Closing the Professional Gap Between Journalism and Civic Engagement Using the Culture-Centered Approach

Abstract

With the need to promote the ideals of democracy in the journalism field as a whole, increased focus on the preparation of future upcoming professionals is required. This article proposes and tests a theoretical model intended to pedagogically revitalize the preparation of journalism and communication students for their professional roles within a democratic society. Using the culture-centered approach to guide students’ experiences with a marginalized segment of the community, the authors conclude that this curricular model provides value by facilitating students’ critical investigation of personal identity and self, their positionality amid structural complexities, and how this relates to their professional role.

Keywords

culture-centered approach critical pedagogy service-learning civic engagement journalism

Students are products of the university system (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2000), but they should neither be expected to be products that reproduce and substantiate the status quo, nor defend the agenda of neoliberalism (Fenton, 2011). In an age when news media are in crisis (Fenton, 2011), and corporate communication strategies rely heavily on economic and political priorities rather than meaningful and authentic social change (Brulle, 2010), journalism majors must be prepared to recognize and navigate these waters. A college education, regardless of field, should train students in technical skills, while equipping them with competence and discernment to “appreciate ends as well as means, and understand the broad implications and consequences of one’s actions and choices” (Colby, Ehrlich, Beaumont, & Stephens, 2003, p. 7).

The National Leadership Council for Liberal Education and America’s Promise (LEAP) argued that student success, for the sake of community and economic development, must be measured beyond just enrollment numbers and degree attainment. Therefore, LEAP identified a set of 12 interdependent learning outcomes in four categories, intentionally designed to fit the student’s program contextually and prepare them for the challenges of a complex world (Association of American Colleges and Universities [AACU], 2008). The categories include knowledge of human cultures and the physical and natural world, intellectual and practical skills, personal and social responsibility, and integrative learning.

Although journalism programs should have a vested interest in such learning outcomes—for example, civic engagement, critical thinking, and information literacy—with their students, formalized inclusion into the curricula and subsequent evaluation do not exist. Therefore, there are no formalized data that suggest attitudinal change in regard to understanding and approaching larger, complex global issues over the course of a degree program. Even such research is minimal and sporadic in other degree programs, such as in nursing (Mallory, 2003), management education (Schein, 1967), and general education courses (Anderson et al., 2007). Research that does exist on journalism students has provided valuable insight but is isolated, examining a single class (Campbell, Heath, Bouknight, Rudd, & Pender, 2009), rather than an entire program.

Job quality and placement may be relatively high (73%) among journalism graduates (Becker, Vlad, & Simpson, 2013), and students may be equipped to traverse the ever-quickening evolution of media technology and strategy. However, the discipline as a whole lacks curricular programming that prepares those students to effectively engage in, while creating information on, complex issues through civically responsible means.

This article provides an overview of an exploratory study that proposes and tests a theoretical model intended to prepare journalism students to be more holistically and effectively engaged citizens and professionals within a democratic society. Using the culture-centered approach (CCA; Dutta, 2008), combined with critical pedagogy and service learning, students enrolled in an agricultural communication service-learning course focusing on food insecurity were challenged to take ownership of their role and potential influence as journalists and writers. Through a guided process of co-constructing a citizen narrative with food pantry clients, students critically navigated and critically examined their privileged position within the university and community, as well as commonly accepted communication practices that wield power and influence and potentially support marginalizing effects on community segments.

The following research questions guided this study:

RQ1: How do students critically juxtapose their positions through the process of co-constructing citizen narratives?

RQ2: How do students perceive the role of the citizen narrative in conjunction with their role as communication professionals in advocating for change?

RQ3: How does this course provide a basis upon which a curricular model can be built in regard to journalism and civic responsibility?

Literature Review

Dewey (1954) described the role of journalism as having the ability not only to inform, but also to engage the public to act. To engage the public would suggest collective action, and collective action would suggest a public opinion that is likened to Habermas’s public sphere in which private people come together as a public (Habermas, 1989). According to Susen (2011), this can become problematic when considering the fact that “different societies generate different discourses about the nature of public and private life,” and that when differentiating between the collective and the personal, the former is often privileged over the latter (p. 57). Although critics may dispute the functionality of a public sphere, all agree that the media should be at its core (McNair, 2000). This belief, however, is shrouded in reservations of the power and influence that imposed hegemonic projects have on interfering with the objectives of journalism in articulating the collective needs of the public. The fear of external entities influencing the media is one that has remained throughout the century, increasing distrust and public cynicism of the media (Papacharissi, 2009).

