GRADUATE ATTRIBUTE 8:
LOCATE, ORGANISE, ANALYSE, SYNTHESISE AND
EVALUATE INFORMATION
Construct your brain
Training your brain
Evaluation models and activities
Model 1: Evaluating by comparing documents
Model 1: British medical journal
Model 1: Tobacco industry & the Frank Statement
Model 1: Frank Statement draft
Model 2: Gun control in the U.S.A.
Model 2: Gun control
Model 2: Textual analysis
Model 3: Structuring an evaluation report
Model 4: Evaluating a problem using multiple sources
Model 4: Multiple resource texts
Citation managers
Copyright (c) Australian Catholic University 2015
1
GA8.1 CONSTRUCT YOUR BRAIN
Before completing the activities set out for Graduate Attribute 8, consider the sorts of processes that this GA involves. Then start
working on the evaluation models and their activities. Focus on how you apply these skills not just understanding information.
THIS PROCESS CREATES NEW SYNAPTIC
CONNECTIONS AND INCREASES OUR BRAIN'S CAPACITY.
1. LOCATE AND ORGANISE
This requires an initial analysis of the requirements of an assignment question or project/research area so that relevant literature can
be located. Part of the analysis will identify the different areas of your assignment question or project so you can organise your
resources accordingly. Consider using a program like Endnote, RefWorks or Zotero at this stage for efficient organisation of references.
2. UNDERSTAND
Understand new information by relating it to your own individual pre-existing mental concepts.
This means we associate the new information/concepts with our prior understanding/frameworks to become clear and make meaning
of ideas we have either not considered before or not in the new presenting perspective or context. You may have to consider a number
of perspectives.
3. ANALYSE AND SYNTHESISE
Work with your understanding of new information/concepts to build an expanded or a totally new mental model. This process is the
hardest work of all the cognitive skills on this page because you go from mental discomfort/the unknown to build long-term knowledge:
the opposite of short-term cramming. Additionally this is where you are building the synaptic connections and mental models upon
which you can then apply the evaluation.
The extent to which we reshape or rework our previous mental models depends on how out of sync they are with the new; to what
extent we recognise this, and our ability to stay focussed through the process (control distractions or competing input from other
media/people). Maintaining extended concentration as you work with new knowledge is what creates new synaptic connections.
We also need to recognise our assumptions or biases as they can cloud full understanding and we end up with faulty mental
models/constructs.
4. EVALUATE
This is the highest, most sophisticated form of thinking as it requires all previous levels of thinking before weighing up the value of
different sets of data/knowledge according to an explicit range of criteria to ascribe value. You may need to do this for a number of
perspectives.
This deeper process can be quite uncomfortable as you are juggling a number of points of view and expertise, and some concepts
and/or processes may be outside your experience.
Copyright (c) Australian Catholic University 2015
2
8.2 TRAINING YOUR BRAIN
Take some time to consider what you can do practically to improve your thinking capacity, your cognitive health.
Just a brief reflection on Graduate Attribute 8: Locate, organise, analyse, synthesise and evaluate will lead you to realise this is about
how you think and the capacity of your cognitive processes. We are not primarily talking about understanding the content itself but how
you identify and organise it and then most critically, what you do with it. You can choose to stay at the level of superficial understanding
and paraphrase, which leads to poor synthesis and short term memory, or you can grapple with what you read with probing questions
from your current understanding to synthesise or change your thinking for long term memory.
Changing your thinking involves association of ideas, and optimally, using the information actively in new contexts, perhaps even
creating new ideas. Association and active use synthesises and leads to long term memory; to a change in your brain’s physical
structure and functional organisation. So we are talking about:
depth of analysis
working of new information and concepts into your prior mental models to create new mental models. (A new mental model does
not equate with a new idea. Your brain may have a totally new understanding but it may not be a new idea for humankind in
general.)
These ‘mental models’ may be relatively simple or quite complex:
adjusted factual information or a step in a manual procedure
sequence of steps in a manual procedure/skill, each step having its own knowledge base as well as a rationale for its place in the
whole procedural set.
reworked concept or groups of interlinked concepts
adjusted complex perspective or belief system with its inherent linked concepts and arguments
totally new complex perspective or belief system in relationship with opposing perspectives
YOU CAN CHANGE YOUR BRAIN ALL YOUR LIFE
Photo: Benedict Campbell, Neurons in the brain,
Wellcome Images Creative Commons 2.0
Recent research suggests that our brains are changing all the time depending on our experience and how we concentrate to process
our experiences and then modify our thinking. Even the elderly, for example, can improve their mental capacity and memory through
cognitive training. In a randomised, controlled single-blind trial, 2832 volunteers aged 65 to 94 years were tested and given such
training. Final tests indicated that the targeted cognitive abilities for speed, reasoning and memory had improved significantly.
See Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults, A Randomized Controlled Trial
See also Norman Doidge’s, The Brain that Changes Itself, and the writing of Oliver Sacks.
In summary, we actually have to exercise our brains in a focused way, repeatedly, in order to learn and improve our thinking skills.
Copyright (c) Australian Catholic University 2015
3
8.3 EVALUATION MODELS AND ACTIVITIES
This section of the module comprises:
1. An explanation of what we are doing when we evaluate. Some evaluations are relatively simple while others are complex research
evaluations.
2. Evaluation models:
an evaluation of medical and tobacco industry texts to demonstrate how to evaluate two conflicting arguments and consider
'balance'.
an evaluation a single piece of text on a subject where there are several distinct points of view.
a completed evaluation report to show the text organisation and function of the parts.
a 'case study' on public housing towers where there are different perspectives.
3. The models are followed by an activity with answers, except for the last one on public housing towers where you are asked to
analyse and synthesise seven texts to address a current issue in Melbourne, but which could be situated in any large city.
Evaluation is what happens when you synthesise the results of your critical thinking. So you have already understood, analysed and
synthesised information but now you turn to the results and apply another set of questions to evaluate value.
SPECIFIC EVALUATION CRITERIA
We always evaluate in a context. It will depend on:
who has asked you to do an evaluation;
what their purpose is [what key questions they have asked you to evaluate in context of the data];
the domain-specific concepts and language; and
whether you have been asked to make recommendations as a result of your research.
