COMMUNICATION IN A DEMOCRACY 1

Communication in a Democracy

Spencer Porter

Senior Research Seminar

Mr. Tempinski

March 10th, 2016

 COMMUNICATION IN A DEMOCRACY 2

Abstract

The mystery of objective knowledge is a puzzle that has floated around the minds of

innumerable philosophers from time immemorial, yet it is a complication that commands

continuous re-assessment and re-evaluation, considering that we base much of our life on what

we believe to be right, good, or true. Where does this information come from, and what are the

consequences of ideological divides (divides concerning what folks believe to be objective truth,

objective morality)? It is important, considering the epistemological and philosophical nature of

such an ancient inquiry, to adjust our pre-commitments before going on. We must realize that

there is a high probability that we will not arrive at any definitive conclusions, but nevertheless,

we can digest information that illuminates rather than blurs. For example, a finding arising from

this study explores the idea of the untenability of claiming that objective claims of value do not

exist; that is to say, relativist claims do not necessarily refute the idea of truths or values

possessing universal quality but instead, these relativist claims preclude any one perspective

from encompassing anything wholly objective.

 COMMUNICATION IN A DEMOCRACY 3

Communication in a Democracy

In this research endeavor, I was rather interested in understanding and looking into some

of the things which, because they are so fundamental, so ingrained into minute to minute

existence, are often overlooked. By this I mean to suggest that I wanted to explore the ways in

which young men and women move through the world, formulate and develop thought and

opinion, and the dangers that may exist in the perpetuation of habits so calcified, so part and

parcel of daily life, as to be more or less unremembered by us. These habits, which promote what

could be (inaptly) called a natural self-centeredness warrant, to my mind, extensive and

laborious examination because I believe they affect nearly every second of our perception, our

communication and our existence. We need to establish some level of space, through

understanding and awareness, between ourselves and our most basic habits. Once this clarifying

space has been established, we can begin to more totally comprehend what we do, why we do it,

and we can even, perhaps, begin to consider adjusting some of our mental tendencies. I am

almost certain that an unending selection of previous research could be discovered, however,

given my circumstances, I am only acquainted with certain works that pertain to my questions.

One of these is The Theory of Communicative Action, by Jager Habermas. This text proposes

ideas for a landscape that includes actors in society who seek to reach common understanding

and to coordinate actions by reasoned argument, consensus, and cooperation rather than strategic

action strictly in pursuit of their own goals. In addition to this already extremely compelling

idea is the notion of a societal planning that emphasizes widespread public participation,

sharing of information with the public, reaching consensus through public dialogue rather than

exercise of power, avoiding privileging of experts and bureaucrats, and replacing the model of

the technical expert with one of the reflective planner. One of the main pieces of writing that
 COMMUNICATION IN A DEMOCRACY 4

catalyzed my interest in such subjects was my encounter with David Foster Wallaces short

essay, originally a commencement speech delivered at Kenyon College (a liberal arts college) a

little under a decade ago, called This is Water. He tries to get at, in his own way, what the

purpose of a liberal arts education is all about, what it seeks to instill in its students. After

mentioning the standard cliche that explains the liberal arts education as an education in learning

how to think, he probes deeper and points out, contrary to what may be initially supposed, that

this cliche is really not insulting because the really significant education in thinking that were

supposed to get in a place like this isnt really about the capacity to think, but rather about the

choice of what to think about. This, the thing about choosing, quite perfectly captures what, in

this project, I sought to understand. Wallace, and therefore me, makes frequent mention of the

intense labor that comes with such a desire as that one, the desire to move away from the easy

automaticity of ones default settings. Wallace writes, its a matter of my choosing to do with

the work (italics mine) of somehow altering or getting free of my natural, hard-wired default

setting which is to be deeply and literally self-centered and to see and interpret everything

through this lens of self. The language of that explanation is striking, because it so wondrously

illuminates many of the things I wish to explore with this project. This idea of getting free, of

extricating ourselves from the manacles of self-obsession, of attempting to push ourselves into

