Framing Questions for Dialogue and Deliberation

Cover image: Original art work by the author, background Ekkachai Tis / Shutterstock

This paper explores the critical role of framing in the design of dialogue and deliberative processes addressing complex, contentious and polarized issues. Drawing on theory and practitioner experience, the paper outlines methods for designing guiding questions that support the distinct phases of dialogue, deliberation, and collaborative decision-making. It offers principles for practitioners seeking to design questions that transform adversarial discourse into constructive engagement and enable communities to move from conflict toward cooperative governance.

This work was supported by a grant from the Ford Foundation.

Contents

• Abstract
• Introduction
• Powerful questions help reframe conflict narratives and assumptions
• Begin with inquiry: Consultative assessment and process design
• Framing the purpose; framing the guiding question
• Framing generative questions to spark fresh thinking
• Framing questions for specific phases of deliberative dialogue
• Summary of principles for constructive framing and crafting questions

Abstract

This paper explores the critical role of framing in the design of dialogue and deliberative processes addressing complex, contentious and polarized issues. It argues that the questions guiding a process are not neutral technical elements but strategic interventions that shape how participants understand problems, relate to one another, and imagine possible solutions. Poorly framed questions can reinforce defensive positions and reproduce existing conflict narratives, while carefully crafted generative questions can open space for curiosity, reflection, and collaborative problem solving. Drawing on theory and practitioner experience, the paper outlines methods for designing guiding questions that support the distinct phases of dialogue, deliberation, and collaborative decision-making. Dialogue-oriented questions invite storytelling and perspective-taking to foster cognitive empathy and reduce polarized narratives. Deliberative questions encourage collective analysis, exploration of tensions through ‘both/and’ framing, and the development of shared understanding of complex challenges. Decision-oriented questions focus attention on generating options, evaluating trade-offs, and identifying integrative pathways forward. It offers principles for practitioners seeking to design questions that transform adversarial discourse into constructive engagement and enable communities to move from conflict toward cooperative governance.

Introduction

Deliberative dialogue invites us to come together to discover new and more generative ways of understanding the plurality of concerns that exist within our public sphere and then to discover ways to address our most complex and contentious challenges. At the substantive core of such processes are the questions that channel discussion.

Designing a dialogical process involves a series of intentional choices—decision points—that shape how people engage, what kind of thinking becomes possible, and what outcomes can realistically emerge. [1] One of the most powerful and most frequently overlooked elements of process design are the choices made in framing the central purpose of the process and in crafting the core guiding questions. Yet the answers a group generates depend significantly on the questions it is invited to explore. Crafting questions is therefore a core to process design, rather than a preliminary technical step.

How a guiding question is framed is never neutral: it signals what matters, defines the boundaries of legitimate inquiry, and sets the emotional and cognitive tone of the conversation. Poorly framed questions can lock participants into defensive, zero-sum positions or reproduce the very assumptions that created the problem in the first place.

Carefully crafted, generative questions, on the other hand, can open space for curiosity, surface underlying values and assumptions, invite multiple perspectives, and shift conversations from blame or polarization toward shared exploration and possibility. They help participants question their assumptions, opening the door to paradigm-shifting exploration. In conflict contexts especially, the questions need to implicitly acknowledge participants’ diverging values while also inviting them to go deeper to discover integrative ways forward.

This paper provides methods and general ways to think about this challenge. It addresses both framing the core question framing the overall process and suggestions for question formats specific for cultivating different aspects of dialogue and of deliberation.

Powerful questions help reframe conflict narratives and assumptions

A defining characteristic of our species is our deep drive and skill in generating and sharing stories to explain ourselves, each other, our past, our future and our now. These narratives align our imaginations, support shared understanding and enable the co-creation of most of what we do together. They articulate the worldviews that permeate our personal and collective psyches, providing frames of reference that filter our lives and frame our sense of what is and what could be. These frames are core to our meaning making and manifest in our narratives and assumptions.