Additionally, the evaluation may be of:
qualitative research informing policy; or
less formal but critical for informing business decisions, of the success or otherwise of a business project.
GENERAL EVALUATION CRITERIA
When you evaluate, you judge whether:
this ‘new knowledge’ contributes to the field: the quality and extent of its value;
the data are valid and reliable (What are the sources, the tests?);
the proposals are valid (How logical and coherent are the arguments, are they backed up by reliable data?);
there are any conflicts of interest ie. Who has funded the research or the article? There are obvious cases where a drug has gone
through clinical trials but the investigators have been funded by the pharmaceutical company. However, conflicts of interest can
be socio-political or religious as well as commercial. So the first questions should be:
Who has funded the research? Does this compromise the validity?
How objective is the article or research? Look at the author’s political/religious affiliations. Are these stated openly or do
you have to search further?
the weight or significance attributed to a piece of research/article/presentation is based on the value of each argument making up
the whole ie. the weight of evidence/sets of evidence backing up a coherent flow of explanation, reasons and possible impacts.
The weight or significance attributed to one piece of research/article/presentation in comparison to another is NOT based on
evaluating the weight of each argument but in taking the value of the whole set of arguments and asking the next critical questions:
What is the gravity of acting or not acting on the evidence of the research?
If the research is actually an evaluation, then we can ask: What is the gravity of acting or not acting on the evidence and the
recommendations?
What are the consequences or degree of impact if there is no action?
This is the BALANCE TASK. We are involved in this task when we are:
on job interview panels;
examining proposals with different points of view (at all organisational and governmental levels) to create policy and
implementation plans; and
Copyright (c) Australian Catholic University 2015
4
reviewing projects and planning future strategies (different stakeholder views).
Copyright (c) Australian Catholic University 2015
5
8.4 EVALUATION MODEL 1: EVALUATING BY
COMPARING DOCUMENTS
We are often called upon to make up our minds about important but controversial matters. Sometimes both sides of an argument are
readily available in the media; sometimes one dominates. In either event, it’s important to be able to evaluate the case that is made.
When you can easily find both sides of the argument, it’s easier to make an evaluation by comparing them.
Sometimes it’s obvious what the contrary points of view are, but you still need to decide on a basis for evaluating them. These are
similar to the ones you used in your work on critical thinking: who is the audience, who is/are the author(s), how can you establish the
credibility of the information, where else can you look for confirmation or otherwise? Sometimes the facts presented are similar to each
other, but are given a particular slant by means such as selective reporting, choice of language and so on. In this case you need to read
especially carefully, because the material may have been designed to trigger an emotional response (positive or negative) which may
hinder your critical thinking.
We will look at a subject that comes into the first category. Among the topics prominent over the last half century or so, few have
aroused more heated debate than that of tobacco.
CONTENTIOUS MATTERS
The tobacco problem seems obvious to us now. A more recent issue that evoked equally heated debate is climate change; this now
seems to have been pretty much resolved, as far as we can tell. But there are and always will be contentious matters. Can you think of a
few more? Some that continue to arouse vocal proponents on both sides are logging in old growth forests; cattle grazing in national
parks; vaccination of infants; alternative medicine (e.g. naturopathy, acupuncture etc. versus conventional medicine); video gaming and
whether or not it leads to increased violence.
SOME TOBACCO SMOKING HISTORY
It had been suspected since the 1920s that tobacco smoking was harmful to health, and this knowledge was strengthened by medical
research in the 1950s. For thirty years or so the tobacco companies tried to counter these findings by funding research of their own, by
publishing selective interpretations of existing research, and by undertaking public persuasion campaigns. It is fascinating to read how
their arguments changed as they were gradually compelled to admit the facts; but here we will take just two documents. The first is an
article in the British Medical Journal reporting on medical research on the link between smoking and cancer. The second was published
by the tobacco industry.
In reading the two pieces, remember that, although the dangers of smoking are now well accepted, in the 1950s the public debate was
still relatively new. It raged for a further thirty or so years; and actually the tobacco companies are still fighting a rearguard action, for
instance in relation to the plain packaging of cigarettes. A further fact to remember when thinking about how the pieces would have
been received is that many readers would have been smokers who would have liked to be reassured and enabled to continue their
habit.
Copyright (c) Australian Catholic University 2015
6
8.5 EVALUATION MODEL 1: BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
We have pointed out some ways in which you can make a comparative evaluation of the two pieces. The first one is below.
EVALUATING DOLL & HILL
Extract from ‘ Smoking and Carcinoma of the Lung’
Richard Doll and A. Bradford Hill
Br Med J. 1950 September 30; 2(4682): 739–748
Accessed 14 January 2013
The British Medical Journal is a highly respected and influential journal. The authors’/researchers’ credentials included and which show
them to be of high professional standing as these are well known and respected bodies:
‘Member of the Statistical Research Unit of the Medical Research Council’ and ‘Professor of Medical Statistics, London School of
Hygiene and Tropical Medicine;
Honorary Director of the Statistical Research Unit of the Medical Research Council’
The article:
Cites previous research on the subject
Reports on original research; large sample.
Method described in detail, including possible difficulties as a double blind method was not used
Reports results in detail, with both statistics and narrative
Acknowledges, and gives reasons for dismissing, alternative explanations of results, and notes aspects that are not yet explained.
Acknowledges that extrapolation to general population is speculative at this stage.
We can evaluate this research as being highly credible, while noting that at that stage further work remained to be done.
Copyright (c) Australian Catholic University 2015
7
GA8.6 EVALUATION MODEL 1: TOBACCO INDUSTRY &
THE FRANK STATEMENT
Content on this page from Sourcewatch is available under Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike.
THE FRANK STATEMENT
This article is part of the Tobacco portal on Sourcewatch funded from 2006 - 2009 by the American Legacy Foundation.
Help expose the truth about the tobacco industry.
