Julie Gonzalez is a Lecturer in Economics. In her project, "How to Have Difficult Economic Policy Discussions," she describes how topics including tariffs, social security, income inequality, H1-b visas, and healthcare as a right can be discussed in ways that are "professional as well as dedicated to the rules of evidence and debate."
In Economic Rhetoric (ECON 197), Gonzalez built on principles such as "don't over-controversialize" topics, "promote a non-partisan environment," and "exercise strategic empathy" by setting a framework at the beginning of a discussion that acknowledges the positive versus normative aspects of the debate.
Gonzalez' class featured several techniques based on these principles. One example is the "group-first" format. Each class, she explains in her report, began with the introduction of several topics. The topics are accompanied on Canvas by a question or description: “Economics of Inequality,” “Costs and benefits of low-skilled immigration,” “Should online gaming be regulated?” and so forth. Gonzalez paired these headings with links from sources such as the New York Times, The Atlantic, Forbes, and The Economist, as well as Economics journals when a peer-reviewed paper was relevant. She aimed to balance the links in terms of perspectives. "If the topic is tariffs, I might find an Economist who makes arguments for specific tariffs (you won’t really find one that argues for across-the-board tariffs that is credible) and then one who argues against tariffs," she explains. She advised students to begin with the articles provided and expand from there. This approach encourages students to seek out empirical research, which they often use in in-class debates and written arguments. Next comes the group dialogue:
"After I give the topic basic framing and briefly discuss each of these articles (very briefly), I send students to meet with their groups. Then, I walk around and answer questions, participate in each group’s discussion, and help them find their position, without trying to sway them on the normative aspects."
Effectiveness: "This group-first format has several benefits. First, smaller groups are more responsive to each other, in the sense that mutual trust is built faster. It is more difficult to offend someone and take offense when you are in a small group. Some of them have met previously in other classes. Some of them have never met. By the end of the quarter, I find that many of them have made new friends, and at the very least gained new respect for students they didn’t know anything about. Additionally, small groups allow students to test out ideas in a low-pressure environment. “Am I saying something offensive?” will be answered more gently in a group of 5 than a group of 30. “Am I being too sensitive?” will also be addressed with more grace in a group of 5 than a group of 30."
Check out Professor Gonzalez' full report!