Abstract:

Context:
Globalisation and migration paved the way for an increase of cultural and religious diversity in our schools. This societal change entails challenges for teachers in (high) schools. Several topics are perceived as sensitive or controversial and therefore leading to polarisation among pupils and teachers, which is very detrimental for an inclusive learning environment (reports Democratic Dialogue, 2019). In order to deal constructively with this challenge, the Erasmus University College Brussels has launched the project of 'Democratic Dialogue'. A multidisciplinary team of dialogue coaches are aiming to make controversial topics visible, negotiable and remediable by using several conflict management methods.

Aim:
The aim of this research is to examine the project of Democratic Dialogue by the principles of conflict resolution programs in education. This is also the research question.

Methods:
The data collection and analysis of this study is twofold. The first part consists of qualitative data collection of conflict management methods used by the dialogue coaches of Democratic Dialogue. Two expert interviews were conducted per dialogue coach (N=8) regarding their dialogue coaching. For the second part, an in-depth literature study was conducted about conflict resolution programs in education. Finally, the research findings from the interviews were examined in the light of the literature study.

Results:
By the comparison between the literature study and the research findings from the conducted interviews, we can deduce many similarities between an authentic conflict resolution program in education and Democratic Dialogue namely: the four principles of conflict resolution consisting of separating the problem from the individual; emphasize everyone's (underlying) interest; creating opportunities for mutual interest; and the objectivity of the moderator or dialogue coach (Fisher et al., 1991; Bodine et al., 1994). Subsequently, the focus on communication skills; creative thinking; critical thinking ability; social-emotional skills; and emphasis on the framework of norms and values (Girard & Koch, 1996). On the other hand, we determined also differences regarding the structure and timing of dialogue coaching or mediating. The six basic steps of conflict resolution consisting of: 1) Intake interview; 2) Collect opinions; 3) Identify interests; 4) Create opportunities for the common good; 5) Evaluate opportunities; and 6) Conclude an agreement, does not (always) proceed step by step (Filner et al., 1996).

Conclusion:
Democratic Dialogue exhibits many similarities with the characteristics of a genuine conflict resolution program in education. The differences, on the other hand, are due to factors like the custom-made coaching trajectories. All the coaching sessions or trajectories are completely elaborated based on the request for help.

Keywords:

Controversial topics at school, conflict management methods, democratic dialogue, peacebuilding.