Definition of ‘frank’ from Merriam Webster dictionary
1. marked by free, forthright, and sincere expression <a frank reply>
2. a. unmistakably evident <frank materialism>
b: clinically evident and unmistakable <frank pus>
THE HISTORY OF THE STATEMENT
"A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers" was a historic ad run by the major American tobacco companies on January 4, 1954 that
was carefully worded to counteract early published studies indicating cigarettes cause disease, and to lull the public into belief that the
tobacco industry was doing something about the problem. The ad marked the turning point in the tobacco industry's history: the
beginning of the industry's lengthy U.S. misinformation campaign about the health effects of tobacco. On January 4, 1954, in response
to continuing scientific reports on the detrimental health effects of smoking, the Tobacco Industry Research Committee ran a full-page
editorial-advertisement in more than 400 newspapers throughout the U.S. aimed at an estimated 43 million people.
The advertisement announced the founding of the Tobacco Industry Research Committee, and was a seminal moment in the history not
just of tobacco, but of public relations.
Given this definition, it’s clear that the headline is intended to give us an expectation that the material following is forthright and sincere.
This should alert us to look for evidence of whether the article is sincere or not.
THE AD READ AS FOLLOWS:
A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers
RECENT REPORTS on experiments with mice have given wide publicity to a theory that cigarette smoking is in some way linked with lung
cancer in human beings. Although conducted by doctors of professional standing, these experiments are not regarded as conclusive in
the field of cancer research. However, we do not believe that any serious medical research, even though its results are inconclusive
should be disregarded or lightly dismissed. At the same time, we feel it is in the public interest to call attention to the fact that eminent
doctors and research scientists have publicly questioned the claimed significance of these experiments.
Acknowledges the existence of medical research but dismisses it as ‘not conclusive’. But in this case we should be told what research, who
says it is not conclusive, and who has ‘publicly questioned’ its significance. As we are not told this, we should not accept the statement.
Which ‘distinguished authorities’ make these claims? We need to know this to be able to check the veracity of this statement. We need to
know at least some examples of who has questioned the validity of the statistics, in which publications.
Distinguished authorities point out:
That medical research of recent years indicates many possible causes of lung cancer.
That there is no agreement among the authorities regarding what the cause is.
That there is no proof that cigarette smoking is one of the causes.
That statistics purporting to link cigarette smoking with the disease could apply with equal force to any one of many other aspects
of modern life. Indeed the validity of the statistics themselves is questioned by numerous scientists.
On what grounds do ‘we believe the products we make are not injurious to health’? This paragraph is full of general claims with no
evidence.
The Research Committee
We accept an interest in people's heath as a basic responsibility, paramount to every other consideration in our business. We believe
the products we make are not injurious to health. We always have and always will cooperate closely with those whose task it is to
safeguard the public health. For more than 300 years tobacco has given solace, relaxation, and enjoyment to mankind. At one time or
another during those years critics have held it responsible for practically every disease of the human body. One by one these charges
Copyright (c) Australian Catholic University 2015
8
have been abandoned for lack of evidence. Regardless for the record of the past, the fact that cigarette smoking today should even be
suspected as a cause of a serious disease is a matter of deep concern to us. Many people have asked us what we are doing too meet
the public's concern aroused by the recent reports. Here is the answer: We are pledging aid and assistance to the research effort into
all phases of tobacco use and health. This joint financial aid will of course be in addition to what is already being contributed by
individual companies. For this purpose we are establishing a joint industry group consisting initially of the undersigned. This group will
be known as TOBACCO INDUSTRY RESEARCH COMMITTEE. In charge of the research activities of the Committee will be a scientist of
unimpeachable integrity and national repute. In addition there will be an Advisory Board of scientists disinterested in the cigarette
industry. A group of distinguished men from medicine, science, and education will be invited to serve on this Board. These scientists
will advise the Committee on its research activities. This statement is being issued because we believe the people are entitled to know
where we stand on this matter and what we intend to do about it.
This committee sounds on the surface like a good idea but how will it achieve ‘unimpeachable integrity and national repute’? Scientists
are wary of research funded by bodies with an interest in the outcome; so should we be.
We can conclude that this document is an attempt to discredit or distract attention from the scientific research of the time, and to
reassure tobacco smokers that they need not worry too much about their smoking. It is also obvious that it’s in the financial interest of
the tobacco industry to do so. So we should give little if any credibility to the ‘frank statement’.
Statement Signatories
THE AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY, INC.
Paul M. Hahn, President
BURLEY TOBACCO GROWERS COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION
John W. Jones, President
PHILLIP MORRIS & CO. LTD., INC.
O. Parker McComas, President
BENSON & HEDGES
Joseph F. Cullman, Jr., President
LARUS & BROTHER COMPANY, INC.
W. T. Reed, Jr., President
R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY
E. A. Darr, President
BRIGHT BELT WAREHOUSE ASSOCIATION
F. S. Royster, President
P. LORILLARD COMPANY
The signatories to the document have provided their names and affiliations, as is proper. This enables us to see what their likely interests
are.
Copyright (c) Australian Catholic University 2015
9
8.7 EVALUATION MODEL 1: FRANK STATEMENT DRAFT
Below is a draft of the Frank Statement with handwritten alterations. It is fascinating because it shows how the authors make the factual
statements vaguer while keeping the language which is intended to show them as participating actively in the scientific process. We
have commented in the right hand column (read the transcript
TIRC. "A Frank Statement to the Public By the Makers of Cigarettes". 26 Dec 1953.
Removing the word ‘unquestioned’ allows the industry to take into account work of less scientific validity.
Adding ‘eminent doctors and research’ scientists strengthens the statement without actually naming who these people were.
Changing ‘a half dozen’ to ‘many’ makes the statement vaguer.
Changing ‘many’ to numerous is again vaguer – ‘numerous’ could, by a stretch of the imagination, include a small number.
Omitting ‘science has no proof to the contrary’ was wise, because science had much evidence to the contrary.
Copyright (c) Australian Catholic University 2015
10
Deletion of the first sentence was necessary, beause they were, and intended to continue, producing and marketing a product shown to
be the cause of a very serious ailment.
‘Those’ is vaguer than ‘Governmental authorities’ – the industry certainly didn’t cooperate closely with government.
The original statement pledges aid to research into the cause of lung cancer; if they had carried it out, it would have been economically
detrimental to the industry. The final sentence, ‘...the research effort into all phases of tobacco use’ is so vague as to be more or less
meaningless.
