Three Section Civic Challenges Dialogue Framework

Proposal

Abstract

Dialogue models are increasingly being integrated into models for organizational communication efforts to address consequential issues. The Three Section Civic Challenges Dialogue Framework will develop a structure for this dialogue across complex issues when stakeholders are institutions, institutional parties, and community organizations. This model is a question-based facilitated dialogue solution that universities could use to address a civic issue through applying our program outline.

I. Background for Dialogue Model

Dialogue models have been used by academic institutions, community organizations, and in governance to effectively bridge varying perspectives to devise democratic solutions.

II. Dialogue Framework Proposal

Our proposal would be used as an outline template that other universities could use to facilitate research regarding ongoing dialogue about complex civic issues, such as affordable housing. This proposal will consider the civic issue of the relationship between the University of Virginia and affordable housing in Charlottesville, Virginia. Furthermore, the civic issue and region will be utilized throughout our proposal to identify examples of our model in effect.

The model outlined by the proposal will be an application-based dialogue framework which will be adaptable for civic issues or public projects that universities across the United States could be used to aid in guiding dialogue across Universities and communities. As well as, to identify ways to observe the facilitation models through a historical lens to better understand the intersection between institutional and community history and current civic issues.

III. Stakeholders

The key stakeholders which will be the focus of the model are provided below with specific examples for the issue of affordable housing. These parties are necessary to facilitate dialogue across civic issues such as affordable housing because the history of communication between institutions and communities must be addressed to identify present solutions.

• Institutions
• University of Virginia (UVA), including administration and the President’s Council on UVA-Community Partnerships.
• Institutional Parties
• Students, particularly third and fourth year students who transition off campus and into the broader Charlottesville housing market.
• Community Organizations
• Charlottesville Public Housing Association of Residents (PHAR)
• Livable Cville - local housing and transit advocacy organizations
• Local government - City Council and Housing Task Force

IV. Resource Requirements

The resource requirements of the proposal and application for participating institutions and communities will include our historical research on the communities relationship (see Appendix A) with a given civic issue across a specified time period (see Appendix B) and a facilitation model which will assist in dialogue regarding the issue.

Background for Dialogue Model

Historically, dialogue models have been implemented to develop trust in communication across diverse groups. Facilitated dialogue aids in cross educational and community environments to establish difficult conversations across ideological differences (Ferdman & Graham, 2024).

The skillset of trained facilitators guides such discussions and assists in mediating conflict across complex civic issues. When applying this concept to the issue of affordable housing in Charlottesville, Virginia and the University of Virginia, we intend to utilize the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA): Four Pronged Approach (Ferdman & Graham, 2024). This approach was utilized by the Dialogue Across Difference Initiative which utilized the four facets of student leadership, teaching, programming and training to initiate upward change at the university.

The Four Pronged dialogue approach aimed to engage the UCLA community through bridging the gap across the educational institution and outside the campus.

Additionally, various academic institutions including the University of Virginia, University of Michigan, Wake Forest University, Columbia University, University of Rhode Island, Syracuse University, Portland State University, University of Massachusetts Amherst, University of Louisville, Grinnell College, and Texas A&M implemented similar programming which utilize facilitation to to aid in intergroup and intragroup student communications regarding complex issues, such as conflict across various perspectives (Diaz & Hiroshi Gilchrist, n.d., 6; Hoos Connected, n.d.).

Dialogue Framework Proposal

This proposal seeks to utilize existing practices, distinctive institutional history, and the complexity of discussing civic issues across varied groups such as students, community members, and the University. This dialogue framework can be used by other universities to facilitate ongoing dialogue about complex civic issues affecting their community.

Our civic challenge framework approach includes three of the four core facets of the UCLA: Four Pronged Approach, student leadership, teaching, and programming. While adjusting the fourth facet, training, to focus on community-based learning. This allows for institutions and students to be directly guided by the distinctive institutional history from first-hand accounts by community groups, local governing bodies, and organizations.

The framework is defined into 3 sections, intended for dialogue in 30 minute intervals. Each facilitated dialogue session should engage the content in one aspect (topic) and address the essential questions, and main objectives. Each topic should be discussed for approximately 10 minutes and incorporate the three aspects in sequential order.

