Answering the call: Offering and analyzing civil discourse opportunities in undergraduate public affairs education

ABSTRACT

The widening cracks in the foundations of American democracy are leading to appeals for higher educational institutions generally, and public affairs programs specifically, to offer more courses on civil discourse. In this paper, we conduct a curriculum scan to evaluate the extent to which public affairs programs have answered these calls at the undergraduate level. The findings indicate that civil discourse-themed courses are essentially absent in the largest undergraduate public affairs programs, leaving the calls woefully unanswered. Then, analyzing students’ pre-post survey responses from a new course that offered content on the intersection of civil discourse and public policy making, we find that a civil discourse-themed course can simultaneously answer the calls and ensure that students meet the objectives of baccalaureate public affairs education recommended by the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration. The results are encouraging for public affairs education and democratic governance alike.

KEYWORDS:

• Citizenship
• civil discourse
• democracy
• public affairs
• undergraduate education

Introduction

Americans are increasingly disdainful of individuals belonging to out-groups and opposing political parties (Boxell et al., 2022). In a vicious cycle, this ideological siloing breeds more extreme views and further polarization. While worrisome, this outcome is not predetermined or inevitable. Drifts toward political extremes can be stymied and reversed. Engaging with diverse ideas through civil discourse has a moderating effect on extreme views and cultivates empathy and understanding (Denson et al., 2021; Gurin et al., 2013; Jackson, 2021). Foundationally, in democratic societies, communities need to be able to speak and think together to act together.

What’s more, higher educational instruction that examines and engages with differences through civil discourse has a sustained effect for years after students leave the classroom, leading them to articulate and practice more robust notions of democracy and citizenship (Buchanan et al., 2022). In educational spaces, exploring differences constructively by engaging diverse viewpoints, with a common interest in knowledge creation, becomes important (Longo & Shaffer, 2019). For students and professionals in public service and public affairs fields, it is essential to practice civil discourse to respond to simple challenges and complex problems alike. This diagnosis-to-treatment logic is not new. In the last several years, a flurry of studies and commentary on the backsliding of American democracy have led to calls to deliver focused civil discourse education (American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2020; Douglas et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2021; Levinson & Solomon, 2021; Perry, 2019; The Volcker Alliance, 2018).

Given the importance of learning and practicing civil discourse – for all students in general and public service-focused learners in particular-two questions are asked and answered in this paper: To what extent do public affairs programs in the United States offer undergraduate courses for students to learn and practice civil discourse; and how well can such courses within a public affairs curriculum meet the objectives of baccalaureate education established by the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA)? To answer these questions, we first perform a nationwide curriculum scan and analysis for civil discourse content in undergraduate public affairs programs. Second, we examine the effect of a new pilot civil discourse course at one institution, offering reflections on how the material could expand to meet the needs of an engaged citizenry and the goals of public affairs education.

Literature review

In this section we review the concepts of civility and civil discourse; we then review the role of civil discourse education in a democratic society and the literature on facilitating difficult conversations in public affairs classrooms; we next review objectives of undergraduate public affairs education and speculate on the potential for civil discourse education to meet these objectives. Our empirical analysis follows the literature review.

Civil discourse conceptualized

Civil discourse is intimately related to the concept of civil society. In a classic sense, civility focuses on citizens vis-à-vis governing institutions. Cahoone (2000, p. 45, emphasis in original) writes that speaking of civil society “is to speak of society as civil, as partners in a place whose aim is living. It is to regard members and their society as the logically prior and morally independent association for which the state exists.”

For a healthy society, civility becomes a goal not simply because we want cordial public relations, but because it speaks to the sense of or possibility for public relationships with others. Clarence Stone et al. (2001, p. 4) noted the ability to address shared challenges comes from civic capacity, when “various sectors of the community com[e] together in an effort to solve a major problem.” Civility nurtures the relationship-building process that helps to create conditions for civic capacity. Deborah Stone (2012, p. 20) expressed the view that fundamentally, deliberative politics only happen in a community and that “public policy is about communities trying to achieve something as communities.” Cultivating and sustaining a community requires individuals to engage in civil discourse, especially if that means people from different sectors or ideological camps interacting with one another. Clarifying what that engagement means and looks like, however, requires a brief introduction to the concepts of civil discourse.

Civil discourse can be conceptualized in multiple ways. Laden (2019, p. 11) offers two dimensions for civility: politeness and responsiveness. Politeness provides a code of conduct or “mode of behavioral management.” Civility as responsiveness, in contrast, views civility as a cooperative virtue of political life that involves the willingness to listen to others and to be fair-minded in considering their views concerning one’s position. Similar to civility as politeness, Keith and Danisch (2020, p. 18) use the concept of weak civility as a network of behaviors and norms intended to maintain the “appearance of comity, ease, comfort, and belonging. Often equivalent to politeness, it may accomplish its goal by strategically ignoring or effacing uncomfortable differences of belief or practice.” And similar to civility as responsiveness is strong civility. This network of behaviors and norms “engage differences in a way that will deepen a sense of community and over time help communities move toward nonviolent systemic change” (Keith & Danisch, 2020, p. 18). Strong civility includes deep listening, deliberation, dialogue, confrontation, protest, and civil disobedience (Schudson, 1997).

