Question: How does conducting research on the Internet impact the ways that researchers must deal with human subjects?
The breadth of technologies that comprise the Internet and the global potentiality of the audience bring challenges to the traditional norms of social research involving human subjects. New mediums and contexts for communicative events expand the possibilities for research while engendering questions about the potential such research has to bring harm to subjects.
In one sense, the Internet opens new “ways” (approaches) to conduct research. The SBR course presented a list of new or expanded approaches to social research dealing with human subjects that included: (1) allowing surveys to be conducted without the cost of mailing, (2) expanding the pool of research subjects beyond the local community, (3) introducing new frames of reference to study personal and group communications (e.g. e-mail and social networking sites), and (4) providing the opportunity to observe human communicative processes in a new culture (the Internet).
With these opportunities, researchers are faced with technical, legal, and ethical questions concerning the “way” they deal with subjects and the methods they use to obtain, protect, and present research data on the Internet. A non-inclusive summary of the issues peculiar to Internet-based research is presented below.
1. Questions of Public Versus Private
Many people would say that the observance of an online community is the same as viewing a public event (the behavior of a group is being observed). If this view of “public” implies that no aspect of individual behavior is identified and quantified in the research, is it even research? If the answer is no, the reverse implication is that social research involving human subjects communicating through the technologies on the Internet (including images, videos, and audio recordings) will always involve the subject of privacy. The determination of the expectation of privacy of participants in a communicative situation and the potential for harm from research are the major concerns.
Some researchers may consider information public (available for examination without prior consent) unless access to the communications is limited by password or invitation. This view seems to have some merit in that limited access could imply the expectation of a certain degree of privacy by the participants. This presumed expectation could guide the actions of the researcher as they attempt to define the potential for harm from research.
2. Questions of Autonomy
Diminished autonomy is a principle by which research is limited or disallowed by application of criteria of age (before the age of consent) or capacity (diminished physical or mental capacity limiting certain social interactions). Verification of questions of autonomy is typically not possible in many areas of Internet communications. Therefore, this principle seems to limit observations to postings of individuals who have given the researcher personal consent or to cases where consent has been obtained from a guardian. Personally, I question the observance of individuals who are limited in technical knowledge to the degree that they do not comprehend that very few “conversations” on the Internet are private.
3. Questions of Determining Identity
Research reports may attempt to protect the identity of individuals by using pseudonyms to associate research data with a subject. Search engines have the potential of invalidating this methodology. Depending on how the data is gathered and presented, a search could identify the subject (e.g. an unidentified subject is quoted in a research report and the text can be found in its original context by a web search).
Users are often identified by “screen names” on social sites. In such cases, the researcher is faced with the question of whether the data from the source actually represents a member of the research population. Since identity theft is common in the digital age, the argument could be made that no method of communication on the Internet can guarantee that the sender is actually the person that is being represented.
4. Questions of Preserving Privacy and Confidentiality
If a subject responds to a researcher with personal data via E-Mail, there can be questions of security of the data on the sending computer, during the transmission of the data to and from a server, and on the receiving computer. On-line questionnaires can also be vulnerable due to the presence of malicious software on the user computer or due to hacker attacks on the host system. Vulnerability of data storage is another issue that must be addressed by the researcher. Data encryption is one method of addressing such questions.
5. Questions of Research Design
Computer-based response forms used in research (when the subject and data are correlated) must allow a subject to exit the “test” at any time, must not force the respondent to answer every question, and must destroy any data from an abandoned test. This is a matter of respect.
6. Questions of Creating Unwanted or False Association
If a researcher uses a group E-Mail to solicit subjects from a population for research on a socially sensitive subject, some recipients of the mailing may feel stigmatized by their inclusion in the mailing. Any anomaly in the research process that has the potentiality of identifying an individual in relation to a group (as belonging or not belonging) must be eliminated if the association or disassociation could cause harm.
7. Questions of Consent, Knowledge, and Comprehension
In low risk cases, the intent and methods of research may be explained to potential subjects on a website. Volunteers for the study could acknowledge their consent to the research process by following a link to the test page(s). When the life style of a participant could be at risk from the disclosure of research data or a participant could be at risk of psychological distress from participation in a test, more stringent methods are needed to explain the research procedures and document consent. It would seem appropriate that the methodology of the process and the nature of questions should be explained to the individual by a secure method (fax may be the best method). There must be a mechanism to test the user’s comprehension of the information and a method to ensure that the person can legally give consent and is the one giving the consent.
8. Questions of Ownership
There are varying opinions on the ownership of materials presented on the Internet. Is an image displayed on a social-networking site the property of the person that posted it? If this were the case, it would also seem that the creative thoughts expressed in a blog are in the same realm of relationship. Though it may be errant, this thought pattern would suggest that the publication of a portion of the contents from a blog or an image from an individual’s site in a research document without full citation would be an infringement of ownership rights. If this were the case, would the need for documentation of rightful ownership and the need for anonymity ever collide in research?
Such questions (except for the mental wanderings of number eight) are representative of the issues that are part of the assessment process that a researcher must undertake to ensure that he or she adequately and ethically protects the rights, autonomy, and privacy of a subject and does not inflict harm to their person or their lifestyle. Truly, the answers to these questions appear to me to be difficult to resolve with any degree of universal validity. I was able to find documents that attempted to address these issues on the websites of universities and professional associations. They exhibited the type and extent of thought that is necessary to define even the most rudimentary guidelines for social research involving human subjects on the Internet.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Friday, January 30, 2009
Entry Week 4
The readings for week four presented research methodology from both a broad and a focused perspective. Kirsch reviewed the diversity of research methodologies found in composition studies and rhetoric and discussed the basic assumptions underlying the research traditions that form this “pluralism.” The selections from Morgan and Goubil-Gambreal classified the types of methodologies used in communications research and described the elements and process of each type. Williams presented a “simplified” view of statistics as applied in communications research. The selection from Lauer and Asher detailed the process of measurement. These texts provided the basis for the answers to the following three questions on composition research.
_______________________________________________________
What distinguishes Quantitative research from Qualitative research?
In the broadest sense, research is engendered by a problem that informs research questions and research designs are strategies to develop knowledge that will address those questions. Kirsch presents the view (from Stephen North) that "any research method" is based on different "epistemological assumptions" about “the nature of knowledge, truth, and reality” (p. 254). In this sense, the research method could be said to frame both the process and the conclusions in a particular view of reality. In general, quantitative research views an unchanging reality (positivist, modern) and qualitative research views a socially constructed world that is always in a state of change (premodern, traditional) (Goubil, p. 590).
Even though quantitative research and qualitative research are both empirical methodologies based on “a systematic examination of contemporary phenomenon,” the focus of the former is on “outcomes or effects” and the focus of the later is on “process and description” (Morgan, p. 25). The purposes derived from these contrasting foci can be described as establishing cause/effect relationships versus identifying key variables in a situation (though the process of description) (Goubil, p.582).
In addition to contrasts in focus and purpose, the two research paradigms differ in their relationship to theory. In qualitative research, communications theory can give insight into what are considered important areas for research, can provide a perspective from which to view problems, and can inform decisions on what data should be collected and how it should be classified and organized for interpretation (Morgan, p. 33). Though still important, the role of theory in quantitative research differs in that can help guide the formulation of the research question and help determine the research hypothesis (Morgan, p. 37). Quantitative research is “hypothesis-driven” (Goubil, p.586).
From a practical point of view, research designs can be differentiated by methodology. Quantitative research begins with the quantification of variables that can be related by factors that can be tested. Subjects are randomly selected (this is qualified in quasi-experiments) for control and treatment groups and a treatment is applied to the later in a controlled environment. Treatment results are measured and then analyzed through statistical methods to determine if cause and effect relationships exist (Goubil, pp. 584-586).
In contrast, qualitative research “does not attempt to isolate variables to determine how the interact,” does not randomly select subjects, does not create control groups, and does not apply treatments. The methodology centers on the selection of purposeful samples of subjects that are observed in a natural environment in an attempt to identify “salient features” through various “data-collection techniques and data-analysis strategies.” The researcher is related to the data as a “participant-observer.” This involvement in the testing procedure contrasts sharply with the measurement-based relationship in quantitative research (Goubil, p.588).
______________________________________________________
What is the difference in validity and reliability?
Validity and reliability are key concepts in evaluating quantitative research methodology and, as such, they impact on the conclusions that can be drawn from the research. First of all, each evaluates the accuracy of a certain aspect of the measurement system. Validity evaluates against an outside standard and reliability evaluates a measure by comparison to itself (Williams, p. 23). Goubil-Gambrell states that reliability “refers to whether the experiment precisely measures a single dimension of human ability.” In contrast, validity questions whether an experiment “actually measures what it says it would measure.” (p. 588).
Williams states that validity is a question of the truth of a measurement. It is a measure of how the defined “characteristics of a phenomenon” relate to what the researcher states is the concept (variable) under study. The author presents an example of a scale of one to seven designed to measure the attitude of the respondents. The question of the validity of the scale is whether or not it actually measures attitude (p. 22). Experiments are required to have both internal and external validity. The first type verifies that the difference in the dependent variable is the result of the independent variable (as in the example above). External validity means that the results can be generalized to other “groups and environments.” (Goubil, p.588)
Reliability looks at the levels of agreement or disagreement in measurement instruments or observations. Reliability is therefore a test of consistency. It asks, “If the conditions of the original test were replicated, would the results of another test be the same?” (Williams, pp. 22-23). A linear scale from -1 to 0 to 1 is used to define the degree of consistency in independent observations or measurements in terms of a correlation coefficient (a statistic denoted as r). A reliability coefficient of .00 would indicate no linear relationship (no agreement in independent observations) and an r-value of 1 would indicate a perfect linear relationship (absolute agreement in independent observations) (Lauer and Asher, pp.134-145).
Three types of reliability can be tested. Equivalency compares the scores and the statistical relationships of two tests given to the same population sample (Are the two tests comparable?). Stability compares the relationship of scores of the same test from the same population sample at different periods of time. Internal consistency evaluates the precision of the measurement system (observation or instrument) by focusing on the individual elements of a test (Lauer and Asher, pp.134-145).
If I understand the concepts of Lauer and Asher, it can be stated that a research design would yield invalid results if it introduces variables that measure characteristics (behaviors, skills, knowledge, etc.) or introduces elements (such as time) that are not part of the theory of composition under evaluation. The authors also state that the components of composition theory are based on social consensus and that theory is almost always in flux. This leads to the fact that “questions of validity of can never be fully resolved” (pp. 140-141).
When compared by their interrelationship, a measurement can be reliable (consistent) without being valid (a “true” measure of a variable). Conversely, a measurement that has a degree of validity implies some measure of reliability.
________________________________________________________
What is meant by probability and significance?
Probability and significance are terms that are used in ”a type of decision procedure which incorporates reasoning with statistics” (Williams, p. 55). This procedure (hypothesis testing) involves the development of a research hypothesis and a null hypothesis. The former states that the relationships or differences among phenomena that the researcher will test in the research design do exist. Since scientific theory repudiates that statements can be made about the real world with absolute certainty, the researcher defines another (null) hypothesis that is the logical alternative to the first statement—the relationships or differences do not exist. (In other words, the null hypothesis states the probability that the existence of any statistical relationships or differences is due to chance) (Williams, p.55-61).
The level of probability that is set by the researcher as one that is sufficiently low to reject the null hypothesis can also be called the ”rejection region” or “significance level” and is often denoted as p (probability). If the rejection region is set at a probability value of less than .05, the mathematical statement would be p < .05. If the statistical analysis reveals that the calculated probability falls within this region, the null hypothesis is rejected and, in turn, the research hypothesis is accepted. “Significance” is a term that denotes an outcome that rejects the null hypothesis. A determination of significance allows the researcher to say that the relationships or differences that are reported are “statistically significant” (Williams, p.55-61).
In the context of hypothesis testing, probability defines the basis for rejecting the null hypothesis and significance denotes the proof of rejection,
_______________________________________________________
What distinguishes Quantitative research from Qualitative research?
In the broadest sense, research is engendered by a problem that informs research questions and research designs are strategies to develop knowledge that will address those questions. Kirsch presents the view (from Stephen North) that "any research method" is based on different "epistemological assumptions" about “the nature of knowledge, truth, and reality” (p. 254). In this sense, the research method could be said to frame both the process and the conclusions in a particular view of reality. In general, quantitative research views an unchanging reality (positivist, modern) and qualitative research views a socially constructed world that is always in a state of change (premodern, traditional) (Goubil, p. 590).
Even though quantitative research and qualitative research are both empirical methodologies based on “a systematic examination of contemporary phenomenon,” the focus of the former is on “outcomes or effects” and the focus of the later is on “process and description” (Morgan, p. 25). The purposes derived from these contrasting foci can be described as establishing cause/effect relationships versus identifying key variables in a situation (though the process of description) (Goubil, p.582).
In addition to contrasts in focus and purpose, the two research paradigms differ in their relationship to theory. In qualitative research, communications theory can give insight into what are considered important areas for research, can provide a perspective from which to view problems, and can inform decisions on what data should be collected and how it should be classified and organized for interpretation (Morgan, p. 33). Though still important, the role of theory in quantitative research differs in that can help guide the formulation of the research question and help determine the research hypothesis (Morgan, p. 37). Quantitative research is “hypothesis-driven” (Goubil, p.586).
From a practical point of view, research designs can be differentiated by methodology. Quantitative research begins with the quantification of variables that can be related by factors that can be tested. Subjects are randomly selected (this is qualified in quasi-experiments) for control and treatment groups and a treatment is applied to the later in a controlled environment. Treatment results are measured and then analyzed through statistical methods to determine if cause and effect relationships exist (Goubil, pp. 584-586).
In contrast, qualitative research “does not attempt to isolate variables to determine how the interact,” does not randomly select subjects, does not create control groups, and does not apply treatments. The methodology centers on the selection of purposeful samples of subjects that are observed in a natural environment in an attempt to identify “salient features” through various “data-collection techniques and data-analysis strategies.” The researcher is related to the data as a “participant-observer.” This involvement in the testing procedure contrasts sharply with the measurement-based relationship in quantitative research (Goubil, p.588).
______________________________________________________
What is the difference in validity and reliability?
Validity and reliability are key concepts in evaluating quantitative research methodology and, as such, they impact on the conclusions that can be drawn from the research. First of all, each evaluates the accuracy of a certain aspect of the measurement system. Validity evaluates against an outside standard and reliability evaluates a measure by comparison to itself (Williams, p. 23). Goubil-Gambrell states that reliability “refers to whether the experiment precisely measures a single dimension of human ability.” In contrast, validity questions whether an experiment “actually measures what it says it would measure.” (p. 588).
Williams states that validity is a question of the truth of a measurement. It is a measure of how the defined “characteristics of a phenomenon” relate to what the researcher states is the concept (variable) under study. The author presents an example of a scale of one to seven designed to measure the attitude of the respondents. The question of the validity of the scale is whether or not it actually measures attitude (p. 22). Experiments are required to have both internal and external validity. The first type verifies that the difference in the dependent variable is the result of the independent variable (as in the example above). External validity means that the results can be generalized to other “groups and environments.” (Goubil, p.588)
Reliability looks at the levels of agreement or disagreement in measurement instruments or observations. Reliability is therefore a test of consistency. It asks, “If the conditions of the original test were replicated, would the results of another test be the same?” (Williams, pp. 22-23). A linear scale from -1 to 0 to 1 is used to define the degree of consistency in independent observations or measurements in terms of a correlation coefficient (a statistic denoted as r). A reliability coefficient of .00 would indicate no linear relationship (no agreement in independent observations) and an r-value of 1 would indicate a perfect linear relationship (absolute agreement in independent observations) (Lauer and Asher, pp.134-145).
Three types of reliability can be tested. Equivalency compares the scores and the statistical relationships of two tests given to the same population sample (Are the two tests comparable?). Stability compares the relationship of scores of the same test from the same population sample at different periods of time. Internal consistency evaluates the precision of the measurement system (observation or instrument) by focusing on the individual elements of a test (Lauer and Asher, pp.134-145).
If I understand the concepts of Lauer and Asher, it can be stated that a research design would yield invalid results if it introduces variables that measure characteristics (behaviors, skills, knowledge, etc.) or introduces elements (such as time) that are not part of the theory of composition under evaluation. The authors also state that the components of composition theory are based on social consensus and that theory is almost always in flux. This leads to the fact that “questions of validity of can never be fully resolved” (pp. 140-141).
When compared by their interrelationship, a measurement can be reliable (consistent) without being valid (a “true” measure of a variable). Conversely, a measurement that has a degree of validity implies some measure of reliability.
________________________________________________________
What is meant by probability and significance?
Probability and significance are terms that are used in ”a type of decision procedure which incorporates reasoning with statistics” (Williams, p. 55). This procedure (hypothesis testing) involves the development of a research hypothesis and a null hypothesis. The former states that the relationships or differences among phenomena that the researcher will test in the research design do exist. Since scientific theory repudiates that statements can be made about the real world with absolute certainty, the researcher defines another (null) hypothesis that is the logical alternative to the first statement—the relationships or differences do not exist. (In other words, the null hypothesis states the probability that the existence of any statistical relationships or differences is due to chance) (Williams, p.55-61).
The level of probability that is set by the researcher as one that is sufficiently low to reject the null hypothesis can also be called the ”rejection region” or “significance level” and is often denoted as p (probability). If the rejection region is set at a probability value of less than .05, the mathematical statement would be p < .05. If the statistical analysis reveals that the calculated probability falls within this region, the null hypothesis is rejected and, in turn, the research hypothesis is accepted. “Significance” is a term that denotes an outcome that rejects the null hypothesis. A determination of significance allows the researcher to say that the relationships or differences that are reported are “statistically significant” (Williams, p.55-61).
In the context of hypothesis testing, probability defines the basis for rejecting the null hypothesis and significance denotes the proof of rejection,
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Entry for Week 3
“An Introduction to the Modes of Discourse” states that the subject of compositions (“what a composition is about”) is the domain that discourse modes occupy within the art and study of composition (p. 1). The four modes defined by the authors are classification, description, evaluation, and narration. This system classifies a composition abstractly by the view of reality represented in the predominate form of discourse used by the author in presenting the subject matter. There are two static views (reality as being) and two dynamic views (reality as becoming). In the philosophy of being, an object (being) that has attributes in common with a larger class of objects is said to contain the essence of the class. Compositions whose subjects are presented through discourse that statically classifies reality are placed in the mode of classification. Objects having unique characteristics (an existent) are described by the attributes that define their uniqueness (existence). The mode of description classifies this type of discourse. The mode of narration includes compositions whose subject matter is detailed through the rhetoric of change. The discourse of the evaluation mode is a view of change completed (pp. 10-15).
These concepts were used in the classification of the assigned readings for week three. Due to their conceptual (and somewhat vague) nature, other elements presented in the essay such as object identification, subject description (using the modal terms), identification of the views of reality, and the listing of document types by category were used in the decision process.
“Phaedrus”
The “Phaedrus” provides an interesting test case for defining a composition by the modes of discourse. An analysis of the text from several viewpoints was used in determining the mode. This analysis began with the identification of the primary objects and their main aspect(s). The form (dialogue) of the text seems, at first, to favor identifying Socrates and Phaedrus as the main objects and defining the dialogue as the aspect that is most prominently related to them. This view brings ambiguity to the determination of mode. If the various themes that comprise the subject of the text are identified as the main objects and the narratives of Socrates associated with each theme are called the prominent aspect of the objects, the mode can be identified as a narrative of themes of philosophy and art.
Next, the text was analyzed by its subject. The subject of “Phaedrus” in the modal terms could be expressed as “narratives of Socrates’ philosophies.” Substituting “an evaluation” or “descriptions” for “narratives” might have some credibility. “A classification” does not fit the manner in which the subject was presented.
The determination of the view of reality is somewhat problematic, as the authors did not provide an exemplar of the dialogue style. Surely, the philosophies of Socrates were formulated and fixed in his mind before the dialogue. This would place the text in the state of static reality (being) as the primary rhetoric would describe an existent reality. In this interpretation, the “Phaedrus” could be classified in the mode of description or classification. The former identification would assume that each of the themes stood alone with their particular attributes and the latter would assume that there were enough common attributes to create a class that would encompass all the themes. As each of the themes can be thought of as philosophies, the mode of classification would be the better choice.
An alternative view would posit that the rhetoric of Socrates (which is the rhetoric of the composition) revealed his thoughts on the themes in a sequential manner. In this “revealing,” the views of reality expressed by Socrates could be thought of as a dynamic (as becoming). The rhetoric of “becoming” falls into the mode of narration.
There are portions of the text that are evaluative. (The concept of making a value judgment as presented on page 8 of “An Introduction to the Modes of Discourse” was used as to classify this form of text). The mode of evaluation is represented in the text that deprecates the speech made by Lysias and in the dialogue on writing. In total, these instances do not seem to be pervasive enough to classify the text in the evaluation mode.
Kinneavy includes novels, drama, news stories, biographies, and histories as examples of the mode of narration. The “Phaedrus” seems to be a better fit to the type of rhetoric that is found in this grouping than to those listed under the other modes.
Though the statement cannot be made with certainty, I believe the above evaluation would place the “Phaedrus” in the mode of narration.
“Meet the Elements”
In the case of “Meet the Elements,” a reading of the text immediately brought the concept of theory to mind. The structure in the modes of discourse that best categorizes the rhetoric of theory is the mode of classification. “Proofs” for this selection of category can be found in the text of the introduction, in the verbalizing of the subject of the text, in the view of reality that the rhetoric presents, and in the forms of compositions that are listed in the modal categories.
Being a structured composition, “Meet the Elements” begins with an introductory textual element that defines a need and proposes a methodology to meet the need. The problem statement relates the level of complexity that is encountered when approaching the “user experience development process.” In respect to addressing the problem, the author states that by “crafting user experience down into component elements, we can better understand the problem as a whole” (p. 21). This “crafting” relates concepts of user experience with “planes” of website development (called a conceptual framework on page 2) in a theoretical construct. In the discourse modes, theoretical compositions fall into the classification mode. This stance is taken from the implications of the discussion of the mode forms used in several disciplines of scholarship on pages 16 and 17 of “An Introduction to the Modes of Discourse.” (This implication is drawn from the repeated identification of the mode of classification with theory).
The subject of the text could be expressed in terms such as “theories of the user experience development process.” (“Classifications” could be substituted for “theories” with some loss in meaning). This “test” would again favor placing the text into the mode of classification.
The rhetoric of the text is one of stasis as there is no change in reality occurring and no change has occurred that can be reviewed. The two modes of the static state are classification and description. In “An Introduction to the Modes of Discourse” the definition of these modes revolves around class characteristics and individual characteristics. I find these concepts hard to relate to the process models (actually one model with different levels of detail) presented in the “Meet the Elements.” There is a quandary if the model is a class that contains the essence of all the “beings” of user experience or a unique existence of a thing (a process called “user experience”) that is described by its elements. I would opt for the class definition and place the text in the mode of classification.
If the examples listed on page 15 for the mode of description are examined, a description of a local government system is listed. Under the classification mode
“classifications of governments” is listed. This comparison seems to favor the mode of description as “Meet the Elements” is more than a classification system (it primarily presents theory). The classification mode also lists “definitions” of subjects such as a democracy, freedom, and change. The rhetoric used to describe these concepts is just as theoretical as classifying the elements of user experience. Though the definitions of the modes are elusive, I am assuming that the authors intended that rhetoric that is used to classify theoretical assumptions could be placed in the mode of classification.
I believe the above evaluation would justify the placement of “Meet the Elements” in the classification mode.
Task Analysis (chapters 3 and 4)
An initial reading of chapters three and four of Task Analysis indicated that this composition would fall into the mode of description. Realizing that there are some obstacles to making this classification, the procedure of trying to “prove” the hypothesis consists of a review of the introductions to the chapters, an attempt at defining the subject in modal terms, and a determination of the aspect of reality the text presents. Also, the text is compared with the forms of compositions that are listed under the four categories of modes.
The chapters from Task Analysis present structured text with common elements including introductions. These common textual elements refer to the purpose (or problem) that produces a need and to the manner that the text will address the need. Chapter three begins with a statement declaring that designers must know about their users and their tasks “to build a successful interface and write successful documentation.” In the introduction to chapter four, the list of “knowing about” is supplemented with the physical, environmental, and cultural environments in which the users work. The answer to these problem statements that requires “knowing about” is to perform task analyses (of several types from the standpoint of the user and/or the task) that consider the user environment. In other words, the user needs to “know how” to “know about.” This is the rhetoric of description. The description mode describes a thing at a point in time from a particular view. This seems an appropriate categorization of a document that describes how to perform tasks.
The subject of the two chapters could be defined as “describing how to perform task analyses for interface design.” This describing is done through the forms of narrative, description, and categorization (listing of related activities). Though the number of column lines of each form was not counted, the descriptions appeared to be the dominant form in the text. The inference from these comparisons is that the text should be classified in the descriptive mode.
The primary text elements could be thought to produce meanings that imply a state of potential being (the reader can apply the information) but the rhetoric of the subject is static. It describes things (instructions) that create dynamic events. Though I could be confused, this rhetoric seems similar to the static modes that describe change as being (being accomplished). In this case the situation is reversed. The “being” can be described as reality even though it is just a concept. With absolutely no assurance of validity, I would place this rhetorical form in the descriptive mode.
In the forms of compositions listed under the mode of description, there were examples that were descriptions of structures of literary genres or of organizations. These “descriptions of structures” seem to coincide with the form of Task Analysis. In addition, literary analysis was termed descriptive when the authors compared the modes of discourse to the modes used by literary scholars.
I believe the above evaluation would justify the placement of Task Analysis in the mode of description.
What’s Practical about Technical Writing?
An examination of the text of What’s Practical about Technical Writing? suggested that it might fall into the mode of evaluation. The tests that attempt to substantiate this tentative appraisal include an examination of elements in the text that might give an indication of the writer’s intent, the verbalization of the subject of the text in terms of mode, an evaluation of the view of reality, a comparison of the representative composition forms listed in “An Introduction to the Modes of Discourse,” and a comparison with the mode classifications in other disciplines of scholarship.
The introduction of the composition ends with a statement indicating that the purpose of the text is to define what makes technical writing practical. Through almost two-thirds of the paper, this attempt consists of a “discussion” of “a set of related oppositions that pervade the discourse of higher education” (p. 21). The author takes another course when she concludes that an opposition as ubiquitous as the sort she “discussed” could possibly be false. From page 21 on, she turns to the writings on rhetoric by Aristotle for guidance. This line of thought finally concludes that if technical writing is practical (praxis), then the teaching on the subject in academia must include instruction in social responsibility (conduct) (p. 24).
Though the stated intent of the paper is to determine why technical writing is practical, the conclusion presents a new (termed higher) view of practical technical writing. The range of textual forms covered between the intent and the conclusion can be quantified as an evaluation (of the current status of technical writing) and as a prescription (for a “higher” form of technical writing). As the later portion of the text is the object of the overall initial evaluation, the subject of this part of the text is defined as “redefining the practicality of technical writing.” This “redefining” also implied the need for reconstituting academic teaching to include conduct. This “redefining” is the value judgment of the evaluation. This places the text in the mode of evaluation.
Looking at the states of reality, this proposed need for a change of state for technical writing seems to be a fit with potency. This assumption would place the text in narrative mode (assuming future changes in state can be classified in the modes of discourse). In the composition forms listed under the modes, the evaluations of systems were the closest to the text. In the description of the modes in the field of semantics, the “critical or evaluative” mode was of interest. The term critical (critically) was used again when the authors described the four modes that could be used in an area of English. Though they point to the evaluation mode. None of these arguments are conclusive in a determination of mode.
Primarily based of the argument of “evaluating and redefining,” I would place the text in the evaluation mode.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
