Equity Centered Deliberative Conversations (ECDC)

Rhianna C. Rogers and Sara A. Mehltretter Drury

fizkes/Adobe Stock

Creating Inclusive Conversations: Introducing the Equity Centered Deliberative Conversations (ECDC) Conceptual Framework

Rhianna C. Rogers (1) and Sara A. Mehltretter Drury (2)

(1) Center to Advance Racial Equity Policy, RAND Corporation

(2) Rhetoric Department, Wabash College

Abstract

With the challenges of a global pandemic, loss of institutional trust, increased polarization, and declines in democracy, there is need for models of robust public participation to address social problems. This essay offers Equity Centered Deliberative Conversations (ECDC), a deliberation model and research process that incorporates undergraduate research, community voices, equity-centered design, deliberation as communication design, and deliberative pedagogy. We explain the theoretical foundations, draw lessons from three case studies, and offer recommendations.

Keywords: community engagement, diversity, deliberation, deliberative pedagogy, participatory research, undergraduate research

Introduction

While the challenges to democracy are significant (Darabi, 2020), participatory approaches have been offered as a pathway towards alleviating symptoms and problems of anti-democratic trends (Thomas & Upchurch, 2020). A significant example of participatory approaches to undergraduate education and collaborative campus-community partnerships is deliberative democracy. In its ideal form, a deliberative approach “offers all members of a society, even those with minority opinions, an opportunity to express their viewpoints and influence change” (Black & Shaffer, 2018, p. 3). This is accomplished through people coming together and sharing perspectives, undertaking a reasoning process of weighing different potentials, and ultimately deciding what should be done. Deliberation incorporates “inclusive participation,” and fosters “the legitimation of public authority, mutual understanding, and the integration of diverse sorts of knowledge” (Dryzek et al., 2019, p. 1145). Deliberation is therefore a fruitful method to bring together the lived experiences and local knowledges of community members with academic public policy.

To be successful, however, deliberation must also find ways to purposefully create spaces for and involve diverse communities. Equity-centered design is the practice of purposefully involving diverse communities throughout a design process with the goal of allowing their voice to directly affect how the solution will address the inequity at hand. Equitable design acknowledges that equity doesn’t happen by chance but with intent and focus (Rogers, 2022).

We therefore propose the model of Equity Centered Deliberative Conversations (ECDC), offering a research and practice methodology for more inclusive deliberative democracy. In addition to meeting the need for more inclusive deliberative practice, ECDC also provides an innovative pedagogical pathway, specifically for deliberative pedagogy undertaken in collaborative partnerships within and across undergraduate colleges and universities. Additionally, the ECDC provides a pathway for inclusive and collaborative partnerships between higher education institutions and other entities, such as organizations and communities. The model emphasizes the importance of a range of knowledges in deliberative framing, incorporating learning alongside expertise and lived experience. In what follows, we review relevant literature around best practices, offer the model of ECDC as the result of participatory action research, and consider best practice recommendations.

Collaborations within Deliberative Pedagogy

In our collaborative approach to deliberative conversations, we emphasize a model of inclusive collaborations rather than solely relying on the community-based participatory research (CBPR) framework (Christopher et al., 2008). This approach involves engaging individuals most affected by community issues, collaborating with those possessing research expertise to collectively investigate and analyze these concerns, aiming to devise actionable strategies. The emphasis lies in fostering collaboration where community members actively participate in project conceptualization, data collection, analysis, and result dissemination. Unlike traditional applied research, CBPR underscores the importance of conducting research with the community, valuing the expertise and insights of its members (Hacker, 2013; Kuehl et al., 2020). This collaborative model extends into higher education, where CBPR can integrate into student research projects and curricula (Fontaine, 2006). To foster robust partnerships between academia and the community, intentional efforts from faculty to involve undergraduate students, faculty support for these students, and opportunities for substantial intellectual contributions beyond coursework are crucial (Russell et al., 2017).

