Download - PATHWAYS TO INNOVATION IN DEBATE SCHOLARSHIPgordonm/Preprints/Pathways.pdf · From 2000‐2005, 100 articles and 83 book reviews appeared in Argumentation & Advocacy. From this group,

PATHWAYSTOINNOVATIONINDEBATESCHOLARSHIP

ResearchandScholarshipWorkingGroupReport

ThirdNationalDevelopmentalConferenceonDebateWinston‐Salem,NorthCarolina

June5‐7,2009

GordonR.Mitchell(WorkingGroupChair)

AssociateProfessorandDirectorofGraduateStudies,DepartmentofCommunication,UniversityofPittsburghPeterBsumek

AssistantProfessorofCommunicationStudies,JamesMadisonUniversity

ChristianLundbergAssistantProfessorofCommunicationStudies,UNCatChapelHill

MichaelMangusUndergraduatestudent,UniversityofPittsburgh

BenjaminVothAssociateProfessorofCorporateCommunicationsandPublicAffairsandDirectorofForensics

andDebate,SouthernMethodistUniversity

withOdileHobeika(WorkingGroupAdvisoryMember)

GraduateTeachingAssistant,UniversityofPittsburghDepartmentofCommunication

MichaelJensen(WorkingGroupAdvisoryMember)DirectorofStrategicWebCommunications,NationalAcademiesofScience

PathwaystoInnovationReport

3

PATHWAYSTOINNOVATIONINDEBATESCHOLARSHIP

TheResearchandScholarshipWorkingGroupof

thethirdNationalDevelopmentalConferenceonDebate(NDCD)wastaskedbytheconferencesteeringcommitteeto:

Fosterresearchandscholarshipbyexaminingthecultureandprevailingnormsamongdebateprofessionalstowardresearchandscholarship,identifyopportunitiesforinnovationinscholarship,examineexistingoutletsandimaginenewpossibilitiesforresearchandscholarshipaboutdebateand/orbydebaters.

Thischargecomesatatimewhenthescholarlydimensionofthedebateenterpriseisundergoingsignificanttransitionalpressures.Tounderstandthecharacterofthesepressuresitishelpfultosituatethecurrentchallengesandopportunitieswithinabroaderhistoricalcontext.Onewaytoframetheprevailingmilieuistocomparethe2009NDCDtothetwopreviousmajordebatedevelopmentalconferencesatSedalia,Colorado(1974)andEvanston,Illinois(1984).1AsDonnParsonnotes,the1974Sedaliaconference“clearlycreatedacalltoresearchinforensics,”encouragingforensicspractitionerstoexpandtheirscholarlycommitments.Thiscallwasreflectedinresolutionsthataimedat"recognizingthediversityofmethodspossibleinforensicresearch;increasingthedisseminationofforensicscholarship;havingprofessionalorganizationssponsorandsupportforensicresearch;andfocusingonthecharacteristicsofthoseengagedinforensics"(Parson,1990,69).

Oneofthefirstordersofbusinessforparticipantsattendingthe1974SedaliaConference

1Foratreatmentofthe1974Sedalia

Conference,seeDonnParson’s“OnPublishingandPerishing:SomeApproachestoForensicResearch,”NationalForensicJournal8(Spring1990),69‐72.ThereportsproducedbytheSedaliaConferenceareavailableinForensicsasCommunication:TheArgumentativePerspective,editedbyJamesMcBath(Skokie,IL:NationalTextbookCompany,1975).Proceedingsfromthe1984EvanstonconferencearecollectedinAmericanForensicsinPerspective:PapersfromtheSecondNationalConferenceonForensics,editedbyDonnW.Parson(Annandale,VA:SpeechCommunicationAssociation,1984).

wastopindowndefinitionsofkeytermsthatwouldguideconferencedeliberations.Accordingly,thegroupdefinedforensicsas"aneducationalactivityprimarilyconcernedwithusinganargumentativeperspectiveinexaminingproblemsandcommunicatingwithpeople"(McBath,1975,11).Notably,thisdefinitionreflecteda"shiftinthinkingfromforensicsasactivitiestoforensicsasperspectiveforscholarship"that"profoundlyinfluencedsubsequentdeliberations"(McBath,1975,12).

AprominentthemepercolatingfromSedaliaconcernedtheimportanceofpositioningforensicsasascholarlyendeavor,notmerelyagameorsport.Towardthatend,Sedaliaconfereescalledfordebateprogramstointegratewithacademicdepartments,forgraduateprogramstoredoubletrainingoffutureforensicsleaders,andforallmembersoftheforensicscommunitytoembracescholarlyresearchasapartoftheirprofessionalportfolios(McBath,1975,12‐21).

AfewSedaliaconfereesunderscoredtheseoverallrecommendationswithdetailedcommentary.Forexample,DavidZarefskyjoinedwithMalcolmSillarstowriteanessayon"FutureGoalsandRolesofForensics,"(Sillars&Zarefsky,1975,83)advancingthethesis,"scholarsandteachersinforensicsshoulddefinetheirinterestsprimarilyintermsoftheirsubstantivescholarlyconcerns,ratherthantheirrolesasadministratorsofactivityprograms"(emphasisadded;seealsoRieke&Brock,1975,129‐136).ThiscommitmenttoscholarshipwasreinforcedbyashiftinnomenclatureechoedbyotherSedaliaconferees,withthesport‐oriented"coach"terminologygivingwaytotermslike"forensicsspecialist"—apreferredlabelfordescribingdebateprofessionals(seee.g.Hagood,1975,101;Keele&Anderson,1975).AsSillarsandZarefsky(1975,91‐92)putit,thesportified"debatecoach"definitionshave"permittedthehiringofinexperiencedcandidatesforpositionsoftendefinedasnon‐tenured,withextensiveworkloadsandarangeofresponsibilitiesthatprecludesthetimeandenergyneededforseriousscholarship."

Therationalefordefiningforensicsasascholarlyenterprisebecomesapparentwhenoneconsidershowacademicscholarshipcontributestothelong‐termvitalityofintercollegiatedebatebysecuringinstitutionalsupportfortheactivity,bolsteringtheintellectualfreedomofparticipants,andengenderingmutuallyinformingconversationsbetweendebatescholarsandinterlocutorsbeyondthedebatecommunity.AstheSedaliaconfereesconcluded,"programswithoutanyacademic


4

affiliationdecreasethelikelihoodthattheforensicsspecialistwillbeperceivedasascholarwhoseworkisvitaltotheeducationalprocess,andincreasethelikelihoodthatcompetitiveactivityprogramswillberegardedasendsinthemselves"(McBath,1975,14).

Itisnoteworthythatameretenyearslater,Sedalia'sringingcallforscholarlyresearchdroppedoutofthefinaldocumentsoftheEvanstonconferencealmostentirely,saveforafewpassingreferencesinmaterialproducedbythetenureandpromotionworkinggroup(Parson,1990,69,71).Wemighthypothesizetworeasonsforthisomission.First,itispossiblethatthecallforredoubledscholarlyresearchrelatingtodebateadvancedbytheSedaliaconfereeswasanswered,renderingfurtherdwell‐timeontheissuesuperfluous.ItiscertainlythecasethatintheyearsbetweenSedaliaandEvanston,debaterelatedscholarshipflourishedinanumberofoutlets,includingtheNCA‐AFAsummerconferencesonargumentation(Altaconferences)andtheJournaloftheAmericanForensicAssociation.Butthereisasecond,perhapsmoretroublingexplanationthataccountsfortheEvanstonconference'sexclusionofscholarlyresearchfromitsagenda.PerhapsanintensifyingtradeoffbetweentimespentinpursuitofcontestdebatingandtimespentinpursuitofresearchagendasbydebateacademicsforcedachoiceresultinginEvanston'snarrowerdevelopmentalfocus.

WhatevertherationaleforthesecondNationalDevelopmentalConferenceonForensics'narrowscope,itisclearthatanowthirty‐fiveyeargapininstitutionalattentionbydebateleadershiporganizationstothedirectionofandprospectsfordebaterelatedscholarshipwarrantsredress.Aswewilldetailmorefullyinthefollowingsection,anumberofstructuraltrendsatthelevelofcontestdebatingandintheacademymoregenerallyhaveexertedsubstantialpressuresonthecharacterandvolumeofdebatescholarship.Justastimedemandsareintensifyingoncoachestofieldcompetitiveteams,requirementsfortenureandpromotionaresimultaneouslyescalating.Thisdoublebindhascoincidedwithincreasedcompetitionforslotsinthequalityjournalsthattraditionallyservedasoutletsfordebatescholarship,orinsomecasesoutrightredefinitionsofthemissionsofjournalstolimittheirvalueasvenuesfordebatescholarship.Addinganothertwisttothisalreadyvexingknot,theincreasing“professionalization”ofdebate,reflectedinthedeclineoftenureddebatecoaches,haslessenedincentivesforthecoachestoproducedebate‐orientedscholarship.

Perhapsthegreatestparadoxresultingfromthisconstellationoffactorsisthatitisgrowinghardtoproduceanddefineaconstituencyfordebatescholarshipattheverymomentinourpubliclifewheresuchacademicworkisvitallyneededtobolsterthequalityofpublicdeliberation.Thisconundrumheightensthesalienceofourworkinggroup'scharge,to"imaginenewpossibilities"fordebatescholarship,andto"innovate"bytheorizingnovelopportunitiesforforensicsspecialiststoproduceacademicresearch.Inwhatfollows,weaddresstothischallengebyinitiallyassessingkeystatusquonormsandpracticesthatenableandconstrainpossibilitiesforscholarlypublishingintheintercollegiatepolicydebatecommunity(partone);next,consideringhowdebate'scollaborativemodeofknowledgeproductionhaspotentialtoleverageacademicknowledgeproduction(parttwo);andthen,takingstockofhowtherapidevolutionofonlinedigitalpublishingandtheadventofsocialWebmediaimplicateeffortsbyforensicsspecialiststoparticipateinscholarlyconversationsbeyondthetournamentgrid(partthree).Thesepreliminarysectionspavethewayforourclosingsegment(partfour),whichlaysouttheworkinggroup'sspecificrecommendationsandtheiraccompanyingrationales.

StatusQuoTrendsinResearchand

ScholarshipInrecentyears,thetraditionofdebatescholars

activelyproducingscholarlymanuscriptshasreceded,withtheenergyofforensicsspecialistsincreasinglychanneledtowardpursuitofthetournamenttrophy.Thisisnotentirelyanewtrend;evenduringtheSedaliaera,forensicsleaderswerekeenlyawareoftheacuteprofessionaltradeoffsforcedbyintenselaborcommitmentinvolvedinfieldingacompetitiveteamonthedebatetournamentcircuit.Yetinrecentyears,longertournaments,aresearchassistance"armsrace,"andapermanent,24‐hourresearchcycleresultingfromubiquitousonlineconnectivityhavecombinedtosharpenthecoachvs.scholartradeofffacingforensicsscholarswhowishtopursueacademicknowledgeproduction.Inshort,heightenedsportificationofthedebateactivity,generaldeclineofinterestinscholarlyknowledgeproductiononthepartofforensicsspecialists,anderosionoftenure‐streamfacultylinesfordirectorsofdebatearebutafewsymptomsofthisnascentproblemSedaliadiagnosedbutdidnottreat.

DebatesportificationpresentsmostforensicsspecialistswithaHobson'schoice—produceacademicscholarshiporcoachasuccessfulteam,


5

buttrybothatyourownperil.Travelschedules,researchassignments,andthree‐to‐fourdaytournamentscombinetoexerciseatemporaltyrannyoverthoseforensicsspecialistswhostruggletofindtimeforacademicpursuitsbeyondthecompetitivetournamentgrid.Withsomuchofthetimeinvestedincoachingandtravelingcomingattheexpenseofteachingandresearching,professionalprioritiesdevalueacademicresearch.Shouldonechoosetopursuearesearchagendaandtheattendantpromisesofprofessionaladvancement,thechoicerisksexilefromtheplaceoneoncecalledhome—thetournamentsite.Thustworealmsofrhetoricalproduction,whichonceweresofruitfulintheircollaboration,becomeestranged.Oneresultisthatsomeofthemosttalentedscholarsarecorneredoutofthecompetitivedebateactivitybecauseitdoesnotallowthemthetimeorincentivetoworkonotherinterestssuchaspublishingandteaching(Parson,1990,70).Notingthatforensicsdirectorsshoulder"acombinationofteaching,coaching,travel,andadministrativedutiesthatbogglesthemind,"Zarefsky(1980,21)warnedagainstthetendencyofthesedutiestocrowdoutscholarlyendeavors.