Part of the original wording is illegible, but clearly the deletion is intended to avoid being pinned down to a process.
Again, a commitment to identifying the cause of lung cancer is deleted.
Copyright (c) Australian Catholic University 2015
11
And finally, the industry has changed its mind about undertaking to keep the public informed about facts that may come to light.
Copyright (c) Australian Catholic University 2015
12
8.8 EVALUATION MODEL 2: GUN CONTROL IN THE U.S.A.
In the previous activity, we looked at how you could evaluate an argument by analysing two contrasting pieces of information. In this
activity you are asked to evaluate a single piece of text on a subject where there are several distinct points of view. Before starting, let’s
revisit the criteria for evaluation that were put forward earlier:
‘New knowledge’: does the text contribute to the field, and what is its quality?
Validity and reliability of data – are the facts correct?
Validity of proposals – are the arguments logical and coherent?
Are there any conflicts of interest? Who might benefit from prevailing in the argument?
Is the text objective?
How important is it to act or not act on the argument presented?
What are the credentials of the author, the author’s organisation and the publication?
Following the recent shooting of children and teachers at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, USA, there was a massive
outcry and renewed calls for more effective gun controls. President Obama has declared his intention to introduce legislation to reduce
violence, while the powerful lobby group the National Rifle Association is resisting any change.
This is a complicated issue in American politics, and one that has polarised Americans for many years. We can’t possibly do justice to all
the complexities of the situation, but it is a good one to consider because it stirs emotional as well as rational responses in many of us.
We need also to remember that we Australians are seeing this issue from the outside; we won’t be aware of all the nuances of
American views.
BACKGROUND
The Second Amendment, to the US Constitution, which stands at the heart of the argument, reads as follows: ‘A well regulated
Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed’.
The main arguments on which debate is based in the US can be summarised as follows:
CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS
What does the Second Amendment to the US constitution mean in relation to citizens’ rights to own firearms?
Does the government have the authority to regulate the ownership of firearms?
PRAGMATIC ARGUMENTS
Does gun ownership lead to crime or prevent crime?
Is the regulation of gun ownership effective policy?
ETHICAL ARGUMENTS
How can the public interest in safety be balanced against the right of individuals to self defence?
Read the article, The Billionaire Versus We, The People, by Wayne LaPierre, the Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association,
and then on the next page consider the questions which will help you to evaluate it.
Some cultural background to perspectives and arguments of the gun lobby in the USA are best understood below. It takes awhile to
load but is fascinating viewing (or read the transcript):
Copyright (c) Australian Catholic University 2015
13
8.9 EVALUATION MODEL 2: GUN CONTROL
In this activity, we evaluate one article presenting an extreme view of one side of the argument.
Almost everyone will already have developed an opinion on a subject that is so prominent in the media, and it will always have some
emotional component. But you can interrogate your own opinion to try to separate the emotional and rational components of your view,
and give fair consideration to all perspectives. We have tried to do this in evaluating the article.
You had a link on the previous page to read the article, The Billionaire Versus We, The People, by Wayne LaPierre, the Executive Vice
President of the National Rifle Association. You may need to read the article again before you consider the questions below.
1. What is the Second Amendment and what is the debate around its interpretation? (One interpretation can be found on the
website of the North Carolina Wesleyan College; there are many others on the web. For the purposes of this exercise, you don’t
need to understand all the many complexities of the debate.)
2. What is the NRA’s main argument in this piece?
3. Why are Michael Bloomberg and George Soros the particular targets here? Who are they and what is their link with gun control?
4. How does the author use language to persuade his readers?
5. Many, if not most, of the readers of this piece will already be in agreement with it, since it is published on the website of the NRA.
Do you think it would persuade people who haven’t made up their minds? Why or why not?
6. One way to evaluate a piece of writing is to search for counter-arguments (as we saw in the material on smoking). What counterarguments can you find by doing a web search? Having looked at these, how would you evaluate LaPierre’s argument?
7. Having considered all these questions, including the textual analysis on the next page, what is your final evaluation of Wayne
LaPierre’s article?
Now see the answers.
EVALUATION MODEL 2: GUN CONTROL ANSWERS
Note that your answers may not be the same as ours. There are many angles from which to look at such a complex subject; these suggestions
are made from our point of view, being as objective as we can.
So as you read through the analysis below, consider whether you think we have made an adequate attempt to be fair. You might
think also about whether you would see the issue differently if you were living in America.
1. What is the Second Amendment and what is the debate around its interpretation? (one interpretation can be found here on
the website of the North Carolina Wesleyan College; there are many others on the web.) For the purposes of this exercise, you
don’t need to understand all the many complexities of the debate).
A simplification of the argument related to the Second Amendment is along the following lines. The gun lobby concentrates on the
second clause. The opposite argument contends that the right to bear arms was in order for all adult men to be able to take part in
the defence of the State if it became necessary. A fact noted by gun control proponents but not mentioned by the gun lobby is that
when the Constitution is written, the types of semi-automatic weapons available today did not exist; guns were capable of firing a
single shot only and needed to be reloaded after every shot, so that mass killings and drive-by shootings were not possible. Gun
control proponents note that such military-style weapons were designed for war, not for the streets.
This debate, divisive in itself, also plays into a wider argument in which a section of the American people is fearful of any sort of
government intervention in their perceived liberties, and so into contemplation of what ‘liberty’ actually means today.
2. What is the NRA’s main argument in this piece?
The main argument is that Mayor Bloomberg’s campaign against guns, funded by his massive wealth, is destroying a democratic
right of Amercans.
3. Why are Michael Bloomberg and George Soros the particular targets here? Who are they and what is their link with gun
control?
Michael Bloomberg is the Mayor of New York, who caused the minimum sentence for illegal possession of a loaded handgun to be
increased. He is quoted as saying ‘Illegal guns don't belong on our streets and we're sending that message loud and clear. We're
determined to see that gun dealers who break the law are held accountable, and that criminals who carry illegal loaded guns serve
serious time behind bars.’ [Mike Bloomberg Crime, accessed 18 January 2013].
The information service he founded, Bloomberg LP, is widely used and influential, though not everyone shares the views expressed.