wider realms of receptive appreciation for the basic and often overlooked elements of day to day

life. I cannot underscore enough the urgency with which such a project must be conducted, given

the fact that I am convinced that we, as a whole people, are inclined more and more to a most

dangerous retreat into ourselves, a tired and bitter self-infatuation, all taking place within the

carapace of the limited self. One thing that cannot be forgotten, particularly if one wishes to

understand some of the fundamental differences of conducting research like this as opposed to
 COMMUNICATION IN A DEMOCRACY 5

other, more numerical, more data-based procedures, is that my questions are not easily

answerable, and the solutions are neither sexy nor easily developed. Wallace emphasizes the

work, the labor, the lengthy drudgery that is involved when one attempts to adjust and move

slowly away from their default settings. This is something to keep in mind. This is a lifelong

struggle, but it is one that is needed. So for purposes of reiteration and clarity, allow me, if I may,

to repeat what I am asking, what I am attempting to understand: What are our default settings,

and how does our comfort with them limit us, affect us, stop us and darken our lives? How do

people think in the first place, and through what processes do they arrive at their most cherished

opinions? How much is overlooked? How can we, slowly at first, begin to move away from these

default settings, away from the limitations of self?

Methodology

Participants

This research endeavor included a few interviewees, targeted on account of their

positions as presumably knowledgeable individuals who would be not only able but willing to

devote some of their time to answering some of the questions they received. Interviewee 1, 2 and

3 were all unified by their role as professors in various American colleges. They all of them

possessed, specifically, different positions from one another but a professorial status was shared

by them all. In obtaining the numerous responses, no reward system was constructed for

purposes of persuasion, but I proceeded confidently in the belief that their nigh lifelong
 COMMUNICATION IN A DEMOCRACY 6

involvement in philosophy would make them more than willing to devote some time to a

potentially interesting conversation.

Materials

While it can be said truthfully that more than a few research endeavors have been

characterized by intricate procedures or complicated processes, my project, perhaps because of

its philosophic intent, was relatively simple in its procedural components. Drafting interview

questions involved set-aside notebooks, pencils and pens for writing. In short, rudimentary,

inexpressibly simple writing materials. Then, because I was unable, for purely logistical reasons,

to meet with each of the interviewees, questions were sent out using email.

Procedure

As was briefly touched upon in the sub-section located directly above, in the early

skeletal phase, the interview questions went through various revisional processes, facilitated not

in the least by my current mentor, and my instructor of the 2014-2015 school year. Once they

reached a phase of passability, they were typed, formatted in such a way as to be ready to send

out at any time. With these done, we (my mentor and I) began to consider carefully the sort of

individual to whom we may wish to send our inquiries. This brought about an indirect re-

examination of the essential nature of the questions, what they may stand for, what they possibly

imply. This was illuminating, and extending out of (and because of) this scrutiny arose the notion

of seeking out philosophers with professorial positions, that last part simply because of increased

accessibility.

My mentor, because of his academic history, was quite excitingly in possession of

numerous contacts who fit precisely this definition. After a prefatory email was drafted and sent

out by my mentor, (prefatory meaning both I and my project were introduced to these professors,
 COMMUNICATION IN A DEMOCRACY 7

and so on) I was free to reach out to the interviewees, and promptly set about doing so. Although

three separate emails were sent out, the trio did not differ deeply in content; the questions

themselves were unchanged between the emails, and the introductory remarks made by me

(introducing the subject matter, possible intents, who I am, etc.) contained nigh imperceptible

differences. At this stage there was not much to do save wait. Wait and also begin considering

analytic processes, once the responses were received. After much cogitation and conversation,

the conclusion arrived was marked by a complete rejection of more algorithmic approaches to

data analysis, and an acceptance of the necessity of reliance on looser, more verbal approaches to

interpreting and understanding the responses received.