MatthewBrigham'sinformalsurveyofpublishingtrendsonissuesrelatedtocompetitiveforensicsfrom2000‐2005(withacomparisontothecommunicationfield’sflagshipjournalinitsfirstsixyearsofpublication:1915‐1920)shedslightoncontemporarymanifestationsofthisphenomenon.From2000‐2005,100articlesand83bookreviewsappearedinArgumentation&Advocacy.Fromthisgroup,only10.1%(19of183)ofthosepublishedpiecestouchedonissuesrelatingtocompetitiveforensics,with15ofthe18full‐lengtharticlesonforensicscomingintwospecialissues(the19thwasabookreview).

Comparingthesedatawithearliertrends,onefindsthatinitsfirstsixyears,thefieldofcommunication'sflagshipjournalregularlyfeaturedarticlesoncompetitiveforensics—from1915‐1920therewere260articlesand97bookreviews.Ofthe260articles,48(18.5%)wererelatedtocompetitiveforensics,aswere15ofthe97(15.5%)bookreviews.Therefore,ofthe357totalentriesinthisjournalduringthistime,17.6%(63)coveredcompetitiveforensics.Instarkcontrast,therewerezeroarticlesinTheQuarterlyJournalofSpeechrelatingtocompetitiveforensicsfrom2000‐2005.2

2Theprevioustwoparagraphsareadaptedfrom"NostalgiaorHope:OntheRelationshipBetweenCompetitiveDebateandSpeechCommunicationDepartments‐Past,Present,andFuture,"astudyby

Whilethesheerintensityoflaborinvolvedincontemporaryintercollegiatedebateaccountsforsomeofthedifficultiesfacingyoungparticipantsseekingtolaunchacademicresearchcareers,therearealsosociologicalfactorscomplicatingthedebate‐to‐scholarmetamorphosis.Intercollegiatedebateisasocialactivityshapedbybothcompetitiveandcollaborativeforces.Whilecompetitivepressuresprovidemotivationfordebaterstodoresearchinordertodefeatopposingteams,espritdecorpsspursteammemberstoworkharderwitheachotheroncommonprojectsdesignedtoleveragecontestroundpreparation.

Beforeadebaterpresentsanewargumentatatournament,forexample,theideahaslikelybeenbrainstormedcollaborativelybypartnersandotherteammembers,andhasbeencritiquedandrefinedfollowingcoachfeedbackduringpracticesessions.Thetournamentsettingaddsadditionallayersoffeedbackprovidedbydebateopponentsandjudgecomments.Debatersbecomeaccustomedtoavarietyofresourcesattheirdisposal:fellowdebaters,caselists,oldresearchfromformertopics,blogs,andemaillistserveswithhundredsofsubscribers.

Indeed,debatecompetitorsaresocializedintoarapid‐rewardeconomyinwhichtheirworkeffortsreceivefrequentscrutinyfromvariedaudiences.However,themotivationalspurprovidedbythisinstantfeedbackculturecanbecomeahindrancewhendebaterstransitiontotheacademiccommunity,wherepeerreviewtimelinesarenotoriouslylong.Forjournalsubmissions,authorscanoftenexpecttowaitmanymonths(evenyears)betweenroundsofeditorialfeedback.Andmostbasically,inanacademicworldwhereassessmentcriteriaareoftenvagueorevennon‐existent,scholarsfindfewcounterpartstothetournamenttrophiesandspeakerpointawardsthatmotivateintercollegiatedebaters.

TheSedaliaConferenceadvancedapowerfulvisionforforensicseducators.Notingagrowingdisconnectbetweenacademicdepartmentsandforensicprograms,Sedalialaidoutaseriesofgoalsthatcouldhelptobridgethisdivide.Unfortunately,whiletheadoptedresolutionswerehelpfulinimagininganewfutureforforensics,theywerelessusefulinmarkingpreciserouteschartingcoursestosuchimaginedfutures.Wehavealreadyobservedhowthe1984developmentalconferencein

MatthewBrighampresentedatthe2008NationalCommunicationAssociationConvention,SanDiego,CA,November21‐24,2008.


6

Evanstonfailedtobridgethisgap,andalthoughtheQuailRoostdraftdocument(Dauber,etal.,1993)emphasizedthatdirectorsofforensicsshouldbejudgedcomprehensivelyintenureandpromotiondecisions,itdevelopedfewinnovationsdesignedtostimulatescholarlyknowledgeproductionbeyondthetournamentgrid,atmostreferencingtheneedforforensicdirectorstohaveresearchassistantstohelpthemintheirpresumablysolitarypublicationactivities.

CollaborativeKnowledgeProductionin

DebateOnceasolitaryenterprise,academicresearchis

fastevolvingintoanactivitywheremultiplescholarscommonlyproduceknowledgebyworkingtogetherinpairsorteams.3Inpart,thistrendisanaturalresponsetothegrowingcomplexityandinterdisciplinarynatureofresearchtopics,whosemultifaceteddimensionsoftenovertaxtheexpertiseandcapabilityofsoloinvestigators.Butchangesintheacademy'sinformationinfrastructurealsoplayapartinfacilitatingcollectivescholarlywork.Digitalinterconnectivity,circulationofsophisticatedsocialnetworkingsoftware,andtheadventofflexiblecommunicationtools,allmakecollaborativeknowledgeproductionincreasinglyfeasible.

Whileco‐authorshipiscommonpracticewithinacademicfieldssuchasmedicine,economics,thenaturalsciences,andevensomebranchesofthesocialsciences(Aonuma,2001,7),thetraditionofcollaborativeresearchislesswellestablishedinthehumanities,althoughthewindsofchangeareblowing.Amidcommentarycallingfornewmodesofknowledgeproductionintheacademy(Jensen,2007)andmoreteamworkinrhetoricalscholarship(Aune,2007),surveysdocumentanuptickofmultipleauthoredpublicationsinthefieldofcommunication(Kramer,Hess&Reid,2007).Thepublishinglandscapeisshiftinginwaysthatfavorintellectualcommunities(suchasintercollegiatedebate)thatareabletocultivateandsupportcross‐disciplinary,collectiveknowledgeproductionprojects.

3Portionsofthissectionareadaptedfrom

"DAWGPower:TheSynergyofWritinginPacks,"apaperbyGordonMitchell,MatthewBrigham,EricEnglish,CatherineMorrison,JohnRiefandCarlyWoodspresentedatthe15hNCA/AFAConferenceonArgumentation,AltaRustlerLodge,Alta,UT,August2‐5,2007.

Co‐andgroup‐authoredresearchprovidessocializationopportunitiesandmaterialresourcesthatmayenableforensicsspecialiststogetafootholdintheworldofacademicwriting.Forundergraduatedebatersturnedgraduatestudents,itprovidesasupportnetworkmuchliketheteamsthatsupportedtheircompetitiveandintellectualdevelopment.Forforensicsspecialistsinnon‐tenurestreampositionswhowishtobetakenseriouslyinacademiccontexts,collaborativeresearchprovidesabridgefromaserviceroletoscholarrole,consistentwiththeforensicsspecialists'historicalroleinshapingthefieldofspeechcommunication.

Co‐authorshipseemsparticularlywellsuitedformembersofthedebatecommunitybecauseitenactsafamiliarprocessofinternaldeliberationandargumentation.Mirroringthecreationandrefinementofargumentbriefsforcompetitivedebate,thecollaborativebrainstorming,revision,anddecision‐makingthatgoesintoco‐authoredscholarshipinvolvesreworkingargumentsforeventualpresentationtowiderpublics.Debateteamshavehonedbothformalandinformalproceduresforco‐coordinatingintellectualwork.Theseprocedures,drivenprimarilybythepressuresoftournamentpreparation,constitutearichstorehouseoftacitknowledge.Considerthatthefollowingmodesofengagementinthedebateauthorworkinggroupapproacheachhavedistinctcorrelatesinthecompetitiveforensicssetting.

•Researchareabrainstormingandagendasetting,includingroundtablediscussiontoprojecttheupcomingyear'sacademicprojectsandsetresearchpriorities(correlateswithdebateteamresearchassignmentbrainstorming).•Manuscriptworkshopping,featuringconstructivecriticismofdrafts‐in‐progressgeneratedfrommultipleperspectives(correlateswithsmallgroupresearchteamsworkingonfocuseddebateassignments).•Revisionstrategyandexecution,involvinggroupconversationregardinghowbesttorespondto"reviseandresubmit"peerreview(correlateswithdebateteamstrategysessionsfocusedonhowtoadaptargumentstrategiesinlightofjudgefeedback).•Deliverypractice,executedinpracticesessionsfororalpresentationofresearchreportstoprofessionalaudiences(correlateswithdebateteampracticerounds).


7

Theoccasiontoworktogetheronscholarlyprojectsaffordsdebateauthorsopportunitiestoidentifyanddeveloppointsofoverlapbetweenthecompetitiveforensicsskillsetandtheskillsetutilizedinthegenerationofpublishableacademicwork.Again,keyresearchskillsmobilizedinthedebateauthorworkinggroupmodelhavecorrelatesincompetitiveforensics.

•Multitieredlatticeworkofdocumentation:Manyscholarlypublicationsrequireauthorstoundergirdtheirclaimswithmultiplelayersofsupportintheformoffootnotesandcitations(correlateswithconventionsofdebatebriefwriting,with"extension"briefsbackingup"frontline"arguments).•Espritdecorps:Authorsdependonstimulifromotherstobreakoutofcreativerutsandmaintainwritingmomentum(correlateswithpatternsofsocialsupportforgedincompetitiveforensicsworkgroups).•Audienceadaptation:Successfulauthorslearntoreachmultipleaudiencesbyadaptingproseaccordingly(correlateswiththedebater'sinclinationtoadaptargumentsforarotatingarrayofdiversejudgesandopponents).•Divisionoflabor:Scholarlyworkgroupsdifferentiatetasksandparcelthemoutbasedonskillspecialization(correlateswithadebateteam'ssegmentationofassignmentstomaximizeworkefficiency).

Theprecedinglistsillustratehowthedebateauthorworkinggroupmodelsupportsscholarlyknowledgeproductionbymobilizingskillsdevelopedincompetitiveforensics.Thisoverlappingskillsetcorrelateswithworkflowpatternsthatenablecollaboratingforensicsspecialiststo"doubledip"researchefforts,forexamplebyworkshoppingscholarlymanuscriptsduringlongvanridestoandfromtournaments,developingacademicresearchprojectsduringperiodsofdown‐timeatthetournamentsite,orevenusingthejudgefeedbackportionoforalcritiquestobrainstormnewscholarlyprojectsgrowingoutofargumentsraisedduringcontestrounds.Butthemodelalsopromotesintellectualflexibilitybydrawingfromthenaturallyeclecticandinterdisciplinaryknowledgebasefoundintheforensicscommunity.Fromthestart,intercollegiatedebatersareforcedtothinkoutsideofandbeyonddisciplinaryboundaries.Byengagingdiversetopics,debatersnecessarilyhonemodesofthoughtand

researchthataredetailedyetholistic,sophisticatedyetflexible.However,whentheyentergraduateschool,formerdebatersoftenfacepressuretoimmersethemselvesinanarrowdisciplinarymatrixandwinnowdrasticallytheirresearchfocus.Suchpressurecanfurthercomplicatethecompetitor‐to‐researchertransition.

Thedebateauthorworkinggroupmodelhaspotentialtocounter‐balancethisphenomenonbyprovidingamechanismfordebatescholarstomaintaincontactwiththeinterdisciplinarynetworkofthinkerscultivatedinthecompetitiveforensicscommunity.Byactivatingthesenetworksofpotentialscholars,formerdebaterscanengageincollaborativeresearchandpublicationthattranscendsdisciplinaryboundaries.Anadditionalbenefitofthesescholarlynetworksflowsfromthewidespreadsenseofintellectualcuriositywithinthedebatecommunity.AsCassSunstein(2007)notes,anygroupthatdoesnotmaintainanatmospherewelcomingofdissentislikelytobeovertakenbygrouppolarizationandgroupthink.Thankstotheinterdisciplinarynatureofdebatetraining,forensicsspecialistscantranscendsomeofthe"turfwars"thattypicallycharacterizeeachdiscipline'sdesireto"oneup"allothersbypointingtoitsuniqueandexclusiveclaimtoknowledge.

