Project Pericles Launches a Practical Deliberative Dialogue Module for Higher Education

​Project Pericles' Deliberative Dialogue Module is a set of open, adaptable teaching tools that help college faculty connect course content to real civic questions and guide students through structured deliberation on public issues. Built on the Kettering Foundation's understanding of deliberative dialogue as a way to think together rather than to debate or force consensus, the module frames classroom conversation as preparation for civic and electoral participation. It includes a faculty facilitator guide, a library of sixteen discussion topics spanning disciplines from computer science to public health, and guidance on crafting non-partisan issue stances that open multiple perspectives rather than collapsing into an us-versus-them split. The approach draws on evaluated workshop models and centers skills the dialogue field values, including active listening, critical thinking, and finding common ground across difference. By treating every discipline as a doorway to public questions, the module extends deliberative practice into higher education in a way that speaks directly to NCDD's mission of strengthening democracy through better public conversation.

---

---

Project Pericles, a national organization that works to place community-engaged civic learning at the center of higher education, has assembled a Deliberative Dialogue Module designed to help faculty link what students study to the public decisions that study touches. The premise is simple and durable. Every discipline, whether it sits in the fine arts, the humanities, the social sciences, or STEM, connects to questions of policy, elected office, and the choices communities make together. The module gives instructors a way to surface those connections and to run a short, structured deliberation in which students take a stance on a real civic issue. Its grounding definition comes from the Kettering Foundation's Scott London, who describes deliberative dialogue as a form of discussion aimed at finding the best course of action, one whose purpose is less to reach a conclusion than to discover together where a sound conclusion might lie. That distinction, thinking together rather than winning, is the spine of the whole resource.

​The materials are notably concrete, which is what makes them useful beyond a single classroom. Faculty get an overview and facilitator guide with a timed discussion structure, ground rules, and a debrief that connects the conversation back to voting and community influence. They also get a searchable library of sixteen topics, each tagged to relevant disciplines and each supplied with discussion prompts, several issue stances, and vetted supplemental readings drawn from sources across the spectrum. The design choices reflect real deliberative craft rather than generic discussion tips. The guidance insists on offering at least three stances on any issue, on the reasoning that a two-sided framing pushes a room toward polarization while a third option keeps genuine exploration open. It gives particular attention to how facilitators should phrase stances on sensitive topics so that a conversation stays civil and humanizing. Accompanying facilitation guidelines, adapted from work by a university political engagement committee, cover the familiar and demanding moves of the practice, including establishing shared ground rules, including quieter voices through structured methods like the round and think-pair-share, redirecting without taking sides, and synthesizing what a group has heard. For NCDD members who work with campuses, or who train others to facilitate, this is a ready-made and adaptable starting point.

The module matters to the NCDD network because it treats deliberation not as an abstract civic ideal but as a teachable, repeatable practice that can live inside ordinary coursework. Its explicit link between discipline-specific learning and democratic participation reflects NCDD's commitments to civic engagement, inclusion, and collective problem-solving, and its emphasis on exploring issues rather than scoring points speaks to the field's long-standing concern with reducing hyperpartisanship. For practitioners, the value is twofold. The resource is directly usable by faculty who want to bring deliberation into their teaching, and its structure offers a transferable model for anyone designing short, inclusive deliberations in other community settings. Explore the full Deliberative Dialogue Module, including the faculty facilitator guide, the discussion topics, and the downloadable resources, at https://projectpericles.org, and consider how its approach might inform your own work bridging learning and civic life.