L10 Reflection 5_ Public Policy and Deliberation by Aurora Bedova
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Pennsylvania State University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
100A
Subject
Communications
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by ProfessorFreedom14150
Part I: Deliberation
Question 1.1: Similarities between deliberation and debate: Both involve communication
among multiple parties. Both aim to reach a resolution or conclusion regarding a certain topic. Differences between deliberation and debate: Deliberation focuses on collaboration and
finding common ground. It encourages participants to listen to each other, consider various viewpoints, and work towards a common understanding or resolution. On the other hand, debate is more adversarial in nature, where participants argue for their own positions, often trying to win over the audience or prove the superiority of their perspective. While both deliberation and debate involve communication among multiple parties and aim to address a particular issue, the key difference lies in their approach: deliberation emphasizes collaboration and consensus-building, whereas debate emphasizes competition and persuasion. Question 1.2: In an argument where fairness was not respected, both parties might resort to personal attacks or manipulation tactics rather than addressing the issue at hand. If fairness were upheld, the argument would likely be more constructive, with each party actively listening to the other's perspective and presenting arguments based on merit rather than emotional manipulation.
Question 1.3: Reframing a topic as a matter of deliberation rather than debate would shift the focus from winning arguments to understanding various viewpoints and seeking
common solutions. For example, instead of debating whether climate change is real, deliberation would involve discussing its impacts and exploring collaborative strategies for mitigation and adaptation.
Question 1.4: Similarities between digital and face-to-face deliberation and/or debate include: Both allow for communication and exchange of ideas. Both can involve diverse participants from various backgrounds.
Question 1.5: It depends on the context and goals of the discussion. Face-to-face settings may foster more personal connections and nuanced communication, while digital settings offer accessibility and the ability to engage with a wider audience. Both settings have their merits, and the choice depends on factors such as audience demographics and the nature of the topic.
Part II: Public Policy
Question 2.1: For an upcoming speech, invention (the development of arguments) will be the most important canon to do well on, as it forms the foundation of persuasive discourse.
Question 2.2: Style might be the most challenging canon, as it involves effectively communicating ideas in an engaging manner. Practice and feedback from the instructor could help improve style.
Question 2.3: The implementation of a policy banning single-use plastics reflects a value for environmental sustainability and conservation among the enacting community.
Question 2.4: The challenges of passing a policy on healthcare would differ at local, state, and federal levels due to varying resources, interests, and regulations. At the federal level, there might be more resources but also more competing interests and bureaucracy, while at the local level, there might be more community engagement but limited resources.
Question 2.5: Two things learned about making policy speeches: The importance of providing clear, feasible solutions to the identified problem. The significance of connecting policy proposals to the values and interests of the audience.
Part III: Causes
Question 3.1: Examples: Intentional cause: A deliberate misinformation campaign leading to public panic. Accidental cause: A car crash resulting from a mechanical failure.
Question 3.2: Competing positions on climate change may offer different causal explanations. Some may argue human activities (intentional cause) are the primary driver, advocating for policy changes to reduce emissions. Others may attribute it to natural cycles (inadvertent cause), suggesting adaptation rather than mitigation measures.
Question 3.3: It is not always ethical to simplify complex causes as singular, as doing so
can misrepresent reality and hinder effective problem-solving. However, simplification may be necessary for clarity, as long as it does not obscure important nuances or alternative viewpoints.
Question 3.4: Narrative structure can contextualize causal explanations, making them more relatable and memorable to the audience. By weaving a story around the causes of a problem, speakers can emotionally engage their audience and inspire action towards solutions.
Question 3.5: Advantage of discussing causes explicitly: Provides a deeper understanding of the issue and informs targeted solutions. Disadvantage: May oversimplify complex issues or divert attention from actionable solutions.
Part IV: Making Policy
Question 4.1: A policy regarding recycling practices in public spaces affects daily life. Environmental organizations, local governments, and waste management companies could help make changes in this policy.
Question 4.2: Other stakeholders affected by university-related issues could include faculty and administration, who might prioritize academic rigor and institutional reputation, and local businesses, who might focus on student spending and community engagement.
Question 4.3: A poorly implemented policy on public transportation might suffer from inadequate funding, insufficient infrastructure, and lack of community engagement. Better planning, stakeholder involvement, and resource allocation could improve implementation.
Question 4.4: Example of a policy problem related to scope: A city ordinance restricting outdoor advertising signage is challenged for its vagueness regarding what constitutes "visual pollution."
Question 4.5: Example of a policy problem related to unintended consequences: Implementing a tax incentive program for renewable energy leads to a decline in revenue for public services due to decreased tax revenues from traditional energy sources.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help