Morewidespreadcollaborativeknowledgeproductionintheforensicscommunitywillnotguaranteeapositivefutureforasportifiedactivitycurrentlyinfluxandincreasinglyunderscrutiny.Buttheprospectofforensicscompetitorspoolingtheirtalentandenergytosharethevitallessonsofdebatewiththewiderworldatleastbringsintofocusanumberofhopefulpossibilities.Grantmoniescouldbeawardedcompetitivelytoyoungdebatescholarswishingtobuyoutportionsoftheirjudgingcommitmentsatintercollegiatedebatetournaments,freeingthescholarstoworkcollaborativelyonpublishingprojectsatthetournamentsite.Rigorousandtheoreticallygroundedsystemsforacademicknowledgeco‐productioncouldenablecurrentandformerforensicsspecialiststoincreasescholarlyproductivity,therebystrengtheningthepillarsofinstitutionalsupportthatenableintercollegiatedebatetothriveoverthelong‐term.Instantiatingnormsandhabitsofco‐authorshipmayalsomakeconditionsmorefavorableforargumentationscholarstopursuethesortofinterdisciplinaryresearchthatiscommoninfieldssuchasmedicineandpublichealth,wherecollaborativeknowledgeproductionisacknowledgedasanessentialresponsetothechallengeofanalyzingmultifacetedphenomena.


8

DebateScholarshipinaDigitalAge

AssociologistLangdonWinner(1986)observes,"technologicalartifactshavepolitics"(19).Inotherwords,choicesaboutcommunicationtechnologiescarrypoliticalimplications,sincepatternsofsocialityareembeddedwithintechnicaltools(Keith,2002;McMillanandHyde,2000).Fortunately,Winnernotesthat,"byfarthegreatestlatitudeofchoiceexiststheveryfirsttimeaparticularinstrument,system,ortechniqueisintroduced"(Winner1986,29).Winner'sinsightpunctuatesthesalienceandtimelinessofthe2009WakeForestNDCD,whichcomesatamomentwhentheintercollegiatepolicydebatecommunityfacesthedauntingchallengeofunderstandingpreciselyhowrapidtechnologicalchangemighttransformitsnorms,practices,andevenidentityasanintellectualendeavor(Edwards,2006).

OnetechnologyparticularlyworthyofconsiderationinthiscontextiswhatcanbecalledaDigitalDebateArchive(DDA)–anonlinedatabasethatarchives,tracks,organizesandpublishesargumentationpresentedintournamentcontestrounds.Thegeneralconceptofadebateargumentarchiveisnothingnew,asthelinear“caselist”recordofargumentsadvancedincontestroundsisnowaninstitutioninNationalDebateTournament(NDT)andCrossExaminationDebateAssociation(CEDA)circles.However,thepossibleturntoamoreambitiousinformationarchitecturepresentsfreshchallengesandnovelchoices.Howmightnear‐termchoicesregardinginformationarchitectureandcommunitynormsshapethefuturetrajectoryofthearchive?DoestheNDT/CEDAcommunityhavearealmechanismforfacilitatingcollectivediscussionandreflectivedecision‐makingonthisissue?WhowillbethegatekeepersdeterminingwhatcontentisincludedandtheformitispresentedinaDDA?Whatincentiveswilldebatershavetosharetheirideasbeyondthecontestroundspace?

Contestrounddebatingandargumentationpedagogyhaveevolvediteratively,withprinciplesfrompolicydebateinformingmanyargumentationtextbooks(e.g.Rieke&Sillars,1997;Hollihan&Baaske,2004;Winkler,Newman,&Birdsell,1993),andconceptsfromargumentationtheoryshapingtheflowoftournamentcompetition.TheadventofaDDAislikelytorecalibratethisrelationship,withtheensuingalterationscarryingpotentialtoyieldnewformsofknowledgeproduction.Forourpurposes,aDDAorganizedinafashiontofacilitatethetrackingofargumentsthroughtimecouldprove

tobeasignificantresearchresourceforscholarsseekingtostudyargumentation.

Asahistoricalarchive,aDDAcoulddocumentargumentstrategiesandresearchapproachestoparticulardebatetopics,providingavaluablestorehouseofdataforfuturescholarsinterestedinstudyingtheintellectualhistoryofargumentationanddebate.Thisfunctioncouldalsosupportnewavenuesofscholarshipthatwouldinvestigateargumentationprocessesbyutilizingacademicdebateasasocial"laboratory"(Hagood1975).Here,theworkofacademicdebaterscoulditselfbecomeanobjectofstudy,withthedigitalarchiveprovidingauniqueportalforresearcherstoaccessphenomenathattakeplaceintournamentcontestrounds.Forexample,onemightstudyhownewargumentformationsstruggletogainrecognitionaslegitimatecontributionstopolicydialogue,orconversely,howtheyareexcluded.Similarly,thecontentofargumentationadvancedonaparticulartopiccouldserveasthebasisofscholarship,withinquiryfocusedonhowtopicalargumentsunfoldinthecontestroundsetting,andtheresultinggeneralizationscomparedwithargumentationtrendsunfoldinginwiderspheresofpublicdeliberation.

ThescholarlyandpedagogicalusesofaDDAcouldbefacilitatedorfrustrateddependingontheformatofthearchive.ADDAformatthatprivilegespedagogyandscholarlyresearch,perhapsbyemphasizingsortingandclassificationfunctions,mightyieldanarchivethatwasteachingandresearchfriendly,withapossibletradeoffincompetitiveutilityfortournamentcontestroundparticipants.Ponderingthesetradeoffs,itisalsopossibletovisualizewaysthataresearchandteaching‐friendlyDDAmightpotentiallytransformthecompetitivecontestroundprocessitself.Forexample,aDDAorganizedtoprovideamechanismforpublicrecognitionoforiginalandinnovativeresearch(i.e.possiblythroughdel.icio.us‐stylebookmarking),couldbothalterthecompetitiverewardeconomyandcreatenewopportunitiesfordebaterstoamplifytheirworkproductstowideraudiences.Considerthatcurrently,Evazon(Kerpen,n.d.)operatesaclearinghouseforcommodityexchangeoffinisheddebatespeakingbriefs.Onesectionofthewebsiteliststhe"mostpopularauthors"ofsuchfinishedbriefs,rankingthembystatisticalmeasuresofthenumberofbriefsoldonthewebsite.ADDAwithsortingandtrackingfeaturescouldsupportsimilarcompetitiveindices,perhapswithstatisticsrecognizingdebaterswhoseoriginalargumentsweresubsequentlypickedupandrunbyotherteamsincontestrounds,or


9

debaterswhofashionedthegreatestnumberoforiginalargumentsonagiventopic.

IfaDDAcreatedknowledgetowardsextra‐competitiveends,suchasscholarshipanddebatecommunityoutreach,thesocialcapitalofparticipatingincollectiveknowledgeproductionmightexceedthecompetitiveincentiveforwithholdinginformationgoods(vandenHooffetal,2005).CEDAprovidessomeinsightintohowsuchincentivescouldwork.Awardsforcoachscholarsandpublicdebateprogramsofferopportunitiestoacquire“socialcapital”forextra‐competitiveoutcomeswithintheorganization.Thisoutwardly‐orientedknowledgeproductioncouldhaveapositiveimpactontherelationshipbetweendebatersandotherindividuals,suchasdepartmentchairsanddeans,whoprovidefundingforprogramsbutmaynotknowtheintricaciesoftheactivity.Byprovidingthesefigureswithaccesstothecopiousargumentbriefsproducedforintercollegiatedebatecompetitions,aDDAcouldcreatedeeperconnectionswiththeacademyandintroducearewardssystemforinventiveresearch.

Roughlyspeaking,theactofpublishingresearchentailspreparingmaterialforpublicuptake,securingeditorialsanction,andthenannouncingtheeventtofacilitatecirculation.4Formanyyears,thisprocesswasstructuredlargelyasaneconomictransactionbetweenauthorsandprintingpressowners,witheditorsoftenservingasgatekeeperswhowouldvetandfiltermaterial.Readersreliedonmarkersofprofessionalism(qualityofprintandink,circulation,reputationofeditors)tojudgetherelativecredibilityofpublications.Intheacademy,refereesemployedsimilarmetricstoassessagivenwriter'sdegreeofscholarlyauthority,metricsthatwererootedinprinciplesofpublicationscarcityandexclusivity—thatascholar'scaliberwasinpartdemonstratedbyhisorherabilitytopersuadeeditorstopublishtheirwork.

AccelerationofInternetcommunicationandtheadventofdigitalonlinepublicationdestabilizedthesearrangementsfundamentally.Publication,

4Portionsofthissectionareadaptedfrom

ThomasGoodnightandGordonMitchell's"ForensicsasScholarship:TestingZarefsky'sBoldHypothesis,"anarticleforthcominginArgumentation&Advocacy;and"DeliberatingDebate'sDigitalFutures,"anarticleappearinginContemporaryArgumentationandDebate27(2006):81‐105,byCarlyWoods,MattBrigham,TakuzoKonishi,BrentHeavner,JohnRief,BrentSaindonandGordonMitchell.

previouslyaone‐to‐manytransaction,hasbecomeamany‐to‐manyenterpriseunfoldingacrossacomplexlatticeworkofinternetworkeddigitalnodes.Nowweblogs,e‐books,onlinejournals,andprint‐on‐demandbookproductionanddeliverysystemsmakeitpossibleforawholenewpopulationofprospectiveauthorstopublishmaterialinwhatMichaelJensen(2008),NationalAcademiesofScienceDirectorofStrategicWebCommunications,callsan"eraofcontentdemocracyandabundance."

Incontentabundance,thekeychallengeforreadersandrefereeshaslesstodowithfindingscarceinformation,andmoretodowithsortingwheatfromtheproverbialchaff(theever‐burgeoningsurplusofdigitalmaterialavailableonline).Inthedebatecommunity,thisiswhatdrivesforensicsspecialiststocombthroughandprocesscopiousdatainpreparationforcontestrounds.Inthewiderworld,thepressingnatureofthisinformation‐overloadpredicamenthasspurredinventionofwhatJensen(2007)calls"newmetricsofscholarlyauthority"–essentially,newwaysofmeasuringthecredibilityandgravitasofknowledgeproducersinadigitalworldofcontentabundance.

ForJensen,traditional"authority1.0"metrics,suchasbookreviews,peer‐reviewedjournalpublications,andjournal"impactfactors,"aregraduallybeingsupplantedinpopularcultureby"authority2.0"metricssuchasGooglepageranks,blogposttrackbacks,anddiggs.Jensen'spointisnotthatthesenewmetricsofscholarlyauthorityarenecessarilysuperiortotheoldmeasurementtools,orthattheyareespeciallyreliableorappropriateforassessinganygivenauthor'scredibility(especiallyinanacademiccontext).Hispointisthattheyaredevelopingveryfast,andbecomingmorewidespreadasmarkersofintellectualgravitas:

Scholarlyauthority,thenuanced,deep,perspective‐ladenauthorityweholddear,isunderthreatbytheeasily‐computablemetricsofpopularity,famousness,andbinaryvotes,whichareamplifiedbythenatureofabundance‐jadedaudiences.(Jensen,2008,25)

WhileJensen(2008,25)seesthiscurrenttrendfromaneratocontentscarcitytoaneraofcontentabundanceasa"revolutionaryshift,"a"culturalU‐turnsoextremeit'shardtocomprehend,"healsoeschewsdeterminismbystipulatingthatthis"isatransformationwecaninfluence."OnekeyavenueofinfluenceentailsinventionandrefinementofwhatJensenterms"authority3.0"metrics–sophisticatedinstrumentsthattrackandmeasure


10

knowledgecreationanddisseminationinwaysthatblendtraditional"authority1.0"principlessuchaspeerreviewwithnewfangleddigitaltoolslikeReferenceFinder(aNationalAcademiesPress"fuzzymatching"searchtool)andMicrosoft'sPhotosynth.

Certainlythenewmetricspresenttoolsfordebaterstomeasurethecredibilityofonlinepublications,ataskthatisbecomingevermoresalientasdigitalmaterialincreasinglyfindsitswayintodebateresearchandtournamentadvocacy.Butapersonalconnectionhintsatsomethinggreater—Jensen'sbrotherwasasuccessfulhighschooldebaterunderRandyMcCutcheonatEastHighSchoolinLincoln,Nebraska,soJensenknowsallaboutinherency,indexcardsandspreaddelivery.Andinthedebatecommunity'searlyeffortsatcollaborativeonlineknowledgeproduction(suchasDebateResults,PlanetDebate,Crossx.comandcaselistwikis),Jensenseesseedsofnewmetricsofscholarlyauthority.