His political affiliation was initially Democratic, then Republican, and is now Independent. He takes a relatively liberal stance on
social issues, opposing the death penalty and supporting the right to abortion. He has given a very large amount of money to
philanthropic causes.
George Soros is a very rich Hungarian-American business man and philanthropist, who supports a number of liberal causes,
including The Open Society, an institution which promotes democratic rights, reforms in civil society, and opposition to corruption.
Copyright (c) Australian Catholic University 2015
14
4. How does the author use language to persuade his readers?
The piece contains a good deal of highly emotive language. (See table below.)
5. Many, if not most, of the readers of this piece will already be in agreement with it, since it is published on the website of the
NRA. Do you think it would persuade people who haven’t made up their minds? Why or why not?
People who might be persuaded by this piece could include those who have biases such as right-wing voters who don’t like
Bloomberg’s and Soros’s liberal views; people who fear government interference in their rights (there is a large group of these), and
especially those who dislike President Obama; people who unquestioningly accept the doctrine of ‘the right to bear arms’; people
who are easily swayed by (or don’t notice the effect of) emotive language.
Those who are not persuaded might include people who are already biased against the gun lobby; those who have read research
that indicates a correlation between gun ownership and deaths by gunshot; supporters of Bloomberg, Soros and Obama; and
people who spot the manipulative nature of emotive language.
6. One way to evaluate a piece of writing is to search for counter-arguments (as we saw in the material on smoking). What
counter-arguments can you find by doing a web search? Having looked at these, how would you evaluate LaPierre’s argument?
Some articles with different perspectives from the one we have analysed can be found below. An internet search will find others.
Bloomberg
Just Facts
Princeton Election Consortium
The Atlantic
Debate.org
The Guardian
The Philly Post
7. Having considered all these questions, go on to the textual analysis on the next page. As you work on the textual analysis also
hold in mind how your evaluation of Wayne LaPierre’s article may be deepening.
Copyright (c) Australian Catholic University 2015
15
8.10 MODEL 2: TEXTUAL ANALYSIS
Look at the modelled analysis on the left of the sections. Print the
worksheet to analyse the last six sections.
When finished, sit back and consider both your analysis of the arguments and your textual analysis. What is your final evaluation of
Wayne LaPierre’s article?
STANDING GUARD
The Billionaire Versus We, The People
By Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President
TEXTUAL ANALYSIS (SEE QUESTION 4 ABOVE)
Every paragraph in this text contains highly coloured and emotive language. We have highlighted the ones that we have found.
With the toxic combination of Barack Obama holding onto the vast executive power of his presidency to abuse our freedom and New
York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s personal declaration of war on the NRA, the nation’s gun owners are facing an unprecedented
assault on the Second Amendment.
Toxic=poisonous. Does LaPierre define anything poisonous about Obama and Bloomberg? A neutral phrasing would omit adjectives
altogether here.
‘Abuse’ is a strong word which indicates from the start that the author sees Obama as an enemy.
‘Assault’, used metaphorically here, is a word associated with violence. Are Obama and Bloomberg intending to deal violently (even if
metaphorically) with the Second Amendment?
Obama, to succeed in his second term gun-ban agenda, needs Bloomberg to buy a massive propaganda operation designed to destroy
the only true shield protecting the Second Amendment. Almost in the same breath as his endorsement of Obama’s bid for a nothingto-lose lame-duck four year term, Bloomberg has pledged to use his billions of dollars to destroy the National Rifle Association—to
liquidate the assembled power of 4 million individual Americans who are the first and best line of defense against his dream of total
civil disarmament.
The first sentence in this paragraph needs a lot of deconstructing.
Merriam-Webster defines propaganda as:
‘the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person; ideas, facts, or
allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also: a public action having such an effect’
(Merriam Webster Dictionary, accessed 20 January 2013) . It carries a strong negative connotation. Further, it is suggested that Obama is
‘buying’ propaganda, i.e. procuring it corruptly. The ‘true shield’ referred to is the NRA. Is it true that this is the only protection for the
Second Amendment, or indeed that it needs protecting?
‘Nothing-to-lose lame-duck four year term’ – Obama cannot have a third term as president, so he has nothing to lose by taking
unpopular action. ‘Lame duck’ is a phrase commonly used of a president about to end his term, when he can’t hope for substantial
achievements. But Obama has only just started his second term and so still has an opportunity. Using the phrase is therefore illogical
and a gratuitous insult.
Bloomberg has indicated his desire to limit the power of the NRA, but we have found no evidence that he intends to ‘destroy’ it.
In a November 3, 2012, puff piece touting Mayor Bloomberg’s self-coronation as the nation’s gun-ban king, The National Journal crowed,
“…the billionaire is laying the groundwork to become a one man counterweight to one of the nation’s most powerful lobbies: the
National Rifle Association.” The article said he is dedicating “his massive wealth” to that end.
The Journal piece concentrated on just one of Bloomberg’s gun-ban money-dumps—his personal endowment of his very own Super
Political Action Committee (PAC)—“Independence USA”—created to seed Congress with his hand-picked political puppets.
A ‘puff piece’ is a piece of journalism without substance, promoting someone or something.
Bloomberg’s ‘self-coronation’ – ascribing grandiose ambition to Bloomberg; has he ever called himself the ‘gun-ban king’?
The National Journal ‘crowed’ = bragged; a more neutral term when referring to a piece of reporting would be ‘stated’, ‘reported’ or ‘said’.
It’s worth looking at the National Journal article at The National Journal to see how LaPierre is subtly misrepresenting it.
A ‘money-dump’ suggests somewhere you might conceal or park money where it would lie inactive. This is pejorative but illogical, since
the paragraph is about Bloomberg’s active use of this money.
It is true, according to the Journal article, that Bloomberg is backing candidates who are supportive of gun control and opposing those
who are against it. The Journal article actually says, more neutrally, that he is ‘using’ his massive wealth rather than ‘dedicating’ it, which
would imply that is his only aim. In fact, he has wider interests.
The term ‘hand-picked political puppets’ is highly offensive both to Bloomberg and to the candidates, since it suggests that the
candidates would operate according to Bloomberg’s wishes rather than on their own account, and that Bloomberg actively sought
people who would do this.
The National Journal is a publication of repute that reports on politics, policy and the political environment.
Copyright (c) Australian Catholic University 2015
16
One man counterweight? Massive wealth? Try: “He, the billionaire” versus “We, the people.”
Bloomberg has declared opposition to the NRA, not to the American people.
His Super-PAC mouthpiece bragged, “There is a new anti-gun-lobby sheriff in town.”
‘Mouthpiece’ implies a puppet, rather than a spokesman, the term used in the article.
‘Bragged’ again.
No, Bloomberg is no sheriff. He’s a spoiled-rich political bully. He’s the same anti-Second Amendment despot who bankrolled crippling
punitive lawsuits against lawful firearm commerce across the nation using a hand-picked New York federal judge to do his bidding.
Bloomberg is certainly extremely rich. ‘Spoiled’ is a word usually applied to badly-behaved children, implying that Bloomberg is subject
to bad behaviour or tantrums. Whether or not this is true, it’s irrelevant to the argument. Is he a bully or a despot? Possibly, we don’t
know without further research. These terms add nothing to the argument, and no evidence is given to support their veracity.
‘...a hand-picked New York federal judge to do his bidding’ – a clear implication of corruption.
He is the same pompous aristocrat who demands ordinary New Yorkers go disarmed against violent thugs, while surrounding himself
with a phalanx of armed bodyguards.
Is Bloomberg an aristocrat? Is he pompous? Are all aristocrats necessarily pompous? We don’t know without further research, but in any
case, being a pompous aristocrat does not in itself invalidate someone’s actions.
Very many public figures in the US have bodyguards, often armed.
If you want a study in Bloomberg’s tone deaf arrogance look no further than his shameful failure to serve New Yorkers suffering
from the total devastation of Hurricane Sandy.
The manifesto in the Nov. 3 National Journal came just days after the soda-pop-banning little dictator of Manhattan essentially
abandoned tens of thousands of New Yorkers in the outer boroughs, the forgotten parts of his city—victims of Hurricane Sandy who
were without shelter, food, power, water and police protection. While they suffered, the mayor turned his attention to the circus of his
annual New York City Marathon.
The meaning of ‘tone deaf’ is not clear in the context, but could be meant to suggest that he’s not hearing the voice of New Yorkers.
It may be evident to Americans whether the assertion that he ‘abandoned’ New Yorkers after Hurricane Sandy is accurate. An internet
search certainly reveals criticism of the New York administration, but also reports on financial and other aid initiatives that were taken.
Emotive but irrelevant – Bloomberg has agitated to ban extra-large serves of soft drinks, which he considers a contributor to obesity. A
‘dictator’ is someone who has absolute power. Bloomberg is powerful, but his power is not absolute.
The New York Marathon is a big public event; ‘circus’ implies it is an unimportant distraction.
In his preparations for the big race, the mayor diverted precious resources like police and emergency generators. Only after a tsunami
of national rage did Bloomberg petulantly abandon his marathon celebration.
A tsunami, as we remember from events in recent years, is an enormous wave surge resulting from an underwater earthquake or
similar event.
There was certainly debate about whether the marathon should be cancelled, some of it angry, but many media reports take a far more
moderate tone, e.g. ‘...while the majority of those who vocalized opinions came down in favor of postponing or canceling the race, ...
some were hoping the marathon would provide some benefit.’ (The Huffington Post , accessed 4 February 2013)
‘Petulantly’ – Bloomberg’s mood as he cancelled the race is irrelevant; the word is just another pejorative comment.
But Bloomberg’s twisted priorities got even worse. In response to demands that National Guard troops come into the city to augment
police against flash-mob looting, Bloomberg refused, saying, “The NYPD is the only people [sic] we want on the streets with guns.”
‘Twisted’ according to the NRA – others might have agreed; it’s a matter of opinion.
Insane. In Bloomberg’s world-view, our young men and women in uniform are not to be trusted with arms to protect against criminal
anarchy.
Now it’s your turn to make your own comments on the highlighted terms in the rest of the article, and include any others that you may find.
Bloomberg is scheduled to leave office when his term ends in 2013. And that is good for New Yorkers. But it is bad for the rest of us. He
will be the full-time DEAR LEADER of the gun-ban movement—even eclipsing his fellow billionaire George Soros.
As the founder and banker for Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), Bloomberg has been building his personal cadre of urban
politicians, an army of gun-ban zealots with untold taxpayer resources at his disposal. And through MAIG grants to cities and towns in
his political control, Bloomberg is salting local governments with taxpayer-funded lobbying operatives. These are bureaucrat-termites
working to ban firearms at the state level. (Remember, “illegal guns” refers to your guns. My guns.)
Copyright (c) Australian Catholic University 2015
17
Furthermore, constitutional scholar, lawyer and blogger Dave Hardy is reporting that Mayor Bloomberg, by laundering funds through
the Joyce Foundation, is bankrolling George Soros’ Media Matters in a specific campaign to defame the NRA. It is bearing fruit—big time.
Billionaires versus individual Americans.
How do you fight an unspeakably wealthy troll obsessed with a sociopathic vision for the destruction of the rights and freedom of
citizens? There is just one Michael Bloomberg with his millions of dollars to be spent on taking down our NRA and with it the Second
Amendment. But there are millions of us.
A one-man counterweight? Massive wealth? Just what do the Bloomberg big-media water-carriers think the NRA is? We know. It is
people—millions of individual Americans who believe in our liberty and will fight for it wherever it is threatened. And yes, NRA spends
millions to protect the Second Amendment. To do less would guarantee the loss of our freedom.
We fight a Michael Bloomberg or a George Soros with our collective voice and collective funds that can only come from individuals of
modest means—the price of a tank of gas or a box of ammunition or a day at the range. That’s how we stop Bloomberg.
Copyright (c) Australian Catholic University 2015
18
8.11 EVALUATION MODEL 3: STRUCTURING AN
EVALUATION REPORT
In the previous two activities, we worked on evaluating source material. Now you are asked to examine a completed evaluation report,
so that you can see what a well-constructed report looks like. This report, however, is the result of research by a government body and
so reflects a rigorous structure. It is the kind of report you may read as a professional rather than write.
In this exercise you are only asked to view the contents page of a report, and reflect on one question while you are guided by the
structure analysis below.
EVALUATION REPORT BY THE AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF HEALTH AND
WELFARE
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2008.
Review and evaluation of Australian information about primary health care: a focus on general practice.
Cat. no. HWI 103. Canberra: AIHW. Accessed December, 2012: AIHW website Creative Commons BY
Look at the Contents section and see how it is structured. How does it help the reader make sense of the large quantity of information
in the report?
1. It provides a logical structure. The Executive Summary gives an overview of the report, so that readers can quickly understand the
gist.
2. Chapter 1, the ‘Background and purpose’ section, provides definitional material about the field of study, the policy issues and the
aims of the report.
3. Chapters 2 and 3 survey and summarise previous studies, so that the reader can see what is already known and what the current
study builds on.
4. Chapters 4 and 5 then evaluate the data in two ways.
5. Chapter 6 summarises the results of the evaluation, describes principles which should guide the collection of data, and discusses
what is involved in the transition to electronic collection of data. It then makes recommendations for the transition to electronic
collection.
6. The appendices provide detailed information which enable any interested reader to check the detail of what has been said in the
report. References and index material complete report.
Copyright (c) Australian Catholic University 2015
19
8.12 EVALUATION MODEL 4: EVALUATING A PROBLEM
USING MULTIPLE SOURCES
Sometimes you will encounter a problem that needs to be solved or a decision that needs to be made where it isn’t a question of
either/or, wrong/right between two opposing positions, as we have seen in the previous two exercises. It may be necessary to work out a
solution to fit the particular situation. In this case you will need search for information about similar situations to find out the outcomes
of their decisions, and analyse the information to see what is relevant for you.
To do this we have chosen a case involving public housing in Fitzroy, an inner suburb of Melbourne, and have supplied you with seven
texts. Normally you would do the research to locate a range of perspectives. We do not expect you to do this research as you need to
spend time on your unit casestudy. This resource is to give you an idea of how you would proceed in researching multiple
texts/perspectives.
Some of the texts have hyperlinks, while others are summaries. While this model is situated in Melbourne, this issue is found in all
large cities. Indeed, some of the text examples below are from Britain.
THE TASK
Imagine you are the Victorian Minister of Housing. Your department has put to you a draft proposal for the future of the Fitzroy site,
known as Atherton Gardens. The proposal is summarised in a newspaper article (Text 1, below). It may involve adding to the existing
buildings, or replacing them.
You need to decide about the future of the site. Options could include:
Leave the tower blocks and the surrounding open space and community facilities as they are;
Let the towers remain but renovate them;
Pull them down and replace them with public housing only;
Pull them down and replace them with a mix of public and private housing;
Pull them down and replace them with a mix of public and private housing plus shops and offices.
How would you go about evaluating the options? What factors would you consider in making the decision?
We have provided summaries of a number of articles which discuss the subject of public and private housing in various settings, in
Australia and in Britain.
You need to sift through these summaries (and go to the original articles when you think necessary) to decide which facts are relevant
to the Melbourne situation.
Of course there are many more factors than can be considered in this exercise, but make your decision based on the ones available
here.
BACKGROUND
Fitzroy was one of the earliest suburbs of Melbourne, with a mixture of fine Victorian houses and working-class terraces. In the later
19th and early 20th centuries much of it became slums. Today it is partly gentrified, and Brunswick and Smith Streets are the home of
bohemian chic.
The Atherton Gardens Estate, on the corner or Brunswick and Gertrude Streets (now extremely valuable real estate) was built as part of
the government’s program of replacing slums, during the 1950s and 60s, replacing several streets of houses, pubs and small industrial
premises. It consists of four 20-storey blocks, ten flats to a floor, housing somewhere around 3000 people (the exact number is not
known). Tower blocks were introduced in Europe, being thought to be efficient and clean, but by 1970, when the Atherton Gardens
Estate was completed, they were going out of fashion.
The residents have been mainly low-income working families and recent immigrants and refugees. A number of support services such
as the Brotherhood of St Laurence are nearby, and the area has a strong Aboriginal community. There is a Residents’ Association, a
Community Centre, and a community garden on the Estate.
TEXT 1
Issue drawn from a range of Melbourne media in January 2013.
A draft departmental brief proposes that public housing should comprise a maximum of 50 per cent of dwellings. Up to 800 private
apartments could be built.
The state government has received 175.3 million from the Commonwealth government to build 547 homes on this and two other public
housing estates. As part of the funding agreement, any future development must be guided by a master plan.
The estates are to be developed in partnership with private enterprise. It is expected that they will generate income for the state
government; the development might have little or no government funding.
Copyright (c) Australian Catholic University 2015
20
The master plan might include retention of the towers, with a plan for their later demolition and replacement. It is likely to include a
large number of shops and offices, as well as private and public housing. More than 640 residents have signed a petition stating their
concerns about the loss of green space and the addition of private dwellings at Atherton Gardens.
As part of the agreement with the federal government, 10 per cent of homes on each site should be affordable private housing.
The Minister will make a decision on the plan in the next few weeks.
Copyright (c) Australian Catholic University 2015
21
8.13 EVALUATION MODEL 4: MULTIPLE RESOURCE
TEXTS
TEXT 2
Summarised from this SMH article, 15 January 2013, accessed 20 January 2013
Residents of Atherton Gardens have expressed concern about the draft departmental brief. The parkland along the Gertrude Street
edge of the site, known as ‘The Meeting Place’ was reported by an Aboriginal activist as a very significant place for indigenous
Australians, who had used it as a gathering place for many years, where they were able to exchange information when they were not
welcome in the CBD. Singer songwriter Archie Roach was a regular at the site.
TEXT 3
In March 2012, the Herald Sun prepared a long article about Melbourne slums. We have summarised a few of the salient points.
Melbourne’s inner suburbs are today home to expensive houses, trendy cafes and shiny offices. But in earlier days they were largely
slum areas. Photographs show ‘houses without bathrooms, without sewerage, with holes in the walls, with six people in three rooms’,
according to Heritage consultant Rohan Storey. In those days housing authorities took a moralistic tone, but the poor conditions were
created because of the level of poverty, when there was little support available.
