Developing Comfort with Ambiguity
Embracing uncertainty in complex situations
Dear collaborative discussion friends,
This week we are highlighting an activity that helps participants engage with complex moral dilemmas, where there is often no right or ideal option and where choosing one option means leaving other options that are just as good on the table. Participants are encouraged to push past “good-vs-bad” binary thinking and sit with the discomfort of ambiguity and uncertainty. It also helps participants appreciate the complexities involved in making decisions and how you often need to decide on a course of action even when there is no perfect path. It also demonstrates how new information can change perspectives and decisions, encouraging them to be being open to change and not trapped by a sense of moral certainty in ambiguous and complex situations.
This activity is contributed by Jack Crittenden, Emeritus Professor in the School of Politics and Global Studies at Arizona State University. It is one of the many activities in the Critical Collaboration Module.
If you missed the previous activity plan newsletter, Building and Shifting the Discourse, you can access it and our other weekly newsletters by subscribing below.
This week's activity:
Activity 3.4 – Developing Comfort with Ambiguity
Moving beyond binary thinking and embracing ambiguity
This activity helps participants practice being comfortable with moral ambiguity. Participants are first presented with a moral dilemma and, in small groups, asked to share initial reactions and take an initial position, even if it feels uncomfortable or the ideal option is not available. They then discuss the dilemma, asking questions to better understand the reasoning and values informing the positions of others in their group and sharing their own argument for the position they chose. Participants are also asked to expand their thinking by offering an argument for an opposing view. Once the discussion slows down, “monkey wrenches” or twists are introduced that add new variables or alter the situation in some way to get participants to rethink their initial position. Participants then share with the group if their position was changed by this new information and why.
Prepare for the Activity
Select a single or set of moral dilemmas from the What IF…Moral Dilemmas Collection or create your own moral dilemmas relevant to your group. For the dilemma(s), also generate three “monkey wrenches” or twists, which add new variables or alter the dilemma in some way with the aim of getting participants to reevaluate their initial choice.
Organize participants into small groups (4-6 ppl). Begin by introducing the learning goals of this activity:
Develop an appreciation for complexity and ambiguity and move beyond “good vs. bad” binary thinking.
Practice developing arguments for particular actions.
Put Initial Reactions on the Table
Share the moral dilemma with participants as a handout or on a shared screen so they can review it together and at their own pace.
Ask each participant to read and then react to the dilemma. Record or take notes of initial reactions, such as “I'd do this…This is wrong…You can't act that way, etc.”
Get all views on the table without discussion or critical examination. All participants need to offer an initial suggestion as to what they would do in this situation.
Facilitator Tip: Prepare for participants to ask for more information. Do not provide additional information. The dilemma is deliberately vague and is designed as a “no win” situation. That’s why it is a dilemma. Anticipate that participants will be reluctant to take a side or share a position. All participants must express an initial position. Recognize that it is uncomfortable but must be done.
Break into Small Groups and Discuss the Dilemma
Invite participants to break into small groups (4-6 ppl) and discuss the dilemma. Ask them to make a case for their position and explore the positions of others. Participants can ask each other questions, such as:
What's wrong with doing X? Why is doing Y the right thing to do?
Why would someone oppose Y?
Which values are informing your position?
Facilitator Tip: Push past emotional reactions and opinions and try to help participants form arguments. For those who refuse to move off their position or see the position of others, ask them to articulate and defend the opposite view.
Introduce Monkey Wrenches
When the discussion begins to slow down, reach consensus or an impasse, initiate a lightning round of “monkey wrenches.”
Introduce these one at a time. After each new monkey wrench, invite brief discussion and poll participants. Has this new information forced you to change your position? Why?
Facilitator Tip: If the discussion is going well, don’t feel like you have to introduce all three monkey wrenches.
Debrief as a Full Group
Come back together as a full group and discuss the following questions:
How did it feel having to take an initial reaction to the dilemma?
How does this activity help you to empathize with decision-makers?
How, if at all, did your initial reaction to this dilemma change over the course of the discussion? What helped you to change your mind? Or, what helped you to solidify your initial reactions?
In addition to these debriefing questions, the full description of Activity 3.4 Developing Comfort with Ambiguity includes reflection questions, a practice journal prompt, and additional resources to help participants dive deeper.
Dive Deeper by Pairing Activities Together
Activity 3.4 can be paired together with Activity 2.2 Embracing Contradictions. Both activities help participants move beyond binary thinking and embrace complexity. While Activity 3.4 helps participants develop an appreciation for moral ambiguity and uncertainty, Activity 2.2 helps participants develop a “paradox mindset”. By developing this “paradox mindset” and embracing contradictions, participants are better able to pay attention to nuances and see the complexity of others when in a tense or divisive situation. It helps them resist black and white thinking and the urge to quickly label people based on a single identity or opinion that they express.
If you try out this activity, please share with us what you think:
We hope this toolkit activity helps participants develop comfort with ambiguity and uncertainty, so they are able to be present and open to new information even when in conflict, and also develop a better understanding of and empathy for decision-makers operating within complex or crisis situations.
Looking forward to collaborating,
Ritu Thomas & the Collaborative Discussion Team