[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
No Standards for Context?
With due trepidation though, what follows is a completely general discussion
of standards for context. I think it applies to ALL uses of evidence and that
it does NOT apply in particular or with special emphasis to ANY individual use
of evidence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Standards?
The claim that there are "no standards" for assessing ethical violations (such
as taking cards out of context) has been repeated with such frequency that I
fear that it is being taken for the truth.
Most recently, Jason Jarvis says:
>1. There are no standards for what constitutes an ethical violation, or
>how we determine when evidence is cut out of context. Accordingly, for
>the purposes of transcribed rounds there is no way to contest a round
>based on what is perceived to be evidence read out of context.
If there were no standards, Jason would be right -- there would be no way that
anyone could claim (officially or otherwise) that ANY card -- any fortuitous
combination of words -- was anything less than valid unless it was fabricated.
I honestly don't know where this perception of "no standards" comes from. I
think that anyone looking for a standard for evidence validity (that should
be all of us) would have many places to turn.
1.) I think most of us have an intuitive idea of what "context" and "out
of context" means. To me it means that if author's entire position (as
evidenced by their entire article) is not consistent with the specific
claim (the tag) being supported by the cut piece of evidence, then a
quote is out of context.
2.) Many of us are teachers of argumentation and basic speech
communication. I assume that most of us are able to confidently teach
our undergraduate students how to quote contextually. I also assume that
most of us expect our students to do just that.
3.) We as a community have voted on, and accepted, a standard. It was
included in CEDA's "Statement of Ethical Principles." No, it was not
accepted as "adjudicable" but it was accepted as "aspirational." In
other words, it was accepted as a ** standard **.
Here is what it says (IC):
"Debaters should not fabricate, distort, or misrepresent evidence.
...Distorted evidence refers to misrepresenting the actual or
implied content of the factual or opinion evidence. In determining
whether evidence has been distorted, debaters should ask if the
evidence deviates from the quality, quantity, probability, or degree
of force of the author's position on the particular point in
question... Distortions include, but are not limited to:
1. quoting out of context;
2. misinterpreting the evidence so as to alter its meaning;..."
The application of a standard seems fairly explicit: "Debaters should
ask if the evidence deviates from the quality, quantity, probability, or
degree of force of the author's position on the particular point in
question."
4.) We are part of an academic tradition that recognizes the meaning of
the phrase "out of context." Even before the inclusion of the ethics
statement I would like to think that we operated inside of that
tradition.
5.) There are many indications of the force of that understanding in the
books that our community, and the larger argumentation community have
produced:
Here are two representative examples:
Pfau, Thomas, & Ulrich, 1987, p. 66
"While it is not possible to read everything that an author has said
about a subject in a speech, the advocate should make sure that the
statements that are read in their speeches accurately represent the
beliefs of the individual quoted. A good guideline would be to ask,
would the authors agree with the statements that I attribute to
them?"
Ziegelmueller, Kay, & Dause, 1990, p. 99
"The test of context asks the question, Is the evidence used in a
manner consistent with the *meaning* and *intent* of the source?
Inevitably, facts and expert opinions exist in a context broader
than that used by the advocate. Since evidence gathering and use
are selective processes, it is vital to examine the context of any
piece of evidence to ensure that the meaning or intent of the source
is not misrepresented."
The preceding source as well as Bartanen & Frank '94 present case studies
to clarify the meaning of "out of context" evidence. While these sources
note that the application of the standard may be difficult or subjective,
they concur that there are indeed standards.
At base the preceding argument should show that a claim of "no standards" is
simply incorrect. There actually seems to be a surprising degree of AGREEMENT
on the meaning of "out of context:" is the author's position (as evident in
the entirety of the article) consistent (in quality, degree, force,
probability) with the claim (the tag) for which the quoted material is used
as support. The standard is the application of the question: would the
author agree with the claim that is being made with the evidence. Would the
author agree with the tag?
To close I want to pre-empt two possible reactions:
1. We can't ever know the author's intent.
1.) Not always true -- we can ask.
2.) More importantly, we don't need to know - we read the article. A
piece of evidence only needs to be contextual in reference to its
surroundings, the article.
3.) We are capable of articulating better and worse versions of what an
author means. While we may not be exactly sure of the precise parameters
of an author's advocacy, we would still in many cases be able to clearly
point to certain sentences in ruling some advocacy definitely outside:
you are not sure of exactly where Vermont's Western border is, but you
are darn sure that it doesn't include California.
2. Context is Vague
1.) Vague does not mean indeterminate.
2.) The vagueness of the standard simply means that resolution of any
controversy will have to be discursive, with reasons back and force.
resolution can't be automatic.
3.) Vagueness would simply mean that there are some cases which may be
"too close to call." But the existence of those cases would not
disparage those other cases which are either clearly in context or
clearly out of it.
The most basic motivational warrant is this: Absent some standards for
context, our evidentiary advocacy is reduced to an electronic scavenger hunt
for an opportune combination of words.
"The film was God-Awful. It was absolutely delightful to see it finally
come to an end."
Are we prepared to accept "it was absolutely delightful" as an appropriately
evidenced claim in favor of the film? If we aren't, then we are only able to
accomplish that rejection through the application of the standards for context
discussed above.
Ken Broda-Bahm
Broda@Midget.Towson.Edu
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page