From climate change to housing, cultural identity to democratic renewal, Australia’s ability to engage in meaningful dialogue is being tested. Amid the meta crisis, polarisation is rising, and the spaces for genuine connection are shrinking.
For the past five years, Next25 has been researching what makes for Constructive Discussion—the kind of communication that builds connection and creates space for possibility, even in disagreement. There’s no single definition, but two complementary ones have emerged from our work:
Constructive Discussion as purposeful communication: creating environments where decision-making better reflects the shared public interest and the common good.
Constructive Discussion as exploratory process: offering space for people to share perspectives and explore differences in a reflexive, productive way.
These definitions overlap in practice, and together they offer a springboard—not a prescription—for exploring how constructive discussion can be cultivated.
Through literature reviews, interviews, workshops, and real-world trials—from transformative learning experiences and citizen assemblies to housing forums—we’ve explored what supports and what hinders constructive discussion. While environments, facilitators, and tools matter, one insight stands out: inner work—the willingness to reflect, be challenged, and grow—is a vital, often overlooked ingredient.
The good news? Inner work is something we can learn to do better.
Here are seven uncomfortable questions that emerged from our research and experience, and which Laura and Chloë co-created and shared in Next25’s recent webinar on Constructive Discussion for Australia’s Democracy.
We invite you to consider, and practice asking yourself these, next time you need help navigating a difficult conversation.
1. Am I willing to feel discomfort?
Discomfort is often the starting point for growth. Whether it’s confronting assumptions, sitting with tension, or listening without defensiveness, unease can signal that something important is happening (Mercer and McDonagh 2025). Research shows that our mindset toward discomfort significantly influences outcomes—for example, people who were encouraged to view discomfort as a sign of personal growth were more successful in learning new things and more open to unfamiliar ideas (Woolley and Fishbach 2022).
But discomfort is also a form of labour—emotional, cognitive, and social—that many avoid (Reddan 2023). Safe, well-prepared spaces (like facilitated forums or workshops) can help people lean into discomfort. And with reflection, practice, and support, we can expand our own capacity to stay present when things get hard.
Here, we channel the value of courage.
2. Have I considered my assumptions about this person or group?
We all carry stories about others. What if we paused to ask: What might be going on for them? Can we get curious instead of defensive?
Studies have found that getting curious about the other, as well as assuming good intent, both have measurable impacts on brain function and our ability to connect across difference (Cavicchi 2024; Glasser 2014).
In Next25’s workshops, we enrol our participants to co-create rules of engagement, or what we call agreements, that set the conditions for curiosity.
Here, we channel the value of curiosity.
3. Am I willing to put connection before conclusions?
Before we discuss contentious ideas, can we meet as fellow humans? Shared activities, such as eating together or working side by side, help us recognise the humanity in others. This recognition can even shift our physiological state, making empathy more accessible (Tommaso & Marina, 2023).
In citizen assemblies and community forums, we’ve seen how preparing participants with personal-level skills like generative listening builds trust and openness. Connection doesn’t mean agreement—it means respect. And that respect lays the essential groundwork for Constructive Discussion.
Here, we channel the value of compassion.
4. How am I framing this interaction?
Are we entering the conversation like it’s a battle—or a dance? We’ve learned that how we frame disagreement shapes how we engage.
Drawing on the work of George Lakoff, the Centre for Public Impact’s Anika Baset explored the role of metaphor on Constructive Discussion. If argument is war, we fight. If it’s a dance, we move together. Reframing can soften defensiveness and invite collaboration (Baset 2025; Lakoff 2014).
Here, we channel the value of compassion: compassion for self and others.
5. What am I (also) doing?
Even in constructive conversations, we might be trying to prove something—to ourselves or to others. We may be trying to prove our worthiness or make someone feel small. We are complex creatures and we can be doing multiple things at once. Perhaps ironically, accepting that we can have less than noble motives—that we are not always just trying to act for the betterment of all human life—is a vital part of being kind.
Accepting and being curious about the shadow sides of our actions and motivations is part of becoming more generous and self-aware. In the spirit of the Carl W. Buehner, quote “They may forget what you said — but they will never forget how you made them feel” (cited in Evans 1971). It may not be what you say, but the way the recipient(s) felt because they could sense your layered motivations.
Here, we channel the value of curiosity about ourselves: what might be driving us that we are not fully conscious of?
6. What might be possible if I put ‘that’ to one side?
We don’t have to abandon our convictions. But can we set them down—just for now—to make space for something new? This mindset has helped participants in our workshops engage more openly and creatively. It’s not about compromise—it’s about possibility.
