Korri's Blog

Capstone: a concern

korria — Mon, 04 May 2009 20:40:07 +0000

As every student at Colorado State University is aware, a Capstone class is required for each major. Each degree plan has a unique and separate Capstone seminar which serves the purpose of providing last thoughts, bridged connections a student may have experienced from various “major” classes, and most definitely should prove to be inspirational and further intellectually stimulating in all areas. Unfortunately, many –in fact a large percentage, of CSU students find their major’s capstone class to be disappointing, purposeless and pointless; a drag.

Communication Studies is one area in the Liberal Arts College that has decided to do something about this inadequacy, they have decided to run a forum to get to the bottom of this overall feeling and research more to see if students are truly unhappy with this seminar. Most students will agree that the level of satisfaction lies primarily within the teachers’ ability to interact, amuse, provide insight and mainly, just have fun with students in an academic and scholarly manner –yes, it is possible. There has been a website created to even help guide students to finding great professors, at www.ramratings.com students are capable of looking up a professor and reading reviews on she/he to see if they are worth taking. With this being said, it is crucial to acknowledge the history of SPCM 479, Capstone Seminar. There have been several professors to teach this class, no professor consistently and that alone may have something to do with the overall discontent students are feeling. Not to mention that most graduates of Communication Studies do not want to pursue the same future as others. Many wish to learn more theory in order to have a stronger basis for entering graduate school, others wish to focus more on media because it tends to lead into more job prep analogies that help for the job-seeking graduate. This is important to consider because this may essentially lead to a high demand for two separate capstone seminars; one for graduates wishing to pursue careers right out of college and others who wish to go on to grad school. Either way, understanding what students feel the purpose of this class should be will enable the department to better suit the needs of students.

The Center for Public Deliberation was the first group to be contacted to do the research and produce a plan to run a forum to discover these needs. Monday evening, May 5, 2009 CPD and student associates will attend the scheduled Capstone course to run these forums. Questions will be asked similar to:
• What should be the purpose of the communication studies capstone course? What are the needs for graduating seniors for the course?

• How should the class be changed to better meet those needs?

• What went particularly well with the course? What should be kept?

• Anything else you feel should be changed/improved about the course that hasn’t been mentioned?

These questions have been formed in hopes of creating a more open and clear dialogue that Communication professors may consider while revising, and reviving this department’s Capstone course.
There are undoubtedly many more colleges and department that need similar forums created in order to ensure for the highest quality of class. The only question is, how many colleges are willing to commit to the task?

Our Democracy

korria — Fri, 01 May 2009 20:12:37 +0000

Deliberation and dialogue is a rather hard concept for most Americans. It has been a habitual tradition developed in our country’s past to polarize debates, dichotomize views and essentially, argue with no solution in sight. Deliberating is a new found, or maybe a newly revived, collaborating effort in search for common understanding, or at least a stable foundation comprised of every possible perspective’s contributions -this technique is quickly spreading across our nation. What this all means is that our communities, one by one, are finally arriving at a point where they can actually solve problems by listening to one another’s opinions and thoughts to develop more of a clear understanding of the issue at hand. Community members as well as policy makers are realizing that it is important to acknowledge and take into consideration everyone’s standpoint and address all concerns in order to reach a solution capable of making everyone happy -most likely with compromises for all sides of an issue. By companies, corporations, government and more, hiring outside facilitators to run forums focusing on specific elements of an issue or concern, these non-biased facilitators are able to help a diverse community arrive at a consensus.

The Center for Public Deliberation is one example of a (mostly) volunteer group of facilitators, located at Colorado State University. I have been a part of this team for four months now, experiencing all kinds of forums from the quality of “wellness” in Fort Collins’ school districts to helping CSU media construct a new, more fulfilling mission statement/purpose. All of the forums I have had the opportunity to participate in have been incredibly inspirational and life enriching because of the pure purpose this kind of work entails: striving for a more complete and perfect democracy, or as Dr. Martin Carcasson, founder of CPD would say, “a more perfect Union.”. It is crucial that we all do what is our responsibility to maintenance and upkeep our county’s potential to ensure that our rights are preserved and protected by our continued efforts of reaching a solution; together, collaboratively.

