Article Summary of "Public Conversations Project" by W. Barnett Pearce and Stephen W. Littlejohn
Citation: W. Barnett Pearce and Stephen W. Littlejohn, "Public Conversations Project," selection from Moral Conflict, (Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, 1997) pp. 181-197.
This Article Summary written by: Tanya Glaser, Conflict Research Consortium
The Public Conversations Projects (PCP) was founded by a group of family therapists who
thought that family therapy methods might be useful in creating more productive moral
discussions. The PCP approach seeks to avoid old, unproductive patterns of interaction. It
facilitates dialogue rather than debate, by encouraging the sharing of personal
experiences, listening to others, sincere curiosity, and admitting doubts. Dialogue seeks
to explore shared values among opponents and differences among those who share a view.
Where debate aims to persuade, dialogue aims to understand. PCP conversations generally
occur in one session with a half dozen participants.
PCP employs three methods to sustain dialogue. First it takes preventative measures to
insure that the conversation does not fall into debate. Participants are contacted in
advance of the conversation. They are asked to adhere to a set of conversational ground
rules. During the discussion facilitators take steps to avoid confrontational
arrangements. Second, PCP uses a variety of facilitative processes. Facilitators keep the
conversation on track, ask questions, set the tone of interaction and enforce the
conversation ground rules. Ground rules are designed to create a safe, confidential
environment which encourages personal sharing and respect. Third, PCP uses collaborative
methods to give participants a role in shaping the overall process. Participants work
together to develop their ground rules. Facilitators solicit feedback from participants on
their particular conversation, and on the process itself.
Pearce and Littlejohn argue that moral conflicts often rest on incommensurate views of
reality and differing basic values. Because the conflicting parties do not share a common
paradigm, normal ways of dealing with disagreements can simply exacerbate moral conflicts.
The authors see the PCP model as one way to transcend basic value differences, and
facilitate fruitful moral discussion. Participants are encouraged to see themselves as
embarked together on a new journey. PCP stresses creating a safe environment based on
shared conversational guidelines, so that "there will be no surprises in the process,
although, like any other adventure, there will probably be some surprises in the
content."[p. 182] Facilitators take active steps to prevent old, dysfunctional types
of interaction from recurring, and to support the co-creation of a new conversation.
|