World in Conversation 2017 - 2018 End of Year Report

Listening to people’s personal experiences changed my thinking.

- Student Participant 2017 - 2018

Mission To facilitate dialogues that expand perspectives and invite greater understanding between people, locally and globally

Vision To make visible the crucial role of facilitators in every sphere where people conflict and collaborate

Method Dialogue facilitators use a version of the Socratic Method along with precise communication tools to invite every perspective on a topic to be heard, examined and constructively challenged.

What is World in Conversation?

Penn State’s World in Conversation (WinC) is a student-driven Center for Public Diplomacy housed in the College of the Liberal Arts. We are dedicated to facilitating dialogues on contentious topics with the intention of encouraging undergraduate students to think collaboratively and critically about their world. The Center is an incubator for undergraduate students from all colleges to become skilled facilitators who can deftly navigate these exchanges.

WinC facilitators collectively lead on average 3,000 conversations each year making World in Conversation the largest university-based dialogue program in the United States. Our conversations are both local and global, face-to-face and virtual (using video teleconferencing technology). WinC facilitators spend hundreds of hours in practicum, training, and one-on-one observation refining advanced communication techniques and engaging in sociological examination.

Practicing a version of the Socratic Method, our facilitators create conversations that allow every perspective on a topic to be examined, understood, and constructively challenged. Most importantly, and with respect to overarching educational processes, facilitators help individuals to communicate complicated opinions and views that must be examined in order to meaningfully address core issues. This is our version of public diplomacy -- a grassroots, people-to-people version. These efforts focus on bringing ordinary citizens together as a base for cross cultural understanding, trust and collaboration.

My facilitators changed my mind about this program.

The entire conversation was positive, and I learned a lot.

I wouldn’t change much about today.

- Student Participant 2017 - 2018

Our 2017-2018 Initiatives Our face-to-face conversations continue to focus on examining inequity and the divergent ways individuals from different "sociological addresses" see the same issue. Topics of discussion this year ranged from ancestry to guns, race to wealth, religion to war, gender to access, activism to education. These conversations aim to break free of the narratives and rhetoric that often dominate contentious cultural conversations in pursuit of collaborative critical thinking.

DOMESTIC INTERNATIONAL

These face-to-face dialogues specifically invite international and domestic students into a shared exploration of the cultural divides between the “Far West,” the Middle East and the Far East. The result is humanizing and bridge building, as well as broadening our respective understandings--one story at a time.

GLOBAL

Since its beginnings in 2012, this initiative continues to expand as we meet people from varied places around the globe who are driven to bypass the filters of our media and talk directly to each other about contemporary conflicts. This year we established new dialogue partnerships with Colombia, Russia and Canada..

In addition to the initiatives above, we also collaborate with other Penn State and community organizations to craft facilitated dialogue programs for their specific needs.

AASIA: Asian American Students In Action GELE: Global Engagement & Leadership Experience GREEK LIFE - Dialogues for Critical Reflection of Greek Life COUNCIL OF COMMONWEALTH OF STUDENT GOVERNMENTS - Diversity Summit STATE COLLEGE HIGH SCHOOL - Sociology Classes ART & LIFE - Students majoring in Visual Arts at Penn State PENN STATE SUSTAINABILITY INSTITUTE Gun Violence Dialogues MASTER'S PROGRAMS: Master's level students in Higher Ed./Student Affairs NEW STUDENT ORIENTATION TEAM - Penn State University Park FINANCIAL OFFICERS of PENN STATE MONTOUR HIGH SCHOOL - Dialogues on guns, March for Our Lives & mental health COLLEGE OF HEALTH & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT - Diversity, Inclusion and Equity Workshop

over

2,880 dialogues

over

8,500

student participants

over

90

undergraduate facilitators

FACILITATION

What is facilitated dialogue?

What we see in nearly every World in Conversation dialogue is that the presence of facilitators creates among participants greater honesty and engagement by removing impediments to communication and relationshipbuilding.

Most of us approach conversations with the implicit intention to either "win" or to defend something. But when we shift those intentions (even temporarily) and have the desire to simply "understand," the entire framework of relationship changes. Individuals become subjects where they were once objects. In order to create more of these kinds of dialogues, undergraduate facilitators at World in Conversation learn how to identify and redirect unproductive habits of interaction and rhetoric. And from this new framework, conversations that never seemed possible can actually happen.