Considerwhattakesplaceinadebatetournamentcontestround,oneheldundertoday'sconditionsofdigitallynetworkedtransparency.Debaterspresenttheirresearchonbothsidesofagiventopic,citingevidencetosupporttheirclaims.Thoseclaims(andincreasingly,theprecisecitationsorexactperformativeelementssupportingthem)areoftentranscribedandthenuploadedtoapubliclyavailabledigitalarchive(aprocessstreamlinedbylaptopflowing).Theyieldisaremarkablyintricateanddetailedmapofawholesetofinterwovenpolicycontroversiesfallingundertherubricofyearlongnationalpolicydebateresolution.Whocaresaboutthis?Ofcoursedebatersandforensicsspecialistspreparingforthenexttournamenttakeinterest,asthemapprovidesanavigationaltoolthatleveragespreparationforfuturecontests.Withrefinement,onlinecaselistwikiscouldbetransformedintopubliclyaccessibledatabasesdesignedtoprovidepolicy‐makers,journalists,andothersresourcesforinteractivestudyofnationalpolicycontroversiessuchasthe2009‐2010topicareaonnuclearweaponry.Let'ssayareporterfortheGlobalSecurityNewswireisfollowingtheSTARTarmscontrolbeat.WithavisittoaDDA,shecouldnotonlypulluphundredsofthecontestroundswherearmscontrolwasdebated;shecouldclickthroughtofindouthowcertainteamsdeployedsimilararguments,whichcitationsweregettingthemostplay,whichsourceswerecitedmostfrequentlybywinningteams,andwhichcitationsonarmscontrolwerenewatthelasttournament.Suchpostmortemanalysisofthedebateprocesscouldenablenon‐debatersto

hypothesistestby"replayingthechessmatch"5thattookplaceatunintelligiblespeedduringagivencontestround(seealsoWoods,etal.,2006).

ThemarriageofaDDAwithJonBruschke'singeniousDebateResultsonlineresourcecouldpavethewayforahostofnewstatisticalmeasureswithgreatsalienceforawidearrayofaudiences.Internally,thedebatecommunitycouldbenefitfromdevelopmentofanewsetofmeasuresandcorrespondingrewardsassociatedwithresearchoutcomes.Whoarethemostproductiveindividualresearchersinthenation?Themostoriginal?Whichdebaterorforensicsspecialisthasthegreatest"researchimpactfactor"(apossiblemetricmeasuringthepersonswhoseargumentstendtobepickedupandreplicatedmostbyothersincontestroundcompetition).Asystemfortrackingandpublishinganswerstothesequestionscouldopenupanewsymbolicrewardeconomy,withpotentialtocounterthedrifttowardsportificationentailedinstricttournament‐outcomeorientedrewardstructure.Thesamesystemcouldbeusedtotrackfrequencyandmodeofsourcecitations,yieldingstatisticsthatcouldanswersuchquestionsas:Whichexpertsonnuclearweaponspolicyarecitedmostfrequentlyincontestrounds?Whichexpertsarecitedmostbroadly(onawiderangeofsub‐topics)?Whenagivenexpertiscitedbyoneside,whoaretheexpertsmostlikelytobecitedbytheopposingside?Scholarsareincreasinglyusingsimilardatatodocumenttheirresearchimpactduringprofessionalreviews(seeMeho,2007).Sincetheintercollegiatepolicydebateisdrivenbyanintellectualcommunitycommittedtotherigorousstandardsofevidenceanalysisandhypothesis‐testing,astrongcasecouldbemadethatcitationinthatcommunityismoremeaningfulthanawebsitehitindicatingthatascholar'sworkproductwasviewedbyananonymouspersonbrowsingtheInternet(thisisagoodexampleofthedifferencebetweena3.0and2.0scholarlymetric).

Onceanenterprisebornefromthedifficultiesofengagementwithpublicaudiences,academicdebatebecameestrangedfromitsaudience‐centeredoriginsduringthemid‐twentiethcentury.Theriseoftournamentcompetitionasanorganizingtelosaugureddebate'sasceticturn,characterizedbyheightenedspecialization,intensifyinginsularity,andfetishizationoftechnique.Rewardsforparticipationindebaterose,butsodidentrybarriers.Participationratesshrunk,andtheactivitytookonthepatinaofanexoticsportingevent,even

5MichaelJensen'scleverphrasing.


11

attractingacablesportstelevisionnetworktocoverseveralNDTsinthenewmillennium.

Inchartingacourseforthefutureofforensics,theSedaliaconfereesenvisionedthedebatecommunityroundingintoascholarlyenterprisethatwouldgrowfromitsaudience‐centricrootstotackleresearchquestionsonsuchtopicsaspoliticalcampaigndebates,conflictresolution,publicopinionformation,andprocessesofpersuasion(seeMcBath,1975,35‐36).Nowdebate'sdigitalturnopensupopportunitiesforforensicsspecialistsanddebaterstorecuperatetheaudiencedimensionofargumentativepractice,withoutjettisoningthewondrousenterpriseoffast‐talking,evidence‐intensive,dynamicallyreflexivetournamentdebating.

ChoicesregardingaDDA’sarchitecturewillshapetheincentivestructurethatinfluencesparticipationrates,demarcatelinesofeditorialauthority,andaffectthecommoditystatusofdebateknowledgeproduction.Onanotherlevel,thebasicphilosophyunderlyingaDDAwilldeterminewhetherthetechnologypreservesintercollegiatedebateasaprimarilyinsularspaceortransformsitintoamorepublicenterprise.Furthermore,dependingonwhichdesignfeaturesareselected,aDDAcouldeitherreinforceprevailingnormsofcompetition,orintroducenewelementsintopicturethatchangethenatureofintercollegiatedebateentirely.

TheforegoinganalysishighlightssalientdimensionsoftheNDCD'sResearchandScholarshipWorkingGroup'sdeliberationsconductedbefore,duringandafterthethirddevelopmentalconference.WorkingGroupmembersbeganbyplacingthesteeringcommittee'schargeinhistoricalcontext,analyzingpreviousdevelopmentalconferences'treatmentsofdebatescholarshipandtakingstockoftherolethatacademicknowledgeproductionhastraditionallyplayedinconstitutingthedebatecommunity'sacademicroots.Next,theWorkingGroupassessedstatusquotrendsrelatingtothechallengeofproducingforensicsscholarshipinamilieucharacterizedbyheightenedsportificationofthedebateactivity,erosionoftenurestreamdirectorlines,theadventofdigitalscholarshipinanageof"contentabundance,"andincreasedpopularityofcollaborativeco‐authorshipasamodeofknowledgeproductionintheacademywritlarge.Theselinesofanalysispreparedthegroundforformulationofsevenspecificrecommendations,outlinedinthefollowingresolutions.EachoftheresolutionswaspresentedduringtheNDCD'sclosingplenarysessionandendorsedbythefullbodyconferenceparticipants.

ResolutionsPresentedbytheResearchand

ScholarshipWorkingGroupandEndorsedbytheNDCDPlenarySession

1.TheNationalDevelopmentalConferenceon

Debate(NDCD)recommendsthatforensicsorganizationsimproveonlinedigitalsystemsforarchivinganddistributingdebateknowledgeproduction.Towardthatendwesuggestpursuitofaparticipatorydesignprocessthatmaximizesbenefitsofdigitalarchivesforthecontestroundparticipants,productionofpeerreviewedscholarship,andpublicengagement.

RATIONALE:Anintegrated,specialized,and

technicallyadvancedarchivalsystem,orDigitalDebateArchive(DDA),haspotentialtovastlychangethelandscapeofintercollegiatedebate(Woods,etal.,2006).YetthereispresentlynoclearconsensusaboutwhatspecificfeaturesaDDAoughttoinclude,norhowsuchanarchiveoughttobeutilized.Functionalconcernsaboutgatekeepingandincentivestructures,technicalissuesaboutthesecurityandprivacyofinformationstoredinaDDA,aswellastheconcepts,toolsandsoftwareengineeringprocessesthatmightbeusedtobuildone,haveyettobesortedout.Thelong‐termsuccessofaDDAmayhingeonthedegreetowhichtheseoutstandingissuesareresolvedthroughdesignprocessesthatprioritizebroad‐basedparticipationandbottom‐upinput.

Community‐specificcomputingprojectsareoftenhamperedbyatendencytoutilizenon‐specializedsoftwareinordertominimizecostsandresponsibilities(Merkel,et.al.,2004,1‐2);however,aDDAwouldbemostfunctionalifpurpose‐builttofittheidiosyncraticconventionsofdebatecompetition.Buildingacustom‐tailoredarchivecouldbebestaccomplishedbyaprocessakintowhatMerkelet.al.(2004)refertoaslong‐termparticipatorydesign,utilizingethnographictechniquesandemphasizingend‐userinvolvementduringthesoftwareengineeringprocessinordertoproduceasustainablesystemcapableof“supportinggroups[…]astheyidentifywaysthattechnologycanbeusedtoaddressorganizationalandcommunitylevelproblems,andastheydevelopplanstotakeonprojectsinvolvingtechnology”(2).Ratherthanturningovertheprimaryresponsibilityforsoftwareprojectstoengineers,asustainableparticipatoryapproach“see[s]communitygroupsasownersoftheprojects,notdesigners”(Merkelet.al.,2004,7)andencouragesadaptationovertimetospecificuserneeds.


12

Inthecontextofaparticipatorymodelforsoftwaredevelopment,thepotentialfordisagreementoverthedetailsofaDDAcanbeseenasanassetratherthanaliability.Participatorydesignfocuseson“theempowermentofworkerssotheycancodeterminethedevelopmentoftheinformationsystem”(Clement&VandenBesselaar,1995,29)andtherebyproducescommunity‐specificartifactsthatallowprogrammersimplementingasystemtobetteraccountforusers’needs.Participatorytechniquesareoftenemployedforcommunity‐specificprojects“becausetheyaredeemedmoreappropriatetotheactivitiesthanotheravailableconceptualizations”(Törpel,2005,178).Aparticipatoryprocessgroundedinadebate‐likeformatcoulduniquelyleveragethecommunity’sargumentativeandcollaborativeskillstoconstructaDDAwithcapabilitiesthatwouldfarsurpassprefabricatedsolutions.

WhilewewishtoleaveopenthepossibilitiesfordevelopmentofaDDA,weoffersomespecificsuggestionstoinitiateadiscussionaboutthetechnologiesandconceptsthatcouldfacilitatethearchives'usefulnessasatoolforcontestroundpreparationaswellasscholarshipandpublicengagement.EdgarCodd’sseminalworkinthefieldofdatabasedesigncanserveasaspringboardforconceptualizingthepotentialofaDDA;hisrelationalmodelconsistsofdescribingrelationshipsbetweenatomicunitsofdata(seeCodd,1970).Withdatastoredinnondecomposabledomainsandorganizedbyrelationshipsamongthosedomains,theinformationarchivedinadatabasecaneasilybepresentedtousersinconfigurationsthatareindependentofitsinternalrepresentation(i.e.,theformatusedbythecomputertostorethedata).Forexample,adebater’sfileonaparticularpositionforuseinacontestroundcanbeunderstoodastherelationofaseriesofblocks;thoseblocksastherelationsofspecificarguments;thoseargumentsastherelationsoftaglines,citations,andquotations;andthosecitationsastherelationsofauthors,titles,journals,etc.Eachconstituentunitcanbelinkedtootherrelationsaswell:theauthorscitedinaparticularcontestround,theevidenceproducedbyaparticularresearcheronateam,andsoon.

Moderndatabase‐drivenwebapplicationsfrequentlyemployaModel‐View‐Controllerpattern(seeJazayeri,2007),andaDDAmightbewellservedbythisapproach.Thedatamodel,typicallypoweredbyadatabase,consistsofthelogicalcomponentsoftheinformationusedbytheapplication(e.g.debater,tournament,round,argument,citation,quotation),aswellastheirproperties(e.g.atournament’snameandlocation)

andtherelationshipsamongthem(e.g.eachquotationhasexactlyonecite).Dataareinputtedormodifiedbycontrollersandexposedtousersthroughviews,whichtranslatemachine‐storedinformationintohuman‐readabletemplates.

Multipleviewsallowthesamedatasettobedisplayedtouserswithdifferenttemplaticrepresentationsfordifferentcontexts.Itisthisfeaturethatmayholdthemostpotentialformakingtheknowledgeproducedincontestdebatingusefulforacademicsandthepublic.ThepossibilitiesforcomputingmetricsofauthorityfromthisinformationcouldfacilitateinterestinaDDAfromscholarsoutsidethedebatecommunity.Moreover,whileadebaterpreparingforatournamentmightbeprimarilyconcernedwithaviewconstructedintheformatofatraditionalcase‐list–thesetofargumentsreadbyoneteamincontestdebatesataparticulartournament–aDDAcouldalsobeusedtocreateadynamically‐generatedannotatedbibliographyencompassingthevastamountofresearchconductedbythedebatecommunityoverthespanofaseason.Anarrayofalternativeviewscouldmaketheworkproductsofcontestroundsmoreaccessibletomyriadscholarlyaudiences,therebyraisingthedebatecommunity'sresearchprofile.

