The SFCP aims to promote the Critical Philosophy through the linked activities of education and scholarship.

Charity No

313712

Aims, Procedures and Rules for Socratic Dialogue

Basic Aims

Summarised they are:

• To answer the question by seeking out the truth of the matter and to reach consensus -i.e. reaching a result or outcome;
  

• To experience the cooperative process of seeking the answer and to understand each other -i.e. engaging in the process;
• 
  To deepen individual insights and understanding particularly of ethical and value issues as the basis for social action -i.e. to enhance self-confidence in our ability to reason and to deal rationally with our emotions, and to conduct our lives accordingly.

Participants may not reach definitive outcomes in the form of agreed answers. This need not lead to disappointment because a positive experience of participation in cooperative thinking is of major importance and can be very rewarding as a learning process, and have profound meaning for one's life. In order to fulfill these aims, it is essential that all participants attend throughout from the beginning of the dialogue to its end.
 

Procedures

 The Socratic Dialogue normally uses the following procedures:

1.  A well formulated, general question, or a statement, is set by the facilitator before the discourse commences.
2.  The first step is to collect examples experienced by participants in which the given topic plays a key role.
3.  One example is chosen by the group, which will usually be the basis of the analysis and argumentation throughout the dialogue.
4. Crucial statements made by the participants are written down on a flip chart or board, so that all can have an overview of the discourse.

Rules for participants

There are eight basic rules for participants in the Socratic Dialogue:

1. Each participant's contribution is based upon what s/he has experienced, not upon what s/he has read or heard.
2. The thinking and questioning is honest. This means that only genuine doubts about what has been said should be expressed.
3. It is the responsibility of all participants to express their thoughts as clearly and concisely as possible, so that everyone is able to build on the ideas contributed by others earlier in the dialogue.
4. This means careful listening by everyone to all contributions. It also means active participation so that everyone's ideas are woven into the process of cooperative thinking.
5. Participants should not concentrate exclusively on their own thoughts, they should make every effort to understand those of other participants and if necessary seek clarification.
6. Anyone who has lost sight of the question or of the thread of the discussion should seek the help of others to clarify where the group stands.
7. Abstract statements should be grounded in concrete experience in order to illuminate such statements. This is why a real-Iife example is needed and constant reference back to this is made during the dialogue.
8. Inquiry into relevant questions continues as long as participants either hold conflicting views or have not yet reached clarity.

Rules for facilitators

1. The main task of the facilitator is to assist the joint process of clarification so that any achieved consensus is genuine. Consensus is only achieved when contradictory points of view have been resolved and all arguments and counter-arguments have been fully considered; the facilitator has to ensure this happens.
2. The facilitator should not 'steer' the discussion in one particular direction nor take a position in matters of content.
3. The facilitator should ensure that the rules of the dialogue are upheld, for instance watch that particular participants do not dominate or constantly interrupt the dialogue, whilst others remain silent.

Criteria for suitable examples

• The example has been derived from one's own experience; hypothetical or 'generalised' examples ('quite often it happens to me that ...') are not suitable.
• Examples should not be very complicated ones; simple ones are often the best. Where a sequence of events has been presented, it would be best for the group to concentrate on one event.
• The example has to be relevant for the topic of the dialogue and of interest to the other participants. Furthermore, all participants must be able to put themselves into the shoes of the person giving the example.
• The example should deal with an experience that has already come to an end. If the participant is still immersed in the experience it is not suitable. For example, if decisions are still to be taken, there is a risk that group members might be judgmental or spin hypothetical thoughts. .
• The participant giving the example has to be willing to present it fully and provide all the relevant factual information so that the other participants are able to understand the example and its relevance to the central question.

These guidelines are now available as an Appendix in Enquiring Minds order your copy