Public spheres and controversies

In the chapter by James McDonald titled “I agree but.. Finding alternatives to controversial projects through public deliberation” in “Rhetorical Citizenship and Public Deliberation,” he highlights that controversies are not as simple as they seem. He claims that “controversies are more complex than simple disagreements between two parties” (McDonald 200). The characteristics of a controversy as named in his chapter are that, “the individuals who discuss issues are in disagreement with other individuals or groups that discuss the same issues; there is a minimum of two opposing views on the same issue; and the parties do not simply express their opposing point of view but argue about the issues in a process of deliberation” (McDonald 200). The second condition gets to me a bit. I am not sure to what extent I agree that an issue needs to have at least two opposing points of views in order to be a controversy. Allow me to explain.

An issue can be controversial without having two opposing viewpoints. An example of this can be observed in a dictatorship or a nation ruled by a totalitarian ruler. A good example of this in recent years is the crisis going on in Venezuela. The government ordered a media shut down, and censored media to the point that it seems like there is not even a controversy at all. From the outside looking in, one would conclude that there are no opposing points of views, and, according to the conditions provided by McDonald, that there is no controversy. However, in this case, the lack of knowledge about the opposing viewpoints would lead someone to this faulty conclusion.

From what I was able to conclude from McDonald’s chapter, it seems as though commoners are not welcome into engaging and contributing to the public sphere of sociotechnical controversies. According to McDonald, “sociotechnical controversies, that is, those pertaining to society, science, and technology, seem to occupy a particularly important place in the contemporary public sphere and are the subject of numerous analyses in various disciplines, including rhetoric and the sociology of science and technology” (McDonald 201). With this in mind, ordinary citizens do not have the expertise required to engage in these controversies, even though they are, in fact, public spheres.

A specific branch of a controversy is discussed in David S. Kaufer’s “A Plan for Teaching the Development of Original Policy Arguments.” Here, he focuses on the stock issue. By his definition, stock issues are “points of disagreement that recur regularly when people deliberate on questions of justice or public policy” (Kaufer 57). These have plenty of public attention, as with today’s digital world and ease of getting information around, ordinary citizens can comment and respond to public platforms about these recurring issues. For example, with the police brutality uprisings in Ferguson, older issues of police brutality were easily brought up and made relevant again, or in other words, they are a stock issue.

I got a sense that these texts were, as a combination, not a controversy (ba dum tss) by McDonald’s definition of it, at the least. They agreed that ordinary citizens have a role and a right to participate in issues such as these. Both of the texts also conclude that public deliberation will not necessarily mean a resolution is found for the controversy or stock issue. Public deliberation allows debate to be further developed, and new points to be raised, however, it does not hold responsibility for creating a new, never-before-thought-of solution. Public sphere discussions hold a great deal of importance, but this does not mean it needs to find solutions.

                                                                  Works Cited

Kaufer, David S. "A Plan for Teaching the Development of Original Policy Arguments." College Composition and Communication. 35.1 (Feb. 1984): 57-70. Web. 

McDonald, James. "I Agree, But...Finding Alternatives to Controversial Projects Through Public Deliberation."Rhetoric and Public Deliberation. 199-217. Web. 

SciTech Blog Assignment

Is technology making our generation regress? There is no doubt that the question of “whether the constant and continuous development of technology at an unbelievable pace is hindering the human mind of its full capacities” is a hot topic amongst renowned scientists at the moment. Humans’ levels of intelligence have become increasingly scrutinized with the release of new technologies that make our daily tasks much easier, and thus, inevitably require less brainpower. It seems as though technology has changed our lives so much that completing the simplest of tasks without using it is a head-scratcher for the most of us. It is safe to say we are at the point of no return.

Simple tasks, such as getting from point A to point B without a GPS, or calculating the appropriate tip for a restaurant bill have become tasks we rely on technology to carry out for us, making our brains rather lethargic and activating them into inactive mode. It is a given that we are nowhere near as likely to even try to solve a math problem mentally as we are to pull out our phones, open up the calculator app, and have the solution at the palm of our hands in a heartbeat, without exerting a single joule of energy on our brains. But to what extent does this necessarily signify that we are becoming less intelligent as technology is on the rise, showing no sign of slowing down?

A classic but prominent example of this is the study that tests whether laptop note taking is more or less effective than traditional longhand note taking. Pam Mueller and Daniel Oppenheimer carried out a series of studies, in which they tested for the most effective method of taking notes, titled “The Pen Is Mightier Than the Keyboard: Advantages of Longhand OverLaptop Note Taking.”

The arguments in favor of laptop note taking, usually solely supported by students include the greater amount of information from a lecture that a student will be able to retain in writing, and the fact that typed work is often times considerably more organized than handwritten work. The arguments against laptop note taking include the idea that laptops are distracting, and generate shallower learning, as compared to physically writing out a piece of information, which requires further processing.

Both seem valid claims, but in the overall conclusions, laptop note taking was detrimental to learning as students who used it were inclined to write the lecture verbatim, instead of processing it, interpreting it for themselves, and rephrasing it in a way that worked for them, personally. Mueller and Oppenheimer’s conclusions were summarized as “we found that participants using laptops were more inclined to take verbatim notes than participants who wrote longhand, thus hurting learning.”

It is safe to say that in this particular case, technology is indeed affecting the way we learn negatively, making us regress, and making our generation significantly more lazy than previous ones who did not have access to as much technology as we do today.

A different angle to assess the question of technology debilitating us from completing the simplest tasks is that the abuse of technology, specifically focusing on the technology of notifications/automated alerts on smartphones, causes people to not take them seriously anymore. Instead of reaching the desired outcome of warning people of dangers such as weather hazards or criminals in the area, people end up becoming immune to that kind of notification and ignoring it the second they see “WARNING!!” or any other desperate attempt to capture people’s attentions.

An article by Jared Misner posted on The Chronicle of HigherEducation, titled “Too Many Campus Alerts?” tackles this issue precisely. There is no doubt that having technology that enabled these kind of alerts has had a positive effect on society. There are plenty of times where I would be unable to foresee a tornado were it not for the “tornado warning” message alerts I get from campus. However, the abuse of this kind of technology has caused the inverse of the desired outcome. A student interviewed in Misner’s article claimed that, “the idea behind them is that they’re for emergencies, but because a lot of the times it’s about ‘it could rain this afternoon or it might storm later,’ a lot of the time I just don’t care to read them.” A technology that was intended for progress and quick spreading of information might be causing us to regress due to overuse.

It seems as though these modern technologies are playing with the status quo, and the way it has always been done is no longer the way to do it. The school newspaper is shifting from producing printed copies thrice a week to being completely online. There is no doubt that this saves paper, labor, and resources, but does it reach as many people as it would if there were also printed copies circulating around campus? Are the benefits of these technologies enough to cover the opportunity cost of applying them?

There is as much debate being pushed forth for either sides of the issue. There is strict evidence to backup the idea that laptop note taking hinders learning, as students who took notes on a laptop scored significantly lower on conceptual-application questions. However, laptop note takers took more notes on average than those who did it by hand, and the students who took more notes tended to perform higher as well. It is not an exact science, and not a single conclusion can be applied to every individual.

Photo courtesy of Morguefiles

Analytical Reflection

Sci/Tech Blog Analytical Reflection

Though the composition of my blog in its entirety was a compilation of all the critical texts, examples and class discussion combined, the two texts I kept in mind constantly while writing it were “Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts,” by Jeanne Fahnestock and “Blogging: Digital Media and Society Series” by Jill Walker Rettburg.

Rettberg’s text discussed the fine line between blogging being considered a medium or a genre. She claims that “scholars have suggested that, rather than looking at the internet as a single medium, it makes more sense to consider different authoring software as providing different media” (Rettberg 32). She explains that the actual blog itself is the medium, however, what is written on the blog determines the genre of it. With that in mind, I intended for my text to be in the blog medium, evidently, and in a “science for the general public” genre. That is what I aimed for as I wrote it, and I attempted to make sure I satisfied those characteristics.

Furthermore, Fahnestock’s text about accommodating science to better fit the public sphere resonated with me as well. Fahnestock was much more lenient than the counter-part article we read, “Ecospeak: Rhetoric and Environmental Politics in America” by M. Jimmie Killingsworth and Jacqueline S. Palmer. Fahnestock claims that “the science accommodator is not telling an untruth; he [she] simply selects only the information that serves his [her] epideictic purpose” (Fahenstock). Thus, I chose to remember and apply her principles as I was writing my blog. I am not a scientist, or even a science-inclined person. With that said, I attempted to find a topic that I was comfortable and knowledgeable enough to speak about, without compromising my credibility to my audience.I believe I helped put things into perspective for a public audience, while not mimicking or simply reiterating the concepts I read about.

Grant-Davie’s article was crucial to the build up of my blog as well. I consistently asked myself what my exigence, constraints and audiences (all kinds) were, and if I was using the proper terminology and syntax to target the intended audience. "The rhetorical situation" as described and elaborated on by Grant Davie was the backbone of my post. At points I would stop and check if I could still identify the 5 constituents just by what I had already written down. 

The actual primary source I used was the main focus of my blog post. Although the source was a series of studies on whether taking notes on a laptop was more or less effective than by hand, I decided to broaden that topic as a whole, and adapt it to a more public sphere. In order to do this, I generalized it, as Fahnestock’s article claims tends to happen when adapting a scientific article. My new main idea was that technology is hindering our generation from learning, and that doing things manually has its benefits, despite the lack of convenience in doing them.

Works Cited

Fahnestock, Jeanne. "Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts." Sage Publications, 1986. Web. 25 Sept. 2014.

Grant-Davie, Keith. "Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents." Rhetoric Review, Spring, 1997. Web. 25 Sept. 2014.

Misner, Jared. "Too Many Campus Alerts? Officials Worry That Students Tune Them Out."The Chronicle of Higher Education. 19 Sept. 2014. Web. 25 Sept. 2014.

Mueller, Pam, and Daniel Oppenheimer. "The Pen Is Mightier Than the Keyboard: Advantages of Longhand Over Laptop Note Taking." Psychological Science. Sage Publications, 23 Apr. 2014. Web. 25 Sept. 2014.

                                          

Blogging as a Social Action

The combination of Carolyn R. Miller and Dawn Shepherd’s, “Blogging as a Social Action: A Genre Analysis of the Weblog” along with one of our class textbooks, “Blogging: Digital Media and Society Series” by Jill Walker Rettburg yielded a thorough reading on the history, controversies, and audiences of the “blogosphere.”

Rettberg’s text discussed the fine line between blogging being considered a medium or a genre. She claims that “scholars have suggested that, rather than looking at the internet as a single medium, it makes more sense to consider different authoring software as providing different media” (Rettberg 32). She explains that the actual blog itself is the medium, however, what is written on the blog determines the genre of it. There are many different kind of blogs. There are sci/tech blogs such as the Lehrer one we read in class; there a travel blogs; recipe blogs; and blogs that serve the purpose of a journal/diary, among other. However, this does not change the fact that they are all blogs alike, and what differs is the genre in which they fall under. I feel a similar concept applies to books. A novel, an autobiography or a collection of poems are all printed in the same medium: books. However, their genre differs depending on the content of each. “Almost across the board, bloggers seem to agree that content is the most important feature of a blog” (Miller, Shepherd).

Another important and groundbreaking component of blogging is the fact that now, nothing can seem unworthy of publishing. Your writing style does not need to necessarily fit to a publication’s style or needs for you to stand a chance of reaching an audience anymore. As Miller and Shepherd’s article claims, “these journalistic genres clearly require a public audience and usually seek as large an audience as possible, the rhetorical aim being to influence opinion or action” (Miller, Shepherd). I find the use of hashtags in blogging sites such as Tumblr or Wordpress to be very helpful when attempting to reach a specific target audience. For example, I am currently interning for a mens streetwear search engine online publication, and whenever I blog through the Wordpress platform, I include relevant hashtags such as #menswear, or #bomberjacket, depending on the post. People who search for these things on that platform are directed to my post, which is relevant to their needs. Blogging has broadened the horizons of journalism and changed the dynamics of it for good.

Blogs also give authors the freedom to express themselves the way they want, instead of tailoring their writing to fit. I have a friend who runs the blog of a fashion publication, and then has her own, private fashion blog. The differences are clear. In her work blog, she advertises clothing items that are “in” and new collections by worthy designers. Her tone is very formal and informational. In her personal fashion blog, however, her tone shifts entirely. She has a very grungy and modern style, and her tone is much more approachable and personal. She gives her writing her own twist, and has developed a loyal base of regular followers, too.

Miller, Carolyn R. and Dawn Shepherd. “Blogging as Social Action: A Genre Analysis of the Weblog.” Into the Blogosphere [Rhetoric, Community, and Culture of Weblogs]. North Carolina State University. Web. 14 September 2014. 

Rettburg, Jill Walker. Blogging: Digital Media and Society Series. Cambridge, 2014. Print. 

Is the accommodation of science for broader audiences ethically sound?

In response to Aubrey Burrough’s post in her blog, dis-course rules (http://aubreyburrough.blogspot.com/):

Is the accommodation of scientific texts for broader audiences in this way ethically sound? Is it an underestimation of the ability of people to read and understand science, or rather a sad truth?

Is it worth risking the validity of scientific texts in order to allow it to pertain to a mass audience? Or should scientific journalism cease to exist in the shadow of real data and reporting?

Both of these texts were written in the late 1980s. How has the accessibility of scientific information changed since then, primarily considering the widespread access to the internet?

After reading both “Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts,” by Jeanne Fahnestock and “Ecospeak: Rhetoric and Environmental Politics in America” by M. Jimmie Killingsworth and Jacqueline S. Palmer, I believe that the accommodation of purely scientific texts into the general public is not necessarily unethical. The adjusting of the information is carried out with the intent that it is better understood for those who are not familiar with such scientific terminology. Fahnestock also claims that “the science accommodator is not telling an untruth; he [she] simply selects only the information that serves his [her] epideictic purpose.” I am not sure how far I agree with this, though. Part of me leans towards the idea that telling half-truths is the equivalent of telling a half-lie. Killingsworth and Palmer’s text agrees. It claims that “glamming up scientific research implies that “science must solve human problems and thus must transcend its own version of objectivism worthy of being reported by the press.”

I am not sure of exactly where I stand in regards to the second question on the blog post. To a certain extent, I can see how it is worth it to manipulate scientific texts in order to get a mass audience on board with it. As not many people have a thorough knowledge of science, adjusting a scientific text for the mass audience can double, if not triple the amount of people who will be exposed to that information, and understand it. However, when I think of a topic that I know plenty about, and I think of, in a way, “dumbing it down” so that people who do not know as much as I do understand it, I feel like it is a rip off. There is just no way someone can fully understand say, the Arab-Israeli conflict, for instance, if someone were to accommodate it to a less interested and less knowledgeable audience. The audience ends up missing points that may be crucial to their understanding of the research. All in all, I do not believe I am in favor of this kind of accommodation.

Last, a lot has changed since the publication of these articles in the late 1980s. With the widespread and daily usage of the Internet, I believe these “for the general public” accommodations have become a bit dangerous. Because of the high accessibility to information, we encountered blogs such as the one we read by Lehrer, where research information was not “accommodated,” but completely distorted the information into false realities and untruthful information. As a wider audience is targeted, the validity of the information presented is put at risk.