Protracted conflict often leads to rigid, binary framing of ‘us vs them’ that dominates ways of thinking and relating. Careful attention to the parties’ conflict discourse reveals dramatically different ways of framing their situation. Those in conflict are divided not only by differences in interests, beliefs, and values but also in how they perceive and understand the world, both at a conscious and pre-conscious level. This can easily lead to mutually incompatible interpretations of events—and stories that are so different that they seem to be contrasting ‘realities’. These stories are repeated so often that they wear into cognitive grooves, so that all new events are interpreted to slide neatly into the next episode of a consistent conflict narrative that both explains and predicts. Process designers need to be carefully attuned to these narratives and hold them together in ways that both acknowledge difference while also inviting possibility of shifts so as to move forward together on a new basis.[2]

Furthermore, most conflicts generate what Rittel and Webber described as ‘wicked problems’—when the ‘problem’ that is the focus of attention is embedded in a system of systems, leading to complex interdependencies, such that any one aspect can be considered a symptom of another problem.[3] It is intrinsically difficult to definitively define and frame such problems and they are typically described differently by various stakeholders. All of our most complex social, political, economic, ecological and legal challenges reflect such challenges.

Framing a problem from one vantage point can often privilege some and disadvantage others, with considerable implications for how power operates through the process. (For example, is ‘the problem’ about stopping ‘disruptive’ protests, or about stopping corrupt policing, or …?) A specific naming and framing of ‘the problem’ may lead to an analysis and solutions set that flows only from that frame, missing other crucial aspects of the system structure that are giving rise to the situation. Especially when the situation involves conflict, those different definitions and framing of ‘the problem’ tend to also be emotionally charged and linked with conflict narratives.

Process designers need to be intentional in exploring the situation from the multiple viewpoints of those in the conflict system. From this sensitivity, they can help to create questions that frame the situation in ways that both touch participants’ deepest concerns, while also enabling them to approach it from a fresh and more fruitful angle. A powerful question can help constructively disrupt habitual narratives. By inviting an unexpected line of inquiry, fresh air comes into the conversation.

Begin with inquiry: Consultative assessment and process design

It is very difficult to develop generative questions that truly resonate with participants’ deeper needs and aspirations without a whole-of-system assessment. Through a phase of consultative assessment, convenors hold exploratory bilateral conversations with those who are positioned differently in the system and who hold differing views.[6]

A central feature of this phase is the invitation for all involved to contribute to co-creating a process that is responsive to the genuine needs and aspirations of all those in the system.[7] There is often a fruitful partnership at this phase between those inside the system—whose embedded knowledge and instincts can best surface core truths—and skillful practitioners from outside who can ask curious questions and be guided by comparative experience of patterns in other systems.

These conversations elicit stakeholders’ perceptions of the context, the issues to be addressed, conditions that would need to be met before they might be willing to participate, and insight into the ‘back story’ (which is often a ‘conflict story’) surrounding relationships, concerns and hopes. These conversations are essential for the deeper and more nuanced understanding needed to develop a responsive process.

Substantively, those who participate in this assessment provide the core inputs for the context analysis to inform the process design. Crucially, however, it also serves as a catalyst for personal and organizational reflection on the challenges, can begin trust building with the convenors and intermediaries, and spark interest in what might be possible through a dialogical experience.

Inquiry is, in itself, an intervention. The people we choose to talk to, the kinds of questions asked, the expectations raised just by talking about the possibility of dialogue will all have some impact on the situation, regardless of whether a decision is reached to organize a process. Inquiry and change are not separate; they are simultaneous.[8] When we ask a question, we invite our interlocutor to reflect and respond. In response to a thoughtful question, they may begin to move out of habitual ways of thinking and engage in a degree of perspective taking, considering alternative points of view and different ways of approaching their situation.

By inviting people to thoughtfully reflect and imagine different possibilities, it can reveal potential ways forward. A rhetorical question that provokes reiteration of the group’s typical conflict discourse (eg. “Tell me about your views on this situation“) may do little to invite reflection. Yet complementing this with another open-ended question can help to shift into a thoughtfully reflective mode. (eg, “If you were to think from their perspective, what do you think their concerns might be and how might they see the key issues?” or “What can you remember of times when people cooperated and had good relations?”)

Some lines of inquiry could include:

• What is going on in this situation and what are the issues and concerns that need to be addressed?
• What do you think motivates the other groups? If you were to have a sincere question about their motivations, what would it be?
• If a process were designed to deal with this issue, what other issues do you think must also be addressed in this process? [If there are key terms that, in themselves, signal contentious issues] Can you tell me more about what you mean by x and why it matters to you? How do you think others view this issue and what does it mean for them?
• What would you ideally want [for this context] if everyone were to be able to thrive?
• Do you have any concerns about participating in dialogue? How might they be addressed?

Listen carefully for how people describe the context and how they ‘name and frame’ the issues at stake, noting the language and terminological distinctions in their discourse. Give close attention to language and narratives used during these conversations. Participants’ discourse is a window to better see their politics, worldviews, beliefs and values. It also highlights key ways of framing what is at stake and highly charged/sensitive language that will need to be carefully addressed in designing the process.

Learning and change can happen simultaneously and inquiry can spark new possibilities. Ideally, the assessment process helps create the conditions for dialogue. Not only does the inquiry invite fresh thinking among protagonists, it is also the moment when key people can begin to assess whether they trust the organizers sufficiently to engage in a process that may present certain risks.

Framing the purpose; framing the guiding question

A statement of purpose for a dialogical process answers a deceptively simple question: “What do we want to change as a result of this process?” A compelling purpose provides intrinsic motivation for participation and helps sustain engagement through difficult, uncertain, or emotionally intense phases of the work. In communicating the purpose of a process, there will typically be a core question or set of questions that serve as the guiding focus for the deliberations. These questions need to attract energy and channel purposeful thinking.

An effective purpose statement should be comprehensible to all involved, responsive to core human needs, bold enough to mobilize energy and resources, and clear enough to provide direction for process design. The embedded core question implicitly names and frames issues in inclusive language that respects divergent perspectives while holding open the possibility of collaborative outcomes. Yet it can be challenging to develop this framing.

Sometimes, a larger and more sustained deliberative dialogue process begins with a smaller exploratory dialogue among the convening group or a core group of people drawn from across the conflict system—as described in the Rockingham County example above. Good faith exploratory dialogue from across diverging perspectives can enable shared sensemaking about what is happening in their context, how best to name it, and a framing that directs attention to ‘the heart of the matter’. From these conversations a question will sometimes arise that has such resonance that the group knows it has the power to draw others into meaningful dialogue.

Sometimes the purpose of the process is grounded in a question that connect the group’s attention to discovering ways of meeting basic human needs that all agree are valid. Such questions re-align the group with a purpose that is deeper than the goals they currently contest. In the school system case study above, the core question was framed around the safety and belonging of all students. Another example is the powerful animating question that was at the centre of mass public consultations by ANC activists in the early 1950s as they were mobilizing resistance to the newly formalized Apartheid system. In community spaces throughout the country, ordinary citizens were asked the open-ended question: “What needs to change in South Africa for you to enjoy full and abundant lives in terms of country, community and individual?” They then chose people who could ‘speak for them’ at the 1955 Congress of the People, which resulted in the Freedom Charter that guided the movement against apartheid for the next 40 years and was eventually incorporated into the new South African Constitution in 1996.[9]

Framing generative questions to spark fresh thinking

Throughout a process, designers need to help articulate generative questions that spark the fresh ‘out of the box’ explorations characteristic of deliberative dialogue. Such questions invite participants to explore at a deeper level than the habitual discourse. They tend to be open-ended, multidimensional, invite new perceptions, and connect to participants’ deepest human needs and highest aspirations.

Well-framed questions can transform the tone and trajectory of dialogue. Instead of asking, “How do we stop people from opposing this policy?” —which can trigger defensiveness—a powerful question might be: “What concerns and hopes are shaping people’s responses to this policy, and what can this teach us about what matters most?” Such a question can generate curiosity, surface assumptions, invite reflection, and open space for learning.

Over time, as the issues at stake—and the motivations underlying them—come into focus, it becomes possible to craft questions aimed at generative problem solving. Stavros and Torres [10] point to the ways generative questions can intentionally challenge our ordinary ways of thinking and doing; make room for diverse and different perspectives; surface new information and knowledge; and simulate creativity and innovation.

