Staying in Conversation Despite Different Opinions? Two Examples

Whether at the family dinner table, among friends, or during a lunch break, differing opinions are part of everyday life. Yet controversial topics are often avoided to prevent conflict. But what happens when people remain in conversation despite holding different views? This question is becoming increasingly important in light of societal debates and perceived polarization. This blog post presents the dialogue formats “Was Deutschland verbindet” [What Connects Germany] and “Context Collapse” and explores how such spaces for encounter can contribute to the formation of shared opinions and to social cohesion. 

By Yana Novitskaya 

There are often too few opportunities today to encounter people with different experiences and perspectives. In the past, clubs, neighborhoods, and other social spaces provided more opportunities for spontaneous conversations. Today, many people move primarily within social environments where they encounter others who hold similar views. As a result, conversations with people who have different experiences or perspectives occur less frequently. Against this backdrop, opportunities for dialogue are becoming increasingly important. 

84 People in Dialogue: The ARD Initiative “What Connects Germany” 

As part of the ARD dialogue initiative “Was Deutschland verbindet” [What Connects Germany], 84 people from across Germany discussed societal issues over the course of two days. Topics included democracy, migration, equality, and the culture of complaining (Tagesschau, May 10, 2026). The dialogue sessions were recorded and incorporated into various ARD reports and other television formats (ARD Mediathek). 

The project was accompanied by researchers from the Leibniz Institute for Media Research | Hans-Bredow-Institut (HBI). Two HBI researchers, including the author of this article, attended the dialogue sessions and distributed questionnaires before and after the conversations. The aim was to determine whether participants’ attitudes changed over the course of the weekend. The accompanying research focused on expectations regarding dialogue, ideas about how society should live together, and perceptions of other people’s opinions. 

Openness as a Prerequisite, Surprising Common Ground as a Result 

According to PD Dr. Jan-Hinrik Schmidt, who oversees the accompanying research, the project demonstrated that “we are still capable of talking to one another” (NDR Info, May 11, 2026). It also showed that constructive dialogue on controversial issues is possible when people have sufficient time and space to engage in it (for more on the findings, see the Media Research Blog). 

Openness also plays an important role in fostering understanding within society—both openness about expressing one’s own opinion and openness toward other perspectives. When participants found a topic particularly engaging, they often continued their conversations even after the cameras stopped rolling. Participants were especially likely to continue such conversations when they felt that the other person was genuinely listening to them rather than simply “debating” them. The aim was not to change one’s own opinion or convince others of one’s position. Rather, it was about listening and understanding why people hold certain views. This attitude helped foster mutual understanding among people from different backgrounds. 

When the conversations ended, many participants were surprised to realize that they had more in common than they had differences. Some also took something from the project into their everyday lives. One participant, for example, said that he wanted to express his opinion more often in the future because he had realized that his voice mattered (NDR 2 Spezial, May 22, 2026). A participant from the younger generation emphasized that the project had given her a sense that she had a voice of her own. She had realized that she wanted to express her opinion and channel more of her energy into civic engagement (NDR Info, May 11, 2026). 

RISC Provides Spaces for Societal Exchange 

The Research Institute Social Cohesion (RISC) also focuses on developing dialogue initiatives. As early as late 2024, RISC Hamburg organized a networking meeting that brought together different initiatives and formats to promote exchange and mutual learning (“The Paradox of Those Willing to Talk”). In late 2025, it brought together guests from academia, politics, the media, and civil society for a discussion on whether and to what extent social media can facilitate constructive debate (“Unavoidable but Problematic: Social Media as Limited Spaces for Debate”). 

With the “Context Collapse” discussion series, RISC Hamburg also regularly creates spaces in which people can share their perspectives and experiences and reflect together on key societal questions. In the most recent edition, held on May 28, 2026, in cooperation with Bücherhallen Hamburg, guests discussed the limits of democracy, changes in the media landscape, societal polarization, and the formation of shared opinions. Following introductory contributions from Jan Rau (RISC Hamburg) and Hannah Göppert (Initiative Offene Gesellschaft, Faktor D), participants exchanged views in small groups. The aim of the format is to create a space in which people can share their perspectives and experiences and reflect together on key societal questions. 

The discussion made clear that the collective formation of political opinions is an important task of democratic societies, the conditions for which have changed in recent years. Whereas political interests were previously represented more strongly by institutions and established social groups, society has become more diverse. 

The Limits of Dialogue in Digital Spaces 

At the same time, social networking platforms play a central role as spaces for communication. This raises the question of why social media often fail to provide a suitable environment for constructive exchanges between people with different opinions. Provocative and emotional content frequently attracts more attention than nuanced arguments and can therefore create the impression of a more polarized society. At the same time, digital spaces often reinforce the tendency for users to primarily encounter opinions similar to their own and have fewer opportunities to engage with different perspectives. Another question is how disrespectful or insulting behavior in digital spaces can be addressed. A lack of moderation, or inadequate, moderation can result in substantive discussions being displaced by personal attacks or provocations. At the same time, the challenge remains of finding a balance between moderation and freedom of expression. 

The Importance of Dialogue Formats and Ways to Foster More Dialogue 

Interestingly, many of the issues and concerns raised during the ARD initiative “Was Deutschland verbindet” [What Connects Germany] also emerged in the “Context Collapse” format. This raises the question of whether societal differences may actually be less pronounced than they are often perceived to be. Moreover, the impression of deep societal division can arise when people do not express their opinions openly, causing certain positions to appear more visible than others. Against this backdrop, dialogue formats can help reduce prejudice, foster mutual understanding, and encourage people to reflect together on societal challenges and possible solutions. They create spaces in which people with different life experiences and perspectives can engage in conversation. 

Observations from both dialogue formats made clear that people are fundamentally capable of talking to one another—and that they want to do so. However, they need spaces in which different opinions can be expressed without fear of exclusion or personal attacks. Responsibility for creating such spaces does not lie solely with individuals. Media organizations, civil society organizations, educational institutions, and political institutions can also help create spaces for encounter and foster exchange between different groups within society. 

 In everyday life, it is often difficult to engage strangers in conversations about social or political issues. This makes it all the more important to remain open to such conversations and to approach other perspectives with curiosity rather than jumping to conclusions. Dialogue does not mean that everyone has to end up sharing the same opinion. What matters is the willingness to listen to one another, tolerate different perspectives, and remain in conversation. It is precisely through this process that mutual understanding and trust can emerge. 

Image: ARD dialogue initiative “What Connects Germany,” (c) hr/ARD/Ben Knabe