We
will most likely spend the first few minutes of Tuesday's class
blogging in groups to prepare for our discussion of David Kaufer's "A
Plan for Teaching the Development of Original Policy Arguments" and James McDonald's "I Agree, But ...". In the interest of helping you prepare, I offer you some questions to guide your reading:
- McDonald will argue for a specific understanding of "citizenship" and a specific understanding of "deliberation" in order to put forward his theory of rhetorical engagement for the public sphere. As you read his chapter, keep track of the various characteristics and qualities that citizens and deliberation should have. It may help you to call these out in the margins as you read, or to construct a separate list; whatever you do, try to just call out or note the qualities and characteristics that make sense to you, as you navigate his intertext.
- Based on that list of qualities/characteristics you have compiled, why do you think McDonald selected Le Suroit (the gas-fired power plant) as a case study? In other words, in his discussion of Le Suroit (pp. 202-04), how do you see his expectations of "deliberation" or "citizenship" playing a role?
- McDonald articulates a method for analyzing public debates--his "inductive, rhetorical approach" (pp. 204-13). As you read through his case study, keep track of how this method works. In what ways is it similar to, or different from, Kaufer's "Levels of Policy Conflict Analysis" (pp. 62-69)? Consider all of the ways that these two analytical methodologies require something of their analyzers, and consider whether their assumptions about "deliberation," "citizen," "discourse," and even "rhetoric" might align or not align with each other.
- Ultimately, McDonald seems interested in preparing public citizens to deliberate better, while Kaufer seems interested in teaching the arts of developing policy arguments. Why does each of them write? In other words, what justification does each author provide why there is a need to deliberate better or construct more original policy arguments? Why, for Kaufer, are "stock issues" not enough? And why, for McDonald, are "anti-" positionings not enough?
- Of the terms we began defining last week--symbiosis, empathic, communality, embodiment, aesthetic sense--which one(s) seem(s) most relevant to each of these chapters we read for today? Why?
- Of the articles we read last sphere, which one(s) seem(s) most relevant to what you read for today? Why?
- Which one of Kaufer's "levels" of policy conflict (pp. 58-59) do you think best reflects McDonald's "accepting key opinions" (pp. 206-13)? Be willing to explain why using details from his case study.
Looking forward to our discussion,
--Prof. Graban
Questions 2/7
ReplyDeleteBased on that list of qualities/characteristics you have compiled, why do you think McDonald selected Le Suroit (the gas-fired power plant) as a case study? In other words, in his discussion of Le Suroit (pp. 202-04), how do you see his expectations of "deliberation" or "citizenship" playing a role?
We believe that McDonald picked Le Suroit as a case study because there were various different sides and values to take into consideration in order to come up with new solutions. Citizenship played a role in this case study because the topic affected the people of Quebec. His expectations of citizenship is to have the publics opinions heard and included in the conversation. His expectations of deliberation is that they may realize that while their motivations are the same as the speaker, their values and opinions may differ. For example, in McDonald’s essay, he states, “The opinion of pro-Suroit participations reguarding thermal energy changed little between the BAPE and Regie consultations. At the Regie, they still openly admitted that thermal engery was not their first choice but maintained that HQ had to use it because of the expected energy shortage. The acceptance of points made by anti-Suroit participants is explicit in this comment from Louis Charest, an independent citizen arguing for the Suroit: “For sure, it emits greenhouse gases. I don’t hide that. Between a third and a half of a fuel residue plant, so already it’s better than a fuel residue plant, or again between a third and a half of a coal-burning plant. For sure, if we compare the Suroit to a hydroelectric project, it emits more greenhouse gas emissions. That’s true.” (212)
Which one of Kaufer's "levels" of policy conflict (pp. 58-59) do you think best reflects McDonald's "accepting key opinions" (pp. 206-13)? Be willing to explain why using details from his case study.
Kaufer begins his way of teaching this subject by asking the question, what causes a policy conflict? This comes with what he calls five levels. “It is designed to help students arrive at their own policy arguments once they have carefully assessed the arguments of others” (Kaufer 58). The levels provide different ways for a student to look at this policy and decide whether they agree with it or not. The first two levels ask if there was a misunderstanding on the frame or reference of certain statements. The third level asks if the article has conflicting evidence. The last two levels ask if the article has conflicting local or global values. After both sides of the argument is read, the students can then use these levels to develop their own argument about the topic. By knowing both sides of the argument and having these levels to decide what way their argument will go, students can then form a hypothesis that they can easily validate or contradict. I believe that McDonald’s Wind Energy section most relates to having conflicting evidence. McDonald explains that, “it can seem paradoxical that HQ, which was promoting natural gas plant, voiced no objection to a green energy source that many consider a better alterative” (McDonald 206).
Cheyanne Dunn
Samantha Ennis
Mary-Alice Skidmore
Jana Haith and Katherine Ruggiero
ReplyDelete3) Kaufer thinks you should approach the topic depending on the level of conflict, whereas McDonald says to accept key points from adversaries. That confrontation is argued through a single process. 6) Grant-Davie spoke a lot about constraints which we believe applies to these current readings. He also speaks about change being inacted by discourse which follows what McDonald says about confrontation-that it should be argued in a "process of deliberation."
Christina Morgan
ReplyDeleteKaylah Jackson
Donald DeBevoise
3. McDonald both in a sense agree parties must acknowledge the other's argument. McDonald says "I focus on the most influential one, accepting the opposing parties key opinions." Kaufer's pedagogy is centered on assessing and dissecting the opponents argument.
Kaufer and McDonald seem to have similar definitions of many terms, but with "citizen" McDonald is much broader while Kaufer has a narrowed idea, focusing on students as "citizens". Kaufer's definition of "rhetoric" involves recognizing that there is another argument. McDonald, on the other hand, says rhetoric should not only recognize the argument, but the rhetors should bond over the differences in their argument which leads to deeper discussion.
7. Miller and Shepherd's Blogging As Social Action is an article that seems relevant to today's readings. McDonald says "individuals become citizens by discursively and thus rhetorically engaging one another in the public sphere" (199), reflecting the notion of ordinary persons entering discussions as "citizen journalists".
2. McDonald selected Le Suroit as a case study because citizens participated actively and public opinion surveys showed that 67% of citizens were against it, causing the government to abandon the project. “This case has all the characteristics of a sociotechnical controversy,” and it has been subject to two public deliberation forums. There was “fierce opposition.” Public deliberation facilitates the development of new alternatives because you can point out the key points that both sides agree on; it creates a happy medium, without taking one side or the other.
ReplyDelete7. Kaufer’s level 3 of policy conflict, we each give decisive weight to different evidence, best reflects McDonald’s “accepting key opinions” section because the arguments made about wind energy were accepted by the pro-Suroit side, but not given as much weight as their movement for the natural gas-powered plant.
-Daniella Abinum, Ashley Natareno, Caitlin Lang, Jordy Herbst
McDonald writes his essay to educate the public on how to better deliberate when faced with opposing views. He emphasizes that deliberation should not be to consolidate different standpoints, but rather to learn from others and broaden one’s perspectives and knowledge (200).
ReplyDeleteKaufer writes to teach students how to properly write public policy. He also writes to explain his own writing and problem-solving process.
Why are stock issues not enough? (K)
“Anti-” positions do not supply alternative solutions. It’s like when deciding where to go for dinner and only listing what you DON’T want. While standing by your anti- position, you close yourself off to really hearing and understanding others’ points of view. Instead of learning you deny yourself the knowledge provided by the experts.
5. McDonald’s piece relates to communality—bringing all different people and perspectives into one forum. Kaufer discusses how to write which directly references our definition of aesthetic sense.
Lindsey M.
Despie B.
Elana P.
2. It is clear that McDonald chose the "Le Suroit" case study in order to express the roles that deliberation and citizenship play within these circumstances. The "La Suroit" case study clearly expresses deliberation because the study makes it clear that the resolution to the issue presented resulted from the juxtaposition of the two parties' viewpoints. Not only was a new understanding formed from the opposition of each adversary, but there was also concern with the public affected by this issue. McDonald states that "the use of this practice in a public consultation is interesting because we can question whether it is simply a strategy or a manifestation of the constitutive power of public deliberation." So, McDonald uses this case study as an example of public deliberation because it plays an immediate role in resolving the issue involved within the study.
ReplyDelete7. Based on Kaufer's levels of conflict, this case study falls within levels 3 and 4. This is because the study involves the conflicting evidence between available clean energy sources and a natural gas plant being constructed; however, it also falls within level 4, since the conflict holds local values.
-Gabriella Rosales and Sawyer Vanderwerff
3. Kaufer wanted to experience the joy of the argument and breaks down his steps into , his work also seems more educational and is designed for a large classroom. The levels could also be applied in a political section, but it would take forever.
ReplyDeleteMcDonald's was more logical, wanted to learn something. McDonald's is more realistic and is to be used in political debate. It is too quick and succint to use in a classroom and engage in a learning experience.
6. We feel that Kaufer's paper was the most relevant to what we had read previously in class due to its explanation as to the relevancy of presenting information through discourse. As Grant-Davie phrases it, Attorneys do the same kind of thing in a courtroom, trying to induce the jury to see the case in terms of issues that favor their client. Granted, these examples all represent traditional, manipulative rhetoric-the verbal equivalent of a physical contest-but I believe the same principle is critical to the success of the kind of ethical argument Theresa Enos describes, where the aim is not victory over the opponent but a state of identification, where writer and reader are able to meet in the audience identity the writer has created
within the discourse (106-08) Two people have to consider both their situations and argue to find a middle ground. Kaufer's works is more concentrated on finding a solution for the argument than the joy of debate, as McDonald is.
Allyn Farach
Osmar Tovar
(From Summer, Alex, Melissa:)
ReplyDelete. For kaufer, stock issues weren’t enough because it was only looking at the basic levels of the causes of policy conflict. He wanted the arguer to look deeper into it, at the values held by differing audiences and how the rhetor would tailor the argument for those audiences. For McDonald, the anti-position isn’t enough because it presents a narrow point of view. Rather, he pushes the debtor to understand and accept the key opinions of the opposing party. In essence, he wanted the rhetor to identify with the opposing party, show what they have in common, and through that explain why one method or solution is better than the other.
5. Commonality and the empathic sense were used especially with McDonald and his perspective of using the key opinions of both parties. He emphasized how the argument cannot be one-sided, but must include the shared ideas of the opposing parties. Kaufer mostly stayed within the realm of embodiment by strictly sticking to the role of his students and their building of a policy argument. He gave his opinions and argument through the narrative of what he taught his students about the different levels of discourse.
-Melissa, Summer, and Alex