Adam Kahane invites us to consider who we have “made” the enemy and what that means for our ability to collaborate. He reminds us that you don’t have to agree to work collaboratively. We dehumanise others when we make them enemies and limit our ability to work with them to make progress.
Adopting what Kahane calls “stretch collaboration” helps us to abandon the assumption of control and give up “unrealistic fantasies of harmony, certainty” (Kahane 2017).
Can we put aside our labels or notions of “enemy” to uncover what is possible? We can always pick them back up again.
Here, we channel the value of curiosity about what is possible.
7. How am I critically engaging with media around sensitive issues?
We all talk about echo chambers. But are we aware of the ones we’re in?
Are we consuming stories that deepen understanding—or entrench division? Our research highlights the importance of media literacy and critical engagement, especially in contested spaces (Reddan 2023). Echo chambers can feel comforting, but discomfort in what we read, watch, and share can be a sign we’re growing.
Here, we channel the values of curiosity, courage and compassion. What might I not know? How has not knowing or engaging kept me safe? What might I create in the world if I can let go of fear and listen with an open mind and heart?
So, what helps us stay open?
Discomfort doesn’t have to overwhelm us. One of the most powerful supports is context. People often find it easier to talk while walking, in nature, or driving side by side (Coleman 2021). The right setting can transform a challenging exchange into something meaningful—even nourishing.
Resources matter too. The basics—food, sleep, friendship—alongside spiritual, emotional, and physical practices, all help us show up as our best selves. When we take care of ourselves and create thoughtful environments, we’re better equipped to stay present, open, and engaged—even when the conversation gets hard.
Next25 is working to unlock constructive discussion on contested issues as a pathway to making the future Australia wants. So far, we have looked at constructive discussion through the lens of the referendum on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament and the Sydney housing challenge. Currently, we are working with Federal, State and Territory MPs, bringing them together across party lines to discuss how they can restore trust in government through intentional shifts in their system, and we’re co-designing a pilot process with the Centre for Compassionate Conservation for bringing conservation stakeholders together. And we have more in store for the future!
Are you working in a complex and contested space on an issue critical to Australia’s future flourishing? Do you think creating the conditions for more constructive discussions could help make the shifts needed?
Reach out to us at contact@next25.org.au for an exploratory conversation!
References
Baset, Anika. 2025. “Dancing across Differences: How to Challenge Polarisation by Changing the Metaphors We Use to Describe It - ABC Religion & Ethics.” ABC Religion and Ethics, March 10. https://www.abc.net.au/religion/dancing-across-differences-polarisation-relational-repair/105031404.
Cavicchi, Elizabeth. 2024. “Curiosity Opens Relationships of the World and with Others: Narratives from Doing Teaching and Learning Through Curiosity.” Interchange 55 (3): 261–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-024-09529-8.
Coleman, Peter T. 2021. The Way Out: How to Overcome Toxic Polarization. Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/cole19740.
Evans, Richard. 1971. Richard Evans' Quote Book: Selected from the "spoken Word" and "thought for the Day" and from Many Inspiring Thought-provoking Sources from Many Centuries. Publishers Press.
Glasser, Judith E. 2014. Conversational Intelligence. Bibliomotion.
Kahane, Adam. 2017. Collaborating with the Enemy: How to Work with People You Don’t Agree with or Like or Trust. Berret-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Lakoff, George. 2014. The ALL NEW Don’t Think of an Elephant! Chelsea Green Publishing. https://www.chelseagreen.com/product/the-all-new-dont-think-of-an-elephant/?srsltid=AfmBOopTXIZnUClheFe59mulF3WXD-wTPVAWppRAefMMyU8wTFgRjmw8.
Mercer, Lisa Elzey, and Deana McDonagh. 2025. “The Pedagogy of Discomfort: Transformational Experiential Learning: (First Published October 2021).” DISCERN: International Journal of Design for Social Change, Sustainable Innovation and Entrepreneurship 6 (1): 2(2)-35.
Reddan, Clare. 2023. Contested Spaces: Australia, the Referendum, and Constructive Discussion. Next25.
Sinha, Tanmay, Zhen Bai, and Justine Cassell. 2017. “A New Theoretical Framework for Curiosity for Learning in Social Contexts.” In Data Driven Approaches in Digital Education, edited by Élise Lavoué, Hendrik Drachsler, Katrien Verbert, Julien Broisin, and Mar Pérez-Sanagustín. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66610-5_19.
Woolley, Kaitlin, and Ayelet Fishbach. 2022. “Motivating Personal Growth by Seeking Discomfort.” Psychological Science 33. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09567976211044685.