Fellow Posts

Jane McNeill ’28 (DCI Fellow)

In August of 2021, my freshman year of high school, I was trained as a dialogic facilitator through Essential Partners as part of a pilot program called Dialogue Across Difference. This initiative grew out of Ravenscroft School’s commitment to fostering a welcoming and inclusive environment for all students and faculty. The introduction of the program was also part of a broader shift toward becoming a dialogic campus, where open, respectful, and reflective dialogue is a regular part of classroom discussions (Gifford).

I first applied to be a facilitator because I liked the idea of helping create a space where participants could engage in challenging conversations with others with whom they might disagree without the fear of judgment or hostility. The goal of these dialogues was never to persuade one another or debate; instead, we sought to reflect and share, hoping to understand each other better and perhaps find some common ground.

I participated in the program over four years, leading student-facilitated dialogues and helping create dialogue in the classroom. The dialogue that was most memorable to me as a student facilitator was one I wrote on the role of guns in our community following a local shooter. I was frankly surprised when, despite clear differences of opinion, the conversation was reasoned and reasonable. The tools I learned as a facilitator also equipped me to facilitate a dialogue between school administrators and student leaders about poor communication.

In addition to these dialogues, the program also impacted how teachers approached challenging conversations in their classrooms. In addition to training student facilitators, Essential Partners also trained teachers, sharing strategies for how to emphasize open, respectful dialogue in settings where students actively share their perspectives and ideas. In a dialogic classroom, students are encouraged not to simply absorb or recite factual information, but instead to engage deeply with the subject matter by sharing their own experiences and ideas and listening thoughtfully to the experiences of others.

My experience has been that this approach to teaching turns classrooms into communities where students feel both empowered and heard, not only to share their own experiences but also to challenge and inquire about the experiences and ideas of others and, ultimately, grow. By prioritizing dialogue as a tool that leads to understanding, my high school enhanced not only learning but also the understanding and growth of the school’s community. 

Deliberative pedagogy is an approach to teaching that focuses on fostering dialogue, critical thinking, and collaborative decision-making. At its core, deliberative pedagogy encourages students to engage and deliberate over complex issues, with diverse perspectives, forcing participants to develop skills to grapple with complex issues respectfully and thoughtfully (Patterson). A deliberative school or classroom stems typically from the training of deliberative pedagogy to teachers, enabling them to act as facilitators in structured and reflective conversations.

In environments where teachers are trained as facilitators and engage students in structured dialogues, students are then encouraged to engage with a variety of perspectives, especially on contentious topics. Disagreement is not only expected, it is valued. Disagreement prompts reflection on personal stances and allows for deeper understanding. When students encounter perspectives that differ from their own, they are encouraged to practice active listening, empathy, and open-mindedness. These skills are essential to successful dialogues. Additionally, facilitators ensure that the time is shared, and that the conversation remains productive and geared to focusing on collective understanding.

Through a deliberative pedagogy approach, participants are placed in a position where they evaluate and thoroughly examine their own assumptions and standings, while interpreting and respecting the opinions shared by others (Molnar-Main). Students additionally benefit by gaining a deeper understanding of material, hone communication and conversational skills, and improve conflict resolution skills. Tools students learn in a deliberative classroom setting equip them to engage in similar conversations beyond the classroom, where our increasingly polarized country needs more people to have more of the skills learned through dialogue.

Davidson College has its own deliberative pedagogy program, the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative (DCI). Although it is specifically designed for the college level, it uses similar strategies to foster critical thinking and discussion. DCI supports faculty in providing opportunities in a variety of classroom settings to engage students in rich and beneficial deliberation on challenging, multifaceted topics. This support and education comes in many forms, such as workshops and discussion groups that teach the objectives of deliberation in the classroom; resources and documents that explain the guiding principle of deliberation and its benefits; and the Deliberative Pedagogy (DeeP) Collaborative, an educational program for faculty members committed to integrating deliberative practices into their classrooms.

Through the DeeP Collaborative, faculty members participate in ongoing education, engage with new teaching practices, and work to contribute to a wider deliberative culture on campus (“Deliberation”). Through these various approaches taken by DCI, it provides faculty with comprehensive tools, support, and knowledge to successfully integrate deliberation into their classrooms. The image above shows faculty members participating in the DeeP Collaborative’s orientation workshop and developing deliberative activities for their courses. This implementation improves student learning and prepares students to be more engaged citizens both at Davidson and in other settings.

This year, working as a fellow with DCI has been both challenging and deeply rewarding. It has given me the opportunity to continue practicing and further honing my skills as a facilitator, leading complex and nuanced discussions with students, alumni, and community members on a wide range of multifaceted topics. These experiences have pushed me to create more inclusive and reflective spaces for everyone involved. Through our various trainings, workshops, and forums I’ve seen the power of deliberation and how effectively deliberative pedagogy fosters meaningful engagement. As I’ve worked to manage and balance the dynamics of group discussions and ensure all voices are heard, I’ve improved my understanding of how to guide conversations in ways that are both productive and respectful. Each deliberation has reinforced my belief in the power of deliberation–not just as a tool for learning within the classroom, but as a lifelong skill that nurtures critical thinking, empathy, and informed citizenship.

Works Cited

“Deliberation Across the Curriculum.” Deliberative Citizenship Initiative, deliberativecitizenship.org/deliberation-across-the-curriculum-program/. Accessed 1 Dec. 2024.

Gifford, Lorre. “Dialogue Provides ‘A Bridge to Understanding and Growth.'” Ravenscroft Magazine, 8 Nov. 2024, magazine.ravenscroft.org/our-ravens/orsp/~board/voices/post/dialogue-provides-a-bridge-to-understanding-and-growth. Accessed 1 Dec. 2024.

Molnar-Main, Dr. Stacie. Deliberation in the Classroom : Fostering Critical Thinking, Community, and Citizenship in Schools. Kettering Foundation, 2017.

Patterson, Katie. “Deliberative Pedagogy in the K-12 Classroom.” National Civic League, 2020, www.nationalcivicleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/K-12-Deliberative-Pedagogy_White-Paper_Final.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec. 2024.

By Tehinnah Kitcher ‘27

We live in a digital age where social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and even Tiktok are used by many as tools to facilitate connection and communication. Additionally, in recent years, these social media platforms have been turned to increasingly as sources of news and information. Social media platforms have consequently become arenas for political discourse. The recent presidential election contributed greatly to the rise in politically motivated content.

Most of this political content that people engage with on social media will be consumed within an echo chamber. According to Cinelli et al. (2021), the echo chamber effect is defined as the “situation in which individuals are exposed only to information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs and opinions, leading to the reinforcement and amplification of these views” (3). This echo chamber effect contributes to political polarization by reinforcing existing beliefs and limiting exposure to diverse perspectives.

How so? Because social media algorithms are designed to present users with content that aligns with their previous interactions. Conversely, content that features opposing viewpoints is filtered out of the feed. The prioritization of such content leaves users in echo chambers where there exists a bias in information diffusion toward like-minded individuals and an inherent tendency to reinforce shared narratives (2). These echo chambers create increased political polarization and foster the spread of misinformation by isolating users from engaging with opposing viewpoints and sources. Echo chambers reinforce existing opinions. In doing so they can also be viewed as a driving factor in the amplification of extremist views.

How, then, do we escape our echo chambers?

Deliberation is one of the most effective ways to mitigate the negative effects of echo chambers, such as polarization. The Deliberative Citizenship Initiative (DCI) is committed to combating these effects by employing deliberative dispositions. By engaging in constructive dialogue we expose ourselves to diverse opinions that can provide valuable insights we have not yet considered. One must be open to discussion and new ideas in order for the deliberation to be fruitful. Deliberative discussions should be approached with curiosity and compassion, not assumption and contempt.

Another major issue that arises as a result of the echo chamber effect is misinformation. It is important to be critical of the sources being consulted. Additionally, make sure to fact check information before sharing it with others to help prevent the spread of misinformation. Another remedy involves adopting the deliberative disposition of evidential emphasis that promotes using evidence (experiential, factual, emotional, or descriptive) to support positions and elucidate generalizations. The process of seeking out evidence from diverse sources in combination with fact-checking notably reduces the spread of misinformation.

Echo chambers influence perceptions and shape political ideology by reinforcing existing beliefs and amplifying extremist views. None of us are immune to this effect. The first step of escaping the echo chamber is to be aware. The next is to take action. Make an effort to seek out diverse opinions that have been fact checked. Engage in constructive dialogue. The DCI has many avenues to pursue in this regard. Consider joining a D Team or attending a Deliberative Forum in the spring! We all have a part to play in fostering a deliberative democracy.

Citations

Cinelli, M., Morales, G. D. F., Galeazzi, A., Quattrociocchi, W., & Starnini, M. (2021). The Echo Chamber Effect on Social Media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(9), 1–8. PNAS. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023301118

Family gatherings are a time for family, love, connection, and, for some, dread. They can also be accompanied by a sense of worry or fear or arguments about political or controversial subjects. Time spent with family can be stressful in a situation that intensifies quickly. Even something as simple as a small comment can cause an uproar of emotion for someone else at the gathering. It may feel daunting to approach these conversations as emotions run high and feelings are cast out into the open.

