Orientation and Design

Managing tensions involves making choices about how to connect the poles of dualities in ways that keep the meaning making within dialogue alive and moving forward. Work by dialectical theorists such as Baxter and Montgomery (1996) and Seo et al.

1. Selection: Selecting one pole of a duality over another

2. Separation: Recognizing that both poles of a duality exist but splits them apart such that only one of the poles is emphasized when discussing particular topics or is only relevant at particular moments in time

3. Integration: Acknowledging that both poles of a tension exist but combining them in ways that may neutralize them (e.g., split the difference)

4. Transcendence: Synthesizing the duality by reframing polar opposites to construct a new reformulated whole

5. Connection: Maintaining the unique differ­ences between the poles of the tension and connecting them in a synergistic fashion where they mutually benefit the other

The specific strategy selected will depend on what kind of difference needs to be intro­duced at a particular moment in the conver­sation in order to constructively coordinate meaning and action. For example, in the case of intractable conflicts where the oppositional tensions are quite high and strong, introduc­ing the strategy of transcendence might create a new set of understandings that allow the participants to work through the conflict (see Littlejohn & Cole, this volume). To manage the complex tension between experiential and analytical knowledge, multiple strategies may need to be used. For example, Deliberative Mapping uses the strategy of separation in the early stages of the process by running concurrent discussions with specialists using MC-Mapper computer software and con­vening citizens panels, while later phases are based on the strategy of connection by bring­ing specialists and citizens together in a joint workshop to discuss the issues (Burgess et al., 2007).

Designers need to develop a sense of what dialogical tensions are present within a par­ticular context, how they are connected to each other, and their relative importance, as well as to anticipate how particular tensions may enter and leave the field of play due to the actions of others in the stakeholder network and the process the designer implements. In light of how they punctuate the discursive field of play, designers need to draw on their repertoire of dialogical tools and craft a design that simultaneously reflects the commitments associated with a dialogical sensibility and the particular demands of the situation. The design process is iterative where designers constantly tack back and forth among their moral-aesthetic commitments, their dialogical tool kit, and the particulars of the situation to design a discursive space that addresses the tensions.

How can designers of communication make situated judgments regarding what ten­sions constitute a situation and the best way to manage them? This is a question that centers on how designers orient themselves to the emerging situation and immerse themselves in it. Drawing on Shotter’s (2005, 2008, 2009, 2010) relationally responsive approach to communication, we suggest that the ability of designers to make better-situated judgments involves the development of poised resource­fulness through the practices of presencing and preparation.

From Shotter’s perspective, design work is a difficulty of orientation as opposed to problem solving or decision making. Shotter (2009) suggests that problem solving and decision making presume that a clear end in view already exists and that the applica­tion of a particular method or process of reasoning can be applied to solve the prob­lem and make a decision. This is similar to Heifetz’s (1994) notion of technical work where there are clear ends and specified means that may be undertaken to achieve that end. An orientational difficulty, how­ever, begins with the notion that “it is only after we have discovered/created a way of relating ourselves to and attending to our surroundings, that the data relevant to our achieving our goal can be brought to light (and then, be applied in solving problems)” (Shotter, 2009, p.

the process of resolving on a line of action cannot be a simple matter of calculation, or of decision making as a choice among a set of already clear alternatives; it involves judgment, a moving around on the landscape of possibilities while being spontaneously responsive to the consequences of each move, and judging which one (or combination of moves) best resolves the initial tension aroused in one’s initial confusion. (Shotter, 2010, p. 14)

This shifts the position of designers from being outside the process and separate from it and trying to generate as much informa­tion about it in order to master it. They move to an engaged location within the process recognizing that the field of play shapes their sense making and action and that their actions simultaneously influence the sense making and actions of others within the field of play.

It is important to recognize that every situation in which a designer of communica­tion engages in is unique comprising a set of distinctive connections among people, time, space, topic, history, aims, and interpretations.

Shotter (2010) contends that the primary role of the practitioner is

that of a judge who must gather together, in both actual and imaginative explorations of each new situation, the distinctive details relevant to each such situation in an effort to resolve on a best way of “going on” within them. In doing this, our initial task involves our actively dwelling in, or amongst, what­ever is “out there” in each situation in order, first, to find an attitude, a stance, or a way of relating to, what seems to be “there” around us, and then to discover what we can want within it, while finally, trying to organize our engagements with the “things-we-can-now- see-within-it” to get what we want. (p. 19)

The process of dwelling within a situation emphasizes the importance of being in touch with the uniqueness of the situation to develop a sense of what would be useful and is needed for moving the conversation forward at this particular moment.

Presencing carries with it at least two mean­ings (Senge, Scharmer, Jaworski, & Flowers, 2004). First, presencing refers to being pres­ent in the moment, giving one’s full attention to the here and now. Being present in the moment not only requires a focus on the here and now but also involves recognizing how this moment came to be as well as what this moment might become. The former refers to a historical consciousness that acknowledges that the past influences the present, while the latter refers to an anticipatory consciousness that recognizes that the present holds different possibilities for the future. Second, presencing refers to deeply listening to the situation and opening oneself up beyond one’s own precon­ceptions and historical ways of knowing and making sense. It involves entertaining new possibilities for making sense of situations and responding to them. Presencing involves bio­graphical reflexivity, an ability to understand that the way you story your experience leads you to make meaning in particular ways and to live out the present and future in different ways (Stroobants, 2005). Your ability to tell different stories about a situation highlights and foregrounds differing connections.

Presencing enhances a designer’s level of poised resourcefulness and preparation. Drawing on the work by Todes (2001), Shotter (2010) suggests that the act of intentionally immersing oneself into the situation

is aimed at our achieving p oise, a being “at homeness” in our current surroundings. Indeed, as he sees it, being poised is “being in touch with one’s circumstances” (Todes 2001: 66), being ready to respond immedi­ately and spontaneously in what ever way is required by the exigencies of our circum­stances. “To lose touch is immediately to lose one’s poise” (Todes 2001: 66). (p. 10)

When designers are fully present in the emerg­ing situation, they create a clarity regarding the situation for which they are preparing by looking at the uniqueness of the situation and considering a variety of possibilities for acting. This preparation creates a sense of poised resourcefulness, a readiness to respond, because dwelling in the situation has allowed us to create a richer, detailed, and nuanced portrait of the emergent possibilities in the situation.

The notions of poised resourcefulness, pres- encing, and preparation are illustrated by how the external consultants designed the Circle of Prosperity initiative (Barge et al., 2008). They became present in the situation by taking the time to immerse themselves into the culture of TCUs by holding a series of meetings with the presidents as well as making site visits to campus in order to gain a deeper appreciation of the presidents’ aspirations as well as the resources and constraints that might influence their ability to achieve their aspirations. They prepared by anticipating a number of possible challenges that might emerge in each phase of the process. For example, as they trained facilitators to conduct each phase, they spent time talking about how cultural expectations might influence the way in which participants could experience the process and developed strategies for managing them. As a result, the poised resourcefulness of the facilitators was enhanced as they were more in touch with the situation that they were about to enter into.

Summary

A dialogical sensibility provides designers a resource for articulating the tensions that comprise a particular field of play as well as a set of normative criteria in the form of moral-aesthetic commitments that may be used when making judgments regarding what tools and processes to employ when design­ing communication. A dialogical sensibility is premised on the notion that resolving on a line of action involves a descriptive compo­nent where designers need to inquire deeply into their relationship with the field of play as well as the relationships of others in the field of play. This allows them to be confident that they know their way around the situation and equips them with a normative component in the form of moral-aesthetic commitments that allows them to judge which tools and processes fit what the context is calling them to do. Table 23.2 highlights the basic concepts associated with dialogical sensibility, moral- aesthetic commitments, and the processes involved to make a judgment and resolve to a line of action with a set of questions that designers might ask themselves in order to assess the way they employ and develop their dialogical sensibility.

Looking and Living Forward

We suggest that designers of dialogue need to encounter the world holistically, fully experi­encing the intersecting tensions that constitute a project, and manage their experience through absorbed coping using dialogical sensibility and the associated activities of presencing and preparation to develop poised resourcefulness. It is through a “re-search” of that experience, looking backward, that scholars and practi­tioners can begin to spotlight certain strategies and tools that manage the tensions associated with dialogue and build our vocabulary of concepts and tools for designing dialogue. As we look forward to developing these ideas, two areas for further inquiry emerge.

First, further study should be conducted into the experiences of designers using the notions of design as communication and dia­logical sensibility. The dialectics associated with dialogue were derived mainly from the academic literature on public participation and public dialogue as opposed to the stories and accounts provided by the designers of publi­cation participation and dialogue projects. Similar to work by Forester (1999, 2009), it is important to generate designers’ oral histories and stories focusing on how they experience the tensions associated with their craft and how they manage them. Additional work into the kinds of moral-aesthetic commitments

they embrace and the types of practical rea­soning they engage in when undertaking these projects would provide insight into the way in which their explicit and tacit knowledge is used to design dialogue.

Second, additional work regarding the con­tribution of practical theory to public par­ticipation and dialogue should be conducted. Design as communication represents a form of communication theory called practical theory. Practical theory encompasses a broad range of approaches that are intended to theorize com­municative practice (Barge & Craig, 2009). Approaches to practical theory such as com­munication as design, as well as Craig’s (Craig & Tracy, 1995) grounded practical theory, emphasize the importance of describing com­municative practices and their associated chal­lenges and dilemmas as well as how persons manage or should manage them. For example, grounded practical theory reconstructs a prac­tice using three levels: (1) problem level— the dilemmas or challenges experienced by those participating in a practice, (2) technical level—the strategies or moves that manage the problems, and (3) philosophical level—the normative principles that link problems with techniques. Practical theory not only pro­vides a strong base for integrating descriptive and normative approaches, it also begins to articulate various design logics that practi­tioners may use when making choices among alternative designs. Practical theory provides a nice complement to postpositivist and criti­cal theory and research as it offers one way to articulate the role of judgment in framing and designing dialogue. Postpositivist theory is very good at exploring the causes and consequences of public dialogue, and critical approaches provide rich descriptions of the problems associated with the way power is used in dialogue and strategies for managing them; but both approaches have not paid suf­ficient attention to the way in which judgment is connected to the design of dialogue.

Dialogue is an important form of com­munication that facilitates the construc­tion of healthy communities and manages conflict. Our chapter points to the pos­sibility of (re)designing interactivity within dialogue using the ideas associated with a design approach and dialogical sensibil­ity. When we are able to design interactive spaces where different perspectives can be shared and talked about in ways that enable mutual learning, enhance our capacity for jointly managing important challenges, and transcend individual interest, then we have the opportunity to create more democratic and participatory communities.