Issue Guides for Deliberative Dialogue

NASPA's first issue guide, Free Speech and the Inclusive Campus: How Do We Foster the Campus Community We Want?, is now available online! The research involved in developing the guide included interviews and conversations with campus stakeholders who have multiple perspectives; the initial drafts were reviewed by individuals with direct experience in student affairs and higher education. 

The United States is becoming increasingly diverse and more polarized as we struggle to address complex public problems such as immigration, health care, economic inequality, and America’s role in the world (Pew Research Center, 2017). As public trust in our political system waivers, U.S. college campuses are grappling with issues of inclusion, diversity, and freedom of speech (Rainie, Keeter, & Perrin, 2019). Conversations about free speech on campus are often framed in opposition to diversity and inclusion and have spawned controversies, protests, and even violence. In 2017, a much-cited survey of more than 3,000 college students conducted by Gallup and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation presented diversity and inclusion as directly opposite free speech, asking students which issues they felt were more important; 53% chose inclusion and 46% chose free speech (see Figure 1; Knight Foundation, 2018). In today’s contentious and divided political environment, what should colleges and universities do to meet the roles and responsibilities of higher education to foster the campus community we want?

• Free Speech and the Inclusive Campus full issue guide

• Free Speech and the Inclusive Campuse moderator’s guide

• Forum participant placement

• Moderator’s slides - Coming Soon!

While the guide is informed by conversations with hundreds of student affairs professionals, special thanks are due to those who helped guide its creation:

• Brent Marsh, assistant vice chancellor for student affairs and dean of students, University of Mississippi

• Erin Payseur Oeth, project manager for community engagement, University of Mississippi

• Kara Lindaman, professor of political science, Winona State University

• Diana Ali, associate director of policy research and advocacy, NASPA

• Stephanie King, director, strategic initiatives, ALL IN Campus Democracy Challenge

• Teri Lyn Hinds, senior director, strategic initiatives, Equity 2030, Minnesota State

 

NASPA’s second issue guide will focus on conversations related to fraternity and sorority life. Because the creation process for issue guides is community-drive, we won’t know for sure what the focus of the guide will be until we hear from the community during the concern gathering sessions. You can sign up to participate in a concern gathering session either at one of NASPA’s in-person events or through a virtual session.

The project team for the Fraternity and Sorority Life issue guide is:

• Brent Marsh, assistant vice chancellor for student affairs and dean of students, University of Mississippi

• Christopher Graham, Director of Fraternity and Sorority Life, Florida State University

• Erin Payseur Oeth, project manager for community engagement, University of Mississippi

• Francisco Lugo, Director of Fraternity & Sorority Life at Georgia Southern 

• Heather Black, Dean of Students, Chatham University

• Kara Lindaman, professor of political science, Winona State University

• Diana Ali, associate director of policy research and advocacy, NASPA

• Jill Dunlap, senior director of research, policy, and civic engagement, NASPA 

Information on upcoming virtual sessions will be available soon!

 

Why is NASPA creating issue guides for deliberative dialogue?

In recent years, higher education institutions have seen dramatic increases in polarization on campus. Democratic deliberation is an important civic literacy skill with have applications across institutions of higher education, including in classrooms and student organizations. Participants in deliberative dialogue forums practice approaches to building understanding across differences and developing a shared, or common, purpose. The skills and model of deliberative dialogue translate to a variety of “wicked problems” that campus communities face. 

What issues will NASPA create issue guides about?

The first NASPA Issue Guide, Free Speech and the Inclusive Campus, will release in conjunction with the 2020 NASPA Annual Meeting in Austin, TX. The next NASPA Issue Guide will be focused on fraternity and sorority life, though in keeping with the development process, we won’t know more specifically what the central question will be until we gather information from the field. 

How long does it take to create an issue guide?

The work for each guide takes about a year. We are starting to work on the fraternity and sorority life guide in Spring 2020 and expect it will be released at the 2021 NASPA Annual Meeting.

What is the full process for creating an issue guide?

The NASPA Issue Guides are created by a core planning team consisting of NASPA staff and members which works together to engage in community-based research and development of each guide. The team will:

• Lead a variety of concern gathering sessions, some held in-person at NASPA events and some held virtually.

• Process and distill the resulting data at a 2-day in-person team meeting.

• Write the guide in the model established by the National Issues Forum.

• Test the guide at a pilot test session held at a NASPA event and at pilot test deliberations on campuses.

What is “concern gathering”?

Concern gathering is a term used by the Kettering Foundation to describe a process for naming and framing issues that exist in communities where there isn’t a clear “right” answer or direction. It’s the first step in developing an issue guide and designed to be a way of surfacing and collecting the voices of those across the community (in our case, the broader community of student affairs professionals) about a particular topic.

Who should participate in concern gathering?

In order to hear from as many student affairs professionals as possible, NASPA will  hold at least three in-person concern gathering sessions for each issue guide. We’ll also hold several virtual concern gathering sessions so that we can hear from those who aren’t able to travel to one of our conferences. The intent is to hear not only from those professionals who are working directly with a given topic or issue but also those in other areas across campus or even at campuses who don’t have strong involvement with a given topic or issue but have thoughts about their role in higher education spaces in general.

Is concern gathering about airing grievances?

No. The format for concern gathering is broad-based – we’re not looking specifically for negative aspects related to a given topic or issue, but also where people see how some of the opportunities around a topic or issue on campus and within students experiences that may not be getting the attention they deserve. Depending on the conversations that come up during concern gathering, we may, for instance, end up focusing an issue guide on how campuses can best promote and expand those positive contributions in the face of some of the more “headline grabbing” incidents. We won’t know for sure what the focus of the guide will be until we hear from the community during the sessions, though, so it’s hard at the start to be more specific.

What happens after the concern gathering sessions?

Following the concern gathering phase, the issue guide team will meet to begin identifying issues and values that surfaced during these sessions. They will review all the notes and try to group concerns by a core underlying value that seems to be expressed by the concern. By focusing on the underlying values, the team will be better able to identify possible options for future forum participants to consider, along with their attendant benefits and trade-offs. Our ultimate goal is to create an issue guide around this topic to assist colleagues in navigating conversations around these issues on their own campus.

Will the development of the fraternity and sorority life issue guide be influenced by the NASPA FSL working groups?

Not directly. The work of the NASPA FSL working groups and the issue guide development team will happen in parallel, but not intentionally connected, tracks. 

The FSL working groups will be working intentionally to address specific areas of concern with FSL communities across higher education. Their work will involve experts in the field with the intention of identifying solutions. For more information on the FSL working groups, please see LINK?

The purpose of an issue guide is not to suggest a specific solution or to steer a conversation in a predetermined direction, but to bring together a community to discuss topics where there are a variety of deeply held beliefs that are not always in alignment. Forums are intended to help get to the values underlying those beliefs, to create space for empathy and understanding, and to evaluate potential actions and the consequences or trade-offs associated with those actions.