Image by Brittani Burns

Deliberative practices in an everchanging online world

By Mark Magnon (Wabash College), Chase Breaux (Wabash College),
Seth Kirkpatrick (Wabash College), Jonathan Silva (Wabash College),
Dr. Rhianna Rogers (RAND CAREP), & Dr. Sara Drury (Wabash College)

WDPD and RAND-CAREP Partnership Overview

Wabash Democracy and Public Discourse (WDPD) is an initiative founded on the belief that the core of democracy is freedom of speech and expression. WDPD advances the kinds of deliberation, discussion, debate, and advocacy that cultivate democracy. The initiative comprises over 20 undergraduate students, referred to as “Democracy Fellows,” trained in facilitation, notetaking, designing deliberative conversations, and report writing. The students are trained and guided by different faculty with extensive experience designing and executing deliberative conversations. The partnership with RAND-CAREP provides WDPD undergraduate fellows with the unique opportunity of sponsorship by collaborating with Dr. Rhianna Rogers and Dr. Sara Drury in weekly meetings to provide feedback on the designing and executing of the deliberative conversation.

The partnership took form in two cohorts, one in the fall and the other in the spring. Six undergraduate students from Wabash College collaborated with RAND-CAREP as research associates. Davionne Garrett, Chase Breaux, Adam Brookman, and Jonathan Silva-Melendez collaborated on the safe and brave spaces conversation in the fall. Mark Magnon, Jonathan Silva-Melendez, Chase Breaux, and Seth Kirkpatrick collaborated on the belonging conversation in the spring. Each semester, the student project team met once a week as a project team, worked on deliberative facilitation skills in a one-hour WDPD meeting, and had a weekly meeting with Dr. Drury and Dr. Rogers. The students spent around a month researching to create a guiding document for both events. Since deliberative conversations draw on a range of perspectives, the students undertook participatory action research. This research method involves looking at academic/scholarly research, mediated accounts of the topic, and using interviews with stakeholders. All students began with the general research and then divided it into different subtopics. Students discussed their research with one another and with Dr. Drury and Dr. Rogers and then incorporated their research into a participant and facilitation guide. Each step of the students’ process was reviewed and approved weekly by both Dr. Rogers and Dr. Drury. This research process took approximately three months. At the same time, the students worked with Dr. Drury and Dr. Rogers to convene the event. This involved working closely with interested stakeholders to select a meeting time, recruit participants to the event, and develop logistical plans for facilitating online via Zoom meetings.

When a student becomes a part of the initiative, they are guided using peer-to-peer mentorship; “Senior Democracy fellows” are students who have had extensive experience with WDPD. Fellows are divided into project groups that work on individual events, projects, or series; project groups are also where students are given extended periods to work closely with a senior fellow and continue cultivating their facilitation, notetaking, and event designing skills. Before becoming a Democracy Fellow, the optional class allows students to explore the intricate skills of being a facilitator. Students heavily engage with Sam Kraner’s textbook, “Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision-Making,” where they learn the techniques and philosophies behind facilitation, notetaking, discussions, and deliberative conversation design. Students are given opportunities to collaborate with WDPD, where they can work as facilitators and learn directly from Democracy Fellows. Similarly, RAND-CAREP emphasizes facilitator/moderator and diversity, equity, and inclusion–centered training, preparing facilitators for upcoming online deliberations and ensuring equitable access to the training by recording the session for facilitators who could not make the event. Therefore, with WDPD’s consistent emphasis on developing undergraduates as facilitators and note-takers, RAND-CAREP strengthens these soft facilitation skills, further preparing the students to facilitate the discussion effectively.

When Democracy Fellows work on a project, they must go through different phases to ensure every event is held to the same high standard of quality. Generally, WDPD follows the “cycle of deliberative inquiry” model (Carcasson & Sprain, 2016). This model includes a research/framing stage, a convening stage, a deliberative event, and a reporting stage. Students research and develop participant and facilitation guides for the event. The participants’ guide offers attendees relevant information about the topic and perspectives so that all conversation members share understanding. Facilitation guides are used by the small group facilitators and outline the event’s structure and sample questions that facilitators pose to participants. The design of the facilitation guide is based on the general research behind deliberative conversations, what makes them effective, and outlines the research conducted by the fellows before the event. This process was employed in the WDPD and RAND-CAREP partnership and reinforced by collaborating with Dr. Rhianna Rogers and Dr. Sara Drury. The collaboration fosters the sponsorship of the WDPD undergraduate fellows because students perform the behind–the–scenes work in designing and executing the deliberative discussion under the supervision of Dr. Rogers and Dr. Drury. Therefore, in this collaboration, students are given the agency to frame themselves as experts in their experience, while Dr. Rogers and Dr. Drury provide weekly feedback and advice.