Imagine a gathering where a family member decides to discuss the recent election, something that has been highly contentious in the past few months. Their point of view is made very clear, simultaneously creating upset among your other family members. You may respond angrily out of frustration, furthering the tensions and anger that have accumulated during this particular conversation. What this particular family might not be thinking about is how their backgrounds affect their opinions. In the case of this proposed family argument, you might not be considering your family member’s emotions that could have led them to their opinion. Someone’s age, gender, race, sexuality, or geographic location might affect their opinions on political topics such as the election. For these reasons, I propose the idea of storytelling.

While this may seem like an insignificant concept, storytelling provides people the space to share their experiences in hopes of forming a connection or understanding with others. A crucial element of storytelling is keeping an open mind toward those who are sharing their story. The ability to understand and connect with someone is preceded by a willingness to hear them out. This acts as a stepping stone to creating a safe environment where tension is cast aside. In the example of a family argument, taking a step back and asking about your family member’s reasons for the opinion they have expressed invites storytelling and helps you move away from an unproductive exchange.

How might you approach storytelling? Starting with a simple “Can you tell me more?” can get the ball rolling toward a productive conversation. Following up with more questions about their story and concluding with “Thanks for sharing” can create a safe space where people feel comfortable sharing their stories and reasons behind their opinions. With this in mind, remember that your open-mindedness may help create a calm and welcoming environment for discussion, even on topics that might feel daunting.

Once a connection is established through storytelling, empathy can begin to form. Although disagreements may remain, there is now the possibility of finding common ground between backgrounds and ideologies. For instance, if your family member grew up in the same town as you there is more room for connection through the geographical aspect of your lives. You would then be able to understand how your hometowns might have affected your opinions or beliefs. The human connection between similar backgrounds, regardless of political opinion, allows for empathy through understanding of one’s situation. A sense of community is formed, given storytelling’s ability to bridge the gap between political disagreement. A deeper understanding of one’s background provides a bond between people through mutual understanding of different circumstances. Furthermore, a demonstrated willingness to listen allows the storyteller to trust their audience. This sense of community promotes trust in others, even if everyone’s beliefs are not in complete alignment.

The ability to disagree and feel a sense of trust with others is not mutually exclusive. The DCI seeks to empower students through this community of trust. The DCI also seeks connection between all who chose to participate by promoting inclusion and understanding between its participants. The use of storytelling promotes those values held by the DCI through the establishment of common ground and understanding within a group of people.

This was the moment: After all the training, mock deliberations, and facilitations within the Fellows group, it was finally time to conduct my own D-Team. I had reviewed my facilitator’s guide and toolkit before arriving to make sure I was fully prepared. 

About an hour into the meeting, there was a lull in the conversation, so I chose to ask a prompting question that would hopefully encourage more discussion. As I thought about what to say, though, I realized that one thing I hadn’t really thought about was how to ask a question neutrally without accidentally saying something that would show a preference for either side. Though I did eventually find something to say that was down the middle of the discussion, it led me to think about how the wording of questions can influence a discussion.

This topic doesn’t just apply to DCI’s deliberative teams or forums; we see the challenge of neutrally asking questions everywhere, from court cases to presidential debates. The problem with asking questions with a bias is that it can put people on the defensive, close down the conversation, or cause someone to go on the attack. When it feels like the facilitator is favoring one perspective over another, it can also leave participants feeling shut out of the conversation, which is the opposite of what a good deliberation should do. 

It can also escalate a conversation from a discussion to a debate when it feels like the moderator is purposely trying to challenge your principles or values. For example, on the topic of the DCI’s forum on economic inequality, a question beginning with the statement, “If we all agree that equal opportunity is a good place to start… ” may shut some out of the discussion when not all members of the group have agreed on that assumption.

In addition to furthering a discussion, questions can also be used to understand participants’ beliefs. Because an important part of deliberation, in addition to being a neutral ground to discuss ideas, is to listen to other people’s perspectives and what motivates their values, asking questions of participants to hear more of their opinion is very important as well.  If a participant expresses a viewpoint that has yet been unsaid in the group, the facilitator should not be afraid to ask about why they hold this view, as long as they do so in a non-confrontational and non-targeting way. 

