The original Common Ground project was developed by Mary Jacksteit and Dr. Adrienne Kaufmann in the 1990s to address the abortion debate and its growing violence. Even with an emotionally intractable issue like abortion, they found that once people of both sides listened to each other as people and saw what they shared in common, they could find areas where they could work together for positive outcomes.
The larger issue was not going to be solved and, in fact, no one should feel like their belief systems are being challenged. The point of this model is to show that where there may be division, there are also shared needs, beliefs, and values. There is room to work together within that space.
Common Ground is presented as a workshop, bringing sides together first for planning so there are agreed ground rules and invitees as well as a mutually agreeable meeting space. The numbers of participants are equal on each side as are any people in a leadership position. Facilitators are chosen with the faith of both sides that they will remain neutral throughout the workshop. They will be trained for the event. They must remain neutral or confidence in the process will fail, affecting the outcome.
Ground rules are extremely important in the process. Nothing is hidden and everything is explained from the beginning. The most important rule is that neither side can “sell” their position. The point is not to solve the issue but to learn about the other side and what areas of mutual agreement is shared.
The workshop is split into three elements: Questionnaire, initial small group session, and an afternoon session. The questionnaire allows attendees to gauge their perceived image compared to their counterparts and rate their positions on a number of ideological topics. When the results are revealed at the lunch break, it delivers both introspection and a fresh perspective of those around them.
Small group sessions are managed by trained, neutral facilitators. The morning session brings people together for guided discussion, allowing each person to speak uninterrupted about their lives and be heard. Through a process called “connective thinking,” individuals start listening to hear the strengths rather than the flaws in another’s experience. They learn to see the truth and common aspects in each other. The day is not a matter of debate but rather dialogue. There is understanding rather than polarization. By the time they enter the afternoon session, participants often start to see the space for cooperation and discuss how they can work together on projects. Sometimes more than one workshop is needed to build the trust and rapport to move forward towards cooperative action, but participants do note the change in perceptions after one day.
A Common Ground workshop is a shared neutral, confidential space where people speak honestly and listen in turn. People in the workshop learn how much they share in common and the benefit of dialogue over confrontation. Interests often align and allow for collaboration. The original workshops led to numerous cooperative projects in areas such as adoption and gun violence.
Interlocking Circles
When Mary Jacksteit and Adrienne Kaufmann developed Common Ground, they envisioned the concept as two interlocking circles. Both sides form a framework where the shared space allows cooperative action in shared values but they still retain their originality and separate beliefs. The workshop helps them transcend the polarizing issue and find the shared values.
So, Does Common Ground Work?
Common Ground is a model generated as a method of dispute resolution. While no model carries a guarantee, Common Ground was evaluated in the October 1, 1997 issue of Negotiation Journal by Michelle LeBaron and Christopher Carstarphen. It was later profiled in The Handbook of Conflict Resolution (1999). When there is an intractable dispute like the abortion issue, there is no a true resolution. Emotions are too high and measures go to extremes too often. But Common Ground finds a way to lower the levels of aggression and provide a way for people to have productive conversations. LeBaron and Carstarphen stated in their 1997 article, “The primary results reported by participants include reduced stereotypes, increased understanding, improved communication, uncovered common ground, and joint action on common ground issues.” It is one of the best options for finding hope in difficult areas.
When discussing the status of transgender youth in communities, both Jacksteit and Kaufmann agree that Common Ground is a promising model to help find workable solutions to keep transgender students safe and provide support. Kaufmann advised that it might take an incident in a town to allow a dispute resolution team to come in with a tool to help the community. However, in the current climate, some communities may welcome help in advance. As with abortion, the larger issues will not be resolved. Those are legal processes. Dispute resolution works on a different legal track. The potential cooperative projects and compromises could pay off in communities. This current project is examining the possibilities for the use of Common Ground for these students.