World in Conversation 2020 - 2021 End of Year Report

WORLD IN CONVERSATION A Center for Public Diplomacy Est. 2002

Highlighting Ten Years of Global Dialogues

ANNUAL

REPORT

20 21

FROM THE DIRECTOR In an era of visible citizen activism, it is tempting to think that social change occurs mainly in the streets. But the impact of any movement is inextricably tied to what happens in small groups when the demonstrators go home. Designing legislation, conducting research, creating policies, and developing systems requires people to talk to each other directly. However, anyone who has worked for a long time with groups can predict where the ball drops next because groups are most famous for their failures. Groupthink captures the nature of those failures in one familiar word.

While many believe outcomes will be different if the “right” people are at the table, group dynamics operate according to emergent norms of communication and relationship that regularly undermine the high ideals and sincere intentions of any individuals—no matter how passionate, honest, or thoughtful.

And in spite of this, I have observed that groups perform very well when there is a dedicated communication expert (or facilitator) present to challenge conformity, to encourage meaningful conflict, and to help build genuine collaboration.

Without a facilitator, history and every study of small groups tell us that none of this is likely to happen.

That is why World in Conversation is devoted to teaching and training facilitators who can intervene in ways that enable people in small groups to think together. When this happens, ideas are more robust, people become collectively smarter, and creative solutions to intractable problems are actually possible.

Even in this year of immense challenges, our staff and students continued to build toward this vision, facilitator by facilitator, conversation by conversation.

DR. LAURIE MULVEY

ii

A Dedication The photos you will see throughout this report are those of the students and staff of World in Conversation. While you will not see every individual, each member of this year's team made it possible for us to do much more than survive.

Given the unusual circumstances of academic year 2020–21, we want to dedicate this report to:

iii

Our 144 facilitators who ensured that thousands of people had the opportunity to talk and to listen directly to each other during extremely contentious times while, at the same time, learning how to understand human conflict and collaboration.

Our 18 operations and logistics interns who logged on time and time again to ensure that each individual in every dialogue had just what they needed to engage.

Our 23 staff members both student and professional, who put human connection at the forefront of their workdays, while continually adapting to unpredictable 2020 challenges.

Our 10 international site leaders who recruited participants in their communities, organized schedules and technology, and made it a priority to engage in dialogue.

iv

Day of Dialogue 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

v

10

remote but not standing still

16

making it all work

24

ten years of global dialogues

44

campus connections

50

data analysis

VI

mission, vision, method

VIII

who we are

IX

at a glance

XI

inside a facilitated dialogue

60

true public diplomacy

02

facilitation training and courses

65

notes on cover art

68

appendix

MISSION

To host dialogues that allow people to “think together” across borders

VISION

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

World in Conversation is "reforming one-sided mindsets."

METHOD

Dialogue facilitators manage information, communication, and interaction patterns between people in small groups so that they can explicitly and meaningfully “think together” on the basis of their different social positions.

–dialogue participant

FOUNDED IN 2002 AS THE RACE RELATIONS PROJECT WE ARE APPRECIATIVE OF OUR MAIN PENN STATE SUPPORTERS AND SPONSORS The Office of the President The Office of Educational Equity The College of the Liberal Arts Student Affairs Teaching and Learning with Technology Shaver's Creek Environmental Center

RENAMED IN 2010 AS WORLD IN CONVERSATION ESTABLISHED IN 2013 AS A CENTER FOR PUBLIC DIPLOMACY IN THE COLLEGE OF THE LIBERAL ARTS vi

vii

2021 Facilitators

Who We Are World in Conversation is an organization of people from many world cultures and social positions. We speak different languages and hold different beliefs.

We are not a “monolith.” But we do share one thing across all of our differences—the desire to learn and practice a dialogue method that can help solve our most pressing social problems.

viii

AT A GLANCE

ix

There are 168 hours in a single week. World in Conversation hosts facilitated dialogues almost every hour of every week (157 hours to be exact).

On average, the center hosts 20–25 dialogues per day throughout the academic year and 2,200 dialogues annually—each one meant to initiate collaborative examination of topics that are timely and complex.

This makes us the largest university-based cross-cultural dialogue program in the world.

Our 90-minute dialogues led by facilitators-in-training are meant to be a "tiny act'' in a larger field of study and examination that is a Penn State education. If a participant leaves a dialogue with one new question, the process has been successful—because we think encouraging curiosity is the core of education.

Not only have our participants come from all of the colleges at Penn State University Park and most of the Penn State campuses, they also join us virtually from universities and organizations around the world.

200

Over individuals were part of the center in academic year 2020–21. They maintained the scope of our programming across all facets of the center: dialogues, technology, operations, classes, team meetings and coaching.

17,800

This year more than dialogue participants shared and examined perspectives on controversial subjects about which they all held a range of opinions.

x

INSIDE A FACILITATED DIALOGUE Each dialogue gives participants a first-hand experience of a complex method designed for meaningful problem-solving with one's opponents.

No matter what topic they examine, each group gets the chance to:

consider divergent perspectives,

Although we are highlighting our global work, disagree meaningfully, nearly 2,000 of our conversations occurred between individuals at University Park campus

and think together.

Here are some

of the topics examined this year:

xi

“Dialogue is not like talking to friends— or even talking to enemies.

It is a complex technology that has the goal of examining narratives, that when left unexamined, hurt individuals, relationships, and even collectives.”

–Dr. Laurie Mulvey, Director

National divisions

Vaccination

Freedom

Religion

Abuse of power

Cancel culture

Pandemic

Double standards

Climate change

Misinformation

Guns

Crime and punishment

Profit

Poverty

War

Patriotism

Gender

Anti-Asian hate

Individualism

Freedom of speech

Education

Anti-Semitism

Military

Public health

Evolution

Science

Racism

Borders

Social media

Language

Human rights

China

Police

Food and water systems

Safety

Trans-racial adoption

Elections

Violence

Mental health

xii

FACILITATION TRAINING AND COURSES

Foundations of Facilitation Advanced Facilitation Facilitation Trainers Undergraduate Certificate Day of Dialogue 2020

144 Trained Facilitators in Academic Year 2020–21

2

As a training center for facilitators, we continue to offer two courses that focus on developing the mindset and communication skills needed to manage a contentious human environment.

SOC 369 Foundations of Facilitation SOC 369 Foundational Theory and Practice in Small Group Facilitation is a 4-credit course and we offer four sections each semester. In addition to attending classroom workshops, student facilitators complete forty hours of practicum—facilitating an average of two dialogues in any given week.

The participants for these dialogues come to us from international universities and organizations with whom we collaborate, as well as one of our partnering courses at Penn State: SOC 119N Race, Culture, and Ethnicity.

Thanks to the development of a more responsive recruitment and selection process, as well as an increase in training staff, we were able to add thirty more students this year. This expansion allowed a total of 109 students an entryway to studying with the center in academic year 2020–21.

We concluded the year having recruited the largest number of new facilitators to date and the largest number from outside our normal recruiting pool (SOC 119 Race, Culture, and Ethnicity). In previous years, we aimed for our foundational facilitation team to total thirty-six people. After this academic year, we have already recruited sixty Penn State students and ten students from international sites who will join SOC 369 in the fall.

3

WinC has given me more confidence in facilitating dialogues with multiple conflicting viewpoints.

–Kristin Miller, Foundations Facilitator

MAIN COURSE OBJECTIVES 1. To understand the role of a facilitator in balancing patterns of communication in social relationships, especially ones that are out of balance.

2. To learn the theory and the practice of managing complex and contentious issues by engaging as many “sides” as possible.

3. To recognize meaningful patterns in a dialogue, specifically who is talking, what is being said, and how it is being discussed.

Upon completion of this course, students are able to be considered for our Advanced Facilitation course.

FACILITATION TRAINERS

Chiluvya

Debbie

Delali

FACILITATION TRAINING MANAGERS

Sheffy

Sarah

Our training managers continue to expand their capabilities. Sheffy Kaur Minnick and Sarah Chelius developed and delivered class workshops, kept their respective training staff "in sync" and coached new and veteran staff members—all while attending to administrative details that accompany the coordination of so many people and schedules.

Emma

Ogana

The newest members of our staff, Delali Agawu and Ogana Okwuosa, joined veteran trainers, Chiluvya Zulu, Emma Rohan, and Debbie Guerrero this year. Delali became a part of the SOC 369 staff in August and Ogana became part of the SOC 469 training staff in January. Despite a fully virtual year, these four individuals found cutting-edge ways to bring energy and personality to the classroom, as well as provide individualized learning for their students.

STUDENT COACH Nawras Alzayer provided support for the SOC 469 training experience by serving as a peer mentor.

She observed dialogues, met one-on-one with students, and offered her experience as an advanced student facilitator.

Nawras

4

As a training center for facilitators, we continue to offer two courses that focus on developing the mindset and communication skills needed to manage a contentious human environment.

SOC 469 Advanced Facilitation SOC 469 Advanced Theory and Practice in Small Group Facilitation is a 3-credit course. It accompanies LA 496, a 3-credit practicum. We now offer three sections of this course each semester. Students in this class must complete forty-eight hours of practicum during each of their second and third semesters with the center—facilitating an average of three dialogues in any given week.

