Reasonate

Reasonate is a collaborative approach to productive dialogue that’s designed to identify, develop, and structure the application of key dialogue skills.

By representing the dialogue as an evolving network of claims written on sticky notes, Reasonate eliminates the mental fatigue of needing to keep track of the issues in our head, and reduces negative emotions by focusing our attention on the reasoning rather than the people advancing it.

I) Preparing for the Dialogue

Three Steps to Prepare for the Dialogue

1. Agree upon a shared goal for the dialogue.

More about setting the goal.

A good goal for engaging in discussions like this in general might be, “Develop and practice a set of skills and dispositions that will help us to have productive conversations.
A goal for engaging in a discussion about a particular topic might be, “Better understand different points of view,” “Identify important areas of agreement and disagreement between different points of view,” “Determine what else we need to learn or discuss in order to come closer to agreement,” and “Decide which position to adopt.”
Because the goal belongs to both parties, they must both be able to acknowledge when it’s been accomplished. So it can’t be something like ‘make the other side look silly.’
The goal can evolve as the dialogue progresses.

2. Choose the question to be answered and the position to be discussed.

More about choosing the question and position.

The question can be a pressing issue about which participants have strong, competing views, but it need not be.
Although it may be true that people can believe whatever they want about the position, for this activity, you’ll be exploring the reasons to accept or reject the position.

3. Assign roles for the dialogue.

More about assigning roles.

One participant or team (“PRO”) agrees to support the position and another participant or team (“CON”) agrees to oppose the position.
PRO and CON receive sticky notes of different colors.
Although you may be able to see both sides of an issue, for this activity, you’ll need to assume a stance and defend it. You’ll be able to change your mind and modify your view as you go along, but to get the most of this activity, do your best to defend a position before abandoning it.

II) Directions for the Dialogue

Three Parts of the Dialogue.

1. Starting the dialogue.

More about starting the dialogue.

The first turn belongs to Pro, and will involve Pro writing the position under discussion on a sticky note and providing support for that position by making one or more Moves to Advance the Dialogue.
Turns alternate between Pro and Con.

2. Continuing the dialogue.

More about continuing the dialogue.

During a turn, a participant:
- Must respond to any Request to Improve the Dialogue
- Must make one or more Moves to Advance the Dialogue.
- May make one or more Requests to Improve the Dialogue.
Participants may collaborate during a turn (e.g., Pro and Con might work together to bridge a gap or refine a claim).
Participants may remove a line of reasoning from the board if that line of reasoning has been resolved (perhaps because it has “bottomed out” in basic agreements or disagreements).

3. Ending the dialogue.

More about ending the dialogue.

The dialogue ends when participants agree that the original or amended goal of the dialogue has been achieved or pursued as far as possible.
“Bonus points” for being able to articulate how the goal has been achieved (e.g., for expressing what was learned about different perspectives, reviewing points of agreement and disagreement, noting what remains to be explored or discussed, or summarizing the position adopted.)

III) Moves to Advance the Dialogue

Five Moves to Advance the Dialogue

1. Assert a claim.

More about asserting a claim.

A participant asserts a claim by writing it on a sticky note.
Each note should contain only one claim.
This allows us to think more carefully by slowing our thinking down and makes it easier for us to identify relationships between the claims we make.

A quick video about asserting a claim.

2. Support a claim.

More about supporting a claim.

When a sticky note of one color is placed underneath a sticky note of the same color, the claim on the note below supports the claim on the note above it.
We call a claim that supports the claim above it a supporting claim.
TIP: To make sure that a claim is a supporting claim, ask, “If we accept this claim, would that give us reason to think that the claim above it is true?”

A quick video about supporting a claim.

3. Object to a claim.

More about objecting to a claim.

When a sticky note of one color is placed underneath a sticky note of a different color, the claim on the note below objects to the claim on the note above it.
We call a claim that objects to the claim above it an objecting claim.
TIP: To make sure that a claim is an objecting claim, ask, “If we accept this claim, would that give us reason to think that the claim above it is false?”

A quick video about objecting to a claim.

4. Bridge the gap between claims.

More about bridging the gap between claims.

When sticky notes of the same color are placed side-by-side, they work together to support the note above them (if the note above them is of the same color) or to object to the note above them (if the note above them is of a different color).
We call claims that work together to support or object to the claim above them dependent claims because they depend upon each other to support or object to the above claim.
When we provide a dependent claim for another claim, we bridge the gap between the first claim and the claim above it.
TIP: Bridging the gap is a powerful move because it can reveal unstated assumptions. But don’t go overboard. Try to avoid having more than two dependent reasons working together because that often makes things unnecessarily complex.
TIP: If you want to advance two completely independent supporting or objecting claims, you can leave a gap between them. Should confusion arise, you can adopt the convention of writing a “+” on a claim that has a dependent claim next to it.

A quick video about bridging the gap between claims.

5. Revise a claim.

More about revising a claim.

At any point, a participant can revise a claim they’ve made.
TIP: If it starts to feel like the participants are talking past each other, check to see if you are interpreting one of the claims on the board differently. If so, you can revise that claim.

A quick video about revising a claim.

General Tips

Some tips to help things run smoothly.

Moves can be combined during a single turn. (e.g., You can support a claim, bridge the gap, and then support that new claim. You can object to a claim, provide support for that objection, and bridge the gap.) This means that a participant may place more than one sticky note during a turn.
Although a participant may place more than one sticky note during a turn, participants are expected to allow other participants to take their turn as well. (Don’t hog the board.)

IV) Requests to improve the Dialogue

Five Requests to Improve the Dialogue

1. Refocus on the claims.

More about refocusing on the claims.

If a participant thinks that another participant is objecting to a claim by focusing on individuals who assert the claim rather than the claim itself, they can request that the objection be retracted or reworded to focus on the claim.
If a participant thinks that conversation is stalling on a particular claim, they can request that the conversation focus on a different claim (perhaps after acknowledging the claim that stalled the dialogue as a point of basic disagreement).

2. Break down complex statements.

More about breaking down complex statements.

If a participant notices that another participant wrote more than one claim on a sticky note, they can request that the content of that sticky note be divided over multiple notes.

3. Bridge the gap between claims.

More about bridging the gap between claims.

If a participant doesn’t see how one claim supports or objects to another claim, they can request that the other participant bridge the gap.
TIP: If you want to object to a claim but realize that your objection doesn’t show that the claim is false, bridge the gap and see if your objection targets the resulting claim instead.

4. Refine unclear claims.

More about refining unclear claims.

If a participant finds a claim to be vague, ambiguous, or otherwise unclear, or thinks that another participant has misunderstood one of their claims, they can request that the claim be refined.

5. Fact check disputed claims.

More about fact checking disputed claims.

If one participant thinks that a claim is exaggerated, cherry-picked, or otherwise untrue, the participant can request that participants work collaboratively to identify the facts. If there is insufficient time to identify the facts, the participants will note that the facts need to be checked later.
TIP: Some fact claims are empirical (e.g., “Over 30% of college students have used AI to generate an entire essay.”). Other fact claims are ethical (e.g., “It’s unethical for students to use AI to generate essays.”) Empirical fact claims are easier to check, but ethical facts claims are often where important disagreements lie.
TIP: If Pro and Con agree to a claim, they can note that by putting a checkmark on it. If Pro and Con disagree about a claim, and have exhausted the reasons for or against it, they can put an “X” mark on it to indicate that it is a point of basic disagreement.