Dharmapala College

How to Widen one’s Repertoire of Initiatives and Responses in Study Groups.
I am assuming that what Dharma study group leaders usually want to happen in a group is two-fold: firstly, that an aspect of the Dharma should be expounded clearly and accurately, and secondly, that participants should have an opportunity to engage in a discussion which enables them to clarify the exposition for themselves, to investigate its meaning and implications in some depth, deal with any doubts that they may have, and to have their wrong views corrected. Sometimes the exposition part happens before the meeting, as when participants listen to a talk before the meeting. Sometimes the discussion will occur within the exposition, as when a text is taken section by section in a meeting and discussion occurs after each section. But however exactly the discussion part relates to the exposition part, it is the discussion part that I am concerned with here.

In this piece, I want firstly to mention briefly some of the moves that are commonly used in leading discussion in Dharma study groups, and then go on to suggest that these moves can be developed and added to by drawing upon clear thinking ideas.
The moves that study leaders commonly use can conveniently be summarised under two headings: initiating and responding.

By initiating, I mean to refer to those occasions when a leader takes the initiative rather than speaks or acts in response to what a member of the group has said or done. Such initiatives are of course particularly called for at the first meeting of a series, and – though usually to a lesser degree – before discussion at each of the subsequent study meetings. A familiar example of an initiating move is when the leader seeks to set the context by saying something like: “Over the next eight weeks, we are going to be looking at each of the limbs of the Eightfold Path, and I’d like everyone in the group to summarise one of the talks at the beginning of the session.” Or: “Before we start discussing this chapter, I’d like to point out that an important part of studying the Dharma with others is paying close attention to what they are actually saying”. Making these kinds of things explicit helps the group to focus on the task.

Once the group has got going, the leader will probably still need to take some initiatives, but, if the purpose of the group is to enable participants to become self-motivating and skilled investigators of the Dharma, then those initiatives will be framed in such a way that participants are encouraged to become active learners, rather than trained to become passive recipients of the views of others. When a study leader asks: “What do you think this passage means?”, participants are being offered an opportunity to think for themselves, even though the leader may later need to correct some wrong views.

Responding is a term that I am using here to refer to a range of responses that leaders can make to what is said or done by the members of the study group. Examples of responding are listening carefully, asking for clarification, summarising, and reflecting back a thought or a feeling to someone who has spoken.

These initiating and responding moves are probably familiar to most study leaders. I am now going to suggest ways in which this repertoire can be extended by using ideas drawn from clear thinking. Some of these suggestions extend the moves that I have already mentioned above.

I have again divided the suggestions up into initiating and responding, although they don’t always fit neatly into either of the categories.

Initiating:

• Asking members to identify the issue(s) or question(s) that underlie a whole or part of a talk or text: “What is the main message that the speaker is trying to get across here?” Or: “What are the main questions that are being asked in this passage?”

• Asking the members to question the question(s). “Now that we’ve identified the main question that is being addressed here, can we say whether we think that it is a useful question to ask?” The same can be asked in relation to an issue which has been identified: “Why does it matter to think about this issue? What’s at stake here?”

• Asking participants to identify the author’s answer(s) to the question that is being addressed. “What answers to the main question is the author/speaker offering? Is more than one answer given here?” “Do you think that that is a good answer? If you don’t, why don’t you? If you do, why do you?”

• Inviting participants to come up with other questions that the author has not mentioned. “OK. We’ve identified the main question/issue that the author is addressing in this chapter. Are there any other questions that we would be interested in that are not mentioned here?” “Do you think that the author has got at the real issue in relation to this topic?” If the participants do manage to come up with other questions, they can be encouraged to find good provisional answers to them.

• Inviting participants to come up with other answers to questions posed by the author i.e. answers that are not offered by the author.

• Seeking evidence and information e.g. asking: “What sort of information do we need to be able to answer this question?”

Responding:

• Seeking clarification. “Would you like to say a bit more about that?” Or: “Could you say a bit more about what you mean by spiritual practice?” Asking this sort of question gives a participant the opportunity to think more about what they have said and gives the other participants time to think about it. This response can often serve to help a participant to see that what they are saying does not quite hold together or contains some ambiguity. It also helps a participant to say more clearly what they are trying to say.

