ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Strategies to Help Overcome Polarization
Please note: As some literature contains information pertinent to both the causes of
polarization and strategies to help overcome it, entries in this document may be repeated in
the Polarization and its Causes annotated bibliography. These entries are noted with an
asterisk (*). With entries listed in both annotated bibliographies, we have endeavoured to
describe the parts of the source document that pertain to causes of polarization in the first
bibliography and the parts pertaining to strategies for overcoming it in the second.
Anand, N. (2020, February). The radical act of choosing common ground [Video].
TEDxBerkeley.
https://www.ted.com/talks/nisha_anand_the_radical_act_of_choosing_common_gr
ound_mar_2020
Nisha Anand speaks very hopefully about the power of bridge-building as she
experienced it in her work across party lines to achieve criminal justice reform in
2015. Says, “If we want large-scale change, we need large movements, and that
means working across the aisle”. Once the National Director for the War Resisters
League, she eventually found her way to working cooperatively with the Department
of Defense. Anand urges us as listeners to think about an issue we care deeply about:
What would it look like to solve that problem? Could we get there with just our circle
of friends? How can we expand that circle a little more? Can we think of any unlikely
allies, strange partners? Who’s stopping us from finding that common ground, and is
there room for them in that circle? Anand says we need to love those people who
might not love us back. “Step into your courage!” “Who’s your Newt [Gingrich]?
Who’s your Koch?” Our goal should be to find our shared humanity, our ability to be
there together with each other in shared space - physical and civic and political – and
to steward the commons: those resources we inherit and create together.

A n no ta ted Bib liog ra p h y: S tra teg ies to H elp Ov ercom e P o la riza tion
Jun e 2 02 2

1

Bail, C.A., Argyle, L, Brown, T., Bumpus, J.P., Chen, H., Hunzaker, M.B.F., Lee, J., Mann, M., Merhout, F. &
Volfovsky, A., (2018). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political
polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804840115
United States citizens identifying as Democrats and Republicans were offered financial
compensation (albeit very minimal) to follow internet bots that exposed them to opposing
political views in an effort to see if this would moderate them. The effect after one month was
that Republicans came to express substantially more conservative views while Democrats’
attitudes became “slightly more liberal” (but not to the level of statistical significance). Findings
suggest that exposure to opposing political views will tend to increase polarization rather than
reducing it, at least among Twitter users in the USA, who are, admittedly, a minority but one
with “outsized influence”. Researchers were unable to determine the mechanism that would
explain the paradoxical effect. However, they suggested that increasing exposure to opposing
political views on social media may be counter-productive, and that messages delivered by nonelites in offline settings might be more effective.
Berman, T. (2016). Listen to learn: We need to stop choosing sides and start choosing progress.
Alternatives Journal, 42(4),74.
Writing at the unprecedented time of an NDP government in Alberta, veteran environmental
activist Tzeporah Berman offers a personal take on the need for complex thinking and inclusive
climate activism that involves listening to all Canadians. We need the ability, she says, to talk to
“engineers and boiler makers in the oilsands...[we need] energy incumbents, big oil, gas and coal
executives turning their formidable minds to driving investment capital...to low-carbon
infrastructure.” Sadly, we are choosing sides before the conversation has even begun. Instead,
we need to widen our world and read from diverse sources, so it is “harder to stay in our land
with blinders on.” Berman reminds us that there are “good people everywhere – good people
who sometimes make bad decisions.” To make better decisions, we need to give each other a
little credit. And that starts with listening.
Born, P. (2012). Community conversations: Mobilizing the ideas, skills, and passion of community
organizations, governments, businesses, and people. BPS Books.
This book resulted out of the recognition of “the growing complexity of our societies’ needs and
the elementary nature of the tools available to fix them” (p. 1). The first part of the book is
theoretical and uses anecdotes and examples of community conversations. Born explores the
four building blocks of great community conversations: conversing, engaging, collaborating, and
casting a vision. For example, in the section on “conversing,” Born discusses the nature of
dialogue and the need to suspend our assumptions. In the second part of the book, ten stories
A n no ta ted Bib liog ra p h y: S tra teg ies to H elp Ov ercom e P o la riza tion
Jun e 2 02 2

2

of community conversations illustrate the techniques involved in community conversations.
Examples of techniques employed are Conversation Cafes, Open Space conversations, Peer to
Peer Conversations, and Appreciative Inquiries. Born does a great job of balancing theory with
examples of practical techniques.
* Brubaker, D. R., Brubaker, E. N., Yoder, C. E., & Haase, T. J. (2019). When the center does not hold:
Leading in an age of polarization. Fortress Press.
Chapter 2: Leadership and Polarization – David R. Brubaker provides capacity suggestions from
leaders who have successfully navigated polarized environments, including: engaging conflict as
it emerges, learning how to manage polarities instead of resolving conflict, acting as a role
model for positive behaviour, speaking your truth (as informed by one’s core values), and
protecting people within your organization (pp. 42-44). Opposite to the toxic behaviours that
fuel polarization, three positive behaviours to act upon and emulate are “engagement,
openness, and respect.” (p. 43).
Chapter 3: Communicating Across the Divide – by David Brubaker and his son, Everett
Brubaker. This chapter focuses on communication and the polarizing limits of everyday
language. The authors suggest an exercise: write down a word and its antonym. The task is then
to find a word in-between. Trying to find the parts in between takes more thinking and
intentionality.
Chapter 4: Trauma, Polarization, and Connection – by Carolyn Yoder. She urges people to look
at trauma, encouraging the examination of polarization through a trauma-informed lens, as
unaddressed trauma may lie at the root of many of our polarized social systems. The author
advises people to respond to trauma in ways that require reflection, rather than responding
instinctually in the form of a trauma response. She states that overcoming polarization begins
with an individual commitment to thinking and acting in new ways.
Chapter 6: Weathering Polarization with Resilience – by Teresa J. Haase. This chapter examines
the tools needed to combat polarization. The author lists the twelve key tools we can use to
properly implement a resilience framework in our lives and in our discourse: increasing stress
tolerance, accepting ambiguity (rejecting false binaries), self-awareness, ingenuity, vulnerability,
making meaning (co-creating and reimagining meaning), safety and security, weathering the
storm (preparing for possible precariousness), embracing the unknown (trusts and faith), selfcare, accepting reality, and maintaining resilience.
Chapter 6: Transforming Polarization – This chapter discusses how polarization operates at
multiple levels: the intrapersonal (inside of us), the interpersonal (between us as individuals),
and the organizational or congregational level. The text details the qualities that are necessary
A n no ta ted Bib liog ra p h y: S tra teg ies to H elp Ov ercom e P o la riza tion
Jun e 2 02 2

