INSIDE DOUGLAS COLLEGE / MARCH 19, 1991

 

The use of case studies was, in retrospect, also a
good choice. Frequently, in the discussion, it became
obvious to many participants that the issue being
discussed hypothetically had been, or still was, an
actual situation on campus. Nevertheless, personalities
were removed by focusing on the “case” and leaving
the actual situation aside. So, even those who knew the
details and had opinions about the latter were on equal
footing with those who did not.

My role quickly became a bit complex. In one
capacity, I functioned as leader of the discussion,
keeping it on track, and moving it along to its conclu-
sion. In a second, I was one of the participants as-
signed a specific role, usually as a protagonist for the
ethically questionable position. In still a third, I was
summarizer and chief formulator of principles—a role
that fell to me probably because of my training in ethics
and experience in classroom case study discussions.
However, I found it easy to move back and forth
among these three functions, and the other participants
never seemed to have trouble with my shifting around.

Participants, as well, found the role-playing effec-
tive. It gave them the flexibility to step in and out of
their roles, sometimes speaking their own minds and
sometimes cushioning their opinions by making them
come out of their roles. In this way, participants were
able to disagree and yet not invest their true personae
in the disagreement. When they left their roles, they
could resume their friendships.

After the nine discussions were completed, an
evaluation form was sent to all participants and
spectators. Approximately one-half responded, and
their approval of the method and the content of the
series was unanimous.

SCESE

Did anyone learn anything from the sessions? Were
opinions changed and were behaviors modified? The
post-seminar evaluations didn’t reveal anything so
dramatic. But it was clear in many of the discussions
that arguments presented in the roles that some partici-
pants played were frequently refuted and isolated from
the general principles of morality that the group
formulated at the end of each discussion period. That
these opinions might have represented the actual
thinking of the presenters must have given these
participants cause to rethink their positions.

The fact that all participants thought that the discus-
sions were worth the time of attendance indicates that

some important personal thinking must have been &

occurring and that participants and spectators were
probably relating the issues and principles to specific
responsibilities they have in the college community. In
other words, the fourth “R” got its day.

Robert B. Mellert, Professor, Philosophy
For further information, contact the author at

Brookdale Community College, Newman Springs
Road, Lincroft, NJ 07738.

 

Suanne D. Roueche, Editor

December 7, 1990, Vol. Xli, No. 30

©The University of Texas at Austin, 1990
Further duplication is permitted by MEMBER
institutions for their o.

 

n personnel. Issue

INNOVATION ABSTRACTS is a publication of the National Institute for Staff and.O:

nizatignal Da JNISOD),

0199-106X.

A

EDB 348, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, (5 fe 4717505, Subserptons ea ory al
uum mombers for $40 per year. Funding in part by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation and the Sid W. Richardson Foundatic
Iss ally when classés are in session during fall and spring terms and once during the summer. ISS

=p