Faculty Posts

Though I did not always have the language to describe it as such, I have long relied on deliberative pedagogy as a framework both for modeling philosophical inquiry inside the classroom and for imparting the critical, interrogative, and evaluative skills required for responsible and reciprocal civic engagement. My approach to teaching has always been shaped by a commitment to foster a space of shared inquiry in which all perspectives and social positionalities are avenues rather than barriers to understanding. It is critical that my students recognize themselves as participants and co-creators of our collective learning experience, and that they approach the study of philosophy as an invitation into an ongoing dialogue of which we are all a part. 

To this end, I encourage my students to engage with philosophy deliberatively, as an always-unfinished, critical enterprise that is open to a constant questioning of the norms, assumptions, and premises of that which we have long taken for granted. By approaching philosophy this way, we are reminded that we are limited in our capacity to know, and that reciprocal engagement with others—and especially those whose lived experiences are far different from our own—is what enables us to see the blind spots in our thinking, brings to light questions that we may not have considered, and opens up avenues for new modes of knowing. This kind of critical, philosophical ethos is one that is genuinely self-reflective, governed by intellectual humility, and attentive to the historicity of the present. 

This approach to philosophy has served me and my students well in this last academic year. As a social and political philosopher, all of my courses—no matter the topic—engage with issues of power, and therefore with issues at the forefront of our concern as social and political beings. My responsibility, as I understand it, is to provide the tools and cultivate the space that enables my students to take on these issues with care. I do not set aside class days for formal, deliberative exercises, but incorporate them into every aspect of our classroom experience: we deliberate over the meaning of the text, giving reasons for why we interpret certain passages in certain ways; we deliberate over the tenability of arguments, both on their own terms and in relation to the lived present; we deliberate over how an author’s framework of analysis can help us make sense of the crises of our day, and where they cannot. The Deliberative Pedagogy Collaborative has enabled me to better articulate these dimensions of my pedagogy.

By way of example, one new strategy that I employed for the first time this semester was to include specific “discussion questions” in my syllabus as a means of guiding students as they did the readings for our class. In my freshman-level course entitled “Aesthetics and Political Resistance,” which met once a week for three hours, I devised a series of inquiries under each set of readings that were intended to give students specific themes to focus on and which they would be expected to deliberate about during our meetings. Inevitably, however, students would take our conversations beyond those I imagined us to have, and I understood my responsibility in those moments to explore how our readings could shed light on their concerns. As the semester progressed, some of my students connected our themes—which included the aesthetic reproduction of the status quo, the role of aesthetic feelings in destabilizing social norms, and so forth—to the events unfolding around us, both abroad as well as on our campus. 

Given the extremely polarized nature of these events, disagreements were unavoidable—and for this reason, several of my colleagues preferred to shut down such conversations entirely. Yet in an era where the rhetoric of “civility” is increasingly deployed to censor critical speech, these moments of disagreement are perhaps the most significant for us as pedagogues. They have reminded me that responsible deliberative pedagogy demands that we understand where our students are coming from, so that we can better put competing viewpoints into constructive dialogue and translate disagreements into learning opportunities. In other words, it requires that we cultivate a critical ethos in ourselves just as much as we try to cultivate it in our students. I am grateful to the Deliberative Pedagogy Collaborative for giving me the space to deeply reflect on this responsibility.

I came to the DeeP Collaborative with some experience with student-centered, discussion-oriented pedagogy, due to prior interest and involvement in promoting inclusive and equity-minded pedagogical techniques. But much of that work was very “individual” and a little haphazard, things I’d pursued or developed on my own as a non-expert, based on my own reading and/or workshops that I’d helped develop from the ground up in grad school (because nobody else was doing it at the time!) — So, my participation in the DeeP Collaborative was an excellent opportunity to approach this element of my courses much more systematically, and with the depth and support the Deliberative Pedagogy workshop provided. 