3

for one to combat polarization on each level. On the intrapersonal level, Brubaker advises that
we must: 1) refuse contempt (anger mixed with disgust) for others, 2) honour dignity (believing
that dignity is an inherent property of all humans) and 3) broaden binaries (extend beyond
‘either/or’ and limited binary language). On the interpersonal level he advises that people must
1) seek understanding, 2) invite disagreement, and 3) stay connected (notwithstanding abuse).
When addressing organizations or congregations, Brubaker claims that it is not the item of
polarization that is the ‘issue’, it is (instead) the history, attitudes, and processes (dynamics) we
engage in. Polarized conflict appears when pre-existing tensions have the chance to use a point
of conflict as a scapegoat (so the true issues are never addressed). Accepting the true issue
allows for transparency and empowers people to decide the appropriate movement forward.
Brubaker also suggest that steps must also be taken in the political realm, claiming we must: 1)
restructure binary politics, 2) change religious culture (create a broader understanding of
spiritual compassion) and 3) rebuild civil society (improving local communities).
Bruneau, E. G., & Saxe, R. (2012). The power of being heard: The benefits of ‘perspective giving’ in the
context of intergroup conflict. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 855-866.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.017
This study aimed to determine the impacts perspective-giving and -taking had on attitudes
toward the out group. Members of opposing sides work in dyads with video and text: one plays
Sender (perspective giver) and one plays Responder (perspective taker). The Sender explains
their problems, and the Responder summarizes in their own words. It showed significant (if
short-term) impact on attitudes when perspective giving as a minority or oppressed group, and
perspective taking as a dominant group.
Cloke, K. (2018). Politics, dialogue and the evolution of democracy: How to discuss race, abortion,
immigration, gun control, climate change, same sex marriage and other hot topics. Goodmedia
Press.
Kenneth Cloke is a leading expert in dispute resolution and mediation and the founder of
Mediators Beyond Borders. In this book - just one of a great many he has authored or coauthored - Cloke outlines the various attitudes, behaviours, skills, capacities, processes, and
relationships we need to cultivate in order to discuss political ideas and beliefs while avoiding or
minimizing bias, diatribes, and dangerously adversarial ways of relating across political divides.
Given the vast and profound changes that are necessary, Cloke calls for nothing short of a
“conflict revolution.” Chapters cover such topics as the nature, neurophysiology, and morality of
political conflict; designing, organizing, and facilitating political dialogues; and imagining
interest-based solutions to global conflicts. A surprisingly prescient chapter (Ch 8), given the
date of publication, speaks to global pandemics, national borders and political problem-solving.
Of particular note is Cloke’s insistence on keeping dissent, diversity, and debate alive and on
A n no ta ted Bib liog ra p h y: S tra teg ies to H elp Ov ercom e P o la riza tion
Jun e 2 02 2

4

facing conflict, not avoiding it. He writes that “condemning both sides as equally responsible for
political conflicts, or trying to appear neutral when neutrality has ceased to exist, are common
forms of conflict avoidance. The middle ground in politics, as in life, is usually overly simplistic
and sometimes cowardly, like advocating a middle ground between equality and slavery,
honesty and lying, diversity and genocides, fairness and bigotry” (p. 62). Cloke warns that in
designing political conversations we must not lose sight of power differences (i.e., not see
aggressor and oppressed groups as equally aggrieved) nor see dialogue as a substitute for
action.
Commons, M. L., & Goodheart, E. A. (2008). Cultural progress is the result of developmental level of
support. World Futures, 64(5-7), 406-415. https://10.1080/02604020802301360
The authors present an argument for ‘scaffolding’ – the deliberate creation of levels of support
to help individuals move to higher levels of competence in dealing with complexity. They
suggest that scaffolding will enable social, cultural, and scientific progress in individual and
collective behaviours as well as social institutions. Drawing on decades of work in adult
development, the authors define various levels of support that can be offered to learners. These
range from walking individuals through a new task, to giving direct instruction with prompts and
cues, to delayed imitation or observational learning. At the mid-range of a competency scale, an
individual is capable of unaided problem-solving. From there, they progress to being able to
generate examples of narrowly defined issues, to being able to identify a problem that is
representative of a given phenomenon, to an instance in which to solve that problem, to being
able to recognize phenomena. The relevance to overcoming polarization is implicit.
Very few thinkers in a society will ever progress to the final stages of development, but through
“downward assimilation” a problem that is “of too high a stage to perform is made easier
through the provision of support” (p. 412). Downward assimilation happens through language –
e.g., “rhymes, poetry, songs, writing, manuscripts, libraries, books, printing, news media, broad
access to education, higher education, computers, and the Internet” (412). Codifying and
institutionalizing new norms through international documents and agreements (e.g., in the
arena of human rights) also helps speed cultural progress. New patterns of behaviour are the
cultural equivalent of genes; these were first termed ‘memes’ by Dawkins in 1982. It is the
quality of our education, training and communication that will determine whether there will be
downward transmission of progressive memes. Again, we must imagine the application of these
ideas to the task of overcoming polarization.

