Foundations of Civic Discourse

This section introduces key concepts, including civic discourse, deliberation, dialogue, and wicked problems, and explains why understanding these ideas is essential for students, faculty, and staff. At its core, civic discourse involves respectful, reasoned communication about public issues that fosters empathy, critical thinking, and ethical engagement across differences. By engaging in civic discourse, students learn to navigate complex social, political, and ethical challenges, while practicing skills that extend far beyond the classroom.

Higher education holds a unique responsibility to cultivate these skills, preparing students to participate thoughtfully in democratic life. Through structured dialogue, deliberation, and reflection, classrooms become spaces where students can explore diverse perspectives, confront polarization, and collaboratively address multifaceted problems. By integrating these practices into coursework, faculty support students in developing habits that strengthen civic reasoning, ethical judgment, and inclusive communication.

About: Civic Discourse

Description & Connection to SUNY’s Civic Discourse SLOs

Broadly, civic discourse refers to reasoned communication, especially when discussing controversial topics. It emphasizes courtesy, empathy, and a willingness to consider other perspectives, even in the face of disagreement. Civic discourse, as defined here, is not about monitoring student behavior or enforcing agreement. It is an academic skill centered on reasoned argumentation, ethical engagement, and the capacity to participate in disagreement without abandoning inquiry.

SUNY defines civic discourse (website) as reasoned discussion of public issues that incorporates multiple perspectives. This definition distinguishes civic discourse from debate by focusing on understanding rather than persuasion. As the Chancellor stated in January 2025, adding this competency to the general education curriculum ensures that students can “demonstrate the knowledge and skills that advance respectful and reasoned discourse” across differences. Civic discourse prepares students to engage thoughtfully and ethically in civic life by fostering dialogue, probing assumptions, and prioritizing the public good.

Importantly, civic discourse as a learning outcome is not an assessment of student conduct or agreement. Rather, it focuses on students’ ability to engage ideas with reasoned inquiry, ethical advocacy, and thoughtful dissent, even when disagreement is sharp or uncomfortable.

By integrating civic discourse into courses, SUNY faculty directly support SUNY’s SLO:

• Students will deliberate ideas with reasoned inquiry, considering multiple viewpoints, and ethically practice advocacy, dissent, and dialogue in constructive ways.

Faculty Reflection Questions

Use the questions below to think critically about how you will implement civic discourse in your classroom. Consider your course content, student population, and teaching methods as you reflect:

• Reasoned inquiry: How will you design activities that encourage students to seek new information and explore multiple perspectives? Ask yourself: What assignments, discussions, or prompts will require students to analyze evidence, challenge assumptions, and consider viewpoints different from their own?

• Ethical advocacy and dialogue: In what ways can you scaffold ethical advocacy, dissent, and dialogue, especially around contentious topics? Consider: How will you prepare students to express their views respectfully? What supports or guidelines can help them navigate disagreement without escalating conflict?

• Discussion norms: How might you use discussion norms (e.g., from Civic Fellows resources website) to structure civil and inclusive interaction? Reflect on: Which norms or expectations will you set for your class? How will you model and reinforce these norms during discussions?

Assessment Ideas

These examples provide ways to evaluate students’ civic discourse skills. For each, consider how it fits your course, what evidence you will look for, and how it supports learning outcomes:

1. Perspective-Taking Reflection: After a structured discussion, have students analyze the diversity of viewpoints they encountered. Ask them to note any shifts in their own understanding and explain why these changes occurred. Faculty can guide students by prompting reflection on both content and the reasoning behind different perspectives.
2. Norms Checklist in Action: Provide students with a rubric to self-assess (or peer-assess) their adherence to civic discourse norms, such as active listening, reframing others’ points, and asking clarifying questions. Faculty can use this tool to reinforce expectations for discussion and to provide feedback on students’ communication behaviors.
3. Civic Discourse Portfolio: Have students compile a curated collection of work (discussion posts, debate summaries, reflective essays) that demonstrates their progression in dialogue, advocacy, and respectful dissent. Faculty can assess growth over time by looking for evidence of deeper reasoning, ethical engagement, and effective participation in civic discourse.

