Collaborative Deliberation: An Alternative to Adversarial Discussion

• In Event: New Approaches to Humanizing and Relational Engagement With Public Issues in Social and Civic Education

Abstract

This paper advances a new, alternative form of deliberation—collaborative deliberation—that centers cooperation as well as opposition and allows for a wider range of expressive forms and communication styles. We define collaborative deliberation as non-adversarial problem-solving within a trusting, mutually reciprocal partnership, premised on common interests and involving diverse forms of expression and communication (Author, 2022). This is a common process of deliberation outside schools, yet it has received little attention in educational contexts.

The dominant paradigm for deliberation centers around a particular type of engagement: “adversarial” deliberation. An example of adversarial deliberation is the popular Structured Academic Controversy (SAC) model (D. Johnson et al., 1996), in which students consider opposing viewpoints on an issue and then take part in structured discussions or debates in which they present reasons and evidence to support a position (sometimes switching positions in the process), to give each side a fair hearing before reaching a decision.

Relying exclusively on adversarial deliberation, however, limits students’ preparation for public life in two ways. First, it restricts forms of participation. Students are expected to express themselves through calm and analytic verbal exchanges that typically excludes personal narratives, highly passionate or emotional speech, and non-verbal forms of expression (Gibson, 2020; Knowles & Clark, 2018), even though positions on public issues are often grounded in identity and personal experience and may inspire great passion. Second, the adversarial approach deliberately juxtaposes contrasting viewpoints. Issues are typically framed as competing alternatives: Should we do x or not? Should we do x or y? This can also limit students’ ability to work together to consider issues thoughtfully as well as sets up the expectation that public policy is a zero-sum game in which one “side” wins and the other loses.

In contrast, collaborative deliberation focuses on how people in a community can work together with others in ways that are grounded in mutual goals and interests. In this situation, the nature of such disagreements will differ, because they are not set within an inherently adversarial and oppositional context, among people with deeply held and divergent values, and interests. Collaborative deliberation, furthermore, encourages communicative diversity, including the use of less formal, more inclusive communication modes that can reduce “deliberative inequalities” (Hendriks, 2006, p. 496), and potentially mitigate the existence of unequal power relations within a group.

Teachers aiming to prepare students for collaborative deliberation, therefore, need to consider how to frame issues for deliberation. Framing matters, because it helps define the problem, delimit the range of appropriate solutions, and consequently, determine the types of actions that should be taken (Benford & Snow, 2000). Teachers, in addition, need to consider different ways of organizing students for deliberation, including building trust and relationships by helping students articulate shared goals, concerns, values, and priorities. Finally, teachers need to establish deliberative norms that clearly signal acceptance of different forms of expression, make space for expressions of emotion and passion, and allow for a range of discourse, including arguments supported by personal testimony.

Authors

• Keith C. Barton, Indiana University
  Presenting Author

• Li-Ching Ho, University of Wisconsin - Madison
  Presenting Author