A n no ta ted Bib liog ra p h y: S tra teg ies to H elp Ov ercom e P o la riza tion
Jun e 2 02 2

5

Dhar, J. (2018, October). How to disagree productively and find common ground [Video]. TED@BCG
Toronto.
https://www.ted.com/talks/julia_dhar_how_to_disagree_productively_and_find_common_gro
und#t723531
Julia Dhar laments the fact that “contempt has replaced conversation” and suggests that we
must separate ideas from identity and re-learn the art of respectful face-to-face debate. Having
once thought that people who are most successful at persuading others must have “a magical
ability to make the polarizing palatable”, Dhar changed her mind upon observing them closely.
She found that “people who disagree the most productively start by finding common ground, no
matter how narrow it is. They identify the thing that we can all agree on and go from there.” By
creating a shared reality, they provide a platform to talk about conflict, and an antidote to
“alternative facts”. Dhar points to research that shows that the sound of the human voice is
literally humanizing. Consequently, we need to step away from our keyboards and brave the
face-to-face encounter with “the other”. She suggests imagining yourself stepping into someone
else’s shoes; soon, the suspicions you hold about people who hold those beliefs will start to
evaporate. We also need to guard against attaching to our ideas such that we own them and
they own us. We have to open ourselves to the possibility we might be wrong, embracing the
humility of uncertainty. What uncertainty are you humble about?
* Dutton, W. (2017, May 5). Fake news, echo chambers and filter bubbles: Under-researched and
overhyped. The Conversation (Canadian edition). https://theconversation.com/fake-news-echochambers-and-filter-bubbles-underresearched-and-overhyped-76688
Reports on a study carried out in seven nations (United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy,
Poland, and Spain) in January 2017, which surveyed 14,000 internet users. It found that internet
users who are the least skilled and least politically interested may be susceptible to fake news
and filter bubbles. The authors acknowledged that this population could benefit from digital
literacy training and support.
Featherstone, L. (2022, January 27). We’re all crazy in someone else’s eyes. The New Republic.
https://newrepublic.com/article/165167/were-crazy-someone-elses-eyes
Writing for the progressive magazine, The New Republic, Liza Featherstone is an author,
journalist and professor who suggests that we’re “always crazy to somebody.” Our choices can
seem reckless or overcautious, depending on the observer. Featherstone encourages us to be
self-reflective and consider that “Sometimes I am that guy”. She suggests that expanding both
our empathy and sympathy can reduce self-righteous behaviour that pits us against others in an
“us-versus-them" manner. We can “[look] at disagreements on a continuum, and [place]
ourselves on that continuum along with others... It helps us to argue more agreeably, protecting
A n no ta ted Bib liog ra p h y: S tra teg ies to H elp Ov ercom e P o la riza tion
Jun e 2 02 2

6

our relationships in a polarized and polarizing society.” After providing examples of current
polarized issues (e.g., COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, politics), Featherstone “points back
to the desperate need for radical empathy, despite our very human frustration with our
neighbours.” She suggests that radical empathy should be used for “political persuasion that
leads people to vote or show up to protests”, or for emphasizing “the urgency of climate
change.”
* French D. (2020). Divided we fall: America's secession threat and how to restore our nation. Macmillan.
The author suggests that divisions in social discourse and the cultural changes that are feeding
polarization can be solved with a re-boot of the idea of pluralism, both to prevent oppressive
factions from seizing control, and to restore a culture of kindness, decency, tolerance, and
grace.
Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Vintage.
Haidt argues that we are righteous beings by nature; we use reason to argue and persuade, not
to find truth. Morality is formed through our group associations, and influenced by our genetic
predispositions and our experiences. Haidt organizes our morality into six ‘tastes’ which he
believes are founded in evolution: care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal,
authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation, and liberty/oppression. Through numerous studies
he shows that American liberals favour the care/harm and fairness/cheating dimensions, while
conservatives show a more even balance across the six.
Our reward centre activates when given information that supports our own position and thus
“extreme partisanship may be literally addictive” (p. 103). Intelligence only improves our ability
to argue our own position, but Haidt believes that diversity of perspective, under conditions
which allow for respectful collaboration, is the path toward true truth-finding. Rather than using
rationality to bridge moral divide, Haidt recommends finding opportunities for positive
interactions and cultivating empathy, trying to understand the underlying moral dimensions
behind a conflict, and implementing measures of accountability.
* Harwood, R. C. (2022). Civic virus: why polarization is a misdiagnosis. The Harwood Institute for Public
Innovation. https://theharwoodinstitute.org/civic-virus-report
The Harwood Institute is a research organization in the United States that “equips people,
organizations, communities, and networks with the tools to bridge divides, build capacity, and
tackle shared challenges.” They have been analyzing American perceptions on “the state of the
nation, their lives, and hopes and concerns” since 1990 (p. 7).

A n no ta ted Bib liog ra p h y: S tra teg ies to H elp Ov ercom e P o la riza tion
Jun e 2 02 2

7

The author suggests there are opportunities to bridge societal divides and bring people
together. Change starts in our local communities, through community action (e.g., post-natural
disaster or as a result of the pandemic). It is “essential to create more spaces within
communities for people to come together across real and perceived differences. These spaces
must be safe, where people feel able to express themselves, especially views that may not be
fully formed” (p. 58). We need to amplify “listening and empathy, where people seek to
understand one another’s perspectives and lived experiences. These conversations should begin
with people focusing on their shared aspirations” (p. 58). The author also urges societal
interventions such as: more common efforts (people in shared actions); developing
courageous/humble/community-minded leaders; investing/supporting local journalism and
media; creating more boundary-spanning organizations and groups; and generating a new “cando” counternarrative (pp. 57-60).
Hayhoe, K. (2021). Saving us: A climate scientist’s case for hope and healing in a divided world. One
Signal Publishers.
Hayhoe is an evangelical Christian climate scientist who has been learning and practicing how to
talk to diverse audiences about climate change – one of the most politicized and divisive issues
of our time. She indicates that data, facts, and science add to polarization because they engage
defense mechanisms and self-justification. Having conversations about climate change is
challenging because of a combination of tribalism, complacency, and fear that surrounds the
topic. Hayhoe argues that when you begin a conversation with something that unites, such as
starting with something you have in common, the conversation starts at a place of respect,
agreement and understanding. This leads to positive conversations that bridge divides.
Throughout the book she gives tools and examples on how to have these positive conversations.
This includes understanding basic climate science and taking inventory of who you are and what
you might have in common with others. If you don’t know what matters to others, ask them.
Sharing our lived experiences is more important than sharing facts. When you find out what
people care about, you can connect climate impacts to those values. Hayhoe summarizes the
various research on cognitive psychology as it pertains to how we think about climate change
and suggests methods to overcome barriers, such as the depolarizing power of sharing local
climate impacts. Talking matters because conversations that connect over shared values reach
into our hearts and move past the barriers of “us” and “them”. The simple act of having a
conversation triggers a positive feedback effect that can lead to action on climate change.

