 If you've experienced long-term disagreements with family, friends, and acquaintances, or engaged in unproductive debates online, you might feel that some controversies can never get resolved, we get stuck making the same arguments over and over again, but what causes this stuckness, why can't we ever seem to get on the same page and is there anything we can do to get unstuck? In this video, we'll give you the tools to analyze controversies by introducing the stasis. The stasis is an ordered series of questions that must be addressed to resolve a controversy. The term stasis means being stuck, being caught in a holding pattern and unable to progress. In public controversies, the stasis are potential sticking points. There are the stages of dialogue in which stakeholders can either build consensus or get caught in a rut of disagreement. There are six stasis that must be addressed in the right order to resolve a controversy. First order stasis involve questions of fact, definition, and cause. Like the foundation of a building, we must reach consensus at these basic levels first to construct productive dialogue at higher levels. Second order stasis involve more nuanced questions of action, value, and jurisdiction. In the following sections, we'll give you how the stasis apply to controversies about whiteness syndrome. First order stasis involve basic questions of fact, definition, and cause. Questions of fact address whether or not an object exists, whether an object occurred, or if these objects or events are even possible. For example, does whiteness syndrome exist or not? Are bats dying or not? Is whiteness syndrome killing bats or not? Questions of definition address whether an object or event belongs to any known category, which one, and whether it can be treated like other members of that category. For example, people are debating whether or not the bats should be included in a category of endangered species. Given a species this distinction opens up funding for research and preservation efforts. Are bats really becoming an endangered species? Questions of course address how the object or event came about, what makes it happen, or prevents it from happening, and what effect it produces. For example, is whiteness syndrome human caused or not? What effects will the lower bat population have on the ecosystem, agriculture, or the economy? In summary, the first order stasis, fact, definition, and cause should be a primary point of analysis because they outline the foundation of a controversy. Second order stasis involve more nuanced questions of action, value, and jurisdiction. Once the basic reality of a controversy has been established, these stasis are concerned with evaluating the issue, determining what should be done, and identifying who is responsible for making decisions or taking the necessary steps. Questions of action address what should be done in response to the issue. For example, should we fund research into a cure for whiteness syndrome? Should we quarantine caves and reduce human activity that risk spreading the spores? Questions of value address whether an object or event is good or bad, and how it compares to other objects or events. For example, since bats are pollinators useful for agriculture, some stakeholders debate whether whiteness syndrome is comparable to colony collapse disorder, which is killing bees at an alarming rate. Should we put as much effort into saving bats as we do saving the bees? Questions of jurisdiction address who has the authority to make a decision, what policies are in place to afford or constrain action, and who is capable and responsible for action. For example, which government organizations, private companies, and individual landowners have the ability and responsibility to take action? What laws empower or restrain government agencies in making decisions that impact private companies and landowners? Who should stake orders petition to save the bats? Using these stasis is helpful for identifying stock points and controversies. Where are we stuck? How might we get unstuck? If we can't find common ground in first order concerns, we won't reach consensus about second order concerns no matter how much time and energy we spend debating at that level. By identifying questions of fact, definition, and cause, we can analyze people's understandings of a controversy. Then by analyzing action, value, and jurisdiction, we can analyze and also suggest actions and reactions to a controversy.