Onward With Wellness!

korria — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 00:04:30 +0000

This past week CPD has devoted countless hours to the wellness of children across Colorado. As many Coloradoans know, our state is incredibly concerned with the health of our youth. Many people, including parents, policymakers, teachers, etc. are concerned that our young adults are being provided the nutrients and exercise they need in order to be healthy. Due to this increasing concern Colorado has pushed to outlaw calorie-full sodas and snacks from the inside of its schools and replace these items with zero-calorie beverages and more healthy snacks. The Center for Public Deliberation has been asked to run forums at several Fort Collins high schools and elementary schools to hear what the kids have to say about all of this. The problem is real: health is declining among Colorado’s youth, but the issue is that the children these policies and laws will affect are not being invited to take part in the dialogue, and that is exactly where we come in.
This past Wednesday CPD traveled to Polaris Learning School and on Friday went to Fort Collins High School to begin a crucial conversation about wellness with students. The questions asked were developed and formed to get to the bottom, or the root of the problem. Some of these questions were:
1. Why do you think kids eat so much junk food? What is the primary motivation?
2. When do you tend to eat junk food and where do you get it from?
3. What foods do you eat that are good for you and why do you eat those? What healthy snacks do you like?
4. Clearly one of the primary concerns with this issue is that people in general eat too much unhealthy food and not enough healthy foods. Lots of people are trying to figure out how to change that. How do you think we could get kids to eat less junk food and drink less unhealthy drinks and/or eat more healthy food?
5. What has been done at your school or what have your parents done to try to get you to eat better, and has that worked or not? Even going back to elementary, what school programs have there been and what do you think of them?
6. Overall, do you think it works better to focus on getting kids to eat more healthy food or to eat less junk food? Why?
7. Another big concern is the lack of exercise. Why do you think kids are not getting as much exercise as they used to?
8. How do you think we could get kids to exercise more?
Part 2: Policy options
1. People disagree whether parents or schools should have the primary responsibility for this issue. What do you think is the role of schools in getting kids to eat better? It is part of their job?
2. Do you think schools should require more exercise time (recess or PE)? Why or why not?
3. Do you think schools should focus more time on teaching you about nutrition and eating right, even if that means less time for other subjects?
4. Do you think schools should restrict food options so students have to eat better while at school (like taking out vending machines and only having healthy options for lunch?)
5. If fruits and vegetables were available for free during the school day, do you think you would eat more of them?
6. Do you think the government should tax junk food like they tax alcohol and cigarettes?
7. During the forums with adults, they talked about how schools should communicate more with parents and try to educate them more on these issues. How do you think that could work? Would your parents want/use/need information about nutrition?
8. Do you think your parents would attend programs at schools aimed at improving nutrition at home?

By the time the forum was complete I was in total shock that the main solution students saw was that there be funds allocated toward educating students on wellness: how to eat healthy, proper nutrition, and of course to expose unhealthy body ideals for both men and women. Also a common response was that these students wish there was better communication between the staff (health teachers, including lunch options) and parents to determine if a child is receiving proper nutrition. Another comment suggested that schools offer free healthy snacks all day long –so kids don’t have to go to a vending machine when they’re hungry and pay a dollar for Twinkies.
Each response we got from the students at these schools were so well thought of and so honest that this forum had to be the most rewarding forum I have helped lead in a long time. To hear the youth so concerned with their own health was inspiring and encouraging. I hope that our report we release to the school district and policy makers reflect upcoming strategies for improving America’s health.

Something’s Wrong…

korria — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 01:27:25 +0000

The leader of deliberation and facilitation, The Nation Issues Forum, has recently addressed an overwhelming concern of the American public’s: our democracy is in trouble. People across the country feel that our democracy is dreadfully “off track” and believe that our nation is headed on a troublesome path. This feeling seems to emerge from participants’ sense of low confidence of political parties, political leaders and, but there is something deeper causing this trouble. A sense of alienation in political affairs and a seemingly powerless disposition many citizens feel has been a haunting reality for some time now. Much of this discomfort in our own backyards is due to feeling as though we (the general population) are bystanders and not participants –especially at the national level. Even more shocking, nifi reports, is that many of us apparently feel as though we have been programmed and taught to be consumers in our democracy and not proprietors –we see more and more a want disguised as a need to buy a new car, buy a bigger house. A very interesting point, in the effort to discover the underlying causes of these participants’ dissatisfaction with American Democracy, was that there is this withdrawing from citizens, this desire to stay at home and be inactive versus going to that community meeting, and being active participants; many people are focusing on their rights too much and not enough on their responsibilities. Other strong ideas to piecing together this discomfort included fears about losing interest and dedication to the commitment to diversity, morals and values taught in a family environment. People also felt that the media played a role in increasing and perpetuating stereotypes, and encouraging cynicism, not to mention the age-old understanding that “money talks” adding more segregation and challenges. As these forums continued, it was clear that by the end many people felt like they do have an influence on society, whereas at the beginning of these forums they felt helpless and viewed this issue as beyond their control –powerless. Now these participants saw the affects and intersection of community involvement with national issues.
Obviously, as these results concluded by the National Issues Forum suggest, the more dialogue and deliberation we can facilitate focusing on public involvement the more we can reduce troubling feelings of alienation and discomfort in our own home, our own America. The best result of this forum proved undoubtedly to be that if you play a role, any role, in your community it will prove to be worthwhile and may even lead America to the right path; a more perfect union.

TO READ MORE ON THE OUTCOME OF THESE FORUMS PLEASE VISIT: http://www.nifi.org/stream_document.aspx?rID=10255&catID=17&itemID=10254&typeID=8

We’re Making Progress!

korria — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 21:36:57 +0000

Facilitating for a democratic society in pursuit of a more unified United States, even in good ‘ole Colorado is nothing short of inspirational. Forum after forum I witness our community members (students, staff, policy makers, etc.) voice opinions and thoroughly discuss issues and points of view in effort to come to a more complete understanding of each topic. Talking through issues with people of various standpoints is undoubtedly a rewarding experience as it forces one another to take a look outside of a person’s own realm of thinking and step into the shoes of someone else’s mind. This concept is easily disguised at the beginning of each forum simply because many people attend expecting not to have to talk, believing that they came to this event to listen instead of becoming part and contributing to an active dialogue. As it turns out, I see people at each forum suddenly listen to each other and instead of proving to be stubborn with their view, they usually accept and are more open to others’ opinions –more people are willing to put down their defensive “gate” in order to totally hear what someone else may have to say. Obviously this can be inspirational because it is clear that people are more concerned for the betterment of our community and our society as a whole that they are willing to take the time and extra step to seek more information and more perspectives rather than just safeguarding their own; people are willing to change. The more willing people are to listen an hear each other the more our society will diminish the world’s previous script to debate and dichotomize issues facing us today.

If you are interested in any upcoming events that CPD will be facilitating or curious of the outcomes of recently posted reports feel free to visit us at: http://www.cpd.colostate.edu/

Rocky Mountain Student Media Corporation: facilitating with the best!

korria — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 19:44:48 +0000

The Center for Public Deliberation is at it again! This past Saturday and just yesterday (Wednesday) students, faculty, staff and community members gathered in Lory Student Center to discuss one very important topic: Student Media at CSU. This forum was run by the non-biased CPD students and Dr. Carcasson, founder of CPD, to gather opinions and clearly state important issues within student media. As it turns out, many people do not know that although student media at CSU is all under one branch, one organization, there several existing entities: The Collegian, The College Avenue, C-TV , KCSU and of course, the web masters. Our discussions were focused on helping these branches unify and come together in effort to develop one clear and concise mission statement.
The forum was composed of a series of questions the CPD facilitators lead, timed, and took notes on allowing for open deliberation among the caring individuals that came to the event. The primary question asked was what everyone saw as the overall purposes of student media and why they felt the Student Media existed to do. Next, we asked how they balance this professionalism in the news media world with providing college students (primarily) with the information and news they want to hear. Then we tried to get each and every individual to identify what they felt the values of Student Media were. Finally we discussed how there are four distinct branches and that working together must be a tough task but we really brainstormed how to pull forces together to make, essentially, everyone’s job a little easier.
The group was open to each discussion identifying key aspects that make Colorado States’ Student Media program one of the most valued and one of the best in the nation. With the hard work put into even deliberating these topics, it’s no doubt these Student Media workers are anything but the best CSU could ask for! Thanks for your hard work!

Recommended Book: By Shawn Spano. Public Dialogue and Participatory Democracy: The Cupertino Community Project

korria — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 23:43:52 +0000

Shawn Spano, author of Public Dialogue and Participatory Democracy: The Cupertino Community Project, clearly illustrates the importance of dialogue and deliberation in our communities in order to improve and sustain a healthy democracy throughout this informative piece through the case study of the Cupertino community. This particular book addresses a specific challenge that arrived in Cupertino, California and shows how a group of communication experts, political leaders and professional staff members came together and joined forces by bridging theory and practice of deliberation to overcome, an otherwise, collage of misunderstanding. Shawn Spano breaks apart this book into well organized sections.
Part I provides a thorough overview of the Cupertino project and the efforts made by putting theory into practice through public dialogue. By exploring the purpose of this Cupertino Project and providing a scope of reference it is more clear how this dialogue process became a model for future challenges. Also included in this section is the essential characteristics of public dialogue and the approaches used in this project. Part II reveals the actual structural framework and proceedings of the Cupertino Project and how it began and developed –since the Spano was still in the middle of his Project while writing this he ends with a brief epilogue on where the project sits today. Unusual and inventive, Spano invited all of the contributors of this project to reveal their perspectives on the Cupertino Project in Part III of his masterpiece. Their reflections and analytical evaluations were offered as well as how the work conducted in this project may compare to their own personal and professional experiences/activities. Also encompassed in this particular section are scholarly perspectives provided by intercultural and interpersonal communication theorists, not to mention the examination and comparison of this project from other community challenges and their dialogue initiatives. Shawn Spano makes an a rather vulnerable decision when writing Part IV when he identifies views of those who agree with and affirm the work of this Project and the community dialogue process, critiques of the choices and actions taken throughout the project and, the views of those who offer ideas and new innovations for improving community dialogue in Cupertino, California.
Like all communities, sooner or later an unexpected challenge will appear and how a community works together in responding to the unexpected can be a defining moment in shaping the future of a neighborhood. Although some challenges come in drastic and catastrophic forms such as a tornado, hurricane, etc., others come gradually and offer new and various forms of obstacles for a community to overcome. Early in the 1980s Cupertino began increasing drastically in terms of ethnicity, race and along with it misunderstandings leading to prejudices and discrimination. Newcomers from Taiwan, Hong Kong, Iran and other Euro-Asian countries began to flood this previously sheltered city. By the 1990s resistance and discomfort were obvious and public officials, political leaders and community members alike began to see a need for a way to adapt, happily, to the new environment. For Cupertino to change to a multi-cultural community from a mono-cultural community in such a short time span was unbelievably difficult , and efforts to discuss race and ethnicity tensions were sensitive topics to discuss so the misunderstanding just kept gaining speed. In effort to regain peace and diminish disturbances Cupertino called for citizen engagement and an informal, ongoing, public dialogue addressing and education the citizens of Cupertino on multiculturalism. This project developed only through time to grow and become the success it proved to be. The Public Dialogue Consortium (PDC), a non-profit organization consisting of researchers, practitioners and communication scholars, eventually learned that there was a way to address sensitive community issues through public dialogue and that it was okay for members to “stand their ground” but that their obvious aim was “…to provide a place where strongly held views can be given and received in a respectful manner,” (Spano, xi.)
At the beginning of the deliberative process, the PDC facilitated focus-group interviews with community members to allow for these participants to identify what were their high-priority concerns and problems facing Cupertino. These initial meetings were open-ended and exploratory in effort to encourage residents to express their own views from their own perspectives. From these interviews the PDC was able to compile data texts that illustrated the issues that were given the most attention. Although there were some difficult topics to discuss, such as public safety, the PDC was able to overcome this “restricted” topic by framing questions leading to its uncovering. By telling participants that this project aimed to avoid polarized debate of a process, and encouraging people to explore both shared concerns of trust in the community as well as obvious differences, the participants were capable of adopting dialogic forms of communication throughout all debates and thus making more progress through this deliberation. Eventually new ideas and fresh topics were implemented in this process and goals were defined –primarily to assist the council in expanding communication networks and relationships among diverse individuals; building social capital. Formulating steps to reach new community goals became a primary concern of high interest and much attention was placed on this action. Eventually, the dialogue became an action plan paving the way to a better community full of strategic deliberation and city encouragement. Participatory Democracy answered the challenges and, as Shawn Spano suggests the way to a more healthy democracy is through public dialogue.
Shawn Spano makes a clear effort to set himself apart as an author and communication theorist by attempting to merge away from typical monologic ways of conveying this process and towards a new outline, inviting others to express and share their opinions on the Cupertino Project –a highly admirable unique quality. This book, Public Dialogue and Participatory Democracy, makes headway as it illuminates the importance of community involvement and public dialogue. The story included is a heartwarming and inspiring recollection of citizens striving towards a better community. It is clear that without this deliberative process there would be no story, no happy ending, and no beginning at all. This process gave birth to a new beginning for the city of Cupertino, California and without participatory democracy as an available tool, citizens would be living fearful of the threat and reality of multiculturalism instead of reaping the benefits of embracing it. I recommend Shawn Spano’s book to any citizen interested in aiming towards a better, more perfect America.

Race and Ethnic studies forum

korria — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 06:39:44 +0000

The topic of racial and ethnic studies is undoubtedly a complex and complicated issue in today’s society. Although the United States, as a whole, has come a long ways, there is still racism, discrimination and prejudices surrounding us all. National Issues Forums has taken statistics and concerns surrounding this topic and have produced a very educational and thought provoking piece discussing and addressing this particular topic. The NIFI has composed three approaches in attempt to lead deliberation and dialogue over this heated topic. Approach one, in the nifi book at: http://www.nifi.org/stream_document.aspx?rID=12071&catID=8&itemID=12069&typeID=8 says that by focusing on what unites all of us instead of focusing on what divides us will help eliminate racial preferences. Furthermore, approach one says that we should aim to treat everyone the same with the same opportunities, as Americans. Approach two however suggests that America should not be expected to conform to the idea of a “melting pot” but instead a salad bowl where we should focus on constructing our identities and accept each other’s differences. According to approach two, some self-segregation may have to occur in effort to relate to others. Finally, approach three calls for everyone to actively participate in the ongoing possibility of complete integration.
I had the chance to participate in this forum last Tuesday in a classroom full of Colorado State University students. As each approach was presented it became clear that every student had something to contribute and there was an absolute split of students who felt that approach one, two and three were the best approaches to follow. I was surprised to find a, somewhat, more number of students who were dissatisfied with approach one in particular, feeling that it was an out-dated approach. The students interested in approach two brought up many valid points; by encouraging racial diversities to form their identities and further construct their communities, although this is good, it is obvious that an extreme form of segregation is likely to occur creating more tensions within our society than good. Approach three did seem to have a few more supporters than that of the rest; each participant felt it was everyone’s duty to actively fight for a more integrated and discrimination/prejudice-free society. Although these participants were young college students I was absolutely amazed to find that each and every one of them were so interested and willing to learn more about this important subject matter. These students undoubtedly realized that the future of our American society is up to each of us as individuals capable of aiming for a better world. Deliberating this particular issue certainly opened all of our eyes and widened our perspectives. It is obvious that America must fight to remain diverse and free and as hard as it may be to unite each of these, it is crucial for the sake of our United State’s Democracy. Aiming for a more perfect union, thus a more perfect world, does not have to be a dream, it can be a reality if we each play an active role for the hopes that tomorrow will be a more pleasant day.

racial and ethnic tensions

korria — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:24:59 +0000

America’s greatest promise remains America’s greatest challenge when considering the growing diversity of our nation. As obstacles concerning race and ethnicity have been put up, they have repeatedly been knocked down; however, there are still issues surrounding this topic. It will remain a reality that America struggles with ethnic diversities and racial discriminations, no matter how subtle they may seem even today. There is one way to reach a common ground, and thus reach for a more perfect world, and this method involves promoting public dialogue. The National Issues Forum has put together another booklet allowing for Americans to obtain and stand firmly on this ”common ground”. At: http://www.nifi.org/stream_document.aspx?rID=12071&catID=8&itemID=12069&typeID=8, it is clear that there has been a lot of thought and energy put into obtaining a further in depth understanding of the racial and ethnic tensions alive in our society today. The Nifi booklet suggests that there are three clear approaches: Approach one would look beyond race and ethnicity. This approach suggests that by looking at what unites us versus what divides us will help reach a common ground. Continuing to bridge together diversity in our country is an undeniable worthy cause. This view’s main point is that everyone should and must be treated fairly and everyone should have the same opportunities. Approach two suggests that it is crucial to build self-identity first. By accepting and tolerating differences tensions will diminish and building upon our unique cultural identities is key. Diversity must build upon itself to ensure acceptance. Approach three asserts that it is crucial to integrate all the diversities of the World. Only through surrounding ourselves in the present diversity will we all be able to live this world, together as Americans. These approaches undoubtedly are dissimilar and all very intriguing and necessary to ponder. Which one is the best approach is up to you.

Tomorrow’s Democratic Leaders

korria — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 09:53:12 +0000

How fantastic would it be to educate America’s youth to reach for a foundation of understanding rather than a swamp of debate? To encourage even, as young as high school students the importance of creating a dialogue in effort to reach a common ground full of negotiation, compromises; all part a fundamental equation of problem solving in today’s political-policy-heavy world.
The Center For Public Deliberation is reaching out to high school students to do just this! Holding practice forums for these students to learn the crucial trade of deliberation is vital for the health of tomorrow’s democracy. CPD is aiming to do just this, aiming to guide today’s youth toward a healthy America by handing over the tools for successful public policy. First, the students identify specific issues at hand in (most commonly) the Fort Collins Community. These are most likely issues that have been researched and think tanks have already composed a wide variety of options, solutions, and obstacles –usually the nifi is a part of this process. Then, these students learn the process of developing this deliberation –the students themselves acting as the facilitator, the mediator directing the conversation between community members (for, against, or just concerned) to a well formulated understanding of each others’ view points. By bringing members of our community to discuss issues at hand, hearing what policy makers, and troubled, concerned individuals have to say increases the opportunity for a more proficient solution my means of having more perspectives and adding to the plethora of knowledge of a specific concern. These high school students have it in them to join the cause, fighting for a healthier democracy, and now eventually they will have gained all the tools necessary for practicing a good cause.
Being present at a high school think tank was truly inspirational. Seeing America’s youth so active within community issues/politics, is a breath of fresh air; finally, a step in the right direction!