Week 10: Post 3

As I went back through my posts from the semester, I remembered how much I enjoyed learning about the Kinesic Code I: Body Movement and Gesture. Chapter 5 (Trenholm, 2008) discussed Nonverbal Communication, focusing on body movements and language expressed through gestures. The section on kinesics “[classified] body movement into five categories: emblems, illustrators, regulators, affect displays, and adaptors” (p. 115). Through this section of the reading, I learned these nonverbal communication cues (from the sender) send messages and information to the receiver about their feelings not expressed verbally. I chose this concept because of its correlation with my position as a conduct officer. Not only have I been trained to respond to and pay acute attention to students’ nonverbal messages when discussing their conduct cases, but the subheading in this section of the chapter provided me with new perspective on my work. After reading this chapter, I decided to put some of it into practice, using the summer to pilot my skills learned from the chapter.

Week 10: Post 2

One of the most important things I learned about this class is that on-line classes CAN be interactive, you CAN learn (SO MUCH), and it’s possible to be successful. I feared on-line courses for years, but I heard about this class from a friend it came with high praise. I remember telling her, “No, no, I can’t do it even if it’s on-line,” and, although I still believe I need more “practice” with on-line courses, organizing myself, timelines, etc. I am far more confident now (and I loved the content too). In addition, this course taught me to “trust the process.” A professor of mine once told me to trust his instruction and to remember he would not let us fail. He helped me to move beyond the numbers and the letters (and the obsession with control and perfection) and simply engage with the course material, to enmesh myself in the learning. From the beginning of this course, with the first blog instructing us how to set up our own blog and learning all the structure (e.g., 12 hours apart per blog post), I challenged myself to release the fear of existing in the unknown and just “roll with it.” I know this isn’t course concept related, and of course I learned so much from the text and my peers, but I had to do so much personal learning and growth too.

I have a few favorite things about the course:

The text: It was easy to read and exciting to engage in with a great balance of theoretical concepts and practical application and examples. The book was challenging enough so I was not bored, but inviting enough for to want to do the reading. I know my knowledge of the course is better because I read.

The instructor’s guidance and communication with the class: I know one of my peers commented on this during the course and I would agree I have not encountered many instructors who take the time to be so intentional about their instruction and invested and excited about the students’ experience. The Blogging Prof’s passion certainly permeated and improved my commitment to the course.

The Cultural Event Paper: I am not a researcher, I am a practitioner so this was a fabulous opportunity to “get my hands dirty” and see the course in action. I had honest fun with this assignment and I am still attending the meetings I wrote about in my paper!

The blogs: This was a great opportunity to engage with my peers and stretch my perspectives. I always felt surrounded by great minds and I valued the experience to engage in a new way with my peers. I felt safe to post my positions and I appreciated people’s care for one another and willingness to reply with an opinion not appeasement.

While it’s not my “LEAST FAVORITE” thing about the course, I would have liked to interact with my classmates (at least once). I guess meeting would defeat the purpose of an on-line course and I support the (somewhat) ambiguity about it, but there’s just something about meeting my peers I would have enjoyed, or maybe finding a way to have us work together one something. In addition, I believe Eleanor Rigby made a comment about the journals due date. I agree with her. Again, responsibility on self completely, but I kept reading “journals are due at the end of the semester,” so, in my head, I was thinking THIS week, not July 29^TH. While I attended, observed, or lived my journals during the assigned times, I was not well structured when writing them. For me, having them due every second or third week would have supported me completing them on time (that’s just how I usually work best).

I do not have any important comments for how to improve the course. I believe the work was enough for a 10-week course to keep me engaged, but it was not overwhelming.

Week 10: Post 1

One of my closest friends told me years ago she does not believe in creating “expectations” because they always lead to either disappointment or failure. While this may seem “pessimistic,” it has actually helped with me with feeling disillusioned in numerous situations. With that said, I had no expectations of coming into this course. I wanted to be stretched in my thinking and my opinions and I wanted to learn concepts I could apply to both my personal and professional life.

SUCCESS!

While not a “concept” and, also, more related to the second question, I have to say I learned more from my peers in this class than most of the courses I have taken. In undergrad, I remember going through courses with students who would NEVER speak. I knew they had to have something to say, but elements in our classroom environment altered and even halted their verbal participation. In my opinion, all of the students lost out on enriching their learning because the space was not conducive for opinions to be expressed without fear of judgment or ridicule. Although it was “required” to participate in our (COMM 105P) discussions, I appreciated the trust each person gave to their peers and responded for themselves, from their experiences, not for the appeasing of the instructor.

Ok, off the remix and back to the prompt, three of the concepts I found most interesting were:

Giving Effective Feedback (p. 166-168)

Barriers to Intercultural Communication (p. 349-355)

Ethnographic Research (p. 379-382)

As a supervisor, improving on my ability to provide my employees with useless feedback for their development is critical to my success as a manager. I have utilized Trenholm’s (2008) “rules” to improve my competence at communicating this information to my staff members. Recently, I had to provide feedback on an employees work performance, not because it was a formal review, but because she was coming in everyday between 8:20am and 8:40am (she is scheduled to begin work at 8:00am). Using these rules as a guideline, I was able to express my concern, discuss her behavior, and most importantly, I “[avoided] apologizing for [my] feelings} (p. 167).

Simply, I just enjoyed the chapter on Intercultural Communication. In my SJSU work environment, specifically, I live in cross-cultural communication from the moment I enter my building until the time I drive home (and it continues where I live, a primarily Spanish-speaking apartment complex). I appreciate these sections and have utilized them to remind me of the constant practice necessary to be an effective intercultural communicator.

As I discussed in an earlier post, I continue to be fascinated by the potential of knowledge gained through story-telling and ethnographic research. I support it as a methodology and appreciate the opportunity for “conclusions to emerge from observations” (Trenholm, 2008, p. 374).

Week 9: Post 3

As I went back through my initial reading and notes from of Chapter 2, I found numerous comments in the margins of the “Elements of a Psychological Model” and “Improving Faulty Communication” sections. The notes I had made about “communication as a psychological process” (Trenholm, 2008, p. 26) became more useful to me as I considered the concepts in terms of coordination with (and without) coherence when sending and receiving communication messages. As a sender, if you communicate with your receiver and the receiver sends back a cohesive message, you have accomplished communication with coordination and coherence. However, if the sender communicates with the receiver and clarifying questions are asked or the retort does not align with the message of the sender then communicate was coordinated (i.e., went from sender to receiver), but it was not coherent (between the sender and receiver). As Trenholm (2008) offers critique to the psychological model, she states “communication is unsuccessful whenever the meaning intended by the source differ from the meaning interpreted by the receiver” (p. 27). In my margin I wrote “intent vs impact.” This concept helps me to remember the importance of considering your experiences and environment when communicating to others. Often, in the social justice and diversity trainings I’ve attended, someone (usually without fail!) says something “they didn’t mean to come out the way it did” and the messages impacts a person (or a group) negatively (most times opposite of what the sender intended).

Week 9: Post 2

When I reflected on the pragmatic perspective of Chapter 2, I found a personal connection to the statement “[the pragmatic perspective] urges us to look carefully at patterns that emerge as people play the communication game” (Trenholm, 2008, p. 32). From the moment I began to argue (age 3 ;)) with my father, I learned more and more about our patterns of communication in argument and how to “win.” As a child, communication with my father was unequal because he was “the parent” and he often told me “what I say goes because I pay the bills!” As I aged, I learned how I could benefit from our interactions, arguing for compromise or “payoff” for both of us. Still, our relationship remained tense and strained. I honestly don’t think my father realized I’d be able to pick up on his patterns so well or would I learn how to “push his buttons” so well (for my gain). Our fighting became more about competition and I know, as I now have hindsight of those experiences, I barely remember what we were fighting about and the reasons we struggled to find peace in our relationship. As the pragmatic perspective suggests, my father and I reached a point where we recognized no one was benefiting from our arguments. As I matured through college, we found the means to “work out patterns of interaction [to] satisfy both of [us]” (Trenholm, 2008, p. 34). This allowed us to develop a mutual respect for the other and to practice civility when in disagreement.

Week 9: Post 1

So, I had a moment of déjà vu when asked to answer this prompt. Didn’t I already answer this one?! LOL

The social constructionist perspective “emphasizes the relationship between communication and culture” (Trenholm, 2008, p. 25). The social constructionist model of communication explicates the role of communication to be like an adhesive, utilizing it, in practice, to bring together individual experiences and create a shared understanding of reality. For me, a critical understanding of this perspective came after I reread a primary concern with effective communication under the social constructionist model. Trenholm (2008) stated, “it emphasizes that we should take responsibility for the things we talk about and the way we about them” (p. 31). Because an understanding of “reality” is a collection of culture, language, and values, this model reminds us no message we receive through communication comes to us untainted. Therefore, we internalize messages, create stereotypes, and normalize (and perpetrate) oppression(s). Trenholm (2008) reminds us “that symbols have the power to control us” (p. 31) and it’s important to recognize our preconceived notions.

