Throughout the sessions, we have snapshots presented by people on the ground…
In Hampton, VA, Ramon, a young man who grew up in a public housing neighborhood who joined Community Builders Network working on drug abuse issues. Ramon participated in leadership development. Cindy was approached by the City to answer the question, What would it look like to have youth in positions in our department as a youth neighborhood associate? Ramon was hired with the goal of creating ways for more young people to be involved in their neighborhood association.
At Clark University, the Difficult Dialogues group had a grant from the Ford Foundation, an initiative launched in 2005 for Colleges and Universities to nurture practices of dialogue and engagement around difficult issues, particularly around race and religion. They felt like there was too much silence around these issues so the goal was to raise the awareness of a precise type of dialogue to help students understand what could be possible if one is willing to dig down and to be fully present.
These periodic snapshots from the field will help us keep our feet in the real world and be a reminder of why we do this work!
Texas Forums 
Tech Ethics
Co-leaders: Taylor Willingham and John Stephens
Reflections from John
Technology has increased the avenues for potential participation – online social media, key pads and cell phones to register preferences/votes, etc.
The good news: increased ability reduces some traditional barriers to participation and deliberation. Results: new voice, more reach, and often recognition and new connections within a geographical area and more broadly.
= = = = = = =
The challenges/tensions:
1. Accountability and responsibility in participation – ability to comment once and then withdraw rather than engage over a period of time
2. Access – physical, financial and time availability to engage in online methods
3. Digital literacy
4. Concerns about standards of authenticity — ability for “astroturf” presentation of supposed grassroots concerns – how do you verify that a real person is on the end of the message sent to a leader/elected official?
BUT
In efforts to screen for authenticity/real person, could undercut the openness of citizen reporting and journalism.
= = = = = = =
As with other “lower tech” means – similar challenges apply – what is the right method/s of communication? May differ between:
a) Getting the right information out – in a timely way, in an understandable language, to people ready for the message
b) Time for people to understand and probe the information/issue – time to dialogue, deliberate
c) Clarity of how they can respond, choose or influence the discussion and decision
d) How they can clearly state their preference/vote
= = = = = = =
The demise of some large metropolitan papers (example: Seattle Post-Intelligencer) is causing the loss of some good values of traditional journalism
a) Common information/issue read widely in a community
b) Fact-checking and seeking “balance” or multiple perspectives
Seems to be leading to wide suspicions of a range of online information and blogs – what is their real agenda?
= = = = = = =
A focus on preparing college students – less about the technology and more about strategies for assessing information
a) How they need to consider their audience
b) The purpose of their message
c) Ethics – their engagement with others
= = = = = = =
Does much of the phone/Internet/Social media focus more on the ability to be fast and wide ranging and necessarily sacrifice thorough, slow and thoughtful interchange? Example: twitter.
= = = = = = =
One similarity – old and new media:
Concern about wrongly privileging one kind of information/media avenue over another
= = = = = = =
Digital – no one size fits all and “old techs” still have their place (example: radio, newsletters, journals, etc.)
= = = = = = =
Lots of deliberative democracy is designed for extroverts. Usually relies on motivation to talk and engage face to face. Some technologies can help introverts contribute more.