Unlike problem statements or debate prompts, powerful dialogical questions open space rather than close it. They invite exploration instead of defensiveness. They help participants move beyond fixed positions toward shared inquiry. [11]

• A powerful question generates curiosity in the listener by inviting exploration rather than signaling a ‘right’ answer. It creates a sense of genuine interest rather than triggering immediate agreement or opposition. Example: “What do we each need in order to feel safe enough to imagine a different future together?”
• It stimulates reflective conversation by encouraging participants to pause, think, and speak from experience rather than react instinctively. Reflective questions slow the pace of interaction and create space for deeper listening. Example: “When have you felt most hopeful—and most discouraged—about this issue, and why?”
• A powerful question channels attention and focuses inquiry, helping groups concentrate on what matters most rather than getting lost in symptoms or side debates. Example; “In your view, what is at the heart of this conflict that we need to understand if we are to move forward?”
• Powerful questions are thought-provoking and disrupt habitual ways of thinking. They challenge without attacking and invite participants to consider perspectives they may not have encountered before. Example: “What assumptions might we be making about one another that we might re-examine?”
• They touch a deep meaning by connecting the issue at hand to identity, values, or purpose. This depth invites sincerity and care rather than performance. Example: “What does dignity mean to you in this situation?”
• They surface underlying assumptions by bringing to light the beliefs, values, or narratives that shape how people interpret an issue. Making assumptions visible reduces misunderstanding and blame. Example: “What do we each assume must stay the same—and what do we assume must change—for progress to be possible?”
• Powerful questions invite creativity and new possibilities by loosening the grip of binary thinking and encouraging imagination. They help participants move from problem fixation to possibility thinking. Example: “If we were designing this system from start today, what might we do differently?”
• They generate energy and forward movement by pointing toward action, learning, or next steps without prescribing solutions. Participants feel momentum rather than stagnation. Example: “What is one small shift that could make a meaningful difference right now?”
• Such questions stay with participants beyond the conversation itself. They linger, continue to work on people’s thinking, and shape how they interpret future interactions. Example: “What kind of community do we want to be remembered for creating?”
• Powerful questions evoke more questions, opening a pathway of inquiry rather than closing discussion. They create a living conversation that evolves over time. Example: “What would we need to learn together to make a wiser decision?”

Framing questions for specific phases of deliberative dialogue

While a deliberative dialogue is framed around a core question, different phases within it are also guided by a series of questions that help the group explore the terrain and develop their thinking. It is vital to continually refresh guiding questions in response to what is emerging through the process. Often a new line of inquiry or a new framing emerges through the experience of deliberative dialogue itself. Or the group realizes that before they can address the macro-question, they must first explore some other questions. Anticipating and responding to these opportunities adaptively can pose a design challenge but is key to efficacy. The key is to keep the purpose in mind as the guiding star for where the attention of the group needs to go.

‘HOW?’ VS ‘WHY?’: A SYNTAX FOR DEVELOPMENTAL SEQUENCING IN THE PROCESS

In general, the syntax for overarching framing questions will often have the prefix of “how can we…?” By using how, we imply the ability to make change happen and direct attention towards that end. Such questions are especially important for the deliberation phase, as described below.

In earlier dialogue phases, however, a different set of questions is often need as a prelude to be able to explore the “how can we…” deliberations. In dialogue, the focus is on opening communication, fostering human connection, deepening understanding and shared meaning-making. The questions to guide these processes are more geared to inviting sharing around the deeper reasons, beliefs and values held by participants. As such, they tend to explore ‘why’ more than ‘how’.

Yet asking why questions can be tricky. Unless they are framed or asked in a genuinely curious and authentic way, they can provoke defensiveness. Therefore, process questions will often be prefaced by phases like: “Would you be willing to share more about why x is meaningful?” or “What do you think is at the heart of the matter in this situation?” Furthermore, as is described below, dialogue processes will often be grounded in the invitation to share stories from experiences, in ways that help to elicit the complex meanings and emotions that drive the ‘why’.

