This chapter was awesome. I read it while taking a driving break on my way to Savannah and at first I was not sure what I was going to write about. However, a new beloved television show and a conference session aided me in picking my blog topic. This week’s blog topic is an analysis of all extrinsic proofs.
After reading this week’s assignment, I was struck with how often extrinsic proofs are easily believed. In fact, Crowley and Hawhee write that “The version of rhetoric that is taught in school assumes that accounts based on empirical investigation are absolutely reliable” (267). This quote made me think about both the law and ABC’s new legal show, The Whole Truth. In this show, which I highly recommend, the viewer follows both the prosecution’s point of view of the crime and the defense’s. For an hour, the viewer listens to various testimonies and data reports and viewers hold their breath while the verdict is read. The truth about whether or not the defended actually committed the crime is not revealed till the very end of the show. What is so fascinating about this show is how the prosecution often fails to explore more of the circumstances surrounding a witness’ account, while the defense through the use of data collection and ability to assemble their arguments either uncovers damaging evidence against the prosecution’s testimony that produces the longed feared shadow of doubt in the jury’s mind. Thus, this show greatly impacted my reading of this chapter. After watching and then reading this chapter, I felt that Crowley and Hawhee are warning us, scholars and students alike, that we must be on the defense. All testimony and data has its flaws and we must not be afraid to identify them and correct them. Students and scholars must be willing to explore and examine all the facts. Otherwise, if they fail to do their homework, the result could be disastrous.
Crowley and Hawhee write that “Hence testimony is a statement given by a witness about some event or state of affairs. Here we include citations from the work of scholars and other authorities under the category of testimony” (268). Students are taught to use numerous sources in their research papers so that the teacher is aware that they have done the research, read the texts and formulated a well-organized argument. As teachers, we usually are suspicious about a student’s paper that does not utilize any citations. Often times, we review their previous work to note a student’s flaws, common errors and his or her command of language. If we suspect foul play, we usually call for a conference and question the student about his or her work based on our analysis of his or her quality of work.
After all, we expect citations from our students since it is impossible for them to be an expert on a subject. According to Crowley and Hawhee, teachers anticipate citations because “To quote from sources suggests that we have read ancient (past scholarship) rhetorical authorities carefully, which reinforces our ethos” (272). In other words, we utilize past scholar’s works to aid our reputation as an upcoming scholar and to showcase our ability to properly analyze and assign certain quotes to our work. If we fail to utilize past research or any research for that matter, we will be noted as a slacker and thus, our research will not be seriously taken. While at the conference this past week, I attended a session in which such a situation occurred. The session panel was comprised of two professors and two doctorate students who were all examining some idea on American culture. After all four speakers spoke, the question and answer period started and one of the doctoral students came under attack. While he spoke, he never cited any sources (highly unusual) and immediately several faculty members in the audience started to inquire about his source of information. After fifteen minutes of discussion the student admitted that he based his paper’s findings on his and his father’s own thoughts and feelings on the matter. The tension in the room was so thick but finally, a professor kindly informed him that he should do more research on the matter so that the paper would not solely be based on his father and his personal beliefs. This advice supports Crowley and Hawhee’s point that “Because we don’t know these things [‘who his family was… what his reputation or ideology affiliation were’] about authors, we cannot simply take their work at face value. Rather, we need to interpret it” (269). The conversation than turned to more pointed questions for the other panelist. However, this student’s reputation was now questioned and his work was completely disregarded by the professionals in the room. Thus, this is a modern day example of what Crowley and Hawhee mention throughout this chapter.
While reading this chapter, I was also thinking about how my former school required its teachers to spend a day in the fall and a day in the spring terms devoted to instructing our students about correct research resources. Crowley and Hawhee best sum up the whole point of these instructional days when they write that “rhetors should examine the network of interpretation through which data are filtered. Networks of interpretation give meaning to facts; without such networks, facts are pretty much unintelligible and uninteresting as well” (281). We would always discuss about how Wikipedia was not a proper source and tried to explain how other search engines, books or websites (especially those ending in .edu, .org) were both educational and resourceful. However, Crowley and Hawhee state that “This caution applies to printed materials as well as to information that circulates on the Internet” (281). After reading this statement, my thoughts immediately turned to Stephen Ambrose’s books. Several of the school’s history teachers used his books and his texts were on our school’s list of approved books that a student could utilize for a paper. However, Ambrose’s works have been questioned and it appears that Crowley and Hawhee’s warning is valid.
I really enjoyed this chapter and I am looking forward to Thursday night’s discussion.
For more information on the Ambrose issue:
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/09/entertainment/la-ca-stephen-ambrose-20100509
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/11/national/11AMBR.html
http://hnn.us/articles/504.html
http://www.forbes.com/2002/05/10/0510ambrose.html
1 comment:
Hi Meghan! I hope you had a blast at the conference!
I have to comment on your post about the conference and the doctoral student's presentation (or lack thereof) because Crowley & Hawhee's mention of students doing research reminded me of my experience with a research paper in high school. I was thinking about the process in which students investigate their topics of interest. At first, doing research is like creating a sculpture; you use certain tools to mold your medium into whatever figure you are trying to create. But if you are a novice sculptor, you may not know exactly which tools to use. As a novice researcher, you may not understand what pieces of evidence will help you yield your final product. I think of my experience writing my first "big" research paper. I wrote it on Sigmund Freud--funny because I don't remember a darn thing I wrote in that paper and I had to re-learn Freud over the past few years. What I recall being most challenging about conducting research was trying to understand, first, what kind of product I wanted to create and how the heck do I do it? I think that sometimes students are unsure, and therefore, either put more "weight" in what they read or see without questioning the sources' validity. Sometimes uncertainty produces an unfinished and unpolished product. I guess what I'm saying is that you point out what can happen when a student chooses not to allow others' opinions shape his research and the other spectrum was me in 10th grade, giving the "experts" more authority that I could have as an interpreter of information. Thanks for your (always) insightful comments!
Post a Comment