2.TheNDCDrecommendsestablishmentofa

publishingoutletthattranslatesknowledgeproducedincontestdebatingintodoublepeerreviewedacademicjournalarticles.Ideally,thejournalwillshowcasedebate'scollaborativeresearchmodelanditsabilitytoimpactlivepublicargumentwithtimelyinterventions.

RATIONALE:Sometimesundergraduate

studentsconverttheirdebateresearchintotermpapers,andoccasionallymoreadvancedscholarsdevelopdissertationsorscholarlyarticlesfromtopicareareadingtheypursuedwhilecoaching.Yetforthemostpart,thevoluminousworkproductsflowingfrompolicydebatecompetitionneverreachwideraudiencesbeyondthedebatecommunity,andsometimesareneverevenreadincontestrounds.Thismothballeffectisashame,notonlybecausetherestoftheworldmightbenefitfromdebate‐driveninsight,butalsobecauseyoungdebatersandcoachesstandtobolstertheirscholarlycredentialsbyconvertingthefruitsoftheirresearchintopeer‐reviewedpublications.TimelyInterventions:ATranslationalJournalofPublicPolicyDebateisdesignedtofacilitatesuchconversionbycarryingthefollowingtypesofessays:


13

1)Policyadvocacyessays,whereauthorspulltogethertheirresearchonaparticularpolicyposition(e.g.affirmativecase),andwriteupthecaseforageneral,educatedreadingaudience.2)Controversyreviewessays,whereauthorsisolateaparticularpointofsalientdisagreementfeaturedincontestroundcompetition,clarifyforageneral,educatedreadingaudiencewhythecontroversywarrantsextendedstudy,andexplainhowtheargumentsfromcontestrounddebatingdeepensunderstandingofthecontroversyunderreview.3)Sourcereviewessays,whereauthorsisolateaparticularexpertwhosepublishedworkisreceivingsignificantattentioninintercollegiatepolicydebatecompetition,detailwaysthatthesourceisinformingthepolicyargument,andreflectonhowthedebateexperienceyieldsresourcesforbetterunderstandingtheexpert’sroleinthepolicydebateforgeneral,educatedaudiences.4)Forumexchanges,wheretopexpertsinthefieldutilizeadebatingformattoelucidatesalientaspectsofpressingpublicpolicyissues.

Aswithscholarly,peer‐reviewedpublications,prospectiveauthorswouldsubmitdraftmanuscriptsfallingintooneoftheabovecategoriestoaneditor‐in‐chief,whowouldthensolicitpeerreviewfrommembersoftheeditorialboard(seeAppendix1).6Asrefereeswithdebateexperience,peerreviewerswouldbeaskedtoapplyevaluative

6Inhisroleaschairofthejournal'sadvisory

board,RobertP.Newmanbringsdecadesoftranslationaldebateresearchexperiencetotheproject.DuringatoasthonoringNewmanattheconference'sclosingdinner,GordonMitchellandEdwardPanettapointedtoNewman'sworkonthe1954intercollegiatepolicydebatetopicdealingwithU.S.recognitionofCommunistChinaasparticularlynoteworthyinthisregard.NotonlydidNewmanconvenemanyconsequentialandcontroversialpublicdebatesonthishot‐buttontopicduringtheheightofMcCarthyism;helatertranslatedvoluminouscontestrounddebateresearchonChinatopicintoapopularbookpublishedbyamajortradepress,RecognitionofCommunistChina?AStudyinArgument(MacmillanPress,1961).

criteriaassociatedwithqualitydebateargument(e.g.claimsstatedclearlyandconvincingly,argumentsbackedupbysupport,evidencethoroughlycited),aswellascriteriaassociatedwiththechallengeoftranslating“debatespeak”intoaccessibleproseunderstandableforageneral,educatedreadership.Thislattersetofcriteriaisespeciallyimportant,giventhevisionthatTimelyInterventionscultivateawidereadershipamongstpolicy‐makers,journalists,citizens,andothersinterestedinlearningaboutthatyear’sgiventopicareathroughadebateprism.Asanonlinepublication,TimelyInterventionswouldpublishindividualmanuscriptsserially,uponsuccessfulcompletionofpeerreviewandcopyediting.Withthisprocedure,thejournalenablesarticlescarriedunderitsbannertobepeerreviewednotonce,buttwice.Priortogoingthrougharoundoftraditionalreviewbyanonymousrefereesdrawnfromtheranksoftheeditorialboardandtopic‐areaexperts,articlecontentwilllikelyalreadyhavebeenhonedandtestedduringdebatecontestroundcompetition.AstheNDCDTenureandPromotionWorkingGroupnotes,"thistestingprocessis[itself]aformofpeerreview,quitesimilartothatwhichoccursatjournals."Theresultingtwo‐tieredsystemof"doublepeerreview"isdesignedtoensurethatjournalcontentmeetsprevailingacademicstandardsforrigorouslyvalidatedscholarship.

Forforensicsspecialistsseekingthejobsecurityandintellectualfreedomaffordedbyprofessionalpromotioninthefieldofcommunication,thewindfallfromsuccessfulplacementofpeerreviewedscholarlyworkinTimelyInterventionsisclear.Buttenure‐streamprofessorsofcommunicationwillnotbetheonlyscholarstobenefitfromthisnewpublishingopportunity.Thankstothedebatemethodology'swideapplicability,thejournalpossessesdisciplinaryfungibility,enablingdebatestudentswhopublishinthejournaltobolstertheiracademiccredentialsforplacementinpolicythink‐tanksandgovernmentagencies,oradmissiontothemostselectivegraduateschoolsinlaw,internationalrelations,politicalscience,andothercognatefields.Additionally,therecentsurgeofresourcesflowingtoundergraduateresearchinAmericanhighereducationcreatesopeningsfornon‐tenurestreamforensicsspecialiststotapfreshfundingstreamsfortheirdebateprograms.Suchrequestsforsupplementaryfundingcanbetailoredtounderwriteeffortsbyprogramdirectorsandstudentstoco‐authortranslationalresearchconvertingtheircontestroundworkintomanuscriptssuitableforpublicationbyTimely


14

Interventions.Inavirtuouscircleoftournamentcompetitionreinforcingacademicscholarship,theresultingfinishedarticleswillserveaspowerfulexhibitstestifyingtotheintellectualrigor,pedagogicalvalueandpolicyrelevanceofthedebateactivityinsubsequentbudgetrequests.

3.TheNDCDrecommendsthattheAmerican

ForensicsAssociationResearchCommitteeexerciseprofessionalleadershipbyincludinginitsannualreportsupdatedliststhatidentifyopportunitiesforinnovationinforensicsscholarshipintersectingwithissuesofpublicconcern.

RATIONALE:Thetraditionofforensics

specialistsactivelyproducingscholarlymanuscriptsforacademicpublicationhaserodedasdebatetournamentcompetitionhasbecomeevermorelaborintensive.Yettheintensityofcompetitionalonecannotaccountforthedearthinscholarshiprelatedtodebate.Anotherimportantfactoristheintellectualhistoryofforensicsandargumentationstudiesinthespeechcommunicationtradition.Overthepastfiftyyearstheroleofdebateinthedisciplinehaschangedfromaleadingonetoabitplayer.AsZarefsky(1994)notesinhishistoryofargumentationinthespeechcommunicationtradition“debatedoesnotgetenoughrespect”(6).Thereareseveralreasonsfortheintellectualmarginalizationofdebate,perhapsnonemoresignificantthantheeclipseofdebatebyargumentationstudies.Zarefsky’s(1994)historyofargumentationstudiesillustratesthesignificantrolethatscholarshiprelatedtodebateplayedintheemergenceofargumentationstudies.EarlyworkssuchasEhningerandBrockriede’sDecisionbyDebate“offeredabroaderperspectiveofthedebateactivity”byliftingdebatefromthecontextofintercollegiatecompetitionandapplyingscholarshiprelatedtodebatetobroadersocialcontextssuchasargumentationanddecision‐making(Zarefsky,1994,4).AccordingtoZarefsky(1994,6),thisdevelopmentshiftedforensicspecialists'scholarlyagendafromthespecies(debate)tothegenius(argumentation),producingarichveinofscholarshipandprovidingforensicsspecialistswithanewfoundrelevanceinthefieldofspeechcommunicationandbeyond.

Oneadvantagetotheshiftfromdebatetoargumentationstudiesfortheforensicsspecialistwasthatitaffordedscholarsanexpansivescopeofresearchtopics.Onceargumentationbecameawayoflooking—acriticalperspective—anythingfromaspeechtoapieceofmusicbecamefairgameforscholarship(Brockreide1975).However,thisalso

meantthatthescholarlypursuitsoftheforensicsspecialistweretakenfurtherandfurtherafieldfromthespecialists’“otherjob”—coachingdebate.Today,therearethreepressingreasonstorefocusscholarshipondebate,andindoingso,revivethetraditionoftheforensicspecialistasacademicresearcher.First,theprevailingneedtobolsterthequalityofpublicdeliberationpointstothevalueofscholarshipdesignedtowardthatend.Second,muchoftheintellectualworkcurrentlybeingdonebyscholarsinavarietyoffieldsincludingcommunicationstudies,publicadministration,politicalscience,sociologyandpsychology,andbyprofessionalpractitionerswhopromoteandfacilitateopportunitiesforpublicdialogueanddeliberation,tendtoeitherdownplayordenigratedebateasageneralconcept(seee.g.Tannen,1998;Flick,1998;Schirch&Campt,2007).Third,generalunderstandingofthedebateprocesstendstosufferinaclimatewheremanycitizensuseduelingmonologuessuchaspresidentialdebates,orCrossfirestyletelevisionprogramsasbenchmarkreferentsinformingtheirnotionsofwhatdebateentails.

Forensicsspecialistsareinauniquepositiontoaddresstheseproblems,andjump‐startaninnovativescholarlytradition,whichcanrevivedebateasapublicdeliberativepracticeandelevatedebateinscholarlycircles.Nocommunityofscholarsismoreawareofthecollaborativeandcooperativeaspectsofdebate,moreabletocataloguetheadvantagesanddisadvantagesofadvocacybaseddeliberativeprocesses,ormorecapableoforganizing,designing,andhostingpublicdebates.Inaddition,ourcommunityofscholarsisuniquelypositionedtoanalyze,assess,andcritiquethestrengthsandweaknessesofdebateformatsanddesigns.Furthermore,byraisingtheprofileofdebateasatopicworthyofscholarshipwealsoprovideyoungscholars,whotoooftenfeeltornbetweencoachingforensicsandpursuingascholarlycareerinacademia,withanopportunitytodoboth.AsthesurveyconductedbytheCivicEngagementWorkingGroupatthisveryconferencedemonstrates,mostdebateprogramsarealreadyorganizingandhostingpublicdebateevents.Scholarshipthatanalyzesandreflectsupontheseeventsisrelativelylow‐hangingfruitformostforensicspecialistsandis,atthismomentintime,ripeforthepicking.Processesofcollaboration,publicdeliberationanddialoguearethewaveofthefuture—nationalandlocalgovernments,organizationsandcorporationsandcommunitiesarealllookingforwaystopromotepublicengagementandfacilitatebetterdeliberative


15

processes.AsWilliamKeithstatedsuccinctlyinhiskeynoteaddresstoourgathering,“thetrainisleavingthestationandyouarenotonit.”Thattrain(arenewedemphasisondeliberationandpublicengagement)willbeillsuitedtoservethepublicgood,ifitleavesthestationwithoutahealthyunderstandingofandcommitmenttodebate.

Anannuallyupdatedlist(seeexampleinAppendix2)ofsuggestedtopicsforscholarlyresearchrelatedtodebateandissuesofpublicconcernshould:1)Helpreinvigoratethetraditionofdebatescholarship;2)Encouragestudentsofdebatetomaketheirvastknowledgeofdebateanddeliberationavailabletowideraudiences;3)Provideforensicsspecialists,especiallyyoungscholars,whowishtopositiontheirresearchfirmlywithinthecommunicationstudiestradition,withresourcesandguidance.

4.TheNDCDencouragesresearchandscholarship

ontopicsrelatingtocontestdebateroundpracticesuchasargumenttrends,frameworks,tournamentgovernance,coachingpedagogy,andotherrelatedtopics.Wealsoencouragedebatescholarstoextendtheseresearchfindingstomattersofwiderpublicconcern.WeencourageContemporaryArgumentationandDebatetoreviewandpublishsuchscholarshiponaquarterlybasis.

RATIONALE:Tobroadenthefootprintofdebate‐

relatedscholarship,multipletypesofknowledgecanbepursuedinconcert,withtheresultingsynergyleveragingoveralleffortstoratchetupthecommunity'sscholarlyprofile.Onetypeofscholarship(perhapsbestreflectedinresolution#2)aimstotranslatetheimmenseamountofresearch,thoughtandstrategizingthattakesplaceoverthecourseofadebateseasonintousefulscholarlyworkforageneralreadership.Closelyrelatedtothisisresearchthatadvancestheoreticalunderstandingofargumentationasaprocess,procedureandproduct(consistentwiththetrajectorylaidoutinresolution#3).Inadditiontotheseresearchpathways,wealsothinkitincumbentonthedebatecommunitytoredoubleproductionofscholarshipondebateroundtheoryandpractice.Towardthatend,itisimportantnotonlytoutilizeContemporaryArgumentationandDebateasanoutletforscholarshiprelatingtocontestroundtrends,buttoreachotheroutletsaswell.Inmakingthecaseforthepublicbenefitsofdebateasamodeofknowledgeproduction,wemightincreasetheattractivenessofcontestdebateroundrelatedscholarshipforabroaderaudience(therebyoverlappingwithworkfallingunderthe

scopeofresolution#3).Bydemonstratingthatdebatepracticesthemselvesareworthyobjectsofscholarlyinquiry,wealsomighthelptomakethecasethatcontestdebatingisanimportantandrigorousmodeofscholarlyproductioninitsownright(amajorobjectiveelucidatedbytheTenureandPromotionWorkingGroup).

5.TheNDCDencouragestheformationofa

mentoringgroupasaresourceforemergingscholars.Thisgroupwillbecomposedprimarilyofformerdebatecoachescomfortablewithprovidingadviceandpossiblereviewofscholarship.Thepurposeofthisgroupistoencourageyoungscholarstoproducequalitydebateresearchandtoprovidepositiverelationshipsforcontinuationofthedebatescholarshiptradition.

RATIONALE:Thedebatecommunityproducesa

substantialnumberofstrongacademicsandscholars.Theacutedemandsofdebatecoachingoftenleadcoachestograduateorinformallyretireintoacademiccircles.Theseindividualsmaynotbeabletoprovidetheintensecoachingandresearchsupportcommontoactivecoachesbuttheyareofteninterestedinsupportingdebatethroughmentoringrelationships.ThroughanactivesolicitationprocessitisrecommendedthatalistofwillingformercoachesbeaddedtoaccessibleandrelevantwebsitesmaintainedbyorganizationssuchastheAmericanForensicsAssociation.

Suchmentorcoachescouldprovidedirectionincollaborativescholarshipprojectsco‐authoredwithjuniorcoachesandgivedirectfeedbackonmanuscriptscoachesarepreparingontheirown—particularlythosethatarerelevanttodebatetheoryandpractice.Additionally,mentorscouldsuggestresearchagendasforemergingdebatecoaches.Finally,mentorcoachesmightbearesourceintheformalprocessesoftenureandpromotion,servingasexternalreviewersandadvisorsintenurecaseconstruction.

Mentoringisatraditionalandreliablemeansforimprovingretentionwithcommunitiessuchasthedebatecoachingcommunity.Inbroaderacademicsettings,mentoringhasshownapositiverelationshiptoresearchactivityamongemergingscholars(Paglis,Green,&Bauer,2006).Suchmentoringwilllikelyimprovethequalityofresearchandprovideameasureofaccountabilitythatencouragesemergingcoachestoprioritizetheirresearchworkalongsidetheircoachingresponsibilities.Moreover,theexperienceofmentorscanhelpnewcoachesmakesenseoftheuniquedemandsofcoachingthatconventional


16

senioracademicsmayhavelittlepracticaladvicetoprovide.Howdoesonebalancecoachingandresearch?HowcanIdelegatemyroleasadirectorofforensicstoallowtimeforresearch?Thesearethekindsofquestionsthatamentorcanhelpayoungdebatecoachaddress.

6.TheNDCDshouldrecommendthatAmerican

ForensicsAssociationadoptguidelinesforcollaborativecoauthoredscholarship.

RATIONALE:Morewidespreadcollaborative

knowledgeproductionintheforensicscommunitywillnotguaranteeapositivefutureforasportifiedactivitycurrentlyinfluxandincreasinglyunderscrutiny.Buttheprospectofforensicscompetitorspoolingtheirtalentandenergytosharethevitallessonsofdebatewiththewiderworldatleastbringsintofocusanumberofhopefulpossibilities.Grantmoniescouldbeawardedcompetitivelytoyoungdebatescholarswishingtobuyoutportionsoftheirjudgingcommitmentsatintercollegiatedebatetournaments,freeingthescholarstoworkcollaborativelyonpublishingprojectsatthetournamentsite.Rigorousandtheoreticallygroundedsystemsforacademicknowledgeco‐productioncouldenablecurrentandformerforensicsspecialiststoincreasescholarlyproductivity,therebystrengtheningthepillarsofinstitutionalsupportthatenableintercollegiatedebatetothriveoverthelong‐term.Instantiatingnormsandhabitsofco‐authorshipmayalsomakeconditionsmorefavorableforargumentationscholarstopursuethesortofinterdisciplinaryresearchthatiscommoninfieldssuchasmedicineandpublichealth,wherecollaborativeknowledgeproductionisacknowledgedasanessentialresponsetothechallengeofanalyzingmultifacetedphenomena.

Inresponsetoconcernsregardingabusessuchasauthorshipinflationanddownplayingthecontributionsofjuniorscholarsandgraduatestudents,therehavebeenconsiderableeffortstoaddressco‐authorshipaspartofethicalresearchconduct(Drenth,1998;Kwok,2005).Professionalassociations,institutions,andresearchjournalshavedevelopedsophisticatedguidelinesandpracticestodetermineissuessuchaswhomayqualifyasaco‐author,howco‐authorsshouldbelistedinagivenarticle,andwhatformsofacademicrecognitionareduetoeachscholarparticipatinginacollaborativeproject(seee.g.AmericanPsychologicalAssociation,2001;Biagiolietal.,1999).

Inspiredinpartbytheseexamples,butnotingthatthereislittlediscussionofcollaborativeresearchprotocolwithinthecommunicationfieldingeneralandtheintercollegiatedebatecommunityinparticular,theSchenleyParkDAWG(DebateAuthorsWorkingGroup)formedacommitteetocraftitsownco‐authorshipguidelines.Theseguidelines(seeAppendix3)provideaframeworkforintellectualcollaborationthatenablessatisfyingandrewardingproductionofhigh‐caliberacademicwork.Theylayoutthestagesofknowledgeproductionforeachproject,callingforthesubstantialinvolvementofallcontributingauthorsinthekeycreativedimensionsofconceptualinvention,researchandwriting/revising(cf.Jones,2000,13;Flanagin,etal.,2002).

Theguidelinesseektopreemptivelyaddresspotentialcontroversiesregardingwhoqualifiesasanauthorandtheorderinwhichtheyshouldbeacknowledgedinpublishedmaterial.Thisisanimportantobjectivegivenresearchshowingthatdisputesstemmingfromco‐authorshiparrangementscannegativelyaffectresearchteammorale(Wilcox,1998).Wolseley(1980)definesaco‐authoras“thewriterofapproximatelyhalfabook’stext,sharingequallyonspace,earnings,andexpenses,andparticipatingfullyindecision‐making”(20).However,real‐worldcollaborationcannotalwaysbesoclearlydivided(Day&Eodice,2001,137;seealsoFox&Faver,1984).Thedraftguidelinesattendtothisissuebyclearlyenumeratingtheresponsibilitiesoftheleadauthor,seniorauthor,andotherco‐authors.

Sinceakeychallengeinvolvesconvincinginstitutionalaudiencesofthevalueofcollaborativeworkproducts,theguidelinesarealsoaccompaniedbyaworksheet(seeAppendix4)designedtomaketransparenteachco‐author’scontributionstoanygivenproject.Suchtransparencyhaspotentialtoreducethephenomenonof"honoraryauthorship,"or"ghostwriting,"aprobleminthemedicalfieldwheretheproportionofauthorswhosepublishedcontributionsdonotmeetauthorshipcriteriaissignificant,evenreaching21.5%onejournal(Bates,etal.,2004,87‐88;Laine&Mulrow,2005).Futureeffortstomakecontributionstocollaborativeworkproductsmoretransparentmightinvolvepublicationofdetailedcontributorlists,whichalreadyappearinsomejournals(Yank&Rennie,1999).Andastheconceptofcollaborativeknowledgeproductionevolvesintheforensicssetting,methodstoincorporateandacknowledgepracticalcontributionstotheresearcheffortcoulddevelopintandem.Forexample,WakeForestUniversityundergraduatedebatersAlexLamballe


17

andKurtZemlickarecentlytaughtatadebateworkshopdedicatedtoimprovinghighschoolstudents'researchandspeakingskills.Partofthecurriculuminvolvedteachersworkingwithstudentstocontributedirectlytothe2007U.S.presidentialdebateprocess.Followingtheworkshop,LamballeandZemlickafoldeddiscussionoftheirteachingexperiencesintoalargercollaborativeresearchproject.Bycontributingstatisticalanalysis,backgroundresearch,andcommentary,LamballeandZemlickawereabletojointheprojectasco‐authorsofanacademicmanuscriptcurrentlyunderinreviewatamajorscholarlyjournal.LamballeandZemlicka'sexamplecouldbereplicatedinothercontexts,suchasundergraduatedebaterssatisfyingco‐authorshiprequirementsbycontributingcontestroundresearchtocollaborativeresearchprojects.Suchatrendwouldmirrordevelopmentsinresearchfieldswherepracticalcontributions(e.g.providingpatientsorresearchmaterial,carryingoutapilotstudy,collectingthedata)alreadyfiguresignificantlyinco‐authors'self‐disclosureof

contributionstoarticles(Hoen,Walvoort&Overbeke,1998,218;cf.Bates,etal.,2004).

7.TheNDCDendorsestheestablishmentofaU.S.

CongressionalSpeechandDebatecaucusandencouragesthatcaucustofosterdebateresearchandscholarship,includingthepublicationofatopicareapacket,andsupportofaparticipatorydesignprocessorientedtowardrefinementanddevelopmentofanopensourcedigitaldebatearchive.

RATIONALE:TheNDCD'sAlumniNetworking

WorkingGroup'sinitiativetocreatea"SpeechandDebate"CaucusintheU.S.Congresspresentsnumerousprofessionaldevelopmentopportunitiesforforensicsspecialists.Intheareaofscholarship,thecaucuscouldleverageeffortstoheightentheresearchprofileoftheacademicdebatecommunitybyrevivingthecongressionalpracticeofpublishingresearchpacketsoneachyear'sintercollegiatepolicydebatetopicandprovidingresourcestosupportparticipatorydesignofanonlinedigitaldebatearchive.


18

References

AmericanPsychologicalAssociation.(2001).Ethicalstandardsforthereportingandpublishingofscientificinformation.InPublicationmanualoftheAmericanPsychologicalAssociation(5thed.).WashingtonDC:AmericanPsychologicalAssociation.

Aonuma,S.(2001).Whatisacoauthor?:Scholarlypublishingandproblemsofcollaborativeresearch.JournalofKandaUniversityofInternationalStudies,13,1‐16.

Aune,J.(2007,7February).Graduateeducationandtheorganizationof'research'.Blogorawebpost.Onlineat:http://rsa.cwrl.utexas.edu/?q=node/1368.

Bates,T.,Anic,A.,Marusic,M.,&Marusic,A.(2004).Authorshipcriteriaanddisclosureofcontributions:Acomparisonof3generalmedicaljournalswithdifferentauthorcontributionforms.JournaloftheAmericanMedicalAssociation,292,86‐88.

Biagioli,M.,Crane,J.,Derish,P.,Gruber,M.,Rennie,D.,&Horton,R.(1999).Councilofscienceeditor'staskforceonauthorship.Onlineat:http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/services/atf_whitepaper.cfm.

Brigham,M.(2008).Nostalgiaorhope:Ontherelationshipbetweencompetitivedebateandspeechcommunicationdepartments—past,present,andfuture.Paperpresentedatthe2008NationalCommunicationAssociationConvention,SanDiego,CA,November21‐24.

Brockriede,W.(1975).Whereisargument?JournaloftheAmericanForensicAssociation.11,179‐182.Clement,A.&VandenBesselaar,P.(1993,June).AretrospectivelookatPDprojects.Communicationsof

theACM,36,29‐37.Codd,E.(1970,June).Arelationalmodelofdataforlargeshareddatabanks.CommunicationsoftheACM,

17,377‐387.Day,K.&Eodice,M.(2001).(Firstperson)2:Astudyofcoauthoringintheacademy.Logan,UT:UtahState

UniversityPress.Dauber,C.,etal.(1993).ReportoftheworkingcommitteefromtheQuailRoostconferenceonassessment

ofprofessionalactivitiesofdirectorsofdebate(Draftdocument).Onlineat:www.americanforensics.org/ProfDev/quail_roost.pdf.