Results

I believe that in order to engage in a fruitful evaluation of my results, a reiteration of my

initial inquiries is necessary. Therefore, I list the questions I sent out to all the aforementioned
interviewees below:

1. Will we ever reach, when wading through the entire, inconceivably

varied spectrum of social commentary, something that is objectively true? That is
to say, given that my main question has to do with arriving at the most veracious
interpretation of social phenomena, is this goal something that is even achievable?
Is there something that, on a hierarchy of validity, ranks above something else as
concerns matters like this, or are all conjectures equally legitimate?
2. What are the various processes (perhaps sub-perceptual, sub-
conscious processes primarily) that contribute to the formulation of personal
opinion? Is there simply a direct line from the absorption of books, articles,
personal observations, etc to the formulation of opinion, or is there something far
deeper, less controllable, less alterable at play? This would seem to suggest that
 COMMUNICATION IN A DEMOCRACY 8

our opinions are not as malleable as we seem to think they are. This knowledge I
feel could be infinitely illuminating, as we would not only be exploring the nature
of particular opinions, but the sources of opinion in [Link] processes by
which our opinions come into existence.
3. How can we sensibly apply biological revelation/scientific
breakthrough to the analysis of various social phenomena? When I say this, Im
thinking of the scientific/genomic breakthroughs that have led to the
understanding of race as being, for the most part, biologically empty. That is to
say, it was largely a political contraption, invented with social expediency in
mind. That color is suggestive of inner traits and similarities in genomic/DNA
structures is scientifically ludicrous. However, in a societal context race does
seem to be often titanically important. Therefore, how can we successfully use
these scientific breakthroughs to understand and perhaps even rectify social ills?
4. What are the consequences of total self-obsession, self-delusion,
blind uncertainty as to the unalterable primacy of ones thoughts, feelings, actions.
This is difficult for me to express, but, what I am attempting to ask has something
or other to do with this: We are, seemingly, hardwired from birth to reference
every experience, every happening, every everything, as it were, back to
ourselves. As far as we are concerned, we are the center of existence, and
everything from television advertisements to the first-person physicality of
existence encourages this problematical notion. My question, my desire is to
understand and pick apart this mode of living, and, through understanding it,
perhaps slowly begin to move away from living it. With the meditative nature of
my questions in mind, I have chosen to print the full responses of each
interviewee, believing that fractionated fragments would inevitably take away
from the philosophic vigor of the replies.

Responses from Interviewee 1, male, Professor of Ethics:

COMMUNICATION IN A DEMOCRACY 9

1) I think it is untenable to say that there is no "objective" standard

for claims of value or truth. Such a position is one of the "relativist," and the
"relativist" is one who thinks that any claim is as good as any other. In actual fact,
no one believes this. People get called "relativist" when they suggest that the
process of hitting upon warranted claims is less algorithmic than absolutists think.
Of course there is a diversity of vantage points and perspectives. In some sense,
obviously values are relative. but relative to WHAT? Relative to the various
situations that people are found in. This does not destroy objectivity, it only
underscores that the objective world in which truth has meaning is more complex
than any one perspective can encompass.
2) I think there are myriad influences that shape one's perspective on
the world and one's opinion about matters. Philosophers, I think, sometimes over-
estimate the influence of logical argument on people's opinions. There are very
sophisticated arguments for the existence of God in medieval philosophy, but
these persuade hardly anyone. Hardly anyone has ever read Kant's philosophy,
but people can still be moral. Probably more people have had their moral
sensibilities shaped by Charles Dickens than by Kant -- I'm sure of it. So, there
are all kinds of influences on opinions and attitudes.
3) I am not very familiar with the science behind this question, but I
am familiar with the general findings about race and genetics. Philosophy has
always been tasked with challenging common sense assumptions about a variety
of things, and this has often required it to serve as some kind of mediator between
science and unreflective opinions and prejudices. This sounds to me like another
job for philosophy. What is it to be human? This is an old question, and new
answers will be needed to bridge the divisions that social and racial anachronisms
have fostered.
4) Communication is the key to democracy working. Communication
is also the key to a morally sensitive and humane society. People need to hear
each other and to listen. Through communication, we share our hopes and fears
and learn to identify with the hopes and fears of others. There are many ways to
COMMUNICATION IN A DEMOCRACY 10

communicate: arts, literature, film. Unfortunately, the news media focuses on the
loudest voices, the most divisive voices, and the most angry voices. I do not want
to be pessimistic, but I think it is fair to say that this must turn around if American
society has any real hope of flourishing as a democracy.

Responses from Interviewee 2, female, Professor of Epistemology:

I will give you my brief opinion about the issue in general: I believe that the formation of

racial opinion has to be investigated with respect to the specific history out of which it arose.

Humans seem to have opinions about those of other races based in the long history of the

interactions their forebears of the same race had with the other race. Im English, and the

English supposedly hate the French. This has to do with old wars over territory, religion, etc.

The hate of another race seems to come secondary to the desire to gain power and oppress (due

to greed and economic gain). The English colonization of India and parts of Africa for economic

gain was more easily justified by first turning those native to these places into inferior beings,

animals (by deriding their customs and physical differences). As long as people have reasons to

dominate others for personal or national gain, no amount of science that shows there is in fact no

biological basis to racial categorization of the human species, is going to make a difference to

peoples beliefs and behaviorits just not expedient" for racists to think otherwise. Bloodshed

and misery has always and always will be the result.

Discussion & Conclusion

The potential expansiveness of this project was, quite unfortunately, defeated by the

limited responses received. Therefore, extensive (and therefore comprehensive) analysis was

made more difficult, and the results are slenderer than was initially hoped for. Nevertheless, the

received responses were rich in content and thoughtfulness. Additionally, and this has been
 COMMUNICATION IN A DEMOCRACY 11

mentioned on numerous occasions within this research paper, the philosophic nature of my initial

inquiries precluded the presence of mathematical, survey data. Therefore, everything is

suggestive or assumptive, and there is nothing in these responses that proves anything. There is

no room here for such rigid certainties.

My first question, as was seen in a recent section, concerned the existence (or lack

thereof) of objective reality in social opinion. That is to say, are we destined to continue

operating on the basis of subjective opinion in daily life, or can we collectively arrive at

universally agreed upon truths, or claims of value, to use a phrase used by Interviewee 1. In

response to this first question, the first interviewee responded illuminatingly, stating that it

untenable to say that there is no objective standards for claims [Link]. He then continues to

expound that this untenable claim is one that is usually held by the relativist, this kind of thinker

being defined by Interviewee 1 as one who thinks that any claim is as good as any other.

However, he reiterates his initial pronouncement, claiming boldly that in actual fact, no

one believes this. Interviewee 1 then proceeds to deconstruct the position of the relativist,

interestingly depicting this stance as one based upon the belief that the process of hitting upon

warranted claims if less algorithmic that absolutists think. Interviewee 1 intelligently concedes

that it is apparent, nay, obvious that numerous vantage points and perspectives exist in a kind of

relative relationship to one another, rather than some kind of mathematically determined

hierarchy. Then, unexpectedly and intriguingly, Interviewee 1 views these obvious, relativistic

differences as being not, as is commonly supposed, evidence for the blatant absence of

objectivity, but instead they all emphasize that the objective world in which truth has meaning is

more complex than any one perspective can encompass. These are very thought-provoking

notions, and they, with much agility, brush easily past the kind of simplistic thinking and
COMMUNICATION IN A DEMOCRACY 12

demonstrate an admirable interest in achieving some kind of intellectual balance. Rather than

take the existence of innumerable claims of value or truth as evidence for the lack of any single

identifiably objective reality, Interviewee 1 runs with these relativistic notions and uses them as

evidence for what these same ideas refute. Not paying attention to the findability of any flaws in

Interviewee 1s thinking, if, of course, such flaws even exist, it is a valuable statement even as an

example of a different intellectual approach to very common philosophical notions and ideas.

