Overview
The Police-Community Dialogue video resource serves as an example of a real-life dialogue and provides a window into the challenging decisions that facilitators in all contexts must make.
There are two parts to the video:
- The police-community dialogue itself
- A retrospective interview between the facilitators of the dialogue and Professor Robert C. Bordone, providing commentary and insight into essential questions for facilitators of all kinds
Watching the videos alone can be educational, but active engagement with the videos is likely to generate more productive classroom discussion and retention. This teaching note is meant to provide a basic framework to stimulate student learning. URLs to the full dialogue, the full interview with the facilitators, and each of the separate chapters can be easily shared with students according to the schedule you have constructed for your course.
Where this Video Resource Can Be Used
- Courses on facilitation
- Courses on multi-party negotiation
- Courses on consensus building and mediation
- Workshops or training sessions on facilitating dialogue
Teaching Points
This video resource provides an introduction to the process of facilitation and co-facilitation. Students will learn:
- To define the role of a facilitator when participants may have differing understandings of what a facilitated dialogue is;
- To effectively frame a conversation that has the potential to develop in many different directions;
- To address challenging group dynamics, including power dynamics and varying levels of participation;
- To establish shared norms for discussing emotionally charged topics;
- To set an agenda that serves the group’s needs and fits the purpose of the dialogue session;
- To decide when and how to intervene in key moments of a dialogue;
- To engage participants and help them to explore their differences, tensions, and conflicts as well as their points of agreement;
- To give voice to all participants in the room while protecting their autonomy;
- To bring a group discussion to a close while acknowledging real emotions and differences in the room.
Context
The decisions that facilitators make vary depending on the context in which they are working. The following text places these videos in context, provides the larger story of the Police-Community Dialogue, and prepares the viewer for the material they are about to watch.
In response to increasing polarization in the American political landscape, the Harvard Negotiation and Mediation Clinical Program has sought to expand its work related to political dialogue on issues that can cut to the core of identity and belief. This work demonstrates that when citizens have the opportunity to participate in well-facilitated conversations around divisive issues, everyone benefits. In an effort to reinvigorate genuine and challenging dialogue in public life, we created this video of an unrehearsed political dialogue assisted by two professional facilitators.
The purpose of the video is twofold:
- To create a learning resource for those who might teach facilitation and those who might one day serve as facilitators.
- To show real citizens engaging in genuine dialogue on issues that cut to the core of identity and that sit heavily on the national political consciousness in the hopes of inspiring others to find ways to participate in their own challenging dialogues.
Because our aim was to create a resource that would educate and inspire, we made an intentional decision not to use actors and scripting. All participants and facilitators in the video are unscripted. While hosting a real dialogue presented risks and would result in a video that would be less-than-perfect, we decided that producing a video with all of the flaws of genuine conversation would be more useful to viewers than creating a video of “perfect” dialogue. Even if the latter could be created with actors and skillful writing, we suspected that watching a scripted scene that could never transpire in real life would be, at best, largely academic and, at worst, demoralizing since there is no such thing as a “perfect” dialogue.
The video is divided into two parts. The first part is the facilitated conversation as it occurred on July 9, 2016 in its unedited form. The second portion of the video is a conversation that Professor Robert C. Bordone conducted with the two facilitators, Toby Berkman and Danielle Bart, weeks after the dialogue. In this second part, Professor Bordone interviews Toby and Danielle about various choices they made when preparing for the dialogue and at several key moments in the dialogue itself. The purpose of the interview is to get into the minds of these skillful professionals, understand their facilitative choices, and reflect on the multiple ways to handle challenging moments.
Planning for this dialogue began many months before the actual conversation. In March of 2016 we selected the video recording date of July 9. The original invitation to the dialogue participants asked them to reflect on their views of police-community relations in the wake of the 2014 shooting of Michael Brown and the subsequent events in Ferguson, Missouri. As it happened, the week before the scheduled taping in July, Alton Sterling was killed in Baton Rouge, Philando Castile was killed in Minnesota, and five police officers were killed in Dallas. In the week before our dialogue, these events gripped the nation and heightened the rawness that the eight participants brought to our conversation.
With this information as background, and with thanks to the participants and facilitators alike, we hope that you find this video resource engaging and enriching.
Discussion Questions
Each chapter includes two types of questions: questions to think about while watching and discussion questions to ask after watching. The questions to think about while watching are intended to be read before watching any clips for a particular chapter. Educators might ask students or participants to discuss their responses or write them out prior to viewing the clips. The discussion questions to ask after watching can be used either after watching the entire chapter or after watching the dialogue clip but before watching the interview clip. The former approach is often best for a group that is relatively new to facilitation, while the latter is best for a group that is more experienced.
This is by no means an exhaustive list of discussion questions. There are many moments not highlighted in this list of questions that educators might use as starting points for discussion.
Finally, each chapter also includes a list of key learning points. Educators can expand on these as they see fit and they serve as a set of basic take-away points for participants.
Chapter 1: Framing the Conversation
Videos: Dialogue Chapter 1 (run time: approximately 3 minutes), Interview on Framing the Conversation (approximately 5 min)
Questions to think about while watching this section:
- How does a facilitator frame a conversation?
- How does a facilitator explain their role to a group?
- When emotions are running high, what is the right tone for a facilitator to have while starting the conversation?
Discussion questions to ask after watching:
- Considering the events of the summer of 2016, in which Alton Sterling was killed in Baton Rouge and Philando Castille was killed in Minnesota, Danielle and Toby both suggest that there is particular bravery in choosing to participate in a conversation about police-community relations at this moment. What is your reaction to the way that Danielle and Toby contextualize the conversation in light of current events at that time?
- At the very end of this dialogue segment, Toby explains the role of the facilitators. What is your reaction to his explanation?
- How might co-facilitators listen to and prepare each other for conversations about which they have distinct thoughts and feelings of their own?
Key learning points:
- Dialogues on political issues can be about specific current events as well as the persistent political questions that undergird them. Facilitators should think about and find ways to balance both distinct directions that the conversation could take.
- Acknowledging the fact that participants are bringing difficult emotions with them to the room is an important step in opening up the space. Acknowledgment is also a way for facilitators to connect with the participants without taking any stand on the issues at hand or sharing their personal views up-front.
- Toby’s language defining the role of the facilitator is a succinct yet powerful way of communicating a key message to participants. He says, “We are not here to share our own opinions or perspectives on these issues” and, “We want to be serving your” These are two important messages for the group to hear, particularly because participants who are new to dialogue might expect to be learning from the facilitator’s views in some way.
- Just as body language and tone of voice affect a conversation, so does the setup of the room. Chairs in a circle, as opposed to a more lecture-style setup, encourage a sense of sharing amongst the participants. Sitting on an equal plane with the participants communicates something different than facilitators standing above the participants or situating themselves outside of the circle. At times, a facilitator may choose to do some of the preliminary pieces—agenda, norm setting, roles, etc—standing and then sit when the conversation begins. Each of these factors affect the group process and it is important to be thoughtful about the environment and setup of the room.
- Checking in with co-facilitation partners helps facilitators maintain the necessary mindset to focus on the participants, and not on their own processing (particularly when the topic of the dialogue is a weighty one). Facilitators can even check in with one another during the dialogue if they are unsure of what to do next or are concerned about one another for some reason. As long as they are not taking up a lot of air time or discussing specific comments or participants, checking in with each other openly is important and can even help participants to feel more comfortable in the room.
Chapter 2: Setting an Agenda
Videos: Dialogue Chapter 2 (1 min), Interview on Setting an Agenda (2 min)
Questions to think about while watching this section:
- What do the facilitators include in their agenda, what do they not include, and why?
- How do the facilitators frame their agenda to the participants?
Discussion questions to ask after watching:
- What is the purpose of an agenda? Why do Danielle and Toby take the time to lay out the plan for the dialogue session in such detail?
- After watching Danielle and Toby’s agenda in the video, what do you think are the benefits and drawbacks of labeling an agenda with time limits? In what situations would be beneficial to label an agenda with time limits? In what situations would it be detrimental?
Key learning points:
- An agenda is an essential component of effective facilitation.
- Facilitators should consider the purpose of the conversation when they are designing and communicating an agenda for the group. The purpose of the conversation should drive decisions about time pressures, how detailed the agenda should be, and whether the agenda should be a loose guide or a rigid structure for the conversation.
Chapter 3: Shared Norms
Videos: Dialogue Chapter 3 (7 min), Interview on Communication Agreements (4 min) and Interview on Establishing Norms (3 min)
Questions to think about while watching this section:
- What is the purpose of setting norms for a conversation?
- What are some norms that you would think to include in a conversation of this sort, with law enforcement officials and civilians?
- How might facilitators set norms for a conversation in a way that is neither overly restrictive nor overly vague?
Discussion questions to ask after watching:
- According to Toby, one of the roles of the facilitators is to remind the group of the communication agreements when it gets off track or strays from its norms. How might Danielle and Toby have suggested that participants themselves can remind each other of the communication agreements?
- Danielle and Toby list nine communication agreements that are each distinct from each other. What are some of the factors that contributed to the lengthy nature of their list? How might facilitators shorten their list and ensure that they are communicating a concise set of norms that the participants can remember?
- Why do Danielle and Toby choose the term communication agreements, a term that is quite different from conventional nomenclature? What are some other names for communication agreements, and why might facilitators use those terms instead?
- When Danielle asks if anyone has any questions or items that they would add to the list, one participant offers I-Statements as an additional norm. Danielle immediately adds his suggestion to the list of communication agreements. What might she have done to ensure that the group actually understands and agrees to this amendment to the list?
- Danielle and Toby encourage the group to refrain from criticizing or seeking to persuade others. In using the word criticize, what behaviors were they hoping to curtail? How did they hope that participants would handle disagreement?
- Danielle and Toby use the word amateur to encourage people to be forgiving of themselves and others throughout the dialogue. What is your reaction to this term?
Key learning points:
- Setting norms for the conversation can be an important opportunity to describe various forms of participation to the group, giving them examples so that they are more prepared to engage.
- Facilitators can and do play a role enforcing the norms that they establish at the start of the conversation. Similarly, facilitators can encourage the participants to take ownership of the conversation and remind one another of the agreed upon norms.
- A lengthy list of norms can result from co-facilitators not wanting to reject one another’s ideas, especially when they are working together for the first time. Precision of the shared norms can feel important when the topic is contentious and the participants are new to each other. That said, participants are less likely to retain a long list of norms. Facilitators can maintain about four or five norms, explaining each one so that they are clear to all.
- It is important for facilitators to check in with the group about the stated norms. First, participants might not understand what the norms mean, and facilitators should be prepared to clarify. Second, checking in is necessary to establish the list of norms as something the group can actually agree to. Facilitators can say to the group, “Are we in agreement about these norms for today’s conversation? If anyone has any concerns, please voice them. We want to make sure that we all share a general framework for our discussion.”
- Facilitators can invite participants to criticize each other’s ideas while also encouraging them to be respectful, curious, and compassionate towards one another.
- Using the word amateur to invite participants to be forgiving of their mistakes in the conversation can sound derogatory and might suggest that professionals do not make mistakes at all. Another way facilitators might encourage vulnerability and forgiveness in the group is to use the phrase be raggedy and suggest that participants be open and forgiving towards one another when they make mistakes.
Chapter 4: Introductions / Facilitator as Participant?
Videos: Dialogue Chapter 4 (10 min), Interview on Introductions (3 min) and Interview on Facilitator as Participant? (2 min)
Questions to think about while watching this section:
- What kinds of prompts or questions would you use to help participants get to know one another?
- How do you think facilitators can break some of the ice and allow participants to arrive and be present for the conversation?
Discussion questions to ask after watching:
- Danielle and Toby ask the participants to respond to 1) what they left behind to be present, 2) two words that describe the emotions that they are feeling coming into the conversation, and 3) one goal they have for themselves or for the group. How do you think that they landed on these particular questions by way of introduction? What is your reaction to these questions?
- After the participants introduce themselves, Danielle summarizes what was said. She lists negative emotions like fear and anger and says, “But, one thing I heard a lot was hope.” What was her purpose in summarizing what the participants said? Why does she emphasize hope in this way?
- Neither Danielle nor Toby answers the three questions that they put to the group. What were some benefits of holding back in that way? What might have been the benefits of their participation in this round of introductions?
Key learning points:
- Facilitators can tailor their introductory questions to the nature of the conversation, its length, and the degree to which the participants know one another. For example, if the group is meeting for the first of several conversations, facilitators can spend more time on the introductions and allow participants to share more about themselves in the interest of building trust and understanding within the group over the long-term.
- Summary can be an effective tool that facilitators use to reflect what they hear from participants’ introductions back to the group. In summarizing, it can be tempting for facilitators to focus more on the positive emotions as a way of avoiding negativity. It is okay for facilitators to reflect the negative emotions from the participants, and can even help the participants feel heard and acknowledged.
- The three introduction questions that Danielle and Toby use contain three helpful features:
- Questions about professional status or educational status can create a sense of hierarchy in the room, which is counterproductive for dialogue. Danielle and Toby’s questions focus on who the participants are, not on their expertise or credentials.
- Their questions are framed in a way that offers participants the option to go deep if they choose to, without necessarily forcing them to share their deepest thoughts and feelings.
- Their questions give participants a chance to set an intention for the conversation.
- Facilitators make choices about whether they will participate or not, and at which points in the dialogue they will engage. Some considerations when thinking through their participation are:
- It is important that facilitators keep the focus on the participants, and not their own processing of or arguing about difficult issues. Their role is to create space for the participants, and not the other way around.
- When facilitators begin sharing their opinions on the issue at hand, they risk alienating participants who disagree with their views while emboldening those who agree.
- There may be moments when facilitators share about themselves and participate in conversations that do not reveal their substantive beliefs about the issue at hand. This can even be a way of building affiliation with the group. Participants might be more likely to open up when they know something about the facilitators’ backgrounds or personalities.
- Facilitators can adjust their approach to participation as the group dynamics evolve. For example, if you notice that participants are very reserved or are not responding at all to a question, you might say, “I sense that this might be a difficult question to respond to! I know that for myself, this topic is a really hard one, and I struggle to even know what I truly believe, let alone how to express my opinions in a group that I am new to.” Bits of vulnerability of this sort can invite participants to be more open.
Chapter 5: Engaging the Group and Handling First Voices
Videos: Dialogue Chapter 5 (23 min), Interview on Engaging the Group (4 min) and Interview on Handling First Voices (7 min)
Questions to think about while watching this section:
- Facilitators make choices regarding the format they will use for engaging the group, whether it is a go-round, popcorn, putting people in pairs and then sharing out, or any other approach. How do you know when to use which format?
- Why might it be important to think carefully about the particular format for group participation?
- As a facilitator posing open-ended questions for the group to discuss, what are some challenges you might anticipate in handling the first voices in the room?
Discussion questions to ask after watching:
- Danielle asks participants to write down their responses to three questions: something I feel strongly about, something I feel curious about, and something I have doubts about. She then tells the participants they are not going to share their responses, and only towards the very end of the dialogue do Danielle and Toby revisit the notecards and ask them to discuss. Should the facilitators have given the participants more of an explanation of why they were doing this exercise and why they weren’t opening it up for sharing just yet?
- In opening the first substantive conversation about police-community relations, Toby uses a go-round format to get every participant to respond to the question. What are your reactions to this choice of format? What are the pros and cons of using the go-round to engage the group?
- As Toby sets up the go-round, he asks if there is anyone who would like to go first instead of choosing someone at random. What are the benefits and drawbacks of starting with a volunteer who jumps in first?
- This segment of the dialogue is the first of several in which the first participant to respond to a question is a white male police officer. Danielle and Toby identify this dynamic as it develops throughout the dialogue, but they were not able to address it in the moment. Two questions:
- What are your reactions to the dynamic itself? Did you notice it while watching the dialogue clip? What might you have been feeling if you were in the dialogue room as a participant?
- As the facilitators, what are some possible ways that Danielle and Toby could have handled first voices differently?
Key learning points:
- Particularly in the beginning of a dialogue, a go-round can be useful in engaging everyone’s voice in the room.
- Selecting participants and asking them to respond to a question can cause participants to feel pressured, especially when the conversation is quite personal. Conversely, leaving the floor completely open can enable a dynamic in which some participants dominate the conversation by consistently jumping in first. Facilitators can mix up the ways they engage the group in order to steer away from these two pitfalls.
- When facilitators open the conversation to whomever would like to jump in, the silent moments before a participant responds can feel like an eternity. This can make facilitators overly thrilled when the first participant finally speaks. One way to handle that moment and refrain from allowing the same person speak first all the time is to say, “Why don’t we just give everyone a few more seconds to think before we start.”
- Facilitators can face a dynamic in which white male voices are repeatedly the first in the room. If the group meets several times, the facilitator might be able to speak offline with participants who consistently jump in first. However, in a one-off dialogue session, it can be difficult to handle this pattern, particularly if the facilitators recognize it late. Facilitators can be transparent with the group about process. It is precisely the facilitator’s role to notice a developing pattern and guide the group in a different direction. Facilitators can completely transparent and say, “I’m going to try something different for the purpose of getting some answers from people who weren’t the first to respond last time.”
Chapter 6: Framing Questions and Confronting Divergent Responses
Videos: Dialogue Chapter 6 (20 min), Interview on Framing Questions (3 min) and Interview on Confronting Divergent Responses (11 min)
Questions to think about while watching this section:
- Why is it important to be thoughtful about the chosen language of discussion questions?
- When facilitators have time constraints on a topic that is charged for the participants, how should they go about framing their discussion questions?
- What is the facilitator’s role when participants’ responses are diverse and even divergent?
Discussion questions to ask after watching:
- Danielle and Toby landed on this specific question: “What is the heart of the issue?”
- What might have been their purpose in asking this question?
- In what ways is this question effective and in what ways is it not?
- For this question, Danielle and Toby open the floor up for anyone to start. What is your reaction to their choice to move to this form of response instead of a go-round?
- The participants share vastly different and conflicting responses to the question, after which Danielle does a bit of summarizing to reflect back what she heard. She then decides to ask the participants what they heard from each other. Why did she and Toby go in this direction? What might have been some other ways of responding to the divergent responses of the participants?
- What are some reasons why facilitators would be hesitant to name tensions and conflicts that they sense in the room and engage those more openly? Conversely, what are some reasons why facilitators would want to invite participants to talk more directly about tensions and conflicts in the room?
- What are some strategies that facilitators could use to direct a group towards honest and direct engagement about their differences?
Key learning points:
- Facilitators can ask questions that invite participants to talk about their core values and their personal relationship to the issue. Asking participants to talk about the “heart of the issue,” as Danielle and Toby do, encourages them to open up about more than their intellectual analyses of the policy issues involved.
- “The heart of the issue” is an example of a question that puts pressure on the participants. It forces participants to take a stand and choose one factor of an issue that is most important. Facilitators can frame their questions in ways that avoid this pressure and instead invite participants to think aloud, be raggedy, and share a few thoughts without worrying about missing something. Some examples of phrasing in this case might be: “What is very hard for you?” or “What are a few things that go to the heart of the issue?”
- There are several possible reasons why dialogue about charged topics can settle into a conflict-avoidant, consensus-building pattern. Facilitators can keep these reasons in mind to help recognize the direction in which a group is going. Some factors are:
- Conflict-avoidant participants: Participants bring varying styles of communication, and in some cases the group may just have a set of participants who are conflict-avoidant.
- Conflict-avoidant facilitators: Facilitators also have varying styles of communication, and might be conflict-avoidant themselves.
- It’s too risky: When dealing with difficult topics, it can feel risky to engage differences in the room. Facilitators might be fearful of triggering emotions in the room and leading to hostility and escalation.
- Protecting participants’ autonomy: Facilitators might have a particular tension or conflict in the room that they want to engage, but they are wary of putting specific participants on the spot.
- It is easy: It is easy for facilitators to let a group discuss a topic without really digging deeper into differences. Some participants may say things that hint at a desire to confront tensions in the room, but the facilitators do not pick up on those clues. The default tendency for a facilitator then becomes to allow the group to evolve on its own instead of taking a more active role in directing the group process.
- It is hard: It is hard for facilitators to intervene, name tensions in the room, and ask the group to engage them. Facilitators might be nervous, and might not believe that they are capable of redirecting the group in a way that is effective or well received.
- Desire for closure: Facilitators can have a desire to bring closure to conversations and wrap things up with a bow, especially when they are only meeting with a group for one session. Inviting participants to discuss their differences runs counter to the desire to bring a group to neat and tidy consensus.
- Facilitators are in a unique position to recognize when there is a deep undercurrent of conflict even though the culture of the group tends towards agreeability. Their role offers opportunity to name something that is truly difficult for participants to face and invite them into open engagement about their differences. One step that facilitators can take is to simply highlight what they are noticing and say, “I actually heard really different responses from you all, and very little agreement. I wonder if we can take some time to discuss each of your responses to that last question.”
- While facilitators seek to bring out the conflict in the room, they also can struggle with knowing which participants to push and how hard to do so. It can be useful for facilitators to remain sensitive to participants’ unique needs and avoid putting one on the spot in a way that would cause them to shut down or feel framed. Facilitators can always add the reminder that the participant is welcome to say more and can also simply pass if they would prefer not to elaborate.
Chapter 7: Managing Participation Levels
Videos: Dialogue Chapter 7 (36 min), Interview on Managing Participation Levels (6 min)
Questions to think about while watching this section:
- What is a facilitator’s role in managing participation levels in a group?
- What are some strategies that facilitators might use to manage participation levels?
- When you think about your own style as a facilitator, what would hold you back from stepping in and playing an active role in managing a group?
Discussion questions to ask after watching:
- In this section of the dialogue, the two police officers begin to spend a significant amount of time telling stories about their work. What are some factors that may have made it possible for this dynamic to develop?
- Danielle and Toby do not intervene even as the two police officers take up disproportionate airtime. Why did they not intervene? What held them back? What made intervention feel risky?
- If Danielle and Toby were to intervene at this stage of the dialogue, what could they have said? What would have been the upsides of stepping in and shifting the conversation in some way? What would have been some potential downsides of stepping in?
- The two police officers do some storytelling and the conversation shifts to focus on the lived experiences and challenges of law enforcement. In the midst of this discussion, Toby steps in and reflects back to the group what he has been hearing. And then he asks the group about how we can foster empathy and love when police officers and community members alike struggle with so much fear on a daily basis. What is your reaction to Toby’s facilitative move in this moment?
Key learning points:
- Participants can dominate a group dialogue in ways that are not always immediately obvious. In this case, the dialogue takes on a problem-solving tone, and focuses on the police. Whether consciously or unconsciously, the police officers then step into the role of experts and storytellers in the group. Without being aggressive, rude, or even ill-intentioned, they take up a lot of airtime and really dictate the direction of the conversation.
- As Danielle and Toby point out in the interview, facilitators can feel nervous about interjecting and redirecting the group. The facilitator might fear that they will say the wrong thing, fumble over their words, or say something that lands poorly for the group. However, when a few participants begin to dominate a dialogue and the facilitators do nothing to address this dynamic, the discussion can quickly go in a direction that is not productive for the group as a whole. Groups need facilitators who are in tune with these dynamics and are willing to step in when some participants are consistently dictating the focus of the conversation more than others. This is in service of those others and in service of the group’s underlying interest in truly engaging with one another.
- It is possible for facilitators to manage participation levels both in the way they set up a conversation and in the midst of the conversation itself. For example:
- Facilitators can pose a question and say, “I want everyone to think about this question for about thirty seconds before we dive in because I really want to make sure we hear from everyone in the room.”
- Facilitators can be mindful of the kinds of questions they ask and frame those questions in ways that are equally inviting to all participants. Questions that involve a degree of expertise, which some participants have and others do not, are not equally inviting.
- Facilitators can deliberately bring up a topic about which the quieter participants have more to say. Rather than suggest that that topic is somehow more important than the one the group is currently discussing, a facilitator might say, “I suspect there might be some in the room who are thinking about X. Now that we have talked about Y, perhaps we can take some time to really reflect on and share about X.”
- Facilitators can be transparent and name the dynamic. It is possible to express appreciation to those who have been sharing their experiences and to simply state one’s observations as the facilitator. Both thanking the more vocal participants and observing the dynamic can be a way of inviting the group to shift their approach.
- Toby asks about how we might balance the need for empathy with the very real challenges that people face. This question could be effective in that it is directed towards everyone in the group, and not just the police officers. On the other hand, framing the question around how clearly invites the group to think in terms of problem-solving and option-generating. While this kind of question might fit an action-planning meeting, the problem-solving stance does not necessarily fit the facilitators’ overall purpose of encouraging honest dialogue. Moreover, the police officers are likely more prepared to talk about concrete problem-solving strategies.
Chapter 8: Closing the Conversation
Videos: Dialogue Chapter 8 (15 min), Interview on Closing the Conversation (5 min)
Questions to think about while watching this section:
- How might facilitators attempt to bring a conversation to a close?
- What are some ways of recapping the conversation so that participants have an opportunity to reflect on the conversation as a whole?
- When the topic is heavy, how do you move forward from the dialogue? How do you send people out?
Discussion questions to ask after watching:
- Danielle and Toby bring back the writing activity from earlier in the dialogue and ask participants to reflect on what they wrote. Toby tells participants to think about whether their responses (“something I feel strongly about,” “something I feel curious about,” and “something I have doubts about”) have changed since the beginning of the dialogue. Then, Toby asks for thoughts and reactions. What is your reaction to the way in which he brings back the exercise in the closing? How might his instructions have landed for the participants?
- As the participants share their final reflections via this writing activity, a few new strands of conversation emerge, particularly around police uniforms and perceptions. Why do you think these substantive topics for conversation come out for the first time during this reflective closing segment of the dialogue?
- Once the police officers open up the weighty topic of implicit biases and perceptions, the facilitators have a tough choice to make. They could clamp down on the conversation and insist that the group stay focused on their final reflections on the writing exercise rather than engage further on their views of the officers’ dress. They could do nothing and wait for the group to decide what to do next. They could pick up on this new point of reflection (and possible tension) and ask participants to discuss further. What would you do in this moment?
- One participant, who happens to be the last one to share reflections, analyzes the group process almost the way a facilitator would. He puts another participant on the spot as part of his meta-analysis of the conversation. On the one hand, his analysis is honest and potentially insightful for the group. On the other hand, he puts another participant on the spot in a way that might not be welcome. Should the facilitators intervene? If so, what should they say?
- Danielle and Toby end the conversation with a recap of what they heard from the group throughout the dialogue session, some final reflections of their own, and a lot of positive praise for the conversation as a whole. What do you make of their closing remarks? What worked well, and what would you do differently?
Key learning points:
- In what Danielle and Toby intend to be the wrap-up portion of the dialogue, participants suggest that there are some things that they have not discussed and that they still want to talk about. There are two possible contributing factors to this dynamic:
- If the conversation generally did not dig deeply into the tensions and differences in the room, participants might have a desire to squeeze in some provocations at the end.
- The framing that Toby uses of thoughts/reactions does not make it clear that the facilitators intend this conversation to be a wrap-up. If the facilitators had presented this closing segment in terms of a final response to this exercise, perhaps the participants would not have introduced new items for further discussion.
- After both police officers share about their decisions to either wear their uniform or not, there is a pause. If the facilitators wanted to dig in to this topic more, one possible way would be to say, “Wow— I’m struck by the fact that each of you, as a white person, has a degree of control in terms of managing perceptions that none of the people of color in the room do and I’m curious what you or others think given all that we’ve discussed with respect to implicit biases and diversity?” It also would have been possible for the facilitators to move the conversation along and insist on bringing things to a close.
- When one participant puts another participant on the spot, facilitators have a role in protecting participants’ autonomy. If ever there is a moment when a facilitator must step in and intervene, it is to stop someone from feeling that they must participate when they don’t want to. At the same time, it is a facilitator’s duty to give voice to everyone, including, in this case, the participant who puts another on the spot. It is possible to acknowledge what one person has to say while reminding another that she can feel free to pass.
- In closing, facilitators often have a desire to tie a neat bow around a dialogue session. On the one hand, this is understandable, especially if a group is only meeting one time. At the same time, difficult conversations are often end messy and unresolved. It is not the facilitator’s role to bring a group to resolute consensus, optimism for going forward, or feeling of peace. It is possible to bring closure to the dialogue session while also acknowledging real emotions and differences in the room regarding the topic as a whole.
Chapter 9: Final Reflections
Video: Interview on Final Reflections (8 min)
Questions to think about while watching this section:
- What are some final reflections that you have now that you have watched the dialogue and analysis?
Discussion questions to ask after watching:
- Throughout the dialogue, Danielle and Toby take what might be described as a hands-off approach to facilitation. They intervene infrequently and allow the group to direct most of the discussions. What did you think of this approach? Was it intentional? Why not intervene more at key moments throughout the dialogue?
- Danielle, Toby, and Bob share their final reflections on the experience. Which of these points resonate with you, and why?
- Even though extensive preparation is key, the way that a dialogue plays out can surprise the facilitators and force them to adjust in the moment.
- The dialogue showed that it is in fact possible to engage constructively in topics with intense emotion for the participants.
- Facilitators do not need to be completely hands-off. Sometimes, the group develops inertia in a direction that does not serve their needs. Facilitators can listen to their instincts in these moments and intervene even when they are not quite sure what words they will use.
- Some difficult questions remain, such as:
- How does one create a space where all participants have a voice without forcing people who don’t want to speak to do so?
- How does one open up the space for differences to be hashed out knowing that people will feel uncomfortable?
- How far should a facilitator push the group on sensitive topics?
- Facilitation requires careful attention to each of the aspects that the interview highlighted and more. Effective facilitators bring a high level of practice, skill, and awareness to their work.
Key learning points:
- What are some lessons that you hope to apply in your work as a facilitator?
- Which aspects, if any, of facilitation are you still struggling with?