Drenth,J.P.H.(1998).Multipleauthorship:Thecontributionofseniorauthors.JournaloftheAmericanMedicalAssociation,280,219‐221.

Ehninger,D.&Brockriede,W.(1963).Decisionbydebate.NewYork;Dodd,Mead.Flanagin,A.,Fontanarosa,P.B.,&DeAngelis,C.D.(2002).Authorshipforresearchgroups.Journalofthe

AmericanMedicalAssociation,288,3166‐68.Flick,D.(1998).Fromdebatetodialogue:Usingtheunderstandingprocesstotransformourconversations.

Boulder,CO:OrchidPublications.Fox,M.F.&Faver,C.A.(1984).Independenceandcooperationinresearch:Themotivationsandcostsof

collaboration.JournalofHigherEducation,55,347‐59.Edwards,R.(2006).Whycomputerswon’tdestroyCXdebate.TheRostrum,81(4),21‐26.Goodnight,G.T.&Mitchell,G.R.(2009).Forensicsasscholarship:TestingZarefsky'sboldhypothesisina

digitalage.Argumentation&Advocacy,forthcoming.Hagood,A.D.(1975).Theoryandpracticeinforensics.InJ.H.McBath(Ed.),Forensicsascommunication:

Theargumentativeperspective(pp.101‐110).Skokie,IL:NationalTextbookCompany.Hoen,W.P.,Walvoort,H.C.,&Overbeke,J.P.M.(1998).Whatarethefactorsdeterminingauthorshipand

theorderofauthors'names?JournaloftheAmericanMedicalAssociation,280,217‐218.Jensen,M.(2007,15June).Thenewmetricsofscholarlyauthority.ChronicleofHigherEducation.Online

at:http://chronicle.com/weekly/v53/i41/41b00601.htm.Jensen,M.(2008).Scholarlyauthorityintheageofabundance:Retainingrelevancewithinthenew

landscape.KeynoteaddressattheJSTORAnnualParticipatingPublisher'sConference.May13.Onlineat:http://www.nap.edu/staff/mjensen/jstor.htm.


19

Hollihan,T.A.&Baaske,K.T.(2004).Argumentsandarguing:Theproductsandprocessofhumandecisionmaking(2nded.).LongGrove,IL:WavelandPress.

Jazayeri,M.(2007).Sometrendsinwebapplicationdevelopment.InL.C.Briand&A.L.Wolf(Eds.),Internationalconferenceonsoftwareengineering:Futureofsoftwareengineering2007(pp.199‐213).Washington,DC:IEEEComputerSociety.

Jones,A.H.(2000).Changingtraditionsofauthorship.InA.H.Jones&F.McLellan(Eds.),Ethicalissuesinbiomedicalpublication(pp.3‐29).Baltimore,MD:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.

Keele,L.K.&Andersen,K.E.(1975).Professionalpreparation,status,andrewards.InJ.H.McBath(Ed.),Forensicsascommunication:Theargumentativeperspective(pp.144‐155).Skokie,IL:NationalTextbookCompany.

Kerpen,P.(n.d.).Evazon.Onlineat:http://www.cross‐x.com/evazon/Keith,W.(2002).Democraticrevivalandthepromiseofcyberspace:Lessonsfromtheforummovement.

Rhetoric&PublicAffairs,5,311‐26.Kwok,L.S.(2005).TheWhitebulleffect:Abusiveco‐authorshipandpublicationparasitism.Journalof

MedicalEthics,31.Onlineat:http://avabiz.com/coauthorship.nsf/presentation.Kramer,M.W.,Hess,J.A.,&Reid,J.D.(2007).Trendsincommunicationscholarship:Ananalysisoffour

representativeNCAandICAjournalsoverthelast70years.ReviewofCommunication,7(3),229‐240.Laine,C.&Mulrow,C.D.(2005).Exorcisingghostsandunwelcomeguests.AnnalsofInternalMedicine,143,

611‐12.McBath,J.,(Ed.)(1975).Forensicsascommunication:Theargumentativeperspective.Skokie,IL:National

TextbookCompany.McMillan,J.J.&Hyde,M.J.(2000).Technologicalinnovationandchange:Acasestudyintheformationof

organizationalconscience.TheQuarterlyJournalofSpeech,86,1‐29.Merkel,C.,Xiao,L.,Farooq,U.,Ganoe,C.,Lee,R.,Carroll,J.,&Rosson,M.(2004).Participatorydesignin

communitycomputingcontexts:Talesfromthefield.InA.Clement,F.deCindio,A.M.Oostveen,D.Schuler&P.vandenBesselaar(Eds.),Artfulintegration:interweavingmedia,materialsandpractices(pp.1‐10),NewYork,NY:AssociationforComputingMachinery.

Meho,L.I.(2007,January).Theriseandriseofcitationanalysis.PhysicsWorld,32‐36.Mitchell,G.R.,Brigham,M.,English,E.,Morrison,C.M.,Rief,J.,andWoods,C.(2007).DAWGpower:The

synergyofwritinginpacks.Paperpresentedatthe15hNCA/AFAConferenceonArgumentation.AltaRustlerLodge,Alta,UT,August2‐5.

Newman,R.P.(1961).RecognitionofCommunistChina?AStudyinArgument.NewYork:Macmillan.Paglis,L.L.,Green,S.G.,&Bauer,T.N.(2006).Doesadvisermentoringaddvalue?Alongitudinalstudyof

mentoringanddoctoralstudentoutcomes.ResearchinHigherEducation,47,451‐476.Parson,D.W.(1990).Onpublishingandperishing:Someapproachesinforensicresearch.National

ForensicJournal,8,69‐72.Rieke,R.&Brock,B.(1975).Researchandscholarshipinforensics.InJ.H.McBath(Ed.),Forensicsas

communication:Theargumentativeperspective(pp.129‐141).Skokie,IL:NationalTextbookCompany.Rieke,R.D.,&Sillars,M.O.(1997).Argumentationandcriticaldecisionmaking.NewYork:Longman.Schrich,L.&Campt,D.(2007).Thelittlebookofdialoguefordifficultsubjects:Apractical,handsonguide.

Intercourse,PA:GoodBooks.Sillars,M.O.&D.Zarefsky.(1975).Futuregoalsandrolesofforensics.InJ.H.McBath(Ed.),Forensicsas

communication:Theargumentativeperspective(pp.83‐93).Skokie,Illinois:NationalTextbookCompany.Sunstein,C.(2007).Republic.com2.0.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.Tannen,D.(1998).Theargumentculture:StoppingAmerica’swarofwords.NewYork:Ballantine

publishingCompany.Törpel,B.(2005).Participatorydesign:amulti‐voicedeffort.InO.W.Bertelsen,N.O.Bouvin,P.G.Krogh,&

M.Kyng(Eds.),Proceedingsofthe4thdecennialconferenceonCriticalcomputing:betweensenseandsensibility(pp.177‐181).NewYork,NY:AssociationforComputingMachinery.


20

VanderHooff,B.,Weyers,M.,Peters,D.,&deLange,J.(2005).Technologicalfacilitationofknowledgesharingincommunitiesofpractice.PaperpresentedattheannualmeetingoftheInternationalCommunicationAssociation,NewYork,NY.

Wilcox,L.J.(1998).Authorship:Thecoinoftherealm,thesourceofcomplaints.JournaloftheAmericanMedicalAssociation,280,216‐217.

Winner,L.(1986).Thewhaleandthereactor:Asearchforlimitsinanageofhightechnology.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Winkler,C,Newnam,W.&Birdsell,D.(1993).Linesofargumentforpolicydebate.Madison,WI:BrownandBenchmarkPublishers.

Wolseley,R.E.(1980).ShouldIcollaborate?JournalismEducator,34,19‐56.Woods,C.,Brigham,M.,Konishi,T.,Heavner,B.Rief,J.,Saindon,B.,&Mitchell,G.R.(2006).Deliberating

debate'sdigitalfutures.ContemporaryArgumentationandDebate,27,81‐105.Yank,V.&Rennie,D.(1999).Disclosureofresearchercontributions:Astudyoforiginalresearcharticles

inTheLancet.AnnalsofInternalMedicine,130,661‐670.Zarefsky,D.(1980).Argumentationandforensics.InJ.Rhodes&S.Newell(Eds.),Proceedingsofthe

summerconferenceonargumentation(pp.20‐25).Annandale,Virginia:SpeechCommunicationAssociation.Zarefsky,D.(1994).Argumentationinthetraditionofspeechcommunicationstudies.Keynote

presentationattheThirdInternationalConferenceonArgumentation,UniversityofAmsterdam,TheNetherlands,June24.


21

Appendix1

PreliminaryprospectusforanewonlinejournalcarryingforensicsscholarshipTIMELYINTERVENTIONS:ATRANSLATIONALJOURNAL

OFPUBLICPOLICYDEBATE

A publishing outlet that translates knowledge produced by the academic policy debatecommunity,showcasingdebate'scollaborativeresearchmodelanditsabilitytoimpactlivepublicargumentwithtimelyinterventions

EditorinChief:GordonR.MitchellForumEditor:ChristianLundberg

AdvisoryBoardChair:RobertP.NewmanFoundingMembersoftheEditorialBoard

ErwinChemerinsky,FoundingDean,UniversityofCalifornia‐IrvineSchoolofLaw(NorthwesternUniversitydebatealum)

DavidCoale,Partner,K&LGates(HarvardUniversitydebatealum)

CoriE.Dauber,AssociateProfessorofRhetoricalStudies,UniversityofNorthCarolina‐ChapelHill(NorthwesternUniversitydebatealum)

EllenDorsey,ExecutiveDirector,WallaceGlobalFund(UniversityofPittsburghdebatealum)

LindsayC.Harrison,Associate,Jenner&BlockLLP(UniversityofSouthernCaliforniadebatealum)

MichaelHorowitz,AssistantProfessorofPoliticalScience,UniversityofPennsylvania(EmoryUniversitydebatealum)

LeeHuebner,Director,GeorgeWashingtonUniversitySchoolofMediaandPublicAffairsNorthwesternUniversitydebatealum)

PaulKerr,AnalystinNonproliferation,CongressionalResearchService(UniversityofVermontdebatealum)

JeffKueter,President,GeorgeMarshallInstitute(UniversityofIowadebatealum)

J.ScottMaberry,Partner,Fulbright&JaworskiLLP(NorthwesternUniversitydebatealum)

JeffreyG.Lewis,Director,NuclearStrategyandNonproliferationInitiative,NewAmericaFoundation(AugustanaCollegedebatealum)

AllanJ.Lichtman,ProfessorofHistory,AmericanUniversity(BrandeisUniversitydebatealum)

HeatherAnnLogue,ProfessorofPhilosophy,UniversityofLeeds(UniversityofPittsburghdebatealum)

BrianaMezuk,RobertWoodJohnsonHealth&SocietyScholar,UniversityofMichiganCenterforEpidemiology&PopulationHealth(UniversityofPittsburghdebatealum)

CatherineH.Palczewski,ProfessorofCommunicationandDirectorofDebate,UniversityofNorthernIowa(NorthwesternUniversitydebatealum)

RodgerPayne,ProfessorofPoliticalScienceandDirector,GrawemeyerAwardforIdeasImprovingWorldOrder(UniversityofKansasdebatealum)

DanielJ.Povinelli,ProfessorofBiology,UniversityofLouisiana‐Lafayette,ProjectDirectorNationalChimpanzeeObservatoriesInitiative(UniversityofMassachusettsdebatealum)

JohnC.Roberts,DeanEmeritusandProfessor,DePaulUniversityCollegeofLaw(NorthwesternUniversitydebatealum)

LynRobbins,SeniorGeneralAttorney,BurlingtonNorthernandSantaFeRailway(BaylorUniversitydebatealum)

GregRosenbaum,PresidentandFounder,PalisadesAssociates(HarvardUniversitydebatealum)

PaulJ.Skiermont,Partner,BartlitBeckHermanPalenchar&ScottLLP(UniversityofKentuckydebatealum)

CyrilV.Smith,Partner,ZuckermanSpaederLLP(DartmouthCollegealum)

BenjaminK.Sovacool,AssistantProfessorofPublicPolicy,NationalUniversityofSingapore(JohnCarrollUniversitydebatealum)

PhilipWander,PresidentialProfessorofCommunication,LoyolaMarymountUniversity(SouthernIllinoisUniversitydebatealum)

LesleyWexler,AssistantProfessor,FloridaStateUniversityCollegeofLaw(UniversityofMichigandebatealum)