My second question was concerned with discovering the various processes (sub-

perceptual and subconscious processes as well) that contribute to the formation of personal

opinion. Interviewee 1s response to this inquiry was no less interesting, beginning with a broad

and agreeable statement regarding the fact that folks and their thoughts are formed as a result of

contact with myriad, perhaps even countless influences and perspectives. Interviewee 1 believes

that a philosopher sometimes over-estimate the influence of logical argument on peoples

opinions. By this, I believe he is suggesting that most individuals do not arrive at their particular

convictions through a long and sinuous process of logical consideration, refutation and

evaluation. Interviewee 1 expands on this notion by invoking Kant, and mentioning that while

most people have never read his texts, they can still be no more. In fact, Interviewee 1 is sure of

the fact that more people have had their moral sensibilities shapes by Charles Dickens than by

Kant. It is becoming clear that the process of the formation of personal opinion is different from

what may be initially supposed. Unfortunately, and this is not to detract in any way from the

evident fullness of this response, the response does not expand and take up the considerable

space that such intriguing ideas contain. If we consider that last comment regarding Dickens,

ignoring of course the specificity of these individuals (Kant or Dickens) and focussing instead on

the powerful implications of such a remark, I believe we will be rewarded intellectually. He

 COMMUNICATION IN A DEMOCRACY 13

seems to be suggesting that the source of any given opinion is different than what will be

commonly supposed, and the process by which we arrive at personal opinions and convictions

(even, perhaps, our most cherished ones) is a process more related to emotion, relationships and

art than cold, calculated reasoning or logic.

My next question concerned the process by which we apply contemporary scientific and

genetic breakthroughs to the terrain of opinion that is largely unreflective. Interviewee 1

admitted that he was not very familiar with the science behind this question, and for this

reason and for the purpose of arriving at what I believe to be, ultimately, the most significant

inquiry in this research endeavor. This question explores the idea of communication. That is to

say, I find it evident that we live in a time where a lot of our national dialogue is fractious, ugly

and divisive. I wished to ask what are the consequences of these constant ideological

misunderstandings, and is there a way to somehow and avoid and reach, finally, a point of

communicative civility. I find Interviewee 1s response to be wondrous and invigorating, and I

therefore wish to reprint it in full right here:

Communication is the key to democracy working. Communication is also the key to a

morally sensitive and humane society. People need to hear each other and to listen.

Through communication, we share our hopes and fears and learn to identify with the

hopes and fears of others. There are many ways to communicate: arts, literature, film.

Unfortunately, the news media focuses on the loudest voices, and the most angry voices. I

do not want to be pessimistic, but I think it is fair to say that this must turn around if

American society has any real hope of flourishing as a democracy.

This is powerfully related to the idea, which was mentioned earlier in the paper, of choosing

between conversation and war. This statement sounds hyperbolic but it, in a way that is so
COMMUNICATION IN A DEMOCRACY 14

needed, emphasizes the inescapable necessity of civil conversation. The implications of

Interviewees 1 statements are potent, and if absorbed thoughtfully, could have the effect of

abolishing our pessimistic passivity and his words additionally promote and recommend for the

American citizenry a revitalizing remedy of empathetic and democratic receptivity.

Interviewee 2, due to temporal constraints, provided a far briefer response. Brief in the

sense that it did not go through each inquiry and answer them one by one. Instead, Interviewee 2

provided a brief summary of their thoughts. Essentially, Interviewee 2 suggested that the primary

force in the formation of social opinions concerning race was the desire to gain power and

oppress for purposes of economic gain or downright greed. Apparently, Interviewee 2 believes

that it is too inexpedient for racists to ever, in any collective way, accept contemporary scientific

and genetic breakthroughs. Additionally, the consequences of this vicious rigidity on the part of

the racists is and always has been bloodshed and misery.

I should like to think that the research conducted and the responses received are of some

consequence, but one can never be certain about such matters. I do think that much of the

commentary delivered by Interviewee 1 is perennially pertinent, as much of it deals with the way

in which we may keep our society afloat and civil. I also think it represents a very fascinating

facet of the dialogue on objective claims of value or truth. This is what these responses say about

the big picture. They flow with ease into the stream of [Link] that concerns

some of the most important and profound questions ever asked by the species.