There are a wide variety of ways in which I incorporated what I learned from the DeeP Collaborative into my classroom, but I think the most immediately impactful change I made involved how I approached and structured “small group discussions.” It can be challenging to come up with small group discussion assignments that help students move past certain somewhat unfocused, superficial, and/or “disagreement-avoidant” discussion habits, and some of the tools I learned through my participation in the DeeP Collaborative were immediately helpful to that end. So, I’d like to share my experiences with that, in the hopes that it will be useful to any other faculty who would like to promote more productive and satisfying-to-everybody student discussion in their classrooms.

Setting Up The Deliberative Environment

I teach an introductory level class on the Philosophy of Love & Sex, which seemed like a prime candidate for building in more Deliberative Pedagogy techniques. I had already devoted Day 1 of classes to having an open discussion about pedagogy, and about students’ own approaches to learning. I added some material from the Collaborative to the assigned readings for that day, including selections from Aikin & Talisse’s “Why We Argue?” as well as Adam Grant’s “Actions for Impact,” in order to orient students towards a deliberation-focused classroom and establish certain deliberative values for our class. 

The Aikin & Talisse reading seemed to have an especially positive effect. In particular, discussing thoughtful disagreement as a form of care and respect really set the tone for the course, and helped get students out of a certain “conflict avoidance” mindset that sometimes keeps them from voicing alternative ideas in the classroom. I believe that this “conflict avoidance” largely derives from an overall positive desire to display respect for differing opinions, so being able to reframe that same respect as expressible throughdisagreement was extremely helpful. I also had students complete a “Discussion Agreements” “quiz” adapted from the DCI’s “Conversation Agreements” after our first-day discussion, in order to make sure students were all on the same page about our values and intentions in our classroom.

Micro-Deliberations

My courses already included in-class small group discussions whenever possible, but my approach to drawing students into productive engagement with each other was mostly limited to trying to come up with really good discussion questions. Very early on in my experience with the DeeP Collaborative, it became apparent to me that what my students were lacking was structure: some sort of guidance through the actual deliberative process. The DeeP Collaborative workshops taught me how to structure these discussions into micro-deliberations, so that they would rise to the level of productive “deliberation” rather than simply casual surface-level discussion. 

Drawing on material from our workshops and discussions with other Collaborative members, I developed a simple set of procedural steps for students to follow during the first several weeks of our class, and I talked through them in detail with students the first time we had an in-class micro-deliberation assignment. These steps included:

1. Describe your own reaction / initial thoughts (every group member should do this before moving on to Step 2!)
2. Diagnose points of agreement and disagreement as a group
3. Discuss your reasons for your initial thoughts, and ask about your classmates’ reasons for theirs
4. Develop these reasons further by evaluating them against each other, and attempting to reach agreement
5. Determine the landscape: have you been able to reach agreement? If so, why/how did you land on this idea, and not possible alternatives? If not, what is the source of disagreement? 

Probably the most important of these was step (1) — the requirement that all students in a small group have an opportunity to voice a “gut reaction” thought in response to their assigned discussion question beforeanyone actually articulates whether or not they agree with each other, let alone begins defending their own view. I think that doing this step well, in a classroom environment that values the exploration of disagreements, sets students up for (2)-(5) to happen rather naturally from there.

On a day-to-day level, this one change — giving students specific deliberation-supporting steps to follow, rather than basically just letting them loose on a guiding discussion question — had probably the biggest immediate impact on my classroom environment. Being guided through the process of voicing their own thoughts and exploring disagreements helped them become much more comfortable with doing those things on their own, and by the fourth week of class I largely did not have to remind students of these steps. I think it was also extremely valuable to make “agreement” equally demanding of explanation — this makes it especially clear that the goal is not mere superficial agreement, but thoughtful and considered unity in light of plausible alternatives. It also makes it more clear that disagreement is not a bad thing; we want to be oriented towards agreement in order to avoid a certain sort of empty relativism, but articulating a genuine disagreement well is more valuable (and completes this set of procedures more successfully!) than unconsidered “agreement.” 