Another important way questions can be used by a facilitator is to bring out perspectives that are not included at the table. Sometimes D -Teams can hold more homogeneous viewpoints. In these cases, asking a question from someone else’s perspective can help to broaden the group’s area of discussion. To prevent the participants from believing that this is the facilitator’s viewpoint, the facilitator should always make sure to clarify when they are playing “devil’s advocate” or choosing to bring a new idea into the deliberation.

As a new facilitator, I’ve realized that there are many skills I’ve developed as I’ve gained more experience, such as when to step into a conversation or when to leave the floor more open. Additionally, I’ve been figuring out how to ask questions that are unbiased while still guiding the group farther into a discussion. Despite starting this post with a situation that may not apply to everyone, learning how to further a conversation with a neutral tone could be helpful in lots of different contexts. For example, when dealing with an argument with a friend, learning how to say what you want without attacking their thoughts could be very important to preserving that relationship. In addition, as deliberation becomes more and more important and hopefully widespread, the ability to ask unbiased questions can help moderators everywhere keep their conversations on track, framed in a neutral manner, and moving forward towards greater mutual understanding.

The American political arena is full of questions post election of Donald Trump. What will Trump’s second term look like? How will American foreign policy shift? How could pollsters be so wrong – can we trust them anymore? Why did the Democrats, and Kamala Harris, come up short?  

A majority of the recent political buzz pertains to the last question: how did the Democrats fail so miserably? There is a lot of finger pointing going on, in attempts to explain the Democrats’ failure. Was it the inability to capture the Latino male vote, or the lack of open primaries, or even the lack of time Kamala had to prepare and properly campaign? Democratic voters may have been disillusioned by the dramatic shift in positions – also known as flip-flopping – that the party took this election cycle. Harris, keen to win over battleground states, walked back on several issues such as fracking and immigration in hopes of gaining support from moderate Republicans. This may have undermined her support among her base while not being sufficiently persuasive to swing voters. But critiques of flip-flopping are ubiquitous across the political spectrum. During Harris’ campaign, Trump lambasted her indecisiveness, which some might view as hypocritical considering Trump and his running mate J.D. Vance also changed their positions on particular issues as well.  

The left’s frustration (many young democrats feel their opinions were disregarded by the Harris campaign) with some of Kamala’s new policies is understandable. A shift towards matching any “flip-flopping” with hostility, though, is not positive for America or its democracy.  

Things have not always been this way, though. In a 2016 journal article titled, “The Flipside of Flip-Flopping: Leader Inconsistency, Citizen Preferences, and the War in Iraq” by Sarah E. Croco, a professor of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland, we gain crucial insights into why some “flips” are reacted to so negatively. Essentially, voters succumb to confirmation bias when deciding to support a flip or not. Croco states, “Citizens are rarely put off by a leader’s change of heart provided the politician’s switch moves him closer to their preferred policy” (253). In our case, if Kamala started with positions leaning center-right, and shifted her stances to be left-leaning, she would have seen an increase in support from Democrats, and they would therefore disregard her flip-flopping.  

Further, Croco claims that in the 2004 presidential election between George Bush and John Kerry, and the 2012 election between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, there were high levels of flip-flopping among the candidates (referencing Kerry and Romney), but this had little effect on election day. In Kerry’s case, although he flip-flopped his position on US involvement in the War in Iraq, anti-war voters still would have preferred him to Bush (253). Additionally, Kerry only flip-flopped on one issue. Serial flip-floppers may fare even worse, as they are perceived as less credible when they flip on multiple positions. Further, serial flippers are even more prone to criticism than a politician who flips on just one issue (Croco, 255). In Kamala’s case, this “serial flip-flopping” may have been key to her demise.  

Croco’s article points out the stigma against flip-flopping, but does not provide any way to combat it. The DCI provides the foundation for combating anti-flip-flopping mindsets from the ground up. Through D Teams or forum events, the DCI makes a space for respectful, open minded conversation across partisan lines. One purpose of these discussions is for people to broaden their perspective on a certain issue, like DEI or campus protests (both of which were D Team topics for this semester), and maybe even change their opinions on an issue as a result of hearing another perspective.  

Should we not extend this sentiment to politicians? Politically-motivated serial flip-floppers may receive less sympathy from the public eye, but thoughtful single issue flippers should certainly be given more leeway. Just like us, they too can change their mind. The onus is on we the people, and our political leaders, to not propagate indiscriminate anti-flipping rhetoric, as anyone can – and should be allowed to – change their mind.   

Citations

Croco, Sarah. 2016. “The Flipside of Flip-Flopping: Leader Inconsistency, Citizen Preferences, and the War in Iraq.” Foreign Policy Analysis 12 (3).