• Paraphrasing: “What I think I hear you saying, Elfrida, is that ……” This helps to ensure that each student’s contribution is clear. It enables Elfrida to hear again what she has said, so that she can either agree that it has been heard correctly; or she can say: “No, that’s not what I meant. What I was trying to say is…..” It also gives the other participants time to take in what is being said and to think about it. It also shows the participants that the leader is making the effort to listen carefully and check what is being said. This usually has a good effect on the group, and the leader’s paraphrasing makes it more likely that other participants will learn to listen more carefully.

• Identifying hidden assumptions. Hidden assumptions are often quite difficult to spot, so the obvious question “Is there anything that we might be taking for granted here?” won’t always get results. But that does not mean that it is not worth trying to engage the group in looking for hidden assumptions. One good way of doing this is to ask one or two participants to adopt the opposite point of view to that taken by the author under study. This is a bit like playing devil’s advocate. It can go like this: following a discussion in which everyone has been earnestly agreeing that renunciation is a good thing, one or two people are asked to put the opposite view; they come up with: “Renunciation leads to all sorts of psychological problems, like insecurity, fixed self-view and conceit. It is much better to buy all the possessions and get all the experiences one can, and then see whether you are happier than you were before.” The group might well end up deciding that renunciation is a good thing, but at least the need to deal with a point of view put by a devil’s advocate may succeed in flushing out some hidden assumptions about the process and the objects of renunciation. This process can also help participants to become much more effective at answering the questions of non-Buddhists.

• Teasing out the implications and consequences. “If we came to that conclusion, what would that mean?” “We seem to be agreed that in all likelihood there can be no Awakening without renunciation. What are the implications for each of us of accepting that conclusion?” The discussion which is likely to ensue could easily turn to the matter of taking personal precepts for a period of time.

• Summarising: Summarising is very useful after a period of confused or difficult discussion:“Where we seem to have got to so far is…..The main points that we have looked at so far are……….What we seem to have agreed up to this point is….” It is especially useful where two or more people seem to have been disagreeing, but the grounds of the disagreement are not very clear. “You Ken seem to be saying X, and you Robert seem to be saying Y. Have I got that right?”

• Helping participants to see what point of view they are adopting and seeing what difference it makes to adopt a different one. It may be that all the participants rather quickly agree that there can be no such thing as an immortal soul. Looking at the matter from another point of view by asking “How would a Christian view this matter?” is likely to press participants to be clearer about what arguments they can muster in favour of their position. If participants can themselves come up with one or more alternative points of view, so much the better. This process can help each participant become more aware that they are holding to a point of view, and that sometimes they are holding to it rather tightly.

Matters that I have not Dealt with in this Article:

In this article I have focussed particularly on the ways in which clear thinking can inform and extend the moves that one can helpfully make in study groups. So several other important moves don’t get a mention in this article. I haven’t, for example, said much about the ways that one can use to bring quiet or seemingly passive participants into the discussion. Nor have I dealt with a related matter – that of dealing with people who dominate the discussion in ways which are unhelpful to others’ learning. This article is not meant to be a comprehensive account of group leading skills.

I could also have said much more about the relationship between the exposition and the discussion parts of group study.

In Conclusion:

I started by noting some common moves that will be familiar to most study leaders, and have divided these into two types, initiating and responding. I then made some suggestions as to how study leaders might extend their repertoire of initiatives and responses by drawing on clear thinking practice. There are several suggestions here, and it’s quite likely that some of them may not be new to you. Or you think that there are rather a lot of suggestions. If the latter is the case, I’d like to make a further suggestion: that you quite deliberately introduce a new – or forgotten – move one at a time into your way of leading discussion in groups. Over time, I have found, one builds up a repertoire which widens one’s capacity to initiate and respond, and finds oneself more adept at choosing a useful move in any given instance. Then one is more likely to be able to help participants to make the best possible use of opportunities they have to clarify and reflect on the Dharma.

Jnanaketu
April 2008.

More Ideas for Helping Dharma Study Groups go for Clarity and Depth.

How to Widen one’s Repertoire of Initiatives and Responses in Study Groups.

I am assuming that what Dharma study group leaders usually want to happen in a group is two-fold: firstly, that an aspect of the Dharma should be expounded clearly and accurately, and secondly, that participants should have an opportunity to engage in a discussion which enables them to clarify the exposition for themselves, to investigate its meaning and implications in some depth, deal with any doubts that they may have, and to have their wrong views corrected. Sometimes the exposition part happens before the meeting, as when participants listen to a talk before the meeting. Sometimes the discussion will occur within the exposition, as when a text is taken section by section in a meeting and discussion occurs after each section. But however exactly the discussion part relates to the exposition part, it is the discussion part that I am concerned with here.

In this piece, I want firstly to mention briefly some of the moves that are commonly used in leading discussion in Dharma study groups, and then go on to suggest that these moves can be developed and added to by drawing upon clear thinking ideas.
The moves that study leaders commonly use can conveniently be summarised under two headings: initiating and responding.

By initiating, I mean to refer to those occasions when a leader takes the initiative rather than speaks or acts in response to what a member of the group has said or done. Such initiatives are of course particularly called for at the first meeting of a series, and – though usually to a lesser degree – before discussion at each of the subsequent study meetings. A familiar example of an initiating move is when the leader seeks to set the context by saying something like: “Over the next eight weeks, we are going to be looking at each of the limbs of the Eightfold Path, and I’d like everyone in the group to summarise one of the talks at the beginning of the session.” Or: “Before we start discussing this chapter, I’d like to point out that an important part of studying the Dharma with others is paying close attention to what they are actually saying”. Making these kinds of things explicit helps the group to focus on the task.

Once the group has got going, the leader will probably still need to take some initiatives, but, if the purpose of the group is to enable participants to become self-motivating and skilled investigators of the Dharma, then those initiatives will be framed in such a way that participants are encouraged to become active learners, rather than trained to become passive recipients of the views of others. When a study leader asks: “What do you think this passage means?”, participants are being offered an opportunity to think for themselves, even though the leader may later need to correct some wrong views.

Responding is a term that I am using here to refer to a range of responses that leaders can make to what is said or done by the members of the study group. Examples of responding are listening carefully, asking for clarification, summarising, and reflecting back a thought or a feeling to someone who has spoken.

These initiating and responding moves are probably familiar to most study leaders. I am now going to suggest ways in which this repertoire can be extended by using ideas drawn from clear thinking. Some of these suggestions extend the moves that I have already mentioned above.

I have again divided the suggestions up into initiating and responding, although they don’t always fit neatly into either of the categories.

Initiating:

 Asking members to identify the issue(s) or question(s) that underlie a whole or part of a talk or text: “What is the main message that the speaker is trying to get across here?” Or: “What are the main questions that are being asked in this passage?”

 Asking the members to question the question(s). “Now that we’ve identified the main question that is being addressed here, can we say whether we think that it is a useful question to ask?” The same can be asked in relation to an issue which has been identified: “Why does it matter to think about this issue? What’s at stake here?”

 Asking participants to identify the author’s answer(s) to the question that is being addressed. “What answers to the main question is the author/speaker offering? Is more than one answer given here?” “Do you think that that is a good answer? If you don’t, why don’t you? If you do, why do you?”

 Inviting participants to come up with other questions that the author has not mentioned. “OK. We’ve identified the main question/issue that the author is addressing in this chapter. Are there any other questions that we would be interested in that are not mentioned here?” “Do you think that the author has got at the real issue in relation to this topic?” If the participants do manage to come up with other questions, they can be encouraged to find good provisional answers to them.

 Inviting participants to come up with other answers to questions posed by the author i.e. answers that are not offered by the author.

 Seeking evidence and information e.g. asking: “What sort of information do we need to be able to answer this question?”

Responding:

 Seeking clarification. “Would you like to say a bit more about that?” Or: “Could you say a bit more about what you mean by spiritual practice?” Asking this sort of question gives a participant the opportunity to think more about what they have said and gives the other participants time to think about it. This response can often serve to help a participant to see that what they are saying does not quite hold together or contains some ambiguity. It also helps a participant to say more clearly what they are trying to say.

 Paraphrasing: “What I think I hear you saying, Elfrida, is that ……” This helps to ensure that each student’s contribution is clear. It enables Elfrida to hear again what she has said, so that she can either agree that it has been heard correctly; or she can say: “No, that’s not what I meant. What I was trying to say is…..” It also gives the other participants time to take in what is being said and to think about it. It also shows the participants that the leader is making the effort to listen carefully and check what is being said. This usually has a good effect on the group, and the leader’s paraphrasing makes it more likely that other participants will learn to listen more carefully.

 Identifying hidden assumptions. Hidden assumptions are often quite difficult to spot, so the obvious question “Is there anything that we might be taking for granted here?” won’t always get results. But that does not mean that it is not worth trying to engage the group in looking for hidden assumptions. One good way of doing this is to ask one or two participants to adopt the opposite point of view to that taken by the author under study. This is a bit like playing devil’s advocate. It can go like this: following a discussion in which everyone has been earnestly agreeing that renunciation is a good thing, one or two people are asked to put the opposite view; they come up with: “Renunciation leads to all sorts of psychological problems, like insecurity, fixed self-view and conceit. It is much better to buy all the possessions and get all the experiences one can, and then see whether you are happier than you were before.” The group might well end up deciding that renunciation is a good thing, but at least the need to deal with a point of view put by a devil’s advocate may succeed in flushing out some hidden assumptions about the process and the objects of renunciation. This process can also help participants to become much more effective at answering the questions of non-Buddhists.

 Teasing out the implications and consequences. “If we came to that conclusion, what would that mean?” “We seem to be agreed that in all likelihood there can be no Awakening without renunciation. What are the implications for each of us of accepting that conclusion?” The discussion which is likely to ensue could easily turn to the matter of taking personal precepts for a period of time.

 Summarising: Summarising is very useful after a period of confused or difficult discussion:“Where we seem to have got to so far is…..The main points that we have looked at so far are……….What we seem to have agreed up to this point is….” It is especially useful where two or more people seem to have been disagreeing, but the grounds of the disagreement are not very clear. “You Ken seem to be saying X, and you Robert seem to be saying Y. Have I got that right?”

 Helping participants to see what point of view they are adopting and seeing what difference it makes to adopt a different one. It may be that all the participants rather quickly agree that there can be no such thing as an immortal soul. Looking at the matter from another point of view by asking “How would a Christian view this matter?” is likely to press participants to be clearer about what arguments they can muster in favour of their position. If participants can themselves come up with one or more alternative points of view, so much the better. This process can help each participant become more aware that they are holding to a point of view, and that sometimes they are holding to it rather tightly.

Matters that I have not Dealt with in this Article:

In this article I have focussed particularly on the ways in which clear thinking can inform and extend the moves that one can helpfully make in study groups. So several other important moves don’t get a mention in this article. I haven’t, for example, said much about the ways that one can use to bring quiet or seemingly passive participants into the discussion. Nor have I dealt with a related matter – that of dealing with people who dominate the discussion in ways which are unhelpful to others’ learning. This article is not meant to be a comprehensive account of group leading skills.

I could also have said much more about the relationship between the exposition and the discussion parts of group study.

In Conclusion:

I started by noting some common moves that will be familiar to most study leaders, and have divided these into two types, initiating and responding. I then made some suggestions as to how study leaders might extend their repertoire of initiatives and responses by drawing on clear thinking practice. There are several suggestions here, and it’s quite likely that some of them may not be new to you. Or you think that there are rather a lot of suggestions. If the latter is the case, I’d like to make a further suggestion: that you quite deliberately introduce a new – or forgotten – move one at a time into your way of leading discussion in groups. Over time, I have found, one builds up a repertoire which widens one’s capacity to initiate and respond, and finds oneself more adept at choosing a useful move in any given instance. Then one is more likely to be able to help participants to make the best possible use of opportunities they have to clarify and reflect on the Dharma.

Jnanaketu
April 2008.