Running Head: DELIBERATIVE PEDAGOGY 1

Deliberative Pedagogy: a multicultural and social justice method

Collin Case

ELPS 830: Multicultural Education

May 2, 2017

University of Kansas

Introduction
Definitions
Deliberative Pedagogy 2

In the literature, various terms are used to describe the same method, or terms have had

vastly different definitions from one article to the next. For example, in the late 1990s,

researchers from the University of Washington explained a crossroads for multicultural methods

and citizenship education (Gay, 1997; Kaltsounis, 1997). The two both used the term

multicultural education; however, they were referring to a method different than what authors

like Sleeter and Grant (2009) or Camicia (2009) describe as multicultural education. For clarity

throughout this work, the terms used for different approaches will reflect those used by Sleeter

and Grant (2009). In their work, five methods of multicultural education are outlined, two of

which will be discussed in conjunction with deliberative pedagogy: multicultural education and

multicultural social justice education (MSJE). Multicultural education is defined as including

multiple perspectives and representations of diverse groups and individuals within the

curriculum (pp. 164, 175-177). MSJE is defined as methods which intend to incorporate current

issues regarding oppression, include multiple perspectives, and foster political action (p. 199).

Sleeter and Grants definitions of multicultural education and MSJE overlap, but MSJE takes a

more critical approach to curriculum and methods and pushes for political involvement.

A response to the call for action

Deliberation pedagogy allows educators to teach students in a way which answers many

of the calls of multicultural education and MSJE methods. Advocates of MSJE have called for

methods which represent multiple perspectives, challenge the status quo and traditional methods,

and promote political efficacy (Gay, 1997; Kaltsounis, 1997; Sleeter & Grant 2009; and

DiCamillo & Pace, 2010). One goal of both multicultural education and MSJE is to promote the

use of dialogue in the classroom and make learning active (Sleeter & Grant, 2009). Deliberative

pedagogy is focused on discussing controversial issues through bringing multiple perspectives

Deliberative Pedagogy 3

into the classroom, establishing participants as equals, providing reason (whether empirically

based or through lived experiences), and arriving at a valid consensus. To better show how

deliberation fits within the contexts of both multicultural education and MSJE, the method will

be further developed below.

A point of consideration is the discrepancy between practice and theory described by

Kaltsounis (1997) and others. In reference to citizenship education, he writes, Theoreticians

emphasize the analytical and critical abilities of the citizen, while practitioners promote loyalty

and obedience to the country as it is (p. 20). Sleeter and Grant (2009) also stress most schools

do not actively encourage democracy (p. 210). This same idea is corroborated by Camicia

(2009), explaining that schools teach soft democracythe kind of education which teaches

passive acceptance of traditional values and norms. To alleviate educators burden of taking

theory and developing it into practice, both an explanation of why schools should teach

deliberative methods and a sequence of how to incorporate deliberation are explicated.

Additionally, areas of concern are detailed to remain true to deliberative methods in seeing a

problem from a critical perspective.

Deliberation Pedagogy

Different from Debate

America has a long-standing tradition of debate and conflict, and its democratic political

philosophy and institution are primarily adversarial in nature. Nonetheless, even within the larger

genre of adversarial public discussion, we can distinguish between spirited, thoughtful debate

and petty, childish argument (Gastil, 2008, p. 131). Within our schools, our homes, and our

government, debate and argumentation are common, leaving many people inexperienced in

alternative methods of discourse (Hannay & Seller, 1991). Debates tend to foster a dialogue of
Deliberative Pedagogy 4

the deaf with each interlocutor attempting to plan their next argument without truly

understanding the points made by the perceived competition (Lake, 2015). Unlike deliberation

which intends to include many perspectives and analyze multiple solutions, debates are

adversarial and silencing (Cole, 2013).

Because schools tend to focus on the argumentative form of communication (i.e. debates

and persuasive essays), student are unlikely to self-deliberate. In a study conducted by

Schneiderhan & Khan (2008), the impacts of deliberation were examined in comparison to

public discussion and solitary essay writing. The essays acted as the control group to see how

people naturally discuss a topic. Students in the essay group were asked to write an essay on a

controversial topic facing the school. Unlike the other students, they focused on defending their

own position rather than weighing the options and selecting the best possible solution. The

groups that deliberated were the most likely to provide reasons for their positions, and

participants were more likely to change their position than the participants in the discussion or

essay groups. How deliberation differs from debate is explained well by Avery (2010):

Deliberation is not debate. In a debate, there are winners and losers; the goal, in fact, is to

win the debate through verbal sparring, characterized by the skillful and clever

arrangement of arguments and counterarguments. Participants present the best possible

case for their side, ignoring or diminishing the weaknesses in their own arguments and

the strengths of the opposing sides claims. The goal of civic deliberation, however, is not

to win. Instead, the goal is to arrive at the best possible solution to an issue through the

thoughtful consideration of alternatives. In deliberation, the group seeks to uncover the

best possible rationales for alternative positions. (p. 12).

