Lydee Striplin

12/09/2020

ENC4404

Realizing the Importance of My Role in Public Discourse

My final portfolio for this course titled, “Advanced Writing and Editing”, focused on just that:

writing and editing. I tried to corral each assignment into strict categories based on which writing

or editing skill I felt I was advancing with each practice. This being just a method of

organization, I felt that my final analytic reflection needed to be centered around the most

important concept of the course which was citizen science. This concept stitches together my

complete collection of works from the course and is, quite possibly in a broader sense, one of the

most crucial parts of my experience in the English department as a whole. The idea that we, as

citizen scientists, or “laypersons”, or sentinels of science, or just English students, are constantly

sharing knowledge with one another as part of a worldwide collective was crucial to my

intellectual journey throughout this course and it helped me make sense of the workload beyond

just improving my editing and writing skills.

As such, I’ve chosen to start with Citizen Science In the Digital Age: Rhetoric, Science,

and Public Engagement by James Wynn which puts forth a simple assessment of citizen science,

both its definition and evolution, through the years and in the present. In addition to

acknowledging citizen science’s historical roots, Wynn also notes the discipline’s growing

accessibility as a result of new digital technologies, “As a consequence, digital-age scientists

have the capacity to reach out to thousands and even tens of thousands rather than hundreds of

potential volunteers” (Wynn,p.23). These new technologies Wynn speaks of have the power to
make data gathering easier, more accurate, and much cheaper. Science has been opened up to the

general public and this, of course, comes with new challenges like the struggle to ensure

credibility and to ensure that data isn’t used in ways that don’t align with the researcher’s

original goal (Wynn, p.26), but it also brings change and opportunity. Wynn analyzes these

changes within the context of data gathering but the possibilities extend far beyond that into

almost all technical and public spheres. In this course through various projects and assignments

that thrusted me into the position of citizen scientist, I could feel the importance of this new

accessibility as sure as I could feel the weight of my new role and responsibilities as a person

involved with public discussions of science. As opposed to other courses that ensure your work

lives in anonymity and safely deposits it in a submission box, this course put student’s work on

full display and forces us to grapple with the ordeal of being known, being seen, and having

authority. Any one of us can gain viewership or readership, we can start a grassroots movement,

and we can influence change on a larger scale. Above all, the work performed in this class,

showed me that my work is important and that I can cause real change and take informed,

empathetic action through my words alone.

This realization comes with certain dilemmas. In Rhetoric Across Borders, Ron Von

Burg acknowledges the claims I’ve made above while also highlighting the conflicts that come

along with realizing your potential to speak on matters of significance in a public sphere, “This

disposition reveals a complex, and often troubling, relationship between nonscientists and

scientific expertise in public discourses of science, where traditional notions of expertise are

either valorized or problematized depending on the types of expert appeals needed in putative

public debates” (Von Burg, p.176). Von Burg goes on to explain the dilemma of rhetoricians,

who favor democratizing public debates, of balancing the need for technical expertise in
scientific fields and discourse with the desire to not alienate nonexperts in arguments of social

problems (Von Burg, p. 176) and not undermine the importance of nonexpert opinion in social

fields. Von Burg also clarifies that you need not dissolve the boundaries between scientists and

nonscientists, rather you must guard scientific expertise in public debate and realize your role in

it as a person with unique resources and opinions while also engaging scientific expertise. The

challenge here, is learning how to position nonexperts, or laypersons as Wynn might like to call

them, as guardians of real science rather than opposers or deniers. As I said before, this course

involved that students engage in public discussions of science even in simple analysis, wherein

we effectively opened up technical discussions of science, the environment, and politics. The

work also required that we go beyond simple analysis and propose real solution to fix or change

the media we consume, engaging with expert opinion while also acknowledging our own

expertise just as citizens, or students, or humans. In engaging with expert opinion, we also have

to evaluate expert opinion and validate it in the public’s eyes responsibly. “The Stein and

McManus letter identify a way of making such distinctions [between choosing who to believe

rather than what to believe], and perhaps more importantly it identifies the stakes in assessing

expertise, enfranchising non experts in the process of vetting and assessing expertise, as a

necessary feature in improving scientific discourse” (Von Burg, p.185). These skills of

assessment Von Burg discusses can be translated across all disciplines and all subjects. The

ability to asses expertise and then engage with it in a meaningful way is the cornerstone of

accommodation of science and public discourse in general.

All of this is not to say, however, that scientific opinion should be prioritized above all

else. I spoke earlier of acknowledging my own expertise and I think it’s also important to

balance scientific fact with the nonscientist’s expertise in social consequence and public issues.
While Von Burg touches on the subject, Killingsworth and Palmer expand on the idea in

EcoSpeak within the framework of deep ecology and environmental policy, “It is ordinary

people, people "just like us," who take part in public and social life, endowed with intellectual

faculties, feelings, drives; therefore it will be appropriate to intervene in this endowment with a

global and comprehensive set of tools” (Killingsworth, Palmer, p.72). This idea can work in

perfect harmony with, rather than contradict, the ideas set forth in Von Burg’s chapter about

science sentinels and in striking some kind of balance, we can improve public discourse while

also inspiring ethical policy change.

It’s hard to think of yourself as a “science sentinel” or a “citizen scientist” and it doesn’t

necessarily come naturally, but the role is an important and extremely necessary one in good,

public scientific discourse. Realizing the weight of this role and the responsibility of it helped me

reassess my research methods while also leading me to the realization that I cannot remain

uninvolved and unbothered by the things going on around me. These realizations paired with

awareness of the need for localized, ethical opinions in public discourse, leads me to the

conclusion that it is my responsibility to be aware of and active in democratic deliberations. The

assignments in this course were a good introduction, but I’d like to go deeper into this role over

the next few years. I’d like to be proud of what I can accomplish in public spheres through both

responsible assessment and my own unique insights and viewpoints.

 Works Cited

Killingsworth, M. Jimmie, and Jacqueline S. Palmer. “The Environmental Impact

Statement and the Rhetoric of Democracy.” In Ecospeak: Rhetoric and Environmental Politics in

America. Southern Illinois UP, 1992, pp. 163-192.

Von Burg, Ron. “Localized Science Sentinels: TEDx and the Shared Norms of Scientific

Integrity.” Rhetoric Across Borders, edited by Anne Teresa Demo. Parlor P, 2015, pp. 175-86.

Wynn, James. “Citizen Science at the Roots.” In Citizen Science in the Digital Age:

Rhetoric, Science, and Public Engagement. U of Alabama P, 2017, pp. 12-27.