About: Civil Discourse

Description & Connection to SUNY’s Civic Discourse SLOs

Civil discourse is a respectful and reasoned form of communication that enables democratic disagreement. Democratic systems rely on the construction, maintenance, and resolution of disagreement, and civility provides the communicative standards that will allow these processes to proceed productively (Benson, 2011). As Darr (2011) explains, civility is “a set of standards for conducting public argument” (p. 604), including presenting oneself as reasonable and courteous and treating those with opposing views as worthy of respect (Sobieraj & Berry, 2011). Civil discourse does not eliminate conflict; rather, it enables the critique of ideas without resorting to personal attacks or unnecessary disrespect (Carter, 1998).

Importantly, civility and incivility are not fixed categories but situational and contestable communicative practices (Benson, 2011). Incivility is best understood as a matter of tone rather than substance, encompassing discourse that conveys an unnecessarily disrespectful orientation toward participants, topics, or the forum itself (Coe et al., 2014; Rossini, 2020). While democracy requires disagreement and opposition, uncivil discourse can limit participation by discouraging individuals, particularly those holding marginalized or minority viewpoints, from entering or remaining in deliberative spaces.

In academic settings, civil discourse supports inclusive learning environments by fostering dialogue in which students can explore complexity, disagree productively, and engage across difference without fear of ridicule or hostility. These practices align closely with SUNY’s Civic Discourse Student Learning Outcome, which expects students to “deliberate ideas through reasoned inquiry that seeks new information and considers multiple viewpoints.” Civil discourse equips students with the habits of mind necessary to meet this outcome: listening with openness, responding constructively, and engaging disagreement as a democratic resource rather than a threat.

How Civil Discourse Differs from Civic Discourse

Civic discourse refers to thoughtful, evidence-based engagement with public issues that draws on multiple perspectives and is oriented toward the public good. While the term civil discourse is often used interchangeably, it typically foregrounds politeness, mutual respect, and the maintenance of dialogue across difference. In recent years, however, scholars and educators have increasingly favored civic discourse to acknowledge the uneven power dynamics and inequities that shape participation in the public sphere (SUNY Civic Fellows, 2024). Emphasizing “civic” recognizes that not all speech occurs in good faith and that public issues affect communities in unequal and sometimes harmful ways. This distinction preserves an ethical commitment to equity, accountability, and democratic responsibility, rather than assuming that all viewpoints merit equal validation simply by virtue of being expressed (Herbst, 2010).

Faculty Reflection Questions

These prompts are designed to help you reflect on how you integrate civil discourse into your classroom. Consider how each applies to your teaching, what evidence you can observe, and what adjustments might improve student engagement:

• Do the norms you’ve established actively promote respectful disagreement and curiosity? Reflect on whether students feel safe expressing differing opinions and whether your guidelines encourage thoughtful, evidence-based discussion.

• How do you respond when a student uses disrespectful or inflammatory language? Consider strategies for addressing behavior while maintaining a learning environment that values civility and inclusivity.

• Are you modeling civil discourse when engaging with students or peers who dissent? Reflect on your own communication habits and how demonstrating empathy, active listening, and reasoned response can influence classroom culture.

Assessment Ideas

These activities provide opportunities for students to practice and reflect on civil discourse in structured ways:

• Have students reflect on their own discourse habits in class or online forums. They should identify moments when they upheld civil norms and moments when they fell short, explaining what they learned and how they might improve in future discussions.
• Students participate in a mock town hall or similar scenario to practice civil discourse while discussing a contentious issue, such as free speech or community policing. Encourage students to focus on listening, asking clarifying questions, and responding respectfully to differing perspectives.
• Provide students with a transcript or video of a debate or discussion. Ask them to annotate examples of civil and uncivil discourse, explaining why each instance fits the category and suggesting alternative approaches for fostering respectful dialogue.

About: Deliberation

Description & Connection to CD SLOs

Deliberation is a collaborative decision-making process where participants thoughtfully weigh different views, analyze complex issues, and work toward shared judgments. Deliberation, which necessitates that a group arrive at a shared and reflective judgment (Matthews, 2019), is “the thoughtful and reasoned consideration of information, views, experiences, and ideas among a group of individuals” (Nabatchi, 2012, p. 6). Deliberation also offers opportunities to tackle “wicked problems” by moving beyond partisan divides and fostering thoughtful dialogue (Carcasson, 2019). As such, these educators are helping students develop a deliberative mindset and an understanding of reasoning, idea synthesis, and collaboration (Drury et al., 2017).

SUNY’s Civic Discourse SLO asks students to “deliberate ideas through reasoned inquiry that seeks new information and considers multiple viewpoints.” Public deliberation models this, fostering skills for democratic engagement well beyond the classroom through reflection, collaboration, and civic judgment.

Faculty Reflection Questions

• How can I incorporate structured public deliberations (e.g., National Issues Forums, deliberation circles) into course assignments?
• What scaffolding will help students gather credible information, articulate viewpoints, and consider trade-offs?
• How can deliberative activities help students understand the relationship between dialogue and democratic decision-making?

Assessment Ideas

• Students participate in a structured deliberation and collaboratively produce a report summarizing the arguments, trade-offs considered, and the consensus or points of tension reached.
• Throughout the deliberative process, students document shifts in their thinking, evidence of their engagement, and their contributions to considering multiple perspectives.
• Students rotate roles (e.g., facilitator, note-taker), then reflect on how they managed differing opinions, ensured balanced participation, and adhered to democratic norms of reasoned inquiry and mutual respect.

Dialogue

Description & Connection to CD SLOs

Dialogue, especially deliberative dialogue (website), is a generative, open-ended conversation in which participants engage not to persuade or win, but to understand diverse perspectives, build mutual trust, and explore complex issues collaboratively. It emphasizes deep listening, empathy, and shared inquiry, often involving reflection on personal values and assumptions. Unlike debate, which centers on competition and advocacy, dialogue centers on connection, meaning-making, and collaborative learning.

In higher education, dialogue is a powerful pedagogical strategy for developing students’ capacity to navigate disagreement constructively and engage across difference. It creates a space for students to articulate their beliefs, listen generously, and grow intellectually and ethically. Dialogue helps students confront polarization, bias, and ideological rigidity, fostering inclusion, equity, and democratic thinking (McGowan-Kirsch, 2025.

SUNY’s Civic Discourse Student Learning Outcome asks students to “deliberate ideas through reasoned inquiry that seeks new information and considers multiple viewpoints.” Dialogue directly supports this goal. It encourages students to participate in civil discourse, practice open-minded inquiry, and engage with uncertainty. These skills are essential for responsible citizenship and lifelong learning in a democratic society.

Faculty Reflection Questions

• How can I build classroom norms that encourage honest dialogue rather than debate?
• Am I modeling curiosity and humility when engaging with students’ differing views?
• How do I scaffold dialogue so that students feel safe sharing their discomfort or uncertainty and exploring it?

Assessment Ideas

• Students document a series of in-class or co-curricular dialogues, reflecting on what they learned from listening, what surprised them, and how their thinking evolved.
• Implement a “dialogue circle” (e.g., using the Circle Process website or a fishbowl format) and assess students’ preparation, listening quality, and reflective follow-up.
• After participating in a facilitated dialogue (e.g., on race, free speech, or climate change), students propose a concrete action or community response informed by the diverse views expressed.

Political Polarization

Description & Connection to CD SLOs

Political polarization refers to the growing divide between ideological and partisan groups in the U.S., often marked by mutual distrust and a reluctance to engage with opposing views (McGowan-Kirsch, 2025). This divide is both ideological (resulting from differences in beliefs and policy preferences) and affective (characterized by emotional hostility, stereotyping, and fear of the opposing side). Scholars such as Iyengar et al. (2019) argue that affective polarization, which is rooted in social identity and group affiliation, has become more socially corrosive than ideological disagreement.