Banks (2001) suggested that the development of thoughtful citizen actors requires an understanding of the ways in which knowledge is constructed and located within the “social, political and economic contexts of society” (p. 9). However, what predominantly constitutes knowledge is that which is produced, maintained, and put into practice within dominant structures (Dutta, 2008). Postcolonial scholarship identifies that if common pathways of hegemonic knowledge production are deconstructed and reconstructed, then therein lies an opportunity to move it from static existence to potential activist intervention (Shome & Hegde, 2002).

The following details suggested components of the proposed theoretical model in an effort to pedagogically revitalize the roles of journalists as more thoughtful and engaged citizen actors. The three key components are the CCA, critical pedagogy, and service learning.

The Theoretical Framework

Culture-Centered Approach

The CCA, which serves as the overarching guide in this model, is concerned with the modes of knowledge production and access to available resources, political processes, and the design of existing infrastructures (Dutta, 2008). Founded in postcolonial and subaltern studies, and predominantly used in health communication research, CCA incorporates practices of interrogation of the hegemonic knowledge structures, and seeks to invert the practices of narrative development by incorporating the margins of society (Beverly, 2004; Guha, 2001; Spivak, 1988). The result is a model that critically deconstructs the dominant paradigm while locating the actual barriers that exist through the voices of the local community. Three constructs that guide this critical deconstruction are culture, agency, and structure, whereby the emphasis is placed on the contested intersection that exists between each of those constructs.

CCA endeavors to create space for local participation and an opportunity for social change at the local level (Dutta, 2010). The CCA researcher must step out of the dominant structure, which maintains and builds upon the existing knowledge, infrastructures, political processes, and resources. Upon departure, the researcher begins a simultaneous process of deconstructing the dominant structure, critically reflexing on one’s own personal culture and position in the research process, and authentically committing to the marginalized community and its associated culture and lack of agency.

As the researcher moves from an objective and privileged position, the intent is to become an active participant engaged in dialogue and the co-construction of local narratives (Dutta, 2008). By way of the researcher as participant, CCA introduces the voices of marginalized community members into the discursive space, thus, enabling community members to take ownership of issues and actively participate in localized activism.

Critical pedagogy

Critical pedagogy creates an opportunity for CCA to be brought into the learning environment, carefully taking into consideration the roles of the instructor and students, and the modes of knowledge production. Stemming from social critical theory, this teaching approach incorporates self-conscious critique to break down the practices that lead to social injustices and inequalities (Giroux, 1983), including the academic institution’s reproduction of injustices and inequalities (Beck, 2005). The intent is to “develop a discourse of social transformation and emancipation that does not cling dogmatically to its own doctrinal assumptions” (Giroux, 1983, p. 8).

With the role of the instructor as paramount, critical pedagogy imposes a Marxist approach to conscientization by advocating for students to actively critique social, political, and economic injustices, moving them from passive to active learning (Freire, 1970). The key result is that the instructor is no longer the primary source of information, but rather a guide as students enter into and create the discursive spaces in which they can interrogate social conditions (Webster & Coffey, 2011). Such a process allows for a discovery of the implicit knowledge students already possess while making those ideas explicit through conversation and building from that base (Friesem, 2016).

Instructors must position concepts of critique, namely, social change and power relations, at the foundation of their pedagogical designs, rather than concepts of objectivity and consensus (Giroux, 1983). From a humanist and liberating praxis, active learning in critical pedagogy enables problem-posing education, which focuses on a humanist and liberating praxis, suggesting marginalized people and groups must fight for their emancipation (Freire, 1970). The intent of problem-posing education is grounded in the dynamic present, thus, moving students through processes of creativity, reflection, and action upon reality to become as it relates to cognitive development (Freire, 1970).

Service learning

Service learning is a form of experiential learning that provides students an entry point to engage in activities intended to address human and community needs (Jacoby, 2015). Such activities can validate the students’ personal experiences and values while situating the community-based experience at the center of course content; this enables students to process the experience in ways that “problematize it and make explicit links with relevant discourse” (Webster & Coffey, 2011, p. 251).

Service learning has four fundamental components: (a) authentic needs of the community are addressed by students; (b) classroom curriculum, including knowledge and skill, is linked with service activities; (c) students reflect on their service; and (d) the community collaborates in the planning of service-learning activities (Pritchard & Whitehead, 2010). Through a contextual experience, students see or experience oppression and privilege as reality, which enables a habit of critical thinking in regard to how these forces function in the world around them (Donahue, 2011).

When instructors in higher education make thoughtful and intentional planning decisions, service learning can prepare students for civic and political engagement by providing appropriate knowledge and skills for social, personal, and civic development (Donahue, 2011). Ultimately, student learning and engagement are strengthened through the instructor’s ability to incorporate civic engagement as an explicit, rather than implicit, learning goal (Cress, 2003).

Through service-learning experiences, opportunities arise to question areas of injustice and inequality, allowing students to gain knowledge that supports their role as change agents, rather than merely strengthening their hold on their privileged positions (Donahue, 2011). In this framework, service learning allows for CCA and critical pedagogy to play out through experiential learning that critically deconstructs the contested intersections of culture, structure, and agency within the context of a given issue.

The CCA Pedagogical Model

For the purposes of this research, the proposed pedagogical approach, with instructor as facilitator, challenges the students to assume the applied responsibilities of the CCA researcher. The following depicts how students are guided through a process to become civically responsible in their role as journalists.

Point of Entry—It is not possible in a single course to canvass an entire social system for the purposes of juxtaposing journalism, citizenship, and democracy. Therefore, a single entry point must be identified—in this case, local food insecurity.

Structural Understanding—This is the first step to formally understand the given issue. It is important to break down the structure in which the issue resides, and it is essential to collect artifacts and data intended to map out the current state of affairs. In regard to food insecurity, this examination includes the institutional definition; structural and programmatic representations; existing policies; federal, regional, and local leadership roles; funding sources; and common terms used politically, programmatically, and culturally.

Critical Deconstruction—Following structural understanding, students are better equipped to begin a critical deconstruction of the system and self. Within the system, they critically interrogate the hegemonic knowledge structures, including processes used to maintain the status quo. In regard to self, students engage in ongoing practices of critical reflexive journaling and analysis, examining personal biases, assumptions, and approaches to the given issue, and juxtapose their privileged position as products of the university with other structurally situated cultures, including food pantry clients.

Community Engagement—Along with structural understanding and critical deconstruction, students must simultaneously engage with the targeted community. This includes volunteering in varying capacities across the local system, as well as talking to and interviewing food pantry clients. For activities to be effective and aligned with CCA, students must continually work to achieve four engagement components: (a) authenticity—as individuals interacting and engaging with the food pantry clients; (b) commitment—to the clients’ developing stories and narratives, and a willingness to assist in locating the actual barriers that exist through the client voices; (c) solidarity—to ensure the resulting co-constructed narrative accurately reflects the lived experiences of the clients; and (d) reflexivity—to work through personal biases and assumptions that surface as students engage with and work among the community.

Civic Responsibility—The result of the previous four steps challenges the students to take on and actively demonstrate a democratic role as journalist. The result is a civic responsibility in three areas: (a) issue literacy and engagement—through ongoing critical deconstruction, students take a 360° approach to understand the issue through multiple lenses and identify the potential marginalizing practices that serve as barriers to the target audience, (b) community commitment—students are more equipped to disrupt the hegemonic discursive spaces of the dominant paradigm while bringing voices of the community members to the discussion, and (c) liaison role—students are better equipped to transition from being a passive reporter to an active participant in the issue.

Method

The pedagogical framework was applied to an undergraduate service-learning course titled “Culture-Centered Communication and Engagement” that was taught in the 2016 spring semester at a large land-grant university in the Southeastern United States. Using a 3-hr block period 1 time per week, the time frame allowed students to either be fully in the classroom or fully in the field to volunteer or conduct interviews. Classroom and fieldwork alternated each week, allowing for near-equal time in both. In class, content included an introduction to culture within the context of structure; examining valuable entry points for observation, discussion, and examination; conducting and practicing critical deconstruction and structural analysis; analyzing and practicing interview techniques in co-construction; and juxtaposing the professional role with civic engagement. In the field, students were assigned to one of three food pantries, where they completed needed tasks as designated by food pantry directors, as well as conducted interviews with willing food pantry clients.

Following each class and field experience, students were required to complete a journal entry using a technique called critical reflexive analysis (Cunliffe, 2004). Critical reflexivity is a self-evaluation where one is challenged to step out and critically look at self within an often-dominant structure. The process of critical reflexivity is intended to highlight subjective, multiple, constructed realities; expose contradictions, doubts, dilemmas, and possibilities; uncover what is hidden or unspoken; and highlight ideologies and tacit assumptions regarding the students’ approach to a culture unlike theirs (Cunliffe, 2004). Each journal entry served as collected data.

Using grounded theory and constant comparative analysis (Charmaz, 2006) throughout the duration of data collection, the researchers analyzed all journal entries each week, noting new and emerging issues the students were personally and collectively attempting to work through. Each time the students reconvened in class, the instructor then brought the emerging issues into the discussion in an attempt to uncover additional held meanings. During Weeks 6 and 12, prominent and emerging themes that were in the previous weeks were organized into a formalized set of points and questions to use as a guide during an in-class focus group discussion. Each focus group was recorded and transcribed verbatim and used as an additional set of data.

Results

Twelve students, all of whom have been given pseudonyms for anonymity, took part in this semester-long course. All students were agricultural communication majors, completing their third or fourth year in the program. Ten students were female, and two were male. None had volunteered in a food pantry prior to this class.

Students completed 10 critical reflexive analysis journal entries and participated in two focus groups. Following complete data analysis, three themes emerged addressing the students’ experience and development in culture-centered communication methods and civic engagement. These themes are (a) personal identity and deconstruction of self, (b) positionality amid structural complexities, and (c) reconsidering the professional role. The following provides the contextual basis of the three themes. To offer an organized portrayal of student experiences and development, all quotes are cited with the students’ given pseudonym, along with the associated journal entry. To differentiate between journals resulting from class lecture or fieldwork, the citation is designated with an “L” or an “F.” For example, Kara-3L designates the third journal entry, which was associated with a lecture. To cite a focus group, a citation such as Kara-2FG designates the second focus group.

Personal Identity and Deconstruction of Self

When course lectures purposefully discussed culture as it relates to traditions, socialization, and personal interpretations of the world, the students often used journaling to contemplate who they are and their default perceptions of the world. This was also true when volunteer events allowed lecture topics to play out in the contexts of their observations of and engagement with others. The following demonstrates the ways in which students contemplated their personal identity as it related to engaging in the discursive spaces of food insecurity.

The term judgment often surfaced as students worked to deconstruct their subconscious thoughts of self and their personal observations of the clients at the food pantry. Many explained they had never really been forced to consider their personal epistemology. For example, Beth acknowledged that she uses a form of deductive observation to make sense of something. She wrote,

I realized that I catch myself using deductive observation without thinking about it. It is much easier to make assumptions and not think so critically if you see common trends or characteristics that you can attach to something you are familiar with. (Beth-3L)

Students began to recognize their normal tendency to judge quickly through observations; however, they also expressed feelings of confoundedness toward others and self for making quick judgments. Anne (1L) wrote, “I realized that even if I’m not doing it consciously, judgments and assumptions can color the way you view a person and their situation.”

Through the entry point of food insecurity, Kara contemplated her personal cynicism and her pessimistic view as unusual. However, she began to directly tie it back to her own personal past. She wrote,

. . . [the graduate student’s] comment that she thought it was awesome that people had the opportunity to go to as many places as they could for food opened my eyes to just how cynical I can be of the entire “free food” process. I was taken aback by my unusual pessimistic view of this subject so I really began to think about my past and where this outlook may stem from. (Kara-3L)

Students also associated with judgment later in the semester, realizing their tendency toward self-preservation inhibited their ability to effectively engage with a people group they were tasked to more authentically understand. Ruth wrote,

[My instructor] and I talked about how it is really easy to just put up blinders in that setting and focus on the task at hand as opposed to interacting with the people who are using the [food pantry] services. I felt myself doing this because I was somewhat fearful and uncomfortable. (Ruth-6F)

During this same week, Kara wrote,

I thought going [to the food pantry] was me “stepping out of my comfort zone,” but in reality, I was just taking my comfort zone with me. I talked solely to the people I was familiar with. I didn’t take time to learn others’ names or ask how they were; I just went about doing the work I was assigned. (Kara-6F)

Continuing with the deconstruction of personal identity, students also began to experience a heightened sense of responsibility or awareness as a volunteer. For Beth, responsibility was coupled with embarrassment: “. . . I was kind of embarrassed I hadn’t done this in my free time before but also that I was happy to be getting into it now” (Beth-2F). For Sue, responsibility was coupled with a burden:

As a person who strives for (and sometimes struggles with) fairness, I was initially interested in making sure that the bags were equal in value; however, I soon found that I was burdened by the fact that I was choosing what to feed a family who could not afford to feed themselves. (Sue-2F)

As the semester began to near the halfway point and students had been at their respective pantries 2 to 3 times, certain issues entered into class discussions. One particular re-emerging issue was race. All but one of the students had grown up in the South, and all but two had grown up in predominantly White communities. Kara, who was White, was one of those two. Coming from a predominantly poor community, and struggling with poverty personally, she easily talked about race and racial differences. Following a particular class discussion on race, Rose wrote in her journal entry, “‘Black people don’t have the same American dream as white people’ was said in class [by Kara], and I had an immediate physical reaction” (Rose-7L). She went on to deconstruct her physical reaction, while contemplating the process of crafting a response.

Analyzing my feelings during a tense situation made me realize how many things we think about before we speak, and how those around us have a huge impact on how we act. It’s not hard to imagine why people act so inappropriately online when there’s no one around. (Rose-7L)

Rose did not speak up during that class in response. But, one of Kara’s peers had told her during the break to stop bringing up racial issues in the discussion. In Kara’s proceeding journal entry, she considered her automatic perceptions that play out in everyday life:

Brian [told] me to not mention race anymore . . . I really want to break down and study my perceptions about race and income . . . I realize not everyone connects the two like I do, and I should be more mindful when speaking of it. I don’t associate poverty with all black people just as I don’t associate wealth with all white people. However, if you were to ask me to picture the CEO of a large organization, I would immediately think of a powerful middle-aged white man. If you were to ask me to picture someone food insecure, I would imagine a black woman with her kids. I don’t mean to do this; it is just what my mind automatically thinks of. (Kara-7L)

Positionality Amid Structural Complexities

From the beginning of the class, the students juxtaposed the process of understanding food insecurity and their privileged positions—as middle-class college students. For many, immersing themselves into the discursive spaces of food insecurity was new and unfamiliar to them. For instance, Sally wrote, “I didn’t grow up surrounded by poverty, or even people who needed [assistance] programs . . . The world of hunger and poverty is something that has been told to me, but never firsthand introduced” (Sally-1L).

As the students became more invested in their assigned food pantries, they began to critically examine a given situation, struggling to attach meaning to what they observed. For example, Eve wrote,

She seemed uncomfortable, and said “hopefully this will be the last month that I have to do this.” [Kim] and I helped her carry her boxes and bags to her car, and as she said thank you, I could tell that she began to suppress tears . . . I was trying to decipher if her tears were tears of appreciation for the food safety net that the food bank provided, or if she was crying tears of embarrassment for going through a hardship and having to rely on the bank for her food. (Eve-4F)

At the same food pantry, on the same day, Sue was trying to make sense of her observation of a client using the food pantry for the first time. As she works through the scenario, she finds herself examining her positionality and personal frustration at the overall system:

The man who I saw was learning the process to feed his family. As he kept going back outside to complete the necessary forms before the food pantry employees could serve him, I couldn’t help but be a little angry that people were passing him to come in and get their food. I think I felt that way because standing in that line holds far more weight than any line in which I have ever stood. (Sue-4F)

Tom contemplated, even criticized, his privileged position when he considered his desire to want to “fix” people and their respective situations. He not only realizes he has a tendency to feel frustrated, but also accepts the necessity of using a wider-angled lens for understanding:

We are quick to judge and propose multiple ways to “fix” these people and get them on their feet . . . but all too often they take none of this advice and continue upon the same cycle indefinitely. So, we should be mad, right? Here we are spending our time trying to help these people and they aren’t doing anything . . . It is so easy for us to assess the situation and conclude what needs to change in the lives of others, but not so easy for us to see what we need to change in our own lives. (Tom-3L)

After several class meetings and volunteer sessions, students began to more readily contemplate the ever-present structural complexities. In doing so, they also considered the other issues that are often connected to issues like food insecurity, such as race:

I believe that many factors contribute to why a person is in a certain situation, and think it is important that we understand how all of these things are interconnected. Demographics are important to consider in these situations, but it is not merely one thing that constitutes someone’s condition and their mentality towards it. (Jill-7L)

Not only did some address the complexities of the issue, but they also considered the complex process required to personally make sense of it. For instance, in one assignment, students were required to complete a photo-voice project, in which they creatively displayed five photos they had captured over the course of their time in the field. Following each student’s class presentation, Kara described a classmate’s portrayal of black and white images:

I saw that there was actually very little pure black or pure white parts. It was all various shades of gray. Before college, I had a tendency to view things in black and white. Before this class, I viewed poverty and food insecurity as black and white. They didn’t have food—that was black. They came to the [food pantry] for food—that was white. As I learned each of their various stories, I realized that there is a lot more to not having food than the absence of something to eat. There was a reason they got there and a problem that was keeping them there. That was all gray. It’s gray to them because they can’t exactly explain it and it’s gray to me because I can’t exactly understand it all either. (Kara-10L)

During that same class session, students discussed instances during the interviews where food pantry clients disassociated themselves from other clients. The students explained that clients made statements, such as “I’m not like the other homeless people” when answering questions and explaining their circumstances. Sue compared such responses with how she also positions herself among her social networks:

. . . so many people “aren’t like the other” in the area of need. This led me to believe that we create our own value by separating ourselves from the negative stereotypes we fear others may see in us. Just as a client from the [food pantry] claims he is not like most homeless people, I sometimes find myself saying I’m not like most sorority girls or ag majors or people from my hometown. I fear I try to distance myself from any possible negative perceptions but sometimes forget to realize that every person I have grouped into the “other” stereotype has a story as unique as my own. These broad generalities have the potential to hurt those in the community around us and contribute to creating stereotypes. (Sue-10L)

Reconsidering the Professional Role

As the students transitioned from only volunteering 1 time per week to arranging opportunities to interview food pantry clients, they personally carried into these interviews the various observations of self and client, as well as course content covered. As a result, they often demonstrated a heightened sense of responsibility when considering their roles as an outsider, a trusted collaborator, and as a respectful and conscientious interviewer.

Beth considered her role as the perceived outsider with the client:

This outsider realization is one that I noticed at the last visit as well and is something I am working to feel less awkward about. The awkward feeling isn’t one of feeling sorry for these people, though I do, it is more strung from feeling like I am someone that this group of people may not feel like they can talk to at any relatable level. (Beth-6F)

As a White male, Tom considered his role a trusted collaborator and outsider, concerned that race may be a negative stigma attached to both sides:

I think that race may play negatively into some of these situations. I am worried that we, as middle-class college students, may not be looked favorably upon when trying to interview predominantly black food bank clients . . . My fear is that we will be seen as using these people for the selfish purposes of our own education. (Tom-7L)

Finally, Jill recounted her discomfort as she and her classmate Brian conducted an interview. She described Brian as lacking a respectful and conscientious demeanor with the client:

. . . the tone of the interview. It seemed more like an interrogation rather than a conversation . . . It was great that he was trying to go into depth to really understand her situation, but after a while some of the questions seemed a bit repetitive and like they made the client feel uncomfortable. There was even certain questions she refused to answer. (Jill-8F)

Through the semester-long process of juxtaposing agricultural communication as a profession with the complex issue of food insecurity, students began to consider more critically and carefully their intended career path. Jill wrote in her second journal entry that this course challenged her to consider potential career paths related to agricultural policy or with a non-profit organization. Following a discussion with one of the regional food bank staff members, Ruth wrote,

It feels very strange to have someone look at you and tell you that you could be influential on such a huge issue. Something like that comes with a bit of pressure but I was surprised more by the fact that I found myself believing that I could have a part in ending food insecurity. (Ruth-2F)

Other students began to more fully realize the potential impact they could have as a communicator, specifically related to their passion. For example, Ruth has long been passionate about horses:

I have always wanted to do something communications related in the equine industry. Learning about food insecurity and the impact that we, as communicators, can have on this issue has made me think more critically about that . . . The equine industry is fairly superficial so I would not be making an impact or truly helping people. (Ruth-5L)

Throughout the semester, Sue would regularly critically examine her future career as a professional. She often addressed an obligation and a desire to simultaneously serve others and the agricultural communities. For example,

The discussion in class this morning further affirmed the thought that my career should be rooted in service to others. I became an agricultural communication major because I love the idea of connecting with and serving a community of agriculturalists. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that I can use the skills I have not only to advocate for agriculture, but also to connect agriculturalists to serving the community around me. (Sue-5L)

During the second focus group, and after students had already conducted a follow-up meeting and interview with their respective food pantry clients, the instructor posed the question of “What should be the next step for you? What should be your role?” Students immediately began to respond with suggestions of interviewing staff at the various food pantries, in an effort to see another side of the services offered and the needs observed. Tom followed this suggestion with the following:

Honestly, as good as my interview was and I did gain some insight and learned a really cool story, I think that I have just touched the surface of what really the deeper issues are and so to me, to really gain an understanding and start conveying that, I would interview ten times as many people . . . [T]hen you begin to see common trends or the same issues that come up or the same circumstances that happen to people that put them using the food bank and I think when you begin to see those patterns, that’s when you begin to understand a little bit of the root of the issues more so than just one person’s story. (Tom-2FG)

Sue agreed and went on to add that it would be beneficial to interview other people who are part of the resource network upon which a given client relies. She explained that her client identified a medical van as an essential resource due to mental health issues and depression as a result of past drug addiction. She stated that it would be valuable to determine if

there are any common connections between people who also receive food from the food pantry and if they’re utilizing other resources in the community to see those connections and maybe where those separate entities may be able to come together to aid one another. (Sue-2FG)

Discussion and Conclusion

Throughout the duration of this course, students were pressed to develop a comprehensive understanding of food insecurity through multiple points of critical deconstruction: self, the system, and the lived experience of food pantry clients. In this process, they were challenged to establish an authentic commitment with those who rely on the local food assistance programs. The interplay between volunteer activities and class discussions provided a valuable and ongoing deconstruction of their personal and collective experiences. However, it was the students’ weekly journals that created the context for a new discursive space in the classroom. This space allowed for the contested intersections of personal cultures among the students to emerge. In certain areas, such as university privilege, it established a common understanding; however, on topics like race, it revealed deeper complexities with no readily available resolution among the students.

As deeper complexities revealed themselves, the role of the instructor, through critical pedagogy, was to facilitate two constructs of social organization during critical deconstruction exercises: positionality and intersectionality. Positionality is recognized as the interplay of an individual’s position, rhetoric, and power (Kaplan-Weinger & Ullman, 2015). Students began to reconsider peer relationships and the power dynamics among themselves, specifically related to seeing issues from very different, often combative, viewpoints. Even though race often re-emerged during discussions on food insecurity, students wanted to keep it at bay. Despite such sentiment, race demonstrated intersectionality, where food insecurity could not be deconstructed without the interconnectedness of other complex issues (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012). Allowing such conversations to play out was critical for students to more clearly see the deep complexities that exist around a single issue. This reiterates the importance of the instructor maintaining a classroom environment where (a) students actively question, critique, and learn through themselves and field experiences; and (b) the students’ perceived reality of food insecurity is challenged and changed through the co-constructing of client narratives.

In the field, students admittedly struggled to genuinely engage with food pantry clients. They often wrote about distancing themselves and clinging to what they knew—fellow students and their assigned task, such as bagging food. Therefore, even with expressed enjoyment and gratitude for participating in volunteer activities, students readily identified a disparity between their desire to create a comfortable space and an ability to authentically engage with the clients as the semester progressed. This bothered many, leading them to describe a heightened sense of responsibility in accurately representing the client in the narrative.

This heightened sense of responsibility also gave way to critically considering their future role as a professional, often realizing a desire to serve and be part of a process of change within a community. In addition, prompted with “What’s next?” following their completed narratives, students identified a need to develop an even deeper, more localized understanding of food insecurity. According to them, responsible representation would require multiple interviews with multiple clients to detect patterns, as well as interviews with individuals inside and outside of the food pantry who serve within the resource network for these clients. This is an important outcome because it suggested potential student independence to move through a CCA framework as a practitioner, which seeks to understand the greater social network and infrastructure tied to sub-issues of poverty and food insecurity in a community.

This exploratory study demonstrates value in the CCA pedagogical model, but it also suggests that the confines of a single class prohibit the entire model from playing out. Although students had the opportunity to develop a more comprehensive structural understanding of food insecurity through critical deconstruction and multiple modes of engagement with the food insecure community, they did not see civic responsibility become fully operationalized. This supports previous research claiming a single class cannot provide the necessary duration to sufficiently develop civic knowledge, skills, and dispositions (Battistoni, 2014), and that the most beneficial impacts in student engagement activities are seen in a three-semester-long duration (Gassman, 2015). Therefore, the researchers in this current project argue that the CCA pedagogical model should function progressively over a series of courses, perhaps culminating into a capstone course intended to enact community change at the local level. In addition, it should challenge a re-evaluation of university-directed core competencies within journalism and communication-based programs. It is one thing to report that learning outcomes, such as critical thinking and civic engagement (AACU, 2008), are tied to a particular course, but it is another thing to actually demonstrate how such competencies and attitude change come to professional fruition over the course of student development.

The results show potential for a curricular model that prepares future professionals who can step out of the hegemonic knowledge and social structures, and become more actively engaged professionals, recognizing the value of the citizen narrative, and how the communication professional’s role is critical in advocating for change.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Abigail Borron is an assistant professor in the Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communication at the University of Georgia. Her research focuses on culture-centered communication with emphases in marginalized audiences, university engagement, and food insecurity.

Emily Urban and Emily Cabrera are masters students in the Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communication at the University of Georgia.

References

Anderson

M. W.

Teisl

Criner

Tisher

Smith

Hunter

. . . Bicknell

(2007). Attitude changes of undergraduate university students in general education courses. The Journal of General Education, 56, 149-168.

Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2008). College learning for the new global century: From the National Leadership Council for Liberal Education & America’s Promise. Retrieved from https://secure.aacu.org/AACU/PDF/GlobalCentury_ExecSum_3.pdf

Banks

J. A.

(2001). Citizenship education and diversity: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 52, 5-16. doi:10.1177/0022487101052001002

Battistoni

(2014). Beyond service and service learning: Education for democracy in college. In Brown

Witte

(Eds.), Higher education exchange (pp. 53-64). Retrieved from https://www.kettering.org/sites/default/files/product-downloads/HEX-2014-final_0.pdf

Beck

(2005). A place for critical literacy. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48, 392-400.

Becker

L. B.

Vlad

Simpson

H. A.

(2013). 2013 annual survey of journalism & mass communication graduates. Retrieved from http://www.grady.uga.edu/annualsurveys/Graduate_Survey/Graduate_2013/Grad_Report_2013_Combined.pdf

Beverly

(2004). Subalternity and representation: Arguments in cultural theory. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Brulle

(2010). From environmental campaigns to advancing public dialog: Environmental communication for civic engagement. Environmental Communication, 4, 82-98.

Campbell

N. N.

Heath

Bouknight

Rudd

Pender

(2009). Speaking out for mental health: Collaboration of future journalists and psychiatrists. Academic Psychiatry, 33, 166-168.

10.

Charmaz

(2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London, England: SAGE.

11.

Colby

Ehrlich

Beaumont

Stephens

(2003). Educating citizens: Preparing America’s undergraduates for lives of moral and civic responsibility. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.

12.

Cress

(2003). Making community-based learning meaningful: Faculty efforts to increase student civic engagement skills. Transformations: The Journal of Inclusive Scholarship and Pedagogy, 14, 87-100.

13.

Cunliffe

(2004). On becoming a critically reflexive practitioner. Journal of Management Education, 28, 407-426.

14.

Delgado

Stefancic

(2012). Critical race theory: An introduction (2nd ed.). New York: New York University Press.

15.

Dewey

(1954). The public and its problems. Athens, OH: Swallow Press Books.

16.

Donahue

D. M.

(2011). Disciplinary knowledge, service-learning, and citizenship. In Cress

C. M.

Donahue

D. M.

(Eds.), Democratic dilemmas of teaching service-learning: Curricular strategies for success (pp. 131-138). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

17.

Dutta

(2008). Health communication: A culture-centered approach. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

18.

Dutta

(2010). Communicating social change: Structure, culture, and agency. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

19.

Fenton

(2011). Deregulation or democracy? New media, news, neoliberalism and the public interest. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 25, 63-72.

20.

Freire

(1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.

21.

Friesem

(2016). Question-based dialogue on media representations of social problems: Enhancing civic engagement by uncovering implicit knowledge accumulated from the media. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 40, 46-66. doi:10.1177/0196859915594204

22.

Gassman

(2015). Service-learning pedagogy: Understanding the impact of student breadth and depth of engagement in student organizations. In Jagla

V. M.

Furco

Strait

J. R.

(Eds.), Service-learning pedagogy, How does it measure up? (pp. 179-201). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

23.

Giroux

H. A.

(1983). Theory and resistance in education: A pedagogy for the opposition. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.

24.

Guha

(2001). Subaltern studies: Projects for our time and their convergence. In Rodriguez

(Ed.), The Latin American subaltern studies reader (pp. 35-46). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

25.

Habermas

(1989). The public Sphere: An encyclopedia article. In Bronner

S. E.

Kellner

(Eds.), Critical theory and society: A reader (pp. 136-142). New York, NY: Routledge.

26.

Jacoby

(2015). Service-learning essentials: Questions, answers, and lessons learned. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

27.

Kaplan-Weinger

Ullman

(2015). Methods for the ethnography of communication: Language in use in schools and communities. New York, NY: Routledge.

28.

Mallory

J. L.

(2003). The impact of a palliative care educational component on attitudes toward care of the dying in undergraduate nursing students. Journal of Professional Nursing, 19, 305-312. doi:10.1016/S8755-7223(03)00094-2

29.

McNair

(2000). Journalism and democracy: An evaluation of the political public sphere. New York, NY: Routledge.

30.

Papacharissi

(2009). Journalism and citizenship: New agendas in communication. New York, NY: Routledge.

31.

Pritchard

F. F.

Whitehead

G. I.

III . (2010). Serve and learn: Implementing and evaluating service-learning in middle and high schools. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

32.

Schein

E. H.

(1967). Attitude change during management education. Administrative Science Quarterly, 11, 601-628. doi:10.2307/2391078

33.

Shome

Hegde

(2002). Postcolonial approaches to communication: Charting the terrain, engaging the intersections. Communication Theory, 12, 249-270.

34.

Slaughter

Rhoades

(2000, Spring-Summer). The neo-liberal university. New Labor Forum, 6, 73-79.

35.

Spivak

G. C.

(1988). Can the subaltern speak? In Nelson

Grossberg

(Eds.), Marxism and the interpretation of culture (pp. 24-28). London, England: Macmillan.

36.

Susen

(2011). Critical notes on Habermas’s theory of the public sphere. Sociological Analysis, 5, 37-62.

37.

Webster

Coffey

(2011). A critical connection between service-learning and urban communities. In Steward

Webster

(Eds.), Problematizing service-learning: Critical reflections for development and action (pp. 245-261). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.