Conference Agenda

Deliberative democracy stresses citizens’ public reflection and dialogue as the justification and support for a political system and decision-making (Fishkin 2018; Gutmann & Thompson 2004). The ideal of deliberating public calls for a particular kind of education, as citizens need the skills and dispositions that are central to participating in public reflection (Drerup et al. 2023; Englund 2000; Hess 2009; Hess & McAvoy 2015; Berg-Brekkhus & Werler 2021). A major problem for current educational theory and practice regarding deliberation is the eclecticism and fragmentation of the research field.

Our symposium contributes to a more robust and consistent research and development of the kind of education that deliberative democracy needs. It is motivated by the following three observations of the present state of the field: first, the most vital model for future democracies involves robust deliberative elements; second, deliberative democracy cannot survive or develop without democratic education; and third, current theoretical views and pedagogical approaches to deliberation in education are fragmented and thus deficient.

Through the symposium, we will address the lack of an adequate theoretical framework for education for deliberation and a related lack of the kind of pedagogical practices that would best support deliberative democracy. We approach the task from (1) empirical, (2) theoretical, and (3) pedagogical angles to produce and implement a multi-perspective, research-based conception of the educational advancement of capacities for deliberation.

Followingly, the symposium combines three intertwined lines of research: (1) it explores through a presentation of a comprehensive literature review what deliberation is seen to be and described to include in previous empirical research on pedagogical/teaching/education approaches (empirical dimension), (2) it develops the theory of deliberation (in the context of education by utilizing the resources from philosophical pragmatism), and (3) it discusses classroom practices of democratic deliberation as a community of dialogic-philosophical inquiry (CPI) pedagogy, as drawn from two widely known and applied traditions and approaches: Paulo Freire’s problematizing educational praxis and philosophizing pedagogy with children and young people (usually associated with Matthew Lipman’s Philosophy for Children, P4C).

The rationale of our symposium is based on the premise that, rather than leaning heavily on political theory, democratic deliberation in education is best understood in the framework of philosophical pragmatism as habits for engaging in the practices of dialogic and fallibilistic inquiry, involving both cognitive and emotional capacities for dealing with and forming judgments on societal questions, problems and conflicts (cf. Peirce 1877; Dewey 1922; 1938; Gregory 2022; Lipman 2003; Kauppi & Drerup 2021; Rydenfelt 2020; Stitzlein 2014; Zembylas 2022). In addition, to tackle with this challenge in a consistent and educationally plausible way, it is necessary to combine and learn from the three dimensions of research presented in the symposium: empirical knowledge of present practices, philosophical elaboration of the foundations of deliberative education, and development of pedagogical practices of deliberation in educational contexts.

Deliberative democracy has long been a prominent theme in the scholarly literature on democracy, and within the field of education, research on deliberative democratic education has likewise gained increasing attention. Previous literature reviews addressing deliberative democratic education have focused on exploring the relationship between theory and practice (Samuelsson & Boyum, 2015). A central concern has been how theories of deliberative democratic education are enacted in educational practice and the extent to which empirical studies of deliberation in educational settings align with these theoretical frameworks. In our presentation, we focus on empirical research literature and examine the aims and criteria set for deliberative education using literature metareview as our approach. Through comprehensive database searches (ERIC, EBSCO, ProQuest, Teacher Reference Center, Scite AI, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar), we identified 539 distinct sources at the title and abstract level. Applying our predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria (education, teaching, democratic education, deliberative democracy, empirical research), we narrowed the corpus for the literature review to 159 sources. These studies, in one way or another, examine the practical implementation of teaching that is designated, defined, and/or described as deliberative. In other words, we explore how empirical studies have conceptualized deliberative democratic education, how and where it is practiced, and what skills, dispositions, and virtues deliberative education aims to cultivate. The presentation is based on an article manuscript currently in progress. Our analysis also sheds light on certain essential debates within deliberative democratic education. For example, Samuelsson and Boyum (2015) have pointed out the differences between deliberative communication/pedagogy and education aimed at deliberative democracy. According to their argument, the former can occur independently without any connection to decision-making, whereas the latter must have a concrete link to democratic decision-making processes. In our presentation, we problematize this distinction. The key question in defining empirical research on deliberative democratic education is determining if it is focused on teaching general interaction skills or learning the skills, dispositions and attitudes essential for deliberative democracy. Our aim is not to define a single correct understanding of deliberative democratic education, but rather to provide an overview of empirical studies on the topic and the criteria they present for deliberation and deliberative democratic education. Based on this review, we reflect on our own framework for how deliberative democratic education can be defined in both the broadest and narrowest sense.

For instance: Henau Teglbjærg, J. (2023). Chasing deliberation in the Social Science classroom. A study of deliberative quality in factual and controversial issues discussions. Nordidactica 13; Lind, A. R. (2024). Agreement and Disagreement in Teachers’ Talk: Facilitative Design of Deliberation in Norwegian Initial Education. Democracy & Education 32. Nishiyama, K., Russell, A. W., Chalaye, P., & Greenwell, T. (2023). Deliberative Facilitation in the Classroom: The Interplay of Facilitative Technique and Design to Make Space for Democracy. Democracy & Education 31; Persson M, Andersson K, Zetterberg P, Ekman J, Lundin S. (2020). Does Deliberative Education Increase Civic Competence? Results from a Field Experiment. Journal of Experimental Political Science 7; Samuelsson, M. (2018). Education for Deliberative Democracy and the Aim of Consensus. Democracy & Education, 26; Samuelsson, M., & Bøyum, S. (2015). Education for deliberative democracy: Mapping the field. Utbildning & Demokrati 24; Seland, I., & Kjøstvedt, A. G. (2025). How do teacher educators from Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden teach for active democratic participation? Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 69; Tammi, T., & Rajala, A. (2018). Deliberative Communication in Elementary Classroom Meetings. Ground Rules, Pupils’ Concerns, and Democratic Participation. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 62.

In this paper, we advance current theorizations of deliberation by arguing that education for deliberation requires a deeper theoretical understanding of the roles of community and emotions in addressing democratic challenges (Holma 2024, 2023; Holma & Huhtala 2025). Drawing on a pragmatist framework, we interpret deliberations as a mode of inquiry (Holma & Huhtala 2026) and examine John Dewey’s concept of “suspense” as a critical educational moment in the process of deliberation (Dewey 1930, 1910). We conceptualize suspense as a vital dimension of deliberation: a space between not knowing and coming to know, where one is “held in suspense” (Dewey 1930). This transitional state can be challenging; learners often wish to escape the discomfort of uncertainty and move toward a more settled mode of being in which the struggle of not knowing has subsided. In some cases, suspense of judgement is fleeting or almost unnoticeable —yet it remains crucial for successful deliberation. Suspense also concerns teachers, for whom it may be difficult to witness a student’s distress. As agents of knowledge, teachers may feel tempted to relieve this discomfort by providing answers too soon (English 2023). However, while not knowing is challenging and the acquisition of new knowledge is rewarding, the deliberative process requires remaining in this in-between state long enough for genuine inquiry to unfold (English 2013; 2023). Valuing the moment of suspense in education for deliberation implies that educators must cultivate spaces of “productive struggle" while offering the emotional and pedagogical support that enables students to withstand the discomfort of uncertainty (English 2023). Successful deliberation, understood as inquiry, demands both cognitive and emotional capacities: the ability to resist premature closure and the willingness to continue searching and exploring alternative hypotheses. We argue that recognizing the emotional and communal dimensions of this process is essential for cultivating deliberative competencies in democratic education.

Dewey, J. (1910). How We Think. D. C. Heath & Co. Publishers; Dewey, J. (1930). Democracy and Education. The Macmillian Company; English, A. R. (2013). Discontinuity in Learning: Dewey, Herbart, and Education as Transformation. In Discontinuity in Learning: Dewey, Herbart and Education as Transformation. Cambridge University Press; English, A.R. (2023). Dewey, Existential Uncertainty and Non-affirmative Democratic Education. In: Uljens, M. (eds) Non-affirmative Theory of Education and Bildung. Educational Governance Research, vol 20. Springer; Holma, K. (2024). Education as initiation into social practices – the case of democracy. Ethics and Education 19; Holma, K. (2023.) The Rejection of Rational Autonomy as an Educational Ideal? In Search of a Philosophical Justification for Radical Change in Paul Hirst’s Thinking Journal of Philosophy of Education 57; Holma, K. and Huhtala, H.-M. (2025). Habits of Tolerance: The Reformative Power of Pragmatism. Educ Theory, 75; Holma, K. & Huhtala, H-M. (2026). Emotions and Community in Education for Deliberation: Insights from Philosophical Pragmatism. Unpublished manuscript.

Following an meta-review (presentation 1) and a perspective from educational philosophy (presentation 2), this concluding presentation unfolds a pedagogy of open, shared thinking. Teaching democratic deliberation is sometimes conceived as a matter of learning through some efficient ‘method.’ However, as the varied body of research on teaching deliberation shows, no methodological breakthrough has demonstrated any single approach to be superior. We argue that deliberative education should not be understood primarily as a method, but as an unfolding way of inhabiting educational situations -- and more, it is a form of (educational) life. To elaborate this view, we draw on two globally influential pedagogical traditions: Paulo Freire’s critical pedagogy and philosophizing with children (originally developed by Matthew Lipman and Ann Sharp as P4C). Both traditions begin from questions and questioning. Freire’s “problematizing” education views the world as an object of shared questioning rather than a body of knowledge to be absorbed. For Freire, the world is full of injustices and contradictions that call for both action and reflection. Meaningful learning emerges through participation in a community that problematizes the world together. Lipman and Sharp described their approach as a reflective paradigm that encourages students to question and think about a world filled with unresolved and contradictory issues. A philosophically inquiring attitude allows any issue relevant to children and young people to become a topic of rational and moral reflection, revealing further philosophical dimensions. Freire’s pedagogy integrates reflection and action into a “conscientizing praxis”, while philosophizing with children is an apprenticeship in communal reflective inquiry that requires time. In both cases, a pedagogy of questioning enables radical reflection on what is happening within the pedagogical situation itself, including power and authority relations. This is especially important in democratic education. Freire envisioned an educational praxis in which teachers’ and students’ roles intertwine, making all participants both learners and teachers as they problematize the world together. Lipman sought to transform the classroom into a community where children and adults jointly engage in inquiry into meaningful topics. Although research often emphasizes the closeness of Freire and Lipman, important differences exist. Using these differences in a productive dialogue, we focus on childhood not mainly as the chronological stage, target of educational practices, but as a non-chronological dimension that keeps alive the questioning vocation of educators of all ages. Finally, we present some practical examples of how such pedagogies have been implemented in Brazil, Argentina, and Finland.

Bruss, N., & Macedo, D. P. (1985). Toward a pedagogy of the question: Conversations with Paulo Freire. Journal of Education 167; Freire, P. & Faúndez, A. 2013. Por uma pedagogia da pregunta. Paz e Terra; Horton, Myles and Freire, Paulo (1990), We Made the Road by Walking. Temple University Press; Kennedy, D. & Kohan, W. O. (2008). Aión, Kairós and Chrónos: Fragments of an Endless Conversation on Childhood, Philosophy and Education. Childhood & Philosophy 4; Kohan, W. 2018. Paulo Freire and Philosophy for Children: A Critical Dialogue. Studies in Philosophy and Education 37; Kohan, W. 2021. Paulo Freire: A Philosophical Biography. Bloomsbury; Kohan, W. O. & Weber, B. (2020). Thinking, Childhood and Time. Contemporary Perspectives on the Politics of Education. Lexington; Kohan, W. O. (2016), Time, Thinking, and the Experience of Philosophy in School. PES Yearbook; Lipman, M. 2003. Thinking in Education. CUP; Tomperi, T. 2005. Paulo Freire ja sorrettujen pedagogiikka. In P. Freire, Sorrettujen pedagogiikka. Toim. T. Tomperi. Vastapaino; Tomperi, T. 2017. Filosofianopetus ja pedagoginen filosofia. Filosofia oppiaineena ja kasvatuksena. EFS; Tomperi, T. (2025). The trajectories of pedagogical philosophizing in Finland. Overcoming the institutional boundaries between education and philosophy. childhood & philosophy 21.