A common critique of civility and civil discourse is that it preserves power for the privileged while simultaneously silencing voices marginalized by the status quo. This is seen in instances where those experiencing inequities dissent in ways that are labeled as outside the bounds of civil behavior by individuals or groups in power. The charge of incivility is therefore a power play that delegitimizes opposition and narrows the possibilities for expressing and ameliorating inequities (Braunstein, 2018). Keith and Danisch (2020, p. 155) acknowledge unequal positionality of diverse citizens in democratic culture and that civility is not a panacea for inequalities, writing, “the complexity of civility across multiple intersecting systems can make some perverse outcomes seem normal or normative when they are not. Oppression and violence are inherently uncivil and cannot be defended by appeals to civility.” A commitment to strong civility cannot be overlooked if one is seeking change. As Keith and Danisch (2020, p. 166) put it, “[A]ctions that take strong civility as a starting point do open us up to the possibility for sociopolitical change that might otherwise be precluded or made more difficult by incivility.” Civil discourse – encompassing dialogue as well as critique and confrontation – helps address structural issues shaping democratic participation and inclusion.

Civil discourse education and democracy

In 2012 the National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement published, A Crucible Moment: College Learning and Democracy’s Future. Citing numerous indicators of civic decline, the report called on colleges and universities to prioritize and develop a framework for twenty-first-century citizenship education, including capacities for “seeking, engaging, and being informed by multiple perspectives … and deliberation and bridge building across differences” (National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement, 2012, p. 4). A year later, Andrea Leskes (2013, p. 48) penned a follow-up article imploring colleges and universities to emphasize civil discourse in their civic mission and to highlight best practices of programs doing so, arguing that “civil discourse must be addressed at the heart of undergraduate education.” Susan Herbst (2014, p. 10) reiterated the point a year later when she wrote that the academy must “teach our students how to engage and participate in civil discourse, and this needs to be done within a framework of civility in order … .to solve real societal problems.”

There are more recent calls for a stronger focus on civics and civility in education. The National Academy of Education draws attention to the need for civil discourse education, noting that the current political and racial climate limits dialogue across differences (Lee et al., 2021). The Hasting Center asks for enhancements to civics education to cultivate skills and behaviors necessary for dialoguing and resolving complex public policy issues (Levinson & Solomon, 2021). The American Academy of Arts and Sciences (2020) goes further in arguing that Americans hunger for opportunities to engage in public deliberation and calls for massive investments in the civic fabric of the United States, including educational opportunities for citizens to discuss and deliberate on contentious policy issues. And the Bipartisan Policy Center argues that universities and colleges must cultivate the skills and dispositions necessary to engage in productive dialogue across political and ideological differences (Douglas et al., 2021).

Regarding public affairs education specifically, The Volcker Alliance (2018) notes that graduates entering public service careers must be capable of maintaining integrity and effectiveness in partisan environments. Other commentary appeals to American public affairs programs to reanimate citizenship by offering civil discourse education and research (Perry, 2019). Together, these writings advocate for educational institutions to prioritize civic gatherings and foster dialogical practices as a part of a renewed effort to cultivate democratic governance.

The critical pedagogy of “difficult dialogues” in public affairs classrooms

Public affairs classrooms are spaces ripe for contentious dialogue given the essentially contested nature of the material discussed. Managing such dialogue demands planning and skilled facilitation. Thus parallel to the calls for civil discourse education, and in direct response to sociopolitical injustices in the United States and elsewhere, the public affairs educational community is grappling with the “pedagogical imperative” of “facilitating difficult dialogs” in the classroom (Love et al., 2016; Shulman, 2003). The effort is inspired by the critique of civil discourse identified previously: dialogue around public problems that is not rooted in strong civility norms can silence critical voices and reinforce existing power structures and inequities.

Literature on the topic often focuses on the classroom environment created by the instructor. There should be a healthy balance between safe and brave spaces where students neither self-censor nor snap-judge, and where risk taking and courage are nurtured (Arao & Clemens, 2013; Palfrey, 2017). Part of a safe and brave classroom environment is clear ground rules for dialogue, such as active listening and no ad hominem attacks (Lopez-Littleton et al., 2018). Instructors also need to be aware of their own biases and how their power and authority affect classroom dialogue (McGowan et al., 2021). Importantly, instructors should plan for how to handle uncivil dialogue so conversations stay focused and productive (Barrett et al., 2010).

Another strand of the literature revolves around “tools” that instructors can employ in classrooms to help balance the tensions that threaten productive dialogue. Such techniques include using satire and speculative fiction to unpack power dynamics that (re)enforce systems of oppression (Brainard, 2021; Hayes, 2016; Love & Fox, 2021). Others argue that counternarratives are effective at mollifying the fragility of the privileged and create space for transformational learning (Blessett et al., 2016; Starke et al., 2018). Another approach involves asking students to write and analyze self-reflexively prior to dialogue (Irizarry, 2022; Lopez-Littleton, 2016). Still, even these tools are seen by some as inadequate to translate individual awareness into systemic change (Dantzler & Yang-Clayton, 2022).