QUESTIONS THAT INVITE STORIES, WITH CARE AND SAFETY

In dialogue processes designed to address deeply contentious issues, deep-rooted conflict, or toxic polarization, participants are likely to be anxious that coming together across divides could devolve into a hate-filled diatribe and painful shouting match or else merely be a frozen polite and pointless meeting. It is crucial for the group to explicitly agree norms and commit to shared values to guide how they will engage in dialogue. Sometimes communication agreements are shared in advance. Other times, these are created by the group at the beginning of the process—or there is a mix of the two. Participants can be asked: “What values and principlesdo wewant tocommit topracticingsowecancreateaspaceinwhichwecaneach speak our truth and more deeply understand each other?”

Also at the beginning introduction phase, participants can be invited to share a small story and speak from their personal, unique voice while being free to choose the level of disclosure they feel comfortable with sharing. Some question prompts are very personal: “What is a story of how you got your name?” or “Where do you consider to be ‘home’?” Some prompts are context specific in relation to the focus of the dialogue yet invite participants to start the conversation by sharing some personal experience in connection with the topic. Sometimes they are more about the process itself, such as “Why are you here? What longing or curiosity made you say yes to this invitation?”[12] Because each person is seen and heard as a unique individual from the beginning, the range of voices are invited into the dialogue from the start.

As the dialogue shifts into exploring complex or divisive issues, participants are asked to connect ideas and beliefs with personal experiences, acknowledging how their identity affects their own perspective, while at the same time acknowledging how others’ complex life histories similarly shape their own perspective. Questions might include: “Can you share a storyabout howyour lifeexperience hasshaped your viewsonx?” _ or “Can youspeakabouta time when x affectedyou orthose closetoyouand reflecton what youlearnedfromthat experience?”

By inviting participants to speak from their lived experience, they engage in a richer and more reflective conversation that evolves into gaining insight. It is a dramatic shift from the typical discourse of seeking to ‘prove’ opposing points through positional argumentation or classic debate. While it is possible to argue against another’s position or to contest their facts, it is much less likely people will contest another’s experience when listening to them authentically tell their story.

‘PARADOXICAL QUESTIONS’ TO MOVE BEYOND EITHER/OR THINKING

Especially in conflict situations, the perception of incompatible goals leads people into ‘zero-sum’ thinking, the logic driving the dynamics is: “I can’t get what I want if you get what you want; you can’t get what you want if I get what I want…” The conflict logic then flows, “I need to win so that I can get what I need – and if you lose then that’s just the way it is….” Sometimes, there may not actually be any real incompatibility; instead, poor communication and mistrust lead to the mis-perception of incompatibility. Too often, those in conflict lack the will and/or the means to open the channels of communication to engage in constructive conflict resolution. Instead, the situation continues to fester or escalate into a harmful cycle of destructive behaviour.

Deliberative dialogue can open channels for constructive engagement. People in conflict often need to work through a paradox: how to satisfy one’s own deepest concerns while also enabling counterparts to achieve theirs? Finding ways to address seemingly incompatible goals is at the core of conflict resolution. With a deeper understanding of the reasons behind goals and with creative problem solving, it may be possible to develop solutions that satisfy the most important interests and needs. Deliberation can enable the group to identify integrative solutions that can lead to ‘win-win’ (or ‘positive sum’) negotiated agreements. This can then shift the dynamic to “weare betteroffcooperatingbecausewecouldgainmorebyworkingtogetherthan workingagainsteachother.”

The binary either/or logic that is typically used when framing conflict issues tends to reinforce the seeming impossibility of developing a mutually beneficial way forward. Designing questions that help to move outside of this binary and into a more generative conversation can be key to successful deliberative processes aimed at resolving conflict.

One way of shifting from ‘either/or’ to ‘yes/and’ is through exploring paradoxical questions. Processes organized around such questions can help address contradictions through framing that can hold the tensions

while opening new possibilities—much as was supported in the Rockingham County community dialogue in the case study above, in holding the tension between autonomy of students vs the authority of parents and guardians. Some other examples:

• How can we support greater self-determination while also strengthening national unity?
• How best can we both protect the health of the public and respect the freedom of individuals?
• How can we best balance an open and free internet and design platforms that mitigate harm?

