Part I: Understanding your Community
Analyze how your community has changed over the past 20 years. Use policy and community concepts and
theories from the learning resources to support your analysis.
Describe your community, using research and statistics to describe socio-demographic make-up. (For
example: How many persons live in the city and/or in the town? What were/are their cultural/racial
characteristics? What were/are their incomes, ages, political affiliations, etc.?)
Part II: Community Assessment
Describe a problem that the community is currently experiencing.
Assess the duration, intensity, and frequency of the problem.
Analyze the probable etiology of the problem, supporting your analysis with resources.
Analyze the key elements and characteristics of the community that make it vulnerable to this problem.
Analyze the key strengths of the community that give the community resilience and the potential for
overcoming the problem.
Identify major institutions (e.g., schools, factories, churches, attraction sites, etc.) and explain how these
institutions contribute to or inhibit the community’s ability to address the problem?
Explain which groups are most affected by the problem.
Part III: Community & Policy Action Plan
Describe your proposed plan for community change.
Explain the strategies and tactics you would you use to bring about change. Consider if you would need
multiple strategies, and if so, explain which strategy would be used for each target.
Explain any policies that may influence the ability, either supportive or prohibitive, to influence proposed
Explain what policies would need to be in place to ensure proposed plans are sustainable
ith co-creation as the underlying concept in the “It’s more fun in the Philippines” campaign, it involved various actors and stakeholders that not only created content, but also selected, authorized, and disseminated. Analyzing representations of the Philippines within this campaign and how their meanings are transformed across different stakeholders and contexts allows a good grasp of “the developer’s intentions, the consumers’ interpretations and the interactions among them” (Herbert, 2001, p. 317). 4. Methodology Milner (2012, p. 11) describes memes as “multimodal artifacts where image and text are integrated to tell a joke, make an observation, or advance an argument”. Internet users can create, recreate, produce and reproduce different variations of one image which allows it to be a “quintessential participatory artefact” that is “open, collaborative, and adaptable” (Milner, 2012, p. 12). Huntington (2013, p. 1) argues that internet memes are “a form of representational discourse that subverts dominant media messages to create new meaning”. As such, analyzing memes “requires an understanding of representational conventions associated with specific groups or individuals” (Milner, 2012, p. 90). These representations are best understood by taking a constructivist approach as it takes into account that interpretations are “not constructed in isolation, but against a backdrop of shared understandings, practices, language, and so forth” (Schwandt, 2003, p. 197). With co-creation behind the “It’s more fun in the Philippines” campaign, the outcomes reflect different contextual situations produced by different worldviews, experiences, and realities experienced by the different actors and stakeholders. Taking a constructivist paradigm for this study allows the researchers to delve into materials constructed by the different actors and stakeholders who took part in the campaign. Hall (1997) notes two approaches to analyzing different representations that are exemplified in memes—semiotics and discursive approach. Semiotics, as an interdisciplinary study of signs, is rooted in “how meanings are made and how reality is represented (and indeed constructed) through signs” (Chandler, 2018, p. 2). Sig>GET ANSWER