Such partnerships are a key part of the use of deliberation in higher educational settings. Institutions have found deliberation to be a way to collaborate with the community as community based participatory research. Other institutions use deliberation as a way of exploring public issues and promoting diversity of perspectives (Lee, 2011). Still others use deliberation as a mode of convening stakeholders on divisive topics (United Nations Development Programme, 2007). Public deliberation processes offer a grounded context for engaging controversial topics (Goodin, 2008; Burkhalter et al., 2002). Furthermore, the discourse focus of deliberation means that through the conversation, a community can be formed (Kuehl et al., 2020) and mobilize for action (Kuehl, Drury, & Anderson, 2015). Undergraduate students are involved in a variety of ways in public deliberation, including as passionately impartial trained facilitators (Carcasson & Sprain, 2016) and as framers and research collaborators for deliberative projects (Drury et al., 2016).

Deliberative pedagogy is teaching that supports democracy through the skills, habits, and practices of deliberative democracy. It is a “democratic educational process … that encourages students to encounter and consider multiple perspectives, weigh trade-offs and tensions, and move toward action through informed judgment.” But perhaps most significantly, it is about “space-making,” or the creation of spaces to host “authentic and productive” conversations (Longo et al., 2017, p. xxi). As teachers, both authors have created public deliberation events and used deliberative pedagogy in their courses and co-curricular activities for students. Our experiences demonstrate the wide ranging use of these methods for collaborative partnerships. To encourage use of deliberative pedagogy and public deliberation across institutions of higher education and beyond, we provide background on developing the model and principles for centering equity in deliberative design.

Equity Centered Deliberative Conversations (ECDC)

Our deliberative model of Equity Centered Deliberative Conversations (ECDC) brings together CBPR and deliberative pedagogy for a more inclusive research process. This model could be used in classes, research and capstone projects, and in undergraduate co-curricular activities to enhance student engagement with pressing social problems. Three case studies across three different institutions inform the model: (1) an interdisciplinary project in a northern city at a public university; (2) a undergraduate research program at a midwestern small liberal arts college; and (3) the RAND Corporation Center to Advance Racial Equity Policy.

It is worth noting that the ECDC model draws from the broader frame work developed by one of the authors, namely the interdisciplinary project in a northern city at a public university. For eleven years (2010–2021), Rogers created and ran this project, a longitudinal participatory action research project focused on the use of cultural data as the baseline for programmatic development and implementation. Using Vincent Tinto’s (1975; 1987; 1993) seminal research on retention, which suggests that without social and cultural integration of diverse perspectives, diverse students will not be retained. He suggested that a testable foundation for analyzing cultural factors is essential for combating these issues in academia. Within the project, Tinto’s vision of multicultural inclusivity has been embraced through the recognition of diverse voices and its use as a baseline for academic programming and initiatives. For example, while the city that the university is located in has always been, and continues to be, a diverse region with residents from a variety of cultural, religious, and socio-economic backgrounds, these individuals –including our students–frequently exist in homogeneous communities, isolated from each other. One of the authors worked with colleagues, research associates, and community stakeholders to implement programs that addressed perceptions of culture, race/ethnicity, and its impacts on the stakeholder learning processes. The project grew, forming state-wide and international
partnerships, and co-creating a collective with advocates across the US. This work led the author to be featured as part of the United Nations Geneva Forum in 2020 and 2021. This research proved changing or challenging fundamental assumptions in educational discourse, including the importance of multicultural awareness in colleges and universities, (1) cannot be done without the development and inclusion of diverse content and perspectives (Banks, 2016). A goal for this project has been to develop safe spaces for all participants, no matter their viewpoint, in order to discuss topics of broad cultural importance, like multiculturalism in learning, the impact of diversity of students and faculty, as well as equity in education.

Additionally, the work drew from experiences of a program at the small liberal arts college, namely an interdisciplinary initiative that trains students in the theories and practices of deliberative democracy and offers opportunities for students to collaborate in deliberation projects. Students in the program work with staff to research and design deliberations. Over the last seven years, this program has worked with community organizations, local governments, and student groups to host dialogues and deliberations and contribute to community problem-solving, using a range of deliberative models (National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation, 2014).

Working together, the authors co-hosted an online deliberative conversation responding to the events of January 6th, 2021, called “How Do We Heal as a Country? Help Us Identify Steps to a More Perfect Union?” (Rogers & Drury, 2021). This event was open to the public, and attracted participants from a range of public and private universities. In fall 2021 and spring 2022, a third partner joined, namely the RAND Corporation Center to Advance Racial EquityPolicy. Six undergraduate research students collaborated on the research, design, and hosting of two additional Equity Centered Deliberative Conversations (ECDC). The fall 2021 conversation focused on brave and safe spaces, and engaged employees and associates across the RAND Corporation. The spring 2022 conversation focused on belonging and engaged college students across multiple campuses. (2)

In the three case studies, the conditions for productive dialogue were designed with a focus on increasing cultural awareness, interaction, and discussion among diverse stakeholders around complex, sometimes uncomfortable topics. The ECDC format is meant to bring together
individuals who represent diverse perspectives around a topic; sometimes difficult or controversial, to advocate for tangible, joint solutions that give a voice to all invested in the conversation (McCoy & Scully, 2002). As a byproduct, participants engage with diverse viewpoints, which broaden the conversation from dominant views about social conditions to more pluralistic perspectives (i.e., including marginalized views). Using this method–including gathering those who have a shared understanding of unjust conditions, face inequities, and have the power to influence change–fosters investment in the issue of concern, empowerment around
understanding different perspectives, and opportunities for change.
Beginning with Equity Centered Design Equity centered design is the practice of purposefully involving diverse communities throughout a design process with the goal of allowing their voice to directly affect how the solution will address the inequity at hand. Equitable design acknowledges that equity doesn’t happen by chance but with intent and focus. While it is a broad practice applicable to all kinds of institutional environments, equity-centered design lends itself well to education and learning and so has applications for instructional design.

(1) For this project, we have defined multicultural awareness as “a greater understanding, sensitivity, and appreciation of the history, values, experiences, and lifestyles of groups that include, but are not limited to: race, ethnicity,
gender, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, socio-economic status, and mental or physical abilities” (University Counseling Center University of Notre Dame, 2021).

(2) All public deliberation activities in this essay were approved by respective Institutional Review Boards.

Beginning with Equity Centered Design

Equity centered design is the practice of purposefully involving diverse communities throughout a design process with the goal of allowing their voice to directly affect how the solution will address the inequity at hand. Equitable design acknowledges that equity doesn’t happen by chance but with intent and focus. While it is a broad practice applicable to all kinds of institutional environments, equity-centered design lends itself well to education and learning and so has applications for instructional design.

The ECDC model developed here draws on three components:

• Equity generally refers to fair and just access to opportunity. Looking through an equity lens, we reposition Diversity (e.g., people) and Inclusion (e.g., opportunity) as supporting concepts that lead to Justice (see Table 1).
• Anti-racism is the active process of identifying and eliminating racism by changing systems, organizational structures, policies, practices, and attitudes so that power is redistributed and shared equitably.
• Human-centered design is an approach to problem solving that develops solutions through a strong, consistent focus on the human perspective by empathizing with the end user.

Figure 1.

The CAREP Equity-Center Model

RAND Corporation’s Center to Advance Racial Equity Policy (CAREP) takes this approach one step further through the application of CAREP’s equity-minded principles (Figure 1). Across their work, CAREP utilizes the principles to help construct diverse project team’s composition, making inclusive choices around diverse stakeholder engagement experiences, and establishing procedures that guard against bias and actively promote access and equitable representation. These principles create opportunities for stakeholder growth and reflection throughout the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) assessment process, center equity in organizational capacity building efforts and feedback loops, and use data-driven findings in creating a tailored Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Justice (DEIJ) strategic approach that meets client development and strategic planning expectations. RAND researchers working within CAREP cross-functional teams apply an equity lens alongside their disciplinary backgrounds in order to center DEI in their research (RAND, 2022). This means all aspects of work in CAREP center DEI principles throughout the research design process, from proposal development and study design to the disseminating of research findings and reporting (Table 1).

DEI research at RAND and within CAREP has found that diversity on its own will not necessarily deliver positive results organizations are currently striving for; instead, the key ingredient which makes diversity (people) successful is the way it interacts with equity (access) and inclusion (opportunity). The combination of equity-minded principles and CBPR approach assists organizations in developing and implementing a DEI vision, strategy and implementation plan and our analysis or practices provide additional services to advise and support organizations to ensure all aspects of DEI are taken into consideration. Centering stakeholder voices requires inclusive processes for engaging diverse stakeholders, with attention to equity in listening for and amplifying voices from stakeholders who have been previously underrepresented.

In deliberation, equity centered design means paying attention to the perspectives of stakeholders who may have been historically excluded and face barriers to full participation. Deliberation provides opportunities for all participants to engage with diverse viewpoints that broaden the overall conversation from a focus on the dominant views about social conditions to more pluralistic perspectives of topics (i.e., to include marginalized views). Equity in deliberative design “means taking into account the advantages and disadvantages that have shared participants’ experiences” (Abdullah et al., 2016). Such equity may be in tension with equality in deliberation, or the practice or desire to treat all deliberators the same. The model of ECDC respects this tension, while offering a pathway of prioritizing equity; this is in line with the recommendation of Bächtiger & Beauvais (2016) to identify goals for a deliberation and prioritize those goals. ECDC prioritizes equity and inclusion as a model for creating deliberative forums, bringing together those who have a shared understanding of unjust social conditions, those who face inequities in and absence from policy creation, and those who have the power to influence change.

Choosing a Viable Topic in an Equitable Way

An ECDC topic should emerge from the community. While many deliberative models engage “systemic and paradoxical” wicked problems, or complex public issues that endure for a long time (Carcasson & Sprain, 2016, p. 41), ECDC provides avenues for addressing wicked problems or creating a space for a more rapid, deliberative response to emerging public concerns. This flexibility encourages the engagement of key questions for current public issues and/or the consideration of what should be done to address long standing problems. The topic can and should reflect the needs of the partners in collaboration: What needs to be addressed? What would benefit from equity-centered deliberation? What issues needs a space for those voices who might feel disempowered, excluded, or left out?

Each of the three deliberative conversation events organized constituted distinct communities of practice, acknowledging varied perspectives such as participatory action research (PAR) and deliberation. The first ECDC event took place February 2, less than one month after the Capitol riots in Washington, D.C., on January 6, 2021. The focus of “How to Heal a Nation” responded to an immediate concern, namely how a deliberative conversation might engage stakeholders (e.g., students, community members, political constituents), “some of whom feared for the safety of themselves and their families, and others who felt threatened and underrepresented by the negative rhetoric coming from both sides of the aisle” (text quoted from the framing document). At the same time, the event also drew on deeper social problems such as social unrest, polarization, and truth decay. The resultant deliberative conversation involving 76 participants via Zoom led to the emergence of subsequent topics. The second event, held on November 16, 2021, centered on the concept of safe and brave spaces. While the initial conversation delved into the challenges of inclusion and the necessity for spaces encouraging difficult discussions, the focus of this event shifted to delineating the anticipated conditions in safe and brave spaces. Participants explored reasons for seeking or avoiding such spaces and anticipated outcomes. Notably, a key discussion point revolved around how certain spaces fostered a heightened sense of belonging, establishing a groundwork for action. Consequently, the third event concentrated on exploring avenues through which communities could actively cultivate an overarching sense of belonging for all involved.

