Discursive Strategies of Civil Disagreement in Public Dialogue Groups

Abstract

This case study investigates how participants in public dialogue sessions engaged in what they term “civil disagreement.” These sessions encouraged participants to explore a wide range of policy options on a public issue and consider diverse perspectives and possibilities for action. Using Action Implicative Discourse Analysis, we examine civil disagreement as a discursive problem. We argue that “civil disagreement” in public dialogue sessions is temporally bound, involves extended engagement in disagreement, and is viewed as productive by group members. Group members use discursive strategies such as challenging through questions, rearticulating claims while acknowledging other perspectives, and editing or reframing. Group members also use silence to demonstrate listening or to indicate their assessment of the situation as finalized. These discursive strategies demonstrate aspects of participants' situated ideals about public dialogue, which are related to their role in the disagreement and their construals of time. We offer practical implications for facilitators' use of guidelines, discussion of timing, and awareness of the multiple meanings of silence during disagreement.

Keywords:

• Dialogue
• Disagreement
• Discourse Analysis
• Public Meeting
• Facilitation

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank the Interactivity Foundation for its support of this research.

Notes

[1] IF uses the term “citizen” broadly, as a link to ideals of democracy and a way to describe people who have some kind of stake in their community. We find the general use of “citizen” to be somewhat problematic as it can indicate exclusionary boundaries based on legal frameworks such as immigration status. In our own writing, we use more general terms such as “community members” or “members of the public” to describe the participants of these public dialogues. We believe that this choice better represents the inclusivity built into public dialogue and is actually a better representation of the participants in IF discussions. For example, the discussions we observed in urban DC included several international participants who may have had varying immigration statuses. Using “citizens” to characterize the participants would shift attention away from the real aim of the IF public discussions.

[2] Information about IF and its work can be found on their website: http://www.interactivityfoundation.org