Keeping Up With… Constructive Dialogue

Keeping Up With Constructive Dialogue banner

This edition of Keeping Up With… was written by Rebecca Miller Waltz and Jennie Levine Knies.

Rebecca Miller Waltz is the associate dean for learning and engagement at Penn State University Libraries, email: rkm17@psu.edu.

Jennie Levine Knies is the associate dean for commonwealth campuses at Penn State University Libraries, email: jak6029@psu.edu.

Constructive Dialogue and Academic Libraries

In December 2024, dictionary publisher Merriam-Webster announced “polarization” as their 2024 word of the year.[1] Merriam-Webster defines polarization as the “division into two sharply distinct opposites; especially, a state in which the opinions, beliefs, or interests of a group or society no longer range along a continuum but become concentrated at opposing extremes.” In recent years, most of us have experienced viewpoint polarization and challenging interpersonal conflicts in our communities, on our campuses, and even within our families and homes. Discussions on nearly any topic can result in conflict because of the values, beliefs, experiences, and views individuals may bring to these conversations; constructive dialogue techniques can help us build the skills to better engage with and understand each other.

The Constructive Dialogue Institute defines “constructive dialogue” as “a form of conversation in which people who have different values, beliefs, and perspectives seek to build new ways to understand and interact with each other, even as they sustain commitments to their own principles and perspectives.”[2] Civil discourse, reflective dialogue, respectful conversation, bridging divides, and connecting are all terms related to or used interchangeably with the concept of constructive dialogue and may bring additional nuance to the concept of dialogue. In their 2019 book, Libraries Promoting Reflective Dialogue in a Time of Political Polarization, co-editors Anrea Baer, Ellysa Cahoy, and Robert Schroeder reflect on the complex concept of dialogue, noting that it can depend “greatly on one’s environment and community” and that it goes beyond the idea of facilitating difficult conversations.[3] Constructive dialogue does specifically focus on helping individuals navigate difficult conversations, but the principles associated with it can ultimately help individuals approach communication and relationships with practical strategies informed by curiosity and new understandings.

Academic and research libraries are unique spaces for dialogue. Our values related to free expression, academic freedom, and intellectual freedom, and our expertise related to information literacy and media literacy connect directly with the concept of constructive dialogue. Using constructive dialogue as a lens for looking at our work and our workplaces can help us advance our teaching and research missions, support our communities, and build stronger organizations.

Free Expression, Academic Freedom, and Intellectual Freedom

In the United States, Freedom of Speech is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. It is worth repeating the exact wording:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[4]

This doesn’t necessarily mean that people can say whatever they want, wherever they want. Incitement to violence is not protected, and, in most cases, citizens do not have to allow all speech on private property. The law is complicated, but the main point is that it allows people to exchange ideas without the fear of government retaliation. Related terms often used in higher education are “academic freedom” and “intellectual freedom.” Academic Freedom is related to free speech in that it addresses the freedom of those in higher education to conduct their research, teach, and publish without interference.[5] Intellectual Freedom is “the rights of library users to read, seek information, and speak freely as guaranteed by the First Amendment” and is a core value of the library profession.[6]

Universities might develop policies that place “time, place, and manner restrictions” on speech. As long as the restrictions are applied consistently and content neutral, this is legal. For example, a university might note that protestors cannot block entrances to buildings, or that they may not use noise-amplifying devices between certain hours, or they may indicate that flyers and pamphlets are only allowed on certain designated bulletin boards on campus.[7]

When talking about civil discourse, people may use the term “hate speech.” This is not a legal term, and many things that people consider to be “hate speech” are protected under the First Amendment.[8] While there are certainly situations where people truly intend to be cruel in their communications, it is important to recognize that sometimes, individuals either may not recognize the effect that their words have on others, or, even if they do, these individuals still might be open to and welcome dialogue.

Misunderstanding of these key concepts often is a primary hindrance to constructive dialogue. In a recent survey, 43% of students were in favor of institution-level initiatives promoting civil discourse and educating students on the importance of free expression; Columbia University, Vanderbilt University, Duke University, and Binghamton University in New York are among many institutions that chose to implement constructive dialogue- and civil discourse-related learning opportunities in 2024 in response to the growing polarization among their students.[9,10] Libraries are often caught between advocating for intellectual freedom and complying with university policies that may feel contradictory or unclear. Supporting or leading constructive dialogue initiatives, however, can offer academic libraries a way of navigating these contradictions and advancing more intentional discussion within our campus communities.

