Three Models of Engagement
Within engagement, there are three models of communication: the classical (deficit) model, the framing model, and the contemporary (dialogic) model. The classical model presents environmental issues as apocalyptic and attempts to provoke fear/emotion by sharing the most shocking facts with the public. Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth is a notable example of this. This method utilizes a one-way flow of information from experts to the entire public. The framing model is another type of one-way flow, but this model acknowledges the diverse perspectives of the public and caters information to audiences accordingly. For example, a person using the framing model might deliver information about climate change differently to a group of liberal-raised children than to a group of highly conservative adults. In our who post, we talked about Global Warming’s Six Americas, a project which categorizes Americans’ views of global warming, helping us to better understand public perception of climate issues. The contemporary (dialogic) model differs from the previous two in that it involves a two-way flow of engagement, rather than a one-way flow from experts to the public. The contemporary model emphasizes listening as well as speaking and collaborating with others even if they have vastly different views.
In our effective action post, we covered how the Oregon Farm Bureau works to encourage the public to be involved in agricultural politics in order to culminate its mission statement of giving a voice to Oregon farmers. In this post, we will discuss how dialogic communication functions and its relevance to the OFB and its mission.
How Does Dialogic Communication Work?
Among many examples of success using the contemporary model are illustrated in an episode of “This American Life”, as well as a study by Brookman and Kalla which both illustrate the importance of conversation in issues such as gun violence, abortion, and transgender rights. These issues are highly polarized, with most parties either strongly in favor or against. At first glance, engagement across these boundaries sounds impossible. However, in the TAL podcast, all it took was a canvasser honestly sharing her abortion story and asking genuine questions to change someone’s mind.
Narrative 4 discusses the approach of story exchange, in which participants prepare, partner up, share the story of others in the first person, and then reflect. This is a unique approach to engagement that requires participants to put themselves in another’s shoes and speak from a perspective that may be wildly different from their own. This has the potential to dramatically increase empathy towards those with conflicting views, and reinforce that everyone has a valid story to tell.
Of course, it is important to understand that changing the mind of the oppressor is never the responsibility of the oppressed. No one should have to put themselves in potentially dangerous situations to solve systemic problems. This is a personal choice that many have chosen to take on, and the use of the contemporary method does not necessitate putting oneself in harm’s way. Oftentimes, a respectful, well-facilitated conversation between two unlike-minded individuals can go a long way.
When we are open-minded, the effect of dialogue is lasting. This can be seen in the work that the project Narrative 4 has done, which uses an approach called story exchange to promote empathy and understanding through taking on the story of another person. One example of how this was implemented in a real-life situation was in New York, where people with opposing views and stories on gun control gathered to discuss the issue, listen to the story of others, and then own that story by retelling it in the first person. This project was a collaboration between Narrative 4 and New York Magazine and is detailed in this article.
A particular interaction stands out between Todd Underwood, a man from Kansas City who owns guns, sells guns, and has a gun business, and Carolyn Tuft, a woman from Salt Lake City who witnessed the shooting of her own daughter while being permanently injured from this shooting herself. Todd Underwood has been an ardent supporter of the second amendment for his entire life, but he was overcome with emotion when retelling the story of how Carolyn and her daughter were attacked on a seemingly normal trip to the mall. Taking ownership of this story did not necessarily change Underwood’s fundamental values, but it did foster lasting understanding and empathy – the initial goal. This led Underwood to tighten restrictions on who could obtain a gun from his company, as well as hire Narrative 4 to conduct a project at his local church.
How Does Dialogic Communication Apply to Our Partnership With OFB?
If we were to use a dialogic approach, we would likely talk to Barb Iverson and try to represent viewpoints that clash with those of the Oregon Farm Bureau in order to better understand the organization and what obstacles they face. This would mean us focusing on ours and Barb’s personal experiences that shape our views in order to hopefully deepen our understanding and respect, building a basis for productive partnership. We might be interested in finding out how OFB would feel about using this conversation tool with groups that they may find themselves in disagreement with such as PCUN in regards to pesticide use. Our partnership would benefit from the dialogic model because we are interested in a two-way exchange of information. We want to learn from the Oregon Farm Bureau and we hope they might feel they have something to learn from us. They may for instance feel that they can learn from our partnership due to the fact that we, as liberal arts college students, represent an ideology that often might clash with that of the OFB.