<statement of the topic>
Should we construct a dam to prevent water shortage? The dam is going to be constructed in a mountain, so many animals will not be able to live there and some hot springs in the mountain will be broken. Moreover, some people will have to move to another place.
<introduction of panel members and their initial position>
Mariko: She is 40 and works at a Japanese inn. Her hobby is watching a movie. She opposes the dam
will be constructed because she doesn't want to break any hot springs.
Sakiko: She is 27and belongs to a humane society. She oppose the idea because she wants to protect animals.
Chihiro: She is 63 and a mayor of the village. She agree with the idea because she thinks citizen's can't live without water.
Atsushi: He is 50 and a politician. He agree with the idea because he thinks constructing a dam has some benefits for citizens.
<important points of the discussion as I see it>
If the dam is constructed in a mountain, many animals will not be able to live there and some hot springs will be broken, but a lot of citizens have no difficulty in water shortage. So, constructing a dam has good and bad sides. Citizens and panel members have to consider the importance of their own life and animal's life.
<what the outcome was>
Panel members decided to construct a dam. Mariko asked Atsushi to support jobless workers. Sakiko will provide a better environment for animals next mountains.
<my personal opinion>
I thought Atsushi's opinion that he moves animals to next mountains chasing them by car was irrealizable. And, Chihiro said people who have to move to another place should build their house with compensation money. But I thought the people didn't accept this idea because they probably liked present place. This discussion had difficulties to find out a solution.
<how effective the discussion was>
This time, I thought each panel member often said their opinion comparatively.
<how it could have been better>
Some panel members said their opinion in a low voice, so they should have said in a louder voice. And, Atsushi and Chihiro should have had more compelling opinions, if they construct a dam in a mountain.
2013年1月26日土曜日
2013年1月16日水曜日
discussionC3
<statement of the topic>
Our city is going to hold a marathon for health promotion and it ecpects 2000 participants come to the marathon. The number of entrants is 1500 now. Panel members want more 500 participants from out of the city to continue the marathon in the future. They have to think about the way of collecting more 500.
<introduction of panel members and their initial position>
Chiaki: She is 33 years old and works at a information TV center.
Mai: She is 42 years old and a sponsor of the marathon.
Riho: She is 20 years old and has fished for 13 years.
Haruka: She is 24 lives in a neighboring town. She is an office worker.
<important points of the discussion as I see it>
Panel members wanted to collect more 500 participants from out of the city. So, they thought it was good to make a rest place where participants could eat sea food and hold a walk rally to increase the number of participants. And in the middle of discussion, they thought it was good idea if participants come to both events, the participants can get something special.
<what the outcome was>
Panel members decided to make another course just to walk and enjoy looking at view of the city.
<my personal opinion>
Panel members thought that the marathon would be held for the first time, so they have to collect paticipants as many as possible to continue the marathon in the future. However, I thought they didn't need to collect more participants by constraint directly because the marathon would be for the first time. And, I thought if participants can get sea food for free in the walk rally, some participants would come to the walk rally not marathon.
<how effective the discussion was>
It was good for a moderator to explain the background of discussion in detail. And, it was also good to discuss considering citizen's opinions. Panel mambers discussed with loud voice, so I could understand well.
<how it could have been better>
The member who provided her opinion that a walk rally was good to collect more participants didn't say detailed explanation. I thought she should have said more positively. And, I thought the moderator should have said a topic at the beginning of the discussion. Parhaps, most citizens didn't understand what was a problem.
Our city is going to hold a marathon for health promotion and it ecpects 2000 participants come to the marathon. The number of entrants is 1500 now. Panel members want more 500 participants from out of the city to continue the marathon in the future. They have to think about the way of collecting more 500.
<introduction of panel members and their initial position>
Chiaki: She is 33 years old and works at a information TV center.
Mai: She is 42 years old and a sponsor of the marathon.
Riho: She is 20 years old and has fished for 13 years.
Haruka: She is 24 lives in a neighboring town. She is an office worker.
<important points of the discussion as I see it>
Panel members wanted to collect more 500 participants from out of the city. So, they thought it was good to make a rest place where participants could eat sea food and hold a walk rally to increase the number of participants. And in the middle of discussion, they thought it was good idea if participants come to both events, the participants can get something special.
<what the outcome was>
Panel members decided to make another course just to walk and enjoy looking at view of the city.
<my personal opinion>
Panel members thought that the marathon would be held for the first time, so they have to collect paticipants as many as possible to continue the marathon in the future. However, I thought they didn't need to collect more participants by constraint directly because the marathon would be for the first time. And, I thought if participants can get sea food for free in the walk rally, some participants would come to the walk rally not marathon.
<how effective the discussion was>
It was good for a moderator to explain the background of discussion in detail. And, it was also good to discuss considering citizen's opinions. Panel mambers discussed with loud voice, so I could understand well.
<how it could have been better>
The member who provided her opinion that a walk rally was good to collect more participants didn't say detailed explanation. I thought she should have said more positively. And, I thought the moderator should have said a topic at the beginning of the discussion. Parhaps, most citizens didn't understand what was a problem.
登録:
投稿 (Atom)