MAIN COURSE OBJECTIVES 1. To assess communication patterns and identify necessary facilitator interventions 2. To develop proficiency and agility in applying facilitation skills

The participants for these dialogues come to us from more than 200 courses across Penn State University Park. Our advanced team also facilitates dialogues for our "tailored conversations" (i.e., programming that is designed in response to a specific request).

3. To develop nuanced understanding of human conflict and collaboration

Student facilitators learn most profoundly by doing, by engaging, by failing, and by succeeding. The actual classroom is simply where students receive the support necessary to be active learners and to engage in a learning process as they step in and out of the facilitator role.

5. To contextualize the practicum experience within the larger field of professional facilitation

“It’s possible to think you are developing a facilitator mindset; but the real assessment comes when you have to put it into practice,” training manager Sarah Chelius shares. She further explains that our coaching system “helps students see their level of development through individual sessions tailored to their own unique abilities and challenges.”

5

Fifty-five students completed at least one semester of the advanced course this year.

4. To identify when facilitator mindset becomes compromised

I learned about observing group dynamics and how to focus on engagement between participants, [returning to] topics or interrupting as needed in a dialogue.

–Javier Moreno, Advanced Facilitator

Learning to facilitate is a lifelong practice.

–Dr. Laurie Mulvey, Director

We recently developed a certificate to officially recognize a student's achievement of entry-level professional facilitation competency.

World in Conversation Certificate "FACILITATING SMALL GROUP CONFLICT AND COLLABORATION" WHAT IS IT? An entry that appears on a student's official transcript that translates the numerous hours of practicum and facilitation experience they complete at the center into an entry-level professional facilitation credential.

WHY DID WE DEVELOP IT? Our students requested it. They wanted their transcripts to reflect what they accomplish in their studies at World in Conversation, because it's a lot more than completed coursework.

WHAT ARE SOME UNIQUE SKILLS THEY LEARN? Initiating Dialogue in a Contentious Environment Trust-building Across Cultures Developing Conversational Equity Engaging Cultural and Subcultural Narratives Navigating Combat and Conformity in Communication Environments Delivering Messages Effectively with ESL Speakers 6

Facilitation Tr

Participate in World in Conversation Dialogue The vast majority of our facilitators-in-training are exposed to the center through participation in a ninety-minute dialogue, which they attend for a course at Penn State.

Attend a Try-out Twice a year we hold tryouts in which interested students experience a brief immersion in a small group process, and then have the opportunity to discuss their observations of group dynamics.

7

Foundations of Facilitation Course In this course students spend fifteen weeks learning the basis of World in Conversation methodology and developing foundational facilitation skills.

Offered an Invitation to Join Students who demonstrate facilitation potential may be invited to join the fall or spring semester of the Foundations of Facilitation Course.

aining Path

Selection to Join Advanced Facilitation Course Upon completion of the Foundations of Facilitation course, students may opt into a selection process for those who would like to continue their practice of dialogue facilitation.

Advanced Facilitation Course: Semester 1 If selected to be in the Advanced course, students have the opportunity to spend fifteen weeks expanding their practice and deepening their understanding of facilitated dialogue.

Advanced Facilitation Course: Semester 2 Earn Undergraduate Certificate in Facilitating Small Group Conflict and Collaboration After three semesters of facilitation training and 165 hours of practicum, students are eligible to earn a certificate that appears on their University transcript.

Students who demonstrate both a proficiency with basic facilitation skills, and a distinct commitment to improving their skills, have the opportunity to take a second semester of the Advanced course. During this semester students work toward earning an Undergraduate Certificate.

8

REMOTE BUT NOT STANDING STILL IN THE MIDST OF ALL THE LOSSES OF ACADEMIC YEAR 2020–21, WE ALSO GAINED SOME THINGS:

International Site Facilitators

and

A Practitioner's Team

Ten years of global dialogues led to our first year of having students from international sites train alongside Penn State students at both the foundational and advanced level.

10

inaugural

INTERNATIONAL SITE FACILITATORS

Very often, our dialogue participants want to become facilitators. International Site (INTS) participants are no different. For years, they said, just like our Penn State participants, “I'm considering being a facilitator after this conversation.”

Logistics have always made that impossible for them.

But this fully remote year opened a doorway.

With all of the Penn State students in our training classes now online, INTS students were able to join on the same platform. They got the chance to learn and practice "shoulder to shoulder" with our Penn State students—as co-facilitators, co-learners, and full team members.

In the summer of 2020 we offered our first pre-training course for INTS students. As a result of their readiness and commitment to learning, twelve students from Afghanistan, Mosul, Iraq, and Erbil, Iraqi Kurdistan were selected to join the Foundations of Facilitation class (SOC 369) for the first time in fall 2020.

From this pool of individuals, five INTS students were selected to continue in spring 2021 in the Advanced class (SOC 469).

11

Training manager Sheffy Kaur Minnick adds, “And those five students are already asking what more is possible for them. I'm happy to see that our INTS students know they have a future with the center.”

The presence of INTS students in our Penn State classrooms: affirms the relevance of our dialogue method across cultures brings perspectives that expand the breadth and depth of topics allows us to host more global dialogues offers Penn State participants a unique opportunity to be led by their peers from other countries Advanced Facilitation team trainer Debbie Guerrero adds, “Their life experiences and perspectives surprise us, challenge us, and support the value of dialogue—all at the same time.”

WWW.FRAMEMAG.COM | 20

INTS Student Highlights

Tina Shams, who completed one semester of facilitator training, is now running a dialogue conversation club in her city in Afghanistan. She shares, “Many people are liking it a lot.”

She describes of her time with World in Conversation, “It was an amazing and interesting experience to take this course. It was full of joy, fun, and curiosity. I learned how to ask different questions from many angles and how to ask questions professionally to get more information.”

Haitham Shakarchi, who completed two semesters of facilitator training, is the individual who activated the most donors during our Giving Tuesday campaign in December. Operations manager Michelle Frisby recounts, “Haitham’s energy that day was deeply influential and quite honestly exhilarating. He spent the entire day telling friends and family about his time spent learning to facilitate and supported them in navigating the donation process.”

Momen Mohanned, who completed two semesters of facilitator training, shares, “Over the past six months I have been running Mosul Speak Up, a weekly English conversation club, where people, mainly from Mosul, can just practice their language and share their perspectives. I truly believe that the skills World in Conversation facilitators have can be applied to different walks of life [and] any group that wants to experience true collaboration.”

Zainab Mohammed Hussein Alfakheri, who completed two semesters of training, summed up what we heard from these students on her Facebook page, “Today was my last session with the World in Conversation Advanced Facilitation Team. I have been with this amazing organization since the very first dialogue that was held in Mosul. It’s been a crazy journey, and I learned so much and acquired so many skills for life...I learned so much more during these couple of years than I ever did in my whole life.”

A World in Conversation certificate ceremony for students in Erbil, Iraqi Kurdistan.

12

piloting a PRACTITIONER'S TEAM PRACTITIONERS

Breqlyne Johnson '21 Criminology and Philosophy

Alina Bashir '19 Supply Chain Management and Information Systems

Pedro Dos Santos '21 Education and Public Policy

Yuli Prieto '03 Sociology Universidad del Rosario (Bogotá, Colombia)

Razi Mohammed '14 Physical and Biological Science

Yara Alul '17 Finance

13

It started with the widespread social unrest of 2020, protests that sparked our highest volume of alumni communication in years. Former students were asking for training opportunities, for support in launching programs, for facilitators who could lead dialogues at their workplaces, and for communication tools and resources they could share with others.

Some of these inquiries turned into our first "Practitioners Team." This is a group of alumni professionals who committed to a weekly training workshop and facilitating dialogues for an entire semester at the center. We invited advanced student facilitators (those eligible to earn our new certificate) to join the team as well. Together, they led campus dialogues, global dialogues, professional dialogues, and tailored dialogues.

It turned out to be a win-win for everyone: alumni had the opportunity to refresh their skills and practice what they were learning; the center gained a new level of maturity in our dialogues; and student facilitators had access to a network of professionals from a range of fields.

“But even more, the semester-long commitment from alumni affirmed the value of facilitation

Srishti Ponnala

Alijah Rodhes

Jasmine Graves

'21 Global and International Studies

'19 Psychology

'20 General Science

skills—something that can usually only be grasped after being in the workforce,” Director Laurie Mulvey said.

When busy people from occupations as divergent as sales and marketing, IT, supply chain management, social work, and engineering volunteer to spend more of their time on Zoom leading dialogues, the intrinsic value of facilitation training becomes clear.

“I can truthfully say that the experience and the learning that I did with you all during my undergraduate [years] was the most influential piece of my academic career and has been the most relevant learning I use everyday in my finance job.”

Lucia Person '22 Sociology

Jacob Bowser '21 Sociology

Adam Zaidi '22 Electrical Engineering

Swati Kasat '04 Biobehavioral Health

–World in Conversation alumnus

In fact, the Practitioners were so hungry to learn, enthusiastic to facilitate, and devoted to being "back in dialogue" that their positive energy was infectious wherever they went. So in one of the most difficult phases of an immensely trying year, this team brought light and possibility to the center's day-to-day exchanges.

Ian Nova '16 Sociology and Criminology

Monica Chung Psychology Graduated 2020

14

15

“I participated in my first World in Conversation dialogue in person right before the pandemic began.

And then I had to participate in another one for a different class, and this time it was fully virtual because we had all transitioned online. I was amazed at what you all were able to do so quickly.

Having just had a dialogue in person and then experiencing the virtual adaptation, I was like, ‘I have to be a part of this.’

And that kept me going this whole year. Each time I logged on, it was because I had to be sure other people had access to these dialogues just as I did.”

-Operations Intern Vincent Mariani

–Vincent Mariani, Operations Intern

MAKING IT ALL WORK OPERATIONS, TECHNOLOGY, AND STAFF

16

Sophisticated SUPPORT

in all areas

Regardless of whether we have been in person or virtual, more than 75 percent of participants Agree or Strongly Agree that Penn State should continue to direct funding toward World in Conversation (Figure 1). We take that as an endorsement of the dialogues. But even more, the fact that the trend has 100 been upward over the past three years suggests that our online offerings were as dynamic as the in-person ones.

75

“Penn State should continue to direct funding toward World in Conversation.”

We think this was largely a result of our Operations/Logistics and Technology teams, as well as our staff creatively managing our classes, dialogues, and "office" throughout every remote challenge of academic year 2020–21.

These efforts have become highly sophisticated support systems.

83%

82%

76%

50

25

17% 7%

0

2018–19

Strongly Agree / Agree

14%

13% 4%

2019–20

Neither Agree/Disagree

4%

2020–21

Strongly Disagree / Disagree

Figure 1

17

Academic years 2018–19, 2019–20, and 2020–21 are pulled from a participation pool of one-time student, faculty, and administrative staff participants as well as repeat student participants (n=7,219, n=16,714, and n=16,701 respectively). The data reflects survey responses from one year of in-person dialogues, one year of hybrid programming with one semester in-person and the other virtual, and one full year of virtual dialogues.

How does the Operations team support?

Operations team members learn from day one that a stakeholder can be anyone from a one-time dialogue participant to a facilitator, from a World in Conversation staff member to a collaborating Penn State professor, from an international partner to a visitor with a general inquiry about the center. Therefore, beyond being good with numbers, spreadsheets, and details, Operations team members need to be good at working with people.

Comprised of both staff and interns, this team sets out to directly address the needs of each stakeholder and team within World in Conversation. Here are just a few ways they made it all work this year.

They developed a more efficient dialogue hosting method.

In previous years, one intern would be responsible for up to five dialogues at once. The virtual pivot in March 2020

A screen capture of typical exchange between the Operations team.

18

This year, individuals completed an operations and logistics internship, twice the number of last year. These individuals are the first face in a dialogue.

They set a tone for both facilitators and participants. We look to them to be timely and ready for each and every one of our 2,000+ dialogues per year.

18

demanded that each intern keep track of logistics for one dialogue at a time.

They allowed the focus to be on facilitation and bridged teams.

As our student interns pioneered on the ground, reporting back new needs for hosting virtual dialogues, veteran staff members consolidated and recustomized our self-made scheduling spreadsheets and attendance records while committing themselves to hourly maintenance of these tools. These temporary adaptations turned into the most organized attendance records, post-program data, and student communication we have seen in years—we're keeping it!

Operations interns directly support facilitators and the training teams by effectively co-hosting dialogues, managing participants’ attendance records and distributing our postprogram evaluation survey, as well as reporting back patterns they see “on the ground.” Their observations directly benefit the research and development process. Overall, they ensure more inthe-moment communication that is key to every dialogue running smoothly from start to finish.

Operations Manager

Michelle Michelle Frisby designs and administers systems and protocols that permit the center to manage tens of thousands of exchanges involving people, schedules, and organizations. She led the operations team through the virtual transition, as well as the launch of a new registration system and intern handbook. Under her leadership, our longest-standing colleagues frequently comment on the ease with which their students register for and attend dialogues, as well as our overall "impressive" program administration.

Administrative Coordinator

Taylor Aside from being responsible for all 144 student facilitators' schedules and practicum experience, Taylor James redesigned this tool which is the heartbeat of our scheduling system. The formulas have never worked better. But what demonstrated its true strength was the effortless way she could train new interns to use this highly detailed and data-filled tool.

19

Operations Team - Student

Heather We piloted our relaunched registration site for the first time in April 2020. We were thrilled it "worked."

But this year, it became clear just how well it works. Its front end is an abundantly more user-friendly and mobile-friendly experience. Its back end is built in a way that prevents new interns from "getting lost" or entering data incorrectly. It allows communication to be customized to our growing list of stakeholders. This past spring ,150 Materials Research Institute staff registered and attended with ease despite having little to no knowledge of center operations. Heather Nelson is the student staff member who ensured this tool was rebuilt to meet the center's needs and that it worked. And this year, she was responsible for posting and monitoring all of our 2,000+ dialogues to the site.

They developed complex and intricate administrative tools that are also user-friendly.

The hallmark of a World in Conversation operations team member is that they can both create or innovate a tool while simultaneously inviting new team members to use it and learn alongside them.

17,800+ accurate attendance entries needed to be sent to more than 200 stakeholders this year. This has always involved a level of tedious nightly manual cross-checking—until this year. In the summer of 2020, student staff member Leo Silva built a "bot" for fun, and it turned into a customized coding tool that runs nightly to help identify attendance mishaps. But what makes the tool even stronger is that others can be trained to use it. He proved its versatility and his expertise by successfully training Jasmine Coon to inherit his entire system.

Operations Team - Staff

Erin Erin Baumgartner onboards, updates, and resolves each semester-long relationship with a stakeholder.

She set a standard for responsive and collaborative communication, expertly following up with unresolved communication loops. She ensures other members of the Operations team are properly informed of the unique needs of each stakeholder and their participants.

Operations Team - Student

Glory Student staff member Glory Ramos became the team leader for the Operations interns, crafting weekly meeting agendas and co-leading each workshop. She spearheaded a new internal communication role of Ops. Support offering new interns in-themoment direct access to a veteran team member as needed, as they learned to troubleshoot and host dialogues.

Leo

Operations Team - Student

They communicated the mission and opportunities for participation with clarity and passion.

Both internal and external audiences need a clear picture of what is happening at the center in any given moment as we all innovate and respond to change together.

Operations Team - Staff

Karissa Karissa Rodgers-Hill has been called on semester after semester to grab an emerging project and bring it to life. This year was no different. She was integral in transforming our Day of Dialogue into a Year of Dialogue.

She led participant recruitment efforts, which turned out to be a very nuanced and refined medley of communication approaches from word of mouth to flyers to email invitations directly from our dean.

20

OUR TECH WIZARDS!

Not a week would go by without Jeff Hamill asking if any of us needed help to create a more functional technology set-up at home.

More importantly, he offered practical suggestions as to what could be useful. His expansive knowledge and expertise was grounding in a time of many unknowns.

Joy

Office Coordinator

Jeff

Educational Program Assistant Joy Chiles was always ready to jump into action as Zoom updated without warning—fixing broken links for dialogues, resetting waiting rooms to welcome participants, and reapplying access settings for facilitators and interns. Day after day, she also kept our virtual calendars accurate and organized, creating much-needed stability in our virtual office.

JD

21

A master of working across time zones, JD Blaschak ensured daily, and quite early in the morning, that all individuals around the world were able to connect into a dialogue. And when someone was dropped from the call, he could almost always find them and help them reconnect. He also launched our virtual help desk which immediately shoots a message out to the center to be able to get support from Assistant Program Coordinator anyone readily available. and Global Coordinator

How does the Tech team support?

Unconditionally and invisibly. They are always there, behind the scenes, creating the highest quality virtual experience with the fewest number of hitches for nearly 18,000 people.

One of the primary challenges of fully remote operations has been the dependency on home technology and internet capabilities. We have likely all experienced the frustrations of lagging internet from too many people on a network or being suddenly dropped from a Zoom call. All year long, this team anticipated problems, brainstormed solutions, and surveyed students (and staff) who were all around the world to assess their home technology capacities and needs. This knowledge allowed them to design and implement systems that would ensure a reliable and fluid working and learning environment for everyone connected to the center.

Each member of this team also holds other essential roles within the center's Operations team. This cross-pollinating allows for an abundance of fine-tuning and nuanced tech support.

How is staff supported?

DJ Assistant Director

All teams are led by our Assistant Director, Danna Jayne "DJ" Seballos. Her devotion to managing complex administrative systems with primarily student teams (who are recruited, selected, and retrained every year) is the core of our program delivery. Her commitment to the personal and professional development of students and staff allows the center to attract people who are mission driven, creative, and want to grow. In the midst of

the demands and details of her work in a fully online year, DJ kept the staff connected and productive through her compassionate direction and attention. She continued to find ways to create workflows that marry each staff member's natural talents with their growing edges. In this way, she encouraged us to rise to the challenges and responsibilities of our roles, and to be more of ourselves in the process.

22

23

TEN YEARS OF GLOBAL DIALOGUES

2011

February 7, 2011

THE DIALOGUES

THE FACILITATION

THE PARTNERSHIPS

THE TECHNOLOGY First Global Dialogue

24

TEN years ago, World in Conversation held its first global dialogue—virtually.

25

Spring 2013

In February 2011, after a year of debating if it was even possible to communicate meaningfully in this medium, we tried. We had our first dialogue with a soon-to-be colleague, Lubna Al Attia, and her students in the Gaza Strip. The encounter was a terrible failure. The conversation turned into a rhetorical argument between the students about why they should even "care" about each others’ worlds.

At the end of the call, there were apologies and a promise to try again. That "trying again" turned into a weekly, semester-long conversation with the same students that actually moved all of them in a big way. As it turned out, people from very different worlds actually started to care about what happened to each other.

Our stumbling first encounter turned into a decade of pioneering, discovering, building, and refining a method for international, virtual exchanges—ones that have the power to humanize people across cultural, religious, and ideological borders.

Spring 2011

Of course, any exchange between strangers can reinforce simplistic narratives or objectify people. But herein lies the vital importance of facilitators— who intervene in myriad ways to redirect, deepen, or broaden a topic, to shift the focus, or simply to check with participants to ensure their comfort.

The Dialogues Global dialogues matter because they allow people to be seen on their own terms rather than through the lens of news headlines or social media quips.

Though hearing news about a bomb blast in Kabul or the breach of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., may be informative in some ways, it cannot reflect the lived experience of the people involved or the lived context of the event. However, listening to someone share the personal impact of such a large-scale event and being able to respond to them face-toface, in the moment, has the power to expand the meaning, understanding, and significance of these unshared moments.

26

As participants talk across borders in real time with a trained facilitator, they come to realize how little they truly know about each other. Even when they think they are informed, participants leave most dialogues realizing that they have little sense for what it is like to live in Afghanistan or Russia or Israel—or the United States.

After a dialogue, one participant who was a military veteran that had spent an entire year in Afghanistan said,

“I learned more about Afghans in this one dialogue than I learned in the entire time I was deployed.”

Each encounter has a way of exposing cultural assumptions that need to be explored. For example, participants from our international sites hear about racism in the United States and think they understand it, typically holding the assumption that "the U.S. is a racist country, but my country is not"—which the participants learn over and over is too simplistic to be true.

27

Fall 2015

Cadets in Denmark in dialogue with civilians in Afghanistan, 2016

The dialogue exchange is what allows individuals from "both sides" of any national border to explore the veracity of their assumptions and to broaden their knowledge and curiosity as a result.

This year we hosted

208 global dialogues.

More than 700 individuals joined from our partnering sites to be in dialogue with more than 1,500 Penn State students.

The Facilitation With the help of facilitators, meaningful, unstereotyped exchanges are actually possible between complete strangers from different lands. Facilitators learn to use a method that activates multiple perspectives, which allows for the dialogue to focus on more than just the “two-sidedness” of views that otherwise dominate an international encounter. Facilitators learn ways to complicate binaries and to question "us and them" mindsets. They learn to clarify cultural expressions that get lost in translation. For example, someone in Bogota does not know what "I’m right outside Philly" means.

And someone "right outside Philly" often doesn’t know what "I’m heading to Iftar after this" means.

Each pin is within a country where at least one dialogue exchange occurred over the past decade.

Because facilitators listen actively, they notice patterns that allow them to support the conversation.

One common pattern we see is "paradoxical similarities." These are views on which participants from the same community disagree but on which participants from the "other side" actually agree. This is notable because a major assumption is that internal agreement exists between Iranians, for example, but external disagreement exists between them and their United States counterparts. But this is not what dialogue reveals. For example, as some of our Penn State participants advocated for the need to "defund the police," some of our University of Mosul participants kept saying, "But you don’t understand; we need police."

28

For the Penn State students who disagreed with defunding the police in that dialogue, this perspective created a surprising similarity between them and their University of Mosul counterparts.

Such unexpected interconnections can gently complicate the worldview of individuals and provide a doorway for intellectual curiosity as well as humanization of those whose lives seem “alien” to one’s own. But as we learned in our very first exchange with students in the Gaza Strip, it takes a lot of work to get here.

Task Force, January 2012

When we began this odyssey of connecting virtually with people around the world, there was no manual for it.

Few of these encounters were happening.

There was no guidance on how to talk to a group of people living in a vastly different culture or one that was experiencing social upheaval in their city or neighborhood. It was a pioneering time and we have learned dialogue by dialogue, alongside colleagues from each of the partnering nations with whom we have collaborated.

29

Dialogue with Pakistan, 2013

We quickly realized that there would be a lot of trial and error—and that turned into an entire program of research and development. In 2012, we created a "global task force" with facilitators who were committed to sharing observations and communications patterns from the field (e.g., effective and ineffective moments in the dialogues). Eventually, the task force became a dedicated team that co-facilitated and problem-solved to make these global virtual dialogues possible. This team was named the Global Dialogue Facilitation (GDF) team. Their focused experiences enabled us to design facilitator interventions for groups that included participants from different nations, meeting through a

GDF team, 2018

A typical "view" for many years in a global dialogue, Fall 2015

video screen, speaking different native languages, but using English as the language of the dialogue.

open-ended questions, interrupting longwinded participants, and simply slowing the pace of the conversation).

In doing so, we developed best practices for virtual international dialogues years before the entire world had to shift to an online landscape.

As a result, we started to assign the global dialogues to our brand new facilitators instead of our advanced team. And that decision has worked brilliantly for training, for creating constructive engagements, and for activating an international mindset in our student-facilitators right from the start.

Of course, the research and development is ongoing.

Just two years ago, we hypothesized that facilitating one-time international exchanges actually requires less advanced skill from facilitators because the communication is more basic (given the different languages, language proficiencies, and varied cultural norms). We observed that advanced facilitators needed to unlearn some of their more nuanced communication techniques and return to simple group management techniques (such as asking

When students are starting their foundational training they are focused on structuring simple questions and using less words to express themselves and that is exactly what global dialogues need.

With this change, in a student’s very first weeks of facilitation training they are truly invited into a "world in conversation."

30

Brazil

Afghanistan

Connected with Professor Flávio and Igor Assaf at the Universidade Federal Fluminense. We introduced facilitated dialogue spring 2021 to students at this university to start to build a strategic partnership.

Through our partnership with the Afghan International Bar Association (AIBA), we bring together students from western countries with students from four Afghan universities Al-Beroni University, Balkh University, Herat University and Kabul University to have dialogues about conflict, civic life, and peace-building.

Cambodia

Palestinian Territory (Gaza Strip)

Held dialogues with a PEPY Empowering Youth as a partnership through Bo Cleveland. Cleveland wanted his students to have conversations with PEPY students before traveling to Cambodia over spring break. PEPY students are children of parents who lived through the Khmer Rouge.

In partnership with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) for the past five years we have trained facilitators and hosted one-time and semester-long dialogues between Palestinian students and students from the United States, Qatar, and Israel.

Ethiopia

Colombia Through our partnership with Colombia Se Escucha (a dialogue initiative), we are working with Universidad del Rosario.

Egypt Shortly after the Egyptian revolution in 2011, we connected to HOTEP, a center for peace in Cairo to discuss the revolution and what was happening in Egypt.

Germany (NATO) Bundeswehr University Munich In this federal research university in Germany, dialogues were coordinated to further study cross-cultural competency between military students and civilians living in a conflict zone.

Belgium

We hosted a dialogue in partnership with Imagine1Day and Addis Ababa University.

China With collaborating universities in Chengdu and Wuhan, we hosted dialogues between American and Chinese students about culture, economy, and climate change. In addition, our staff traveled to Wuhan to facilitate dialogues and introduce faculty and students to facilitation.

Denmark Royal Danish Defense College With fields of study specializing in interpreting and cultural competency, personnel from Forsvarsakademiet receive specialized conversations in Arabic about war, security, and international relations with Afghan civilians.

Royal Belgian Military Academy As a training facility for officers of all of the Belgian military branches, with much exposure to NATO, Belgium cadets participate in conversations with civilians in Afghanistan about issues such as war, security, and international relations.

France (NATO) Qatar

31

In partnership with Al-Fakhoora and the Qatar Foundation, we have trained facilitators and hosted dialogues with Qatari, American, and Palestinian students.

Poland (NATO) Polish National Defense University Poland’s premier joint professional military education institution educates military and civilian leaders through teaching, research and engagement to serve the common defense. Military personnel participate in dialogues with Afghan civilians about issues related to deployment, military intervention, and security.

French Air Force Academy The École de l'Air is a military school and grande école training line officers in the French Air Force. It is located at Salon-de-Provence Air Base and participates in conversations with civilians in Afghanistan about issues such as war, security, and international relations.

Haiti

Worked with the Haitian Partners for Christian Development conducting tutoring activities as well as holding dialogues through Ernso Jean Louis.

India

Iraq

With a collaboration site in Bangalore, we brought American and Indian graduate students together to discuss climate change.

Najaf Connected through Sami Rasouli and partnered with The American Institute for English and The Cambridge Institute for Languages.

Israel

Iran

In parallel with our Palestinian dialogues, we host dialogues with civilians in Israel and American students to discuss the IsraeliPalestinian conflict, as well as conflict and war writ large.

We have collaborated with various teams of Iranian college students in Isfahan, Tehran, to examine cultural differences, war, and international relations.

Italy (NATO) Italian Air Force Accademia Aeronautica is a training institute for Air Force officers that was one of our earliest collaborators. Their cadets participate in dialogues with Afghan civilians about conflict, war, and security issues.

Mosul Through Basim Razzo, we partnered with the University of Mosul. We hold dialogues with students from their Translation Department and English Department.

Erbil We hold cross-cultural dialogues with students from Knowledge University in Erbil, Kurdistan. Connected through Basim Razzo.

Northern Ireland Partnership currently pending.

Russia In partnership with St. Petersburg University (Smolny College). Dialogues are hosted between Russian liberal arts students and American students. Connected through Polina Checherina.

Kuwait In partnership with the AWARE Center (Advocates for Western Arab Relations), we trained facilitators and hosted dialogues between American and Kuwaiti students.

Thailand We hosted dialogue between students in Thailand and the United States about cultural differences and international issues.

United States Partnered with Elaine Flemming we met with students at Leech Lake Tribal College and other tribal colleges. These programs were run not only between tribal students and Penn State students, but also met with global students.

United States Universities (NATO) We partner with Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) at Penn State, Old Dominion University, and University of Pittsburgh. The students who are future military officers participate in dialogues with civilians in conflict zones (e.g., Afghanistan, Palestinian territories, Iran, Pakistan, etc.) about issues related to deployment, military intervention, and conflict.

Pakistan Collaborating site locations in Karachi, Lahore, and Quetta.

Netherlands (NATO) Netherlands Royal Military Academy As a training facility for officers of all of the Dutch military branches, participating personnel from Koninklijke Militaire Academie, represent a wide array of experience levels. These future officers participate in conversations with civilians in Afghanistan about issues such as war, security and international relations.

Saudi Arabia We hosted dialogue between Saudi women working with Rayah Al Gheitny (a former WinC facilitator) and American women on the topic of gender and the differing roles of women in the respective cultures.

Greece (Syrian refugees) We hosted dialogues between Penn State students and refugees from Syria who were living in Northern Greece.

32

The Partnerships None of our research and development happened in isolation. We always work with our international colleagues to tailor the engagement to their worlds as much as to our own. We now know that these robust international partnerships with colleagues who recognize the power and potential of facilitated dialogue are the backbone of every conversation. In fact, longstanding partnerships are a product of two things— the passion of devoted colleagues and clear and collaborative operational structure.

In the early years, we stumbled over different expectations for what a virtual dialogue could be.

Penn State students were joining to fulfill a class requirement. They expected to take notes. By contrast, their international counterparts were volunteering to participate through word of mouth at their university or local community group. They expected a platform to tell their stories.

Our staff would make agreements to have a conversation with a group of participants and BOGOTÁ then try to figure out how to get us all to show up at the same time (given time zone differences and differences in the meaning of time).

RUSSIA ST. PETERSBURG UNIVERSITY Between the United States and Russia there is century of distrust and conflict between governments, but citizens rarely communicate. As a center for "third tier" or public diplomacy, this creates an opportunity for us to explore what is possible when citizens engage on their own terms.

Smolny students engaging in an outdoor class at St. Petersburg University.

ST. PETERSBURG

33

In the spring of 2018, Laurie Mulvey and Sam Richards traveled to Russia and spoke at universities and institutes in St. Petersburg. During that trip, they met Professor Pavel Kononenko, and together they launched a pilot program between World in Conversation and Smolny College at St. Petersburg University. The program, a series of eleven dialogues, was spearheaded in academic year 2020–21 by an undergraduate student named Polina. These dialogues showed us how quickly national enemies can turn into allies. According to Polina, “I believe that international cooperation among the youth will change the world for the better. By participating in these dialogues I did not only learn so much about other people, countries, and cultures, but I also looked at myself, my country, and my experience from the outside.”

Polina Site Coordinator

Even when both groups were in the dialogue, someone from our partner site would often leave in the middle of dialogue or all of the participants would abruptly pause because tea was being served.

Similarly, Penn State students might be slumped over in their chairs, falling asleep because it was 6:50 a.m. in February, or they might abruptly pack up to head to their next class (as they do at the end of a lecture) while someone was explaining the risk to their safety that traveling to the dialogue entailed.

that need to be in place to run global dialogues—the people that must be involved, their schedules, technology needs and troubleshooting practices, any-time-ofday contact information for coordinators, and even planned content of the dialogues (so that ESL speakers have time to prepare vocabulary). The agreements have brought clear direction and accountability to all of us, allowing even more emphasis to be put into the quality of the conversations themselves.

DEVELOPING GLOBAL PROGRAM

It quickly became clear that in order to host conversations that “mattered” across time zones and cultural norms, we would need to establish relationships and to build explicit agreements with our colleagues.

Fast forward to 2021, where we have dedicated coordinators in each country as well as Penn State operations and logistics student interns present for every dialogue —arriving even before the first participants meet. These coordinators and interns help set the tone and share guidelines for virtual engagement. We also have World in Conversation staff who communicate with our Penn State colleagues so they can better prepare their students for what getting credit for participation involves— that they will need to be awake and ready to talk to people who are joining them from across the globe.

More recently, we formalized agreements with our partners that outline the protocols

Abdullah

Hadhramout University Site Coordinator

Y E M

“I learned about some reasons that can account for the complication of some social issues in the United States and at the same time they can apply to our society in Hadhramout, Yemen.” ~ Naef, student at Hadhramout University

E N Students of Hadhramout University attending a social event on campus.

34

JD Blaschak, global programs assistant, is a staff member whose work is primarily devoted to ongoing, day-to-day communication with our international partners. He enters meetings with partners ready to ask things like: “How can we best prepare for schedule changes that will occur for you during Ramadan?” or “What did you think about how your students in Bogotá related to the topic?” or “What dialogue times need to shift when your students in Erbil have final exams?”

DEVELOPING GLOBAL PARTNER NG GLOBAL PROGRAM

Jane LIUC, Università Carlo Cattaneo Castellanza Site Coordinator

"Observing the dialogue was really rewarding on many levels! I could see, from our side, that this was something new and innovative. It was challenging for my students, but also really stimulating to engage with people they'd never met before on the other side of the ocean, and discuss topics in a way they never usually do. "

35

A student gathering outside a Università Carlo Cattaneo Castellanza Building.

I T A L Y

On any given day, he’s also ready to pose some of the hardest questions because it is not unusual for our WhatsApp messages to include checking in on our colleagues' wellbeing amidst active violence.

JD reflects on how he has learned to address tragic and sensitive issues directly, while being attuned to the differences in his lived experiences and those of his closest colleagues.

“I actually lean on the foundational skills of dialogue when we communicate,” he explained. “The same way our facilitators invite people to solve problems by helping them examine varied perspectives, all coordinators have to converse and explore what we need to do given the different worlds we live in.”

International and cross-cultural collaborations require that our dialogue method is robust enough to serve people and communities with needs, interests, and risk factors that may be vastly different from one another and from us. That is why we must have honest working relationships in order to make that intention a reality every day. And that is why we are committed to upholding responsive systems and operational consistency.

COLOMBIA BOGOTÁ Universidad del Rosario We began our partnership with Yuli Prieto and Renata Rincon and the Universidad del Rosario in August 2019.

Yuli

Renata

Following the model of World in Conversation, Yuli and Renata had already launched their own small dialogue initiative in Bogotá — Colombia se Escucha. Their work there is a testament to one of our aims—to be a model center, a place where others can learn from us in order to launch dialogue programming in their own communities.

Throughout academic year 2020–21, we hosted fourteen dialogues together; and Colombia se Escucha is currently recruiting more universities to co-host dialogues with World in Conversation.

Through the chaos and messiness of our first year of these exchanges, and every year since, what has always led our efforts is the explicit statements from our partners that dialogue mattered to them.

We have tested collaborations with a variety of partners in twenty-eight different countries.

Over and over,

they tell us that they need to share their stories.

Students overlooking a Universidad del Rosario courtyard.

BOGOTÁ

Their needs have formed our core motivation over the past decade, allowing us to do the complex operational, technological, and staffing work necessary to bring public diplomacy to life.

One of our partners is following one of our greatest hopes—to be a model for others who want to apply facilitated dialogue to their own communities.

An interview with Yuli Prieto, our primary site partner in Bogotá, Colombia, explains a bit about this in relation to the development of Colombia se Escucha, an outgrowth of World in Conversation in her home city.

36

An interview with Yuli Prieto, our primary site partner in Bogotá, Colombia.

What inspired you to partner with World in Conversation?

radical empathy…we realized we needed to have that way of thinking here in Colombia.

