convince the other group.
+
Before starting the debate, give both groups a few minutes to discuss their arguments and strategy to convince the other group.
 
}}
 
}}
 
{{Instruction Step Trainer
 
{{Instruction Step Trainer
 
|Instruction Step Title=Experiencing a debate
 
|Instruction Step Title=Experiencing a debate
|Instruction Step Text=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.   
+
|Instruction Step Text=Start a debate: invite both subgroups to convince the other side of their position. As a moderator, you can challenge the participants if only a few people talk. In general, try not to intervene too much during the debate, even when participants start raising their voices. Stop the debate if you see people becoming too emotional and ask them what is triggering them to become emotional in terms of aggression, sadness 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)
+
In case the participants are debating too politely, you should intervene actively as a moderator and challenge both groups to convince each other. You might even make stimulating comments such as:
  
-         What makes you thinking that this argument counts?
+
**
 +
*Come on, do you really think that …….? (repeat what has been said by one of the participants)
 +
*What makes you think that this argument counts?
 
}}
 
}}
 
{{Instruction Step Trainer
 
{{Instruction Step Trainer
 
|Instruction Step Title=Reflecting on the features of a debate
 
|Instruction Step Title=Reflecting on the features of a debate
|Instruction Step Text=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:
+
|Instruction Step Text=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/interacted with each other. Help them to reflect mainly on the process and not 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).
+
**
 +
*What was remarkable in the way you talked to each other? What did you observe/experience?
 +
*What did you notice about people's postures or tones of voice?
 +
*How would you characterize the interactions between the two groups? What did you observe/experience?
 +
*Do you feel you understand each other?
 +
*Which group was dominant 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 identify with the participants what contributed to this process.
 +
*While listing and reflecting on the characteristics of a debate, try to ask for examples. For example, you can ask, what did you see or experience? What was missing?
  
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.
+
Explain that a debate/discussion might be fruitful in certain situations. For example, it helps to quickly make the initial judgments/statements/opinions regarding the moral dilemma clear.
 
}}
 
}}
 
{{Instruction Step Trainer
 
{{Instruction Step Trainer
 
|Instruction Step Title=Introducing features of a dialogue
 
|Instruction Step Title=Introducing features of a dialogue
|Instruction Step Text=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).
+
|Instruction Step Text=Turn the focus to a dialogue and present the characteristics of a dialogue: slowing down, listening instead of telling, postponing judgment, asking questions (see practical tips). You can distribute an overview of the differences between a debate and a dialogue among the participants (see practical tips).
 
}}
 
}}
 
{{Instruction Step Trainer
 
{{Instruction Step Trainer
 
|Instruction Step Title=Experiencing a dialogue
 
|Instruction Step Title=Experiencing a dialogue
|Instruction Step Text=Let both subgroups talk again with each other for more or less 10 minutes but now with a dialogical attitude. Stay preferably with the same case – each subgroup with the same side of the dilemma as attributed in step 3. Although it might be difficult, participants are actively challenged to make a change in their attitude (from debate to dialogue). You can also choose to present a new case and attribute again the sides of the dilemma between both subgroups. Presenting a new case might be easier for participants to change their focus on a dialogical attitude.
+
|Instruction Step Text=Let both subgroups talk again with each other for about 10 minutes but now with a dialogical attitude. Preferably, stay with the same case and the same groups as in step 3. Although it might be difficult, participants are actively challenged to change in their attitude (from debate to dialogue). It is also possible to use a new case and designate again groups defending the difference sides of the dilemma. Presenting a new case might be easier for participants adopt a dialogical attitude.
  
In general people tend to debate again with each other. Therefore, be alert on the attitude of a debate and intervene immediately when participants tend to start debating during the dialogue (like participants who don’t listen and interrupt others, who attack others by judgemental sentences/posture/gesture, who defend themselves instead of asking questions for clarification etc.). In case it happens, stop the conversation and help the participants to reflect by asking one of the following questions:  
+
In general, people tend to start debating with each other again. Therefore, be alert to the attitude of a debate and intervene immediately when participants start debating during the time for dialogue. For example, participants who interrupt others, don't listen, attach others with judgmental sentences/postures/gestures, or defend themselves instead of asking questions for clarification etc.). In case it happens, stop the conversation and help the participants to reflect on what happened by asking one of the following questions:  
  
o  What is happening right now?  
+
**
 +
*What is happening right now?
 +
*What do you experience?
 +
*Can somebody explain or describe what happened?
 +
*After describing what happened: what can/should you do instead? (Referring to characteristics of a dialogue).
  