Information Literacy and Media Literacy

Information literacy encompasses skills such as identifying credible sources, understanding how information is produced and valued, and using information to make informed decisions and create new knowledge. Media literacy applies those skills to interpreting and thinking critically about the wide range of news sources available.[11] “Media” is no longer confined to conventional newspapers or television and radio broadcasts. Journalists disillusioned with or critical of the mainstream media now offer alternatives in the form of blogs, direct emails, podcasts, and video diaries. Even popular “media bias charts” do not tell the whole story – content can vary from reporter to reporter, or a media company’s editorial board may differ in ideology from their journalists. It can also be complicated to differentiate between what makes a story an “opinion” piece versus a news report.

Traditional media has a trust problem. Many people have switched to social media as the primary filter for their information.[12] Platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), Discord, YouTube, and TikTok are popular, and many more platforms exist, tailored to specific audiences. Fake accounts or advertisements are sophisticated and sometimes difficult to distinguish from authentic individuals or groups. It is very easy to quickly build a “bubble” around oneself by curating content and only following accounts that support one’s beliefs or points of view. As Christopher A. Sweet, Jeremy L. Shermak, and Troy A. Swanson write, “Today’s news consumers seem to be less interested in being informed; instead they are inclined to be “armed” in order to counter arguments, assert their views, and, oftentimes, lash out online, usually through social media.[13] They go on to posit that “this has obliterated curiosity and the true spirit of research.” In the context of constructive dialogue, it is important to recognize that everyone is not starting at the same place in terms of information. No one is an expert on everything, and few people have the time and energy to do a deep dive into every current event. A feeling of insecurity, fear of being incorrect, or concern over repercussions for expressing certain viewpoints can hamper some peoples’ desire to engage in dialogue.

Within the academic sphere, the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education defines scholarship as a conversation.[14] In fact, this definition of scholarship as a conversation sounds very similar to the concept of constructive dialogue: “Instead of seeking discrete answers to complex problems, experts understand that a given issue may be characterized by several competing perspectives as part of an ongoing conversation in which information users and creators come together to negotiate meaning.” The Framework recommends that researchers “seek out many perspectives, not merely the ones with which they are familiar.” Finally, the Framework also notes that information literate learners will “suspend judgment on the value of a particular piece of scholarship until the larger context for the scholarly conversation is better understood.”

These ideas of valuing different perspectives, coming together to negotiate meaning, and suspending judgment align closely with the Constructive Dialogue Institute’s five principles of constructive dialogue:

  • Let Go of Winning: Enter conversations with the goal of understanding.
  • Get Curious: Seek out the nuances of someone’s perspective.
  • Share Stories: Tell a story about why an issue matters to you and invite others to do the same.
  • Navigate Conflict with Purpose: Be aware when tensions rise in a conversation and take the time to move the conversation forward productively.
  • Find What’s Shared: Purposefully seek similarities during conflict.

Information literacy focuses on how to use and interpret sources, and how to broaden one’s views and challenge preconceptions on topics. The principles of constructive dialogue, which focus on curiosity and self-awareness, allow us to build on and integrate the Framework into daily, informal information seeking and sharing scenarios, which can include meaningful and productive conversations with friends, family, colleagues, and students.

Constructive Dialogue in the Workplace

Many of the learning opportunities and resources related to constructive dialogue in the higher education space are focused on students or on helping faculty create opportunities for students to engage in constructive dialogue. However, it’s important that faculty and staff continue to develop and improve their own dialogue skills, as well. As Sweet, Shermak, and Swanson write, we know that “groups made up of individuals holding a diversity of ideas are better equipped to solve challenging problems than groups of individuals with homogeneous ideas.”[15] This is as true for library workers collaborating to build better workplaces and libraries as it is for researchers trying to navigate the world’s big issues.

In the current climate of conflict and polarization, library organizations may benefit from investing time and resources in strengthening constructive dialogue skills within the workplace. The COVID-19 pandemic and the increased opportunities for remote and flexible work that followed have disrupted some of the more traditional methods of engagement among colleagues. Creating opportunities for colleagues to engage with each other and practice constructive dialogue strategies may be critical to library organizations’ health and success, going forward. Although we may be information literacy practitioners and proud advocates for intellectual freedom, we need the concept of constructive dialogue to ground us in this work and to connect us to each other. Many of the resources shared below can be used or adapted for workplace learning.

