Brian Spitzberg, School of Communication Proposition Paper Assignment: p. 1 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PROPOSITION/MODEL PAPER An Hypothetical Parable D: Daddy, what is an instinct? F: An instinct, my dear, is an explanatory principle. D: But what does it explain? F: Anything – almost anything at all. Anything you want it to explain. D: Don't be silly. It doesn't explain gravity. F: No. But that is because nobody wants "instinct" to explain gravity. If they did, it would explain it. We could simply say that the moon has an instinct whose strength varies inversely as the square of the distance . . . D: But that's nonsense, Daddy. F: Yes, surely. But it was you who mentioned "instinct," not I. D: All right – but then what does explain gravity? F: Nothing my dear, because gravity is an explanatory principle. D: Oh. Do you mean that you cannot use one explanatory principle to explain another? F: Hmm . . . hardly ever. That is what Newton meant when he said, "hypotheses non fingo." D: And what does that mean? Please. F: Well, you know what "hypotheses" are. Any statement linking together two descriptive statements is an hypothesis. If you say that there was a full moon on February 1st and another on March 1st; and then you link these two observations together in any way, the statement that links them is an hypothesis. D: Yes – and I know what 'non' means. But what's 'fingo.' F: Well, 'fingo' is a late Latin word for 'make.' It forms a verbal noun 'fictio' from which we get the word 'fiction.' D: Daddy, do you mean that Sir Issac Newton thought that all hypotheses were just made up like stories? F: Yes – precisely that. D: But didn't he discover gravity? With the apple? F: No, dear. He invented it. D: Oh. Adapted from: Heinz Von Foerster (1981). Rigor & Imagination: Essays from the Legacy of Gregory Bateson. Brian Spitzberg, School of Communication Proposition Paper Assignment: p. 2 DON'T PANIC “Hypotheses are the scaffolds which are erected in front of a building and removed when the building is completed. They are indispensable to the worker; but he must not mistake the scaffolding for the building. J. W. von Goethe, Maxims and reflections, 1893 (in Kaplan: Science says) “For every fact there is an infinity of hypotheses. The more you look, the more you see. R. M. Pirsig, Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, 1974. “Hypothesis, where successful, is a two-­‐way street, extending back to explain the past and forward to predict the future. What we try to do in framing hypotheses is to explain some otherwise unexplained happenings by inventing a plausible story, a plausible description or history of relevant portions of the world” (Quine & Ullian, 1980, “Hypothesis,” p. 197) “The purpose of models is not to fit the data but to sharpen the questions” S. Karlin, 11th R. A. Fisher Memorial Lecture, Royal Society, April 20, 1983 (in Kaplan: Science says) “Being able to examine our models, critically evaluate them, and even discard them is far more scientifically literate than being able to regurgitate facts for a standardized test. … Ultimately, our models and descriptions of reality must be subject to two overriding criteria. How useful is this model, and how much does this model resemble our observations? Scientific literacy requires an understanding that science is only a model. We have to be able to jettison our models when our critical thinking leads us to that conclusion. Saus, S. (2007). Camelot is only a model: Scientific literacy in the 21st century. Seed, (Sept/Oct), 77-­‐78. “Without a sense, or without the thought, a proposition would be an utterly dead and trivial thing.” Wittgenstein, Blue and Brown Books, 1958, p. 4 “The meaning of exactness best founded in intellectual history is the possibility of constructing a theoretical system of idealized models containing abstract constructs of variables and of relations between variables, from which most or all propositions concerning particular connections can be deduced.” Machlup, 2004, Readings in the philosophy of social science p. 11 Brian Spitzberg, School of Communication Proposition Paper Assignment: p. 3 General Instructions The purpose of a hypothesis paper is to develop a conceptual model, and a number of theoretical propositions deriving from that model, concerning communication. The paper in some ways is a review of literature to develop a rationale on a given communication concept or theory. It is different from typical literature reviews in a few important ways. Most reviews just summarize literature to provide a sense of ‘what is known’ in an area. In contrast, the model and hypothesis papers attempt to analyze the literature in ways that support a particular configuration of concepts or variables; the relationships of this configuration can then be formalized as hypotheses. Submission The paper will be turned in electronically, in Word 2007, through SafeAssign in Blackboard. The due date requires a time-­‐stamp on the submission by the beginning of the seminar on the date specified in the syllabus schedule. Form, Organization and Style Sections. There should be seven basic parts to the paper. All pages should be paginated with a running head in the upper right of each page. The running head is a brief title (2-­‐5 words). (1) Title page: The first part of the paper is a title page, with a title that indicates something about the topic of the paper, name, the class, semester and year. (2) Visual model: The second page is the visual model. (3) Proposition list: The third page of the paper is a proposition list, under the title of the paper (from the first page). The proposition list is a simple listing of the numbered propositions developed in the paper. There should be at least a space between each proposition. The proposition list reproduces the propositions, and only the propositions, in the order they are presented in the paper. (4) Introduction: Fourth, beginning on the fourth page, with the title of the paper reproduced at the top, some form of introduction should be presented. An introduction may do a number of things, such as briefly examining the history and importance of the concepts selected for analysis, discussing the relevance of these concepts to the course subject, introducing relevant theories, and/or explaining any basic terms, assumptions, or limitations that may be important. Assume this class as the audience, which means that the writing should be clear enough for them to comprehend fully the content, and intent, of the paper. The introduction should consist of approximately 2-­‐5 paragraphs (or 1-­‐2 pages). (5) Body: Fifth, the body of the paper consists of the propositions and the arguments for each proposition. This section of the paper proceeds by presenting a proposition and then developing a paragraph or two of explanation and support. The propositions should be numbered and set off from the text (e.g., bolded, italicized). The typical paper will develop between 8 and 10 propositions. Propositions are never prima facie; that is, they never Brian Spitzberg, School of Communication Proposition Paper Assignment: p. 4 stand on their own. Propositions always require some degree of explanation. This section of the paper should constitute the lion's share of the paper (approximately 70-­‐80%). (6) Conclusion: Sixth, the conclusion section develops any number of points, such as providing a brief summary of the paper, a consideration of the limitations of the analysis, a critical conjecture about the status of the theory and/or research associated with the construct(s) examined, future implications of the analysis, or the importance of the analysis. (7) References: Seventh, the references section will provide the complete citations in most current A.P.A. style. (8) Model(s)/Diagram(s): Eighth, the figures or models used to integrate the model. It is often easiest to draw these in PowerPoint (or similar graphics program) and save as a .pdf, and then cut-­‐and-­‐paste into the paper. Length. Papers should be between 20 and 25 pages, not including title page, proposition list, tables, figures, or references. Spacing. Everything is double-­‐spaced, except tables or figures, if such are included. Thus, the title page, abstract (if provided), text, headings, and reference list are all double-­‐spaced. Miscellaneous. Use A.P.A. throughout. Do not leave big blank spaces between sections or hypotheses. The text should run continuously. Cite as often as desired, but quote very judiciously. In general, no quote should be longer than five lines long, and there should be no more than five quotes in the entire paper. I want to see your ideas and writing, not someone else’s ideas and writing. Make a copy of the paper before handing it in, as the original belongs to the professor. All the propositions will be reflected in the model in some way, but the model may be larger, more inclusive than represented by the propositions alone (i.e., all of the propositions are in the model, but all the model may not be in the propositions). Modeling Modeling is one of the zeniths of scientific reasoning. It incorporates analytic reasoning (i.e., breaking wholes into parts), synthetic reasoning (i.e., [re]assembling parts into wholes), and abstract reasoning (i.e., recognizing similar things across levels of abstraction and concreteness). It also is fundamental to theoretical reasoning (i.e., explaining how and why phenomena happen the way they do), and methodology (i.e., specifying hypotheses to be tested qualitatively or quantitatively, the results of which inform the validity of the underlying theory). Models serve various functions in science as in everyday life. A model is a visual simplification of concepts that exist in both a hypothesized conceptual form and an actual or potential observed form. For example, if you believe that as social skills decrease a person’s ability to meet others and develop satisfying relationships decreases, and that this in turn increases the person’s loneliness, and that increases in loneliness lead to increased interaction anxiety, then three conceptual components each potentially can be measured by a Brian Spitzberg, School of Communication Proposition Paper Assignment: p. 5 questionnaire or survey. Thus, you would have a very basic model that looks something like the following: Social Skills Loneliness Social Anxiety Notice that this model could have been formulated entirely differently. Some have argued that people develop anxiety through early learning experiences, which leads to a deficit of social skills, which thereby make the development of social relationships more difficult, leading to loneliness. These represent alternative models of reality, and either one can be reasonably argued and justified. Which one is “true” is irrelevant for the sake of formulating the model—the question is whether a good set of arguments can be developed in support of the model ultimately produced. Once you have a basic model, it is then relatively simple to start asking additional questions, such as how biology (e.g., sex, age, etc.), culture (e.g., ethnicity, regional identification, etc.), context (e.g., socio-­‐economic status, intact family status, etc.), personal background (e.g., attachment disorder, relational history, etc.) or dispositions (e.g., self-­‐esteem, attribution style, etc.) influence various components or relationships of the model. Most models follow simple rules: (1) Components on the left precede, at some point, the components to the right in real time. (2) Every conceptual component should have a measurement component. (3) Every arrow represents a direct effect of one concept on another. This effect does not have to be a causal relationship, but it usually implies such an influence. (4) Every component must have an arrow headed to at least one other component, and may have arrows to multiple other components. (5) The spatially closer two components are to one another, the more closely they are associated with one another than to components further away from one another. (6) Components can be grouped according to larger components (i.e., multiple indicators of a single concept; e.g., social skills above might be further indicated by coordination, expressiveness, attentiveness, and composure skills). (7) Every arrow is a potentially testable hypothesis (or proposition). The nature of these hypotheses is discussed next. Hypothesizing A hypothesis is a verbal or symbolic statement of relationship between two or more variables (e.g., Self-­‐esteem is positively related to self-­‐disclosure). A variable is any construct or concept that can be observed to take on different values (e.g., anxiety, self-­‐disclosure, assertiveness, etc.). It takes the form of X = fY. A definition (e.g., self-­‐esteem is the degree to which self is perceived positively) characterizes the nature of a variable, but not its relationship to other variables. It takes the form of X = Y. All of this is just a fancy way of saying that the hypothesis paper attempts to develop, through review and personal argument, a series of hypotheses on a given topic. Many of these hypotheses may be articulated in the existing research literature, they may be derived from conceptual models, or the products of creativity and imagination. There are two keys to this assignment: (1) Developing well-­‐conceived and well-­‐worded hypotheses, and (2) developing Brian Spitzberg, School of Communication Proposition Paper Assignment: p. 6 reasonable arguments for each hypothesis. Like any argument, it is made credible through the use of causal analysis, evidence, example, strong reasons, and scholarly support. The most important thing is that every hypothesis should be carefully worded (read all these instructions to understand this warning) and arguments should answer two “why” questions: (1) Why are the variables related this way? (2) Why is the hypothesis likely to be true? The word “because” should figure prominently in the explanations. To explain a hypothesis means to make sensible how and why things are related the way they are. Theories are basically sets of conceptual links among hypotheses. For example, a person may want to explain the hypothesis: “As jealousy increases, the likelihood of relational violence increases.” Guided by an understanding of argument (e.g., see recommendations for writing that follow later in these instructions), this hypothesis could be argued thusly: Jealousy is a complex blend of emotions based on the perception that a person’s valued relationship is threatened by a third party or rival. [backing] Retzinger (1991) has reviewed evidence [grounds] that violence is likely to result from a combination of anger and shame, but neither alone [backing]. Because [warrant] anger creates an inner sense of expressive frustration and arousal, and shame provides a target for this expression (i.e., the partner and/or the rival), the jealous person is much more likely to engage in violence than non-­‐jealous persons. [claim] This hypothesis may not apply to contexts in which strong moral, religious, or public restraints are in place (e.g., even jealous persons tend not to be overtly violent in public places). [rebuttal] The rebuttal is not necessary, but sometimes illustrates relative objectivity and openness of the author. In this explanation, other concepts (i.e., the theory of rage as proposed by Retzinger, with its components of anger and rage) are used to make the link between jealousy and violence sensible. More explanation could be provided for these concepts, more evidence reviewed in favor of Retzinger’s hypothesis, and so forth, but the basic elements of explanation and argument are there. The point is that explanation is neither mere restatement nor mere review of research or expert opinion. And please note, there is no quotation, and no need for quotation. Quotations should be used extremely sparingly—I want to see your writing, not someone else’s. Types of Hypotheses Below is a series of hypotheses to illustrate how they can differ. These hypotheses may seem overly sophisticated or technical right now. However, research of a topic has begun, hypothetical relations will begin to emerge either stated directly (i.e., in the form of hypotheses being tested) or indirectly (i.e., implied by the explanation and discussion of the concepts). The simplest, and weakest, form of hypothesis is a "non-­‐directional" statement of relationship. For example: H1: Self-­‐esteem is related to communication competence. While this is a hypothesis, it provides minimal information regarding the precise nature of the relationship. Avoid such statements in the paper. A more precise form is: Brian Spitzberg, School of Communication Proposition Paper Assignment: p. 7 H2: Self-­‐esteem is positively related to interpersonal communication competence. (Note: This can be reworded as: “Persons high in self-­‐esteem are significantly higher in communication competence than persons low in self-­‐esteem”). Hypotheses can also vary by the form (or shape) of the relationship: H3: Motivation, knowledge and skills are curvilinear to perceived communication competence. (That is, they are positively related up to a moderately high range of competence, after which higher values lead to lower perceived competence). Finally, deductive construction allows the development of stronger, and more tightly controlled, theoretical arguments. For example, H4: As [TV exposure] increases, [verbal skills] decrease. [A] [B] H5: As [verbal skills] decrease, use of [physical violence] in conflict increases. [B] [C] H6: As [TV exposure] increases, use of [physical violence] in conflict increases. [A] [C] On the Art of Explanation “We cannot infer the events of the future from those of the present. Belief in the causal nexus is superstition” (Wittgenstein, Tractatus, 5.1361) Explanation implies the identification of some “bridge” (i.e., warrant, “because...,” etc.) that serves as an account of why one concept is related to another concept. It is an “animating mechanism,” that gives life to a concept. For example, one popular concept is that exposure to violence in the media causes violence in society. The natural question is why. Answering the “why” question gets at the concept of explanation. Even though seeing or hearing the equation: “media violence causes societal violence” seems like an explanation, it is not. It is missing the bridge, or animating mechanism. To illustrate, consider a few “non-­‐explanations.” It is not an explanation to say media violence causes societal violence because: (1) media depictions of violence are increasing; (2) societal violence is increasing; (3) some people have engaged in crimes they saw on TV (“copy cat crimes”); (4) people believe what they see on TV; (5) research shows media violence increases societal violence. Each of these merely suggests correlation (rather than causation), repeats the original assertion, or simply provides backing for an explanation that is itself missing. To illustrate legitimate explanations, consider the following: Cultivation: Social learning theory claims that people learn both by direct experience (e.g., touching a hot stove) or observation of others (e.g., observing one’s sister touch a hot stove). Since we cannot or do not always directly experience things (e.g., robbing a bank), we look to real and imaginative role models (e.g., media figures and narratives). Thus, the crime Brian Spitzberg, School of Communication Proposition Paper Assignment: p. 8 and violence in the media provide models, and rewarding ones at that, for us we otherwise would not have had. Cognitive Availability: Our brain can be viewed as a library. If 90% of this library is filled with science fiction, and we are asked to respond to someone’s question for information, we are most likely to give them a fanciful piece of information, because that is what is most represented in our mind’s library. If, in watching media, most of the acts or ways of dealing with conflict we observe are violent in nature, it simply supplies more acts of violence to store in our mental repertoires, and thus, when we find ourselves in a conflict, violent acts are the most “available” to draw upon. Disinhibition: Growing up in a culture is largely about learning what one cannot or is not supposed to do. The very nature of culture is conformity and normative action within a given body of beliefs and behaviors. Exposure to violence in the media may make violence appear more normative than it is, and thus, make engaging in violence seem less deviant. In essence, it is not making violence seem more rewarding (cultivation) or available, but merely makes the violence within a person more acceptable. Fantasy Fulfillment: Freud and others might argue that daily life, as well as the normal tortures of growing up, fill us with tensions that are constantly repressed. These tensions struggle to “get out,” managing to manifest themselves mainly in the form of fantasy. Media violence may give form to these fantasies, making them more vivid and “real,” thereby stimulating the enactment of fantasies in life (e.g., who has not “fantasized” about hitting someone in the face—seeing it done may both “suggest” it, but stimulate the enactment of it). Desensitization: One of the reasons people avoid violence is that it hurts others. However, when violence is everywhere in the media, it can numb one’s sensibilities, and lower one’s ability to empathize. Further, the more cartoonish the violence, the more it seems it does not really hurt anyone. Such exposure to violence may take the “brakes” off using by making violence seem less hurtful, and thus, less costly to use. Excitation: Violence is a thrill. Through 5 million years of evolution, we have come to find violence a potential threat, a potential path to victory, and therefore, arousing. Thus, seeing violence in the media is itself, arousing, and this arousal stimulates our own arousal. Our arousal (adrenaline, muscular tension, etc.) needs to find an outlet, and is expressed in violence. Peer Group Mediation: Research on sexual violence indicates that people who engage in sexual violence are much more likely to have friends who approve of, and have engaged in, sexual violence. The suggestion is that peer groups mediate the transfer of violence. That is, if a peer group watches violence in the media, this peer group may then become self-­‐reinforcing through its interaction, thereby serving as the proximal stimulus to its members’ violence. Spillover: Violence in the media provides models of behavior in certain contexts that are then available for generalization to contexts experienced in everyday life, both directly comparable to those observed in the media, as well as contexts largely unrelated. Thus, for example, a person may “copycat” behaviors witnessed in the media, but may also extend the function of the behaviors observed in one context (e.g., a drop kick in a professional wrestling program) to another context (e.g., a dispute with one’s brother). Cultural Chaos: Violence in the media may reflect the very breakdown of society, norms, and culture. If everyone is violent to everyone in the media, then this communicates a sense of Brian Spitzberg, School of Communication Proposition Paper Assignment: p. 9 despair, hopelessness, alienation and angst to the viewing public. This has the effects of both (1) inciting some to exploit the lawlessness (e.g., looting during natural disasters), (2) join the crowd (e.g., mob violence during the L.A. riots), (3) bystander apathy providing a permissive environment for violence. Each of these explanations offers slightly and sometimes substantively distinct sources of causation. For example, fantasy fulfillment, excitation and disinhibition tend to assume that we are by nature violent, and all that is needed is something in the media to take the restraints of society away. Cultivation and availability argue media instills violence in us. Peer-­‐group mediation and cultural chaos tend to view media as having an effect on society at large, which only then affects our individual behavior. In all these examples concepts are elaborated to make sensible the link between violence in the media and in society. Co-­‐occurrence makes no sense without an explanation, and it matters which explanation is offered. Do all of the explanations above seem equally believable? Were a politician to make a speech on fantasy fulfillment would it seem as reasonable as the cultivation explanation? Why? The “theory” cannot be evaluated until its explanatory rationale has been specified, and the brief examples above illustrate how significant, and distinct, such explanations can be. Finally, use theories, use concepts discussed in class, use concepts, rather than personal experience, anecdotes, examples, or intuitive explanations. The concepts and theories discussed in class represent an attempt to provide explanatory frameworks specifically to explain hypotheses. So use theories when possible to help explain the hypotheses. SELECTED EXAMPLES OF PUBLISHED HYPOTHESIS PAPERS Berelson, B., & Steiner, G. A. (1973). Human behavior: An inventory of scientific findings. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99-­‐112. Burgoon, J. K., & Jones, S. B. (1976). Toward a theory of personal space expectations and their violations. Human Communication Research, 2, 131-­‐146. Burr, W.R., Leigh, G. K., Day, R. D., & Constantine, J. (1979). Symbolic interaction and the family. In W. R. Burr, R. Hill, F. I. Nye, & I. L. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family (pp. 42-­‐111). New York: Free Press. Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of co-­‐operation and competition. Human Relations, 2, 129-­‐152. Fincham, F. D. (1992). The account episode in close relationships. In M. L. McLaughlin, M. J. Cody, & S.J. Read (Eds.), Explaining one’s self to others: Reason-­‐giving in social context (pp. 225-­‐244). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Fisher, R. J. (1990). Chapter 5: An eclectic model of intergroup conflict. The social psychology of intergroup and international conflict resolution (pp. 87-­‐115). New York: Springer-­‐Verlag. Greene, J. (1984). A cognitive approach to human communication: An action assembly theory. Communication Monographs, 51, 289-­‐306. Kaplowitz, S. A. (1978). Towards a systematic theory of power attribution. Social Psychology, 41, 131-­‐148. Keyton, J., Ford, D. J., & Smith, F. L. (2008). A mesolevel communicative model of collaboration. Communication Theory, 18, 376-­‐406. Liden, R. C., & Mitchell, T. R. (1988). Ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 13, 572-­‐587. Brian Spitzberg, School of Communication Proposition Paper Assignment: p. 10 Mack, R. W., & Snyder, R. C. (1957). The analysis of social conflict—Toward an overview and synthesis. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1, 221-­‐248. Millar, F. E., & Rogers, L. E. (1988). Power dynamics in marital relationships. In P. Noller & M. A. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Perspectives on marital interaction (pp. 98-­‐120). Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Phillips, A. P., & Dipboye, R. L. (1989). Correlational tests of predictions from a process model of the interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 41-­‐52. Rodgers, R. H. (1987). Postmarital reorganization of family relationships: A propositional theory. In D. Perlman & S. Duck (Eds.), Intimate relationships: Development, dynamics, and deterioration (pp. 239-­‐
268). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Sclenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-­‐presentation: A conceptualization and model. Psychological Review, 92, 641-­‐669. Seibold, D. R., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1982). Attribution theory and research: Formalization, critique, and implications for communication. In B. Dervin & M. J. Voight (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences (Vol. 3, pp. 85-­‐125). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Spitzberg, B. H. (1994). Intercultural effectiveness. In L. A. Samovar, & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (7th ed., pp. 347-­‐359). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Stech, E. L. (1979). A grammar of conversation with a quantitative empirical test. Human Communication Research, 5, 158-­‐170. Wyer, R. S., Jr. (1980). The acquisition and use of social knowledge: Basic postulates and representative research. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 558-­‐573. Wyer, R. S., Jr., & Srull, T. K. (1986). Human cognition in its social context. Psychological Review, 93, 322-­‐
359. Brian Spitzberg, School of Communication Proposition Paper Assignment: p. 11 SELECTIONS FROM SPITZBERG'S "CHAMBER OF HORRORS" Try to avoid the following pitfalls: (1) avoid statements of non-­‐relationship (e.g., 'X is not related to Y'); (2) avoid including explanations in the hypothesis itself (e.g., "X is positively related to Y because of theory Z's rationale that..."); (3) avoid using prescriptive (e.g., "S's should do X when Y occurs") or purely descriptive non-­‐probablistic (e.g., "X may/can be related to Y") wording; (4) avoid introducing terms into the hypothesis that have not been adequately explained, narrowed, or defined yet; and (5) avoid introducing categorical variables that distort the form of the relationship (e.g., "LOW X is positively related to HIGH Y's"); (6) avoid introducing set/subset redundancies in multiple hypotheses (e.g., P1: Females disclose more than males; P2: Androgynous females disclose more than androgynous males). Below are some of the "best of the worst" that have crossed my tired eyes. H1?: Knowledge also relates to mindlessness in an inverse parabolic function, in that they are positively related to each other until the mindlessness ceases to be mindless. H2?: Empathizing with co-­‐workers strengths, weaknesses, and working style relates negatively towards escalating conflict resulting in an inability to see another's view. H3?: Equity restoring to a relationship is negatively related to low self-­‐esteem individuals. H4?: Reactions in adolescents relate back to anxious, neurotogenic, disparging, masochistic, and manic depressive parents. H5?: Individual’s interaction with a caregiver as a child affects their relationship bondage with a potential partner as an adult. H6?: The purpose of negotiation is to resolve a disagreement between two or more parties. H7?: In certain negotiation circumstances nonverbal aspects of communication assume a greater significance than does verbal language. H8?: Levels of immediate physical and psychological trauma suffered by victims will vary. H9?: Child abuse is determined by the factors involved. H10?: The use of threats as an influence tactic does not exacerbate conflicts in general, but is limited to the occasions on which they are used. H11?: Conflicts are likely to be influenced by power. H12?: Sex differences are loosely related to relationship goals. H13?: Attraction is positively related and influential in choice of sexual partners. H14?: Males are negatively related to female interviewers of equal status; whereas females are not affected significantly to status and the sex of the interviewer. H15?: Mindlessness is negatively related to information processing in interactions. H16?: Deception is negatively related to the truth. H17?: Proximity increases physical closeness. H18?: Viewing the mediator’s role as folkloric trickster is positively related to their job title. H19?: Guests of a television talk show depend on the reaction of the audience for support of their heinous actions, therefore after the show is over whether or not they take the advice of the audience and change their way, depends on the reaction they received. H20?: Family hour will need to be changed back to true family hour. H21?: Hip hop is a response to conditions of property and disempowerment. H22?: Media coverage of the violent topics in Rap music helps alert people to the possible problems. Brian Spitzberg, School of Communication Proposition Paper Assignment: p. 12 ANYONE CAN FORMULATE THEORETICAL AXIOMS AND PROPOSITIONS Laws of Biological Inconvenience: 1. Law of Mechanical Repair: After your hands become coated with grease, your nose will begin to itch and you'll have to pee. 2. Law of Bio-­‐Mechanics: The severity of the itch is inversely proportional to the reach. 3. Law of the Bath: When the body is fully immersed in water, the telephone rings. 4. Law of Gravity: Any tool, nut, bolt, screw, when dropped, will roll to the least accessible place in the universe. Laws of Social Activity and Impressions 5. Law of Probability: The probability of being watched is directly proportional to the stupidity of your act. 6. Law of Close Encounters: The probability of meeting someone you know INCREASES dramatically when you are with someone you don't want to be seen with. 7. Law of Random Numbers: If you dial a wrong number, you never get a busy signal -­‐ and someone always answers. Laws of (Bad) Luck & Self-­‐Selection: 8. Law of Physical Surfaces: The chances of an open-­‐faced jelly sandwich landing face down on a floor are directly correlated to the newness and cost of the carpet or rug. 9. Line Variation Law: If you change lines (or traffic lanes), the one you were in will always move faster than the one you are in now (works every time). 10. Seat Selection Corollary: At any event, the people whose seats are furthest from the aisle, always arrive last. They are the ones who will leave their seats several times to go for food, beer, or the toilet and who leave early before the end of the performance or the game is over. The folks in the aisle seats come early, never move once, have long gangly legs or big bellies and stay to the bitter end of the performance. The aisle people also are very surly folk. 11. Murphy's Law of Lockers: If there are only 2 people in a locker room, they will have adjacent lockers. 12. Wilson's Law of Commercial Marketing Strategy: As soon as you find a product that you really like, they will stop making it. Law of (Dis)Proof: 13. Law of the Result: When you try to prove to someone that a machine won't work, IT WILL!!! 14. Doctors' Corollary: If you don't feel well, make an appointment to go to the doctor, by the time you get there you'll feel better. But don't make an appointment, and you'll stay sick. 15. Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible IF you don't know what you are talking about. Source: indeterminate—adapted from an extensively forwarded email. Brian Spitzberg, School of Communication Proposition Paper Assignment: p. 13 SOME OBJECT LESSONS ABOUT HYPOTHESES What follows are examples of flawed hypotheses taken from previous hypothesis papers. Each hypothesis is analyzed to illustrate common mistakes observed in the conceptualization and verbalization of hypotheses. It is your responsibility to study these examples, and thereby avoid the types of mistakes indicated. If you have questions about any of the issues raised, please raise them at the appropriate time in class. Otherwise, you are now considered forewarned. Recall that a hypothesis is any statement of relationship between or among variables. A variable is a concept that takes on different values. The entire function of science is to make the nature of the relationships among things understandable. The more precise the statement of relationship, the more understandable the hypothesis is. What follows is an effort to assist in making the hypotheses more precise. 1. MOOD IS POSITIVELY RELATED TO SEXUAL INITIATION. Overly generic variables: "Mood" may be positive or negative. Since mood is not specified, the hypothesis, as worded, implies that any increase in mood state will correspond to an increase in sexual initiation. Thus, as worded, an increase in depression increases sexual initiation, as would sadness anger, and so forth. The key is to understand that the term "mood" is a concept that can take on different values or levels (e.g., low to high, negative to neutral to positive, etc.). A hypothesis is an attempt to specify how their values or levels correspond to the values or levels of another concept, in this case, the occurrence of sexual initiation. The hypothesis intends to say "the experience of positively valenced or labeled states are positively related to the likelihood of sexual initiation." 2. LOW SELF-­‐ESTEEM IS POSITIVELY RELATED TO INTERPERSONAL HOSTILITY. Mixing variable labels: Herein is one of the most common, insidious, yet subtle problems in writing hypotheses. By concerning itself with "low" self-­‐esteem, this hypothesis effectively ignores "medium" and "high" self-­‐esteem. When two-­‐thirds of a variable's possible values are removed, its ability to "relate" to anything is eliminated because there is no real opportunity for the variable to vary beyond a very narrow range of values. The above statement intends to say simply: "Self-­‐esteem is negatively related to interpersonal hostility" or "Low self-­‐esteem persons are significantly more interpersonally hostile than high self-­‐esteem persons." Think about what the terminology means! If something is categorized as "low" it needs to be compared to something that is "high." As an additional note, it is unclear if self-­‐esteem relates to the frequency with which all hostile actions occur, the intensity of hostile actions, the duration of hostile actions, all three, some combination, or some other aspect of hostility. Hostility is likely to take on many different features. It assists the hypothesis to make these features clear in the hypothesis. Thus, "Self-­‐esteem is negatively related to the frequency and breadth of interpersonally hostile behaviors." Brian Spitzberg, School of Communication Proposition Paper Assignment: p. 14 3. FRIENDSHIPS ARE HIGHLY VALUABLE TO OLDER MALES AND FEMALES. Overly definitional: This is overly definitional in form. First, does it imply the friendships are more valuable to older persons than younger person? (e.g., "The value of friendships for males and females increases as age increases"). Second, if a relationship is being identified that holds for all members of a set (i.e., persons), there is no need to specify all categories of that set (i.e., "males and females"). Thus, "The value of friendships increases as age increases." Third, to what is friendship "valuable"? Valuable in psychological health, physical health, social health, etc.? Thus, for example, "As age increases, the perceived value of friendship in preventing depression and loneliness increases." 4. MALES ARE POSITIVELY CORRELATED TO APPRECIATION OF OBSCENE HUMOR. Concepts not variable: "People" are not variables; their characteristics are. This hypothesis intends to compare 'maleness" to "femaleness. It makes the mistake of correlating categories. Categories are nominal level variables, whereas correlation requires ordinal level variables (recall COMM 350?). Gender, religion, ethnic group, etc. are categorical variables, and as such, should be framed as "difference" hypotheses rather than correlational hypotheses. Thus, "Males appreciate obscene humor significantly more than females." 5. SELF-­‐DISCLOSURE IS POSITIVELY RELATED TO INTIMACY. Overly unidimensional concepts: On the face of it, this is sensible, right? Yet, this hypothesis is deeply flawed. First, anyone looking into the two concepts involved here, self-­‐disclosure and intimacy, should soon find that they are multidimensional. This means that a valid use of the term actually implies many distinct but related concepts. For example, self-­‐disclosure has been found to vary importantly in terms of breadth (number of topics), depth (intimacy of topics), reciprocity (degree to which partner discloses in response), honesty, and valence (positive or negative). Similarly, intimacy can be viewed in terms of domain (e.g., recreation I, sexual, social, emotional, etc.) or type (e.g., caring, commitment, interdependence, physical, etc.). The point is not that student papers have to agree with "the" view with which I am familiar, but that any responsible research effort will uncover the complexity (i.e., multidimensionality) of the concepts. In this case, the hypothesis implies that all forms of self-­‐disclosure are equally related to all forms of intimacy. Is this sensible? It seems unlikely that as disclosure of negative information increases that sexual intimacy increases, yet this is exactly what the hypothesis implies until it is specified. Second, this is a perfect candidate for a curvilinear relationship. That is, extremely low or extremely high amounts of disclosure are likely to impede or inhibit intimacy respectively. Yet, this hypothesis implies that even at extremely high levels of disclosiveness that intimacy will also be extremely high. Third, would this hypothesis apply reasonably to all contexts? For example, does it apply to task-­‐oriented groups, or superior-­‐subordinate, or disengaging, relationships? Unlikely. Brian Spitzberg, School of Communication Proposition Paper Assignment: p. 15 6. ADULTERY, ALCOHOL ABUSE, AND FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES ARE POSITIVELY RELATED TO DIVORCE. ‘NS’ hypothesis: This qualifies in the realm of an “NS” hypothesis (“No Shit!”). Technically there is nothing wrong with this hypothesis. However, it is about as unsurprising, and therefore, uninformative, as a statement can be. It’s a little like saying “Oxygen is important to human life.” Science has a healthy respect for demonstrating what is supposed to be true actually is true. But come on! Put a little imagination into the paper and come up with a statement that allows parents to think their children are learning something not already known without the degree. 7. AS MISUNDERSTANDINGS INCREASE, POOR COMMUNICATION INCREASES. Tautology: It is a little like saying that “X is true because it is X” (i.e., something is taken to be true because of the way in which it is defined). In this hypothesis, the question arises because for most commonsense notions, “misunderstanding” would be viewed as a form or subset of “poor communication.” Thus, if X “includes” Y, then it tends to make little logical sense to say that with more X, there will be more Y, since this is virtually true by definition of X. 8. A COWORKER WILL USE MORE INDIRECT COMPLIANCE-­‐GAINING STRATEGIES WHEN ADDRESSING A SUBORDINATE. Lacking comparative condition: This sounds sensible. However, it is incomplete. Whenever the words “more” or “less” are used, the question arises “less (or more) than what?” In this case, it is not entirely clear which of the following phrases should be added to the end of the hypothesis: “...THAN WHEN ADDRESSING A SUPERIOR,” “...THAN DIRECT STRATEGIES,” or “THAN A COWORKER.” Complete the comparison implied by “more” or “less.” 9. SCHOLARS BELIEVE THAT ALCOHOLISM IS A DISEASE, WHILE OTHERS BELIEVE IT TO BE A BAD HABIT. Descriptive, not relational: This fails in three important senses. First, although it sounds like it is saying something substantive about the nature of alcoholism, it really is only saying something about what certain people believe about alcoholism, which was not the point of the paper. Second, it is not about communication, and therefore is not very topical to the assignment or major. Third, the hypothesis is definitional in content, not a hypothesis. There is no “relationship between variables” being described here. This hypothesis is stating something about what alcoholism is rather than what it is related to and how it is related. Brian Spitzberg, School of Communication Proposition Paper Assignment: p. 16 MODELS AND MODELING: A FUNDAMENTAL SCIENTIFIC LITERACY “Understanding that our scientific knowledge is ‘only’ a model is the key to true scientific literacy. Knowing this tells us that our science has built-­‐in limitations, but that it does resemble reality in very fundamental ways. More importantly, that understanding gives us permission to use our models when they are useful— and permission to discard them when they no longer meet our needs. … Ultimately, our models and descriptions of reality must be subject to two overriding criteria: How useful is this model, and how much does this model resemble our observations. Scientific literacy requires an understanding that science is only a model.” Martin, T. W. (2007, Sept/Oct). Scientific literacy and the habit of discourse. Seed, pp. 77-­‐78. Modeling is one of the zeniths of scientific reasoning. It incorporates analytic reasoning (i.e., breaking wholes into parts), synthetic reasoning (i.e., [re]assembling parts into wholes), and abstract reasoning (i.e., recognizing similar things across levels of abstraction and concreteness). It also is fundamental to theoretical reasoning (i.e., explaining how and why phenomena happen the way they do), and methodology (i.e., specifying hypotheses to be tested qualitatively or quantitatively, the results of which inform the validity of the underlying theory). Modeling involves developing a visual “map” of a “territory.” The territory is rarely known entirely, and in fact, sometimes it is only vaguely understood. The territory may have been observed in various ways, but seldom has it been observed in its entirety. Thus, a map is needed to navigate our way through this territory, and to guide the conduct of research into that territory, to see to what extent our map does a good job of representing that territory. Every territory, however, has a potentially infinite number of potential maps. Consider San Diego County. There are topographical, weather, road, tectonic activity, and photographic maps of the territory. Every one of these maps represents San Diego, but does so from a different point of view. A tectonic history map of San Diego is not likely to be very useful to someone seeking how to get from a house address in Ramona to a destination in the Gaslamp. Likewise, a road map is not likely to be very useful to a person seeking to predict where the next earthquake will occur. Furthermore, “the map is not the territory.” That is, the map is never the exact same thing as the territory. A map that completely represented a territory would be the territory. Thus, maps are abstractions. They are intended to be abstract representations. They are generally intended to have some degree of abstract generality as well. A map that only represents an extremely small and detailed event or place, and only represents a “snapshot” has limited value. Maps may change as the territory changes (this is why roadmaps are updated frequently), but they are usually intended to have some validity and value over time and space. This assignment involves the development of a type of map, which is here referred to as a model. Specifically, a model will be developed and arguments in defense of the model will be developed. The model will be developed to represent some communication process directly relevant to the course. Brian Spitzberg, School of Communication Proposition Paper Assignment: p. 17 Models vary by a number of various dimensions, any or all of which may be useful to consider as you ponder what kind of model to create. A partial list of such dimensions is explained below: (1) Abstraction Level: Models vary by the scope or level of abstraction they seek to represent. Marx’s theory of capitalist systems and social conflict was a very broad-­‐based macro model of how societies evolve when property is privately owned. Janis’s mezzo model of groupthink attempts to explain why and how highly cohesive groups tend to reach premature consensus. Andersen’s cognitive valence model was developed to represent at a micro level how minute changes in intimacy behavior by one partner influences the response behaviors of the other partner. (2) Complexity: Some models are relatively simple, and hypothesize only a few relationships. For example, Spitzberg, Canary and Cupach predicted that the use of conflict strategies influences competence judgments, which then influence relationship quality. These three concepts produce a relatively small number of specific predictions. In contrast, Turner synthesized numerous theories and propositions to develop a model of social conflict that involves over 20 concepts and dozens of hypotheses. (3) Testability: Some models are relatively difficult to observe or test, and are therefore conjectural. Freud’s theories of the id, ego, and superego are highly conjectural because by definition, the unconscious is difficult to observe or test. In contrast, Cupach and Metts developed a model of how face-­‐saving strategies are used to disengage from a relationship, which is relatively easy to test through surveys, narratives, or other techniques. A relatively easy litmus test for this dimension is to see how other scholars have “observed” (tested, measured, rated, scaled, coded, interviewed, etc.) the concepts in your model, if at all. If a concept has been previously studied by other scholars, then it can be tested or observed. If it is still a “hypothetical” concept, then it may be more conjectural in nature. (4) Recursiveness: Some models are strictly linear. That is, they progress from cause to effect. Other models are more processual, such that at various steps a given result may “feed back” into the process and influence prior processes. For example, a linear model might propose that lonely people are more likely to seek out parasocial relationships in the media than non-­‐lonely people. In this case, loneliness causes media consumption behavior in a linear manner. In contrast, a model might propose that as lonely people consume more media, they are spending less time in social contexts, and therefore lose their social skills and confidence in their social abilities. In this model, then, the loneliness causes media behavior, which causes more loneliness, which causes more media behavior, and so forth. (5) Modeling Topoi: In general, all models have the potential for five basic types of concepts (variables, components, factors): Brian Spitzberg, School of Communication Proposition Paper Assignment: p. 18 a. Causes (also often referred to as antecedents, or “independent variables”): These are factors that influence subsequent events. As causes change, subsequent events change. Causes typically are further distinguished in two forms: distal and proximal. Distal causes are causes that occur “deep” in the process, typically meaning “far back” in time. Proximal causes are “closer” to the events or process being explained. So, for example, in modeling relationship aggression, distal causes might include whether a person grew up observing parent-­‐to-­‐parent aggression, and being the recipient of parental aggression. In contrast, proximal causes might include the amount of stress a person is experiencing in a job or school, and whether or not alcohol has been recently consumed. b. Context: The context is all those factors that influence how the situation is defined by those participating in a communicative process. Spitzberg, for example, has argued that contexts typically involve issues of culture, relationship type, physical situation, and goal or function of the communicative process. Related types of contextual factors might include time (e.g., slow cultures vs. fast cultures, early in a relationship vs. later in a relationship, etc.), activity level (e.g., a party vs. a classroom), or other such features. c. Individual Characteristics: These are features of the individuals involved that may influence how a process of communication unfolds. These features sometimes can be classified as causes or context factors, but may also be treated separately. For example, Spitzberg proposes that a person’s motivation, knowledge and skills increase the likelihood of engaging in communication that is perceived as competent by self and others. The motivation, knowledge, and skills themselves can be accounted for in part by the individual’s proximal and distal experiences (e.g., a person who received bad parenting growing up—i.e., a distal factor—may be least motivated to communicate competently in situations involving a partner who is behaving in ways similar to those parents—i.e., a more proximal factor). Traditionally, psychology has distinguished these as “traits” (i.e., stable predispositions to experience and react to the world in certain ways—e.g., low IQ) and “states” (i.e., temporary ways of experiencing a situation—e.g., situational shyness). d. Process: What are the communicative behaviors or processes being explained by the model? What do the causes and context influence a person or persons to do? For example, exposure to media violence and coming from a violent family background may intersect contexts of personal conflict to produce violent behavior as a process. e. Outcomes: What results from the confluence of these various components? For example, Spitzberg’s model proposes that as motivation, knowledge, and skills of interactants increase, they are more likely to engage in communication that is perceived to be appropriate and effective. These perceptions of appropriateness and effectiveness, in turn, are likely to result in greater attraction, persuasion, and Brian Spitzberg, School of Communication Proposition Paper Assignment: p. 19 relationship satisfaction and development. Thus, there are outcomes of competent interaction. (6) Component Functions: The various components described above can generally play a moderating or a mediating role. A moderating role means that the relationship between X and Z is significantly altered by the introduction or consideration of the variable Y. In contrast, a mediating role means that the relationship between X and Z disappears when the variable Y is introduced or considered. For example, a person who experienced parental violence as a child is more likely to engage in violence against a current romantic partner. However, if that person who experienced violence as a child is also consuming alcohol, that significantly increases the likelihood of engaging in violence against a current partner. Thus, alcohol moderates the relationship between childhood abuse and adult abuse. In contrast, the relationship between race and violent crime (Whites engage in less, Blacks engage in more) tends to disappear when controlling for socioeconomic status (SES), and thus, SES is a mediating variable. (7) Directionality: Some models represent relationships in indeterminate form, whereas other models specify the exact type of relationships anticipated. For example, a model might represent a link (or line) connecting “exposure to media violence” and “viewer’s violent behavior.” This link can be viewed as bi-­‐directional (e.g., as a person’s exposure to violence increases, this person’s likelihood of engaging in violence increases, but also, as a person’s violent behavior increases, the more this person seeks out media content that reflects such violence). This link can also be specified as a particular type of relationship (e.g., consuming violent media increases the likelihood of behaving violently, but the reverse is not true—once a person engages in violence, consumption of violent media does not necessarily increase or decrease). Generally speaking, models consist of components and connections. The components represent some variable or process, and the connections consist of arrows or lines. A directional arrow indicates that a given variable causes or directly influences another variable. Thus, X à Y means that X causes or influences Y. If the arrow is reversed (i.e., X ß Y), it means that Y causes or influences X. A double-­‐sided arrow means that the relationship is reciprocal. If a sign is provided for an arrow (i.e., -­‐ or +), this indicates the type of relationship involved. A positive (or direct) relationship means that as X increases, Y increases, and as X decreases, Y decreases. A negative relationship means that as X increases, Y decreases, and as X decreases, Y increases. There is a third type of relationship that often describes communication processes—curvilinear. Although there are many types of curved lines that could represent the relationship between concepts, one of the most common is that as X increases, Y increases, to a point, beyond which, more X results in less Y. For example, as a person talks more and more, generally speaking, we tend to find this person more attractive and competent. However, as a person begins to talk during 80 or 90% of the time in a conversation, the more we tend to view this person as egotistical and narcissistic. Thus, talk time in a conversation is curvilinear to perceived competence (i.e., as talk time increases, perceived competence increases, to a point, beyond which, perceptions of competence decrease). Brian Spitzberg, School of Communication Proposition Paper Assignment: p. 20 (8) Formality: There are many potential ways of defining formality in a model, but for the purposes of this assignment, formality is the extent to which the model can be translated into hypotheses or specific propositions. For the most part, the more that the connectors of a model have directional and sign-­‐specific connectors, the more formal the model will be. Informal models simply illustrate variables that affect one another, but do not specify how or in what specific ways each of the components is related to the other components of the model. Formal models specify not only which components affect which other components (and by implication, what components are not related to one another), they specify the exact predicted type of relationship among components of the model. (9) Spatial Logic: Most (but not all) models follow relatively simple rules: (1) Components on the left precede, at some point, the components to the right in real time (except when there are feedback loops or arrows). (2) Every arrow represents a direct effect of one concept on another. This effect does not have to be a causal relationship, but it usually implies such an influence. (3) Every component must have an arrow headed to at least one other component, and may have arrows to multiple other components. (4) The spatially closer two components are to one another, the more closely they are associated with one another than to components further away from one another. (5) Components can be hierarchically grouped according to larger components (i.e., multiple indicators of a single concept; e.g., social skills above might be further indicated by coordination, expressiveness, attentiveness, and composure skills). (6) Every arrow is a potentially testable hypothesis (or proposition). This assignment requires that a model of some communicative process be developed, explained, and defended. The following minimum requirements apply: (1) The model must be in some central way directly related to communication. (2)
There must be at least five components with at least one component each representing cause, context, individual factor, process, and outcome. More components can be provided, but there must be at least one component that fits each of these component types. (3)
There must be at least five directional arrows. There can be far more, but at least five must be provided. (4)
At least 10 formal propositions emerging from the model must be formally stated as hypotheses. More propositions can be articulated, but there must be at least five. (5)
Each component must have at least one scholarly journal article that provides backing for arguments related to that component. (6)
The complete model must be capable of being summarized in an abstract 500 words or less. Brian Spitzberg, School of Communication Proposition Paper Assignment: p. 21 (7)
The model must be rendered in a visual form (preferably using the drawing tools in Word, or PowerPoint, which is subsequently saved as an image and imported into Word). (8)
The paper, and the reference list, must be in A.P.A. (5th ed.) format, with 1-­‐inch margins, double-­‐spaced, and either 11-­‐point Arial (normal) or 12-­‐point Times Roman font. The pages of the paper should have a running head, which includes serial pagination. (9)
The entire paper cannot be more than 7 pages in length (not including appended article ‘first-­‐page prints’), such that: a. Title page (= 1 page; which includes student name, red id#, class #, class title, semester/year, and of course, a title that represents the topic of the model). b. Model visual figure (= 1 page) c. Proposition list (= 1 page) d. Abstract (= 1-­‐2 pages) e. Reference list (= 1-­‐2 pages) (10) The abstract provides both explanation and argument in support of the model. The idea is to explain the overall model (i.e., “make sense” of it), and provide key arguments along the way for as many of the key links or relationships as possible within the space allotted. Arguments will typically consist of backing (i.e., sources, evidence, citations, quotations, statistics), claim (i.e., the arrow or proposition), and warrant(s) (i.e., the reason why the claim is sensible or valid). Sample models will be displayed in class, illustrating some of the many ways in which communication theories, processes, and concepts can be visually modeled and explained. Students may adapt already existing models, but when doing so, must cite the existing model, and explain how the student model differs from, or advances, the existing model. As an exemplar of different types of models and their theoretical value and comparison, see: Spitzberg, B. H., & Chagnon, G. (2009). Conceptualizing intercultural communication competence. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 2-­‐52). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Brian Spitzberg, School of Communication Proposition Paper Assignment: p. 22 THINKING IN TOULMANESQUE TERMS DISCOVERY METHODS Communication is a cause, DATA: and is caused by, complex but specifiable underlying processes.
WARRANT: Given statistical or experimental control of extraneous, mediating and moderating variables, causal influences can be identified to a reasonable level of probability (by excluding null and competing hypotheses).
INTERPRETIVE METHODS DATA: Subjective thoughts affect motives and means of interaction. CLAIM: Therefore, probability, measurement, design, theory-­‐ and hypothesis-­‐testing render generalizable conclusions about cause-­‐effect relations. WARRANT: Interactants seek to understand others’ behavior by making subjective attributions about why the others behaved/said what they did.
CLAIM: Subjective thoughts are essential to understanding how interaction is accomplished.
Brian Spitzberg, School of Communication Proposition Paper Assignment: p. 23 CRITICAL METHODS CLAIM: Critical inquiry and evaluations need to reveal these forms of exploitation, thereby pointing the way to better ways of pursuing life. DATA: There are forms of exploitation, deprivation, corruption, and distortion in life.
WARRANT: Such disparities and distortions could only be sustained to the extent that they are hidden or masked by powerful interests, groups, and individuals.
“There are two modes of cognitive functioning, two modes of thought, each providing distinctive ways of ordering experience, of constructing reality. The two (though complementary) are irreducible to one another. Efforts to reduce one mode to the other or to ignore one at the expense of the other inevitably fail to capture the rich diversity of thought. Each of the ways of knowing, moreover, has operating principles of its own and its own criteria of well-­‐formedness. They differ radically in their procedures for verification. A good story and a well-­‐
formed argument are different natural kinds. Both can be used as means for convincing another. Yet what they convince of is fundamentally different: arguments convince one of their truth, stories of their lifelikeness. The one verifies by eventual appeal to procedures for establishing formal and empirical proof. The other establishes not truth but verisimilitude. … The types of causality implied in the two modes are palpably different. The term then functions differently in the logical proposition ‘if x, then y’ and in the narrative recit ‘The king died, and then the queen died.’ One leads to a search for universal truth conditions, the other for likely particular connections between two events—mortal grief, suicide, foul play. … a story … is judged for its goodness as a story by criteria that are of a different kind from those used to judge a logical argument as adequate or correct.” Brunner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Brian Spitzberg, School of Communication Proposition Paper Assignment: p. 24 PROPOSITION/MODEL PAPER EVALUATION SHEET Name: E-­‐mail: Brief Title: Red ID: Email: Date: Course: 0 1 2 3 FORM—WRITING 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Form displays: multiple types & instances within type of writing or grammatical errors in expositional text, &/or displays inconsistency in rule application; frequent re-­‐
editing or rephrasing to achieve more professional voice is suggested. Form displays: few types & instances within type of writing or grammatical errors in expositional text, &/or inconsistency in rule application; occasional re-­‐editing or rephrasing to achieve more professional voice is suggested. 0 1 2 3 SUBSTANCE—PROPOSITIONS 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The key claims are not clearly articulated or delineated. Propositions fail by level of scaling, relationship, or syllogistic entailment. “Object lessons” or “list of horrors” are repeated. Only minor or one or two propositions need editing for sake of clarity. Writing displays professional composition, and grammatical form. voice, Propositions are both logically sound, but sophisticated in their thematic connection &/or articulation of complex relationships. 0 1 2 3 SUBSTANCE—ARGUMENTATION 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Model is mostly a typology or list of concepts, with incomplete, unclear or unarticulated interrelationships among the components; &/or overall paths through the model are vague; &/or component labeling is inconsistent or uninformative. Model concepts involve partially incomplete, occasionally unclear or unarticulated interrelationships among the components; &/or some paths through the model are vague; &/or some component labeling is inconsistent or uninformative. Model is typologically innovative &/or comprehensive, with clear and articulated interrelationships among the components; & overall paths through the model are easy to follow; & component labeling is consistent and informative. 0 1 2 3 SUBSTANCE—RESEARCH 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The key claims of the source(s) are not clearly articulated or delineated. Specific reference to passages in the book(s) is not consistently provided, or not provided in sufficient detail or accuracy to test the claims. Some key claims of the source(s) are articulated or delineated, but there are some inconsistencies in the detail, gravity, or evidentiary basis provided in explicating the claims. Several key claims are clearly identified, articulated, and the evidentiary basis of them in the source(s) is elaborated. 0 1 2 3 SUBSTANCE—MODEL 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Model is mostly a typology or list of concepts, with incomplete, unclear or unarticulated interrelationships among the components; &/or overall paths through the model are vague; &/or component labeling is inconsistent or uninformative. Model concepts involve partially incomplete, occasionally unclear or unarticulated interrelationships among the components; &/or some paths through the model are vague; &/or some component labeling is inconsistent or uninformative. Model is typologically innovative &/or comprehensive, with clear and articulated interrelationships among the components; & overall paths through the model are easy to follow; & component labeling is consistent and informative. APA STYLE -­‐4 -­‐5 -­‐6 -­‐7 -­‐8 -­‐9 -­‐10 -­‐1 -­‐2 -­‐3 COMMENTS: Grade: Brian Spitzberg, School of Communication Overview SDSU Definitions Proposition Paper Assignment: p. 25 THE ACADEMIC DISHONESTY POLICY OF THE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION In any case in which an instructor identifies evidence for charging a student with violation of academic conduct standards or plagiarism, the presumption will be with that instructor’s determination. The instructor(s) will confer with the School Director to confirm the evidence. Once confirmed, the student will be informed and presented with the evidence. Some conditions and terms below clarify the School policy and procedure. “Cheating: Cheating is defined as the act of obtaining or attempting to obtain credit for academic work by the use of dishonest, deceptive, or fraud-­‐ ulent means. Examples of cheating include, but are not limited to • copying, in part or in whole, from another's test or other examination; discussing answers or ideas relating to the answers on a test or other examination without the permission of the instructor; • obtaining copies of a test, an examination, or other course material without the permission of the instructor; • using notes, cheat sheets, or other devices considered inappropriate under the prescribed testing condition; • collaborating with another or others in work to be presented without the permission of the instructor; • falsifying records, laboratory work, or other course data; • submitting work previously presented in another course, if contrary to the rules of the course; • altering or interfering with the grading procedures; • plagiarizing, as defined; and • knowingly and intentionally assisting another student in any of the above. Plagiarism: Plagiarism is defined as the act of incorporating ideas, words, or specific substance of another, whether purchased, borrowed, or otherwise obtained, and submitting same to the university as one's own work to fulfill academic requirements without giving credit to the appropriate source. Plagiarism shall include but not be limited to: • submitting work, either in part or in whole, completed by another; • omitting footnotes for ideas, statements, facts, or conclusions that belong to another; • omitting quotation marks when quoting directly from another, whether it be a paragraph, sentence, or part thereof; • close and lengthy paraphrasing of the writings of another; • submitting another person's artistic works, such as musical compositions, photographs, paintings, drawings, or sculptures; and • submitting as one's own work papers purchased from research companies.” (source: http://www.sa.sdsu.edu/srr/cheating-­‐plagiarism.html) Brian Spitzberg, School of Communication Intellectual contents Proposition Paper Assignment: p. 26 Intellectual contents include all forms of ‘text’ produced by another person or persons. It includes: writings, course syllabi, course lectures and recordings of lectures, visual information such as models, videos, lyrics, software, etc. Intellectual The syllabus, lectures and lecture outlines are personally-­‐copyrighted Property intellectual property of the instructor, which means that any organized recording for anything other than personal use, duplication, distribution, or profit is a violation of copyright and fair use laws. Proper source Proper attribution occurs by specifying the source of content or ideas. This is attribution done by (a) providing quotation marks around text, when directly quoted, and (b) clearly designating the source of the text or information relied upon in an assignment. Self-­‐plagiarism Students often practice some form of ‘double-­‐dipping,’ in which they write on a given topic across more than one course assignment. In general, there is nothing wrong with double-­‐dipping topics or sources, but there is a problem with double-­‐dipping exact and redundant text. It is common for scholars to write on the same topic across many publication outlets; this is part of developing expertise and the reputation of being a scholar on a topic. Scholars, however, are not permitted to repeat exact text across papers or publications except when noted and attributed, as this wastes precious intellectual space with repetition and does a disservice to the particular source of original presentation by ‘diluting’ the value of the original presentation. Any time that a writer simply ‘cuts-­‐and-­‐pastes’ exact text from former papers into a new paper without proper attribution, it is a form of self-­‐
plagiarism. Consequently, a given paper should never be turned in to multiple classes. Entire paragraphs, or even sentences, should not be repeated word-­‐