Recently, a colleague of mine, who is Muslim-identified and who was raised until age thirteen in southwest Asia, had a conversation with me about her biases toward Christian denominations. She shared with me how she was raised around an equal distribution of Muslims and Catholics practicing in her home community. In addition, her family consciousness of world religions was enriched by Buddhist teachings and educational trips to monasteries. Although one would think she’d remain neutral and open to differing religious perspectives once she moved to the United States, she felt inundated with billboards, bracelets, bumper stickers, street preachers, and t-shirts promoting Christian denominations as “the way.” In her home country, there are minimal proclamations for one religion over another and there is less persuasion or judgment for one religion over another. It wasn’t until our conversation about how she was struggling to work through her biases that I realized how ubiquitous these messages are, even in San Jose. Since arriving in the U.S. the messages about being a practicing (and proud) Muslim have shifted dramatically for her; she experiences more fear of disclosure and more concern for her safety based on the power and communication messages of symbols.

Week 8: Post 3

A friend of mine who will be beginning the graduate program in COMM Studies this fall has often expressed how his performance studies course as an undergraduate “changed his life!” Because of this course, he realized it was possible to use his passion for performance “as a tool for research” (Trenholm, 2008, p. 392) and continue to study the field of communication. While I understand performance studies and performance as research are not fresh to the profession, I did not have any performance course options at my undergraduate so I find this methodology interesting. Until I learned more from him and read this section of Chapter 13, I rarely considered how often we engage in performance to be evaluated (from a research perspective). Although I am apprehensive to enroll in a performance class, I think, as Trenholm (2008) stated, I would feel more “[liberated ... and] try on new identities and express unfamiliar emotions” (p. 391). I would like to explore what it would be like to stretch myself beyond the “comfortable” through performance.

Week 8: Post 2

I remember an Anthropology professor of mine telling our class one of her moral dilemmas as an “overt ethnographer” was the decision to remain an “observer” of people in their natural setting and not become a “participant” in their practice. During the time she was writing one of her books on the class systems and economic disparities between the two Egyptian cities split by the Nile, El Gisa and Cairo, a child of one of the families experienced a medical emergency and needed transportation from El Gisa to the capital city of Cairo. A function of her role as a researcher was to “learn from observation” (Trenholm, 2008, p. 379), but she found herself conflicting with her personal values and professional ethics as well as her power to access medical support. In addition to the mentioned dilemma, ethnographers “must constantly be [conscious of] prejudices that may bias their ability to understand a culture” (Trenholm, 2008, p. 380). I know, in the beginning of this class, we posted a similar response about prejudgments; it’s imperative an ethnographer practice separating their preconceived notions in order to present the most valid study.

For me, especially because maintaining impartiality and refraining from passing judgment on a student is critical to a consistent and fair disciplinary process, I constantly reflect on my hearings and my treatment of students. Since the range of violations and demographics of our students is expansive, I resolve numerous dilemmas with proactive self-work, which often means attending social justice trainings or pre-conference sessions focused on naming how “my bag of rocks” can obstruct the equality I strive for in my process as a judicial officer. I love my professional work and interacting with students in an educational manner to strengthen their commitment to civility and integrity through critical thinking and ethical decision-making. For them to be at their best, I have to commit to bettering my practice and myself too!

Week 8: Post 1

During my undergraduate career, I chose to make one of my minors Cultural Anthropology, as my department required us to have at least one complementary area of study per degree major. I LOVED the courses, the professors, and the research! For someone like myself, an inquisitive and kinesthetic learner, this academic and professional field encompassed numerous passions; and often, correlated with social justice concerns of classism, equity, health-care, etc. In one course, we were required to read Pledged: The Secret Life of Sororities, written by Alexandra Robbins, an author who “’[went] undercover as a participant” (Trenholm, 2008, p. 374) for an academic year investigating the processes and “rituals” of sororities (in the historically white, National Panhellenic Conference). This book exposed me to ethnography, an immersive research method intended to “understand how members of other cultures interpret their world” (Trenholm, 2008, p. 379) without values imposition from the researcher(s).

Ironically, I saw the film Salt this weekend (Side note: HIGHLY RECOMMEND!), a movie directly related to a hindrance of the ethnographic method: deception. Because the main character (Salt), played by Angela Jolie, “took [a] covert role” (Trenholm, 2008, p. 379) as a United States CIA agent (her real identity was lived as a Russian Spy), she struggled with deceiving both her husband (Mike) and her colleagues. In addition, she resisted the Russian regime where she, and numerous children, were reared and manufactured to annihilate the United Stated government. While I do not want to ruin the film for those who have not paid their $11.00 yet, I will say Salt’s mission as an “undercover” agent (i.e., “ethnographer”) becomes “so emotionally involved that [her] ability to make objective observations is threatened” (Trenholm, 2008, p. 379). If I were to study the “aspect of deception” through the lens of Jolie’s character, as an ethnographer, I would postulate this guided, research question:

-How do indoctrinated children in Cold War Russia conceive of and negotiate the practices of the United States government?

Week 7: Post 3

From chapter 8, I found Trenholm’s (2008) sections on downward communication, upward communication, and horizontal communication to be useful in my current position. Often, I’m working at mock 100 ( ;) ) and I do not afford myself the time to reflect on the successes or the improvements needed to our office communication. Reading through this section, I have become clearer on when we use downward communication (and how it does cause dissatisfaction and uncertainty because of the distortion). As a mid-level professional, I have found both upward and horizontal communication to be a critical link to succeeding in both managing the daily tasks of the office and the long-term, large-scale programming. My former manager was intentional about teaching me the value of “[seeking] out bad news and encourage [team members] to tell the truth, no matter how negative” (Trenholm, 2008, p. 222). Because she was clear about the “hierarchy” in our office existing “only on paper,” we developed a mantra, “It’s us against them, never us against each other!” and established an authentic “climate of trust and openness” (Trenholm, 2008, p. 222). As a self-identified activist and advocate for students, I encourage coalition building and collaboration among my colleagues. I participate in numerous programming committees where idea sharing is free flowing and utilized to develop the best services for students. I understand the potential consequence(s) of horizontal communication, but I do believe when executed with a shared vision, as I experience with some of my colleagues, we’re able to cooperate in a way that only improves the students’ experience and development.

Week 7: Post 2

As I read Marshall McLuhan's media logic and proclamation that “‘the medium is the message’”(Trenholm, 2008, p. 307), I began to consider the parallel between his theorizing and the radical feminist Carol Hanisch’s (1969) essay “The Personal is Political.” Briefly stated, Hanisch attributed the personal struggles of a woman’s experience to systematic oppression; women were not to be conceptualized as “bad” or “evil” because of their “emotions” or “PMS,” but because of male power and privilege, sexism, and ubiquitous gender inequities. Simply, Hanisch’s essay functioned as a “call to action” for both politicians and women. She wanted women, who now had a “voice” in determining the political process to become active and committed to shifting the gender inequalities in policies. In addition, she solicited the attention of politicians, primarily white, heterosexual males, to consider the status of women, i.e., how the epidemic of sexual harassment in the workplace was impacting both a women’s professional productivity and her personal longevity. Both Hanisch and McLuhan’s theories “[affect] how we experience the world” (Trenholm, 2008, p. 307) through the conscious and unconscious consumption of messages. McLuhan’s philosophy incorporates mediums as an extension of ourselves; and therefore our exposure to both personal and social (political) messages are malleable because of our abilities to create change.

To evaluate McLuhan’s “idea that television is a cool medium,” I would have to comment on his invitation to us, as viewers, to suspend our disbelief, placing the onus on us to “fill in the detail” (Trenholm, 2008, p. 307). In considering his concepts of “cool” and “hotter” for the mediums of television and radio, respectively, I think about (similar to the 1960 presidential debates example) who, presently, is ruling those mediums and what messages are they sending on them to capture viewers. While this isn’t a statement with numerical accuracy, in my experiences I hear more daily talk radio discussing religion than I do on television; I often see those on Sundays. And, I believe McLuhan’s cool-hot distinction has validity when you consider those numbers and the success of Oprah on television verses radio. Her “coolness” for the medium of television has made her the mogul of daytime whereas “hotter” personalities like Ryan Seacrest and Glen Beck are magnates of the radio programs.

Week 7: Post 1

While I have not developed any of my friendships "exclusively in cyberspace," I have maintained numerous "social relationships"/collegial relationships through electronic media such as Facebook, Twitter, and through e-mail communication. Something often mentioned about my professional field (Student Affairs/Higher Education) is our degree of separation is more like two people rather than six! (I have CERTAINLY found this to be fact!) Because we travel often, present at conferences annually, and "turn-over" in our positions, as common practice, every 2-3 years, the opportunity to expand a sizeable cyber-friend list tends to be lofty. For me, the differences in these relationships are their focus:"business;"meaning our students, our functional areas, and the progress of our field. We use these mediums as an opportunity to track who is attending what conferences, what are the new trends, and when jobs are posted for review. In addition, rarely do I speak to these people via telephone, as our interactions and relationship building have not extended beyond the surface layers (quite similar to Duck's Filtering Theory, Trenholm, 2008, p. 158) and are not focused on reaching an intimate status. As I age and develop my position in the field, I have more appreciation for the purpose of these relationships, as I have often been someone who strives to develop authentic, rich relationships with EVERYONE I meet. I have learned, for my self-care's sake ( ;) ), this is not possible with all people. Each person serves a purpose in my personal and professional life and our relationships are not less authentic because they occur through a computer; this is the agreed upon communication understanding of the people engaging in the relationship and needs are met.

Week 6: Post 3

Often in my professional field (Student Affairs), the argument of leaders being “born” or “made” is both animated and ubiquitous. As I read through this chapter, I found Fisher’s belief “that in the beginning, all members of a group are in contention for the leadership position” (Trenholm, 2008, p. 195) useful to consider when preparing leadership trainings for my student advisees. Also, I believe I can use this belief to empower my staff team through our long-term, large-scale initiatives. I supervise one student assistant, an office manager, and a conduct coordinator. I believe each one of them has a unique skill set with the capabilities to make progress on our tasks. I agree with Trenholm’s (2008) statement “groups do not need to have a single leader” (p. 195) to be successful as a group/team. As much as we distribute the daily tasks through predetermined job descriptions, I believe we can delegate the leadership so it’s distributed equally.

Week 6: Post 2

Two years ago, I ended a “serious” intimate partner relationship; and it wasn’t until a year had passed (and a budget was adopted for quality therapy ;)) that I had been able to name one of the top reasons our relationship failed: lack of interpersonal bond. In my opinion, and through intentional reflection, I recognized our sociological cues (we were spending the first summer we’d met together) increased our “probability of contact” (Trenholm, 2008, p. 158) and our preinteraction cues (style of dress, flirtation, physical appearance, etc.) were exactly what Trenholm (2008) stated: “surface details” (p. 159). I believe we spent the summer in the “honeymoon” phase, lusting more over the new experience and the excitement of something refreshing and “healthy” (as I’d left my prior relationship because it was abusive). From this relationship, I learned how important, for me, it was to learn the cognitive cues while developing a friendship (before it progresses into a romantic relationship). I’m opinionated, I’ll admit it ( ;) ) and I’m also half Italian ( ;) ), and while I’m open to someone with differing belief systems, I believe the two of us found out too late in our relationship how dissimilar we were and we could not repair our relationship in either context.

Week 6: Post 1

Using the lenses of rigid role relations, I have found each of my “serious” intimate partner relationships have modeled the three patterns I have been prompted to consider in this post. What I found fascinating, as I read this chapter (and this particular section), is how the perspective-taking, for me, hadn’t been an active process until I was completely disassociated from the relationships. Not until my most recent, healthy relationship, did I ever recognize patterns of dominance, submission, abuse, and strain in my former partnerships. And, another plug for the audacious and insightful Rebecca Walker, author of _One Big Happy Family: 18 Writers Talk About Polyamory, Open Adoption, Mixed Marriage, Househusbandry, Single Motherhood, and Other Realities of Truly Modern Love_ whose recent investigation of courageously creative families and relationships depicts how their structures progress beyond Trenholm’s (2008) perspective that “each must decide whether he or she feels more comfortable plays a dominant part …. or a more submissive part” (p. 148). And, similar to the lyrics in Eminem’s new song, featuring Rihanna, “Love the Way You Lie,” the most damaging to a relationship is competitive symmetry:
Now I know we said things
Did things
That we didn't mean
And we fall back
Into the same patterns
Same routine
But your temper's just as bad
As mine is
You're the same as me
But when it comes to love
You're just as blinded
Baby please come back
It wasn't you
Baby it was me
Maybe our relationship
Isn't as crazy as it seems
Maybe that's what happens
When a tornado meets a volcano
For me, each of these patterns can develop into a cycle of violence for the relationship. Once one person has power and control over another it becomes increasingly difficult for either person to change. Often, not until an “incident” occurs so threatening to one person (or both) does the relationship begin to transform.

Week 4: Post 3

When I turned to page 354 of Chapter 12 (Trenholm, 2008), I giggled at the honesty illustrated in Table 12.2 outlining the “Rules to Increase Cooperation Between Collectivists and Individualists.” I imagined this chart as a billboard or as a business size card of “helpful hints” a flight attendant would hand you when entering a “collectivist zone” as an individualist and visa versa! Still, I find it to be a useful tool, especially for working in small groups at institutions similar to SJSU. As someone who was born in the West (United States/American citizen), being self-sufficient (interdependent and not DEpendednt) was important to my family’s principles. While “respect” was both an expectation and a practice, I was encouraged to challenge authority, especially government and law enforcement. My siblings and I were often told, “At the end of the day, you have to look in the mirror and face yourself, so ‘do you’ and make yourself happy first.” In opposition, collectivist cultures “believe it is right to subordinate personal goals for the good of others” (p. 353). Although I find nothing “wrong” about this value system, I wonder: what would it be like to fully immerse myself in a space (country or region) where collectivist “rules” are universal?

Week 4: Post 2

Please, allow me to be brusque: these premises are difficult! I mean, the prompt seems so simple in questioning belief, but for me, belief in something requires an investigation in seeking certainty. Because I subscribe to a truth system of many lower-case “Ts”, I find myself critical of Samovar, Porter, and Jain’s argument that “most Americans hold three basic beliefs about human nature” (Trenholm, 2008, p. 353). I believe “truth” is socially constructed and an interpretation we establish through our experiences. Therefore, decision-making and perspective-taking are influenced by our convictions, which is why I cannot fully employ the rationality premise. In my lifetime, I have seen “average” people make repentant decisions. When I review the perfectibility premise, I find myself thinking “Oh, those align with the ‘laws’ of religion…specifically Christianity” as I have experienced certain family members follow meticulous regimens to place themselves “closer to God.” While I concur, “human behavior is shaped by environmental factors” (p. 353), the mutability premise, for me, is questionable because its “belief in universal education” (p. 353) (even beyond the formal realm) is linked to access and privilege in order to improve and overcome circumstances.

Week 4: Post 1

Trenholm (2008) stated, “cultures …. are learned” (p. 343); and because of this expectations of how to perform our culture are imposed on our worldview from the beginning of life. While I agree we are “products of our cultures” (p. 343), committing to the practice of our learning and subscribing to the ideologies of our systems (primarily family), I believe, as Carol inquired in our prompts, we can (italicized emphasis) “break though the limits of our cultures.”

In the professional work I produce with violence education and prevention curriculums, my colleagues and I train students to understand violence is a learned behavior and it can be unlearned. Because violence is ubiquitous - present in song lyrics, video games, and the places we feel most safe – cycles of violence cultivate and suffocate our experiences.

In a study conducted at Wake Forest University (2000), researchers found a correlation between “exposure to violence and the use of violence …. illustrating that violence is a learned behavior ” (¶ 1) evolved, primarily, from social learning (e.g., seeing someone be physically abused as opposed to seeing someone use a gun). Because violence, especially intimate partner/person violence, is a pattern (italicized emphasis) of behaviors intended to exert power and control over another person, it is possible to unlearn the violence and manage new practices of nonviolence and conflict resolution.

Week 3: Post 3

As a Judicial Officer, I found the Kinesic Code I: Body Movement and Gesture (Trenholm, 2008, p. 115) to be especially useful during informal conferences and formal disciplinary hearings with students. When I began working with students who violated the Student Conduct Code (when I was attending school and employed at Ball State University [IN]), my supervisor enrolled me and my colleague in a training focused on the practical application of nonverbal communication/communication theory. Although I was a Communication and Rhetorical Studies major in college, I never comprehensively explored nonverbal messages and their impact on verbal communication and personal relationships. The daylong workshop trained me and Danielle (my colleague) to recognize fallacy in our students’ version of “what happened” during their incident. The presenter, similar to Trenholm (2008), emphasized “the rest of the body … as equally expressive” (p. 117) and to utilize a student’s nonverbal communication to further investigate a case. I have to admit, both the training and refreshing the experience with this reading allows me to “check-in” with myself and reflect on how I am performing in my position. For me, it’s not about finding a student “guilty” or “not guilty,” but figuring out if there’s a larger concern for the student underneath the behavior, which is why the student made the decision to violate the code. If I’m not conscious about observing these behaviors, then I may do the student a disservice by ignoring or neglecting “hidden information about [student’s] emotional states” (p. 118).

Week 3: Post 2

Deborah Tannen is one of my favorite authors and linguists who have supported the position that women and me DO use language differently: https://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/tannend/

I am fascinated with her critical analysis of how “everyday conversation affects relationships”; and how her scholarship intentionally considers how the “way we talk” as gendered beings correlates with access. For example, in her book _You Just Don't Understand: Men and Women in Conversation_ (1990), Tannen offered this comparison of women and men’s speaking styles:

WOMEN

Women talk too much

Private/Small

Build relations

English language spoken

Overlap

Symmetry

MEN

Men get more air time

Public

Negotiate status/Avoid failure

English language written

One at a time

Asymmetry

Similar to the harm judgments and stereotypes can impose on someone before we know them, socially constructed gender scripts obscure authentic interactions and communication messages between women and men (and individuals who exist along the gender spectrum). Because of the power dynamics created between dominant and subordinated groups, I believe the difference in usage of language by women and men can promote sexism and sexist language; where, as Tannen found, can diminish the female presence and oppress women. I believe the experience of women living in the double-standard is very real. I have been “coached” by my supervisor to navigate this labyrinth where if I am not assertive “enough” I am meek; however, if I am “too” assertive I can be labeled “unapproachable” and, often, “bitchy” or arrogant. As a woman in higher education, I continue to navigate this puzzle. Because of this and my commitment to advising student organizations while wearing my social justice glasses, I have explored the practice of shifting my language to be more gender-neutral/inclusive (e.g., “man” the desk = “staff” the desk; how you “guys” doing today? = how are “you” doing today, “Staci”? /how are “you”?).

Week 3: Post 1

In December (2008), I attended the Social Justice Training Institute (SJTI) in Tucson, Arizona. The five-day intensive “laboratory experience” is a time for diversity educators, practitioners, and trainers to focus on “self” learning and development to increase their multicultural competencies as social justice educators. A skill taught during the institute, to increase one’s ability to notice patterns of treatment and experiences of both dominant (e.g., White People) and subordinated (e.g., People of Color) groups, was PANNING:

PAN = Pay
Attention
Now

As the trainers explained this simple, yet stimulating concept, they reminded us PANNING is about being intentional in your observations and being conscious of your feelings about these recognized behaviors and patterns. A person who develops the skill of PANNING is able to do two things well:

1) QUESTION with authentic curiosity/wonder: Is this an isolated incident or a possible pattern of experience? For example, “Why have I seen two White families “breeze” through security at the airport and two Families of Color (especially if they’re perceived to be ‘Middle Eastern’ or have ‘Middle Eastern’ names) be questioned and/or searched?”

2) AVOID making (snap) judgments or creating a “story” of what you see and experience. For example, “Oh she must be the ‘guy’ in the relationship because she’s wearing a tie with her jeans and her ‘girlfriend’/’partner’ is wearing a skirt and dress top.”

While I believe we, as humans, are inquisitive creatures who are socialized to judge and stereotype, I also believe by learning and practicing the skill of PANNING one can improve and/or manage perceptions of those we know well (i.e., colleagues/friends) and those we name as “strangers.” PANNING requires you to “pay attention now” to the specific details and only the facts about what you feel, hear, and see, etc.

Week 2: Post 3

Preparing to write this blog post made me think about my first public speaking course in college. Similar to the reflections of over half of my peers in COMM 105P, my instructor came into the first day with the statistics of human fears and public speaking was highest with respondents more open to obtaining a shark bite; and, of course, it’s a bigger fear than the end of life! Oddly, while I never “thought” I had a speech anxiety fear, I surely “felt” it when I embraced the hollow wooden podium for the first time in front of 25 first-year faces. While my post tonight is not about flushing out this concept, I find solace in the memory!

As I stated, I enrolled in my first public speaking class as a first-year student in 2000. One concept I don’t recall learning (which is exciting now) is Alan Monroe’s “five-part organizational plan” (Trenholm, 2008, p. 285) or the motivated sequence. As I was reading how this specialized stock organizational pattern targets “the psychological reactions of receiver” (p. 285), I thought, “Oh my gosh! Fast-paced infomercials…especially at night!” In addition, I began to consider how this pattern could entrap women consumers by positioning its message against stereotypical, but internalized conditioning. For example, consider the times of day (and night) beauty and weight/size-based infomercials targeting women-buyers are dominating breaks in broadcast. I see the “perfect” equation of attention (“Hey! Want to get into that summer bikini, but enjoyed those spring cookies a little too much?”) + need (“Well, why look like this at the beach and have people stare at that tummy and those thighs when you can try QuickieThin and the staring will turn into following because you’ll look so hot people won’t recognize you!”) + satisfaction (“All you have to do is eat two of these cookie bars and a sensible dinner and you’re there!”) + visualization (“You’ll lose 27 lbs in 27 minutes on this plan and look and feel great!”) EQUAL (=) the action step (or purchase) (“Call now…but WAIT! All this for $14.95, plus shipping and handling”). Personally, I find, while the communication strategy is effective (most will buy), the outcome is disastrous-deteriorates self-worth and unhinges self-image.

Week 2: Post 2

On May 15, 2010 I drove to Sonoma State University to see Frank Warren, author, founder, and inventor of PostSecret (“an ongoing community art project where people mail their secrets anonymously [to Warren’s address] on one side of a postcard”). Warren has been deemed the “world’s friendliest stranger,” becoming the recipient of people’s most intimate confessions and secrets. In 2005, the blog began as an art project for Warren; he walked the streets of Baltimore (Maryland) and invited people to return blank postcards to his home address with their secrets. PostSecret has fostered a communication community for people who otherwise assumed they were in solitude.

While Frank Warren may not be “the best” speaker I’ve ever heard, I believe he was effective because he did three things (and darn well ;)): educated, agitated, and organized. Through his speaking time, he discussed the PostSecret history, mission, and vision. He inserted humor and his examples were authentic and tangible to the audience. For me, I experienced Warren to possess the ability to enmesh his participants and this created an opportunity to suspend “real time” and “be present” with focus solely on Warren and his message.

Here’s some links for anyone who hasn’t been exposed to PostSecret:

http://www.postsecret.com

http://www.facebook.com/pages/PostSecret/21977955239

John Whitemore’s first address as President of SJSU ranks high on my list of “worst speakers.” As a staff member and a “young professional,” I am looking for someone to ignite my passion for student affairs work; I want a speaker who I can refer to when I’m “in the trenches” and feel my work has no purpose. Sadly, I remember nothing of his message beyond his performance. I believe he lacked charisma; and I believe any leader of an organization must focus on commitment and “buy-in” from her/his team. In addition, he was monotone and expressionless making me feel his speech was disingenuous. I wasn’t purchasing a thing that day! ;)

Week 2: Post 1

Disclaimer: Just wanted to apologize to ya'll (my peers) for my lack of posting this week. And, my posts for this week will not be 12 hours apart. As someone committed to the learning environment, I acknowledge the absence of my contributions lessons the greater learning of the whole and doesn't maintain full integrity to our work, especially as an online-learning community. No comment is needed on this statement, just wanted to inform and dedicate myself to improvement! Now, read on...;)

Through the lens of social construction, an understanding of “reality” and of “self” is derived from multiple (or a collection of) truths; because I have been reared in one (immediate) family system doesn’t equate to our complete family sharing of “collective representations of reality” (Trenholm, 2008, p. 31). For example, my father is an environmentalist and an organic farmer. He has placed a value(s) system on “hard work” and blue-collar labor. After graduating from my undergraduate degree, my father did not understand my reasons for pursuing an advanced degree. For me, attending university exposed me to more options and invited me to explore academia further and seek a self-defined happiness rather than one controlled by him. My father is a product of the Baby Boomer generation and I am positioned on the cusp of Gen X and The Millennials. We interact and communicate quite differently based upon the internalized and imposed expectations of our generations.

Introductory Post

Greetings Instructor Perez & COMM 105Pers!

Similar to @thelittletomatoe, I am a voracious reader and a beginner blogger (pre-thanks for patience;)). I am a M.A. student in COMM Studies-a transfer from the Justice Studies M.S. program. I completed my undergraduate at Syracuse University in Communication & Rhetorical Studies and am excited be more "at home" in this program. Also, I work full-time and am passionate about social justice education as well as advocacy and prevention services for eradicating sexual violence.

I employ the philosophy of being a "student of life" and I feel honored to be learning with each of you! I know your contributions will expand my perspectives and improve my learning.

On the fun side, this is my second summer in CA, as I am a "transplant" from NJ by way of the midwest (MI & IN), so I'm looking forward to any recommendations ya'll have for recreation! I play softball for the city of SJ, love to play tennis, kickboxing/martial arts, yoga/run/hike, travel, attend concerts (I go to A LOT!), cook (and eat ;)), and view/critique documentaries! I appreciate sarcasm and legal/non-violence practical jokes ;)!