Once the events concluded, the students began the reporting process. This process includes reflecting on the event and examining what techniques did and did not work effectively. Students conducted additional research to address any issues they faced during the deliberative conversation. Students spent around a month writing this report, and this process guides the following document. The next section will detail the deliberative series and how the WDPD and RAND-CAREP project team framed the issue.

Issue Framing and Background

The deliberative conversations held by the RAND-CAREP and WDPD stemmed from the issue of polarization and exploring how to bridge cultural divides. By exploring different ideas and strategies, participants, facilitators, and partners gained insight into how to foster unity to create progress. The first event, “How can we create brave spaces for connecting across divides?” built upon ideas presented in the SUNY Empire deliberative conversation, “How do we heal a nation?” Safe and Brave Spaces had emerged as a possible tool for creating unity. Then, the next deliberative conversation, “Community and Belonging: How can we foster inclusion and bridge divides?” recognized the importance of belonging in each space and dived into the role belonging plays in participants’ communities and how to shape a community where all members experience a sense of belonging.

The RAND-CAREP Research Associates Program welcomed two cohorts of WDPD research associates throughout the 2021–22 academic year. These research associates worked to frame the issues at the core of each deliberative conversation. This was essential in ensuring the conversation was accessible to everyone willing to participate and addressed the issues at hand in a meaningful way. Framing the conversations gave participants the needed background and insight to engage with and contribute to the dialogue.

The topic of brave and safe spaces came about from previous work completed by Dr. Rogers, Dr. Drury, and other partners in the spring of 2021. This deliberative conversation focused on issues of political division and polarization and posited different strategies to foster understanding across these divides. RAND-CAREP and WDPD created a follow-up conversation orienting on “the convening spaces that may help — or hinder — our abilities to have a conversation across differences” (WDPD, 1).

This fall 2021 brave and safe spaces event focused on how different spaces help or hinder our abilities to have conversations across divides. For this discussion, RAND-CAREP and WDPD researched how to address the increased polarization, distrust, and anger in society relating to various aspects (e.g., implicit bias, cancel culture, etc.). This research framed the conversation around two potential frameworks for productive conversations in a community: safe and brave spaces. Insights from the safe and brave spaces deliberative conversation uncovered that both brave and safe spaces have their advantages, however, participants noted that “the topic and context” of the conversation matters and that the possibility of “echo chambers” or “avoiding tensions” is possible in both spaces (WDPD, 8).

In spring 2022, the RAND-CAREP and WDPD partnership added to the deliberative conversation series with an event entitled “Community and Belonging: How can we foster inclusion and bridge divides?” on March 2, 2022. The WDPD project group researched various definitions of belonging, through nascent literature and elite interviews. The team also incorporated the “Lumen Learning Circles” framework, which divided belonging into four evidence-based factors: representation, engaging intersectionality, mitigating bias, and pedagogical partnerships and collaboration (Cook-Sather et al., 2018; Jackson-Sanchez, 2022). Ultimately, the discussion oriented toward ways to create communities of belonging that foster a sense of inclusion “because of, not despite of, difference” (WDPD, 4). Key details for each event are described in Figure 1.

Each of these events gave facilitators and participants the opportunity to explore the different factors contributing to polarization and approaches and resources to counter it. The process of issue framing ensured everyone had access to the conversation and was equipped to contribute. The results were deliberative conversations that delve into the topics of safe and brave spaces and belonging and discussed action steps to move toward unity.

For both events, our team collected data predominately in the form of interviews and surveys with participants and with moderators. This data provided a more comprehensive understanding of the thoughts of each person involved with the event. Furthermore, the data elicited common themes of positive and negative experiences felt by participants and moderators, which acted as a foundation for our recommendations for future online deliberative events.

Figure 1.

