Most generally, ‘civic life’ refers to our dealings with other people. We might not need these skills if we lived alone on a desert island, but we live, work, and learn among other people. Discourse skills provide us with the wherewithal to navigate our lives with other people. We are all members of multiple overlapping communities, including families, friend groups, campus life, sports associations, religious communities, workplace environments, participants in retail spaces, and citizens of the world. We might think of ‘civic life’ writ small as those relationships with those close to us (such as friends, family, co-workers) and ‘civic life’ writ large as those relationships with those we may not know at all (like shoppers in a store, voters in different states, and people on the other side of the world).

Developing discourse skills in civic life will require negotiating changes in the context. Modes of engagement with one community may not work in another. By way illustration, the ways we engage in advocacy and dissent will differ depending on whether we are engaged with co-workers, members of our sports team, or members of our toddler’s pre-school class.

Taking a metacognitive approach to civic life involves asking how a change in context prompts a shift in our discourse strategy.  What is the current context of engagement? What do we need to attend to in this context? Are some contexts more difficult to navigate? When can we adapt engagement strategies from one context and transfer them to the next? When might we need to develop new strategies? As we interact with people from our various overlapping communities, what do we notice about differences in engagement strategies based on different roles, different personalities, and different background experiences? For any given person in any given situation, there may be multiple ways to navigate the situation, though some ways will likely be better than others. A metacognitive approach allows us to be open to the need to be flexible to the fluidity of most social situations.

‘Deliberation’ involves carefully considering ideas, evidence, and alternative points of view. If all goes well, it can lead to a better understanding of the world (and the people in it). It differs from conversation that can be free-flowing and need not be concerned with the careful use of evidence. It differs from debate where the goal is to win or persuasion where the goal is to change another’s mind. The precise nature of the careful consideration of ideas will depend upon the context. Exercising careful consideration on a quick trip to the grocery store differs careful consideration when giving testimony before a congressional sub-committee. Moreover, each academic discipline offers its own guidance around discipline-specific modes of thinking and acceptable standards.

Talk of ‘civic discourse’ likely conjures up thoughts of hot-topics ripped from the headlines. But if we take a broad view of ‘civic life,’ then we can also take a broad view of the ideas to be considered in our classes. If we take this approach, then developing civic discourse skills need not involve political topics that go outside course content.  When deciding on the topics to be included in the civic discourse portion of your course, there’s no need to jam-in “hot topics,” especially if this does not fit well with other course content. Rather, the topics could include how to navigate difficult conversations with clients, co-workers, or members of the academic community.

If we think of discourse skills as how to think carefully about  new ideas and points of view, then learning the “how to” might matter more than “what” ideas happen to be discussed on any given occasion. By analogy, teaching students the disciplinary skills (such as those associated with reading, writing, and research) is, arguably, more about how to do these activities than the particular ideas under consideration. It is true that some topics are more suitable than others, but the goals associated with teaching these skills transcends learning something particular about some particular content.

Reasoned inquiry’ could mean lots of different things depending on the context. Given that the goal of this guide is to help you integrate civic discourse into your course, we can start with the modes of thinking that are already part of your course objectives and student learning outcomes. For example, how are civic discourse skills related to disciplinary modes of thinking (such as what it means to be an artist, business person, dancer, engineer)? How might civic discourse skills overlap with critical thinking or information management skills?

At some level, all college courses are rooted inquiry that seeks new evidence to inform relevant questions. As an extension of the disciplinary starting point for reasoned inquiry, what are your disciplinary tools for seeking out new information? What does your course already teach students about how information is acquired, sources vetted, evaluated, and integrated into previous understanding? In keeping with the thought that the civic discourse skills are practiced within existing courses, a shift towards amplifyinghow students talk about new information and evidence acquisition. The civic discourse competency might nudge us to be even more explicit with students about where information comes from, how we know it is trustworthy, and how we adjudicate disputes over its provenance. Again, the emphasis is on how information is handled and how it is talked about rather than what sorts of new information need to be considered being considered.