Final Thoughts

It is worth noting that each step of this procedure may require some guidance, especially the “evaluating reasons” section. If your students are not already well-prepared to engage in some real critical thinking at that stage, you may need to include some further general instruction early on in your class and/or modify the assignment in order to set them up for it. That said, this is something that can be worked out in class as well: students in my classes are required to articulate step (5) to the rest of the class (and me) directly, and if the reasoning or explanation there is not especially good, we can work through it together at that point. But even if there may be some sticking points, giving students a clear procedure that orients them towards deliberation, over and above mere “discussion,” is an extremely valuable and powerful tool.  

The Deliberative Pedagogy (DeeP) Faculty Collaborative consists of faculty from Davidson College and other higher education institutions who are committed to learning and implementing new ways to improve and deepen the quality of their class discussions. These faculty come from a wide array of disciplines and backgrounds to study and discuss deliberative pedagogy methods, share their ideas and questions with one another, and work to embed deliberation in their classrooms. In this special blog series, members of the Collaborative describe and reflect on their experiences developing and teaching their deliberation-involved courses.

Neurologist Dr. Helen Riess argues empathy is at an all-time low due, in large part, to the role that social media has played in allowing people to hide safely behind a computer screen, spewing negative comments at one another (2018). According to Riess, 90% of effective communication is non-verbal, including gestures, tone, eye contact, and body posture. And we live in a time where we are more ideologically divided than any time since the 1970s (Pew Research Center*) with no common ground to be found. In fact, many states, including my own, are following Florida’s lead in dissolving Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) offices and staff positions across universities, implementing bathroom bills, and forcing teachers to out their transgender students to parents. The world could use a little empathy.

My job is to prepare candidates to become middle and high school teachers. In this country, we have seen a shift from a majority white student population in public schools to white students now outnumbered by students of color. With the increasing diversity of students in our classrooms, it is critical that future teachers develop an understanding of and appreciation for students from culturally-rich communities that might be different than their own. It is not an option for my teaching candidates to explore issues of race, gender, immigration, and sexuality. It is a must!

Given our polarized climate where DEI is being erased from PK-12 classrooms and universities, I was faced with two challenges: 1) How do I help teaching candidates develop an understanding of and empathy for PK-12 students who likely come from populations significantly different than theirs, especially when DEI is no longer valued by the State? 2) In a cancel culture where people cannot share their opinions without the fear of social repercussions, how do I engage teaching candidates in rich dialogue about controversial topics in a safe and instructive way?

Searching for solutions to these two challenges led me to engage in a year-long professional development program run through Davidson College’s Deliberative Citizenship Initiative. I wondered, “Could a deliberative approach, paired with studying the neuroscience of trauma and empathy, provide the safe environment to have tough conversations that develop empathy for a diverse set of PK-12 students?” I drew up a plan to integrate empathy and deliberation into my 15-week course called Inclusive Classrooms. A brief outline of key activities follows.

Readings

Course Textbook: 

Perry, B. D. & Winfrey, O. (2021). What happened to you? Conversations on trauma, resilience, and healing. Flatiron books.

Excerpts: 

Reiss, H. (2018). The empathy effect: Seven neuroscience-based keys for transforming the way we live, love, work, and connect across differences. 2018 Brilliance Publishing, Inc.

Milner, R., Cunningham, H., Delale-O’Connor, L., & Kestenberg, E. (2019). “These kids are out of control”: Why we must reimagine “classroom management for equity.” Corwin Publishing.

Activities

Weekly journaling with prompts such as “Are you comfortable with talking about controversial topics? What support can I give you if you start feeling anxious during a deliberation or class period?”

Read or watch news that is ideologically opposite of your position for 30 minutes; write a reflection.

Empathy plays in which two students act out a scene depicting an empathic or non-empathic interaction between a student and teacher; use an empathy observation protocol to note key empathic moves.

Deliberations

Engage in three class deliberations, twice as an observer and once as a participant. The three class deliberations were facilitated by the instructor with eight new students each time. Observers were given an observation guide to note the facilitator’s moves, the norms of the deliberation, and new content that was learned. All candidates were given a deliberation guide and one class period to work in small groups to help the deliberator prepare. The three topics involved poverty, book banning, and tracking in PK-12 education.