Brave & Safe Spaces- Case Study #1

Belonging- Case Study #2

• Connected to Spring 2021 SUNY Empire deliberative conversation, “How do we heal a nation?”
• Followed themes from the Brave and Safe Spaces deliberative conversation
• Partnership between RAND and Wabash
• Partnership between RAND, Wabash, Indiana University, Westmont College, and St. Cloud State University
• 4 out of 5 Moderators were WDPD Fellow who worked closely with Dr. Drury & Dr. Rogers on a weekly basis; 5th moderator was also a WDPD Democracy Fellow
• 4 out of 10 Moderators were WDPD Fellows who worked closely with Dr. Drury & Dr. Rogers; 6 out of 10 Moderators came from other deliberation programs (IU, Westmont)
• 4 out 5 Moderators received an intercultural training module
• All Moderators viewed Rogers & Drury webinar on being a culturally inclusive moderator
• To create the participant guide, the RAND CAREP-WDPD RAs interviewed students and some faculty with a connection to Wabash College, as well as personal networks
• To create the participant guide, the RAND CAREP-WDPD RAs interviewed faculty, students, and a content expert from Lumen circles
• Participants were mostly RAND professionals
• Participants were mostly students from Wabash, Westmont, Indiana University, and St Cloud St.
• There were high participation levels and the use of cameras
• Some groups experienced a lack of engagement and low use of cameras

Data Analysis and Discussion

In this section, our team will use the data collected from participants and moderators as a guiding tool to recommend certain practices for others aiming to conduct their own online deliberation. For the fall event on Brave and Safe Spaces, our team collected 2 interviews and 13 survey responses. For the spring event on Belonging, our team collected 4 interviews and 17 survey responses.

Encouraging Participation

An essential question to ask when creating deliberations is “what are your goals?” (Carcasson, 2009). In deliberation, Carcasson has theorized six goals for deliberation: issue learning, improved democratic attitudes, improved democratic skills, individuals/community action, improved institutional decision making, and improved community problem solving (p. 2). Similarly, in education, goal-focused pedagogy helps to increase learning. Placing the “discussion up front will help you better focus your question or prompt for your students” (Verbeke, 2020). While simple, it is a fundamental step in the process of encouraging participants to engage with their moderators and with the material. Therefore, designers of deliberative conversations must have a clear goal so they are better able to 1) frame issues and design guides, 2) construct questions, and 3) prepare facilitation.

Topics of deliberative conversation emerge from public issues and questions. The first step for both deliberative conversations in this series identified the purpose of the conversation. An analysis of both online discussions demonstrated an interest amongst participants in the role that belonging plays in each space. For the first deliberation, the focus was on brave and safe spaces and their role in bridging political and social divides. However, when discussing, participants consistently turned to questions about the role of belonging in each space. This prompted our second event, where participants prioritized the purpose of belonging and how it can be instilled or deterred in communities.

Context and participant background can influence engagement. For example, the second event’s participants were entirely undergraduate students who may have had limited academic knowledge about belonging, but could easily speak to their experiences on their campuses and in their lives. To bridge the divides in experiences, the facilitation had to provide each participant with information for each to have a starting point of understanding. This need to inform participants of the complex topic was then amplified by the time limitations placed on the event. To accommodate these contextual challenges, our team created materials in a manner that made the complex topic of belonging more digestible. To do so, we mirrored the framework used by Lumen Circles, which divided belonging into four aspects: 1) representation, 2) engaging intersectionality, 3) mitigating bias, and 4) pedagogical partnerships and collaborations. We delivered this information through a presentation that explained how each entry point shaped the topic of belonging.

An additional aspect of deliberative engagement is allowing participants to process the discussion through oral communication and by observing notes during a session. In an in-person setting, our team would normally have written down major discussion points on a large easel pad so that participants could keep track of the conversation and know their contributions were appreciated. We attempted to use a similar model for both events through Google Jamboard. At the end of each discussion section, the participants identified key themes and ideas from their conversation. The notetaker for their group would then share their screen and actively write down the group’s thoughts unto a notepad within Jamboard. This technique attempted to recreate the same benefits brought upon by in-person note-taking: actively engaging the participants with the group’s discussion and validating their contributions.

Creating Equitable Spaces

Encouraging the use of cameras can be beneficial for engagement within online deliberative conversations, though this does not mean cameras should be required. An article by Karen Costa, a faculty learning facilitator, argues that demanding the use of cameras goes “contrary to everything we know about universal design for learning, about inclusive and trauma-aware teaching practices, and about making effective use of the affordances of online learning” (Costa, 2022). Costa points out that “forcing students to appear on-camera is no different than forcing them to stand in front of a mirror” and adds that “mirrors present unique challenges for trauma survivors and folks with mental illness” (LinkedIn, 2020). Deliberative conversations should be designed for learning and engaging, not compliance; therefore, deliberative conversations online should consider adaptive alternatives to promote inclusion for participants who are uncomfortable turning on their cameras. Costa acknowledges that cameras do not guarantee engagement and lists alternatives to promote learning through online deliberative conversations, including:

• Delegate and facilitate breakout rooms to allow students to collaborate in smaller groups
• Have more collaboration between participants through notetaking or google docs
• “Prioritize care, compassion, and adaptability — today, tomorrow, and in the future” (Costa, 2020).