For longer intended dialogue sessions (over 30 minutes), each framework aspect can be extended by approximately 10 minutes. Each aspect should be considered by facilitation group members for an equal amount of time to ensure all perspectives are included across various content matters regarding the civic issue.

The dialogue should be led by a facilitator to initiate the guiding questions and monitor the group’s performance across the three content areas. The facilitator should act as an impartial body, treating all stakeholders equally and ensuring all perspectives are included across lines of difference.

The outline discusses the specificities of the framework and how the template can be applied to the civic challenge of affordable housing and its relationship between the University of Virginia and Charlottesville, Virginia.

Learning through Leaders, Professionals, and Community Members

Our group met with community leaders and professionals to learn more about not only the circumstances involving housing and dialogue at UVA, but also to learn about dialogue that is already occurring at the University, city and county level, and what these individuals believe needs to be done to improve this dialogue. We integrated their thoughts and feedback into our program proposal and dialogue model in the “Key Factors for Successful Dialogue” section.

These factors were deemed necessary by community members such as Stacy Pethia, the Albemarle County Director of Housing and a member of the President’s Council on Affordable Housing. Pethia has been directly involved in the conversations and dialogue on housing hosted by the University and has identified many flaws in the way these conversations are held. Pethia specifically recommended that meetings be held at reasonable intervals and consistently, unlike the current interval that the President’s Council meets at, which is quarterly and at times, inconsistent. This note was added to the Key Factors section alongside Pethia’s feedback on accessibility and community trust.

Frank Dukes, co-founder of UCARE—University and Community Action for Racial Equity—and professor at the University’s School of Architecture also provided valuable feedback. Dukes emphasized the need to include more than just city and county leaders in the program, but also everyday, “normal” residents. This advice mirrors one of Pethia’s comments—that activists are often heard over other residents—and was included as a Key Factor. Dukes also emphasized the need to address the community’s history with housing and its relationships between the community and the University.

Matthew Gillikin, community housing advocate and co-founder of Liveable Cville—a Charlottesville housing advocacy group—also spoke on his experience of being an advocate and recommended that dialogue opportunities and information be available to those with varying degrees of commitment and availability. This focus on how much availability some community members may have was shared by Louis P. Nelson, the University’s Vice Provost of Academic Outreach, who also recommended that community members may be compensated for their time and contribution to a dialogue program. This would allow for members of the community who cannot offer their time outside of work to the program a way to be included too, if the opportunity to be compensated was presented. Both Gilikin’s and Nelson’s feedback was included in the Key Factors section.

The use of these individual’s advice was, in our opinion, justified and verified by their experience in university and community dialogue programs and engaging with the broader community of a college town. We would highly recommend that if a model like this be replicated at any other university that community leaders and those with experience in a specific college’s history with its local community be interviewed. While our program aims to be widely applicable, there are nuances in every community and university relationship.

Conclusion and Applicability

Our group focused on housing in Charlottesville and its relationship to UVA as a case study to learn about ongoing dialogue programs and community issues. While those we interviewed were primarily experts in Charlottesville housing, the feedback gathered is applicable to issues involving historical exclusivity and community and institutional disagreement. We believe that our model can be applied to a wide variety of dialogue initiatives, although we recommend that each program also be aware of its own community history and to learn from their own local leaders.

Appendix A

Stop, take a breath, observe, and proceed (S.T.O.P) mindfulness technique, is used to provide acknowledgement of distraction and bring individuals to a state of awareness. (S.T.O.P. Practice, n.d.).

References

• Diaz, A., & Hiroshi Gilchrist, S. (n.d.). Dialogue on Campus: An Overview of Promising Practices. Journal of Public Deliberation, 6(1), 12.
• Ferdman, M., & Graham, F. (2024, October 1). The Promise of Building Bridges. The Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved 2 April, 2026, from https://www.splcenter.org/resources/stories/the-promise-of-building-bridges/
• Hoos Connected. (n.d.). Hoos Connected: Homepage. Retrieved April 2, 2026, from https://hoosconnected.virginia.edu/
• S.T.O.P. Practice. (n.d.). University of Utah Health. https://medicine.utah.edu/gme/wellness/pausing-practices/stop-practice