Reflections

Having reached the terminus of this research endeavor, I believe I can say with decided

finality that the research seen has not been conducted in vain. Through the fullness of the
COMMUNICATION IN A DEMOCRACY 15

research process, I encountered intelligences that excited (and often overwhelmed) my own, and

I realized that, albeit pessimism may create a lonesome lagoon in which one can feel like they

are flailing, there are always exciting and invigorating individuals who are ready to be open and

have an interesting, fruitful conversation. Needless to say, the interviews conducted (and,

naturally, the answers received) were on the slender side, and this would be something to

improve upon, were I to be tasked with another research project. I couldnt say with any certainty

what exactly contributed to this unfortunate paucity of responses but, most probably, it had to do

with my regrettable slothfulness and lack of initiative in obtaining interviews.

In terms of the quest for objective reality, at least in a social context, is one that has been

engaged in since the time of the ancients. Speaking, however, to college professors in the 21st

century about such consequential matters was enlightening and, particularly in the case of

Interviewee 1, put me on a road to further contemplation about the existence of objective claims

of value or truth. These responses had the effect that all other things of power have, when

depicted through any form of communication, be it film, literature, arts, and so on and so forth.

That is to say, they had revitalizing effects, and often suggested things that were, because of their

thoughtfulness and nuance, intellectually thrilling. For this, I am grateful, and I see know that I

could have maximized this greatness by sending the questions to more individuals, thus

increasing the amount of responses I would get, the amount of encounters with fascinating

intellects. I believe that the above encapsulates much of my feeling regarding this research

project, and anything else would be to obviously superfluous.

 COMMUNICATION IN A DEMOCRACY 16

References

Wallace, D. F. (2009). This is water: Some thoughts, delivered on a significant occasion about

living a compassionate life. New York: Little, Brown.

Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Boston: Beacon Press.

Rubric rating submitted on: June 5, 2016 at 8:57:40 AM PDT by

[Link]@[Link]
Expert Proficient Apprentice Novice
4 3 2 1

Introduction Clearly identifies Limited discussion Minimal discussion Little or no

[Abstract, and discusses of research focus of research focus discussion of
introduction, research focus and and question. and question. research focus and
literature review, question. Research Research focus is Research focus is question.
reasoning for focus is clearly less well-grounded not well-grounded Research focus not
research, and grounded in in previous research. in previous research. grounded in
research question] previous research. Significance of the Significance of the previous research.
Expert4 Significance of the research is not as research is not Significance of the
research question is clearly identified clearly identified research is not
clearly identified (how it adds to (how it adds to identified (how it
(how it adds to previous research). previous research). adds to previous
previous research). Hypotheses/predicti Hypotheses/predicti research).
Hypotheses or ons are described ons are not well Hypotheses/predicti
predicted outcomes but not as well articulated. ons are poorly
are clearly articulated. articulated or are
articulated. absent.

Methodology Provides accurate, Description of how Description of how Description of how

Proficient3 thorough description the data was the data was the data was
of how the data was collected, what/how collected, what/how collected, what/how
collected, what/how many data sources many data sources many data sources
many data sources were analyzed, plan were analyzed, plan were analyzed, plan
were analyzed, plan of analysis or of analysis or of analysis or
of collection and measurement measurement measurement
analysis (qualitative instrument, research instrument, research instrument, research
or quantitative), context is adequate context is somewhat context is very
research context. but limited. confusing/not confusing/not
Clearly and Research context clearly articulated. articulated
accurately describes and Research context sufficiently.
research context and subject(s)/populatio and Research context
subject(s)/populatio n description is subject(s)/populatio and
n. Reflections on adequate but n is not clearly subject(s)/populatio
positionality/reflexi limited. Reflections articulated. n is severely limited
vity and how it may on social Reflection on social or absent.
influence data positionality/reflexi positionality/reflexi Reflection on social
 COMMUNICATION IN A DEMOCRACY 17

collection and vity and how it may vity and how it may positionality/reflexi
results. influence data influence data vity and how it may
Interpretation is collection and collection and influence data
thorough and interpretation is interpretation is collection and
insightful. adequate but limited and lacks interpretation is
limited. insight. severely limited,
lacks insight, or is
absent.

