Abstract

The best assets of any community college are their students. Students learn, grow, thrive, and, often, remain in their community to help others do the same. They are vital to the development of their communities. Their voices, unfortunately too often silent to policy makers, can contribute to sustainable futures for the cities and towns in which they dwell. Their experiences and stories can enlighten others about how people live in a place and how those places can be made better for those who live there. How can these voices be heard? Can students at a community college help to generate public participation in government planning? Can they use their roots in the community to help their community find a voice? In this chapter, I discuss the theoretical and conceptual grounding for the “Partnership for Inclusive, Cost-Effective Public Participation” (PICEP2), a model of curriculum for Communication courses at Manchester Community College (MCC) in Manchester, Connecticut, that was designed to amplify citizen voices in government public engagement efforts. This project, which I created through funds from the Federal Transit Administration, is an example of using service-learning with community college students (and their networks) to bring previously silenced voices into efforts to solve/satisfy community/public (transportation) needs. It also indicates: (1) the direct connection between service-learning and participatory action research; (2) the direct role theory can play in project design; and (3) the real and unique contributions community college students, as community members, can make to mandated community-participation processes (as network bridges to additional participants). Document type: Part of book or chapter of book

Abstract

In 2007, under contract to the UK Department for Transport, we engaged with the public about the infrastructure to supply hydrogen for transport. We combined a quota-sample survey of 1003 across three disparate ‘travel-to-work areas’ in England with focus groups representative of them. We informed the groups ‘at arm's length’ through a purpose-made video, composed with advice from a hydrogen scientist and made by professional broadcasters. Participants saw benefits in hydrogen energy. None rejected it on safety grounds, though many discussed the risks. The costs were considered a problem. ‘The public’ was not of one mind. Regular car drivers were unwilling to reduce their car use. Bus users, cyclists and walkers often sought improvements in air quality. Motorists knew more than others about hydrogen energy. In discussion we seek psychological and socio-cultural explanations for these results. We conclude by drawing out implications for the future of hydrogen in transport.