Week 7: From HMW to Ideation: Exploring Possibilities

This week marked our transition from defining the problem to beginning the ideation phase. With our final How Might We question set How might we help students develop emotional tools and conversational skills so they won’t avoid difficult conversations? We explored how this challenge could be addressed through creativity, research, and a deeper understanding of our users’ daily reality.

Brainstorming: Opening the Space for Possibilities

We began the week with an open brainstorming session where no idea was too big, too strange, or too unrealistic. The goal was simply to stretch our imagination and explore the space around our HMW question. As shown in our brainstorming document (page 1) , ideas ranged from playful and unexpected concepts like a bar designed for structured dialogue, or an AI that "translates" extreme opinions into calmer phrasing to more practical ones such as debate card games, fact-checking tools, or conversation-training apps.

Some ideas were intentionally impossible (“a voodoo doll to release anger”), others surprisingly insightful (“Tinder-style pairing for conversation with people different from you”). Even the unrealistic ones helped us uncover emotional needs: safety, preparation, fairness, and emotional regulation.

Learning From Existing Solutions

Next, we reviewed organizations, tools, and interventions already addressing parts of this challenge. Our updated competitive analysis showed that many current solutions focus on:

1. Facilitated dialogue: such as Sustained Dialogue Institute and Braver Angels. 2. Structured discussion tools: like Kialo or Perspective Cards. 3. Emotional-support or communication-training apps: such as Empathy Set or Crucial Conversations.

However, none of these directly target the personal emotional readiness students need before and during charged discussions. This gap confirmed that our HMW is addressing an unmet need.

Timeline: A Day in the Life of Our User

To understand when and where students face emotional friction around dialogue, we mapped a full day in the life of our persona.

What we saw was that opportunities for conflict (or avoidance) appear constantly: during morning news scrolling, in class debates, in group work, with friends at lunch, or even during shifts at part-time jobs. Each moment presents both a trigger and a chance for emotional growth.The timeline helped us recognize that any solution must be able to meet students where they are, not only inside the classroom.

Scenario: Imagining the Solution in Action

We then wrote a narrative scenario imagining how a student might use a supportive tool throughout her day. In the scenario, her personal digital assistant notices rising stress before a political science class and offers preparation: articles from different viewpoints and a reminder that multiple narratives exist. During class, it provides quiet fact-checking, gentle signals when the tone escalates, and emotional support when a peer crosses a boundary. At the end of the day, it encourages reflection and perspective-taking.

This exercise helped us understand how a solution could become a companion that will reduce fear, increase confidence, and ultimately enable healthier conversations.

Supporting Research: What the Literature Tells Us

Alongside ideation, we strengthened our academic foundation by reviewing psychological and behavioral research.

Key findings included:

• Balance Theory & Cognitive Consistency — Students experience emotional tension when facing dissonant opinions, activating brain regions related to distress. This validates why charged conversations feel threatening even when no real danger exists.

• Balanced Identity Theory — Our identities, groups, and attributes are cognitively linked. When discussions challenge these connections, students may react defensively, not rationally.

• Polarization Megastudy — Some interventions decrease emotional hostility but don’t reduce anti-democratic attitudes. Fear-based or confrontational messaging can even backfire. This guides us to avoid “shock” solutions.

• Intergroup Contact Theory — Structured, respectful dialogue can reduce polarization short-term, but extreme voices often withdraw before the dialogue happens. This reinforces that students need emotional readiness before entering the conversation.
  

Together, these findings reinforced the psychological core of our HMW: Students don’t avoid conversations because they don’t care they avoid them because the emotional cost feels too high.

Reflection: Where We Are Now

This week’s work helped us move from understanding the problem to imagining what solutions might look like. Brainstorming opened possibilities, competitive analysis revealed gaps, the timeline highlighted daily emotional triggers, and academic literature grounded us in evidence.

Most importantly, we now have a cohesive direction: We are designing not just a conversation tool, but a way for students to build emotional resilience and confidence so they can participate in difficult conversations rather than avoid them.

Next week, we’ll continue refining ideas, selecting leading concepts, and shaping early prototypes as we move deeper into the Develop phase of the Double Diamond.