This article describes a dialogue process used in several North American cities to address conflict over abortion. Participants report increased empathy and trust toward advocates far different positions after spending a day in small and large group interactions. Limitations of the process and its applicability to other divisive social issues are considered.Michelle LeBaron is associate professor of conflict analysis and resolution and women's studies at T While there are ample examples of interventions failing to fulfill the promise of its proponents, the risk of Mure should not discourage us from trying.People involved in the abortion conflict are not neutral and they are not apathetic. The passion that they bring to their activism is born of a desire to influence social consensus, to make change, and to create better conditions. While those on either side of the issue differ on what "better" means and which changes are needed, the sheer energy that they bring is a powerful force when common ground can be identified and they can work together.The potential of using dialogue to address the abortion conflict caught the imagination of two conflict resolution scholar/practitioners, Mary Jacksteit and Adrienne Kaufmann. From their respective backgrounds as a labor arbitrator and a Benedictine nun, they designed a dialogue process to harness the energy of common ground and prevent further intergroup polarization and abortion-related violence. They sought to help those involved in the abortion conflict identify common ground and build a relationship. Their common ground process is not designed to change the views of participants about the issue of abortion. It does not present new "objective" information that can settle the issue once and for all.Through the sharing of stories and an examination of the perceptions each side holds of the other, it facilitates a dialogue that builds relationship and helps parties see those areas where mutual action may be possible. Cooperative ventures coming out of abortion dialogue groups include jointly authored papers on adoption and community initiatives to prevent teen pregnancy and promote family life education.This article explores and analyzes the day-long dialogue workshop developed by Jacksteit and Kaufmann, housed at The Network for Life and Choice, a project of Search for Common Ground in Washington, D.C. In 1995-96, the authors were engaged to do an evaluation of this process. As evaluators, we had the opportunity to observe the process and conduct interviews with Network directors, steering committee members, local organizers, and participants from several North American cities. Our research convinced us that use of the dialogue process is an important and encouraging development in public policy dispute resolution with unmined potential for application to other divisive social issues. This article summarizes our findings, including the main features of the common ground process and its products including reconciliation and the development of trust, empathy, and a culture...

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Confrontations between youths and the police are increasingly frequent in the United States as police lead the effort to reduce youth gangs, crime, and violence. As a result, police-youth relations are characterized by hostility, mistrust, misunderstandings and stereotypes. This article outlines a tenstage dialogue process to improve relations between police and gang-related youths in a suburb near Washington, D.C. In addition to describing techniques used in this case, the authors offer advice on how such efforts could be improved.I ncreased youth violence and gang involvement has led to numerous prevention and intervention efforts in cities and towns throughout the United States. Since police officers are often charged with cracking down on youth offenders and gangs, relations between many police officers and youths are characterized by mutual hostility, mistrust, misunderstandings and stereotypes. The increasing instances and escalating severity of gang violence and juvenile crime in the Washington, D.C., area, along with the resulting conflicts between police and gangs, had devastating side effects in both urban and suburban communities in the region. One such effect was the general public's increased fear and suspicion of both youths and police.