Becoming Brave(r) Spaces

As noted in the introduction, academic libraries are unique places for dialogue. In higher education and adjacent communities, there’s a growing focus on creating “brave spaces,” in addition to “safe spaces,” for facilitating challenging conversations and group learning.[16] While safe spaces exist to create intellectual safety, especially for marginalized community members within and beyond the classroom, brave spaces refer to environments specifically structured to support discussions on difficult or sensitive topics.[17] Victoria D. Stubbs created the Six Pillars of a Brave Space, which is commonly used in classrooms and other settings to structure a “brave space.”[18] These Six Pillars of a Brave Space include:

  • Vulnerability: Ask questions for understanding and share your own story.
  • Perspective Taking: Listen to understand instead of listening to respond.
  • Lean into Fear: Do the thing that makes us nervous and don’t let fear hold us back.
  • Critical Thinking: Be open to the possibility that our own thoughts are limited; see critique as a way of expanding our thinking.
  • Examine Intentions: Self-awareness; reflect on the reason for sharing information or the potential impact of words.
  • Mindfulness: Slow down; pause before reacting or responding.

In some ways, academic libraries’ commitment to intellectual freedom is at odds with the concept of a “safe” space. We cannot promise that every item in our collection is entirely free of causing offense, in fact, quite the opposite. By acknowledging this and using the six pillars of a brave space, we can create environments that are braver spaces for discourse for our colleagues, as well as for the communities we serve.

Constructive Dialogue Resources and Learning Opportunities

Many different organizations, guides, websites, and other resources on constructive dialogue and related topics exist. This short list offers a few starting points, foundational readings, and examples of workshops and other learning opportunities for inspiring constructive dialogue.

News Aggregators

Aggregators provide access to many different news sources as well as information about publishers, bias and perspective of a given author or publication, and an ability to see a broader picture that one misses when only using a single news source. Some are free to use, and others require subscriptions, but all are useful at providing balanced reports on popular news topics. Several popular products are listed below.

Notes

[1] “2024 Word of the Year: Polarization,” Merriam-Webster, last modified December 9, 2024, https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/word-of-the-year

[2] “Constructive Dialogue,” Constructive Dialogue Institute, accessed January 7, 2025, https://constructivedialogue.org/what-is-constructive-dialogue/.

[3] Andrea Baer, Ellysa Stern Cahoy, and Robert Schroeder, “Introduction,” in Libraries Promoting Reflective Dialogue in a Time of Political Polarization, ed. Andrea Baer, Ellysa Stern Cahoy, and Robert Schroeder (ACRL, 2019), 3.

[4] US Constitution, amend. I.

[5] “Academic Freedom”, American Association of University Professors, accessed January 7, 2025, https://www.aaup.org/programs/academic-freedom/faqs-academic-freedom

[6] “Intellectual Freedom,” American Library Association, accessed January 7, 2025, https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom

[7] “Free Speech and Expression on Campus,” Penn State, accessed January 7, 2025, https://freespeech.psu.edu.

[8] “Frequently Asked Questions”, Penn State, accessed January 7, 2025, https://provost.psu.edu/free-speech/faq/.

[9] Colleen Flaherty, “How Students Feel about Campus Speech, in 5 Graphics,” Inside Higher Ed, December 13, 2024, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/student-success/academic-life/2024/12/13/survey-students-thoughts-campus-speech-five-graphics.

[10] Anemona Hartocollis, “To dial down campus tension, colleges teach the art of conversation,” The New York Times, December 14, 2024, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/14/us/college-campuses-gaza-conversations.html.

[11] “Core Principles of Media Literacy Education,” National Association for Media Literacy Education, accessed January 7, 2025, https://namle.org/resources/core-principles/.

[12] “Social Media and News Fact Sheet,” Pew Research Center, last modified September 17, 2024, https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/social-media-and-news-fact-sheet/.

[13] Christopher A. Sweet, Jeremy L. Shermak, and Troy A. Swanson, “’You shall listen to all sides and filter them from yourself’: Information literacy and “post-truth” skepticism,” in Libraries Promoting Reflective Dialogue in a Time of Political Polarization, ed. Andrea Baer, Ellysa Stern Cahoy, and Robert Schroeder (ACRL, 2019), 100.

[14] “Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education,” Association of College & Research Libraries, American Library Association, accessed January 7, 2025, https://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework.

[15] Sweet, Shermak, and Swanson, “You shall listen to all sides,” 106.

[16] Diana Ali, “NASPA Policy and Practice Series: Safe Spaces and Brave Spaces: Historical Context and Recommendations for Student Affairs Professionals,” NASPA Research and Policy Institute 2 (2017), https://naspa.org/images/uploads/main/Policy_and_Practice_No_2_Safe_Brave_Spaces.pdf.

[17] Sarah Brown and Katherine Mangan, “What ‘safe spaces’ really look like on college campuses,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, September 8, 2016, https://www.chronicle.com/article/what-safe-spaces-really-look-like-on-college-campuses.

[18] Victoria Stubbs, “The 6 Pillars of a Brave Space,” accessed January 7, 2025, https://www.ssw.umaryland.edu/media/ssw/field-education/2---The-6-Pillars-of-Brave-Space.pdf.