A major contrast between deliberation and debate are in the methods, outcomes, and goals. As
Deliberative Pedagogy 5

Avery points out, debates often revolve around winning by defeating the opponent. The methods

used do not matter as long as the individual wins. In this way, debates can easily kill the

democratic process of decision making (Cole, 2013).

Deliberation, unlike debate or other argumentative communication forms, increases the

likelihood that participants will change perspectives after looking at the other possibilities and

points of view (Schneiderhan & Khan, 2008). This happens because participants are encouraged

to investigate different understandings and critically evaluate them for their effectiveness (Asen,

2015). As mentioned, the purpose is not to win a deliberation, which makes the environment less

hostile and more conducive to evaluating ones own views and reasoning weighed against those

of other members of the deliberation. This can, in turn, lead to the changing of ones own view

(Schneiderhan & Khan, 2008; Asen, 2015). Additionally, when looking toward solitary

argumentation, such as an essay, individuals are less likely to discern the strengths and

weaknesses of their own and other arguments due to the fact that diverse people bring in

different perspectives or understandings all while challenging each others views in a

constructive way (Asen, 2015). This interaction with others in a non-hostile manner with the

intention of coming to a collective agreement allows for the best outcome for participants.

Deliberation, therefore, is unique as the process focuses on coming to the best solution possible

through the weighing of different perspectives and coming to a mutually beneficial outcome.

Within a deliberation, tensions cannot be avoided as the coalescing of diverse points of view,

experiences, and critical analyses will lead to dissonance (Asen, 2015). The deliberative

difference, though, lies in four core concepts: inclusion, equality, reason, and validity.

Foundations of Deliberation: the four core

Inclusion
Deliberative Pedagogy 6

Within a given country, people are expected to obey the laws of the land. They are

expected to follow the laws regardless of their stance on said law. Democracies are unique in that

the collective people are responsible for creating and changing laws to fit their needs and beliefs.

The US adds to the uniqueness of democratic societies by being relatively heterogeneous in

comparison to other western democracies (Camicia, 2010). Because all are subject to the

established laws and policies and come from various backgrounds and cultures, these diverse

views and opinions should be heard and considered when crafting law and policy. Deliberation

seeks to make this a reality through the concept of inclusion (Schneiderhan & Khan, 2008;

Camicia, 2009; Avery, 2010; Asen, 2015).

Inclusion in deliberation means including all viewpoints from those subject to the

decision. Whoever could be affected by a decision becomes a stakeholder in the outcome and

thus deserves a place within the discussion. This inclusion requires the participants to include

opinions or beliefs which seem anti-democratic or even socially unacceptable (Camicia, 2010;

Lake, 2015). The major concern is that by stigmatizing or dismissing views which one finds

repugnant, the legitimacy of the decision is diminished (Gastil, 2008). Participants, therefore,

need to encourage one another to share their beliefs no matter their personal views on the topic at

hand. When individuals dismiss other views as wrong, they foster an unsafe and hostile

environment in which those with non-dominant or divergent views can no longer openly express

their ideas. This negatively affects the deliberative environment and leads to disenfranchisement

of minority opinions and a weaker sense of community (Hannay, 1989; Camicia, 2010).

Inclusion in a deliberation also means including opinions that may be un- or under informed or

non-experts. If deliberations include only those who are well informed or experts on the subject,

the environment can become homogenous (Hicks, 2002; Asen, 2015).