A n no ta ted Bib liog ra p h y: S tra teg ies to H elp Ov ercom e P o la riza tion
Jun e 2 02 2

8

* Hoggan, J. (2019.) I’m right and you’re an idiot: the toxic state of public discourse and how to clean it
up. New Society Publishers.
This book by James Hoggan, Canadian public relations specialist, summarizes interviews with
public figures to examine what causes the degradation of public discourse and present
solutions. Hoggan suggests that we can release ourselves from psychological cycles of inaction
and denial by finding common ground, suspending judgement, centring ourselves in empathy,
listening deeply, behaving with humility, and increasing our respect for one another. How we
frame an issue can contribute to hateful, divisive messages, or help people to create new
opinions and beliefs. It all depends on the emotions and values our frame emphasizes.
Interventions for polarized public discourse include acknowledging our “blind spots”,
acknowledging the validity of others’ viewpoints, bringing in pluralistic narrative resources,
communicating using the language of values, and staying within your own desired frame.
Inglis, J. (2011). "Holistic democracy” and citizen motivation to use a more holistic approach to public
decision-making. Integral Review, 7(2), 4-46. https://www.integralreview.org/issues/vol_7_no_2_inglis_holistic_democracy_and_citizen_motivation.pdf
Author Jan Inglis is an educator and researcher with expertise in public engagement processes.
Inglis writes about the need for public engagement processes that can avoid polarization by
addressing the complexity of public issues without simplifying them. Such processes must be
carefully designed to facilitate critical reflection and the emergence of multiple possible
solutions based on a shared understanding and agreed-upon definition of the social problem at
hand. They must also support the contributions of diverse interested parties and motivate their
continued participation. Carefully designed deliberative processes can help participants consider
“their tone and intentions in their own politics or ways of relating to each other” (p. 30) as well
as the impacts of any possible course of action on relationships within the community (p. 38).
Inglis, J. (2015). Matching public interaction skills with desired outcomes.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242747814_Matching_Public_Interaction_Skills_wit
h_Desired_Outcomes
In this article, Jan Inglis provides the theory behind public participation/interaction and how we
must first identify our desired outcomes to then inform how we engage our stakeholders.
Described is Inglis’ “Scale of Public Interaction” (SPI), which approaches public interaction as a
progression of tasks, each requiring different skill sets and producing different outcomes (p. 7).
It offers five different types of public interactions and their respective benefits and negatives:
casual talk, opinion talk, strategic talk, facilitated dialogue, and developmental processes for
comprehensive social change (p. 7).

A n no ta ted Bib liog ra p h y: S tra teg ies to H elp Ov ercom e P o la riza tion
Jun e 2 02 2

9

Inglis, J., & Steele, M. (2005). Complexity intelligence and cultural coaching: Navigating the gap between
our societal challenges and our capacities. Integral Review, 1. https://integralreview.org/issues/issue_1_inglis_and_steele_complexity_intelligence_and_cultural_coaching.pd
f
This article identifies capacities that ideally develop within adults as we progress through life,
encountering and rising to the complex, interconnected, and unpredictable challenges it
presents. The term ‘complexity intelligence’ is used to refer to a combination of reasoning
ability, emotional capacity, and social cognition (i.e., reasoning in a social context). It is the gap
between what we can currently do and what we need to be able to do that can stimulate the
development of complexity intelligence, but many of us fail to bridge that gap. Furthermore, this
capacity is one that can be developed not only in individuals but collectively, as society.
However, the authors contend that it will require “a new form of social change agent – a cultural
coach, to midwife its emergence” (p. 36). Public processes can also be designed to support the
emergence of this capacity, but these should not explicitly try to teach concepts so much as
offer opportunities for experiential learning through their application. It is also important not to
treat gaps (where capacity to meet challenges is not yet present) as either signs of moral failing
or “permanent incompetencies” (p. 38) but rather, to recognize that adult development can and
should be ongoing.
As the locus of social change is not in the individual, but in individuals’ interaction with culture,
we need a sufficient proportion of the population to develop these capacities so we can “reason
and reflect together and commit to a process of public deliberation or generative dialogue out
of which adaptive responses to problems [can] emerge… without ‘numbing out’ or splitting into
reactive camps” (p. 39). To develop these cognitive and emotional capacities, we need the right
combination of challenge and support. We also need carefully designed processes that create
appropriate containers for dialogue and deliberation, surface diversity and differences, spur
creativity, and lead to transformative exchanges. We need to develop the ability to give fair
consideration of others’ perspectives, engage in critical self-reflection about our own positions
and social conventions, and generate novel solutions to social problems.
* Itten, A.V. (2018). Overcoming social division: Conflict resolution in times of polarisation and
democratic disconnection. Routledge.
Itten advocates for public conflict resolution, civic fusion, and mediative decision-making to help
us re-learn how to find common ground on controversial issues. The book includes strategies
and conditions that are important for mediative interventions to be successful in overcoming
social divisions.

A n no ta ted Bib liog ra p h y: S tra teg ies to H elp Ov ercom e P o la riza tion 10
Jun e 2 02 2

