Dominant empirical realities and theoretical frameworks strongly influence the types of learning necessary to support democracy. Developing capacities capable of moving a group towards consensus has been one element commonly heralded as the pinnacle in civic and democracy learning. Some version of “liberal democracy” – rule of law, representative institutions, and free and fair elections have long been held as the assumed framework for many civic and democracy learning experiences. As such, civic and democracy learning has often been positioned to achieve aims that align with the philosophically liberal tradition of democracy. Liberal democracy has been an attempt to reconcile philosophical liberalism with various versions of democracy. Organizing learning and development against different assumptions and frameworks has not been a central focus of civic engagement and leadership learning and development experiences. The time is ripe to explore civic learning models that do not center consensus towards a “common good” as a guiding value.
The objective of this blog post is to outline a series of ongoing projects that attempt to create civic engagement and civic leadership learning frameworks that connect dialogic democracy to empathetic practice. We map a larger civic and democracy learning effort that does not center consensus as an overarching goal. First, we outline the way a commitment to “consensus” and “liberal democracy” frameworks shape assumptions in civic and democracy learning experiences. Second, we offer “dialogic democracy” as an alternative approach to civic and democracy learning. Dialogic approaches to democracy hold more space for disagreement, difference, and inter-/multiculturalism by advancing empathetic practice. Lastly, readers will leave this post with an understanding of where this civic and democracy learning effort is headed.
Dialogic Democracy
Within dialogic democracy, it is at the points of divergence — disagreement, difference, inter-/multiculturalism — that create meaningful pathways for interaction and engagement as the basis of good governance. Dialogic democracy attempts to enable social reflexivity by supporting intentional interactions between individuals and groups and by advancing institutional arrangements that productivity hold disagreement and divergent perspectives (Giddens, 1994). The type of social reflexivity required by dialogic democracy, draws from the general habits of the heart and head necessary to source knowledge from larger areas of social systems. Sense-making and meaning-making become essential in how people understand difference, group dynamics, and chart a course for shared action (e.g. Habits of the heart: curiosity, empathy, listening; Habits of the head: reason, facts, argumentation). Dialogic democracy is not a debate of viewpoints propped up as opposites of each other, but rather an intentional seeking out – intentional dialogic conditions that incorporate a spectrum of thoughts, viewpoints, and opinions. The practice of dialogic democracy emphasizes pluralism where multiple paradigms can exist and be held at the same time in tension without a commitment to consensus. Functionally, this shifts the project of dialogic democracy to be about holding space for productive disagreement, creating space for listening, and giving space to those that offer perspectives difficult to hear. Central to the project of dialogic democracy is cultivating empathy through intentional dialogic conditions and interactions.
Dialogic Interaction as a Pathway to Cultivate Empathy as a Practice of Democracy
Commonly, empathy is thought to be the process of “putting yourself in others’ shoes” or understanding perspectives that are different from your own. Often, empathy is conflated with sympathy where individuals feel sorry for others’ misfortunes or life circumstances. Within this view of empathy, there is an overreliance on empathy’s affective components and the assumption that these affective components lead an individual to actions meant to ease the suffering of those feeling sympathy. Empathy, though, is much more than just a feeling of sympathy for others, but rather a process of understanding different viewpoints that incorporates affective, cognitive, emotional intelligence, and reflexive components. So, the end goal for empathy is not just understanding or actions to relieve “bad” feelings, but rather a changed perspective that incorporates and/or attends to the different perspectives to which an individual has been exposed. This perspective is not a taking on a new perspective that is different nor assigning a moral or ethical judgement to this perspective (bad or good). Rather, this new perspective incorporates other perspectives to create actions that can attend to the multiplicity of experiences. Critical to a dialogic democracy is the cultivation of empathetic processes for individuals through dialogic interactions in groups.
Within a dialogic democracy framework, individuals are understanding perspectives without necessarily taking on those perspectives as their own. Rather, their perspective is further informed through dialogue, disagreement, and understanding difference. The success of dialogic conditions and interactions is not how quickly a group can move towards consensus, but instead the degree to which complex ideas are examined, held in tension, and invite ever broader consideration of views. A group’s ability to cultivate empathy are critical to successful dialogic interactions given the need for the development of trust and incorporation of multiple views and ideas. The authors contend that by advancing dialogic democracy and empathetic practice, the landscape of civic and democracy learning can be transformed to better prepare citizens to engage in ways that reduce inequitable participation and polarization in the United States. This shifts civic and democracy learning to account for both individual- and group-level learning and development outcomes.
Future Directions: Assessment and Evaluation of Group-Level Outcomes
Our goals are to develop learning and development frameworks at individual- and group-levels. We are advancing three projects that effort to meaningfully connect dialogic democracy to empathetic practice in civic and democracy learning experiences.
New Directions for Student Leadership Publication
The first ongoing project is attempting to develop the theoretical framework connecting dialogic democracy to empathetic practice. This project is being advanced by Jillian Martin, John Weng, and Brandon Kliewer. Together we are developing a proposal for the New Directions for Student Leadership (Wiley Periodicals) that offers a normative argument for civic leadership and democracy learning and development to account for group-level outcomes. Accounting for group-level outcomes in democracy and leadership learning and development experience create capability to recognize dimensions of dialogic democracy and emphatic practice that would not be addressed by focusing only on individual-level outcomes.
New Leadership Learning and Development Resources
The second element of the project maps content, curriculum, and process consistent with the dialogic democracy and empathy framework. We plan to produce a series of resources and materials useful to scholars and practitioners attempting to support civic engagement and civic leadership learning and development in ways consistent with individual- and group-level outcomes.
Assessment and Framework Validation
Lastly, the framework will be applied to a practice civic engagement and civic leadership learning and development experience. The objective of this third project is to evaluate the impact of the framework on learning, development, and practice at both individual- and group-level learning and development outcomes. Our hope is that this will represent an innovation in assessment and evaluation of civic learning and development.
References 
Giddens, A. (1994). Beyond Left and Right: The Future of Radical Politics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Jillian A. Martin, Ph.D., is currently a Fulbright U.S. Scholar to Ghana where she is doing teaching and research at the University of Cape Coast. Prior to her current role, Dr Martin served in various higher education capacities (civic and community engagement, assessment and evaluation, housing and residence life, student activities, diversity initiatives). She focuses her scholar-practice on creating opportunities for use of inquiry (assessment, evaluation, and research) in intentional practice. Her research agenda includes: student athlete transitions, socialization of student affairs professionals, and student services in higher education within an Ghanaian context and epistemological pathways, case study design, and survey design. Jillian holds a Ph.D. and M.Ed. from the University of Georgia in College Student Affairs Administration and B.S. from Oglethorpe University in Biopsychology. She can be reached at jamartin8@gmail.com.
Brandon W. Kliewer, Ph.D., is an associate professor of civic leadership in the Mary Lynn and Warren Staley School of Leadership Studies at Kansas State University. He studies leadership in organizations and democracy through the lens of civic capacity, leadership coaching, group dynamics, dialogic process consulting, democratic theory, and systems change. Brandon holds a Ph.D. from The University of Georgia in political science and a Master’s degree in political science from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. He can be reached at bkliewer@ksu.edu.
