Dialogue

Co-chairs: Lorraine Blouin, Chi-Chung Keung, Leticia Suarez and Janice Tomson

As the Commission was developing the new standards, it became evident that if an institution is to ensure that its resources and processes support student learning and its continuous assessment, as well as the pursuit of institutional excellence and improvement, an “on-going, self-reflective dialogue” must become central to institutional processes. This dialogue, it was thought, should serve to provide a college community with the means to integrate of the elements of the standards, resulting in a comprehensive institutional perspective that would serve to verify integrity and “promote quality and improvement.” Accordingly, the subtitle of the Introduction to the Accreditation Standards is “Shaping the Dialogue.”

A dialogue is a group discussion among “colleagues”, often facilitated, that is de-signed to explore complex issues, create greater group intelligence and facilitate group learn-in. The idea of “colleagues” is important; dialogue occurs where individuals see them-selves as colleagues. In order for the group to engage in dialogue, individuals must suspend their own views to listen fully to one another in order to understand each other’s view-points. Groups engaged in dialogue develop greater insights, shared meanings and ultimately, collective understanding of complex issues and how best to address them.

Dialogue improves collective thinking. A practice of dialogue can have benefits for the individual as well as the institution. Dialogue can help build self-awareness, improve communication skills, strengthen teams and stimulate innovation that fosters effective change. Dialogues are powerful, transformational experiences that lead to both personal and collaborative action. But dialogic discussions also allow controversial topics that may have in the past become sources of disagreement and division to be explored in a more useful context that can lead to greater group insight.

The Standards emphasize dialogue as a means for an institution to come to collective understanding of what it means to be learning-focused in the context of a particular institution’s history and mission; of what the meaningful student learning outcomes at the program and degree level should be, and on how institutional resources and processes might be structured to support the improvement of student learning.

Unlike debate, in which most academicians are trained to seek to score points and to persuade, the goal of dialogue is mutual understanding and respect. Dialogue involves active listening, seeking to understand, giving everyone the opportunity to talk, and trying not to interrupt. A conscious commitment to engage in dialogue ensures that a group welcomes a range of viewpoints during its search for effective ways of addressing important issues. Retaining the use of a facilitator can help ensure that the ground rules are maintained and can help clarify themes and ideas.

While dialogue may not lead to a resolution of a conflict, it can lead to a makeover of the way in which the conflict is pursued from one which is destructive and divisive to one which is constructive and leads to personal and institutional growth. Too often on campus we avoid certain controversial topics or we take a perspective that leaves us in about the same place we started, with little to no additional understanding of the issue. By assisting in the discovery of common ground and by developing increased willingness to work collegially to illuminate and solve problems, dialogue has the potential to improve an institution’s ability to deal with the inevitable disagreements that arise in the life of an institution.

The new Standards’ focus on student learning calls for higher education institutions to deal with a very complex issue, improving student learning. It also calls on institutions to change–and to learn. Dialogue can be a powerful strategy for generating the creative discussions and collective wisdom that can enable institutional change.

“Guide To Evaluating Institutions Using ACCJC 2002 Standards“
See complete Guide at their website: www: accjc.org —core documents, self study