For the fourth deliberation, candidates were divided into four small groups, assigned a facilitator, and given a deliberation guide on the North Carolina Parents’ Bill of Rights. The facilitators were responsible for video recording the deliberation and sending it to me for assessment. 

For all four deliberations, each participant and observer turned in a reflection afterward. For the first three deliberations, teaching candidates were allowed to argue their own position, but for the last deliberation, I assigned each person a role that I knew would take them out of their ideological comfort zone.

Final project

Deliberation and me portfolio – each student submitted five artifacts that signified their growth in deliberation over the 15 weeks and a one-page reflection that explained how these artifacts illustrated their growth.

Overwhelmingly, students reported that they are more comfortable talking about controversial topics and can see themselves taking this newfound confidence and skill set to discussions outside the classroom. Additionally, they said that the trauma and empathy readings helped them understand why they needed to develop their empathy skills and that deliberation was the approach that helped them do this. As one student said, Overall, I have learned so much about the deliberative process and the beauty that different perspectives and collaboration can bring. I look forward to extending this knowledge and applying it to my educational career.

* Desilver, D. (2022). The polarization in today’s Congress has roots that go back decades.

The Deliberative Pedagogy (DeeP) Faculty Collaborative consists of faculty from Davidson College and other higher education institutions who are committed to learning and implementing new ways to improve and deepen the quality of their class discussions. These faculty come from a wide array of disciplines and backgrounds to study and discuss deliberative pedagogy methods, share their ideas and questions with one another, and work to embed deliberation in their classrooms. In this special blog series, members of the Collaborative describe and reflect on their experiences developing and teaching their deliberation-involved courses.

When you really think about it, many parts of our lives can be understood through the lens of sports metaphors, analogies, and idioms. We “fall short of the goal line,” we “drop the ball,” and we view life as “a marathon, not a race.” Political discourse uses sports metaphors even more frequently. We tune in to “horse race” news coverage of political campaigns, we analyze offensive and defensive strategy, and – of course – we view political parties as rival teams vying to win over voters or maintain loyalties. That brings me to what this blog and the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative are about: public discourse and deliberation, particularly in the context of pedagogical practices in the college classroom. 

As a teacher-scholar of communication and rhetoric whose topic specialty is sports culture, not only am I fascinated by what sports metaphors can and can’t do in public discourse, but I also wanted to experiment with it further in my sports communication course, truly putting the “meta” in “metaphor.” Specifically, as part of the Davidson Deliberative Pedagogy Collaborative through the DCI, I sought to infuse deliberative pedagogy into my class and cultivate a “practice field for democracy.” I encouraged my students – which included student athletes and non-student athletes – to view their deliberative skill development as akin to individual athletes and teams training to compete in their sporting endeavors. 

Yet in my classroom, they are practicing deliberative skills to productively engage when it’s politically “game time” – around the Thanksgiving table, in their next class, or in a public context. To practice, we utilize the subject matter of sports and sports communication. Although historically dismissed as the “toy department” of society (and media specifically), what happens on and off the field in the world of sports has a lot more to do with political culture than many students realize. And that’s at the heart of the weekly deliberations I implemented throughout the semester.

My Sports Communication (COM 269) course at Lenoir-Rhyne University, which is offered every spring, has exposed majors and non-majors alike to the important ideas of debate and deliberation in the specific context of sports – a context that is immensely accessible for students to engage in critical discussion about issues of public importance. And yet, I hadn’t made these skills explicit in learning outcomes or assessment. When I applied for the Deliberative Pedagogy cohort, I intended to revise my course to make it more deliberative from top to bottom. That is exactly what I did. First, I include two formal learning outcomes focused on deliberation. Second, I redesigned the major assignments to align with those outcomes. Finally, I incorporated deliberation and rhetoric frameworks throughout the semester, including work on the relationship among democracy, rhetoric, and athletics in Ancient Greece.  Concepts from the deliberative pedagogy literature helped us determine what topics and behaviors were “in bounds,” for our practices; rhetorical frameworks served as the equipment students would use while we tackled different issues.

