5. Crafting Brave Spaces for Respectful Discourse
For any VE project, it is advisable to agree at an early stage on a code of conduct binding for all participants. Ideally, students are involved in this process, instead of having instructors and/or facilitators implement rules top-down on the learners. For example, during an icebreaker phase that zeroes in on cultural stereotypes – such as the ‘Danger of a Single Story’ activity described above –, students may already talk about the notion of punctuality – an expectation frequently directed at participants hailing from Germany. After interrogating each others’ monochronic (i.e. an expectation of being on time) or polychronic (i.e. the fact that something happens is more important than its beginning and ending) preferences, students can negotiate a consensus that fits the makeup of the specific pair or group they will be collaborating with throughout the project.
However, once issues exceed the limits of organizational matters and venture into the more controversial details of morality, politics, and comparable socio-cultural dimensions, more elaborate guidelines and rules may be necessary to ensure respectful yet productively challenging discourse. The Brave Spaces approach proposed by Brian Arao and Kristi Clemens (2013) intends to act in such a way. As a response to the concept of ‘Safe Spaces’, it seeks to delineate a set of guidelines that encourages individuals to engage with differences of opinion even when confronted with highly contentious debates. Crucially, these negotiations may also occur intra-personally, for example through written reflection papers for a personal learning diary. The approach does not require students to engage in uncomfortable discussions no matter what.
A key impetus for reframing discussion spaces as ‘Brave Spaces’ rather than ‘Safe Spaces’ is the notion that “some of the richest learning springs from ongoing explorations of conflict whereby participants seek to understand an opposing viewpoint” (Arao/Clemens 2013: 143). Instead of hastily judging an utterance and sticking a label onto it, dwelling on the personal response and inviting the conversation partner to explain what they meant can offer a deeper inter- and intrapersonal level of understanding.
7. Activity: Putting ‘Brave Spaces’ into practice
Take another look at the aforementioned exchange between two students in a VE project in the summer of 2023, located in Germany and Israel. As you familiarize yourself with the five principles of the ‘Brave Spaces’ approach, concentrate on two and try to think of potential ways in which the approach may be implemented. For example, you can describe how the students could conduct themselves going forward or reflect on their identities and positionalities to better understand their (potential) emotional responses.
As you do this, consider consulting external sources like the Dual Narrative Education Center by the Israeli-Palestinian peacebuilding initiative InterAct. Among its co-presidents is Maoz Inon, an Israeli peace activist who lost his parents in the Hamas attack on Israel on 7 October 2023: The Dual Narrative Education Center | Interact
First, instead of “agreeing to disagree,” the authors recommend “controversy with civility” (Arao/Clemens 2013: 143). This suggestion encourages everyone to share their perspectives if they differ from what has been said and explain why they think that way. Merely “agreeing to disagree” runs the risk that individuals only share their opinion without elaborating on how they came to specific conclusions.
Second, rather than asking students not to take things personally, they should be encouraged to “own your intentions and your impact” (ibid.: 145). If a student makes a comment that others find insensitive, they should explain what they intended to convey. Here, a local instructor might need to mediate if students need to use their first language. Students should also be made aware of and reflect on the impact their words and actions have on others, which can help with reconciliation.
Third, the authors agree with the ‘Safe Space’ guideline to “challenge by choice” (ibid.: 146). Students should not be forced to speak up if they do not want to, but they should reflect on their choice not to speak up and their group memberships. This can be included in a reflective portfolio. The goal is to raise awareness among learners how their positionalities and privileges may influence how a specific topic may affect them.
Fourth, participants should act in a respectful way. However, they should early on define what, specifically, they consider respectful behavior within their teams. Likewise, they should clearly distinguish between what they consider to be attacks versus challenges. “[P]ointed challenges are not necessarily attacks,” (ibid.: 149) but they can cause discomfort and defensive reactions. These moments can be learning opportunities, especially if educators act as mentors guiding the reflection process.
Principle 1: Instead of having the conversation end, participants can be invited to explain their standpoints. In this case, the two students may have two different notions of what “occupation” means and what its reasons and consequences may be. This can be illustrated using the example of the West Bank barrier as discussed by Palestinian and Israeli speakers under the “Checkpoints” section of the Dual Narrative Education Center.
The student located in Germany may view it primarily as a “security wall”, constructed as a consequence of severe suicide bombings by Palestinian extremists. The student located in Israel, on the other hand, may consider it a “separation wall” that makes passages between Israel and the Palestinian territories more or less difficult based on skin color, language-use, creed, and ID card color. With reference to the concept of tolerance for ambiguity, the students may recognize that both interpretations can be valid at the same time.
Principle 3: If the students neither want to continue their dialog nor wish to discuss the situation in a plenary setting (be it online or in their local setting), their teachers may consider asking them to write a reflective journal entry. Depending on the level of trust, the teachers may want to collect the entry or at least engage in a follow-up conversation with their local student. In this case, the students may, for example, be encouraged to reflect on aspects such as skin color, education, and geographic location.
Sylvia Duckworth’s Wheel of Power/Privilege (see previous page) categorizes white skin color as closer to power and privilege than different shades, with black color the most marginalized. Depending on the color of the students’ skin, they may have experienced different degrees of discrimination against them in the past. As discussed in the Dual Narrative Education Center, a person’s skin color has an impact on their experience at checkpoints in Israel and the Palestinian territories. If any of the students have previously been at one of these checkpoints, they may have had different experiences for this reason (or another, such as their citizenship status).
In terms of education, the students can be encouraged to think back about what they have learned about each other’s histories. In particular, this may include critical examinations of potential bias or omissions of topics and perspectives. While the student in Germany may not have heard of the term “Nakba” during their time in school, the student in Israel may not be aware of the damage and loss of life inflicted by suicide bombings.
Finally, the physical proximity to the Palestinian territories of the student located in Israel is likely to have a strong effect on their views. For example, before the ceasefire agreements with Hezbollah and Hamas, rocket attacks on Israeli territory and bombardment of neighboring areas in Gaza and Lebanon may have contributed to severe distress among students in the region.
All illustrations on this page by @storyset (https://www.freepik.com/author/stories)
This work © 2025 by Fabian Krengel is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 