Slum clearance, called for since the 1880s, began in earnest in the 1930s, when the Housing Commission of Victoria was established
following a damning report by the Housing Investigation and Slum Abolition Board. Early initiatives were in Garden City and the
Olympic Village in Heidelberg West, which reverted to public housing after the Games. Construction of tower blocks began in the 1960s
amid concern about declining population in the inner city. According to The Encyclopedia of Melbourne Online, these met with ‘angry
resistance from displaced residents and the new gentrifiers, young middle-class families moving into the inner city and restoring
terrace houses’. These protests led to abandonment of the high-rise policy in the early 1970s.
TEXT 4
Summarised from this BBC news article, 25 November 2011 , accessed 25 January 2013
Viewpoint: Could people learn to love tower blocks?
After World War II there was a serious housing shortage in Britain. In an attempt to solve the problem, tower blocks were built in many
cities. They were seen as an economical modern improvement, providing inside lavatories, hot water and central heating. But they were
shunned by the middle class as working class ghettoes. Maintenance was poor, and construction was often shoddy. Tower blocks were
seen as a failure. But some, better constructed or able to be repaired and maintained, and those built with more sustainable materials
and engineering, have proved to be successful and loved by their residents, especially the elderly and younger people who have not yet
had children.
TEXT 5
A British text, summarised from this European Urban Knowledge Network article, accessed 18 February 2013
In the mix: A review of mixed income, mixed tenure and mixed communities: what do we know?
Executive summary
The idea that communities ought to contain a greater mix of housing types and residents is a key component of the current
Government’s policies on housing and neighbourhoods. The idea appears in a number of related policy strands such as inclusion,
sustainability, cohesion and balance. In the last ten years, a substantial body of research has emerged on mix, its effects and means to
create it. This research finds that a variety of types of housing and social mix are being pursued. The reasons for pursuing mix vary
widely, and include:
delivering social housing;
meeting other social policy goals; and
principled opposition to division between different types of people.
A review of the evidence suggests that some of these goals are more likely to be achieved than others. There are tensions between
different goals; pursuing one aim may frustrate another. There are lessons for the practical implementation of planned changes to mix
and for the management of new and existing mixed areas. There are some gaps in knowledge, but although they raise questions for
implementation, the most common rationales for mixed communities remain valid.
Note: The web page above takes you to site where you can see more details on the scope of the research and its method. Download the
final report at the top right.
Copyright (c) Australian Catholic University 2015
22
TEXT 6
Another British text, summarised from
Fabian Society Policy Report (2012) accessed 29 January 2013
Private mix 'may not help estate'
The Department of Human Services [Victoria] has commissioned a review of the public housing redevelopment in Kensington
[Melbourne]. The development has been considered as a model for other estate renewals which mix public and private tenancies.
The report has not been publicly released, but the researcher leader has questioned whether the inclusion of private housing residents
has increased the employment possibilities and quality of life for public tenants. She notes that a quantity of public housing was lost
from the Kensington estate, and the loss of public housing or quality open space presents serious disadvantages. She considered that
there were opportunities for tenants to mix with the surrounding private residents through community organisations.
One resident said that ‘she no longer feels ashamed when she invites friends over to her public housing unit...”when I go to my friend’s
private house on the estate it’s pretty much the same as mine so I don’t feel different”’.
Another resident isn’t sure whether the estate has got people to mix: ‘“if I know people in the area it’s because I see them when I am
going to yoga or gym or catching the bus rather thanbecause we live in the same building”’.
TEXT 7
Summarised from this article in The Age, 25 January 2013, accessed 29 January 2013
Private mix 'may not help estate'
The Department of Human Services [Victoria] has commissioned a review of the public housing redevelopment in Kensington
[Melbourne]. The development has been considered as a model for other estate renewals which mix public and private tenancies.
The report has not been publicly released, but the researcher leader has questioned whether the inclusion of private housing residents
has increased the employment possibilities and quality of life for public tenants. She notes that a quantity of public housing was lost
from the Kensington estate, and the loss of public housing or quality open space presents serious disadvantages. She considered that
there were opportunities for tenants to mix with the surrounding private residents through community organisations.
One resident said that ‘she no longer feels ashamed when she invites friends over to her public housing unit...”when I go to my friend’s
private house on the estate it’s pretty much the same as mine so I don’t feel different”’.
Another resident isn’t sure whether the estate has got people to mix: ‘“if I know people in the area it’s because I see them when I am
going to yoga or gym or catching the bus rather thanbecause we live in the same building”’.
Copyright (c) Australian Catholic University 2015
23
8.14: CITATION MANAGERS
Below are three well-known citation managers. If you are leaving ACU at the end of the year, you may be interested in the free
Zotero below.
1. ENDNOTE
Endnote is software installed on your computer and free for ACU staff and students.
keeps records including details of books, book chapters, journal articles, websites, conference papers and theses.
organises records in groups and allows you to add keywords, labels and notes
creates and formats reference lists in a selected style in Microsoft Word or Open Office Writer documents. Use styles such as APA,
Chicago, Harvard and MLA .
stores articles for you (PDF files)
saves records from search engines and databases
searches library catalogues and resources like PubMed to find item
2. REFWORK
Refworks is easier to use than Endnote and free to use for ACU staff and students.
RefWorks is a web-based tool for managing your references: creating citations and bibliographies.
It enables you to efficiently organise your research data by entering your citations as you locate resources/references that you
retrieve from article databases or the library catalog.
Your references are online in your own database and accessible wherever you are, even by mobile phone, but you can also work
offline. You can share your database with collaborating colleagues.
3. ZOTERO
Zotero is a free citation manager for when you are no longer at ACU. Developed at George Mason University (Viginia, USA); won 2008
Citefest match up of EndNote, RefWorks, CiteULike and Connotea. See also this Zotero overview page.
easily create bibliographies in a variety of formats
integration with word processing programs means that you can add citations as you write
organise research collections as if you are creating an iTunes playlist--drop citations in multiple "folders"
tag your resources
powerful search tools
analyse and visualiae your collections; for instance, create a timeline or sort your publications according to publication place
Copyright (c) Australian Catholic University 2015
24