Systematically exploring such ‘both/and’ questions challenges participants to step back from habitual ways of seeing, become aware of implicit assumptions, and ‘make the invisible visible’ in shared sensemaking of the deeper underlying system. It allows groups to address the challenge in Einstein’s maxim that the thinking that generated the problem is not going to be the thinking that transforms the problem.

Crucially, this deliberation of paradoxical questions can enable the emergence of a new and even more powerful question that is framed ‘outside the box’ of the old assumptions in ways that make possible deliberation of more integrative solutions. For example, when facilitating a ‘polarity management’^[1] dialogue with a group of civil society leaders from many different identities in Myanmar around tensions between the values of national unity vs self-determination, their structured explorations led to a new question: “How can we work towards creating a pluralist society and state based on devolution and collective sovereignty, focused on fulfilling rights and promoting human development?” Following through on such a question can lead to the emergence of a new paradigm for approaching core governance questions at the heart of deep-rooted conflict and polarization.

QUESTIONS THAT INVITE ENVISIONING AND CREATIVE IDEATION

We envision our worlds and then act on our visions. To focus only on problems is to limit our imagination to problem-saturated stories. As important as it is to address problems, often the most generative resource for transforming them is to cultivate our imagination and envision ‘what we want for our future’ rather than focus exclusively on what we do not want. The more positive and hopeful the image of the future, the more positive the present-day action and willingness to act towards bring it into being.[14]

One technique—drawn from Appreciative Inquiry [15]—to is ‘flip’ from a focus on the presenting problems to invite people to explore what is working well and who they are at their best. It can also involve inviting in ‘positive deviance’ of counterfactuals—”What is working?”; “When have we been at our best?” —in ways that inspire possibilities.

Guiding question(s) can focus on how best to create what is desired rather than focusing only on problems. Such questions invite participants to articulate “What do we want—and why does it matter to us?” and “What would we like to see in our future?” These qualities may be best evoked through reflective, evocative and open questions that bring both personal dreams and collective concerns to the forefront.

Out of this generative ideation, the group can work to articulate goals or a clear vision statement that encapsulates these positive images, which then provides the direction they work towards. This will almost always serve as a catalyst for moving out of the stuck-ness of the current context and will often involve more integrative ways of thinking about shared challenges. This paves the way for deliberation of proposals for how best to meet core interests and needs while also developing out from how people might live, at their best.

QUESTIONS THAT ELICIT THINKING TOWARDS INTEGRATIVE OUTCOMES

By this phase in the deliberative dialogue process, the group should have both a shared sense of ‘why’ the situation is as it is, a sense of the core challenge(s) that must be addressed, and a vision for what they want to work towards. While they may still deeply disagree, they are aligned with their purpose of discovering how to move forward together.

It is time to explore “now what?” —”What do we need to do or decide if we are going to take action to shift the system in positive ways?” The group needs to generate options, weigh trade-offs, and—hopefully—innovate towards integrative solutions that will create the basis for a resolution of conflicting goals.

Questions at this stage are designed to help the group generate options (“What are some ways in which x might be addressed that takes into account to both y and z?”) and to identify criteria for how they can assess options that could offer a viable and beneficial paths forward. Such criteria should respond both to the core interests and values of groupings across the system and also to the newly emerging sense of shared values that can underpin a new way of being together. (“How would we know if an option will address our core concerns and advance our highest common purpose? What are the criteria we should use to assess options—and how might this criteria help us to develop strong options?”) From this point, the group’s deliberations should prepare them to engage in collaborative decision-making.[16]

As the group journeys through exploring divergent perspectives and acknowledging each other’s lived experience, they begin to shift their conflict discourse and become more open to considering new possibilities. By engaging in exploration of both the drivers of contention and core challenges as well as envisioning what they want, new thinking begins to emerge. By systematically exploring the basis for integrative solutions, weighing trade-offs and improving options, the old ways of thinking tend to recede and leaving room for convergence around more inclusive and adaptive possibilities for ways of organizing their shared world in the future.

Summary of principles for constructive framing and crafting questions

Treat question framing as a strategic intervention. Do not regard guiding questions as neutral or technical. How an issue is framed shapes what people consider legitimate to discuss, how they relate to one another, and what outcomes become possible. Invest time and political care in crafting questions that open space rather than entrench positions.

Ground process design in system–wide inquiry, engaging with people from across lines of division and those positioned differently within the system. Before launching dialogue or deliberation, a process of consultative assessment conversations across perspectives and power positions. Use these conversations not only to gather information, but to test trust, surface risks, and begin shifting patterns of interaction. Early inquiry is part of the intervention, not only a preparatory step.

Design questions to disrupt polarized narratives. Develop prompts that surface assumptions, invite perspective-taking, and reorient attention toward shared concerns or unmet needs. This helps loosen rigid narratives without forcing consensus.

Sequence questions developmentally. Match questions to the phase of the process. Early stages should prioritize understanding, meaning-making, and relationship-building; later stages can focus on problem-solving, trade-offs, and action. Moving prematurely to solutions risks reinforcing defensiveness and mistrust.

Adapt guiding questions as learning emerges. As understanding deepens, develop, revise or replace questions to reflect new insights and keep the process aligned with its purpose.

Use story–based questions to humanize disagreement and enable acknowledgement. Invite participants to speak from lived experience rather than abstract positions. Carefully designed story prompts reduce performative debate, increase listening, and make it harder to dismiss others’ perspectives. Establish clear norms and safeguards to support psychological safety.

Employ paradoxical framing to move beyond zero–sum logic. Where goals appear incompatible, frame questions that hold tensions rather than resolve them prematurely. “Both/and” questions can open space for integrative thinking and help groups explore possibilities that binary debates obscure.

Balance problem analysis with future–oriented imagination. Do not allow dialogue to become trapped in problem saturation. Incorporate questions that invite participants to envision desired futures, identify existing strengths, and articulate shared aspirations. Positive images of the future can mobilize energy and sustain engagement.

Channel generative thinking towards developing agreed pathways forward. Engage questions to create options and criteria that can spark integrative options and enable trade-offs that help all to satisfy basic needs and core interests in ways that are congruent with their values.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barnes, Catherine. Process Design: Pathways Toward Deliberative Dialogue to Transform Conflict. Toda Peace Institute, 2026.

Brown, Juanita, David Isaacs, and Eric E. Vogt. The Art of Powerful Questions: Catalyzing Insight, Innovation, and Action. Whole Systems Associates, 2003.

Cooperrider, David L., and Diana Whitney. Appreciative Inquiry: A Positive Revolution in Change. Berrett-Koehler, 2005.

Corrigan, Chris. From Consultation to Participatory Engagement: A Concept Paper and Design Plan for Creating Ownership and Activating Leaders in Community Engagement Initiatives. Unpublished manuscript, 2010.

de Klerk, Eldred. “South Africa’s Negotiated Transition: Context, Analysis and Evaluation.” In Owning the Process: Public Participation in Peacemaking, edited by Catherine Barnes. Conciliation Resources, 2002.

Herzig, Maggie, and Laura Chasin. Fostering Dialogue Across Conflict Divides: A Nuts and Bolts Guide from the Public Conversations Project. Public Conversations Project, 2006.

Johnson, Barry. Polarity Management: Identifying and Managing Unsolvable Problems. HRD Press, 2014.

Pruitt, Bettye, and Philip Thomas. Democratic Dialogue: A Handbook for Practitioners. International IDEA, 2007.

Rittel, Horst W. J., and Melvin M. Webber. “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.” Policy Sciences 4 (1973): 155–169. Ritchey, Tom. “Wicked Problems: Structuring Social Messes with Morphological Analysis.” Springer Nature, 2005.

Stavros, Jacqueline M., and Cheri B. Torres. Conversations Worth Having: Using Appreciative Inquiry to Fuel Productive and Meaningful Engagement. 2nd ed. Berrett-Koehler, 2022.

Winslade, John and Gerald Monk. Narrative Mediation: A New Approach to Conflict Resolution. Jossey-Bass, 2000.

Notes

[1] For a longer discussion, see Catherine Barnes, Process Design: Pathways Toward Deliberative Dialogue to Transform Conflict. Toda Peace Institute, 2026.

[2] See, for example, John Winslade and Gerald Monk, Narrative Mediation: A New Approach to Conflict Resolution. Jossey-Bass, 2000.

[3] Horst Rittel and Mel Webber, “Dilemmas in a general theory of planning” Policy Sci., 1973, 4:155–169. Also see Tom Ritchey, Wicked Problems: Structuring Social Messes with Morphological Analysis. Swedish Morphological Society, 2005.

[4] For more about this experience—including all reports and presentations—see the Rockingham County Public Schools Virginia Community Dialogue Initiative website: https://www.rcps.net/page/community-dialogue-initiative. It was also covered on National Public Radio (NPR) All Things Considered “Virginia school district parents practice calm communication on culture war issues” March 23, 2023. https://www.npr.org/2023/03/23/1165698815/virginia-schooldistrict-parents-practice-calm-communication-on-culture-war-issu.

[5] For a summary of the ideas that emerged through these policy dialogues, see Catherine Barnes, It takes a community: ExploringthepurposeofpubliceducationandtherolesRockinghamCountyPublicSchoolsplayinthe lives of students and families, Rockingham County Public Schools, 2023. Available online: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yArAxmHy9Wcaf8TmPI5HXmEi3keJlH1Q/view

[6] For more on this ‘upstream’ phase in co-creating and convening a process, please see Barnes, Process Design: Pathways Toward Deliberative Dialogue, op cit.

[7] For further discussion of this phase, see for example: Bettye Pruitt and Philip Thomas. Democratic Dialogue Handbook forPractitioners. International IDEA, 2007; Maggie Herzig and Laura Chasin. FosteringDialogueAcrossConflictDivides: A Nuts and Bolts Guide from the Public Conversations Project. Public Conversations Project, 2006; Chris Corrigan, From Consultation to Participatory Engagement: A Concept Paper and Design Plan for Creating Ownership and Activating Leaders in Community Engagement Initiatives. Unpublished paper. 2010.

[8] This insight draws on principles from Appreciative Inquiry but is much more widely applicable than only for an Appreciative Inquiry approach. For more on this ‘social constructivist’ approach to inquiry, see for example: David Cooperrider and Diana Whitney, Appreciative Inquiry: A Positive Revolution in Change, Berrett-Koehler, 2005.

[9] For more on this process and its signature legacy, see: Eldred de Klerk. “South Africa’s negotiated transition: Context, analysis and evaluation” in Catherine Barnes, ed. Owning the Process: Public Participation in Peacemaking. Accord 13. 2002. Conciliation Resources.

[10] Jackie Stavros and Cheri Torres. Conversations Worth Having, 2nd edition. Barrett-Koehler. 2022.

[11] The list of characteristics of powerful questions was developed by Eric E. Vogt, Juanita Brown, and David Isaacs, The Art of Powerful Questions: Catalyzing Insight, Innovation, and Action. Whole Systems Associates, 2003.

[12] This question is from On Being Project. Better Conversations Guide. Nd.
https://onbeing.org/better-conversations-guide/

[13] For more on polarity management as a process, see: Barry Johnson, Polarity Management:Identifying and Managing Unsolvable Problems. HRD Press, 2014.

[14] This point is similar to the ‘Anticipatory Principle’ from Appreciative Inquiry. “Images Inspire Action: Human systems move in the direction of their images of the future. The more positive and hopeful the image of the future, the more positive the present-day action.” Cooperrider Center. Introduction to Appreciative Inquiry. 2023.
https://appreciativeinquiry.champlain.edu/2023/04/07/introduction-to-appreciative-inquiry/

[15] David L. Cooperrider and Diana Whitney., op.cit. See several website aimed at practitioners: the Cooperrider Center for Appreciative Inquiry https://appreciativeinquiry .champlain.edu/ and Center for Appreciative Inquiry https://centerforappreciativeinquiry .net/

[16] Principles and methods for doing this are addressed further in Barnes, Process Design: Pathways Toward Deliberative Dialogue, op.cit.

---

The Author