In higher education, polarization can create barriers to productive classroom dialogue, leading some students to self-censor or disengage from the discussion. However, it also presents powerful opportunities. For instance, faculty can teach students how to recognize the effects of polarization, engage across differences, and participate in democratic practices that value inquiry, empathy, and critical thinking. Classrooms then become laboratories for civic discourse, whereby students are encouraged to explore multiple perspectives without fear of ridicule or reprisal.

SUNY’s Civic Discourse Student Learning Outcome requires students to “deliberate ideas through reasoned inquiry that seeks new information and considers multiple viewpoints.” Understanding and navigating polarization is essential to this outcome. When students move beyond “us vs. them” frameworks, they develop the civic capacities needed to contribute thoughtfully and collaboratively to public life.

Faculty Reflection Questions

• How does political polarization show up in my classroom, syllabus, or discussions?
• What structures or norms do I have in place to help students feel safe exploring disagreement?
• How can I incorporate assignments or activities that encourage students to practice civil disagreement and reasoned deliberation?

Assessment Ideas

• Have students write about their political values, how they formed, and how they might listen to someone with different beliefs.
• Assign a case (e.g., campus protests, media bias, or policy debates), ask students to identify how polarization affects public understanding, and then propose communication strategies grounded in civic discourse.
• Facilitate a structured conversation on a contentious topic, using guidelines for civil discourse to promote respectful discussion. Assess preparation, participation, and post-dialogue reflection.

Wicked Problems

Description & Connection to CD SLOs

Wicked problems are complex, persistent societal issues, such as climate change, poverty, racial inequality, or healthcare, that defy easy or definitive solutions. First introduced by Rittel and Webber (1973) (website), wicked problems are characterized by interdependent causes, competing stakeholder values, and uncertain outcomes. They often involve deeply rooted systemic injustices and require ongoing, collaborative dialogue across diverse groups. Unlike tame problems, they cannot be “solved” once and for all; instead, they must be managed through democratic processes.

Wicked problems offer authentic, high-impact learning opportunities that enable students to develop critical thinking, ethical reasoning, and collaborative communication skills (Rittel & Webber, 1973). By engaging with these problems, students learn to navigate ambiguity, appreciate multiple perspectives, and consider both short- and long-term consequences of their decisions. Faculty can use wicked problems to spark deliberation, civic reasoning, and interdisciplinary inquiry, helping students connect course content to real-world challenges.

SUNY’s Civic Discourse Student Learning Outcome asks students to “deliberate ideas through reasoned inquiry that seeks new information and considers multiple viewpoints.” Wicked problems demand precisely this kind of engagement. Because there are no simple solutions, students must practice weighing trade-offs, integrating diverse knowledge bases, and participating in dialogue that prioritizes mutual understanding and collective well-being. Working through wicked problems builds the capacities needed for lifelong democratic participation and civic leadership.

Faculty Reflection Questions

• How can I use wicked problems in my course to encourage systems thinking and ethical reasoning?
• Do my students have opportunities to collaboratively deliberate solutions to issues with no clear answers?
• How can I scaffold dialogue around wicked problems to incorporate multiple viewpoints and diverse identities?

Assessment Ideas

• Have students create a National Issues Forums online (website)–style issue guide that presents different approaches to a wicked problem, including trade-offs and values-based reasoning.
• Assign students to interdisciplinary teams to research a wicked problem and propose a policy brief, media campaign, or deliberative forum to address it.
• Utilize structured role-play to have students assume different stakeholder positions on a complex issue, followed by reflection on how their understanding evolves.

What is Deliberative Pedagogy?

Description

University classrooms are essential places for dialogue and deliberation (Black & Kay, 2025). Deliberative pedagogy is a democratic teaching approach that centers on dialogue, critical thinking, and collaborative decision-making (Shafer et al., 2017). Instructors who employ deliberative pedagogy intentionally create conditions that enable students to explore multiple perspectives, weigh competing values, and engage in structured dialogue. Unlike debate, which aims to win, deliberation is a collaborative process of inquiry in which students listen attentively, reflect thoughtfully, and seek understanding before making judgments. It is “a space of becoming,” a contact zone where students grapple with uncertainty and develop the capacities necessary for meaningful civic engagement and an authentic public voice.

This approach transforms the classroom into a microcosm of a democratic society, offering students a “practice field” to develop the habits and ethics of participation that sustain public life, especially when people disagree. Deliberative pedagogy invites learners to move beyond adversarial exchange toward a collaborative exploration of complex issues, cultivating dispositions such as empathy, humility, and respect.

By aligning with broader civic learning goals, deliberative pedagogy positions the classroom not simply as a site for knowledge acquisition but as a space in which students learn to live well with others in a pluralistic society. It prepares students for the real-world demands of democracy by fostering skills and attitudes that enable them to engage constructively with difference, uncertainty, and complexity.

Theoretical Foundations and Civic Purpose

Deliberative pedagogy is deeply connected to the principles of deliberative democracy. Deliberative democracy (website) is a model of governance and civic life that emphasizes public reasoning, inclusiveness, and legitimacy through open and inclusive dialogue. Unlike traditional models of democracy that focus primarily on voting or majority rule, deliberative democracy prioritizes open, reasoned discussion among diverse participants to reach decisions that are justified and acceptable to all. This approach recognizes that democratic legitimacy depends on the quality of discourse and on citizens’ ability to engage with one another respectfully, even in the face of disagreement. By incorporating these ideals, deliberative pedagogy moves beyond mere content delivery to engage students in a collective inquiry process that mirrors real-world democratic practices, encouraging them to become active, reflective, and empathetic participants in civic life.

Central to a deliberative disposition is the cultivation of humility, empathy, collaboration, and respect for difference (Blanchet & Deters, 2023). These qualities enable students to move beyond adversarial debate, in which winning and losing predominate, toward a space of productive disagreement and mutual understanding. Deliberative pedagogy teaches students to see diverse perspectives not as threats to their own views, but as valuable resources that enrich collective decision-making. By creating classroom environments that model democratic dialogue, faculty help students develop the ethical and practical skills needed to navigate complex social issues and work toward shared solutions, preparing them to contribute thoughtfully and constructively to democratic societies.

For More Information

• Visit the Deliberative Pedagogy Lab [website] 
• Read the Deliberative Citizenship [website-blog]
• Read the Deliberate Pedagogy [PDF article]
• Visit Tuft’s Jonathan M. Tisch College of Civic Life [website-blog]

Deliberative Pedagogy and Wicked Problems

Deliberative pedagogy is particularly effective for engaging with wicked problems. These are complex social and political issues, entangled, emotionally charged, and resistant to simple solutions (Rittel & Webber, 1973). Wicked problems often involve competing definitions of what is “right” or “fair,” making them feel overwhelming to students who are frequently conditioned to seek definitive answers.

Rather than shielding students from this discomfort, deliberative pedagogy encourages instructors to design learning environments that equip students with the tools to move through uncertainty and complexity. These challenging moments position students as co-creators of public meaning, inviting them to grapple with pressing questions such as, “How should we address housing insecurity?” or “What responsibilities do we have when consuming media?” Through this engagement, students begin to see themselves as active democratic agents rather than passive observers of political life.

In this context, deliberative pedagogy is more than a teaching method; it is a mode of modeling democracy itself. It recognizes that shared understanding does not occur by chance but must be cultivated intentionally through dialogue, doubt, and collaborative inquiry. By embracing the inherent tensions and uncertainties of wicked problems, deliberative pedagogy cultivates adaptive, thoughtful citizens who are prepared to navigate the complexities of democratic participation.

As Martín Carcasson (2017) emphasizes, deliberative pedagogy enables students and communities to negotiate competing values and tensions through collaborative communication. This is a crucial skill in a polarized and rapidly changing society. This approach aligns with employers’ desires for graduates who are adept at critical thinking, problem-solving, and navigating complexity.

For More Information About Carcasson’s Work

• Carcasson, M. (2014). Deliberative pedagogy as critical connective: Insights from the Kaner model of participatory decision-making. Kettering Foundation.
• Carcasson, M. (2017). Deliberative pedagogy as a critical connective: Building democratic mindsets and skill sets for addressing wicked problems. In T. Shaffer, N. Longo, I. Manosevitch, & M. S. Thomas (Eds.),  Deliberative pedagogy and democratic engagement(pdf, lead essay). Michigan State University Press.
• Drury, S., & Carcasson, M. (2017). Deliberative pedagogy in the communication studies curriculum. In T. Shaffer, N. Longo, I. Manosevitch, & M. S. Thomas (Eds.), Deliberative pedagogy and democratic engagement. Michigan State University Press.

Practical Applications in the Classroom

Deliberative pedagogy moves beyond traditional content delivery by actively engaging students in the skills, dispositions, and habits necessary for democratic participation. Instructors can create structured experiences that allow students to explore multiple perspectives, weigh competing values, and engage in collaborative inquiry rather than adversarial debate.

Broad Applications

Structured deliberations on open, political questions allow students to engage deeply with current issues. For example, students might deliberate on policies affecting student-athlete compensation or the ethical use of technology in sports officiating. These activities build foundational skills in evaluating evidence, constructing arguments, and engaging in respectful dialogue.

Peer-teaching projects invite students to become “experts” on specific case studies, fostering ownership and accountability in learning. Through research presentations, guided deliberations, and practical application activities, students collaboratively explore political and ethical dimensions of topics framed through accessible lenses such as sports. This peer-to-peer engagement enhances motivation and deepens understanding.

Post-deliberation reflections prompt students to assess their contributions and growth in deliberative skills, including empathy, reason-giving, and synthesis. This metacognitive practice reinforces the habits necessary for democratic participation beyond the classroom.

Final units often culminate in deliberations addressing policy-level or community issues, encouraging students to apply their classroom learning to public scholarship. Activities may include collaborating with campus organizations, developing advocacy messages, or facilitating community dialogues, thus bridging academic and civic spheres.

Concrete Applications

Example 1: Framing a Wicked Problem through Stakeholder Deliberation

In a first-year seminar, a leadership course, or another relevant context, faculty might invite students to examine a local or campus-based wicked problem, such as food insecurity, surveillance technologies, or student safety in relation to free speech. Students are assigned roles representing diverse stakeholders (e.g., students, administrators, local nonprofits, elected officials) and engage in a structured deliberation designed to explore trade-offs, constraints, and value tensions. The objective is not to “solve” the issue outright, but to practice the collaborative inquiry and empathetic listening necessary to address such complex challenges over time. By participating in this activity, students experience the complexity and nuance of wicked problems firsthand, learning to advocate for their ideas while honoring others’ legitimate needs and concerns.

Example 2: “What Should We Do?” Forum Using the National Issues Forums (NIF) Model

Using the online article from NIF (website), students engage with a policy challenge, such as mental health on campus, free speech, or climate resilience, through a guided deliberation process. They study background materials, evaluate multiple options, and participate in a class-wide forum structured around the central question, “What should we do?” Students can take on roles as moderators, note-takers, and speakers, practicing not only reasoned argument but also facilitation and attentive listening. Consequently, students come to view deliberation as a civic process that requires preparation, active listening, openness to diverse values, and collective decision-making, rather than merely as a discussion or debate. These examples illustrate how deliberative pedagogy can transform classrooms into practice fields for democracy—spaces where students hone critical civic skills by wrestling with real-world, contested issues in a supportive environment.

How Deliberative Pedagogy Advances Civic Discourse

Deliberative pedagogy cultivates the skills, dispositions, and ethical habits essential for engaging in meaningful civic discourse, particularly in moments of disagreement and polarization (Black & Kay, 2025). By fostering thoughtful, respectful, and collaborative deliberation, it prepares students to engage actively as citizens while developing competencies valuable in both professional and community contexts.

In an era marked by growing political divides, deliberative pedagogy revitalizes education’s democratic mission. It transforms the classroom into a low-stakes space where students can practice democracy, moving from reaction to reflection, practicing empathy without erasing difference, distinguishing dialogue from debate, and nurturing curiosity about diverse perspectives.

Rather than seeking forced consensus, this approach models civic discourse by allowing students to engage in it. Consequently, students build the confidence and capacity for persistent, respectful engagement that sustains public life within and beyond academia.

References

Benson, T. W. (2011). The rhetoric of civility: Power, authenticity, and democracy. Journal of Contemporary Rhetoric, 1(1), 22-30. http://contemporaryrhetoric.com/archive.html 

Drury, S. A. M., Brammer, L. R., & Doherty, J. (2017). Assessment through a deliberative pedagogy learning outcomes rubric. In T. J. Shaffer, N. V. Longo, I. Manosevitch, & M. S. Thomas (Eds.), Deliberative pedagogy: Teaching and learning for democratic engagement (pp. 191–201). Michigan State University.

Black, L. W. & Kay, C. S. (2025). Dismantling polarization through dialogic and deliberative pedagogies. In A. M. McGowan-Kirsch (Ed.), Encouraging college students’ democratic engagement in an era of political polarization (pp. 15–33). Lexington Books.

Blanchet, M., & Deters, B. (2023). Preventing polarization: 50 strategies for teaching kids about empathy, politics, and civic responsibility. Times 10 Publications.

Carcasson, M. (2017). Deliberative pedagogy as a critical connective: Building democratic mindsets and skill sets for addressing wicked problems. In T. Shaffer, N. Longo, I. Manosevitch, & M. S. Thomas (Eds.),  Deliberative pedagogy and democratic engagement(pdf, lead essay). Michigan State University Press.

Carcasson, M. (2019). From crisis to opportunity: Rethinking the civic role of universities in the face of wicked problems, hyper-partisanship, and truth decay. In W. V. Flores & K. S. Rogers (Eds.), Democracy, civic engagement, and citizenship in higher education: Reclaiming our civic purpose (pp. 319-348). Lexington Books.

Carter, S. L. (1998). Civility: Manners, morals, and etiquette of democracy. Basic Books.

Civic Education and Engagement and Civil Discourse Fellows. (2024). FAQ on civic discourse. https://system.suny.edu/media/suny/content-assets/documents/academic-affairs/civic-fellows/toolbox/SUNY-Civic-Fellows-FAQ_2024.pdf

Coe, K., Kenski, K., & Rains, S. A. (2014). Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 658-679. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12104

Darr, C. R. (2011). Adam Ferguson’s civil society and the rhetorical functions of (in)civility in United States Senate debate. Communication Quarterly, 59(5), 603-624. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2011.614208

Drury, S. A. M., Brammer, L. R., & Doherty, J. (2017). Assessment through a deliberative pedagogy learning outcomes rubric. In T. J. Shaffer, N. V. Longo, I. Manosevitch, & M. S. Thomas (Eds.), Deliberative pedagogy: Teaching and learning for democratic engagement (pp. 191–201). Michigan State University.

Herbst, S. (2010). Rude democracy: Civility and incivility in American politics. Temple University Press.

Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034 

Matthews, D. (2019). Democracy’s challenge for academe: From public good to consumer good and back? In W. V. Flores & R. S. Katrina (Eds.), Democracy, civic engagement, and citizenship in higher education: Reclaiming our civic purpose (pp. 55-67). Lexington Books.

McGowan-Kirsch, A.M. (Ed.). (2025). Encouraging college students’ democratic engagement in an era of political polarization. Lexington Books.

Nabatchi, T. (2012). An introduction to deliberative civic engagement. In T. Nabatchi, J. Gasil, G. M. Weiksner, & M. Leighninger (Eds.), Democracy in motion: Evaluating the practice and impact of deliberative civic engagement (pp. 3-17). Oxford University Press.

Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155-169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730

Rossini, P. (2020). Beyond incivility: Understanding patterns of uncivil and intolerant discourse in online political talk. Communication Research, 0(0).1-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650220921314

Shaffer, T. J., Longo, N. V., Manosevitch, I., & Thomas, M. S. (Eds.). (2017). Deliberative pedagogy: Teaching and learning for democratic engagement. Michigan State University Press.

Sobieraj, S., & Berry, J. (2011). From incivility to outrage: Political discourse in blogs, talk radio, and cable news. Political Communication, 28(1), 19-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2010.542360