I first encountered World in Conversation in 2016 when Sam and Laurie were keynote speakers at a conference in Bogotá, Colombia, organized by my colleague Renata. She invited me because she thought that as a sociologist, I might be interested in the topic; and she was right! We thought that day that we needed facilitated dialogue and that we wanted to utilize the tool in Colombia. Colombia was in a very tense, crucial moment, because we were about to sign a peace agreement with a guerrilla group in the country.

What was your early collaboration with World in Conversation like?

Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá, Colombia | Fall 2019

At the beginning, a group of about eight of us were trained in the methodology of facilitation. After that, we tried so hard to put this tool into use in the community.

We were knocking on doors, doing some events, having dialogues with the university and even some just in the community.

We decided after almost two years to start working with a university here in Colombia and to use some of the elements from World in Conversation at Penn State as a model, which is when the global partnership that we have today first started.

It was important to see how World in Conversation at Penn State functions and be able to implement some of those strategies for our own programs. We came to visit Penn State for a week in 2018 and wanted to learn about how the logistics of the programming worked, and in just a week we realized it’s a lot of work!

The president decided to ask the citizens whether or not we agreed with the peace agreement. Between citizens there was a lot of fighting, in families, on social media platforms, wherever, just because some people agreed and some people didn’t agree. It was a hard moment for the country, so hearing about dialogue, the power of listening to each other, and 37

Fall 2018

DEVELOPING GLOBAL PARTNER

What are you looking forward to next with this collaboration?

The weekly global dialogues that bring Penn State students together with students here will remain central to our partnership, and we are excited to see this expand. In addition, we are becoming more familiar with what we need next here in Colombia. For example, this semester we started having dialogues with our students in Spanish, and next semester we will have another Colombian university join the program. At the same time, we are also ready to present to students here in Colombia the opportunity to train with World in Conversation to become facilitators. We hope all of this will eventually be a useful tool for Colombian people to come together to address our deep divides.

I want to discover what I cannot see.

Igor Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF) Site Coordinator

B R A Z I L

“It's not just the conversation itself that is interesting. There are often themes that we do not stop to think about. So you have to think and organize your thoughts to be able to speak. This opens doors of understanding about what the other is going through.”

–UFF students, Isis and Grace

An entrance to Universidade Federal Fluminense

–Yuli Prieto, Colombia se Escucha

We’re finding that one-time encounters in facilitated dialogue are growing into long-standing relationships with people around the world who are advocating for and practicing facilitated dialogue.

Our partners in Afghanistan and Iraq organize and manage multiple dialogue sites. They are activating hundreds of participants each year and are deeply invested in uncovering what's possible

within their own communities as well as international relationships.

As we close out a decade of virtual global dialogues, we realize that each of our partners has propelled us into new dimensions. While our post-program evaluations and anecdotal feedback continue to communicate that one-time virtual exchanges with people living in different parts of the world are powerful, we had no idea that the partnerships would necessarily become a core of the center.

38

MULTI-SITE AFGHANISTAN Our longest standing partners in Afghanistan have worked with us since 2013, following the collaboration of Sam and Ahmed Rafi Nadiri on a research project with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)’s Science for Peace and Security program.

Even though the grant's funding covered only three and a half years of our shared work, we continued to build this partnership given the continued interest from our colleagues in Afghanistan.

For eight years, this team has weathered the adversity of a volatile environment and has continued to flourish. Through these many semesters of partnership and meetings at Penn State University Park and abroad, our colleagues in Afghanistan have continued to bring fresh ideas from their experiences in dialogue and out; and have been instrumental in testing out new capabilities that have directly shaped our virtual work.

HERAT

From the platforms we use to communicate with all of our global partners, to scheduling logistics, to preparing participants, to measuring outcomes, they are always inspired to find ways to improve our dialogues and further our collaboration. Their dedication is reflected in the growing number of Afghan participants seeking to join a conversation.

We have been humbled time and time again that a single dialogue has the power to shift perspectives of participants—no matter the nation from which they come.

KABUL

Rafi

HERAT Maliha

This year, we hosted fifty-two dialogues between residents of Herat and Penn State students.

World in Conversation staff meeting with our Afghan partners in New Delhi, India

KABUL This year, we hosted thirty-three dialogues between residents of Kabul and Penn State students.

Hasib

Participants engaging in a virtual dialogue in Herat, Afghanistan

39

Rashidi

Maryam

PARTNERSHIPS IRAQ AND KURDISTAN This partnership began when Basim Razzo, an engineer from Mosul watched Sam's 2010 TED talk, “A Radical Experiment in Empathy.” A relationship blossomed between the two men and, over years of tragedy, transformation, and travel, we began piloting dialogues with the University of Mosul in 2018.

Following Laurie and Sam's visit to Iraq in December 2018, partnerships in Iraq and Iraqi Kurdistan were quickly solidified during the spring 2019 semester.

MOSUL ERBIL

In a few short years, robust relationships have blossomed at the University of Mosul, Knowledge University in Erbil, and the American Institute for English Learning in Najaf. And this past year alone, new contacts have emerged within each of these three sites. The English department at the University of Mosul and the Cambridge Institute of English in Najaf started dialogues with us in fall 2020.

NAJAF

This collaboration is expanding more quickly than we could have imagined at the start. Through this team's notable networking ability, we are able to co-host five dialogues in three separate cities each week.

MOSUL Combined, both the English department and the Translation department at the University of Mosul held forty dialogues with Penn State students.

Basim

ERBIL

Penn State students met with students at Knowledge University twenty-two times over the course of the academic year.

Students at the University of Mosul receiving their Certificates of Participation

Maram

NAJAF Between the Cambridge Institute of English and the American Institute for English Learning, twenty-nine conversations were conducted.

Kiani

Participants from Najaf in a dialogue

Dunia

Ali

40

The Technology 2011 was a different world. At that time, the iPad, Instagram, and Snapchat were just arriving on the scene. Skype was growing in popularity. In fact, it was where we held our very first dialogues. But it was only a two-way video teleconferencing (VTC) platform—which meant only two users in a call at a time. Had there been a pandemic in 2011, the thought of ten to twelve participants joining from different locations would have been a dream.

2011

2018

DEVELOPING GLOBAL PROGRAM

But the tech revolution charged ahead, and so did our virtual dialogues—with Director of Development Sam Richards pushing us all the way. His ability to foresee how a new piece of hardware or software could expand the scope of our mission was pivotal. And it turned out to be crucial to refining how we facilitated the conversations as well.

2019

2021

For a long time, our virtual dialogues looked more like a game of tennis than a network of communication. Typically, one "side" would talk and then the other "side" would talk and so on, the ball bouncing back and forth between virtual locations.

Individuals rarely responded to individuals because their facial expressions were likely not visible and their audio was probably choppy. Even worse, virtual groups tended to rely on a spokesperson to narrate their perspective as a group.

41

And when a participant shared a personal experience, it felt like they were sharing it with a faceless, homogenous panel.

We were not satisfied with any of this. We just knew we could create virtual conversations that would be as dynamic and fluid as the ones happening between people in the same room. And we knew it mattered to do so with international colleagues.

We tried a range of virtual platforms from Skype to Oovoo to Polycom to BlueJeans, landing with Zoom a few years ahead of the University—and the pandemic.

Educational Program Assistant Jeff Hamill likes to say, “90 percent of working with technology is finding out what's not working.” And we are only where we are today because people like Jeff have had the patience and confidence to identify what's not working and then to make it work—so that participants can see and hear each other like they are sitting in the same room.

We have learned that the "people work" of technology is also important. So our staff and trainers continue to define and refine what we call "tech hygiene."

This includes directives and practices for participants that allow people to interact most constructively in a virtual space— e.g., screens remain on with faces fully visible, stationary positioning while the dialogue is live, limited distractions in the background, lighting directly on the participant not behind them, microphones muted to limit background noise, and all audio/video checked before the dialogue begins. When details like these and others are followed, we co-create online a robust person-to-person conversational experience. But virtual dialogues continue to evolve—with the technology, with the pandemic and with the passion of people who are committed to the value of these connections.

TEN YEARS AGO, we began exploring whether video platforms could support the complex interpersonal technology that is facilitated dialogue.

Exploring partnership with colleague in Taiwan, 2012

All along the way, we have been encouraged and motivated by the hundreds of people in twenty-eight other countries who saw immense potential in these humanizing exchanges.

We send a sincere thank you to each of them—as well as to the World in Conversation alumni who either had an inkling or a deep belief that we could pursue our mission virtually. Ten years of international dialogues has made our world bigger—and smaller— because of each of you.

Fall 2012

42

Campus Connections BROADENING

COLLABORATING

TAILORING

CONTINUING TO EXPAND A CULTURE OF CONVERSATION

44

SAYING YES One of our goals this year was to accommodate more programming requests.

We have seen that people can think together if they are given the proper opportunity—even in a time when crossing borders looks impossible.

Trying new things allowed us to continue testing and studying our dialogue method with a wider range of participants. It also provided more opportunities for facilitators to practice their developing skill set. And, it brought the center into more collaborations with other efforts at Penn State University Park and in the State College community.

Here are some of the ways we said yes...

45

BROADENING THE

Day of Dialogue

President Barron discussing the impact of the President's Council dialogue with SOC 469 students

In 2019 and 2020, in collaboration with President Barron, we hosted a Day of Dialogue at University Park campus, where we brought together nearly 700 participants (students, faculty, staff, and administrators) on one day for small group conversations.

After seeing that 99 percent of participants agreed in our second Day of Dialogue that World in Conversation is “starting conversations that matter,” we recognized that we couldn't let COVID-19 undermine the demand for engagement. So, we decided to offer a “Year of Dialogue” to members of the University community instead. This adaptation allowed us to host the widest range of participants to date within our regular programming, an unanticipated development we intend to foster.

COLLABORATING WITH DEAN CLARENCE LANG Susan Welch Dean of the College of the Liberal Arts In the spring of 2020, our director and our dean began a fortuitous collaboration. Together, they realized that our dialogues were already set up to respond to something Dean Lang believes is critical for University students—to examine the nature of the public good. He defined that as the broad range of public services, social provisions, and government protections citizens should rightfully expect by virtue of being members of a society. Their conversation turned into the theme that framed all of our dialogues in academic year 2020–21.

Fall 2020 dialogues were built around the question

“What IS the public good and what should be part of it?”

Dean Lang participating in a facilitation workshop

In spring 2021 the overarching question evolved into

“How are healthy societies designed?”

While these inquiries may sound academic, the dialogues were not. And the question allowed the groups to address a broad range of topics in the headlines. But this framing helped participants to digest those headlines in a different way—by pushing them to address deeper mechanisms and larger principles for how healthy societies should function, rather than getting trapped into rhetorical arguments about our current dysfunctions.

Because each small group had a focus, a problem they were trying to solve together, they addressed everything from prisons to politics to the pandemic and how history, race, ideology, and many other factors influence all of it.

46

47

TAILORING PROGRAMS With Organizations and Departments Our regular advanced programming is built around offering one-time facilitated dialogues to Penn State undergraduate students as a course assignment. This strategy was chosen nearly two decades ago as a way to activate a culture of conversation across campus—rather than offer a "boutique" opportunity for a small number of students. We also "tailor" our dialogues upon request, as we did for the following groups in academic year 2020–21: Millennium Scholars a program designed for highachieving STEM students who are committed to increasing the diversity of professionals in STEMrelated disciplines.

Engineering Summer Bridge an academic summer program to help incoming first-year students prepare for their engineering or science-based major.

Climate Science Research Experiences for Undergraduates and Drawdown Scholars Program summer research training programs for undergraduates from across the country to research climate science and technical, ecological, and social strategies for reversing global warming

Upward Bound

a federally-funded program that helps high-school students gain academic skills and motivation to continue their education beyond high school.

College of the Liberal Arts - Staff dedicated to free and critical inquiry into the human condition in all of its social, cultural, and historical diversity.

Alpha Delta Phi the first secret society for women, founded on the principles of scholarship, leadership, sisterhood, and service to others.

Global Programs - Staff and Students provides support and oversight for all of Penn State's international engagements.

Materials Research Institute -Staff world renowned integrated research laboratories that turn concepts into prototypes.

Osher Lifelong Learning Institute offers members of the community— age 50 and better—the opportunity to learn, connect, and explore with other curious adults.

48

Data Analysis

The measurement of any human endeavor is at least a lifetime project. So we do not claim to measure impact.

50

We use our assessment data primarily to guide a research and development process that is live, that unfolds with many actors, and that guides our facilitation techniques (e.g., what intervention helps participants to speak candidly and constructively about contentious issues?).

Each week a team of students and staff review the post-program numbers, sift through the open-ended participant responses, and gather anecdotes about a sample of dialogues from facilitators and trainers. As a result, we often propose amendments to techniques, redesign dialogue prompts, and train facilitators to apply these revisions the following week in the dialogues.

This cycle repeats continuously throughout the semester.

In order for a dialogue to be productive, it encourages divergent values, beliefs, and priorities to be explicit—so that they can be creatively explored. That is why we are so interested in how our participants assess the degree to which they encountered unfamiliar perspectives, as well as the degree to which they were comfortable expressing any of their own views and were able to analyze a social challenge more thoroughly. The following pages focus on these data points.

The results in Figure 1 provide a foundation for how we interpret the subsequent graphs because divergent perspectives, difficult topics, and saying what you think only have value if participants rate that experience positively. And the vast majority do.

Figure 1 While approximately half of World in Conversation participants attend multiple dialogues in a given semester, the 7,523 students who represent the n in the these graphs are from our one-time dialogue participants at Penn State. They are both students and professionals and they tend to arrive to our conversations with little information about the experience that they are about to have.

51

“During this dialogue, I encountered a perspective with which I was not familiar.”

NEARLY

70%

of participants engaged with an unfamiliar perspective.

Figure 1-a

What is notable in Figure 1-a is that in an era when people are divided and adopt conclusions before they truly examine a complex issue, most participants are directly encountering new perspectives and concluding that this experience made a difference to them (see Figure 1). But there are more layers to this:

While approximately half of World in Conversation participants attend multiple dialogues in a given semester, the 7,523 students who represent the n in the these graphs are from our one-time dialogue participants at Penn State. They are both students and professionals and they tend to arrive to our conversations with little information about the experience that they are about to have.

52

Figure 1-b

Figure 1-c

While approximately half of World in Conversation participants attend multiple dialogues in a given semester, the 7,523 students who represent the n in the these graphs are from our one-time dialogue participants at Penn State. They are both students and professionals and they tend to arrive to our conversations with little information about the experience that they are about to have.

53

Analysis of Figure 1-b

There is a thread of thinking in our culture that, regardless of the issue or the specific demographic, conversations between majority and minority groups often devolve into the minoritized participants sharing their stories and majority groups listening.

Both groups miss something important as a result. We seek another type of encounter.

So what is notable about the data in Figure 1-b is that most participants from all racial and ethnic groups report that they are encountering perspectives that they have yet to consider. In other words, the dialogues are not a "oneway street." Most participants are receiving something new. Because we have built our methodology around the need for every participant to be heard and to listen, these results are encouraging.

Analysis of Figure 1-c

There is a troubling thread of thinking in the academy that more liberal thinking is "correct" thinking and more conservative thinking is not only "incorrect" but less educated, more narrow-minded, and even should be eliminated. However, science itself is built on the premise that a concept must be examined from all angles in order to assess what is "true" and that hypotheses must be tested and retested (with the important caveat that we never "accept" them). Similarly, a World in Conversation dialogue is founded on the principle that multiple views are necessary to learning and to expanding our minds (and hearts) about any topic; and moreover, that— like in the scientific method—a

multiplicity of perspectives is mandatory for actually solving problems.

Figure 1-c makes a compelling case that our facilitators are creating the conditions for this to happen. However, the fact that participants who selfidentify as conservative or far-right are slightly less likely to report encountering an unfamiliar perspective may suggest how common it is for them to encounter a more liberal set of views on campus and thus, are "familiar" with them; whereas, the more liberal participants may be less likely to encounter a more conservative analysis.

This is a hypothesis we will be testing and tracking.

While approximately half of World in Conversation participants attend multiple dialogues in a given semester, the 7,523 students who represent the n in the these graphs are from our one-time dialogue participants at Penn State. They are both students and professionals and they tend to arrive to our conversations with little information about the experience that they are about to have.

54

“During this dialogue, there was an atmosphere that allowed our group to express any perspective.”

90% of participants felt the atmosphere was open enough to express any perspective.

Figure 2-a

It is impossible to overstate the internal challenges for student facilitators when they attempt to invite all perspectives into a conversation. They (like the rest of us) have learned from a young age that there are morally right ways to think and to understand social life. However, a dialogue is undermined when facilitators use the power of their position to elevate some ideas and denigrate others. But when we examine the participant evaluations of their experience (Figure 2-a), the results suggest that student facilitators are successfully deploying this counter-cultural gesture—inviting and respectfully listening to ideas with which they both agree and disagree. That tells us facilitators are helping to create a unique environment for conversation.

While approximately half of World in Conversation participants attend multiple dialogues in a given semester, the 7,523 students who represent the n in the these graphs are from our one-time dialogue participants at Penn State. They are both students and professionals and they tend to arrive to our conversations with little information about the experience that they are about to have.

55

Figure 2-b

Figure 2-c

As we examine these small trends, two hypotheses have emerged: 1) some facilitators have a more difficult time working with more conservative views and 2) more conservative participants (25 percent of the total) may be so used to masking what they think, they may overlook the ways they are being invited to contribute authentically to the conversation. Even so, it is notable that even participants who self identify as "far-right" rarely report that their views are unwelcome in a WinC conversation.

This year the influence of our more and more potent social divides was a deep concern for how we could host dialogues this year. While we notice small differences in responses in Figures 2-b and 2-c, the data suggest that the vast majority of participants from all racial/ethnic groups, as well as ideological affiliations, agreed that they spent ninety minutes in an environment that welcomed whatever they had to contribute.

Although the data in Figure 2-c do not illustrate significant differences between ideological groups, we have observed that participants who identify as more conservative and men often feel less welcome in conversations with those who identify as more liberal.

56

“This dialogue allowed me to analyze a social challenge more thoroughly.”

MORE THAN

80%

of participants are more thoroughly analyzing social challenges in our dialogues.

Figure 3-a

QUOTES FROM OUR PARTICIPANTS “The topics of conversations I had in my two experiences were ones that I never really thought of and made me view the world in a different way.”

“You open my eyes to fresh perspectives.”

“These help to get people thinking and talking about topics that we usually wouldn't.”

“Although it isn't something I would have casually discussed, this conversation expanded my thinking and helped me to agree, disagree, and expand with other people while communicating cohesively.”

“I think these conversations really open people up to new perspectives and with everyone sharing ideas, I think this can help to come up with ways that we can make a difference in the world.”

57

Figure 3-b

Figure 3-c

Figure 3-d

Citizens across the globe are facing remarkable social challenges in this era, challenges as complicated and dangerous as they are bitterly contentious.

Since we are convinced that the technology of facilitated dialogue has a crucial role to play in countering dualistic and zero-sum thinking, the data in Figures 3 (a-d) suggest that the presence of (even a student) facilitator in a small group creates an opportunity for participants across a range of group identities to think together. However, the data in Figures 3-c and 3-d again suggest we should continue to support our facilitator development in areas that allow them to more skillfully work with participants who self-identify as conservative men.

58

True Public Diplomacy

“I disagreed directly [with] another participant, and instead of picking sides, the group discussed the complexities of each ‘side’— creating 100 sides.”

–dialogue participant

60

Facilitated dialogue at World in Conversation is standing the test of time.

In an era when issues are increasingly characterized as a zero-sum game, promising to divide us irreparably, to silence meaningful dissent, and to shame those who think differently than the people around them, students and staff of the center hosted nearly 2,200 dialogues in academic year 2020–21, with evaluations that directly challenge the refrain that "we can’t talk to each other." Through every week of a particularly tumultuous year, participants were in small groups doing just that—and taking on the headline concerns.

People crossing borders in just this way is exactly what makes us a center for public diplomacy: the premise is that, with the right tools (like trained facilitators and robust people systems that make it possible for them to show up in groups), citizens can cross borders and build bridges across divides person to person, neighbor to neighbor, citizen to citizen. The catch is that public diplomacy depends on us, each of us, not professionals, not people at the top, not people who "know better."

61

It requires that people like us participate, and that we act in contrast to the forces that thrive on convincing us that "those people" are mean-spirited, ignorant, or downright crazy.

Our version of public diplomacy is about directly engaging the people we disagree with, recognizing the value in what they see, and building relationships. When that happens, we can collaboratively create solutions.

We see the evidence everyday.

Student facilitators in 2007

And yet, facilitated dialogue is deeply misunderstood. It is a complex communication technology. It requires a particular set of skills and mindset that must be learned, practiced and then deployed by someone who is not "in" the conversation. And it takes compassion, humility, and mental discipline. But we have observed for many years that even beginners can take on this facilitator role meaningfully. Imagine if we had master facilitators in every community!

It's possible.

That is why our staff and our students faithfully show up to train facilitators and to make these tiny, but worldchanging interactions happen— spreadsheet by spreadsheet, workshop by workshop, Zoom call by Zoom call, misunderstanding by misunderstanding, dialogue by dialogue.

"Polarization" is convenient and politically expedient. But it’s not healthy or necessary.

So, how do we design a healthy society? (turn the page) 62

START WITH Adam Zaidi Ahmad Faris Aiman Al Shukaili Alex Zhu Alexandra Ferry Alexandra Waterman Alexis Kwiej Aliah Walls Alijah Rhodes Alina Bashir Aliyah Rios Alyssa Mora-Mickens Amanda Li Amaris Smith Amyah Stewart Anderson Longenecker Angelina Santamaria Anthony Coelho Antonia Ugochukwu Aujanae Johnson Aysha Omer Hassan Brent Toliver Breqlyne Johnson Briana San Diego Brittany Fisher Brittany Mumma Carlos Mata Carlos Quezada Carolyn "Tomi" Oluwaseun-Apo Charlize Harris Clara Diniz Dana Reed David Arukwe David Saggio Davina Ballah Donna (Michelle) Salinas Douglas Rudzinski 63

Elise Wolfs Ellie Forbis Emila Deneke Eric Crimmel Fadi Afram Fatimah Alturifi Félix Estévez Hilario Florence Kyomuhendo Gabriella Chatman Gabriella Efaw Giselle Jimenez Grant Harm Miller Haitham Shakarchi Haley Miller Hamad Al Ameri Hannah Rupertus Harith Al-Annaz Ian Nova Israa Jamal Jacob Bowser Jacob Ollinger Jacob Weinberg Jamie Nguyen Jared Nugent Jasmine Graves Javier Moreno Junze Liu Justin Ball Kaiana Oquendo Kaitlyn Potucek Karwan Yousef Muhammadamin Kayla Giraud Keilyn Nunez Khalifa Al-Maktoum Kristen Miller Lauren Banks

FACILITATORS. Lauren Weindorf Leah Sanchez Lily Cooke Lucia Person Luis Pimentel Lyra Stubbs Madeleine LeFevre Mariam Tananibe Maryah Burney Maryam Al-Najjar Maryam Ghulami Matthew Holmes Meena Kumar Melissa Agaba Michael Pham Milad Sarwari Mobasher Mohammad Mohammed Dallal Mohammed Khan Mohammed Naif Momen Mohanned Monica Chung Mya Guillaume Mychal Kearns Natthaphon Chainatthakul Nicholas Tome Nicole Pinto Nicole Piombino Nina Sampogne Nisha Saxena Ogana Okuwuosa Olivia Ponthier Olivia Solomon Pedro Dos Santos Phoebe Nabua Porter Lubin Rachel Zimmerman

Raed Makeen Rahaf Sindi Razar Salar Jalalbag Razi Mohamed Rebecca Cowan Renae McLean Ruby Al Fawares Rudy Fuzaylov Ruth Scott Ryan McGonigle Sarah Kissel Sarah Shaban Shahad Mohammed-Redha Sheila Nalwoga Shireen Elayyan Sihan Mo Simone Mileto Srishti Ponnala Swarali Parikh Swati Kasat Taehyun Yook Taliha Jaeder Taylor Niggel Temi Oyefeso Tina Shams Tom Sowers Ty Conrad Tyler Dornan Vanessa Dib Veronica Sendao Victor Oliveira Yara Alul Yoni Estifanos Yuki Takahashi Zainab Mohammed Hussein Alfakheri

64

NOTES ON COVER ART FACILITATED DIALOGUE IS A COMPLEX TECHNOLOGY

Class

THE ISSUE

Family structure

Geographic location

Participant Religion

First Language

Participant

Facilitator

Facilitator

Race and Ethnicity

Education Gender and Sexuality Occupation

SOCIAL CONTEXT

Being a dialogue facilitator is a lifelong practice, and this image reflects what I've learned about the complexity of a small group dialogue and the social forces that have shaped each participant to literally and figuratively see drastically different parts of society.

The dots on the outer edge of the diagram represent any of these social forces.

Within these dots are the participants and the facilitators marked as dark green and teal. The intersecting lines within the inner most circle represent how intricately all of these interconnect.

65

Delali Agawu Graphic Designer

66

67

APPENDIX

n = 16,701 The sample includes both one-time and repeat Penn State participants, many of whom were required to join a dialogue.

Submissions are anonymous.

Thorough analysis showed that during fall and spring semesters, for all items, the results were consistent.

68

n = 16,701

69

n = 16,701

70

n = 16,701

71

n = 16,701

72

n = 16,701

73

n = 16,701

74

n = 16,701

75

n = 16,701

n=16,475—statement was added to the post-program evaluation after the summer 2020 semester

76

n = 16,701 n=16,475—these statements were added to the post-program evaluation after the 20SU semester

77

n = 16,701

n=7,569—statement was revised to question below during the spring 2021 semester

n=8,884—statement was added to the post-program evaluation during the spring 2021 semester

78

n = 16,701

n=1,462—statement was removed from the post-program evaluation after the summer 2020 semester

79

n = 16,701

80

Our social media efforts this year have been a response to the common misunderstandings about dialogue and facilitators. Our posts share the essential elements of dialogue, conflict, and human relationship. And while it is an offering created by a small team, it is also the result of decades of study.

follow us

worldinconversation.org

This publication is available in alternative media on request. The Pennsylvania State University is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to programs, facilities, admission, and employment without regard to personal characteristics not related to ability, performance, or qualifications as determined by University policy or by state or federal authorities. It is the policy of the University to maintain an academic and work environment free of discrimination, including harassment. The Pennsylvania State University prohibits discrimination and harassment against any person because of age, ancestry, color, disability or handicap, genetic information, national origin, race, religious creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or veteran status and retaliation due to the reporting of discrimination or harassment. Discrimination, harassment, or retaliation against faculty, staff, or students will not be tolerated at The Pennsylvania State University. Direct all inquiries regarding the nondiscrimination policy to the Affirmative Action Director, The Pennsylvania State University, 328 Boucke Building, University Park, PA 16802-5901; Tel 814-8654700/V, 814-863-0471/TTY. U.Ed. LBS 22-002