Deliberative Pedagogy 7

Members of deliberations have responsibilities. One responsibility is to hear and

understand the other members (Gastil, 2008). For the listener, this means actively seeking to

understand others through questioning and clarification. For the speaker, this means ensuring the

other participants understand what you intend and your reasoning behind your beliefs. The

second responsibility of deliberative participants is to actively include others. As explained by

Schneiderhan & Khan (2008), ...inclusion means more than simple participation...inclusion is

also reciprocal; the efforts of the group members to draw others into the debate are just as

important as the response they may engender from others (p. 16). As a substitute for new views,

additional anecdotal evidence can be included so that all peoples, views, and experiences are

incorporated. By fulfilling these responsibilities, participants help to alleviate the challenges of

the deliberative process, specifically domineering, silencing, and dictation (Camicia, 2010;

DiCamillo & Pace, 2010).

Equality

To be truly deliberative, all people must be seen and treated as equal. Therefore, it is

imperative for participants to show respect to all peoples regardless of their views or status, as

everyones voice is equal in weight and worthy of hearing (Camicia, 2010). When an individual

is given preferential treatment or their views carry more weight due to status, they create a power

differential. Expert views deserve the same respect as any other view but also the same critical

investigation that any other view would receive (Asen, 2015). Through the investigation of

expert views, those with less knowledge on the subject can be educated along the way (Camicia,

2010). Hicks (2002) defines equality in deliberation well, stating:

Equal consideration is defined here in communicative terms: all persons and their

viewsdeserve an effective hearing, meaning that all deliberators should presume that
Deliberative Pedagogy 8

each stakeholder is making a unique, valued, and legitimate claim upon the time and

resources of the collective and, therefore, is deserving of a full hearing of any and all

opinions, objections, and requests. This does not mean that all opinions will be relevant,

informed, insightful, or actionable, but that judgments should always be situational and

not attached to any particular person or group before they speak. The failure to grant this

presumption displays a lack of respect, and indeed even a sort of contempt, for persons

and groups who have a legitimate right to have their views fully and equally considered.

(p. 230).

As Hicks explains, each person who participates in a deliberation should be considered equal in

view and those views should be considered for that person and not the larger group or any

particular demographic or identity group. The final decision made will be ultimately tied to

reasons given. If the reasons given by some receive greater weight than others due to power or

status, the validity of the decision lessens (Asen, 2015). Additionally, decisions made that go

against someones ethical beliefs and force them to accept them puts their views in unequal terms

to those of others. Therefore, decisions made should ideally be supportable by all (Hicks, 2002).

This goal of deliberation is hard to achieve as some desires cannot seemingly coexist in a single

outcome. In this way, deliberation is idyllic and more difficult to achieve in practice. This

difficulty and other factors will be discussed in more depth later.

Reason

Deliberative communication is contingent upon the giving of reasons. Reason has

multiple purposes in deliberation. First, the focus on reason causes the decisions made to be

higher quality, more valid, and more rational (Hicks, 2002). The more reasons provided for a

belief the more likely a person is to change their stance due to the evaluation of their position
Deliberative Pedagogy 9

against that of others (Hicks, 2002; Schneiderhan & Khan, 2008).

Secondly, it allows the participants to understand not simply the view someone holds but

also their reason for their belief. Reasons can be lived experiences, opinion (if explained), or

empirical evidence (Schneiderhan & Khan, 2008; Lake, 2015). Including those lived experiences

can provide a basis for reasoning that empirical research may not capture. Dialogue cannot occur

without including these experiences as they are true to those who lived them (Lake, 2015).

Thirdly, a focus on reason allows people to make choices that are more in line with the

needs of all rather than a focus upon their own wants or needs, though these decisions should not

force someone to abandon deeply held beliefs or convictions (i.e. religious views) as that would

not be in line with equality (Hicks, 2002). A concern here is whether or not to allow prejudicial

or hateful reasons to be recognized as legitimate. As mentioned in inclusion and equality, the

answer is yes; but, Hicks explains how these views can be challenged, writing:

...[O]nce citizens recognize that they are unable to provide public reasons for their

convictions (or that their convictions trade on the devaluing of others views), they will

be more likely to alter those preferences so as to make them more consistent with the

needs of all. Pure self-interest may give way to a concern for the common good.

Prejudices thrive on the sorts of mutual isolation pictured by strategic models of political

interaction, but they are difficult to sustain when subject to the light of public reason (p.

245).

As is evident, one of the major challenges facing deliberation with reason is the balance between

recognizing everyones reasons as valid and equal while simultaneously hoping to challenge and

change these views constructivelyespecially if they are prejudicial or bigoted.

Validity/Legitimacy
Deliberative Pedagogy 10

In each of the above sections, some reference to validity has been made. Logically then,

the above principles converge to ensure validity of the decisions made. To be valid, all those who

will be affected by the outcome should have their voices heard (Hicks, 2002; Camicia, 2010).

This includes those voices which have been marginalized or deemed socially unacceptable as

their voices are equal in worth to other views. Because the US is diverse in values, heritages, and

cultures, inclusion of multiple perspectives is crucial to a valid outcome (Camicia, 2010).

A deliberation is valid when members receive equal treatment and respect. As Hicks

(2002) explained earlier, each member should be seen as contributing something worthwhile and

worthy of the time of the other participants regardless of any other factors. When there are power

imbalances or an individual is coerced into agreeing, the equality is damaged. This in turn lowers

the validity of any decisions that come from the deliberative body (Camicia, 2010). Through

listening and understanding, participants feel more positively about the decision made even when

they do not like the consensus (Avery, 2010).

Validity of reason means the full explanation of opinions, experiences, or evidences.

Reasons should be considered valid and taken as truthful. Denial of lived experiences, even if

they go against generally accepted truths, lowers the validity of the deliberation and constitutes

exclusion and unequal treatment of an individual (Hicks, 2002; Camicia, 2010). By focusing on

the inclusion and equitable treatment of all participants along with the provision of reason,

deliberations work to achieve validity when making decisions or policies.

Schools as the Environment for Deliberation

Theoreticians point to schools as one of the best places for deliberation (Camicia, 2010;

Lake, 2015). Deliberative engagements attempt to model civil exchanges while offering students

the chance to interact with others on a deeper level, learning about the lives and experiences of
Deliberative Pedagogy 11

diverse individuals. Through purposeful engagements with others, students can develop trust and

understanding (Englund, 2011). Developing these feelings will aide students in thinking about

the needs of others, not just themselves. This answers the call of Kaltsounis (1997) who says the

convergence of multicultural education and citizenship education should begin with observing

diversity and move toward dialogue, compromise, and adjustment to new situations arrived at

through compromises (p. 21).

Additionally, public schools generally represent the diversity of the local community and

depict a version of the public sphere (Gastil, 2008; Englund, 2011). Students in the classroom

reflect the diverse opinions, experiences, and desires of the population. Schools also serve the

purpose of instructing students in democratic methods and, thus, are an appropriate place to

practice deliberative methods (Avery, 2015). Gay (1997) explains that social conflict and dissent

are important in MSJE and ...require pedagogical strategies that allow students to have face-to-

face encounters with opportunities to practice skills of conflict resolution (p. 7). Deliberative

pedagogy seeks to bring diverse views to the conversation and provide reason for beliefs. The

goal of deliberation is to arrive at consensus to problems which affect many people. Through

deliberative pedagogy, instructors can do that which Gay calls for in classrooms.

In addition to the above reasons, deliberation in schools has educational benefits for

students. Deliberation requires higher-order thinking skills to successfully interpret and evaluate

different perspectives as well as to determine the necessary action in response to a problem

(Camicia, 2010). The structure of deliberation starts with framing the problem and then

developing a base of knowledge on the issue through research and discussion (Gastil, 2008). In a

study conducted by Avery (2010), students said they understood issues better as a result of

participation in a deliberation. These students also pointed out they felt more able to state their
 Deliberative Pedagogy 12

opinions and more confident talking about issues with their peers than before. The knowledge

and skills developed through practicing deliberation can be easily transferred to civic life,

allowing students to be active participants in democracy (Dedrick, Dienstfrey, & Alfaro, 2008).

Deliberative Pedagogy as a teaching method

Deliberations can be as structured or as unstructured as teachers feel comfortable with

using in their classrooms. A general method could be described in several steps (Gastil, 2008):

1. Identify and frame the issue

2. Develop a strong information base
3. Understand and identify the values at stake
4. Develop possible solutions
5. Evaluate the benefits and challenges associated with each solution
6. Make the best decision possible
7. Debrief/Reflect (Avery, 2010)
These steps are merely guidelines of the processes to deliberate on an issue rather than a strict

procedure. In the first stage, students decide on what exactly the issue is that needs to be

addressed. The issue should be one that has multiple solutions and values at stake (Hannay,

1989). Through framing the issue students fully understand the information that needs to be

gathered. The second step can include researching the issue to further develop a background or

can be a discussion on the experiences and understandings of the group. Both are important

toward developing a wide range of information. In the third to sixth steps, students should be

engaging with one another in a constructive way, asking questions which seek clarity and

understanding. The final step of debriefing is crucial for students to make the connections of

discussion and practice (Avery, 2010; Lake, 2015).

In a more structured way, teachers can incorporate a method called structured academic

controversy (Avery, 2010). Through this method, teachers can retain more control of the process

of practicing deliberation. In Averys explanation, students first craft a common knowledge base

through the reading of texts. The question to discuss is introduced. In groups, students develop
Deliberative Pedagogy 13

two opposing answers to the question at hand. Students present the different positions and then

switch positions looking at the pros and cons of the position. At this point, students may drop the

position and discuss more openly within their groups. Through this discussion students bring

forth their own experiences and beliefs to help further understand the situation. After deliberating

in their groups, students come together to discuss beliefs, options, and values. The process is

closed out with a debriefing which includes discussing questions which remain unanswered and

possible ways to answer them.

Role of Instructors

The role of instructors in deliberation can be either participant or facilitator. Instructors

who choose to participate should be cautious of creating power differentials which could

negatively affect the outcome of deliberations (Asen, 2015). Additionally, if instructors do not

create a safe environment, students will not feel comfortable discussing issues or sharing their

personal experiences (Camicia, 2010). Instructors may be best suited to help facilitate

deliberative conversations. In Hannay & Seller (1991), administrators acting as facilitators in

deliberations amongst teachers is outlined. The concept transfers well to instructors in

classrooms acting as facilitators for student deliberation. Instructors in a facilitating role focus on

developing students abilities to engage with their peers, helping to keep students on task, raising

additional questions, and ensuring inclusion and reason. Additional support for facilitators in a

deliberative process is provided in Schneiderhan & Khan (2008), Asen (2015), and Lake (2015).

Concluding Thoughts

In Brief: Deliberation as a Multicultural Education and MSJE Method

As mentioned, multicultural education and MSJE advocates desire to include multiple

perspectives in the curriculum to showcase the diversity of experiences and beliefs. Deliberation
Deliberative Pedagogy 14

does this through the core principle of inclusion. In MSJE, students should engage in

challenging the status quo and developing political efficacy. Deliberations goal is to arrive at

agreed upon solutions to problems which affect diverse peoples. Through this process, students

develop the skills needed to actively engage with others in a productive rather than a

confrontational manner. Both multicultural education and MSJE advocates call for the use of

dialogue in classrooms (Sleeter & Grant, 2009). Deliberative methods focus on having such a

dialogue, but instructors can make these discussions action-focused if they choose to do so.

Though, to meet the intersection of MSJE and citizenship education, deliberation allows

individuals to take a step further. Students can learn about the systems of the US while

simultaneously challenging them to achieve justice for all.

Concerns

Within the Four Core

The four core concepts of deliberation are idyllic and are based upon what people should

do and believe. To keep true to a deliberation, the potential limitations to deliberative pedagogy

will be further elaborated below. Deliberative methods are by no means perfect, and to fully

equip oneself to practice or engage in a deliberation, its limitations must be understood.

Inclusion

Inclusion is predicated on the belief that people hold many values and thus should be

included in the discussion. In some instances, there can be a pressure by the majority for

minority opinions to keep quiet which places those minority opinions in a challenging position

(Camicia, 2010). By denying some views admittance into the conversation, interlocutors

narrowly define what is acceptable to believe and keep dissenting opinions from full access

(Camicia, 2009). As a MSJE method, political correctness can also bar individuals from full
Deliberative Pedagogy 15

inclusion as they feel they must communicate in a way which is socially acceptable (Sleeter &

Grant, 2009). There are times, though, where individuals may reasonably be kept from the

deliberative process due to being extremely uninformed or apathetic to the outcome (Hicks,

2002). Exclusion of any individual, however, runs the risk of lowering the validity of any

decisions made.

Equality

Within a deliberation, some individuals will be asked to view one another as equal in

value and merit. This ideal is much more difficult in practice with power differentials (like a

teacher over a student or a boss over an employee) as well as individuals beliefs on whose

opinion carries more weight due to status or education (Avery, 2010; Asen, 2015). Asking people

to consider views they find offensive as equal also infringes upon the right to free thoughta

major concern for simultaneously desiring inclusion and equality on an issue.

Reason

A major concern within reason is what reasons are considered valid by the group. This

means including lived experiences and those which are not fully captured by empirical

evidences (Lake, 2015). Another major concern is the inclusion of religious beliefs as legitimate

reasons (Asen, 2015). The inclusion of religious views falls in line with the ideal of inclusion

and equality so long as the religious beliefs do not hinge upon discrimination amongst others.

This becomes problematic, though, as religious beliefs are culturally important and valid for the

individuals who hold them.

Validity

As mentioned, validity ties directly to the other three core concepts. To have a truly valid

deliberation, all stakeholders should be included, considered equal, and provide reasons for their
Deliberative Pedagogy 16

beliefs. Like the above concerns, validity is much more difficult to achieve than theoretically

desired. Many of these concerns can be further understood through the difficulty with

implementation of deliberative methods.

Within Implementation

Within implementation of deliberative methods several challenges arise. One challenge is

the gap between practice and theory in citizenship education and MSJE. In theory, citizenship

education should challenge the long-held beliefs and fight for a better democracy, while in

practice practitioners tend to promote loyalty and soft democratic skills (Kaltsounis, 1997;

Camicia, 2009). Another concern is the capacity of any single institution to include all

stakeholders (Hicks, 2002). On a large scale, deliberation of stakeholder can be extremely

difficult as every issue cannot have 320 million participants. Additionally, the decisions made by

one country could have major implications for other countries which makes them valid

stakeholders, effectively asking to include all 7.5 billion people. A final concern with

implementation focuses on training and practice. As a MSJE method, deliberation can be

implemented in a simplistic way that does not produce the change it desires by remaining within

the classroom (Dedrick, Dienstfrey, & Alfaro, 2008). This requires training of the general public

but also teachers to ensure deliberation can be effective in addressing the challenges of the

modern society while accounting for and challenging systemic problems.

Deliberative Pedagogy 17

References

Asen, R. (2015). Democracy, deliberation, and education. University Park, PA: Penn State

University Press.

Avery, P. G. (2011). Deliberation as a Core Part of Teacher Education and Civics Classrooms.

Enseanza De Las Ciencias Sociales, 2011(10) 11-21.

Camicia, S. P. (2009). Identifying Soft Democratic Education: uncovering the range of civic and

cultural choices in instructional materials. Social Studies, 100(3), 136-142.

Camicia, S. P. (2010). Deliberation of controversial public school curriculum: Developing

processes and outcomes that increase legitimacy and social justice. Journal of Public

Deliberation, 6(2), 1-20.

Cole, H. J. (2013) Teaching, Practicing, and Performing Deliberative Democracy in the

Classroom. Journal of Public Deliberation: 9(2), Available at:

http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol9/iss2/art10

Dedrick, J. R., Grattan, L., Dienstfrey, H., & Alfaro, C. (2008). Contexts for Deliberation:

experimenting with democracy in the classroom, campus, and in the community. In

Deliberation & the Work of Higher Education: innovations for the classroom, the

campus, and the community (pp. 235-264). Dayton, OH: Kettering Foundation Press.

DiCamillo, L., & Pace, J. L. (2010). Preparing Citizens for Multicultural Democracy in a U.S.

History Class. The High School Journal, 93(2), 69-82.

Englund, T. (2011). The Potential of Education for Creating Mutual Trust: schools as sites for

deliberation. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(3),236-248.

Gastil, J. (2008). Political Communication and Deliberation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Deliberative Pedagogy 18

Gay, G. (1997). The Relationship Between Multicultural and Democratic Education. Social

Studies, 88(1), 5-11.

Hannay, L. M. (1989). Deliberative Curriculum Theory: A call for action. McGill Journal of

Education, 24(2) 187-201.

Hannay, L. M., & Seller, W. (1991). The Curriculum Leadership Role in Facilitating Curriculum

Deliberation. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 6(4), 340-357.

Hicks, D. (2002). The Promise(s) of Deliberative Democracy. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 5(2),

223-260. doi:10.1353/rap.2002.0030

Kaltsounis, T. (1997). Multicultural education and citizenship education at a crossroads:

searching for common ground. The Social Studies, 88(1), 18-22.

Lake, D. (2015). Community Building in the Classroom: teaching democratic thinking through

practicing democratic thinking. Faculty Peer Reviewed Articles. Paper 1.

Schneiderhan, E., & Khan, S. (2008). Reasons and Inclusion: the foundation of deliberation.

Sociological Theory, 26(1), 1-24.