Objectives of baccalaureate degree programs in public affairs

Curricula and graduation requirements are generally zero-sum propositions with credit minimums. If a course becomes mandatory, it generally comes at the expense of other material. Public affairs programs have core courses and limited elective or general education courses designed to build knowledge and skills expected of public affairs professionals. Adding civil discourse in an undergraduate curriculum could precipitate diminished outcomes in other areas. Programs may hesitate to add soft skills courses because of risk aversion, academic ranking pressures, and concerns about deviating from accreditation requirements (Evans et al., 2019).

Viewed differently, civil discourse courses could provide non-zero-sum benefits if they simultaneously help to meet the educational objectives of public affairs programs. Such objectives of public affairs education at the undergraduate level are periodically reviewed, revised, and published by NASPAA. These objectives, which parallel NASPAA’s Universal Required Competencies for graduate education, were originally developed in 1976 and last updated in 2016. Although the objectives are not used for accreditation like the Universal Required Competencies, they are designed to prepare undergraduates for professional public service careers and/or graduate study (NASPAA, 2016).

There is indeed a potential alignment between civil discourse instruction and NASPAA’s undergraduate objectives. Three objectives are “development of communication abilities and skills – written, oral and electronic,” “understanding of human behavior – individual, group, and organizational – and development of abilities and skills for analyzing and coping with behavioral situations,” and “navigating within and across difference” (NASPAA, 2016, p. 6). With respect to these three objectives, the social, educational, and political psychology literature is instructive in operationalizing the capacities an individual needs to engage in constructive civil discourse with others. The communication abilities and skills that are necessary for practicing civil discourse include perspective-taking, confidence and self-efficacy to engage in uncomfortable dialogue, dialoguing to understand rather than debate, and value-seeking (Feinberg & Willer, 2019; Gehlbach & Mu, 2022; Gehlbach, 2004). Understanding and coping with behavioral situations in the context of civil discourse certainly requires an awareness of others, but also self-consciousness and self-regulation of one’s own emotions (Halperin, 2015; Vigoda-Gadot & Meisler, 2010; Čehajić-Clancy et al., 2016). Navigating within and across differences entails learning from alternative points of view, being non-judgmental, and possessing intellectual humility (Fleckenstein, 2007; Nussbaum, 2003; Worthington et al., 2016).

Part 1: Nationwide curriculum scan

Given the loud and growing calls for more civil discourse education, and with graduates of public affairs programs at all levels entering a highly polarized professional environment, it is instructive to take stock of public affairs programs and assess how well they have answered the calls. This prompted the first research question: to what extent do public affairs programs in the United States offer undergraduate courses and content that asks students to learn and practice civil discourse? To answer this question, we conducted an undergraduate curriculum scan of the top public affairs programs in the United States and analyzed how civil discourse material and courses were integrated into their curricula. The approach used draws inspiration from a similar effort to evaluate master’s in public administration curricula for social equity content and instruction (McCandless & Larson, 2018). The focus here is on the undergraduate level because compared to narrower graduate programs, students from a wide swath of majors enroll in undergraduate public affairs courses, often as an elective or to satisfy a general education requirement, and can thus provide civil discourse material to more students, regardless of major, and be more effective at cultivating the requisite knowledge and capacities expected of engaged participants in democracies. Additionally, the pilot course analyzed in Part 2 of this paper is an undergraduate course, so scanning these curricula remains consistent with that educational level.

The sample for the analysis encompassed the top 50 public affairs programs as determined by the US News and World Report graduate rankings released in 2022, with a seven-way tie at #49 pushing the full list to 56 programs. The US News graduate rankings was used as a proxy for the highest quality undergraduate programs. While this approach excludes specifically undergraduate-focused institutions, the sample programs represent a significant proportion of undergraduate public affairs education. Among the 56 highest-ranked graduate programs, five do not offer undergraduate degrees, leaving a final sample of 51 programs.

From this sample, the full course offerings published by each program on their site were scanned, when available. When unavailable, the specific courses offered for past, current, and future semesters (up to two full academic years) were reviewed on the University’s course catalog. The scan of each program’s courses was conducted in two phases, both of which were based on course titles with additional assessment of course descriptions, described below. The first phase determined whether programs offered courses specifically on civil discourse. This involved reviewing the title of all undergraduate courses offered by each program and looking for the key phrase “civil discourse” or a synonym (for example, “productive dialogue”). Where the key phrase appeared in the course title, the course description was read to confirm that the topic was the primary focus of the course.

The second phase of the scan assessed whether and how civil discourse themes are included in undergraduate public affairs curricula, even if not specifically for civil discourse instruction. Two primary capacity areas were considered: (1) communication skills for public affairs, and (2) engaged citizenship in democratic societies. Course titles were reviewed and coded for keywords connected to these content areas, including “discourse,” “dialogue,” “communication,” “negotiation,” “conflict,” “media,” “citizenship,” and “democracy.” Where these words or synonyms appeared, course descriptions were read to assess whether the course related to building foundational civil discourse capacity or if usage of these terms was unrelated. The resulting dataset from phase two is provided as supplementary material.

The curriculum scan was designed to analyze the prevalence of civil discourse instruction in undergraduate public affairs programs and to contextualize the case study described in Part 2 below. The method employed here generally accomplishes that purpose but there are limitations. The method does not fully capture all the possible ways that undergraduate public affairs programs may be educating on civil discourse specifically, or the capacities for it more generally. While this scan did evaluate published course offerings across multiple semesters for most programs, it is limited to the content and context provided within those lists. Many, if not most programs offer a course titled “Topics in Public Affairs” with a nonspecific course description. Other common courses with general descriptions include service learning courses, courses for internships, and capstone courses. These courses could focus on civil discourse or connected topics, although verification is difficult due to non-specific course descriptions.

Findings

Out of the 51 schools reviewed, only a single one-credit seminar met the conditions of phase one of the scan. That is to say, only one undergraduate public affairs program in our sample, the Biden School at the University of Delaware, offered a course on civil discourse (named “SPPA400: Civil Discourse”). The course was a four-week one-credit special topics seminar offered during the fall 2021 and spring 2022 semesters. The second phase of the scan found that 87 courses connected to or aligned with civil discourse, with 41 of 51 programs (80%) offering at least one course. Across the field, clear themes emerged in the content of these courses.

Professionally-focused skill building

Twenty courses (23%) focused on developing professional skills related to public affairs, particularly in the areas of communications and public relations as well as negotiation and conflict resolution. Of these, 7 focused on public relations or writing and communicating for public policy and 13 focused on conflict resolution, negotiation, or mediation in public organizations, including bridging differences within organizations and personnel management.

Community, democracy, and civic engagement

Forty-four courses (50%) included content for general civic purposes such as community building or organizing, democratic engagement, or civic participation and service. Of these, 30 focused on themes like civic engagement and participation, organizing for change, or public service and 14 courses focused on leadership skill building for public service or the public good.

Information, legacy and social media, and news literacy

Thirteen courses (15%) connected to the production, consumption, and evaluation of information or media. While courses focused on methodological training were not included here, many programs offered courses focused on discerning media or evaluating or processing information for policy or other democratic purposes, including the influence of social media in a democracy.

Other

An additional 10 courses (11%) touched on various capacities or elements connected to civil discourse but did not fall within the three categories defined above. These courses discussed dialogue, debate, conflict, or communication but were not oriented toward professional skill-building, nor on democracy, civics, or public values.

Discussion

The curriculum scan suggests that despite calls for the academy to invest in and deliver explicit civil discourse content, the top public affairs schools have not integrated this material into their undergraduate curricula in a comprehensive way. The communications courses provide insights and develop skills needed for public relations and policy communication, but the focus is not a dialogical process between parties with diverse or divergent views. Conflict resolution and negotiation courses do involve dialogue between parties with alternative views, but they tend to focus on providing students with mediation skills to be a third-party arbiter to address interpersonal conflict within groups. Civic and public engagement and leadership courses discuss theories and strategies for organizing and mobilizing teams for social change, but lack practical content on building understanding and trust through dialogue and deliberation. Courses on the critical consumption of media and information are often diagnostic and provide little guidance on how to bridge widening epistemological divides. Each of these course themes is a common feature in undergraduate public affairs programs, but the subjects are approached from a narrow instrumental perspective.

Undergraduate public affairs programs provide some relevant courses and content, but mostly miss the mark on building foundational knowledge and capacities for civil discourse in democratic societies. The decade-long call to educate undergraduate students to engage in substantive, productive dialogue with diverse viewpoints on matters of critical public importance has largely gone unanswered. This finding is particularly concerning given the expansion of identity politics coupled with an epistemological fissure among segments of the American public, attempts to delegitimize democratic norms and institutions, and the increasingly real and present threat of political violence in the United States (Kalmoe & Mason, 2022).

Part 2: Piloting and assessing a new civil discourse course

Given the findings from Part 1, we now assess the design, implementation, and short-term effect of one undergraduate civil discourse pilot course. This section narratively reviews the course design and implementation and then examines results from a pre-post survey of participating students about their knowledge and capacity for civil discourse.

About the pilot course

In 2021, the University of Delaware’s Biden School of Public Policy & Administration launched a multi-faceted undergraduate-focused initiative on civil discourse. With support from the Stavros Niarchos Foundation (SNF) and named the SNF Ithaca Initiative, the effort entails, among other activities, integration of civil discourse courses and material into its curriculum. For the fall 2021 semester, the Biden School overhauled one of its long-standing undergraduate courses entitled Citizens, Community, and Change and modified all content, assessments, and instruction to focus on civil discourse and public policy.¹ This new pilot course interrogated the form and function of civil discourse in diverse, democratic societies, with emphasis on learning and practicing dialogue and deliberation capacities that advance policy processes.

An “ungrading” approach was implemented to encourage students to express their authentic views and voice and take personal ownership of their learning (Blum, 2020; Stommel, 2020). To end the semester, students completed a self-evaluation form where they judged their performance and proposed a final letter grade for themselves. Students then had an exit interview with the instructor where they discussed their self-evaluation and final letter grade, which the instructor either agreed with or adjusted higher or lower. The course syllabus and materials are available under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike license.²

Methods

To determine the short-term success of the pilot course and assess whether curricular expansion at the intersection of civil discourse and public policy could be effective, students in Citizens, Civility, and Change were administered an anonymous pre- and post- course survey through Qualtrics.³ The survey results were analyzed to assess shifts in students’ self-reported capacity for civil discourse and for meeting NASPAA’s objectives for undergraduate education.

Survey questions operationalized the three NASPAA (2016, p. 6) objectives of baccalaureate public affairs education identified earlier, namely “development of communication abilities and skills – written, oral and electronic,” “understanding of human behavior – individual, group, and organizational – and development of abilities and skills for analyzing and coping with behavioral situations,” and “navigating within and across difference.” Questions interrogated deeper forms and concepts of civil discourse, namely civil discourse as responsiveness and strong civil discourse (Keith & Danisch, 2020; Laden, 2019). Because the survey asked students to self-evaluate their capacity and willingness to engage in dialogue across differences – which is generally viewed as a beneficial trait – a forced-choice four-point Likert scale without a midpoint was employed to avoid overuse of the neutral option and to reduce social desirability bias (Chyung et al., 2017). Other questions asked students to identify their major, class year, gender identity, and political affinity. The survey instrument is included as supplementary material.

All twenty-five students enrolled in Citizens, Civility, and Change completed the survey at the beginning and end of the course. Fewer responses were provided for certain questions (observation counts are provided for each question in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1. Comparisons of pre- and post- test survey questions, organized by NASPAA objectives.

Question - “Indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements.”^a	Expected change	Mean at time 1 (pre-test)	Mean at time 2 (post-test)	Paired t-test, one-sided^b
Communication skills
Q7_1: “I proactively seek [to] engage with individuals who hold political views that differ from my own.”	+	2.375	2.875	t=−3.391** (n = 24)
Q7_3: “I am comfortable and confident communicating with someone who holds political views that differ from my own.”	+	3.08	3.6	t=−3.980*** (n = 25)
Q7_6: “When I have a conversation with someone who holds political views that differ from my own, I approach the situation like a debate that one of us will win and one of us will lose.”	-	2.24	1.96	t = 1.661* (n = 25) Χ^2 = 14.775*
Q7_8: “When I have a conversation with someone who holds political views that differ from my own, I seek to understand their values and personal experiences that influence how they think.”	+	3.25	3.5	t=−1.238 (n = 24)
Q10_4: “I try to put myself in someone else’s position and see things through their perspective.”	+	3.25	3.5	t=−2.304** (n = 24) Χ^2 = 3.6*
Understanding/coping with behavior
Q7_5: “I am able to keep my emotions in check when having a conversation with someone who holds political views that differ from my own.”	+	2.87	3.26	t=−2.398** (n = 23) Χ^2 = 11.205*
Q7_9: “The more conversations I have with people who hold political views that differ from my own, the more uncertain I am about my own views.”	+	1.56	1.84	t=−1.495* (n = 25) Χ^2 = 11.322*
Q10_1: “I am self-critical and aware of my personal biases.”	+	3.25	3.46	t=−2.005** (n = 24) Χ^2 = 4.531**
Q10_3: “I am aware of situations when I am in a like-minded group.”	+	3.41	3.41	t = 0 (n = 22)
Q10_5: “I am able to recognize when I am being judgmental of others.”	+	3.25	3.33	t=−0.624 (n = 24)
Navigating difference
Q7_2: “Individuals who hold political views that differ from my own are as intelligent and informed as I am.”	+	2.95	3.38	t=−3.873*** (n = 21) Χ^2 = 13.3***
Q7_4: “I do not judge and label individuals who hold political views that differ from my own.”	+	2.55	3.05	t=−2.364** (n = 20)
Q7_7: “When I have a conversation with someone who holds political views that differ from my own, I seek to convert them to my point of view because I believe I am right.”	-	2.19	1.95	t = 1.420* (n = 21)
Q10_2: “I know more than other people.”	-	2.05	1.95	t = 0.809 (n = 20) Χ^2 = 14.6***

^aResponses included 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly Agree.^bPearson chi-squared value also reported, where statistically significant. *** p < .01; ** p < .05; * p < . 01.

Table 2. Pre- and post- test survey questions (cont’d) - for “Navigating differences” objective.

Question - “Indicate how frequently you would take the following actions if you are engaged in a one-on-one conversation with a stranger who says something that you find … ”^c	Expected change	Mean at time 1 (pre-test)	Mean at time 2 (post-test)	Paired t-test, one-sided^d
Part 1: “…personally offensive to your identity.”
Q8_1: “Call them out and tell them why they are offensive.”	-	2.5	2.71	t=−1.31 (n = 24) Χ^2 = 20.4**
Q8_2: “Exit the conversation.”	-	2.25	2.17	t = 0.699 (n = 24) Χ^2 = 8.714*
Q8_3: “Use the opportunity to further explore their values and personal experiences.”	+	2.17	2.46	t=−1.904** (n = 24) Χ^2 = 13.53**
Q8_4: “Let it slide and continue or change the subject.”	-	2.13	1.74	t = 3.217** (n = 23) Χ^2 = 20.275*
Part 2: “…offensive to the identity of others.”
Q9_1: “Call them out and tell them why they are offensive.”	-	2.92	2.76	t = 0.941 (n = 25)
Q9_2: “Exit the conversation.”	-	2.16	1.96	t = 1.732** (n = 25) Χ^2 = 9.907**
Q9_3: “Use the opportunity to further explore their values and personal experiences.”	+	2.39	2.43	t=−0.214 (n = 23)
Q9_4: “Let it slide and continue or change the subject.”	-	2.00	1.56	t = 3.091** (n = 25) Χ^2 = 9.556**

^cResponses included 1 = Never, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Always, 4 = Often.^dPearson chi-squared value also reported, where statistically significant. *** p < .01; ** p < .05; * p < .01.

Typically, differences in ordinal variables are tested with chi-square (Χ²), which indicates the likelihood of the distribution across categories being the same for two time periods. In cases where ordinal variables act like scale variables, paired mean-comparison tests can be used, which provide more insight to the trend across time than do chi-squared tests. We report the mean-comparison tests for all questions and chi-squared test results where significant and informative. We also report one-sided t-test results since we hypothesize directional differences for each question (noted in Tables 1 and 2). Non-significant t-test results suggest the lack of a directional difference over time. It is worth noting the small sample size from the pilot course resulted in relatively noisy data, making it challenging to determine reliable and precise differences over time. The statistical tests are therefore suggestive but not determinative. A larger sample is required to generate more confidence in the results and the survey will be administered in future offerings of the course to elicit such information.

Findings

Tables 1 and 2 report results from the pre- and post- test survey from the pilot course, organized by the NASPAA objectives of baccalaureate public affairs education.

Communication skills

Five questions on the survey targeted students’ communication skills (see Table 1). On average, students reported being more comfortable and confident communicating across political differences (Q7_3), which is healthy for civil discourse, democracy, and professional public affairs practice. The students reported being more comfortable trying to see from another’s point of view (Q10_4), on average, which indicates perspective taking and is also central for civil discourse and public affairs practice.

Students reported being more likely to proactively engage others with different points of view (Q7_1) and less likely to approach engagement with others of different political views as a win-lose debate (Q7_6), on average. This result is important because civil discourse is substantively and stylistically different from debate, and requires adopting a growth mind-set and contributing constructively to democratic practice.

Students appeared to already try to discern personal values and experiences when engaging across differences (Q7_8), revealing no significant change over time for this question. In sum, we conclude that the survey results confirm a civil discourse course can address NASPAA’s objective of developing communication abilities and skills by strengthening students’ perspective taking abilities, enhancing self-efficacy and confidence to engage in dialogue with others, and fostering a growth mind-set.

Understanding/coping with behavior

Five questions on the survey inquired about students’ behavioral self-understanding and coping skills (see Table 1). The survey results revealed that students already considered themselves aware when in a like-minded group (Q10_3) and self-aware of when they judge others (Q10_5), on average, which are important capacities for all citizens to practice and exercise productively.

Students did appear to improve awareness of their personal biases (Q10_1), on average, and being self-critical of their views and associated uncertainties during exchanges with persons holding different views (Q7_9). These results depict both active listening and critical self-reflection. Additionally, students reported being better able to manage their emotions during exchanges with others (Q7_5), which reflects maturity and positively influences interpersonal behavior. Taken together, we conclude that a civil discourse course can address NASPAA’s objective of understanding behavior and developing constructive coping strategies, including self-awareness, adjusting biases, and self-regulating emotions.

Navigating differences

The survey asked twelve questions about the students’ perceived abilities to navigate dialogue across differences (see Tables 1 and 2). One of the most important findings emerged from questions about intellectual humility, especially as to whether students perceived others with different political views to be as intelligent and informed as they are (Q7_2). The results also indicate less judgment and labeling of others for their differing views (Q7_4). The ability to engage in constructive dialogue across differences requires seeing others as equals, not as inferior. Creating space for civil discourse and the collective exploration of ideas and possible responses is important, especially as we think about public policy issues.

The questions in Table 2 were designed to investigate the likelihood that students would pursue four responses to offensive content: fight, flight, probe, or ignore. For instance, students reported being less likely to ignore the offensive statements, whether personally offensive (Q8_4) or with respect to others (Q9_4), on average. They also reported being less likely to exit the conversation (Q9_2) when taking offense on others’ behalf, on average, and more likely to probe viewpoints when taking personal offense (Q8_3). The results on the fight option were contrary to expectations when taking personal offense (Q8_1) and might reflect poor and ambiguous wording in the question (i.e. “call out”). Overall, the results suggest that students are more willing to engage with and learn from different points of view, reserve judgment of others, and demonstrate intellectual humility, all of which leads to more productive exchanges and is consistent with NASPAA’s navigating difference objective.

Discussion

Citizens, Civility, and Change presented an opportunity to pilot a new course that could simultaneously meet the growing calls for higher education to cultivate civil discourse knowledge and capacities in students and meet NASPAA’s objectives of baccalaureate education. While acknowledging the limitations of a self-assessment survey for a singular course and the small sample size, the initial results are encouraging. Students in Citizens, Civility, and Change self-report that, on average, when compared to the beginning of the course, at the end they are more capable and willing to engage in dialogue with individuals holding diverse or oppositional viewpoints, better able to understand and self-regulate their own behavior during emotional charged situations, and more likely to successfully navigate through and across ideological difference. This result indicates, albeit preliminarily, that public affairs programs can offer civil discourse-focused courses and simultaneously meet (at least) three NASPAA objectives of baccalaureate education. This also bodes well for undergraduates in public affairs courses because the material may provide students with enhanced soft skills required for successful professional public service or other sector careers (Mastracci et al., 2010).

The results from certain survey questions, when combined, offer a more comprehensive picture of the kinds of capacities students self-reportedly developed. For instance, after taking Citizens, Civility, and Change, students reported they are more comfortable and more likely to proactively engage with different views (Q7_3 and Q7_1), better able to manage their own emotions in such situations (Q7_5), and more likely see the other person as an intellectual equal (Q7_2). These are important and mature social capacities that can engender more effective civic engagement. There is also a healthy level of critical self-reflection that is revealed through the survey results. Students reported they are more aware of their own biases (Q10_1) and when dialoguing with individuals holding diverse views, they are more likely to adjust their own views (Q7_9). This suggests active listening and approaching situations in a good faith effort to understand and absorb different perspectives. These capacities are foundational to effective involvement in democratic communities and indicate enhanced self-efficacy for civil discourse.

Viewed collectively, the survey results are positive. They appear to demonstrate that it is possible to answer the general calls for civil discourse education and for such education to come through public affairs programs. The results also show that a civil discourse-themed course can meet NASPAA (2016) objectives of baccalaureate education and better prepare public affairs undergraduates for professional service in today’s politicized environment where norms and practices of democratic governance are contested (Evans et al., 2019).

Conclusion

Threats to American democracy are real and present. Perhaps the most significant and pressing challenge is spatial sorting and ideological entrenchment into in- and out-groups, where cross-group dialogue and deliberation on matters of great public importance are less frequent, and the discussion that does happen exhibits little understanding or enlightenment gained by either party (Brown & Enos, 2021). These challenges have led to many calls for reinvigorating the meaning, practice, and opportunities for civil discourse in civil society, generally, and higher education, specifically. The logic behind these appeals is that productive civil discourse – the indispensable glue that peacefully weaves together the diverse and ideologically varied threads of civil society in democracies – can slow, reverse, and shrink the widening and worrisome gaps that currently define political and social life. Unfortunately, the calls for learning and exercising civil discourse are greater than the actual opportunities to do so within higher education’s multiple learning environments, particularly in public affairs programs as demonstrated in this paper. Given the nature and goals of the higher education enterprise, public affairs programs must react and are a natural fit for expanding civil discourse material and courses in their curricula.

One successful pilot course within one program is an important starting point, but given the scope and scale of the challenges facing American society and democracy, as well as the political environment into which graduates enter, further reflections and analyses are required to understand how civil discourse material could be designed and integrated into undergraduate public affairs curricula. One option is to create a series of dedicated scaffolded courses where students progressing through a program are exposed to higher-order knowledge and practices of civil discourse over time, possibly terminating in a capstone project. Another option, not mutually exclusive from the first, is a programmatic distribution model where the existing courses within a program would offer civil discourse content where the material is relevant. It may be more straightforward to implement this latter approach in programs that already offer multiple undergraduate courses that could touch on aspects of civil discourse, such as those identified in this paper’s curriculum scan (policy communication, conflict resolution, media literacy, civic engagement, etc.). Curricular integration also implies that there are important pedagogical choices that need to be thought through as well, particularly with the drift toward remote learning that started before the pandemic. For instance, additional consideration must be given to instructional modality (in-person vs. online, synchronous vs. asynchronous), the kinds of civil discourse-themed assessments that students complete, and how instructors should judge the quality of those assessments. Critical analyses and a curriculum scan is also needed to illuminate the need for, and pathways to, blending civil discourse material into public affairs graduate programs, particularly Master’s in Public Administration and Master’s in Public Policy degrees. Such analyses should evaluate graduate student learning outcomes against the barometer of NASPAA’s five Universal Required Competencies, especially the fifth which articulates the ability of professionals to “communicate and interact productively and in culturally responsive ways with a diverse and changing workforce and society at large.” Finally, more longitudinal research is required to examine the durability of civil discourse material (Buchanan et al., 2022).