Deliberative Learning Outcomes and Assessment 

• DLOC 1: Students will engage in productive disagreement and agreement about key social, political, and cultural issues in sports communication theory and practice 
• DLOC 2: Students will deliberate to advance a novel solution to a policy-based communication problem

Deliberating Case Studies

To assess DLOC 1, students participated in weekly practice deliberations in class each week for the duration of a 6-week unit. With students guiding the selection of general topics,* as the deliberation facilitator I then framed questions for us to deliberate on formally during the deliberation day of each week’s “case study.” Students considered questions like “what is the value of the human in sports officiating technology?” and “what are the positive and negative impacts of sports spectacle on our sociopolitical processes?” 

In the practice deliberations, our purpose was to come to a deeper understanding of an issue in sports communication that also extends beyond the sports realm. Questions about the value of humans in sports technology reflect larger conversations around advanced technology and AI in our world. Thinking critically about the Super Bowl shed some light on how everyone being tuned in to the big event means that they can be distracted from pretty significant global events that occur during the broadcast. And at the same time, aren’t we, in a sense, entitled to a little bit of escape? 

These are just two example practice deliberations that provided an opportunity for students to engage in critical discussion, the crafting and debating of arguments, and listening to other perspectives with respect and empathy. The question(s) we explored through the practice deliberations required thoughtful engagement. Participating in the DeeP Collaborative provided the concepts and strategies needed in order to foster a deeper level of conversation. 

*If you would like to know more about this unit and its role in creating a “practice field for democracy,” I encourage you to check out my chapter in the forthcoming book from Lexington Press titled Encouraging College Student Democratic Engagement in an Era of Political Polarization, edited by Angela McGowan-Kirsch.

Final Deliberative Forum

After concluding the Deliberating Case Studies unit, where the goal was to practice deliberating on a variety of questions, the class selected a policy-based topic for a final deliberative forum, which corresponds to DLO2. We engaged in “sportified” deliberations to choose the topic; first, students brainstormed topics which were “seeded” into a “bracket” (March Madness style) to set up “topic face-offs.” Bracket by bracket, we deliberated the pros and cons of each topic, gave ratings and voted, and after deliberating between two final options, ultimately arrived at the final topic of “sports and fraud.” 

Then, for the remaining 5 weeks of the semester, students broke out into different roles to play in the deliberation: league commissioners, athletes, fans, investigative journalists, PR professionals, coaches, policy analysts, and sports law/ethics experts. In addition to researching topics like Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs), match-fixing, and illegal sports betting, students engaged in “character research” to understand the different perspectives involved in a policy conversation about fraud. In addition to locating information about training, credentials, and experiences of their assigned role, I also asked them to engage in an informational interview with a real or “simulated” person (we used ChatGPT – students prompted the chatbot to “assume the role of policy analyst in the context of sports and fraud,” for example). 

After performing some individual research, students worked together first in similar roles (e.g., Public Relations specialists and Investigative Journalists) and then in pairs where roles might experience conflicts in values (investigative journalists paired with league commissioners, for example). In these activities, I wanted students to come to a greater understanding of the various perspectives on the issues and the unique pressures faced by each. Why might an athlete engage in point-shaving, and how can we extend greater empathy to those who cheat? This foundation was necessary for policy deliberations on what to do about sports and fraud. 

The final deliberative forum (occurring over two class periods, which was not enough!) featured deliberation over the merits and drawbacks of prevention versus penalty, and the role of communication in restoring public trust in sport. Imagine the parallels between the issue of fraud in the sports context and issues of lying, manipulation, cheating, and stealing in our larger political context. Assigning roles for students to play helped them, even if imperfectly, see and argue for perspectives they might not hold themselves. Many of the students in sports communication are student athletes, but asking them to think of themselves as coaches, journalists, or even just a fan encouraged them to draw on different lines of reasoning and evidence during our deliberations. In final reflections, several students mentioned that they appreciated this feature of the final unit. I was intentional about these roles as well: students might one day become coaches, public relations professionals, or lawyers. At every turn, I tried to craft a deliberative sports communication course that also encouraged career application in addition to democratic application. 