This approach takes us out of scripted responses and “worn arguments� and opens our imaginations. And an open imagination is the beginning of new ways of relating, collaborating, and solving problems.

That is why we think facilitators are essential to conversations-- ones that make a difference.

This was one of the few moments where I could get my point out and not be cut off.

I value this.

- Student Participant 2017 - 2018

Post-Program Participant Evaluations All Initiatives

2017 - 2018 n = 6,912

The questions asked by the facilitators got me thinking in ways I never have thought about before. They were directed towards putting reasons WHY I think the way that I do.

It was interesting to talk about one topic for so long with different people. I was also surprised about how one word could sound different to different people.

I felt comfortable in the room and felt like it was a no-judgment zone and more of just a place to voice our opinions. I liked listening to other people’s thoughts and thinking about things differently.

I enjoyed hearing different perspectives and stories from people who know so much more about religion than me. It made me want to learn more about religion and God.

*For this question, categories 2-4 were left undefined and required the participant to define individually.

We are quite proud of the fact that our quantitative and qualitative evaluations are overwhelmingly positive, year after year. What makes this data feel even more valid is that we DO receive constructive criticism from our participants.

When asked,

"What would have made this more worthwhile?"

It’s true we often see comments like this...

“Nothing would have made it more worthwhile.” and “It was perfect.”

But also we receive some specific, helpful feedback from participants...

“If others were more involved in talking.”

“The topic wasn’t the best, and I felt like I couldn’t contribute a lot to it.”

“More devil’s advocate” “I wish my group was more diverse.”

“Maybe bring up more things that may be controversial to make people talk about it and think deeper on it.”

“People from other places” “It would be more worthwhile if the awareness gained in the sessions were spread amongst others.”

“I wish it was shorter.”

“It would have been more worthwhile if we had talked about a wider variety of topics, at times it seemed to circle.”

“I wish we had more time.”

Yes, we have our fair share of critics...

“To be honest I felt as if this talk was a waste of time.”

“Nothing, huge waste of time, it's actually absurd that this is counted towards my grade in a science course. Just another way for universities to spread liberal agendas.”

And of course...what would have made it more worthwhile to college students?

“If there was food.”

Dialogue Development

Sociological Address

Last year, we began to analyze more intensively not just group dynamics and communication technologies, but the narratives and rhetoric that form the substance of contentious cultural conversations. We call this process “dialogue development.” We observed narrative trends that hindered understanding in their very attempts to create understanding. One of those trends is the cultural scripts that “sound like” but actually become the substitute for authentic reflection and examination. This particular observation led to a fundamental conceptual restructuring of our race and culture dialogues so that participants can be invited to engage each other more candidly--and more sociologically.

One term that we have created to signal this redirection is “sociological address,” the conceptual sum-total of an individual’s social positions.

Sociological address helps us to focus the conversation on some of the divergent ways individuals from different "sociological addresses" see the same issue. Rather than having someone participate in a dialogue in a way that gives us insight into their internal self, we are more interested in looking through their eyes, in seeing from their perspective. Hence, sociological address.

Dialogue development continues to seek more effective ways to unearth our participants’ “sociological addresses.” And as we do this, we continue to discover more unscripted territory for exploration and examination-something we think contributes to bridging the divides in our communities.

Participant Demographics

Where is facilitated dialogue situated within our current social climate?

We began and ended the 2017-2018 academic year in an increasingly charged social and political climate, one that constantly makes

individuals feel like they have to “pick a side.”

It becomes particularly difficult to learn to be a facilitator in this climate, especially because--to be effective--a facilitator must take all sides; and that is counter-cultural. But this temporary position turns out to be crucial for managing relationships and communication in a way that allows participants to listen more fully, to express themselves candidly, and to fairly consider what they hear from others.

Collaborative critical thinking does not happen otherwise.

Moreover, it becomes more and more rare--and necessary--in environments of intensifying fear and polarization to speak to “the other side.”

While communities need people to actively disrupt systems, communities also need facilitators to make possible constructive faceto-face encounters with uncomfortable views, where we ask and seek answers to disturbing and dangerous questions together.

Another cohort of student facilitators spent the year learning to do just that.