Public affairs programs may be concerned that adding new material and courses will diminish learning outcomes in other aspects of their curricula. The pilot course and the analysis detailed here suggest that such concerns may be misplaced. Rather than competing with NASPAA’s undergraduate objectives, civil discourse courses could increase the likelihood of baccalaureate degree programs meeting these objectives, as well as more recent appeals for emotive competencies and empathy training (Awasthi & Mastracci, 2021; Meyer et al., 2022). We argue that civil discourse-themed courses are complementary to undergraduate public affairs curricula and degree programs. Undergraduates receiving this material would simultaneously be better prepared for professional public affairs careers in today’s political environment while strengthening their democratic and civic muscles, as well as those of the communities they serve.

It is past time to answer the loud and growing calls for civil discourse education, and public affairs programs have a significant, if not leading, role to play. Conservative approaches to undergraduate public affairs education need to be reexamined and altered to meet the contemporary challenges to American democracy. As Evans et al. (2019, p. 291, emphasis added) assess the current political and policymaking environment, they note, “as consensus grows that curricular innovation is an urgent necessity, it is now time to take collective risks in order to sustain and enhance the value of public [affairs] education for the foreseeable future.” Much more energy and effort are needed across the wider public affairs community to successfully integrate civil discourse content into educational practice.

Credit statement

PB: conceptualization, methodology, investigation, supervision, project administration, writing- original and review & editing; MM: methodology, investigation, formal analysis, data curation, writing- original draft; AP: formal analysis, writing- original and review & editing; TS: writing- original and review & editing.

Acknowledgments

The Stavros Niarchos Foundation (SNF) provided funding to create the SNF Ithaca Initiative at the Biden School of Public Policy and Administration at the University of Delaware. The authors would like to thank Rose Muravchick for her insights on the research design, and the anonymous reviewers for their productive comments and feedback.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Supplementary Information

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2022.2148604

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Philip Barnes

Philip Barnes is an Assistant Professor at the University of Delaware’s Biden School of Public Policy and Administration and a Policy Scientist with the Institute for Public Administration. Phil’s scholarly and applied research focuses on local climate change adaptation planning and implementation, with an emphasis on flooding and sea level rise mitigation policies. He also conducts research on non-traditional transportation policy such as bikeshare networks, electric vehicles, and autonomous vehicles. Phil works closely with state agencies and local stakeholders on applied research to enhance deliberative dialogue, democratic engagement, and community resiliency. Phil has a Ph.D. in urban affairs and public policy from the University of Delaware and bachelor’s and master’s degrees in structural engineering from the University of Michigan.

Michael P. Morris

Michael P. Morris is a Ph.D. Candidate in Urban Affairs & Public Policy and the inaugural Graduate Fellow for the Stavros Niarchos Foundation Ithaca Initiative at the University of Delaware’s Biden School of Public Policy and Administration. Mike’s primary research focuses on equity in urban transportation and infrastructure policy, particularly as it concerns traffic violence and safety. His ongoing dissertation work considers how urban policymakers conceptualize equity in the development of Vision Zero plans for their communities. He also has an interest in teaching and research related to civil discourse and the ability it has to foster public understanding and engagement in local policy issues. Mike has a bachelor’s in political science and a master’s in public administration from Villanova University.

Andrea L. Pierce

Andrea L. Pierce (formerly Sarzynski) is an associate professor at the University of Delaware’s Biden School of Public Policy and Administration. Her research interests include urban governance, public participation, climate adaptation, urban sprawl, and renewable energy policy. Her most recent funded project examines opportunities to build capacity for collective governance of the food-water-energy nexus in cities through citizen science and other engagement tools. Prior to joining the faculty at Delaware, she worked at the George Washington Institute of Public Policy, the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution, the Rochester Institute of Technology, the White House Council on Environmental Quality, and the environmental law practice at Sidley Austin LLP. Andrea has a Ph.D. in public policy and public administration from The George Washington University and a B.S. in natural resources from Cornell University.

Timothy J. Shaffer

Timothy J. Shaffer is the Stavros Niarchos Foundation Chair of Civil Discourse at the University of Delaware’s Biden School of Public Policy and Administration. He is also director of civic engagement and deliberative democracy with the National Institute for Civil Discourse at the University of Arizona. Shaffer is author or coeditor of six books including Deliberative Pedagogy: Teaching and Learning for Democratic Engagement (Michigan State University Press), Creating Space for Democracy: A Primer on Dialogue and Deliberation in Higher Education (Stylus), and the latest book, Grassroots Engagement and Social Justice Through Cooperative Extension (Michigan State University Press). Shaffer received his Ph.D. from Cornell University, M.P.A. and M.A. from the University of Dayton, and B.A. from St. Bonaventure University.

Notes

1. Midway through the semester, a course title and description change was approved for all future sections, with the new title of Citizens, Civility, and Change. Because the course was titled Citizens, Community, and Change and had the old course description in the course catalog when the curriculum scan was conducted, the course was not flagged during the first phase of the scan but was identified during the second phase. For the remainder of this paper, the course will be referred to by its updated name, Citizens, Civility, and Change.

2. https://www.oercommons.org/courseware/lesson/95221.

3. The Institutional Review Board at the University of Delaware reviewed and provided an exemption determination: Study Title [1801183-1] Assessing Student Learning of Civil Discourse Material.