DanielleWiese,AssistantProfessorofCommunicationStudies,GrandValleyStateUniversity(UniversityofMichigandebatealum)


22

Appendix2

OpportunitiesforInnovationinForensicsScholarship

(ExampleofannuallistrecommendedinResolution#3)

1)ScholarshiponPresidential&CandidateDebates

Perhapsnoscholarlytopicrelatedtodebatehasreceivedmoreattentionoverthepastfortyyearsthanpoliticaldebates,especiallypresidentialcandidatedebates.Thisresearchgenerallyfeaturesfunctionalanalysesinwhichthecontentofcandidatestatementsarescrutinizedsystematically,andcriticalqualitativeresearch,whichframescandidatedebateperformancewithinthepoliticaleconomyofcampaignsandpoliticalcommunication.Yetthereisscantresearchrelatedtothedesignofformatsforcandidatedebates.Scholarshipinthisareacoulddiscusshowthedesignofformatscanfacilitatedifferentfunctionalandqualitativeoutcomes.Forexample,studentsofdebatemightinvestigatewhichkindsofformatscreatemoreindepthcandidateassessmentofissues,orwhichformatsproduceproductiveissueclash.Additionally,projectslikeDebateWatch,whichaffordstudentsofdebateampleopportunitytoassesstheextenttowhichpublicaudienceslearnaboutcandidatesandissuesduringcampaignseason,couldbe“tweaked”tostudywhatdebateaudiencesarelearningaboutdebateingeneral—asamethod,aprocessand/orapractice.Specificresearchprojectsinthisareamightpursuesomeofthefollowingpathways.

a.Debatedesignandformat:Howdoestheformatofadebateinfluencedebateoutcomessuchasclash,depthofargument,issuesaddressed,etc.?

b.Engagementandinterventionsincandidatedebates:Howandtowhatextentcanandshoulddebatescholarsinfluencethedesign,enactmentandinterpretationofcandidatedebates?Whataretheimplicationsoftheseinterventions?

c.PublicUnderstandingofdebate:Whatdoaudienceslearnabout“debateingeneral”whentheyviewcandidatedebates?Howcandebatescholarsutilizecandidatedebatestoeducatepublicsaboutdebate—itspurpose,theprinciplesitisbasedupon,theethicsofadvocacy,etc.?Shouldwe,andcanwedesigninterventionstrategies(suchasDebateScoop)toincreasepublicunderstandingofdebate,andassess/reflectupontheeffectivenessofthesestrategies?2)ScholarshiponDebateandPublicDeliberation

Aburgeoningdialogueanddeliberationmovementisfocusingoncreationofdialogueanddeliberationprocessesthatencouragepublicengagementoncontroversialissues.Theseprocessesaregenerallydesignedandfacilitatedbyeitherprofessionalpractitionersorbynon‐profitcentersorinstitutes,whichareusuallyhousedinuniversities.Sofarthepractitioners,institutesandfoundationsthatfundtheseprojectshaveignoredandinmanycasesdenigratedandvilifieddebate.Thereisaneedforresearchandscholarshipontheadvantagesanddisadvantagesofincorporatingdebateintothesedeliberativeprocesses.Thereisalsoaneedforscholarship,whichexplainsdebate'svirtuesasaprincipledandstructuredexerciseinpublicknowledgeproduction("debateasmethod").Specificresearchprojectsinthisareamightpursuesomeofthefollowingpathways.

a.Debateasanassessmentbenchmarkforevaluatingpublicdeliberationpractices:Howcanbestpractices(e.g.soundreasoning,clash,argumentengagement)involvedin“debateasmethod”beusedasmeasuringstickstoassessdeliberationpractices?

b.Debateasdeliberativedesigntemplate:Howcandebatebeintegratedwith,orusedtosupplementdeliberativeanddialogicprocessesandformats?Howcandebatedesignsbeadaptedtodifferentsocial,organizationalandcommunitysituations?Whatmethodscanbeemployedforevaluatingthedesignofdifferentdebateanddeliberativeprocesses?

c.Empiricalanalysisofdebatecontextsandformats:Howdodebatecontextsandformatsinfluenceoutcomessuchasdebatecontent,implicationsforcivicandsociallife?

d.Comparativeanalyses:Whatarethecomparativeadvantagesofincorporatingdebateintoadeliberativeprocess?Whatarethecomparativedisadvantages?

e.Advantagesoffacilitateddebateprocesses:Whatcanfacilitateddebateprocessesaccomplishthat“non‐adversarial”dialogueanddeliberativeprocessescannot?


23

f.Limitationsoffacilitateddebateprocesses:Whatisdebateillsuitedtoaccomplish?Underwhatconditionsandinwhatsituationsisdebateinappropriateforadeliberativepurpose?Towhatpurposesisdebateasprocessoramethodbestsuited?3)ScholarshipAssociatedwithProfessionalConsultation

Debatepractitionersoccasionallyworkasprofessionalargumentanddebate“consultants.”Inthiscapacitytheyhavecoachedspeakersandadvocatesinpreparationforengagementsinpublicandtechnicalargumentcommunitiessuchaslaw,science,publicadministration,publicadvocacyandpolitics.Yetthepracticesandpedagogicalknowledgeassociatedwiththiskindofconsultationworkisrarelyexaminedinpublishedscholarship.Projectspursuingthefollowingresearchpathwaysmightremedythissituation.

a.Discussionofconsultationpedagogy:Whattechniqueshavedebatecoachesandstudentsusedto“coach”debateandargumentinprofessional,institutionalandpublicsettings?Towardwhatend?

b.Translationofcontestdebatepedagogyandtheory:Towhatextenthaveconsultantstaught,translated,orotherwiseadaptedargumenttheoryfromcontestdebatingtoprofessionalsettings(e.g.teachingcounterplancompetitionandpermutationtheory,etc.)?Whatdotheoriesofdebateandargumentationbringtoconsultationthatpublicspeakingdoesnot?

c.Consultationethics:Whatethicalissuesareimplicatedwhendebatecoachesengageinprofessionalconsultation?Howmightthesechallengesbestbeapproached?


24

Appendix3DraftGuidelinesforCo‐AuthorshipofWorkProducts7

Authorshipisasignificantaspectofacademicresearch,onethatdeservescarefulandrigoroustreatment,givenitsethicalandprofessionalimplications.Itisimportantthatparticipantsincollaborativedebateresearchprojectshaveaclear,commonunderstandingofthestandardsforauthorshipattheoutsetofeachproject.Asintellectualcollaborationisthelifebloodofintercollegiateacademicdebate,itisappropriatethatsoundandworkableguidelinesbedevelopedfortranslatingcollectiveintellectuallaborintoprofessionalargumentationscholarship.I.Co‐AuthorshipGuidelinesforcollaborativedebateresearch.Thepracticeofco‐authorshipshouldinvolvethesubstantialinvolvementofallcontributingauthors.Substantialinvolvementisdefinedbythefollowingcriteria,whichmustbemetbyeachindividualwhowillbelistedasanauthorinthefinalwork.Toqualifyasaco‐author,collaboratorsmustcontributeatleastonesubstantialdimensionofworkineachofthefollowingfourcreativecategories.

A.InventionalProcess:Theinitialphaseofprojectdesignsetsthefoundationforsubsequentcollaboration.Thus,co‐authorsshouldhelpconceivetheproject,mapthegoalsandmethodsforcompletionoftheproject,and/orcontributesubstantialintellectuallaborthroughoutevolutionoftheprojectasitstrajectoryshiftsinlightofnewunderstandingsandresearchfindings.

B.WritingandRevising:Substantialwrittencontributionstothecollaborativeworkeffortjustifythe

useoftheterm"author"inthefirstplace;however,"authorship"canbeunderstoodinabroadersensetoincludeboththeinitialcontributionofsubstantialwritingorthecontributionofsubstantialwrittenrevisionslateronintheprocess.Bothoftheseactivitiesimplyadeepinvestmentintheconstructionoftheworkathand.Thus,aco‐authormaybeunderstoodasanindividualwhodraftssubstantialoriginalmaterialormakeswrittencontributionsbyproposingsubstantialrevisionsthroughoutthecreativeprocess.

C.Research:Giventheimportanceofresearchbothintermsoftheproductionofscholarlyworksand

thedevelopmentofargumentsfortheintercollegiateacademicdebatecontestround,researchshouldplayanimportantroleinthecollaborativeprocessofco‐authorship.Forthisreason,substantialcontributionsinthisareaincludesettingtheinitialresearchagendathroughacooperativeprocessofidentifyingwheretheworkinggroupshouldseekoutrelevantinformationandwhatkindsofinformationaremostimportanttothecompletionoftheproject,workingthroughprimaryandsecondarysourcematerialinordertoidentifythemostimportantelementstoincludeinthefinalproject,andfinallysynthesizingtheresearchthathasbeencompletedsoastocraftafinalcoherentproduct.

D.FinalApproval:Aswithanycollaborativeworkeffort,itisimportantthatallindividualsinvolved,

shouldtheywishtobeidentifiedasauthors,givetheirconsenttothefinalproject.Thisavoidsconfusion,controversy,andde‐legitimationoftheworkeffortafterithasgoneontothepublishingphase.II.OrderofAuthors8

7Theseguidelinesareadaptedfromadocumentgeneratedin2006bytheSchenleyParkDebate

AuthorsWorkingGroup(DAWG).ExemplarsfortheDAWGguidelinesweredrawnfromguidelinesestablishedbytheNHMRC/AVCC(NationalHealthandMedicalResearchCouncil/AustralianViceChancellors'Committee)StatementandGuidelinesonResearchPractice(1997),onlineat:http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/funding/policy/researchprac.htm#6.Guidelinesdevelopedinotherareasofstudywerealsoconsulted,includingthoseproducedbytheJournaloftheAmericanMedicalAssociation.

8SuggestionsontheorderofauthorsareadaptedfromtheBritishSociologicalAssociation,“AuthorshipGuidelinesforAcademicPapers,”2001,onlineat:http://www.britsoc.co.uk/Library/authorship_01.pdf.


25

Toensurethatallparticipantshaveacommonunderstandingofresearchresponsibilities,andtoavoidconfusion,itisimportanttoestablishtheorderofauthors,includingaleadauthorandaseniorauthor(ifappropriate).A.Theleadauthor(listedfirst)willberesponsiblefor:

•Contributingkeywrittenmaterial;•Correspondingwithjournaleditorsandconveyingnecessaryinformationtoothermembersinvolvedintheproject;

•Synthesizingmaterialcontributedbyco‐authors,e.g.byknittingtogethersections,generatingthesisstatementsandimplicationsorconclusions;

•Confirmingthatthecontentcontributedtotheprojectmeetstheethicalandqualitystandardsofthegroup;

•Makingfinaldecisionsabouttheorderofauthorsandthoseincludedintheacknowledgments.

B.Theseniorauthor(listedlast)willberesponsiblefor:•Mentoringthefirstauthorintheabovetasks;•Providingseniorleadershipandguidancetotheentiregroupofco‐authorsthroughouttheprocess,fromdevelopmentoftheconcepttofinalsubmissionofthemanuscript.

C.Thosewhohavemadesignificantcontributions(asdefinedabove)areentitledtobeincludedasco‐authors.Wherethereisacleardifferenceinthesizeofthesecontributions,thiswillbereflectedintheorderoftheseauthors.D.Allotherswhofulfillthecriteriaforco‐authorshipwithequalcontributionswillbeincludedinalphabeticalorderoftheirlastnames.E.Ifallauthorsfeelthattheyhavecontributedequally,thiscanbeindicatedinafootnoteorbydirectingreaderstotheseguidelines.


26

Appendix4

DraftCo‐authorshipWorksheet

Thisworksheetbreaksdownasinglescholar’scontributionstoacollaborativeworkproduct.CategoriesandconceptderivedfromtheSchenleyParkDebateAuthorsWorking

GroupGuidelinesforCoAuthorshipofWorkProducts2.0Toqualifyasaco‐authorforascholarlyarticle,contributorsmustdemonstrate“substantialinvolvement”ineachofthefollowingareaslistedbelow:invention;research;writingandrevising.INVENTIONRESEARCHWRITINGANDREVISING

Nameofco‐author:Titleofarticle:

Checkatleastonebox

Involvementininitialprojectconception

Assistanceinmappinggoalsandmethodsforproject

Intellectualcontributiontodriveprojectevolution

Qualitativedescriptionofcontributioninthisarea

•

Checkatleastonebox

Involvementinsettingtheresearchagenda

Retrievalofprimaryorsecondarysourcematerial

Synthesisofresearchforpresentationinarticle


•

Checkatleastonebox

Contributionofsubstantialwrittentext

Contributionofsuggestedrevisions

Executionofsubstantialrevisions


•