Along with the importance of situational adaptability, it is also essential to consider how a conversation’s ground rules apply in fostering an equitable space for the conversation. After introducing partners and the overall theme of the conversation, WDPD establishes ground rules. Ground rules state guidelines for productive engagement, such as participants need to respect other participants' opinions; every participant has equal say in the discussion; no one should dominate the discussion. Ground rules are essential for deliberative conversations, because they reinstate the facilitator’s role as impartial and efficiently guide a discussion that is inclusive of all participant opinions, views, and areas of similarity or division. By encouraging participants to respect each other, and designing a conversation that is inclusive to all situations a participant may encounter, the deliberative conversation attempts to foster an equitable space.

A looming challenge for online deliberative conversations to consider is the inequalities among different demographics and access to the internet. Baek et al. (2011) highlight this issue:

On the one hand, the inequalities in internet access drawn along gender, income, and racial lines have been declining. Nevertheless, ‘demographic disparities among groups have persisted over time’ with regard to internet adoption, and the so-called ‘digital divide’ has continued in the US and worldwide (p. 367).

In any conversation, including those online, some voices may be absent due to inequalities and access. While access may be somewhat deterred when the participants are university students, whose Wi-Fi is supplied by their institution, designing deliberative conversations requires thinking through issues of access and inequalities in time to participate. Student experiences vary greatly; for example, some students may work full-time due to financial need, others are unfamiliar with Zoom technology, and others may have child/adult caring responsibilities. If demographics and access constraints are known prior to the event, they should be incorporated into its design through elements such as its timeframe, the use of cameras, etc.

Engaging Participants with Content

Deliberative conversations should have content that reflects a broad, diverse range of stakeholder views. This helps to engage participants as they see themselves in the materials and can connect with new ideas. There are two ways to approach this: first is the process of how the research was collected, and the second is the way each conversation was framed. With the collection of research, the Wabash research associates used interviews and academic research accounts on safe and brave spaces. For the conversation about belonging, the team also drafted a participant and facilitation guide using research conducted by fellows, insights from professor interviews, and a content expert from Lumen Learning Circles. These steps provided different entry points for the research before its use in conversation, which provided a diverse set of stakeholder perspectives for the facilitation team and participants.

Each event also used framing, which benefitted the way participants engaged with the content. In both cases, the team used clear frameworks to communicate the complexities of both topics. As previously mentioned, the research conducted for the belonging conversation was built on prior research from the Lumen Learning Circles model (Cook-Sather et al., 2018; Jackson-Sanchez, 2022). The framework for the safe and brace space event was based on the issue of polarization and how it prevents conversation due to increased distrust, anger, and other factors such as implicit bias and cancel culture.

Another point to consider is how the participants for each deliberative conversation were notably different. In the first event, the conversation was made up of primarily RAND expert associates, while in the second, the conversation convened participants from five different undergraduate institutions. Despite the conversation being centered around experts or students, the CAREP-WDPD project team's drafting and framing strategies for deliberative questions remained the same. For both conversations, questions were drafted to be simple, yet comprehensive of the entry points found within the research or interviews conducted. However, as expected, the differences between participants shifted engagement patterns in the deliberations. In the “Safe and Brave Space” conversation, more participants had their cameras on and engaged in the conversation. The “Belonging” conversation, on the other hand, consisted of undergraduate students from partner colleges. This is to say, the experts in the first case study participated in the deliberation because they chose to. For students in the second case study, this was the case for some, but others were required or offered the additional academic opportunity. So, this resulted in some participants, especially those in the first case study, appearing more willing to engage in the deliberative conversation.

Overall Recommendations for Future Practice and Research

The first recommendation is to design a deliberative conversation that fosters a comfortable and accessible space to voice one’s opinions. Otherwise, there is the risk of losing valuable voices that would contribute to what is learned throughout the conversation. In this process, deliberative designers should consider several different variables, such as (1) the participants’ accessibility to the internet, (2) their familiarity with the internet, and (3) the extent to which they can use functions such as camera or voice chat. Regardless of the situation or reason the participant may have, efficiently fostering an equitable space in a deliberative conversation relies on adaptability. A common area of concern for online conversations is the use of cameras. While typically meant to help participants engage in the conversation and with one another, there are times when participants will not be able to turn their cameras on for the duration of the conversation. When participants cannot use cameras, there exists a tension between their needs and their engagement in the conversation. To effectively balance both and create an equitable space, deliberative designers can reference the following techniques:

• Having a clear structure in place to separate participants into smaller groups with additional aid for participants who have a bad internet connection. In other words, having a facilitator or faculty member in charge of readmitting participants who logged off due to bad internet connection/speeds.
• Explicitly stating to the larger or smaller group that engagement in the chat is an acceptable way to communicate with the group
• Consistent access and reminders to contact information from a facilitator or a faculty member to ensure participants are aware of how to voice questions/comments/concerns about the deliberative conversation. For instance, at the start and at the end of each deliberative conversation, a faculty member provides their contact information in the chat and reminds the group of its use as a direct contact for questions and concerns.

The second recommendation is to create a deliberative design that uses information from a variety of stakeholders. Utilizing perspectives from a variety of different stakeholders in a community is essential because it incorporates varying entry points and areas of concern into the deliberative design. In our process, the cohorts in the fall and spring conducted interviews to understand different entry points from students and faculty at Wabash College and partnering institutions as well as RAND-CAREP content experts and senior management. From these interviews, the cohorts were able to effectively integrate entry points from students, faculty, RAND-CAREP content experts, and senior management in the facilitation question design. This ensured that participants reflected on varying entry points which furthered their understanding of the topic at hand.

The third and final recommendation is to ensure facilitators acquire skills of intercultural competence and impartiality to convene the conversation effectively. To convene the conversation effectively, it is also essential that facilitators understand their role in the deliberative design. Facilitators must serve as neutral facilitators who treat all voices as equally valuable. To achieve this, it is essential to recognize and address implicit biases one may have that impede upon their ability to be impartial. In facilitating our first event, the importance of this was exemplified through the diversity present. The event participants included people from all over the world. This meant that an American facilitator simply saying “in our nation today” or other similar comments assuming participants’ nationality or background may alienate people from the conversation. Intercultural Competence Training is a crucial element in equipping facilitators to effectively convene spaces for deliberative conversations. For instance, WDPD facilitators for the safe and brave spaces conversation partook in intercultural competence training through resources such as Implicit Association Tests, SPENT, and Are you a dream hoarder? Similarly, for the conversation on belonging, facilitators from WDPD and partners prepared for the event by a recorded session on intercultural sensitivity and impartiality.

Conclusion: Centering Undergraduates as Experts in Their Experiences

Wabash Democracy and Public Discourse (WDPD) and the RAND Center to Advance Racial Equity Policy (RAND-CAREP) began their official partnership in October of 2021. Since that time, both organizations have collaborated, designed, and executed two different deliberative conversation events: first, in fall 2021, “How can we create brave spaces for connecting across divides?” and second, in spring 2022, “Community and Belonging: How can we foster inclusion and bridge divides”? The experiences brought forth by both events made it clear that when dealing with community-centered problems deliberative designers should allow “non-experts” at the forefront of the conversation. In the convening stages of our deliberative design (ie., interviews), our team looked to both people traditionally considered “experts” as well as those who are not, or in the case of our spring event, undergraduate college students. From the start of our partnership, a fundamental philosophy held by both organizations is that when dealing with wicked problems that are oriented around a community, the greatest experts are not outside educators, not content specialists, but the community members who face those problems in their daily lives. We found that when discussing the topic of belonging, students who are a part of college communities provide in-depth insight into who belongs, who does not, and how that community could strive for a greater environment for all identities and backgrounds. Furthermore, our partnership is a testament to the benefits brought forth by organizations that allow undergraduate students to play a substantial role in the process of deliberative design and reporting. Undergraduate students researched, designed, and executed both deliberative events. The benefit of this decision is that these students were able to provide their own insight into each minute step of the process, which gave a “down-to-earth” understanding of how the content, questions, and facilitation techniques may impact the participants. The partnership itself provides a benefit as well, in that these students were able to network with senior management at RAND — CAREP furthering their professional experience. Lastly, the benefit of a cohort like WDPD is that it provides students with the groundwork of facilitation design and reporting experience that was reinforced by trainings and resources provided by RAND — CAREP and the oversight and sponsorship of Dr. Rhianna Rogers and Dr. Sara Drury.

About the Authors

Mark Magnon, Chase Breaux, Seth Kirkpatrick, and Jonathan Silva are students at Wabash College. Dr. Rhianna C. Rogers is the Director of the RAND Center to Advance Racial Equity Policy (CAREP). Dr. Sara Drury is an Associate Professor, Chair of Rhetoric and Director of the Wabash Democracy and Public Discourse (WDPD) initiative.