The three case studies showcase how ECDC provides pathways for cycles of deliberative inquiry across communities of practice. Carcasson and Sprain (2016) define deliberative inquiry as “a perpetual learning process that combines traditional policy analysis and the analysis of public discourse with structured, productive interaction between relevant parties, all with an eye towards identifying and supporting” actions (p. 42). The selection of ECDC topics is driven by the community, initiating subsequent topics through a process of deliberation and action, embracing participatory and inclusive approaches tailored to the diverse communities involved.

The ECDC Deliberative Framing Process

All three case studies relied on collaborative research for framing the deliberation and convening (reflecting the first two stages of Carcasson and Sprain’s cycle of DI). In each of the three conversations, framing utilized a range of research methods, including interviews, surveys, reading news articles, and engaging scholarly literature. surveying academic and popular literature. For the first conversation, the authors worked together to write the framing document, including information about January 6, 2021; partisanship and polarization; and truth decay. Additionally, undergraduate students become involved in the research process when those students who would serve as impartial facilitators for the event took the framing draft to their peers. This process brought feedback from individuals across the political spectrum, which was important to the ECDC’s goal “to provide a space for respectful debate and dialogue around the political state of our Nation with the hopes of proposing meaningful solutions.” In the second and third case studies, undergraduate students took a primary role in the research. The resulting deliberative conversation guides brought together diverse perspectives while highlighting popular press and academic literature on the topic.

This framing process results in a contemporary, multi-perspective policy brief to prompt deliberation and closes with a set of questions for discussion. This is provided to participants prior to the conversation so they can review the material and questions, and then presented at the event to assemble the community around a shared understanding of the issue. The document also becomes a record of the conversation and a resource for replication if others wish to have a similar ECDC.

Holding the Deliberative Conversation

The analysis of the aforementioned Deliberative Conversations are useful examples for how to host events around sensitive issues. The following are key points to address when developing using the ECDC Deliberative Conversation model:

1. Prioritize partnering with “trusted messengers.” Unfortunately, many organizations have profited off of DEI work without the inclusion of the voices from the communities that their work is supposed to represent. Partnering with trusted messengers from within the community is not an act of charity or goodwill; it is an act of economic and social justice. One strategy we would recommend is to create different spaces for folks to articulate their understanding of the topic without judgment. Including trusted messengers enables practitioners to shift the optics away from the superficial reasons organizations might engage in DEI — it refocuses this work on real organizational and systemic change.
2. Incorporate and support introductory, intermediate, and advanced learning opportunities. One person cannot impact a topical area alone and without proper training. It takes a team of individuals trained in DEI spaces to truly create organizational impact. It is also crucial to recognize that people will be in different parts of their journey; we cannot expect each person to be in the same space. Taking a developmental, ongoing approach to DEI research is vital to spreading learning opportunities across your organization. In this model, it is important to set up learning opportunities that target different levels of knowledge in the racial equity space (introductory, intermediate, and advanced). This should be an iterative process. No one can know all there is to know about DEI. Things change, terminology expands, and issues that impact DEI evolve. Institutions should build a fluid approach so as to risk missing out on various entry points. On a campus, this may mean assessing voices that typically take a role in events and conversations on controversial issues, and then broadening the circle. Administrators and those with disciplinary expertise must also engage with those who are stakeholders beginning their interest or concern in a topic so as to incorporate learning across various levels. Within the conversation, ground rules should encourage asking questions and sharing various types of knowledge, including personal experiences, historical considerations, and content expertise.
3. Select a space that is accessible. It is important to note that accessible applies to both technology and inclusive design principles. Incorporating this model pushes for each conversation to be responsive to the context and conditions. As such, do not limit those who can attend by hosting the event in a space that allows for diversity and/or provides access to vulnerable populations, like BIPOC peoples and folks with invisible and visible disabilities. Physical space could also be supplemented with virtual spaces (e.g., video conferencing tools) to encourage broader engagement.
4. Examine and diversify resource perspectives. As noted above in framing the issue, academic sources may prove inaccessible to a wider audience. To reach a broader range of potential participants, select resources that present material from a variety of perspectives and offer a clear, straightforward explanation of the issue. The goal is to be inclusive and not to favor one perspective on the topic over another. Do an environmental scan of the academic and “grey literature.” (3) This environmental scan will be complemented by original research and data collection through surveys, interviews, and focus groups that takes a participatory, engaged approach to documenting programming and interventions by community-based organizations of color look like on the ground.
5. Utilize trained, impartial facilitators. Impartial facilitation takes a nonpartisan, process-oriented focus (Sprain & Carcasson, 2013). Facilitators in these case studies had curricular training in communication and facilitation, and specialized training in equity and inclusion. For those wanting to explore training for facilitation, there are a number of resources including Sprain & Carcasson’s (2013) work on democratic engagement through passionate impartiality, the Collaborative Discussion Project’s Toolkit (2023), and materials produced in collaboration with CAREP (Breaux, 2022; Magnon et al., 2022; The RAND Corporation, 2023).
6. Encourage participation through support and clear ground rules, agreed to by all participants. Entering a deliberative space requires a reorientation to personal and community engagement. This must be articulated at the beginning of the process, typically through an introduction spoken by the conveners or facilitators. For example, in the participant guiding documents for these three case studies contained language such as, “Deliberative conversations are an effort to increase cultural awareness, interaction, and discussion among participants. This format brings together individuals who represent diverse perspectives around a topic, sometimes tricky or controversial, to avocate for tangible, joint solutions that give a voice to all stakeholders.” If participants feel judged or underqualified to participate, then they will be less likely to participate. Every person attending has a voice and should be heard. Ground rules encourage equity amongst participants. To increase support for participants, the conveners should create multiple avenues for communication; for example, in an online deliberative conversation this could include text chat and making a cell phone text number available for support if ground rules are not followed.
7. Solicit participant feedback. A survey handed out at the end of the discussion will offer the participants a chance to voice their thoughts while the discussion is fresh in their minds. Also, the survey will provide data that indicates if the discussion was a success or not. If participants feel nothing occurred, then future discussions can be adjusted to convey the importance of the event.
8. Follow up to promote sustainability of methods and foster buy in. It is important that participants are empowered to continue the conversations after the event ends. In this way, our model is structured to build productive relationships and communication lines between researchers and those in the field. This involves incorporating practitioner and participant insights into our literature review to make it more useful and applicable to those in the field and taking a deliberate (and deliberative) approach to identifying common themes, challenges, and next steps. While some of these linkages already exist, the inherently multidisciplinary nature of this field of research and practice calls for the sort of open and inclusive approach we propose here. The goal of ECDC should be to foster networks that continue beyond the conversation.

(3) In the context of this article, “Grey literature” encompasses a wide range of documents and materials that are produced and distributed outside of traditional commercial or academic publishing channels. It includes reports, working papers, government documents, conference proceedings, technical reports, theses, and other forms of literature that are not commonly found in standard bibliographic databases or library catalogs. Grey literature is often produced by government agencies, research organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and industry associations. It is valuable for providing insights, data, and research findings that may not be readily available in mainstream publications and is frequently used in research, policy development, and decision-making processes (Pappas & Williams, 2011; Hopewell et al., 2007; Mahood et al., 2014).

Reflections and Future Practice

With changing demographics and growth of populations of color in the United States, higher education should continue reconsidering avenues for productive and inclusive conversations on and off campus. There is a collective power that emerges when education allows multicultural voices to be heard. As this project illustrated, collecting data to inform the development of academic programming is an effective way to encourage multicultural awareness on campus. Doing so offers learning opportunities that support an atmosphere of inclusivity and gives voice to all populations. The key to making the ECDC model successful across campuses is its use of participatory action research and ethnographic data from diverse cultures. By personalizing the guidelines above to fit the institution and target audience, we feel that the ECDC model can lead to an increased acceptance and awareness of cultures at institutions. Developing safe spaces, seeking and giving the voices of all involved a chance to be heard, and creating action-based responses to issues that arise will lead to not only success on campuses but will leave an impact on the community and society as a whole. By influencing the expectations through educational programming, we can seek to break the cycle of cultural misunderstandings, solidifying the need for projects and initiatives like the ECDC Deliberative Conversation model to continue growing and expanding their outreach.