World in Conversation is an undergraduate student-driven Center meaning that our goal is to operate primarily on student skills, talents and abilities–as well as on their potentials. With this in mind, a small professional management staff provides ongoing structure and support for the center’s operations so that students can take on administrative, training and supervisory roles and responsibilities on a semester-by-semester basis. We believe this blend of experience and innovation provides a dynamic environment for learning, development and pre-professional experience.

Student-Driven Center

Over the past two years, our undergraduate intern team evolved into a pillar of the Center’s day to day operations.

Thanks to the guidance and direction our Assistant Director and Program Coordinator, what was once a team of two to three people is now an essential team of eleven undergraduates.

OUR INTERN TEAM

The WinC intern team now supports the internal operations of the Center with research, social media presence, data entry management, accounting, technology support, and other office administration in Pond Laboratory. They are constantly transforming the way WinC handles the logistics of over 3,000 dialogues and the registration and attendance of over 8,000 student participants per year. Their work honors the foundation laid by previous cohorts which enables them to respond to unique challenges while at the same time creating fresh ideas and goals.

They focused on ensuring that Pond Laboratory was a nurturing and welcoming environment for participants to express themselves. In addition, they compiled and communicated data to support dialogue development at the center, created and implemented research on our video teleconferencing and robot technology and expanded our social media presence. A WinC intern shared, “We were able to accomplish personal goals while collectively participating in the larger vision of the center.”

The interns relied on the Socratic method to cultivate new ways of managing operations. During bi-weekly meetings and daily conversations they collaborated across multiple complex rolls and ensured that communication was central in their approach to creating a cohesive and potent support system for the center.

WinC's State of Technology

Technology is essential in our aim to bring the world into conversation; we use it to support the research and development of facilitation training as well as to connect with our global partners and virtual staff. We host hundreds of virtual dialogues on applications like Zoom Video Communications, BlueJeans Conferencing and Google Hangouts with groups of people from countries all over the world.

2017-2018 was the year of the robot at WinC. At the beginning of the fall 2017 semester, a grant from Penn State’s Center for Online Innovation in Learning enabled us to purchase two Suitable Technology BEAM Robots.

The addition of the BEAMs makes it easier for our virtual colleagues and global partners to “walk” into an office and participate in meetings and dialogues with heightened social presence. Therefore, we are studying how robots impact social presence compared to the static VTC (video teleconferencing) technology in use since 2012. This study is ongoing; it has already helped us identify a variety of nuances and best practices for connecting and conversing with each other in the virtual realm.

With static and mobile video teleconferencing being a norm at WinC, this year, we invested in audio

hardware to enhance the interactions between virtual staff, global partners and those of us here in State College.

We increased the quality of our dialogue recordings from 480p to either 720p (local Polycom) or 1080p (BlueJeans). The higher quality of video allows our coaches to see more detailed body language which supports facilitator training. In addition, we began testing 360 degree cameras so that we can see the body language of participants from a front view, rather then from the corner, where most of our cameras are located for dialogues.

It is essential that our virtual interactions have the best video and audio possible and that our facilitation training be done at the highest possible caliber. As we look to 20182019, we aim to work with higher quality video and audio products and programs. Next fall will be the first time in the center’s history that literally every single student and staff member will become adept at

utilizing enterprise grade video-conferencing technology to interact and collaborate with people from around the world.

When asked, "What made this worthwhile?"

We were able to discuss a highly politicized issue non-partisanly and civilly.

The fact that we talked about something that matters.

Not being on my phone for an extended period of time.

Talking to people from all over the world.

The integration of people from different backgrounds.

It allowed free speech.

Giving my experience to people who had false outlooks on me.

Learning about gun laws in a different country.

I liked having a variety of perspectives of Penn State students as well perspectives from another country.

Shared a lot I didn’t share before.

Learning more about other communities.

The differing viewpoints made it interesting to say the least.

Both sides of the story.

- Student Participants 2017 - 2018

I like bringing my own perspectives because I know that people do not have the same mindset that I do.

Nothing could’ve made it more worthwhile.

I guess you could add something on how to help others facilitate their own conversations with people in their friend groups so people can have a better conversation and learn more about others.

- Student Participant 2017 - 2018

108 Pond Lab University Park. PA 16802 814.865.5692 http://www.worldinconversation.org