I gained many valuable things by participating in the DeeP collaborative. I sharpened my knowledge and skills on how to incorporate deliberative pedagogy in the day-to-day practices in the classroom, from facilitating small-group and full-class discussions, to incorporating role-play, framing issues effectively for deliberation, returning to my love of metaphor and scholarly roots in the rhetorical tradition, and more. I found myself inspired to be creative and innovative to keep the course fresh and interesting. I was also constantly provided with intriguing ideas to wrestle with, challenged to be agile and flexible, and encouraged to embrace mistakes and learn for next time – see what I did there? 

I believe that incorporating formal deliberation instruction and assessments provided a distinct experience for students wanting to learn more about sports, while also helping them improve their abilities to engage in deliberation about any topic in the public sphere. The level of preparation provided by the DeeP experience, including resources on strategies to implement, troubleshooting difficulties, and support from fellow DeeP members, gave me a solid foundation on which to build a successful deliberative sports communication course. 

The Deliberative Pedagogy (DeeP) Faculty Collaborative consists of faculty from Davidson College and other higher education institutions who are committed to learning and implementing new ways to improve and deepen the quality of their class discussions. These faculty come from a wide array of disciplines and backgrounds to study and discuss deliberative pedagogy methods, share their ideas and questions with one another, and work to embed deliberation in their classrooms. In this special blog series, members of the Collaborative describe and reflect on their experiences developing and teaching their deliberation-involved courses.

As an anthropologist, I feel most comfortable in discussion seminars, working through texts and data with students as a group. The issue, of course, is that undergraduate students may feel more accustomed to lectures and thus may hesitate to contribute to discussion, even when they have worthwhile observations or arguments to make. This holds true particularly at institutions not typically regarded as “elite.” The students are, in my opinion, just as intelligent as at elite institutions in a general sense. However, they often lack the confidence in their own opinions and perspectives that an elite institution instills. I often feel as though I must coax their perspectives out of them. Facilitating discussion has proven difficult at times, and the Deliberative Pedagogy (DeeP) Collaborative offered me the chance to experiment with deliberation in the classroom. 

Anthropology requires nuance and encourages political stances, and I initially resisted the framing of many mainstream issues with which DeeP engages. Indeed, I feel that one of the primary goals of anthropology as a discipline is to interrogate the way that we commonly frame political or social questions. My breakthrough came when I asked students to watch “How to Blow Up a Pipeline” and debate the ethical and political merits of the argument espoused by the film (a fictionalized narrative drawing from Andreas Malm’s essay “How to Blow Up a Pipeline”). In other words, I asked my students whether it was ok to blow up a pipeline, given the risks posed by climate change and government inaction. 

The ensuing debate surprised me, both in terms of the range of opinions within a relatively small class, and in the way that students drew on the texts that we had already read in the first three weeks of the semester. Offering them a yes/no question with strong ethical and political implications and then asking them to justify their opinions led to a far more animated discussion requiring far less guidance from me. They also, eventually, reached a consensus where they agreed that blowing up a pipeline might be ethically permissible but was likely politically counterproductive. 

I realized that simplifying complex issues into a single question on which students could take sides allowed them to mobilize complex readings in new ways and explore their nuances. I think that this stands as the key insight offered by the deliberative literature, though it is not an insight that is frequently made explicit. Operationalizing these insights required some thought, of course. Not every weekly topic can or should be reduced to this format, particularly as I cannot always develop relevant questions. How, for instance, would I develop a deliberation on a unit engaging Indigenous worldviews? Is a deliberation even necessary? Probably not! In some cases, I can and perhaps should continue to guide the students through the literature and highlight any relevant debates. However, I began to formulate questions that would allow students to engage in deliberation while drawing from 3-4 weeks of more complex readings. In turn, I think that the periodic deliberations further encouraged students to talk during the weekly units.