Practicing Purposeful Skepticism
Asking questions and expressing skepticism that lead to improvements
Dear collaborative discussion friends,
This week we are highlighting one of the new activities in the updated toolkit. This activity helps participants express skepticism in a purposeful way. It demonstrates how skepticism can be used as a vehicle for expansive thinking and to spark ideas for improvements.
This activity is contributed by Jack Byrd Jr., Professor of Industrial Engineering at West Virginia University and President of the Interactivity Foundation; Cuda Zmuda, Stern Fellow at the Interactivity Foundation; and Eric Schmucker, Visiting Fellow at the Interactivity Foundation. It is one of the many activities in the Critical Collaboration Module.
If you missed the previous newsletter, Collaborative Performance Measurement, you can access it and our other weekly newsletters by subscribing below.
This week's activity:
Activity 3.9 – Practicing Purposeful Skepticism
Practicing how to share skepticism with the purpose of expanding thinking and improving proposals
This activity helps participants practice asking questions and expressing skepticism with the purpose of improving upon a proposal. Participants first examine a proposal to unearth its underlying assumptions and share what they are skeptical about in regards to these assumptions. They then dive deeper by exploring what might go wrong and what the potential impact might be. Once they share their concerns, participants then propose changes, as well as improvements needed to say yes to the proposal.
Prepare for the Activity
Select a scenario from this collection of What IF…Scenarios, choose one of the sample scenarios shown below, or create your own based on a topic that is relevant for your group. Share the chosen scenario as a handout with participants to refer to throughout the activity.
Organize participants into small groups (4-6 ppl). Begin by introducing the learning goal of this activity:
Practice asking questions to better understand what is being proposed and to constructively imagine what can be done to improve the proposal.
Review the Scenario
Invite one participant to read aloud the chosen scenario to the full group. Sharing the scenario on a shared screen will also be helpful for participants to follow along.
Here are two sample scenarios:
Sample Scenario No. 1: A Study Lab Proposal
As enrollment dropped at a major state university, the retention of students became a top priority. An analysis of the retention challenge led to a realization that failures in math and lab science courses were a leading cause of the dropouts. The university had learning centers for these courses but they were rarely used. A focus group with students led to a proposal that all first year students would be required to participate in a controlled study environment four hours per week. Tutoring would be provided and attendance would be monitored and built into the grade in the freshman seminar.
Sample Scenario No. 2: EV Recharging Proposal
The owner of a high-end townhouse complex wanted to provide recharging stations for the growing number of electric vehicles owned by the townhouse residents. Since the townhouses themselves did not have outlets for recharging, the owner proposed to have a set site area where residents could recharge their cars. Since the number of recharging stations was insufficient for all residents to use at one time, reservations were needed. Also some recharging stations were reserved for specific makes of vehicles. The owner feels this is a viable solution until more residents own EVs to warrant costly retrofits of all the townhouses with outside electric outlets.
Break into Small Groups and Generate Skeptical Concerns (Round One)
Next, invite participants to break into small groups (4-6 ppl) and answer the following questions:
What assumptions are being made in the proposal or scenario?
What skepticism do you have about these assumptions?
Select one participant in each group to record the assumptions and the skepticism shared, in the format shown below, on a shared surface that can be seen by all participants.
Facilitator Tip: Ask each participant to share a unique response to the questions in a round robin fashion until a full list of assumptions and skepticism is developed.
Generate Skeptical Concerns (Round Two)
Invite each participant to independently share one response to the following two questions in a round robin style:
What might go wrong with the proposal?
What might be the possible impact?
Have the assigned notetaker in each group record the responses, in the format shown below, on a shared surface that can be seen by all participants.
Facilitator Tip: Ask each group to start the round robin generation of responses for each round with a different participant than the previous round so that each participant can take the lead.
Share Changes to the Proposal
Ask each participant to independently write down their thoughts in response to the following question:
Assuming we continue to explore the proposal, what changes would you like to see?
Invite each participant to share one response to the question in a round robin style.
Have the assigned notetaker in each group record a brief summary of these responses to highlight each idea for all participants to see.
Share Improvements Needed to Say Yes
Invite each participant to respond to the group using the following lead in:
I could say yes to the proposal if…
Debrief as a Full Group
Come back together as a full group and discuss the following questions:
How did you feel about sharing your concerns in this activity?
How did your understanding and feelings toward the proposal change by the end of this activity?
How would you have responded to this proposal if you didn’t work through this process? What would your initial response have accomplished?
In addition to these debriefing questions, the full description of Activity 3.9 Practicing Purposeful Skepticism includes reflection questions, a practice journal prompt, and additional resources to help participants dive deeper.
Dive Deeper by Pairing Activities Together
Start with Activity 3.6 Anticipating Implications and (Un)Intended Consequences to help participants practice exploring and generating the unintended consequences of a proposed action. They can then use the concept of unintended consequences to add to their thinking when generating a list of skeptical concerns in Activity 3.9, especially when thinking about the impact of a particular proposal.
If you try out this activity, please share with us what you think:
We hope this toolkit activity helps participants critically examine a particular proposal, ask questions to gain clarity and purposefully express skepticism to lead to improvements.
Upcoming Events
Saint Ignatius College Prep in Chicago is organizing Guanacaste 2023: The Transformational Listening Conference, from October 5 to October 7, 2023. We are excited to share that Dr. John G. Igwebuike, the founder of Guanacaste: The Lead Listening Institute, and one of our Collaborative Discussion Coaches, will be incorporating part of the Collaborative Discussion Toolkit in the conference this year. All are welcome! Learn more and register here.
The National Conference on Dialogue & Deliberation 2023 will take place from October 13-15 in Atlanta, Georgia. The Interactivity Foundation, including the Collaborative Discussion Project, will be holding sessions during this event and we look forward to seeing you there. The cost to register is $580, with a discounted rate of $300 for students. For a limited time, the NCDD Member Rate is available to everyone! Get $100 off regular registration by clicking “Have a Promo Code?” (located under today’s subtotal in your cart) and entering “100-off”. Students can get $60 off the student registration cost by entering the promo code “Student-deal”. Register now and save! All are welcome! Learn more and register here.
The Interactivity Foundation is organizing a 3-part interactive, small group conversation series, exploring Who are We The People — and who is being pushed out? The events will be held on October 20, November 3, and November 17. Invite your students! Register here.
Looking forward to collaborating,
Ritu Thomas & the Collaborative Discussion Team