Kahane, A. (2017). Collaborating with the enemy: how to work with people you don't agree with or like
or trust. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
In an increasingly complex world, more than ever we need to collaborate on our trickiest
problems. Conventional collaboration, which assumes agreement on the problem and the
solution, and requires a controlled execution of the plan, has become obsolete. To collaborate
with people that we don’t agree with or like or trust, Kahane advocates for “stretch
collaboration”, where we must abandon ideals of consensus and control, and embrace the mess
of diverse truths (p. 3). Stretch collaboration requires us to accept and appreciate the
connection and the discord amongst the group; to experimentally test possibilities together (“it
is more important to act than to agree” (p. 76)); and to abandon ideas of how others must
change and instead invest ourselves fully, with an openness to be changed. As we are “crossing
the river by feeling for stones,” participants must be able to “act freely and creatively,” testing
small steps and framing mistakes as learning experiences (p. 76).
Kahane, A. (2021). Facilitating breakthrough: how to remove obstacles, bridge differences, and move
forward together. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Kahane is a facilitation expert who has supported conflict transformation in polarized situations
across the globe. He is humble, acknowledging his privileged life and noting when he made
mistakes and what he learned from them. He argues that transformative facilitation, a
framework for successful communication, is what is needed to move forward together. This
unconventional approach describes 10 outer moves (that a facilitator employs to support their
group/participants) and 5 inner shifts (that a facilitator brings attention to within themselves).
The pairs of moves are inherently polarized. This approach may be a suitably applied to the
coordination of a social laboratory (or other change management process).
Transformative facilitation is a dance between vertical facilitation (organized hierarchically,
relying on expertise and authority) and horizontal facilitation (organized equally, relying on
autonomy and variety). Kahane suggests there are five questions that all collaborations must
address in order to move forward together: 1) How do we see our situation? 2) How do we
define success? 3) How do we get from here to there? 4) How do we decide who does what? 5)
How do we understand our role? By paying attention to the needs of the group while answering
these questions, the facilitator cycles back and forth between five pairs of outer moves.
Coinciding with each of the collaborative questions, the outer moves are: inquiring/advocating,
advancing/concluding, discovering/mapping, accompanying/directing, and standing inside the
group/standing outside the group. The facilitator simultaneously makes internal shifts: opening
up, discerning, adapting, serving, and partnering. This helps the collaborative group move
forward together while navigating barriers and polarization. It also removes the obstacles to
love, power, and justice. “Love is the drive towards unity that in a collaboration manifests as
A n no ta ted Bib liog ra p h y: S tra teg ies to H elp Ov ercom e P o la riza tion 11
Jun e 2 02 2

connection among the participants and between them and their situation. Power is the drive
towards self-realization that manifests as the contributions that participants make to their
collaborative work and to their situation. Justice is the structure that enables and directs love
and power and that manifests as equity within the group and, through their work in the
situation” (p. 144).
* Kenyon, T. (2014). False polarization: Debiasing as applied social epistemology. Synthese, 191, 2529–
2547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-014-0438-x
The author defines “false polarization (FP)” as an “interpersonal bias on judgement, the effect of
which is to lead people in contexts of disagreement to overestimate the differences between
their respective views.” (p. 2529).
Kenyon proposes debiasing as a strategy for avoiding or minimizing FP (p. 2532). Current
evidence has several conclusions about mitigating biases: teaching people about biases doesn’t
reliably lead to debiasing, experimental debiasing strategies are complicated/ artificial/
unintuitive, and it is difficult to implement them individually in informal circumstances. (p.
2533). Kenyon suggests that debiasing can be successful by emphasizing “the judgement, rather
than the agent.” (p. 2534). They propose that the most plausible approach to debiasing is to
create “social infrastructure that supports debiasing... [such as] institutionally and socially
positioning facilitators” (p. 2545). For example, “judges who instruct jurors on the unbiased
interpretation of evidence” (p. 2545).
Kieboom, M. (2014). Lab matters: Challenging the practice of social innovation laboratories. Kennisland.
https://www.kl.nl/en/publications/lab-matters-challenging-the-practice-of-social-innovationlaborat/
This is a critical report on social innovation laboratories (labs) as vehicles for systems change.
Written as a summary report following a gathering of 40 social lab practitioners in Amsterdam,
it is a refreshingly honest, insider look at what social labs could do better. It includes an
overview of different types of social labs and how they work, and a discussion of four critiques
of social labs that the author feels explain the lag between the hype and tangible results to date.
These are: 1) a tendency to “solutionism” (a default to incremental improvements that are built
on existing ways of doing things and do not take into account how complex systems adapt and
move) (p. 24); 2) a failure to account for power, inequality, and politics, both within labs (which
are not value-neutral or providing equal benefits to all) and within society where other actors,
including social movements, can bring about or impeded transformations; 3) a need to focus
more on scaling up ideas; and 4) a failure to account for the messiness of human interactions
and social dynamics. The author argues that instead of incrementalism, systemic change calls for

A n no ta ted Bib liog ra p h y: S tra teg ies to H elp Ov ercom e P o la riza tion 12
Jun e 2 02 2

discontinuous change: “change that displaces an established structural order for something
new” (p. 13).
Kraybill, R., & Wright, E. (2007). Little book of cool tools for hot topics: Group tools to facilitate meetings
when things are hot. Good Books.
This gem of a book will excite those looking for quick-to-learn structured processes – tools – that
facilitators can use to manage conflict, check in with a group, energize participants, gather
information, hold dialogues, build understanding, manage polarities, use stories to explore
contentious issues, find our common humanity, see the world through others’ eyes, evaluate
group processes and bring closure after conflict. Each tool is briefly summarized and the exact
procedures for using it laid out. Strengths, sequencing, and special concerns are noted. The
book’s 85 pages outline almost 30 tools and include recommendations of further resources to
explore. Quick and easy to read, this book is excellent value for both time and money.
Manji, I. (2011). Allah, liberty & love. Random House Canada.
Irshad Manji is a self-described faithful Muslim who advocates for secularism as the only form of
society in which diversity of belief can thrive. She advocates critical thinking about Muslim
practices and has been recognized for daring to step beyond the narrow confines of disciplined
adherence to dogma. Taking her book Faith Without Fear on the road, she encountered many
people who told her that they were struggling with the cultures, traditions and power structures
that were fencing in their own religious experiences (p. 13). Manji calls for the application of
moral courage so we may “learn how to transform high defences about “the Other” and low
expectations of ourselves into the opposite—higher expectations of ourselves and lower
defences about ‘the Other’” (p. 17). She also says that we need gutsy thinking: “Muslims and
non-Muslims who live in democracies have to develop the spine to expand individual liberty, not
stunt it, because without the freedom to think and express there can be no integrity—of the self
or society” (p. 15). Manji advocates for pluralism that does not devolve into relativism – falling
for anything because we stand for nothing. She says that Muslims must not give in to fearfully
thinking that “questions only make matters worse, especially in an already polarized
environment” (p. 199). Muslims must instead break with conformity and become more open
about expressing the diverse “palette of views” they already hold.
Manji, I. (2022). Diversity without division: Introducing the moral courage method of communicating
across divides [Online course].
https://diversitywithoutdivision.thinkific.com/courses/diversitywithoutdivision
Irshad Manji's online course is framed as "the no-shaming alternative to mainstream inclusion
training," and aims to broaden the definition of diversity to include diversity of thought. The
A n no ta ted Bib liog ra p h y: S tra teg ies to H elp Ov ercom e P o la riza tion 13
Jun e 2 02 2

course trains the learner to conduct "Moral Courage" workshops which focus on "constructive
conflict" strategies through collaborative roleplay and reflection.
Montibeller, G., & Von Winterfeldt, D. (2015). Cognitive and motivational biases in decision and risk
analysis. Risk Analysis, 35(7), 1230-1251. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12360
This article discusses biases that are specific to decision-making and risk analysis, and contains
some discussion of biases and debiasing techniques that are relevant to group polarization.
Specifically, the authors define affect-influenced bias (“an emotional predisposition for, or
against, a specific outcome or option that taints judgements”); confirmation bias (“a desire to
confirm one’s belief, leading to unconscious selectivity in the acquisition of and use of
evidence”); optimism bias (occurring when “the desirability of an outcome leads to an increase
in the extent to which it is expected to occur”); and its opposite, which we may think of as a
pessimism bias (occurring when there is “a desire to be cautious, prudent, or conservative in
estimates that may be related to harmful consequences”). In each of these cases, de-biasing
strategies involve referring to multiple experts with alternative points of view. Confirmation bias
can also be countered by “challeng[ing] probability assessments with counterfactuals” and
“prob[ing] for evidence of alternative hypotheses.” Affect-influenced bias can be countered by
avoiding “loaded descriptions of consequences” (p.1235).
Pearlman, E. (2019). Building journalism-supported conversations between people on opposing sides of
divisive issues. [Video]. TED Conferences.
https://www.ted.com/talk/eve_pearlman_how_to_lead_a_conversation_between_people_who
_disagree
Pearlman reports on a project in which journalists brought together people on opposite sides of
deep social-political divides - 25 liberals from California and 25 conservatives from Alabama - to
talk about contentious issues in a closed Facebook group for one month. The journalists started
by asking participants what they thought the other side thought of them; participants began to
see the simplistic and often mean-spirited images others held of them. People came to the
conversations with anger but in the end were glad, and relieved, at the chance to put down their
arms, and were grateful for the opportunity. Pearlman reports that it was “difficult and
challenging work” to “listen around and through our own habits of minds and biases”. Qualities
and practices that helped were restraint, self-awareness, curiosity, and an emphasis on
discussion, not debate. About two-thirds of the people went on after the end of the month to
establish their own Facebook groups.

A n no ta ted Bib liog ra p h y: S tra teg ies to H elp Ov ercom e P o la riza tion 14
Jun e 2 02 2

* Pinker, S., & Wood, J. Jr. (Host). (2021, June 2). Cancel culture, communication, & the quest for
humanism. [Podcast episode]. Braver Angels. https://youtu.be/QxkU_Rsgn8c
John Wood Jr. (Braver Angels) interviews Steven Pinker, who claims that the nature of the news
causes us to feel our institutions are failing and that everything is getting worse, even when
there is data showing progress. Pinker emphasizes the importance of recognizing the value of all
ideas, as this acknowledgement and openness can bring us closer to good ideas (e.g., anti-cancel
culture). He advocates for a centring on the facts/data, developing a position of “active openmindedness” or “epistemic humility” (i.e., the awareness of our own fallibility to help us
maintain openness), and finding a common goal.
Porter, T., & Schumann, K. (2018). Intellectual humility and openness to the opposing view.
Self and Identity, 17(2), 139-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2017.1361861
This article sets out to conceptualize intellectual humility (IH) – defined as “a willingness to
recognize the limits of one’s knowledge and appreciate others’ intellectual strengths” (p.140) –
and to relate it to openness to contrary viewpoints, particularly in socio-politically charged
discussions. Beginning with the idea that IH could be enhanced by reducing people’s motivation
to be “right” or intellectually superior to others, the researchers designed a study to test several
propositions about IH, including the possibility that promoting a growth mindset as a path to
higher intelligence could motivate people to inquire and interact with greater humility. Results
showed that making a growth mindset salient (and desirable) resulted in higher IH scores, more
respectful attributions (reasoning about why others might disagree), and more openness to
opposing ideas, at least temporarily. Researchers ruled out possible competing explanations like
IH being inversely related to the strength of opinions held by the participants, or to their selfesteem or confidence in their own intelligence. Results suggest a possible lever for long-term
change in terms of enhanced intellectual humility, and openness to listening across seemingly
intractable conflicts. The authors call for more research on other possible antecedents to higher
IH.
Ross, L. (2021, July). Don’t call people out – call them in [Video]. TEDMonterey.
https://www.ted.com/talks/loretta_j_ross_don_t_call_people_out_call_them_in
This TEDtalk is delivered by Professor Loretta J. Ross, a radical black feminist who has been
working for human rights for over four decades. In this presentation, Ross describes the
difference between calling out and calling in, and also identifies the characteristics and limits of
"call-out culture”. Calling out refers to the act of publicly shaming another person for their
behavior. Call-out culture has been at the forefront of two recent social movements: #MeToo
(against sexual abuse and sexual harassment) and global protests against police violence. As a
result, employees called out their bosses, consumers called out corporations, students called
A n no ta ted Bib liog ra p h y: S tra teg ies to H elp Ov ercom e P o la riza tion 15
Jun e 2 02 2

out peers, and victims called out abusers. Conversely, calling in occurs privately and respectfully,
rather like an act of love. Calling in involves three components: conversation, compassion, and
context. It does not condone or ignore the harm, slight or damage caused by calling out but sees
opportunities for growth and leverages the power of respectful, caring relationships to bring
about change.
Resnick, B. (2020, January 29). How to talk someone out of bigotry. Vox.
https://www.vox.com/2020/1/29/21065620/broockman-kalla-deep-canvassing
Brian Resnick reports on research on the relatively novel technique of “deep canvassing”.
Developed by LGBTQ rights organizer, Dave Fleischer, deep canvassing is a door-to-door
technique to help transform prejudices. It involves first asking residents for their opinions on a
subject like transgender rights or irregular immigration, and then really listening to their
answers. Canvassers then ask residents to recall a time when they were discriminated against,
or when someone showed them compassion when they really needed it. Canvassers help
residents connect the dots between their existing values and the positions that canvassers hope
they will support. Political scientists David Broockman and Josh Kalla have studied deep
canvassing extensively and found it to be more effective than conventional means of persuasion
– e.g., traditional canvassing, TV ads, phone calls – which aren’t really effective at all. They
suggest that the reason deep canvassing works is because the process of exchanging narratives
and having a truly non-judgmental, two-way conversation helps participants feel safe and
understood, while giving space for them to come to their own conclusions. Says Broockman,
“Twitter is obviously full of the notion that what we should do is condemn those who disagree
with us. What we can now say experimentally, the key to the success of these conversations is
doing the exact opposite of that.”
Scharmer, O., & Kaufer, K. (2013). Leading from the emerging future: From ego-system to eco-system
economics. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
This is a book that applies Theory U to transform business, society and self. Theory U is a
collection of concepts and tools to help lead to the emerging future. This includes presencing
(sensing and presence), levels of listening, critical process steps for holding spaces, awareness
based collective action, principles and practices for our individual journeys and stakeholder
interviews. While Theory U comes from the field of leadership and change management, some
of the concepts and tools can be applied with the lens of overcoming polarization.

A n no ta ted Bib liog ra p h y: S tra teg ies to H elp Ov ercom e P o la riza tion 16
Jun e 2 02 2

Schirch, L., & Campt, D. (2015). The little book of dialogue for difficult subjects: A practical, hands-on
guide. Good Books.
Schirch and Campt believe that dialogue is the essence of democracy. It generates deeper
insights and better thinking than any of us can do alone. The authors define dialogue as “a
process for talking about tension-filled topics” (p. 5) and helpfully explain how it is different
from conversation, discussion, training, education, or debate. The kinds of dialogue Schirch and
Campt outline are based on respectful listening, openness to learning, and an emphasis on
sharing the experiences that have shaped our beliefs, rather than just the beliefs themselves (p.
8). Effective dialogues are intentionally and carefully designed to engage intellect, emotions, and
spirit. They help participants discover similarities they didn’t know existed and engage in
collective analysis of a problem and commit to collaborative action. The authors identify
important pre-conditions for dialogue to be effective; types of dialogue; recruiting and inviting
participants to a dialogue; designing dialogue processes; facilitating dialogues; and moving from
dialogue to action.
Shnabel, N., Nadler, A., Ullrich, J., Dovidio, J. F., & Carmi, D. (2009). Promoting reconciliation through the
satisfaction of the emotional needs of victimized and perpetrating group members: The needsbased model of reconciliation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(8), 1021-1030.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0146167209336610
The Needs-Based Model of Reconciliation proposes that “successful reconciliation requires that
the different emotional needs of victims and perpetrators both be satisfied”; victims share a
sense of powerlessness and "loss of status and honor" whereas perpetrators suffer from a fear
of “moral inferiority” (p. 1022). In this study, Shnabel et al. test the Needs-Based Model of
Reconciliation, previously only studied in the context of interpersonal conflict, on intergroup
conflict. Participants on either side of a historical victim-perpetrator dynamic are given
messages (of either empowerment, or acceptance) and rated on their willingness to reconcile.
Victims receiving messages of empowerment, and perpetrators receiving messages of
acceptance were more likely to show willingness to reconcile.
* Silan, M.A.A. (2017, December). Debiasing in the political context or proceeding with political
polarization or surviving and creating change in this political climate. [Unpublished paper].
University of the Philippines Diliman.
Noting Lilienfeld and colleagues’ (2009) observation that cognitive distortions lead to attitudinal
polarization, Silan argues that debiasing can be a crucial tool in tackling ideological extremism
and inter- and intragroup conflict. Following Montibeller & von Winterfeldt (2015), Silan defines
de-biasing as “attempts to eliminate or reduce cognitive and/or motivational biases” (p. 2).
A n no ta ted Bib liog ra p h y: S tra teg ies to H elp Ov ercom e P o la riza tion 17
Jun e 2 02 2

Silan suggests trying to reframe issues by appealing to the moral foundations and values of the
listener (opponent). “That is to say, we change behaviors by changing perceptions of what is
normatively and politically acceptable” (p. 17). Moreover, he says, it is possible to change
behaviors without necessarily changing attitudes, morality or identity. He calls for humanization
and dialogue that seeks human connection without any goal of persuasion. He cites Broockman
and Kalla’s (2016) research on deep canvassing: “a mixture of deliberate and effortful
processing…and perspective-taking or imagining another person’s point of view” (p. 12). Finally,
Silan cites empirically validated contact theory that shows how intergroup exposure and contact
can facilitate the reduction of prejudice (p. 13). (See Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006; and Paluck, Green
S., & Green D., 2017 for a nuanced discussion).
* Stanley, M. L., Sinclair, A. H., & Seli, P. (2020). Intellectual humility and perceptions of political
opponents. Journal of personality, 88(6), 1196–1216. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12566
Matthew Stanley, Alyssa Sinclair and Paul Seli suggest that we need to recognize that social and
political disagreement can be useful and fruitful in “generating creative solutions to significant
problems and growing intellectually” (p. 34).
This requires “the willingness of opposing sides to try to understand opposing positions (de
Wied, Branje, & Meeus, 2007; Stone, Patton, & Heen, 2010).” Such willingness to understand
requires intellectual humility (IH) – defined as “the recognition that personal beliefs might be
wrong” (p.2). IH is accompanied by “a willingness to consider the limitations in the evidentiary
basis of one’s own personal beliefs, as well as awareness of one’s limitations in obtaining and
evaluating information that can inform one’s beliefs (Leary et al., 2017)” (p. 3). The authors
describe high IH manifesting as even-handed, extensive deliberation over the strength of
evidence for factual claims (Deffler, Leary, & Hoyle, 2016; Leary et al., 2017), along with an
interest in listening to the reasons and arguments that favor opponent views (Porter &
Schumann, 2018)” (pp. 3-4).
Experimentally, the authors explored the effects of informing participants that people who hold
opposing positions do not differ in IH, and found that “participants were less likely to derogate
opponents and somewhat more willing to befriend them” (p. 2). They conclude by saying that
“promoting intellectual humility as an epistemic virtue worth cultivating and informing the
public about research on IH has the potential to reduce social extremism, polarization, and the
frequency of unresolvable disagreements over time” (p. 34).

A n no ta ted Bib liog ra p h y: S tra teg ies to H elp Ov ercom e P o la riza tion 18
Jun e 2 02 2

* Sunstein, C.R. (1999). The law of group polarization. University of Chicago Law School, John M. Olin
Law & Economics Working Paper No. 91. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.199668
The focus of this article is on group polarization as it relates to the activity of deliberation as
found in juries, legislative bodies, political organizations, regulatory commissions, multimember
courts, faculties, student organizations, religious sects, and Internet discussion groups. It
suggests that the largest lesson provided by group polarization involves the need to structure
processes of deliberation to ensure that people are exposed, not to softer or louder echoes of
their own voices, but to a range of reasonable alternatives.
Timmermans, J., Blok, V., Braun, R., Wesselink, R., & Nielsen, R. (2020). Social labs as an inclusive
methodology to implement and study social change: the case of responsible research and
innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 7(30), 410-426.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2020.1787751
This article suggests that emergent social change can be addressed using social laboratories
(labs) and proposes a “scientifically grounded method” for taking a social lab approach to
research. The proposed methodology is a combination of novel social-lab characteristics such as
“agility and real-world focus” (p. 410), with action research and experiential learning, which are
more established methods. By incorporating experiential learning, we can systemically draw
upon and integrate ideas (abstract) and experiences (actual) (p. 412). Social labs have been
utilized to address sustainability, poverty alleviation, and municipal social cohesion (p. 414).
For a social lab to be effective, it is imperative to recruit and include a diverse group of “social
actors” and to develop an iterative and “flexible team process.” (p. 416). Central to social labs is
a “holistic view on capital”, wherein “actors in the lab require different forms of capital in order
to change social systems, for example, cultural, human, physical, and financial” (p. 414). Some
social labs have required participants to hold “essential capacities”, such as “epistemic humility,
creative confidence, and open-minded advocacy” (p. 416). Thereby, the authors suggest that the
selection of lab participants be representative and include “stakeholder mapping to the specific
field of the social challenge at hand” (p. 417).
The authors present the work of Kolb (2009) as a technique for developing an effective social
lab, where a four-phased approach is used: “concrete experience, reflective observation,
abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation” (p. 418). Participants cyclically and
iteratively “analyze and conceptualize a challenge from their concrete experiences, learn from
these experiences, and... plan actions from what they learned” (p. 418). To disseminate the
results of the lab and facilitate knowledge-sharing, lab participants then engage in dialogue and
interact with stakeholders from the “broader social context of the addressed social challenge”
(p. 418).
A n no ta ted Bib liog ra p h y: S tra teg ies to H elp Ov ercom e P o la riza tion 19
Jun e 2 02 2

Tuller, H. M., Bryan, C. J., Heyman, G. D., & Christenfeld, N. J. (2015). Seeing the other side: Perspective
taking and the moderation of extremity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 59, 18-23.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.02.003
In this study, two participants were asked to engage in a 'fast friends' protocol and were then
separated. They were polled on their position on a polarizing issue (weight discrimination;
legalized abortion). They were told their partner had the opposite perspective, on the extreme
end. Participants were asked to write from their partner's perspective on the issue. Depolarization was measured on a short-term scale and was found to be significant when the
participants met their partners and had accountability to them (they were led to believe they'd
meet them again, and that their partner would read what they'd wrote). Perspective taking
alone was not effective - no results in attitude moderation were shown when their work was
going to be evaluated by a panel of experts, for example.
* Ury, W., in Davidson, S. (2021). How to talk to an anti-vaxer.
https://www.saradavidson.com/blog/2021/11/how-to-talk-to-an-anti-vaxer
Author Sara Davidson interviewed conflict-resolution expert William Ury. According to Ury,
society is experiencing intractable conflicts – those that are hard to control and/or deal with
because they are not amenable to compromise. Ury suggests that negotiation could be a
capacity needed for navigating this type of polarization and details it as a three-step process. It
begins by pausing and consciously "observing, not participating." By slowing down and putting
aside our own "moral certainty and judgement", we are less likely to push someone away. Ury
calls the second step "building a golden bridge". This step is about being patient: listening with
intention and creating space for vulnerability. Ury suggests this can occur when we "speak about
[our] own experience and ... put [ourselves] in [others’] shoes." The last step is to activate our
wider community. This occurs "by reaching out to someone [we] disagree with... someone who
disagrees with [us] on fundamental things" (e.g., extended family, work colleagues, social
friends). Once we put ourselves in their shoes, Ury says we must "listen with curiosity,
openness, and compassion".
Ury uses several examples of international conflict to emphasize his point, specifically the Cold
War, South African apartheid, and the Egyptian/Israeli conflict. According to Ury, "... in all three
impossible cases, the conflict did not end, but it was transformed... it's not about outcome, it's
about process... If we focus on outcome, we'll be disappointed. But if we focus on process, we
see how impossible situations can shift." Regarding apartheid in South Africa, Ury explains that
by activating the whole society, an environment was created that transformed the conflict from
destructive to constructive. It took time, patience and using all techniques available, but
resolution was eventually found. Ury describes an intervention technique for conflict

A n no ta ted Bib liog ra p h y: S tra teg ies to H elp Ov ercom e P o la riza tion 20
Jun e 2 02 2

transformation: facilitated dialogue. Participants are asked "to tell a story about themselves, to
talk about what activated them to come into the public square."

A n no ta ted Bib liog ra p h y: S tra teg ies to H elp Ov ercom e P o la riza tion 21
Jun e 2 02 2