Shape

Focus on Solutions

Cultivates:

Draws on:

Download PDF

Four people in white shirts carry long wooden planks at an outdoor building site.

How to Do It

To reduce polarization, don’t fixate on the identities someone brings with them into a conversation—that might only reinforce partisan divides. Instead, zero in on the issues affecting your community or country, and share your ideas for solutions. You might be surprised by how your ideas overlap.

This is an especially useful activity to try when you’re bringing together people from different, supposedly “opposing” groups. They might be inclined to focus on the other person’s identity—they’re a Republican, she’s Muslim, he’s Latino—and make all kinds of assumptions based on that identity, putting themselves on edge before the interaction even begins. Whether you’re facilitating this conversation—or participating in this conversation yourself—your goal is to transcend those assumptions and biases as quickly as possible, and instead surface the issues that actually matter to each person—and the solutions that they have in mind.

First, start by understanding the issues and problems people would like to address. Everyone might have a different priority—for one person it might be improving the educational system, for others it might be more accessible health care—but it’s important for everyone to voice their perspective.
Then, start to get more nuanced and specific about those problems—for instance, ask questions like, “What about the educational system would you like to see change?” This breaks down the issue into something more digestible. Try to understand as much as you can about why they’re interested in that issue. Think about using questions like, “Why is this issue important to you?” or “What are examples of how this issue is affecting people’s lives?”
Finally, invite suggestions for solutions to these problems. Talking about solutions can highlight how people from seemingly disparate groups are actually more aligned in their views than they might think. It can also build empathy across group lines as people more deeply appreciate one another’s experiences and perspectives. And it can inspire hope and optimism as they rally around the shared desire to tackle issues they both care about.

When bringing people together across group lines, don’t fixate on the identities they bring with them into the conversation— that might only reinforce divides. Instead, zero in on the issues affecting your campus and their ideas for solutions. Whether in debates on campus policies or meetings about the next five-year strategic plan, centering conversations on solutions rather than labels can lead to more collaborative outcomes.

This is an especially useful activity to try when you’re bringing together people from different, supposedly opposing groups. They might be inclined to focus on the other person’s identity—she’s a Republican, he’s Muslim—and make all kinds of assumptions based on that label, putting themselves on edge before the interaction even begins. Whether you’re facilitating or participating in this conversation, your goal is to transcend those assumptions and biases as quickly as possible, and instead surface the issues that actually matter to each person and the solutions that they have in mind.

First, start by understanding the issues and problems people would like to address. Everyone might have a different priority—for one person, it might be improving the kosher or halal options in the dining hall, for others it might be changing aspects of the academic curriculum, the campus free speech code, or some of the security protocols for campus police—but it’s important for everyone to voice their perspectives.
Then, start to get more nuanced and specific about those problems—for instance, ask questions like, “What in particular about the curriculum would you like to see change?” or “What aspects of free speech are most important to you on campus?” This breaks down broader issues into something more digestible.
Finally, invite suggestions for solutions to these problems. Talking about solutions can highlight how people from seemingly disparate groups are actually more aligned in their views than they might think. It can also build empathy across group lines as people more deeply appreciate one another’s experiences and perspectives.

The Practice on Campus

At Colorado State University, Martín Carcasson is a professor of Communication Studies and leads the Center for Public Deliberation (CPD), which trains undergraduate students in facilitation and civic dialogue. In effect, they learn how to guide people toward solutions to collective problems. In partnership with local governments and nonprofits, students help lead public forums on pressing issues like housing affordability and decarbonization by creating space for diverse people to weigh in and work through complex trade-offs together.

Rather than aiming for a "perfect" solution, students help participants react to a range of potential recommendations that reflect the varied values and lived experiences in the room. For example, in a collaboration with the Platte River Power Authority, which provides electricity to parts of Northern Colorado, students facilitated small group conversations at public events to gather input on how the agency could best meet its 2030 decarbonization goals. By focusing on solutions, students can lead much more constructive dialogues amongst diverse groups of community members. After synthesis, they presented those findings to the authority's Board of Governors, helping decision-makers understand the full landscape of community concerns and potential actions. The students not only learned real-world skills in deliberation and collaborative problem-solving, they saw the value of focusing on solutions as a practice to bridge differences effectively.

"Employers want candidates who can engage across differences and facilitate complex decision-making processes. The skills they're learning aren't just good for civic life, they also prepare them for the workforce."

— Martín Carcasson, professor and director of the Center for Public Deliberation, Colorado State University