Discard Culture

Assignment: mapping controversies

The main assignment for this course is to map a controversy associated in some way with the notion of discard culture. The notion of 'controversy' has a technical meaning for this assignment. It refers to a situation composed of a public dispute over the solidity of facts, especially--but not exclusively--amongst experts themselves. 'Public' also takes on a technical meaning in this assignment. It refers to a diverse collection of people sparked into being by the emergence of a complex issue with which they are  concerned, but which existing institutions (e.g., governments, markets, laws) seem to be failing to solve.

Mapping controversies is a way to analyze controversies.  Analysis is not the same as explanation. Analysis is the detailed and methodical examination through observation and description of the elements of some phenomenon, typically as a basis for discussion and interpretation. Explanation--determining the cause(s) of a phenomenon--might be a goal of analysis, but it need not necessarily be so. Mapping controversies is a methodical approach to observing and describing, not a single method or even suite of methods for doing so. A controversy map attempts to develop and foster an equitable representation of a controversy. Technically, such a representation is referred to as second-degree objectivity.

There are different ways one might initiate a controversy map, but one good way is to select a publicly available statement that is cited as fact and attributed to some authority or other. Scanning news headlines and stories is a fine place to start. You can find a large collection of such stories aggregated into an online magazine I keep updated called Reassembling Rubbish or find your own from another source:
View my Flipboard Magazine.

The overall assignment is broken down into several movements described in detail below. The concept of movement has a technical meaning here. Controversies are, almost by definition, situations in motion. They change and evolve. So mapping a controversy must also try to keep up with that motion (or as Donna Haraway might say, 'stick with the trouble').

The final assembly of your project is to take place within the Scalar environment. As a first step, you need to sign up with Scalar. Please use your real name so that authorship can be properly attributed to you. Be sure to consult the page Resources for Mapping Controversies for a non-exhaustive list of tools for assembling your controversy map.

Choose a good controversy by finding a statement

Finding a controversy can be quite easy. News media are often a good place to start. You may find the online magazine that I curate is a helpful source of potential controversies to follow (see Reassembling Rubbish). You might consult the blog Discard Studies and its links. Other starting points are possible.

Though there is no single way to begin following a controversy, one useful approach is to find and follow a statement. Like 'controversy' and 'public', 'statement' also has a technical meaning in this assignment. A statement is any chunk of text, image, audio snippet [e.g., from a media broadcast] or figure [e.g., a statistic quoted in a newspaper] that claims to be a fact in a given controversy. Here are some examples of statements that relate to the issue of hydrologic fracturing ('fracking'):

Text example:
"Fracking doesn't cause groundwater contamination." Source: http://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-yet-another-study-shows-fracking-doesnt-contaminate-groundwater

Image example:

Source: http://truthhugger.com/2012/02/23/the-earth-is-flat-and-fracking-is-safe/

Figure example:
"In ocean transport of oil, only 0.00007% of the volume is released on average (including large spill years). Since gas extraction violation reports do not include volumes, it is not currently possible to answer the question: are surface releases  associated with hydraulic fracturing any worse than other fuel technologies on which we rely?" [The figure is the reference to 0.00007%] Source: https://theconversation.com/hydraulic-fracturing-components-in-marcellus-groundwater-likely-from-surface-operations-not-wells-48873

Audio example:
"...there's an orange goo...it's iron oxide. It's a result of chemical reaction between microbes in the sediment and contamination..." Source: http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-11-18/fracking-booms-waste-spills-rise-and-so-do-arsenic-levels-groundwater [at approximately 01:25 of story].

Choosing a good controversy requires some careful consideration. Your guide here is Tommaso Venturini's 2010 paper, Diving into Magma. See especially Section 5, "Choosing a good controversy". In brief, it is best to choose a controversy-in-action, that is, one that is ongoing. Be cautious about choosing a controversy with bounds that exceed the time and capacity you have to devote to this project. For example, mapping a controversy about converting waste to energy (WTE) is a gigantic topic. On the other hand, mapping a controversy about a specific WTE facility planned to be sited in a specific community is much more doable. A specific instance of a good controversy will always attach to many things beyond it. Expect to delve into the scientific and technical facets of the controversy. For example, a specific WTE facility may be protested by a community because of concerns about emissions. What are the debates in the technical and scientific literature associated with the particular emissions control technology relevant to this WTE facility?

Below are five moves to make when mapping your controversy.

1: Move from statements to debates (What is the controversy is about?)

An argument can't occur without at least some shared terms, concepts, notions, and the like. Such elements may not be limited to words. For example, climatologists and climate change deniers disagree vehemently over issues like whether the Earth's climate is changing and if human activity is responsible for it. But, both climatologists and deniers agree on what temperature is and that it can be measured using some form of device--but they might also disagree vehemently on what the best way to measure temperature is and using what device. No matter what specific controversy you choose to follow, a core research question guiding your analysis should be: What do the experts themselves disagree about? Answering that question will help you identify the key terms of debate in the controversy. These are terms that you judge to be relevant for an interpreter of your controversy map who will be reading it without the benefit of  all the research you will do to create that map. You need to keep track of the terms of the debate in lists (e.g., of keywords, documents, images).

There are two subsections to this move, both of which can be pursued in tandem. First, imagine yourself doing what a lot of people do when they hear about this or that controversy--they 'ask the Internet'. To generate a controversy map you need to have some data to work with. One way to generate the needed data is to collect it from Internet searches using the terms relevant to a given statement you are following. For example, in the text example above about fracking I might perform an Internet search of the terms 'fracking', 'groundwater', and 'contamination' and see what turns up. There are some technical details to consider that we will discuss in class, but for now stick with the latter example. No doubt such a search would return thousands if not millions of results. Obviously, that is way too much potential data to include. One way to reduce this overwhelming flood of potential data is to make an analytical decision to include only the results from the first 1 - 2 (or 7 or 67) pages of results or the first 20, 25, 50 ...or 100 (or 237) links resulting from such a search. These cut-offs are arbitrary for sure, but the point of controversy mapping is not necessarily exhaustiveness (just make your own analytical judgements explicit in your controversy map i.e., how did you 'cut off' data collection and why did you choose this or that 'cut off'). Instead the point is to determine what the debates about a given issue might look like to someone who initially knows nothing about them, but is interested in the issue enough to, as it were, 'give it The Google' (or 'The Wikipedia', etc). There may be individuals out there with the time and wherewithal to exhaustively search through all publicly available material on the Internet about a given issue. Most people will not be in such a position. You need to develop a data collection protocol that deals with this reality of being a member of a public with access to the Internet.

The second subsection of this movement is in some ways MUCH easier to deal with: collecting scientific and technical (or 'scholarly') literature associated with your controversy. To carry on with the example of fracking, how is the issue of fracking and ground water contamination being discussed in peer-reviewed literature?  Two key databases for such literature are Scopus and Web of Science, both of which are available via Memorial University Libraries website.

Scholarly literature can be dauntingly complex, but there are tools you can use to help you parse the literature and make sense of it. Such tools are part of the Scopus and Web of Science databases. You may also find the tools available at ScienceScape can be put to good use.

Possible tools: basic spreadsheet or word processor, WikiMindMap, WikiWash, concept mapping software, paper file or notebook, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceScape, Zotero (see Resources page)

 

2: Move from debates to actors (Who makes what statements?)

Who are the participants in the controversy you have chosen to follow? For example, in a newspaper article who does the journalist cite in the story? Is anyone described as an 'expert' of some kind? If so, who is that person and what, if anything, grants her or him authority as an expert? Pay attention to individual people as well as groups or organizations (e.g., government bodies, corporations, NGOs). All of these may be actors that are relevant to the controversy.

As in the first movement, you need to begin by keeping lists of relevant actors. The final version of your controversy map needs to offer an analytical narrative about the actors relevant to your controversy that is useful and comprehensible to a reader of your map.

Possible tools: basic spreadsheet or word processor software, paper file or notebook.

 

3: Move from actors to networks (How are various statements and the actors who make them linked together?)

In the first and second moves above you will have generated lists of statements and actors. The third move is to illustrate how those statements and actors are connected together. In the technical and scientific literature, this is a relatively straightforward task of citation analysis (who cites who). Outside the technical and scientific literature in the 'websphere', this is a bit more involved.  Who is connected to whom and saying what about the controversy? Where are there gaps in connections? In other words, are some parts of the controversy happening only within or between certain groups of actors and not others? Do certain actors act as 'bridges' between different parts of the controversy? What is the shape of your controversy (and how might you illustrate that)? 

Possible tools: Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceScape, Google's 'Search Operators', Navicrawler, NodeXL, Gephi, illustration software (see Resources page).


4: Move from networks to locations (Where are various statements and actors located and where do they operate?)

In this component of your controversy map you need to develop a cartography of your controversy. Essentially, you are tying the network(s) you developed in the third movement to actual geographies. For example, let's say one of your actors is a scientist that makes claims about the hazardousness of a endocrine disruptors in the environment derived from plastic waste. Where does that scientist actually work? Is her research based on fieldwork? If so, where? Where are the publishing outlets (e.g., journals) she publishes in actually located? Consider another example: a corporation is accused of dumping toxic waste somewhere. Who makes the allegation? Where is that person or organization located? Where is the company accused of the crime located (i.e., where are its head offices and/or regional offices)? Where did the event in question take place? In short, tie your controversy down to the actual geographies it inhabits. Once you have done so, you will want to provide an analytical narrative about these geographies for your readers (in other words, don't expect the map(s) you create to simply speak for themselves).

Possible tools: Google Search, Google Trends, Scalar's Google Map template, Google Map, Story Maps (see Resources page).

 

5: Move from locations to timelines (How has a controversy shifted over time?)

Controversies are not static. Nor do they develop in the absence of history. When can the controversy you are following properly be said to emerge? Once it has emerged as a public dispute, how has the controversy changed over time? For example, have new sets of terms been added to the debate over time? If so, when did those terms become relevant and by whom? Have the actors in the controversy changed over time? For example have new groups or individuals come into the controversy since it first flared up?

If the previous movement was about developing an analytical narrative about the spatiality of your controversy, this movement asks you to develop an analytical narrative about the temporality of your controversy. Scalar provides a couple of different built-in options for doing this.
 

What does an assembled controversy map look like?

What follows are two examples of controversy maps. Both of these can be consulted as possible models or inspiration for how you might approach your own. The first is one a work in progress I have been developing for my own research called "E-waste: Mapping a Controversy".

The second one is a highly polished controversy map focused on hydraulic fracturing ('fracking'). This example gives you a sense of what is possible with controversy mapping, but keep in mind that it was created by a team of graduate students working together.
 
Open publication - Free publishing


Here is another controversy map approach on climate change. Note this is a highly polished and professional version produced by multiple contributors.
 

Basic requirements for your controversy map

The examples of controversy maps given above should give you a sense of the possibilities. This assignment encourages creativity. It has some elements similar to an academic paper or essay, but asks you to perform an analysis in quite different ways. Here are the basics that your map should achieve:

How your controversy map will be evaluated

Each movement of your map will be graded out of 10. Your final overall map will also be graded out of 10. Keep in mind the following grade descriptions as you ready your map for evaluation:

A (80–100%) An excellent assignment in most respects: evidence of extensive knowledge and understanding; evidence of substantial reading and study beyond the course content; well organized, sharply focused and well balanced; contains good insights and some originality; comprehensive grasp of course material, breadth and depth of outside reading; consideration of almost all the salient points; very good ability to analyse, synthesize and evaluate the relevant material.

B (65-79%) A good assignment: well argued; evidence of reading beyond assigned class material, solid knowledge and understanding of relevant course material; covers most of the relevant points in satisfactory depth; demonstrates attention to the questions at hand; well-structured arguments; lacks the originality and insights of a first-class assignment.

C (55-64%) An adequate assignment: shows some knowledge and understanding of course content; little or no evidence of outside reading beyond assigned and required sources; contains errors or omissions; focus wanders from the questions at hand; weak use of examples and weak organization.

D (50-54%) A weak assignment: shows limited knowledge and understanding of the topic; may contain errors and omissions; attempts to answer the question but misses important points; poor use of examples and poor organization; may lack focus, be poorly written, short or incomplete; shows very little evidence of background reading; may seriously misinterpret or avoid the topics at hand.

F (<50 %) A very poor assignment: inadequate, possibly a very short assignment with little material of relevance to the topics covered and possibly also serious errors and omissions.
 

This page has paths:

This page references: