DOCSLIB.ORG

1 Communication 640 George N. Dionisopoulos Seminar in Critical-Rhetorical Methods Office

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 Communication 640 George N. Dionisopoulos Seminar in Critical-Rhetorical Methods Office Com 640 Spring 2015 Communication 640 George N. Dionisopoulos Seminar in Critical-Rhetorical Methods Office: Com 241 Spring 2015 24903 [email protected] Monday 7:00-9:40 Com 209 Office hours MW 12:30-1:50 "Words are not merely 'signs'; they are names whose 'attachment' to events, objects, persons, institutions, status groups, classes, and indeed any great or small collectivity, soon tends to determine what we do in regard to the bearer of the name." -- Hugh D. Duncan The overall goal of this seminar is to give you a foundation in basic critical-rhetorical scholarship and methodology. To accomplish this we will examine the role that rhetoric plays in the construction and shaping of symbolic reality. This class is focused on deepening your understanding of the nomenclature of critical inquiry. Toward that end we will examine the scholarly practices which fall under the heading of rhetorical criticism: the “analysis, interpretation, and evaluation of persuasive uses of [symbols]” (Campbell & Burkholder, 1997, p. 2). Rhetorical criticism is not intended to tell us what an artifact means, but rather to illustrate some aspect of how it means: how might an engaged audience make sense of this communication. Thus we begin with what is present and obvious in a rhetorical artifact and the deconstruct it to make an argument about what is hidden and/or obscure – but meaningful and important – within a message. Part of this class will introduce you to the “history” of rhetorical criticism, including how it came into being, how it matured and changed over the decades, and the various ways it is practiced today. Toward that end we will examine various methodological approaches that have been employed in the past, spanning a range of ideological assumptions about communication and the nature of “humanness”. We cannot cover the entire field, but we will read examples of rhetorical criticism that can help you to develop your own critical skills by illustrating how others have worked through many aspects of the process. It is also important to keep in mind that a method is a tool, and that different tools are designed to do different things. We want to understand how these tools work so that we can develop a refined ability to select from among them. We will also pay particular attention to a variety of analytical skills that are important in critical inquiry; most specifically, the adoption of a “critical attitude” toward a rhetorical artifact. A great deal of this class will focus on introducing you to a range of basic terms and concepts that constitute a kind of vocabulary for criticism. Understanding and employing this vocabulary is an important step in learning to do rhetorical criticism. TEXTBOOKS: Hart, R. P. & Daughton, S, (2005). Modern rhetorical criticism Third Edition, Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Readings posted on Blackboard. Readings concern 1) theoretic grounding for critical 1 Com 640 Spring 2015 perspectives, 2) rhetorical criticisms, and 3) “Landmark” essays in rhetorical criticism. These categories will often overlap within particular essays and should not be considered to be mutually exclusive. LEARNING OUTCOMES AND GOALS: - To gain a sense of and be able to discuss various critical methods employed by scholars in our field - To gain a sense of and be able to discuss various trends in contemporary rhetorical criticism. - To develop and be able to articulate coherent definitions of “rhetoric,” “rhetor,” “rhetorical situation,” “rhetorical problem,” “rhetorical criticism,” as well as other terms useful to the field. - To be able to identify and explain the basic logic of critical inquiry - To read, evaluate and discuss a wide range of critical rhetorical projects - To be able to define and illustrate the main concepts of rhetorical criticism - To understand the manner in which rhetorical criticism is conducted and why it is a worthwhile endeavor. - To demonstrate an understanding of the process of critical investigation by completing a research paper. - To engage in a process of reviewing the work of your peers and offering meaningful feedback for revision. - To comprehend and discuss the role of rhetorical criticism as a communication research method. - To examine and be able to articulate concerns which face the academic writer GETTING TO KNOW EACH OTHER: Please make a Blog post about yourself under the Student Profile Tab on Blackboard. This profile should include: (a) a photo of you, (b) and some information you wish to share in order for us to get to know you better. Please post a photo in which your face is clearly visible – as opposed to a crowd-shot of the audience at an all-day rock festival with the explanation that you are in section 53, seat 12. This will help me to learn names. Follow the example that I posted under 'Professor' Profile' (tab on left side of Blackboard). I am excited to learn about you but remember that this is a PUBLIC profile and that the whole class will be reading it. Deadline Date: March 4, 2015 (by 11:59 p.m., PST). There is a file is the course documents section of BlackBoard entitled and concerning “Tips for Submitting Profiles.” It has a link to an instructional video that can help walk you through the process. GRADING AND ASSIGNMENTS 2 Com 640 Spring 2015 Your grade in this class will be based upon the total number of points accumulated during the semester. I will use the following criteria for assigning final grades: A 90% B 80% A- 88.5 % C 70% B+ 87% Discussion Leader = 50 points Descriptive analysis = 25 points Seminar participation = 25 points Proposal = 25 points Meta-Critical Analysis = 25 points Paper = 100 points Final examination = 100 Discussion Leader = 50 points During one week of the semester you will do a formal “reaction paper” to the week’s reading. A reaction paper is your effort to “connect the dots” concerning what we have read. These papers should highlight what you think are the main points, and can and should bring in supplementary material, including rhetorical artifacts which can be used to illustrate some of the important critical principles discussed. Reaction papers should be two – three pages long (this limit is finite) and contain two or three provocative discussion questions that you can use to lead seminar discussion concerning the week’s reading. Focus these discussion questions toward what we learned from the essays, and how the argument of the essay was structured. Your reaction paper and the discussion questions are to be distributed via email to all members of the seminar by 5:00 p.m. on the day of your presentation. (This will give seminar members the opportunity to preview the reaction paper prior to the class). Late papers will deleteriously affect your grade for this assignment. Keep a copy of your essay to use as a “working paper” during the seminar. You will be required to lead at least an hour of the discussion and will be well within your rights to solicit from others their responses to the above-listed concerns. There are 50 points available for this effort and my evaluation will be based on your reaction paper, the quality of your discussion questions and your effort at leading the seminar. Participation = 25 points This class will employ a rhetorical perspective with heavy emphasis upon interaction. You are required to do all the reading and come to class prepared to discuss the material. Participation will be evaluated according to your contributions to class discussion, as well as your effort and attitude in any in-class exercises. Silent attentiveness is not participation. We need to hear your contributions to the dialogue in class. Part of this grade will be a consideration of the feedback you give fellow students concerning their own work. The key to meaningful participation is to keep in mind the above criteria (from the Weekly Blog Posting section) as you read. Another consideration part will be the Student Profile you post on BlackBoard. Meta-Critical Analysis = 25 points 3 Com 640 Spring 2015 Part of the “critical attitude” is to learn to read criticism like a rhetorical scholar. Rhetorical criticism is a research method, the goal of which is to teach us something about communication. Six times during the semester – not including the week you function as discussion leader – you need to pick one article from the weekly reading and write and post to Turnitin a one- two page (hard limit – penalty incurred for going over page limits) analysis focusing on it. Possible readings for this assignment are designated in this syllabus by an asterisk (*) at the beginning of the listing. You cannot submit more than one of these each week. Meta-critical postings for the week’s readings are due at6 :00 p.m. the night of the seminar and will not be accepted late. This analysis should focus on what the article can teach us about communication. Be ready to talk about the “conclusion” or “claim” of the article as well as the argumentative/reasoning structure which supports it. What did you learn about “how discourse works in the world” – what did the author[s] say concerning the implications of this work in contributing to our understanding of the process[es] of human symbolic behavior? What is the “scholarly dialogue” the article claims to advance. (In point of fact, any study that explains only the artifact under examination is a pretty limited endeavor.) What is the most interesting or important point being made about human symbolic behavior? What do you believe was the key argument of the author[s]: To put it more bluntly – what is the “so what” of the article; how are you smarter about communication after reading the article than you were before you read it? You need to distill the substance of the article into a brief critical profile.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rethinking Publishing Infrastructure
    RatSWD Working Paper www.ratswd.de Series Flipping journals to open: 251 Rethinking publishing infrastructure Benedikt Fecher and Gert G. Wagner December 2015 Working Paper Series of the German Data Forum (RatSWD) The RatSWD Working Papers series was launched at the end of 2007. Since 2009, the series has been publishing exclusively conceptual and historical works dealing with the organization of the German statistical infrastructure and research infrastructure in the social, behavioral, and economic sciences. Papers that have appeared in the series deal primarily with the organization of Germany’s official statistical system, government agency research, and academic research infrastructure, as well as directly with the work of the RatSWD. Papers addressing the aforementioned topics in other countries as well as supranational aspects are particularly welcome. RatSWD Working Papers are non-exclusive, which means that there is nothing to prevent you from publishing your work in another venue as well: all papers can and should also appear in professionally, institutionally, and locally specialized journals. The RatSWD Working Papers are not available in bookstores but can be ordered online through the RatSWD. In order to make the series more accessible to readers not fluent in German, the English section of the RatSWD Working Papers website presents only those papers published in English, while the German section lists the complete contents of all issues in the series in chronological order. The views expressed in the RatSWD Working Papers are exclusively the opinions of their authors and not those of the RatSWD or of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research. The RatSWD Working Paper Series is edited by: Chair of the RatSWD (since 2014 Regina T.
    [Show full text]
  • Cambridge Working Paper Economics
    Faculty of Economics Cambridge Working Paper Economics Cambridge Working Paper Economics: 1753 PUBLISHING WHILE FEMALE ARE WOMEN HELD TO HIGHER STANDARDS? EVIDENCE FROM PEER REVIEW. Erin Hengel 4 December 2017 I use readability scores to test if referees and/or editors apply higher standards to women’s writing in academic peer review. I find: (i) female-authored papers are 1–6 percent better written than equivalent papers by men; (ii) the gap is two times higher in published articles than in earlier, draft versions of the same papers; (iii) women’s writing gradually improves but men’s does not—meaning the readability gap grows over authors’ careers. In a dynamic model of an author’s decision-making process, I show that tougher editorial standards and/or biased referee assignment are uniquely consistent with this pattern of choices. A conservative causal estimate derived from the model suggests senior female economists write at least 9 percent more clearly than they otherwise would. These findings indicate that higher standards burden women with an added time tax and probably contribute to academia’s “Publishing Paradox” Consistent with this hypothesis, I find female-authored papers spend six months longer in peer review. More generally, tougher standards impose a quantity/quality tradeoff that characterises many instances of female output. They could resolve persistently lower—otherwise unexplained—female productivity in many high-skill occupations. Publishing while Female Are women held to higher standards? Evidence from peer review.∗ Erin Hengely November 2017 I use readability scores to test if referees and/or editors apply higher standards to women’s writing in academic peer review.
    [Show full text]
  • Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus
    Journal of Informetrics, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 1160-1177, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOI.2018.09.002 Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: a systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories Alberto Martín-Martín1 , Enrique Orduna-Malea2 , Mike 3 1 Thelwall , Emilio Delgado López-Cózar Version 1.6 March 12, 2019 Abstract Despite citation counts from Google Scholar (GS), Web of Science (WoS), and Scopus being widely consulted by researchers and sometimes used in research evaluations, there is no recent or systematic evidence about the differences between them. In response, this paper investigates 2,448,055 citations to 2,299 English-language highly-cited documents from 252 GS subject categories published in 2006, comparing GS, the WoS Core Collection, and Scopus. GS consistently found the largest percentage of citations across all areas (93%-96%), far ahead of Scopus (35%-77%) and WoS (27%-73%). GS found nearly all the WoS (95%) and Scopus (92%) citations. Most citations found only by GS were from non-journal sources (48%-65%), including theses, books, conference papers, and unpublished materials. Many were non-English (19%- 38%), and they tended to be much less cited than citing sources that were also in Scopus or WoS. Despite the many unique GS citing sources, Spearman correlations between citation counts in GS and WoS or Scopus are high (0.78-0.99). They are lower in the Humanities, and lower between GS and WoS than between GS and Scopus. The results suggest that in all areas GS citation data is essentially a superset of WoS and Scopus, with substantial extra coverage.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Reports, Working Papers, and Preprints
    LIBRARY OF CONGRESS COLLECTIONS POLICY STATEMENTS Technical Reports, Working Papers, and Preprints Contents I. Scope II. Research Strengths III. Collecting Policy IV.Best Editions and Preferred Formats V. Acquisition Sources I. Scope This statement describes the Library's collection policies for technical reports, working papers, and preprints, in all subjects. These formats for publication are used by researchers or contractors to inform sponsoring agencies, peers, or others of the progress of research. This policy statement covers these formats when issued either by government or non-government publishers, or from both domestic and foreign sources. This statement is further limited to technical reports, working papers, and preprints that are issued in numbered or otherwise clearly identifiable series. Some technical reports, working papers, and preprints may be collected on a case-by-case basis rather than as a series, in which case they will fall under the Library's other Collections Policy Statements by subject rather than this Collections Policy Statement. Although the Library of Congress has a separate custodial Technical Reports collection, all Recommending Officers in appropriate fields are responsible for identifying series of technical reports, working papers, and preprints that are of interest to the Library's legislative, federal, and research clientele. The custodial location of reports acquired by the Library may include the Science, Technology & Business Division’s Automation, Collections Support and Technical Reports Section, the Serial and Government Publications Division, the Collections Management Division or any other appropriate custodial divisions, including Law and custodial area studies divisions. Format characteristics of technical reports, working papers, and preprints: The names given to these publication series vary.
    [Show full text]
  • Algorithms, Platforms, and Ethnic Bias: an Integrative Essay
    BERKELEY ROUNDTABLE ON THE INTERNATIONAL ECONOMY BRIE Working Paper 2018-3 Algorithms, Platforms, and Ethnic Bias: An Integrative Essay Selena Silva and Martin Kenney Algorithms, Platforms, and Ethnic Bias: An Integrative Essay In Phylon: The Clark Atlanta University Review of Race and Culture (Summer/Winter 2018) Vol. 55, No. 1 & 2: 9-37 Selena Silva Research Assistant and Martin Kenney* Distinguished Professor Community and Regional Development Program University of California, Davis Davis & Co-Director Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy & Affiliated Professor Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna * Corresponding Author The authors wish to thank Obie Clayton for his encouragement and John Zysman for incisive and valuable comments on an earlier draft. Keywords: Digital bias, digital discrimination, algorithms, platform economy, racism 1 Abstract Racially biased outcomes have increasingly been recognized as a problem that can infect software algorithms and datasets of all types. Digital platforms, in particular, are organizing ever greater portions of social, political, and economic life. This essay examines and organizes current academic and popular press discussions on how digital tools, despite appearing to be objective and unbiased, may, in fact, only reproduce or, perhaps, even reinforce current racial inequities. However, digital tools may also be powerful instruments of objectivity and standardization. Based on a review of the literature, we have modified and extended a “value chain–like” model introduced by Danks and London, depicting the potential location of ethnic bias in algorithmic decision-making.1 The model has five phases: input, algorithmic operations, output, users, and feedback. With this model, we identified nine unique types of bias that might occur within these five phases in an algorithmic model: (1) training data bias, (2) algorithmic focus bias, (3) algorithmic processing bias, (4) transfer context bias, (5) misinterpretation bias, (6) automation bias, (7) non-transparency bias, (8) consumer bias, and (9) feedback loop bias.
    [Show full text]
  • A Systems Model of Behaving Organisms and Persons: Implications to Behavior Change in Counseling. INSTITUTION Minnesota Univ., Minneapolis
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 087 953 CG 008 432 AUTHOR Strong, Stanley R. TITLE A Systems Model Of Behaving Organisms and Persons: Implications to Behavior Change in Counseling. INSTITUTION Minnesota Univ., Minneapolis. Office for Student Affairs. PUB DATE 31 Aug 73 NOTE 29p.; Research Bulletin, v14 n1 EDRS PRICE MF-$0.75 HC-$1.85 DESCRIPTORS *Behavior Change; *Behavior Development; Bulletins; Motivation; Social Behavior; *Social Environment; Socialization; Symbolic Learning; *Systems Approach ABSTRACT The behaving organism is described as a system with internal motivational and memory components which guide the actions of external input and output components. The organism actively shapes its environment by using its output to control its input from the environment. Output is a function of the psychological forces, topographic memory, and input contemporaneous with output. Behavior is the relationship between output and input. Behavior change is seen as a function of changes in the internal state of the organism. The phenomena of random, trial and error, and direct effectance behavior, centrality, learning performance, attention, chaining and symbolism are explored from this framework. The behavior of persons is described in terms of social behavior shaping through chaining and symbolism. Means of changing the behavior of persons are suggested. (Author) f ice for student affairs RESEARCH BULLETIN A SYSTEMS MODEL OF BEHAVING ORGANISMS AND PERSONS: 1 Implications to Behavior Change in Counseling Stanley R. Strong Student Life Studies University of Minnesota ABSTRACT The behaving organism is described as a system with internal motivational and memory components which guide the actions of external input and output components. The organism actively shapes its environment by using its output to control its input from the environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Renaissance Leadership: Transforming Leadership for the 21St Century
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by The Australian National University School of Management, Marketing, and International Business Renaissance Leadership: Transforming Leadership for the 21st Century Part II: New Leadership Development Jay Martin Hays and Choule Youn Kim 2008 ORKING W PAPER SERIES Volume 3 · Number 2 ISSN: 1833-6558 School of Management, Marketing, and International Business WORKING PAPER SERIES ISSN: 1833-6558 School of Management, Marketing, and International Business The School of Management, Marketing, and International Business in the College of Business and Economics was established at the beginning of 2006. The School draws together staff with interests mainly in international business, management, and marketing. The mission of the School is to enrich both the general and the business community through its education, community work and research activities. This mission is accomplished by: conducting high quality pure and applied research so as to increase knowledge in our business disciplines and to communicate that knowledge to others; promoting learning, which provides graduates with relevant skills and knowledge; and serving the education, research and training needs of students, professions, industry, government, employers and other interested groups and individuals. Undergraduate degrees for which the School has primary responsibility include Bachelor of Commerce, Bachelor of E-Commerce, and Bachelor of International Business. The School will also offer a new degree Bachelor of Business Administration from 2009. The School had a large number of students, with approximately 850 effective full-time undergraduate students and 25 coursework graduate students in 2004, making it the largest school in the university.
    [Show full text]
  • Working Paper of Public Health [Online]
    ISSN: 2279-9761 Working paper of public health [Online] n.09 2020 Working Paper of Public Health infrastruttura ricerca formazione innovazione Azienda Ospedaliera di Alessandria La serie di Working Paper of Public Health (WP) dell’Azienda il WP (i.e. peer review). L’utilizzo del peer review costringerà Ospedaliera di Alessandria è una serie di pubblicazioni gli autori ad adeguarsi ai migliori standard di qualità della online ed Open Access, progressiva e multi disciplinare in Public Health (ISSN: 2279-9761). Vi rientrano pertanto sia Con questo approccio, si sottopone il lavoro o le idee di contributi di medicina ed epidemiologia, sia contributi di un autore allo scrutinio di uno o più esperti del medesimo economia sanitaria e management, etica e diritto. Rientra settore. Ognuno di questi esperti fornirà una propria nella politica aziendale tutto quello che può proteggere e valutazione, includendo anche suggerimenti per l’eventuale migliorare la salute della comunità attraverso l’educazione miglioramento, all’autore, così come una raccomandazione e la promozione di stili di vita, così come la prevenzione di esplicita al Comitato editoriale su cosa fare del manoscritto malattie ed infezioni, nonché il miglioramento dell’assistenza (i.e. accepted o rejected). (sia medica sia infermieristica) e della cura del paziente. la revisione sarà anonima, così come l’articolo revisionato stato di salute degli individui e/o pazienti, sia attraverso la (i.e. double blinded). prevenzione di quanto potrebbe condizionarla sia mediante della stessa. Eventuali osservazioni e suggerimenti a quanto pubblicato, Gli articoli pubblicati impegnano esclusivamente gli autori, dopo opportuna valutazione di attinenza, sarà trasmessa le opinioni espresse non implicano alcuna responsabilità agli autori e pubblicata on line in apposita sezione ad essa da parte dell’Azienda Ospedaliera “SS.
    [Show full text]
  • Working Paper, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Vijay Kumar Varadi Preprint An evidence of speculation in Indian commodity markets Suggested Citation: Vijay Kumar Varadi (2012) : An evidence of speculation in Indian commodity markets, ZBW - Deutsche Zentralbibliothek für Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Leibniz- Informationszentrum Wirtschaft, Kiel und Hamburg This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/57430 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.eu An evidence of speculation in Indian commodity markets Abstract Recent price surge in commodity markets has stipulated the intensity of various factors which lead the price volatility. There are multiple-factors namely, traditional supply and demand, excess global liquidity (i.e., monetary inflows in commodity markets), and financialization i.e., financial investors (portfolio investment and speculation) attitude.
    [Show full text]
  • In Defence of Working Papers
    Stream: Culture/Politics/Technology, 5(1): 1-7 http://journals.sfu.ca/cpt/index.php/stream/index In Defence of Working Papers Scott Timcke School of Communication, Simon Fraser University Graeme Webb School of Communication, Simon Fraser University Jay McKinnon School of Communication, Simon Fraser University Sibo Chen School of Communication, Simon Fraser University Abstract Working papers are academic articles in various stages of completion, which represents a significant publication venue in various academic disciplines. Nonetheless, there have been considerable amount of critiques on working paper in recent years, especially on its quality and conflict with formal publications. Given the above situation, this article offers a defence of the academic values of working papers. After outlining and addressing common misunderstandings of working papers, the article discusses their four major benefits: the provision of valuable feedback on interim findings, the potential for collaboration, flexible means of dissemination, and the value for intellectual development and capacity building (especially for graduate students). Overall, these benefits underscore a commitment to open-access research that is accessible to the public at large. Keywords working paper, open access, academic collaboration Introduction Working papers are academic articles in various stages of completion, which represents a significant publication venue in various academic disciplines. Specifically, working papers can be works in progress, under submission, or forthcoming and are often freely circulated at a certain level within a specific academic community. These working versions are generally offered in the interest of personal and public scholarship: they serve to notify others in the same academic community that a person happens to be working on a particular problem, which opens up the work to a wide audience and furthers public dialogue.
    [Show full text]
  • Organizational Culture| a Perspective That Yields Dividends
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1998 Organizational culture| A perspective that yields dividends M. Jane Redeau-Ogle The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Redeau-Ogle, M. Jane, "Organizational culture| A perspective that yields dividends" (1998). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 3143. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/3143 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Maureen and Mike MANSFIELD LBRARY The University of MONTANA Permission is granted by the author to reproduce this material in its entirety, provided that this material is used for scholarly purposes and is properly cited in published works and reports. ** Please check "Yes" or "No" and provide signature Yes, I grant permission No, I do not grant permission Author's Signature Date ^//O Any copying for commercial purposes or financial gain may be undertaken only with the author's explicit consent. Organizational Culture; A Perspective That Yields Dividends by M. Jane Redeau Ogle Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts The University of Montana 1998 Approved by ;h®man, Bo^ of Examiners Dean, Graduate School Date UMI Number: EP36236 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
    [Show full text]
  • Scooped! Estimating Rewards for Priority in Science∗
    Scooped! Estimating Rewards for Priority in Science∗ Ryan Hilly Carolyn Steinz August 12, 2020 Abstract The scientific community assigns credit or “priority” to individuals who publish an important discovery first. We examine the impact of losing a priority race (colloquially known as getting “scooped”) on subsequent publication and career outcomes. To do so, we take advantage of data from structural biology where the nature of the scientific process together with the Protein Data Bank — a repository of standardized research discoveries — enables us to identify priority races and their outcomes. We find that race winners receive more attention than losers, but that these contests are not winner-take-all. Scooped teams are 2.5 percent less likely to publish, are 18 percent less likely to appear in a top-10 journal, and receive 20 percent fewer citations. As a share of total citations, we estimate that scooped papers receive a credit share of 45 percent. This is larger than the theoretical benchmark of zero percent suggested by classic models of innovation races. We conduct a survey of structural biologists which suggests that active scientists are more pessimistic about the cost of getting scooped than can be justified by the data. Much of the citation effect can be explained by journal placement, suggesting editors and reviewers are key arbiters of academic priority. Getting scooped has only modest effects on academic careers. Finally, we present a simple model of statistical discrimination in academic attention to explain how the priority reward system reinforces inequality in science, and document empirical evidence consistent with our model.
    [Show full text]