As institutions of higher education, it is our responsibility to prepare our students to be successful graduates and culturally competent members of the 21st century globalized community and workforce. It is when faculty, administrators, and staff take time to reflect on their own worldviews that we, educational leaders, can fully address the issues that are facing populations today. Implementing similar projects across institutions offers one way of rebuilding cross-cultural communication in turbulent times. By doing so, institutions can raise the educational attainment of diverse student populations and increase their institutional retention rates; ultimately empowering more individuals to impact cultural views in various communities. This process may be uncomfortable for some but will lead to acceptance and cross-cultural understanding for others. By creating healthy spaces for dialogue, individuals or groups who feel isolated or marginalized, have more opportunities to voice their needs and wants. We believe the ECDC Deliberative Conversation model is a replicable format for creating such an inclusive environment.

References

Abdullah, C., Raphael, C., & Karpowitz, C. F. (2016). Equality and equity in deliberation: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Deliberative Democracy, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.253

Bächtiger, A., & Beauvais, E. (2016). Taking the goals of deliberation seriously: A differentiated view on equality and equity in deliberative designs and processes. Journal of Deliberative Democracy, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.254

Banks, J. A. (2016). Cultural Diversity and Education: Foundations, Curriculum, and Teaching. Routledge.

Black, L., & Shaffer, T. J. (2018). Authoritarianism and deliberative democracy: Responding to our current political times and contexts. Journal of Deliberative Democracy, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.303

Breaux, C. (2022). Using safe and brave spaces to bridge divides. Journal of Engaged Research. https://medium.com/journal-of-engaged-research/joer-story-13-c8990640132

Burkhalter, S., Gastil, J., & Kelshaw, T. (2002). A conceptual definition and theoretical model of public deliberation in small face — to — face groups. Communication Theory, 12(4), 398-422.

Carcasson, M., & Sprain, L. (2016). Beyond problem solving: Reconceptualizing the work of public deliberation as deliberative inquiry. Communication Theory, 26(1), 41–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12055

Christopher, S., Watts, V., McCormick, A. K. H. G, & Young, S. (2008). Building and maintaining trust in a community-based participatory research partnership.” American Journal of Public Health, 98(8), 1398–1406.

Collaborative Discussion Project. (2023). Collaborative discussion toolkit. https://www.collaborativediscussionproject.com/

Darabi, R. L. (2020). Erosion and renewal in democratic life. EJournal of Public Affairs, 9(2). https://ejournalofpublicaffairs.org/erosion-and-renewal-in-democratic-life/

Drury, S. A. M., Stucker, K., Douglas, A., Rush, R. A., Novak, W. R. P., & Wysocki, L. M. (2016). Using a deliberation of energy policy as an educational tool in a nonmajors chemistry course. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(11), 1879–1885. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00514

Dryzek, J. S., Bächtiger, A., Chambers, S., Cohen, J., Druckman, J. N., Felicetti, A., Fishkin, J. S., Farrell, D. M., Fung, A., Gutmann, A., Landemore, H., Mansbridge, J., Marien, S., Neblo, M. A., Niemeyer, S., Setälä, M., Slothuus, R., Suiter, J., Thompson, D., & Warren, M. E. (2019). The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation. Science, 363(6432), 1144–1146. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw2694

Fontaine, S. J. (2006). Integrating community-based participatory research into the curriculum. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 11(2), 45–56.

Goodin, R. E. (2008). Innovating democracy: Democratic theory and practice after the deliberative turn. Oxford University Press.

Hacker, K. (2013). Community-based participatory research. SAGE.

Hopewell, S., McDonald, S., Clarke, M. J., & Egger, M. (2007). Grey literature in meta‐analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (2).

Kuehl, R. A., Anderson, J., Mehltretter Drury, S. A., Holman, A., Hunt, C., & Leighter, J. L. (2020). Creating a multidisciplinary dialogue about community-based participatory research partnerships of health and medicine. Rhetoric of Health & Medicine, 3(1), 93–132. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/752906

Kuehl, R. A., Drury, S. A. M., & Anderson, J. (2015). Civic engagement and public health issues: Community support for breastfeeding through rhetoric and health communication collaborations. Communication Quarterly, 63(5): 510–515. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2015.1103598

Lee, C. W. (2011). Five assumptions academics make about public deliberation, and why they deserve rethinking. Journal of Deliberative Democracy, 7(1).

Longo, N. V., Manosevitch, I., & Shaffer, T. J. (2017). Introduction. In T. J. Shaffer, N. V. Longo, I. Manosevitch, & M. S. Thomas (Eds.), Deliberative pedagogy: Teaching and learning in democratic engagement (pp. xix–xxvi). Michigan State University Press.

Magnon, M., Breaux, C., Kirkpatrick, S., Silva, J., Rogers, R., & Drury, S. (2022). Deliberative practices in an everchanging world. Journal of Engaged Research. https://medium.com/journal-of-engaged-research/advocacy-higher-ed-2-b90eee239fc5

Mahood, Q., Van Eerd, D., & Irvin, E. (2014). Searching for grey literature for systematic reviews: challenges and benefits. Research synthesis methods, 5(3), 221–234.

McCoy, M. L., & Scully, P. L. (2002). Deliberative dialogue to expand civic engagement: What kind of talk does democracy need? National Civic Review, 91(2), 117–135.

National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation. (2014). Engagement streams framework. https://www.ncdd.org/uploads/1/3/5/5/135559674/2014_engagement_streams_guide_web.pdf

Pappas, C., & Williams, I. (2011). Grey literature: its emerging importance. Journal of Hospital Librarianship, 11(3), 228–234.

The RAND Corporation. (2022). Racial equity. As of December 21, 2023: https://www.rand.org/topics/racial-equity.html

The RAND Corporation (2023). Climate Equity–Centered Deliberative Conversations. Undated. As of November 28, 2023: https://www.rand.org/pardee/projects/equity-centered-deliberative-conversations.html

Rogers, R. (2022). The RAND Center to Advance Racial Equity Policy DEIJ Statement [Unpublished manuscript]. Center to Advance Racial Equity Policy, The RAND Corporation.

Rogers, R., & Drury, S., with contributions from J. Suarez and K. Twist. (2021). How do we heal as a country? A deliberative conversation for the unity of our nation. https://thebuffaloproject.wixsite.com/tbpinternship/post/how-do-we-heal-as-a-country-a-deliberative-conversation-to-unify-our-nation

Russell, V., Jovanovic, S., Bozovich, M., Clifford, J., & Johnson, R. (2017). Developing robust undergraduate research opportunities in communication studies: A community-based research approach. Carolinas Communication Annual, 33, 28–44. https://scholar.colorado.edu/downloads/ng451j50d

Shaffer, T. J. (2017). The politics of knowledge: Challenges and opportunities for social justice in higher education. eJournal of Public Affairs, 6(1), 11–42.

Sprain, L., & Carcasson, M. (2013). Democratic engagement through the ethic of passionate impartiality. Tamara: Journal for Critical Organization Inquiry, 11(4), 13–26.

Thomas, N. L. & Upchurch, J. K. (2020). Strengthening democracy by design: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Public Deliberation, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.311

Tinto, V., (Winter, 1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, pgs. 89–125.

Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

United Nations Development Programme. (2007). Democratic dialogue — A handbook for practitioners. New York, NY. Accessed December 7, 2023: https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/publications/fr/democratic%20_dialogue.pdf

University Counseling Center University of Notre Dame. (2021). “Multicultural Awareness.” http://ucc.nd.edu/self-help/multicultural-awareness/, available at https://web.archive.org/web/20210801070504/http://ucc.nd.edu/self-help/multicultural-awareness/