By Matt Noyes. (This case study is in the form of a "Problem-Based Learning" activity, an approach that is used often in medical schools to have students work through diagnosing and treating a condition. [[LINK]] Nick Bedell and David Bindman, teachers and fellow union members at the Consortium for Worker Education, introduced me to PBL.)
Summary:
In this version of the case study, participants start out with very little information and have to go through a several stage process of discussion and analysis. There is more focus on the process of getting information, making sense of it, and using information to plan action, than in the previous activity. What makes this activity stand out is the way it includes real research.
Materials:
Handouts with the case study information. The handouts needs to be carefully prepared and double-checked -- visualize each step, what questions may come up, what answers, what information might be needed, what will you do if you don't have the information you need?
Purpose:
To model a clear process for looking at a problem, figuring out what you need to learn, getting information, and coming up with solutions. To give people hands on practice with tools and resources they can use in the future. To teach people to analyze and solve problems as a group. To introduce legal rights information and organizing ideas and approaches. To model using solidarity across potential divisions to fight management.
Process:
- Explain and motivate process.
- If there are more than six people, form small groups. (You'll need these later on.)
- Each time new information is added, you repeat the steps. For example:
- The facilitator starts the process by stating the problem: "Eugene got suspended."
- She then asks if anyone in the room was ever suspended, how it felt, how they think Eugene might be feeling, (bringing the problem home).
- In the next step, the facilitator gets participants (as a whole group) to analyze the problem, by asking them a series of four questions:
1. Guesses: What's going on? Why was he suspended? (At this point, they can only guess: "maybe he was caught stealing? Maybe he was late too much? Maybe it was because he was pro-union?")
2. Facts: What we know so far. (At this point, only that Eugene was suspended.)
3. Research Issues: what we need to know to understand the problem better, do something about it, help the person, etc. (At this stage there should be many questions: what exactly happened? why, when, where, how, who was involved, etc.) The facilitator asks participants to brainstorm, as a whole group, information they need to figure out what the problem is and what can be done.
Make a list of all the questions people have, e.g. "Why was he suspended?" (Note that this question is really two questions: "What was the charge?" and "Was that the real reason?" This leads to more questions: what proof do you have, what does the contract say, etc. The facilitator should help people break down questions this way.)
4. Action plan: what possible actions can be taken to solve the problem. (When all you know is Eugene got suspended, the main action is getting the information you need to understand the problem better and do something about it.
- Adding Information: Once the group has gone through the three steps, the facilitator hands out The Story, a one paragraph description of the case that lays out the basic facts. (It should cover most of what people will want to know.) Here's the story for Eugene:
Eugene is a mechanic for Breakdown Engineering, a small company in Queens that repairs one part of the engines on subway trains for the New York City Transit Authority. About two hundred people work at Breakdown. Last week, Eugene's supervisor, Gladys, suspended him. Gladys said she "just did not like his attitude." Eugene has always done good work and has not been warned or written up before.
Recently, Eugene and other workers have been complaining about a new management policy requiring workers to clock out before they clean their workstation. He thinks that the firing is retaliation for his complaints. He also believes that Gladys is biased against him because he is gay. Eugene is a union member, but he's not sure whether he can trust the union steward. The steward, who most of the co-workers don't respect, seems to be friends with Gladys and they constantly make jokes about gays and lesbians. - Now, you go through the process again, reviewing and changing your first answers as a whole group:
- State the problem: in one sentence, what happened? (this helps people focus on the key info.)
- Bring it home: has anyone been in Eugene's situation, retaliated against for activism? Discriminated against? (this can help people keep in touch with Eugene as a person, may help minimize bigoted reactions).
- Analyze it: do this part again, fixing and adding to the previous notes.
- Guesses: Which of your guesses were right or wrong?
- Facts: What do we know now, do we need to correct any of our previous facts (were we wrong about anything)?
- Learning Issues: What else do we need to know, now, to understand the problem better, do something about it, help the person, etc.
- Action plan: a) How do we get the information you need to understand the problem better and do something about it (NOTE: includes who "we" are in relationship to the problem); b) what actions can be taken and who can take them, to being to solve the problem.
- Now, the facilitator gives the participants a task to do in their groups.
"You are co-workers of Eugene at the same plant. You feel that it is time to do something because you could be next. Your task is to figure out: a) if his rights are being violated, b) what he can do about it, c) what you can do to help solve the problem."
- To help the participants do their job, you provide resources they can use to do research:
A union contract and constitution, (preferably the contract and constitution of the participants' own union).
Legal rights books or handouts (e.g. the ACLU guide The Rights of Employees and Union Members, Power on the Job by Michael Yates, The Legal Rights of Union Stewards, by Robert Schwartz, Democratic Rights of Union Members, by Herman Benson).
To help them think about organizing approaches, The Troublemakers Handbooks by Dan LaBotz and Jane Slaughter.
For background on LGBT issues, rights, and organizing refer to the website of the Human Rights Campaign: http://www.hrc.org/issues/workplace.asp
- The groups do the research and answer the questions, then they present their findings. They should take turns. (You can have each group present on a different part of the task, so as to avoid repetition.) As they present, the facilitator encourages other participants to ask them questions or challenge their answers. Discussion works well here, as long as the whole group stays focused on the story. Facilitator keeps notes.
- The facilitator may want to provide some "backloaded" commentary or information here.
- End with an evaluation of the activity that includes what it was like working with others to understand and solve the problem. (See notes on evaluation activities.)
Problem-based learning activities use a four step process:
1. Stating the Problem
2. Bringing the Problem Home
3. Analyzing the Problem
a. Guessing what happened
b. Deciding what information you need
c. Making an action plan
4. Adding information
Watch for:
Timing. This activity can expand to fill as much time as you give it. It requires careful planning in advance to design a PBL activity that can be done in a three hour session, for example.
Preparation: you really have to think through each step beforehand, to be prepared. Try running through the process step by step in your head, to see if you have everything you need. You will still need to improvise -- you can't foresee every question or issue -- but the more prepared you are the more effective this type of activity will be.
Homophobia. Teaching about discrimination becomes tricky when the discrimination begins to happen right there in the workshop. It can be valuable or dangerous, or both. There are a few ways to deal with this problem. Here are some of mine, though I do not claim expertise:
First, clearly state your assumptions at the outset. I often say something like this: "This is a democratic discussion. I assume that we each want to be treated fairly, equally, and with respect, in spite of whatever differences we have. I will try to do this. If I do not, please call me on it. I will also try to make sure that others are treated fairly." (I got this idea from Educating for a Change, which has great material on facilitating.)
Second, define a few basic ground rules, including a non-discrimination rule (familiar to many workers from non-discrimination clauses in contracts).
Third, invoke your position as facilitator: "I do not tolerate discrimination in my workplace. If you want to go on making jokes about "faggots", you can't do it here." (Obviously, before you drop that bomb, you will have done a lot to try to defuse and win people to the basic agreement to treat each other fairly, including you.) Doesn't this violate popular education principles? I don't think so. This gets to a basic condition of teaching: the facilitator is basically saying, "I will not play this role under these conditions." The relationship between facilitator and participants is put into question. Remember, because you are a teacher here, you should exploit every opportunity to teach the moment. But, if your basic dignity, or that of a participant, is at stake, force the issue.
Fourth, if participants do not know your sexual identity, you can unsettle things by not letting people assume you are straight. (Often, simply because I made Eugene gay in the story, participants start to wonder about my identity.)
Finally, this raises a fruitful problem for popular educators: why did I make Eugene gay? Was it because of my own sexual identity? Was it because I want to force participants who I assume to be straight to confront their presumed homophobia? Was it to make LGBT people visible and thereby provide space for LGBT participants to be visible? Was it because I know this is an issue in their particular workplace and context? Was it just to include a wild card, a factor that has not been raised by the participants? It all comes back to the facilitator's conception of her role and her deepest political principles. What are you trying to do as a facilitator and why?
Variations:
Divide up the tasks among the groups, so that one group checks out legal questions, another looks into organizing ideas, a third reads the contract...
Recruit a couple of people to play the role of Eugene and a coworker, and make them available for groups to interview. Give them limited time, right before work. (You will need to carefully prep. the actors to keep the story straight.)
Include websites that provide useful information, including government agencies, the text of laws, advocacy groups, etc. If you do this, provide links directly to the page with the relevant information.
Examples:
"Eugene Got Suspended" was written for a session of the AUD Class Series which we held once or twice a year. It was written without advance knowledge of the participants or their issues and was designed to introduce some fairly common problems, a general method of problem solving, and some resources that are of use to activists.
I chose a story of discrimination based on sexuality for a number of reasons. First, because it reveals the strengths and weaknesses of the existing law: in New York City, Eugene would have more legal protection than in most of the U.S. This raises the question of rights we do not have but might want, an important consideration in looking at legal rights -- so we do not take the existing laws for granted, or limit our aspirations to what current laws provide. I also chose it to stress the indivisibility of human rights -- that an injury to one is an injury to all. Or as T-Bone Slim put it, "inequality and solidarity do not mix." Finally, I chose this case because it helps people see the need to look for several angles at once, and not just fixate on one problem.