o  What do you experience?
+
Refer in this moment of reflection as much as possible to  a specific attitude. For example, trying to convince the other, interruptions, etc. Once the debate-attitude has been described, provide the participants with tips to resume a dialogue by asking for example: 
  
o  Can somebody explain or describe what happened?
+
**
 
+
*What would help you to better understand the other side?
o  After describing what happened: what can/should you do instead? (Referring to characteristics of a dialogue).
+
*What question could you ask?
 
+
*What can you do to invite the other side to ask you questions?
Refer in this moment of reflection as much as possible to concrete attitude for example: you/he/she/they starts convincing the other one; he/she/they is intervening in the middle of my speech; etcetera. Once the debate-attitude has been articulated, provide the participants concrete tools to start again a dialogue by asking for example:
+
*What should we change to promote the dialogue?
 
 
o  What would help you to better understand the other one?  
 
 
 
o  What question could you ask?  
 
 
 
o  What can you do to invite the other one to ask you questions?  
 
 
 
What should we change to promote the dialogue?
 
 
}}
 
}}
 
{{Instruction Step Trainer
 
{{Instruction Step Trainer
Line 213: Line 213:
 
|Instruction Step Text=Stop the dialogue after 10 minutes and reflect with the group on the differences between debate and dialogue by referring/asking questions about:
 
|Instruction Step Text=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,
+
**
 +
*Experiences, feelings during the debate and dialogue,
 +
*The extent of understanding each other,
 +
*The group dynamics (who was talking, did everybody had a say etc.),
 +
*The understanding of the content of the case (motives; interests),
 +
*Other outcomes of a debate and dialogue (e.g. gaining new insights).
  
b. The extent of understanding each other,
+
Reflect with the group on the differences between debate and dialogue. You may look at additional questions in the practical tips section. Take notes of the reflection on a flip-chart.
 
 
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.
 
 
}}
 
}}
 
{{Instruction Step Trainer
 
{{Instruction Step Trainer
Line 229: Line 226:
 
|Instruction Step Text=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:
 
|Instruction Step Text=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:
  
<br />
+
**
 
+
*Taking in account the objectives, what did you learn from this exercise? More specificallyi) Did you become more aware of the strengths of dialogue and debate? ii) Do you think the exercise was useful to learn how to use and to encourage dialogue as a tool for reflection processes?  iii) Did you learn anything else?
*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?
 
 
 
<br />
 
 
 
 
*How will the lessons learned influence your future actions?
 
*How will the lessons learned influence your future actions?
 
 
*What do you need to foster a dialogue?
 
*What do you need to foster a dialogue?
  
The order of the exercise might give the participants the impression that debate is ‘wrong’ and dialogue is ‘right’. Try to emphasize in this last step that dialogue is useful and helpful in reflection processes but a debate can be good and useful in other situations with other purposes.
+
The order of the exercise might give the participants the impression that debate is ‘wrong’ and dialogue is ‘right’. Try to emphasize in this last step that dialogue is useful and helpful in reflection processes but that a debate can be good and useful in other situations with other purposes.
 
}}
 
}}
 
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer
 
{{Instruction Remarks Trainer

Latest revision as of 15:34, 16 April 2024

Debate and Dialogue

Instructions for:TraineeTrainer
Related Initiative
Goal
This exercise helps participants to identify the features of, and differences between, debate and dialogue. Participants become aware of the strengths of dialogue as a tool for reflection processes.
Requirements

You should have read the instructions before experiencing the exercise. You should also be familiar with :

a)   The concept of moral dilemma;

b)    The concept of dialogue.

For this exercise, you should have a background in research (i.e. be employed as a researcher) or be a trainer/educator/teacher who has had experience in research in the past.
Duration (hours)
1
Participants
20
Part of
Icon-virt2ue 2.svg
VIRT2UE

What is this about?

In this exercise you discover the value of, and differences between, debate and dialogue. The exercise is based on the premise that dialogue and dialogical skills are indispensable for reflection and deliberation processes in general, and for research integrity in particular. Participants experience the different types of interaction and reflection produced by debate and dialogue.

Why is this important?

If you face a moral question, dilemma, or conflict, you should be able to make a well-considered choice. In order to consider choices or form an opinion you should be able to fully understand the context of the issue, what is at stake and for whom. To have a dialogue, an attitude of slowing down, postponing judgments and asking questions is required. By engaging with others in dialogue you focus on understanding the other and helping the other (and yourself) think critically about his/her way of acting.
1
Prepare

Watch the video to get an impression of the VIRT2UE 'Debate & Dialogue Exercise'.

D&D2.png


Debate and dialogue are two different communicative modes. The following video explores the differences between the two and helps the viewer develop a better understanding of their dynamics. These differences are also described in more detail in the theme page 'dialogue versus debate'.

ByVirtueof.png

2
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. Participants engage in a debate
  5. Reflection on the process of debating
  6. Explanation of the characteristics of a dialogue
  7. Participants engage in a dialogue
  8. Reflection on the differences between debate and dialogue
  9. Reflection on the value of dialogue in group reflections.
For a detailed description of the steps see the trainers instructions.

3
Evaluate

Share your experiences of participating and facilitating the exercise with the other participants.

4
Annotated Debate vs. Dialogue Video

The below video describes the difference between a debate and a dialogue. Click on the annotations to learn more throughout the video.

Debate vs Dialogue

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.

This exercise has been translated in Turkish.

What is this about?

This exercise helps trainers to develop their own, and other's, dialogical skills. The exercise is based on the premise that dialogue and dialogical skills are indispensable for reflection and deliberation processes in general, and for research integrity in particular. In learning how to facilitate this exercise, you will be able to:

  • Conduct a dialogue and know how to support/encourage the use of dialogue as a tool for reflection processes.
  • Foster reflection in others by means of experiential learning;
The exercise can also be used as an ice-breaker before using more in-depth reflection tools or exercises.

Why is this important?

When facing a moral question, dilemma, or conflict, one should be able to make a well-considered choice. In order to consider choices or form an opinion one should be able to fully understand the context of the issue, what is at stake, and for whom. To have a dialogue, an attitude of slowing down, postponing judgments and asking questions is required. By engaging with others in dialogue you focus on understanding the other and helping the other (and yourself) think critically about his/her way of acting.

Practical Tips


Case example which you can use:

You are applying for a grant to fund your research. One of your colleagues is known for being very good at writing convincing applications. You ask him for help, as you really need the grant. He is very willing to give you a hand and rewrites your application. When reading his changes, you get the feeling that it is very ambitious and it promises a lot which you might not be able to deliver. However, you have to admit that the application is really impressive and convincing. The deadline for handing in the application is tomorrow. What do you do?


A)   Tell the colleague you are very happy and submit it as it is.

B)   Submit the original version.

Overview of differences between Debate and Dialogue

Debate Dialogue
Aim
  • Make others understand you
  • Convince others that you have the ‘best’ answer
  • Understand others
  • Develop understanding of an issue from multiple perspectives
Characteristics
  • Speed
  • Criticize others and defend yourself
  • Judgments and conclusions
  • Repetition of views/standpoint
  • Raised voices and interruptions
  • Focus on effective and objective knowledge
  • Try to understand the other (claim of knowledge)
  • Slow down
  • Listen to each other
  • Focus on making presuppositions explicit
  • Space for ‘not-knowing’
Attitude
  • Try to convince the other
  • Make yourself understood/visible
  • Ask (in-depth) questions
  • Active listening
  • Postpone judgments
  • Try to think with ‘one head’

Instructions step 8:

Questions that might help guide a reflection on a dialogical attitude:

  • Did you experience a difference between a debate and dialogue
  • Who, or which group, was the most talkative and what was the reason for it? (Why did it happen?)
  • Were there participants who didn’t participate in the debate or dialogue? If so, ask those participants what made them stay out of the debate and/or dialogue. Or first ask the group why they think some people did not participate in the debate and/or dialogue.
  • Did you understand the arguments, motives, interest of the other group/side during the debate or the dialogue? What influenced the ability to understand the other? (Ask for concrete examples).
  • Are there other things you experienced as remarkable/specific for a debate or dialogue?
1
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 importance for research integrity. 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.

2
Case presentation

Present an example (hypothetical) research integrity case with a clearly 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 recognizable for the target group - it should be part of their practice. It is important to choose a case which is short and has a clearly formulated dilemma (2 clear choices). Display the case description clearly 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.  

3
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 split the group: A) participants choose a side themselves, or B) the trainer divides the group in two subgroups. Both approaches have pros and cons to consideration. With option A, the participants are more likely to believe in and strongly defend their position. With option B, the participants have to learn to defend a position which they might not agree with.

If you are aware of power differences in a group e.g. supervisors and (PhD) students, it might be advisable for the moderator to divide the group. Participants assigned to a group might feel less pressure when defending their position against people more powerful than them.

If there is enough space available in the room, position the two subgroups facing each other; they should literarily stand facing each other. 

Before starting the debate, give both groups a few minutes to discuss their arguments and strategy to convince the other group.

4
Experiencing a debate

Start a debate: invite both subgroups to convince the other side of their position. As a moderator, you can challenge the participants if only a few people talk. In general, try not to intervene too much during the debate, even when participants start raising their voices. Stop the debate if you see people becoming too emotional and ask them what is triggering them to become emotional in terms of aggression, sadness etc.

In case the participants are debating too politely, you should 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 think that this argument counts?

5
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/interacted with each other. Help them to reflect mainly on the process and not 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:

  • What was remarkable in the way you talked to each other? What did you observe/experience?
  • What did you notice about people's postures or tones of voice?
  • How would you characterize the interactions between the two groups? What did you observe/experience?
  • Do you feel you understand each other?
  • Which group was dominant 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 identify with the participants what contributed to this process.
  • While listing and reflecting on the characteristics of a debate, try to ask for examples. For example, you can ask, what did you see or experience? What was missing?
Explain that a debate/discussion might be fruitful in certain situations. For example, it helps to quickly make the initial judgments/statements/opinions regarding the moral dilemma clear.

6
Introducing features of a dialogue

Turn the focus to a dialogue and present the characteristics of a dialogue: slowing down, listening instead of telling, postponing judgment, asking questions (see practical tips). You can distribute an overview of the differences between a debate and a dialogue among the participants (see practical tips).

7
Experiencing a dialogue

Let both subgroups talk again with each other for about 10 minutes but now with a dialogical attitude. Preferably, stay with the same case and the same groups as in step 3. Although it might be difficult, participants are actively challenged to change in their attitude (from debate to dialogue). It is also possible to use a new case and designate again groups defending the difference sides of the dilemma. Presenting a new case might be easier for participants adopt a dialogical attitude.

In general, people tend to start debating with each other again. Therefore, be alert to the attitude of a debate and intervene immediately when participants start debating during the time for dialogue. For example, participants who interrupt others, don't listen, attach others with judgmental sentences/postures/gestures, or defend themselves instead of asking questions for clarification etc.). In case it happens, stop the conversation and help the participants to reflect on what happened by asking one of the following questions:

  • What is happening right now?
  • What do you experience?
  • Can somebody explain or describe what happened?
  • After describing what happened: what can/should you do instead? (Referring to characteristics of a dialogue).

Refer in this moment of reflection as much as possible to a specific attitude. For example, trying to convince the other, interruptions, etc. Once the debate-attitude has been described, provide the participants with tips to resume a dialogue by asking for example:

  • What would help you to better understand the other side?
  • What question could you ask?
  • What can you do to invite the other side to ask you questions?
  • What should we change to promote the dialogue?

8
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:

  • Experiences, feelings during the debate and dialogue,
  • The extent of understanding each other,
  • The group dynamics (who was talking, did everybody had a say etc.),
  • The understanding of the content of the case (motives; interests),
  • Other outcomes 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 additional questions in the practical tips section. Take notes of the reflection on a flip-chart.

9
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 specifically:  i) Did you become more aware of the strengths of dialogue and debate? ii) Do you think the exercise was useful to learn how to use and to encourage dialogue as a tool for reflection processes?  iii) Did you learn anything else?
  • How will the lessons learned influence your future actions?
  • What do you need to foster a dialogue?
The order of the exercise might give the participants the impression that debate is ‘wrong’ and dialogue is ‘right’. Try to emphasize in this last step that dialogue is useful and helpful in reflection processes but that a debate can be good and useful in other situations with other purposes.

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.

Other information

Who
Where
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.
5.1.6