for-­‐word across course assignments. Each new writing assignment is precisely that, a new writing assignment, requiring new composition on the student’s part. Solicitation for Any student who solicits any third party to write any portion of an assignment ghost writing for this class (whether for pay or not) violates the standards of academic honesty. The penalty for solicitation (regardless of whether it can be demonstrated the individual solicited wrote any sections of the assignment) is F in the course and the student will be reported to Student Rights and Responsibilities. Brian Spitzberg, School of Communication Secondary citations Useful Aides Proposition Paper Assignment: p. 27 Secondary citation is not strictly a form of plagiarism, but in blatant forms, it can present similar ethical challenges. A secondary citation is citing source A, which in turn cites source B, but it is source B’s ideas or content that provide the unique basis for the claims the student intends to make in the assignment. For example, assume there is an article by Jones (2006) in the student’s hands, in which there is a discussion or quotation of an article by Smith (1998). Assume further that what Smith seems to be saying is very important to the student’s analysis. In such a situation, the student should always try to locate the original Smith source. In general, if an idea is important enough to discuss in an assignment, it is important enough to locate and cite the original source for that idea. There are several reasons for these policies: (a) Authors sometimes commit citation errors, which might be replicated without knowing it; (b) Authors sometimes make interpretation errors, which might be ignorantly reinforced (c) Therefore, reliability of scholarly activity is made more difficult to assure and enforce; (d) By relying on only a few sources of review, the learning process is short-­‐circuited, and the student’s own research competencies are diminished, which are integral to any liberal education; (e) By masking the actual sources of ideas, readers must second guess which sources come from which citations, making the readers’ own research more difficult; (f) By masking the origin of the information, the actual source of ideas is misrepresented. Some suggestions that assist with this principle: • When the ideas Jones discusses are clearly attributed to, or unique to, Smith, then find the Smith source and citation. • When the ideas Jones is discussing are historically associated more with Smith than with Jones, then find the Smith source and citation. • In contrast, Jones is sometimes merely using Smith to back up what Jones is saying and believes, and is independently qualified to claim, whether or not Smith would have also said it; in such a case, citing Jones is sufficient. • Never simply copy a series of citations at the end of a statement by Jones, and reproduce the reference list without actually going to look up what those references report—the only guarantee that claims are valid is for a student to read the original sources of those claims. A good place to learn about plagiarism is the tutorial on academic integrity at http://plagiarism.org/plagiarism-­‐101/overview/; and at http://www.yorku.ca/tutorial/academic_integrity/caseintro.html A good place to learn about APA writing and citation style is: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/ A good place to learn about making better arguments is: http://www.readwritethink.org/files/resources/interactives/persuasion_map/ Brian Spitzberg, School of Communication TurnItIn.com Proposition Paper Assignment: p. 28 The papers in this course will be submitted electronically in Word (preferably 2007, .docx) on the due dates assigned, and will require verification of submission to Turnitin.com. “Students agree that by taking this course all required papers may be subject to submission for textual similarity review to TurnItIn.com for the detection of plagiarism. All submitted papers will be included as source documents in the TurnItIn.com reference database solely for the purpose of detecting plagiarism of such papers. You may submit your papers in such a way that no identifying information about you is included. Another option is that you may request, in writing, that your papers not be submitted to TurnItIn.com. However, if you choose this option you will be required to provide documentation to substantiate that the papers are your original work and do not include any plagiarized material” (source: language suggested by the CSU General Counsel and approved by the Center for Student’s Rights and Responsibilities at SDSU). Consequences • Course failure: Soliciting or reproducing a whole paper, paragraph, or of Plagiarism or large portions of unattributed materials without proper attribution, Cheating whether represented by: (a) multiple sentences, images, or portions of images; or (b) by percentage of assignment length, will result in assignment of an “F” in the course in which the infraction occurred, and a report to the Center for Student Rights and Responsibilities (CSRR2). • Assignment failure: Reproducing a sentence or sentence fragment with no quotation marks, but with source citation, or subsets of images without source attribution, will minimally result in an “F” on the assignment, and may result in greater penalty, including a report to the CSRR, depending factors noted below. In this instance, an “F” may mean anything between a zero (0) and 50%, depending on the extent of infraction. • Exacerbating conditions—Amount: Evidence of infraction, even if fragmentary, is increased with a greater: (a) number of infractions; (b) distribution of infractions across an assignment; or (c) proportion of the assignment consisting of infractions. • Exacerbating conditions—Intent: Evidence of foreknowledge and intent to deceive magnifies the seriousness of the offense and the grounds for official response. Plagiarism, whether ‘by accident’ or ‘by ignorance,’ still qualifies as plagiarism—it is all students’ responsibility to make sure their assignments are not committing the offense. • Assistance: Evidence that the student was not the original author of the work, due to soliciting the assistance or composition of another person or persons. • Exceptions: Any exceptions to these policies will be considered on a case-­‐
by-­‐case basis, and only under exceptional circumstances. HOWEVER, THERE ARE NO EXCUSES ALLOWED BASED ON IGNORANCE OF WHAT CONSTITUTES PLAGIARISM, OR OF WHAT THIS POLICY IS Brian Spitzberg, School of Communication Comportment Proposition Paper Assignment: p. 29 The School of Communication, as a representative of SDSU and higher education, expects students to engage in behavior that enhances the classroom learning environment. The Instructor is responsible not only to the individual student, but to the collective group of students who constitute a class. This means that behavior disruptive to the classroom instruction is not tolerated. For the sake of the other students, the instructor may be required to intervene under various circumstances. Among the actions that are considered disruptive to the learning environment are: • The use of cellphones and/or computers/laptops/tablets, whether for conversation, correspondence, emailing, texting, tweeting, or other activities (e.g., social media/Facebook), and when not directly related to the course and its instructional objectives, materials, or contents; • Side conversations or discussion in a manner distracting to the instructor or fellow students; • Ongoing or unrestricted interruption of instructor or fellow students, or otherwise attempting to monopolize classroom time or discussion; • Reading, sleeping, snoring, moving about, yelling, harassing, bullying, or otherwise engaging in activities disrespectful of the instructor or students, or unrelated to the course, materials, or contents; • Entering late, leaving early, or leaving often during lecture, especially when in a disruptive manner; • Activity that in any way could be considered grossly inappropriate, threatening or dangerous. Certain other activities may be acceptable, but only with permission or by direction of the Instructor, who retains the authority to specify relevant restrictions. Such activities include: • Filming, taping, or otherwise recording the class; • Accessing the Internet during class; • Use of computers/laptops/tablets may be permitted, but only if the students are seated in the front row(s) of the classroom. The Instructor reserves the right to establish additional reasonable expectations deemed necessary to maintain optimal learning conduct in the classroom. Each faculty member is the primary arbiter of classroom comportment. The faculty member has the authority to enforce this policy in a manner deemed suitable to the particular class in question. For example • a student texting in class may be requested to turn the phone in to the instructor for the remainder of the class, or • a student using a laptop or IPAD to access Facebook may be asked to close and shut down the technology for the remainder of the period. Should repeat offenses occur, with fair warning, each faculty member will determine fair and appropriate consequences for these behaviors. Should an emergency occur or require monitoring, or if students observe violations of this policy, they are encouraged to inform the instructor as soon as possible. Finally, all students are governed by the SDSU policy on cheating and plagiarism. See their coda at: http://csrr.sdsu.edu/cheating-­‐plagiarism.html Brian Spitzberg, School of Communication THIS IS SERIOUS! Proposition Paper Assignment: p. 30 PLAGIARISM IS A CRIME OF CONDUCT, NOT OF INTENT. THIS COURSE WILL HAVE ZERO-­‐TOLERANCE FOR PLAGIARISM! WHY? BECAUSE: 1. A PLAGIARISM POLICY IS PUBLISHED IN THE UNIVERSITY CATALOG; 2. THE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION PLAGIARISM POLICY, COMPLETE WITH ELABORATED EXAMPLES, DEFINITIONS, AND CONSEQUENCES FOR TYPES OF PLAGIARISM, IS: a. ON THE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION BLACKBOARD SITE, b. ON THE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION WEBSITE, AND c. IN THE COURSE SYLLABUS; 3. A POWERPOINT LECTURE PRESENTED IN THIS COURSE ON “THE ESSENTIALS” FURTHER SPECIFIES THE NATURE OF PLAGIARISM; 4. YOU CAN TURN IN YOUR PAPER BEFORE IT IS DUE, SEE ITS ORIGINALITY RATING, FIX IT, AND TURN IT IN AGAIN BY SUBMISSION DEADLINE; 5. FINALLY, YOU SHOULD SIMPLY KNOW THAT IT IS UNETHICAL AND A ‘HIGH CRIME’ IN ACADEME TO MISREPRESENT ANYONE’S WORDS OR IDEAS, THROUGH IMPLICATION, WHETHER INTENDED OR NOT, a. THAT THEY ARE YOUR OWN, OR b. THEY ARE SOMEONE ELSE’S WHEN THEY ARE NOT. A final analogy: If you are taking a driving test to get a license, And you run a stop sign while the instructor is in the car, You fail the test then and there, and must wait for an opportunity to re-­‐take the exam another time. So it is with plagiarism. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR PLAGIARISM, AND NO EXCUSE WILL BE ACCEPTED. YOU ARE FOREWARNED. IF YOU PLAGIARIZE, YOU WILL FAIL THIS COURSE. Brian Spitzberg, School of Communication Proposition Paper Assignment: p. 31 Source: http://plagiarism.org/plagiarism-101/overview