Transforming Intractable Policy Conflicts: A Qualitative Study Examining the Novel Application of Facilitated Discourse (Track Two Diplomacy) to Community Water Fluoridation in Calgary, Canada

Governments face challenges in resolving complex health and social policy conflicts, such as the community water fluoridation (CWF) impasse in Calgary. Track Two diplomacy, informal dialogues facilitated by an impartial third party, is proposed to address these issues amid epistemic conflict and declining public trust in fellow citizens, science, and government. This study examined Track Two diplomacy’s application in Calgary’s CWF policy conflict. Collaborating with policymakers and community partners, the research team explored a Track Two–CWF process and conducted 21 semi-structured interviews with policymakers, scholars, practitioners, observers, and civil society representatives. Data interpretation explored contextual factors, conflict transformation potential, and design features for a Track Two process. A conflict map revealed factors contributing to impasse: the polarizing nature of a binary policy question on fluoridation; disciplinary silos; failed public engagement; societal populism; societal lack of disposition to dialogue; individual factors (adverse impact of conflict on stakeholders, adherence to extreme positions, issue fatigue, apathy, and lack of humility); together with policy-making factors (perceived lack of leadership, lack of forum to dialogue, polarization and silos). Participants suggested reframing the issue as nonbinary, involving a skilled facilitator, convening academics, and considering multiple dialogue tracks for a Track Two process. The first theory of change would focus on personal attitudes, relationships, and culture. Participants expressed cautious optimism about Track Two diplomacy’s potential. Track Two diplomacy offers a promising approach to reframe intractable public health policy conflicts by moving stakeholders from adversarial positions to jointly assessing and solving problems. Further empirical evidence is needed to test the suggested process.