Results [Data Results are clearly Results are Results are not very Results are not
Synthesis, explained in a explained but not as clearly explained, clearly explained,
Descriptions, and comprehensive level clearly, level of level of detail is level of detail is
Analysis] of detail and are detail is not as insufficient, and severely
Proficient3 well-organized. sufficient, and there there are more insufficient, and
Tables/figures are some organizational there are serious
clearly and organizational issues. organizational
concisely convey issues. Tables/figures are issues.
and describe the Tables/figures are not clear/concise in Tables/figures are
data. Statistical not as clear/concise conveying and not clear/concise in
analyses (if used) in conveying and describing the data. conveying and
are appropriate and describing the data. Statistical analyses describing the data.
are accurately Statistical analyses (if used) are Statistical analyses
interpreted. (if used) are inappropriate tests (if used) are
appropriate tests but and/or are not inappropriate tests
are not accurately accurately and/or are not
interpreted. interpreted. accurately
interpreted.

Conclusions Interpretations/analy Interpretations/analy Interpretations/analy Interpretations/analy

[Conclusion, sis of results are sis of results are sis of results lacking sis of results
Research thoughtful and sufficient but in thoughtfulness severely lacking in
Reflections] insightful, are somewhat lacking in and insight, are not thoughtful ness and
Expert4 clearly informed by thoughtfulness and clearly informed by insight, are not
the studys results, insight, are not as the studys results, informed by the
and thoroughly clearly informed by and do not studys results, and
address how they the studys results, adequately address do not address how
supported, refuted, and do not as how they supported, they supported,
and/or informed the thoroughly address refuted, and/or refuted, and/or
hypotheses/predicte how they supported, informed the informed the
d outcomes. refuted, and/or hypotheses/predicte hypotheses/predictio
Insightful discussion informed the d outcome. ns.
of how the study hypotheses/predicte Discussion of how Discussion of how
relates to and/or d outcome. the study relates to the study relates to
enhances the present Discussion of how and/or enhances the and/or enhances the
scholarship in this the study relates to present scholarship present scholarship
area. Suggestions and/or enhances the in this area is in this area is
for further research present scholarship limited. severely limited
in this area are in this area is Suggestions for and/or absent
 COMMUNICATION IN A DEMOCRACY 18

insightful and adequate. further research in altogether.

thoughtful. Self- Suggestions for this area are very Suggestions for
Reflections are further research in limited. further research in
thorough and this area are Self-reflections are this area are
meaningful. adequate. Self- very limited. severely limited
reflections are and/or absent.
adequate. Self-reflections are
severely limited
and/or absent.

Documentation of Cites all data Cites most data Cites some data Does not cite
Sources, Quality of obtained from other obtained from other obtained from other sources.
Sources sources. APA sources. APA sources. Citation Sources are
Apprentice2 citation style is citation style is used style is either disproportionately
accurately used in in both text and inconsistent or non-scholarly and
both text and bibliography. incorrect. do not clearly relate
bibliography. Sources are Sources are not to the research
Sources are all primarily scholarly primarily scholarly focus.
scholarly and clearly and relate to the and relate to the
relate to the research research focus. research focus but
focus. only in minor ways.

Spelling, No spelling, Minimal spelling, Noticeable spelling, Excessive spelling

Punctuation, & punctuation, or punctuation, or punctuation, and and/or grammar
Grammar grammar mistakes. grammar mistakes. grammar mistakes. mistakes.
Expert4

Format Title page has Title page Title page deviates a Title page
Expert4 proper APA approximates APA bit more from APA completely deviates
formatting. Uses formatting. Uses formatting. from APA
correct headings & correct headings & Headings & formatting
subheadings subheadings almost subheadings less Headings and
consistently. consistently. consistent subheadings
completely deviate
from suggested
formatting or are
absent altogether.

Comments: