The Debate Authors Working Group Model for Collaborative Knowledge Production in Forensics Scholarship

Gordon R. Mitchell Gordon R. Mitchell, Department of Communication, University of Pittsburgh; Carly S. Woods, Department of Communication Studies, University of Nebraska-Lincoln; Matthew Brigham, School of Communication Studies, James Madison University; Eric English, Department of Communication, University of Pittsburgh; Catherine E. Morrison, Department of Communication Studies, University of Rhode Island; John Rief, Department of Communication and Institute for Clinical Research and Education, University of Pittsburgh. This essay grew out of collaborative research by the Schenley Park Debate Authors Working Group (DAWG), a consortium of public argument scholars at University of Pittsburgh striving to generate rigorous scholarship addressing the role of argumentation and debate in society. First author Gordon Mitchell led work on this DAWG essay, second author Carly Woods provided extensive editorial guidance, original research, and written revisions. All of the co-authors contributed substantially in areas of conceptual design, research, writing and revision. Special thanks go to the pair of moose whofreed the lead author from temporary confinement in the Wasatch Mountains in time to deliver an early draft of this paper at the 15th NCA/AFA “Alta” Conference on Argumentation, in August 2007 ( http://alturl.eom/p7vy).Correspondence[email protected]

Carly S. Woods Gordon R. Mitchell, Department of Communication, University of Pittsburgh; Carly S. Woods, Department of Communication Studies, University of Nebraska-Lincoln; Matthew Brigham, School of Communication Studies, James Madison University; Eric English, Department of Communication, University of Pittsburgh; Catherine E. Morrison, Department of Communication Studies, University of Rhode Island; John Rief, Department of Communication and Institute for Clinical Research and Education, University of Pittsburgh. This essay grew out of collaborative research by the Schenley Park Debate Authors Working Group (DAWG), a consortium of public argument scholars at University of Pittsburgh striving to generate rigorous scholarship addressing the role of argumentation and debate in society. First author Gordon Mitchell led work on this DAWG essay, second author Carly Woods provided extensive editorial guidance, original research, and written revisions. All of the co-authors contributed substantially in areas of conceptual design, research, writing and revision. Special thanks go to the pair of moose whofreed the lead author from temporary confinement in the Wasatch Mountains in time to deliver an early draft of this paper at the 15th NCA/AFA “Alta” Conference on Argumentation, in August 2007 ( http://alturl.eom/p7vy).

Matthew Brigham Gordon R. Mitchell, Department of Communication, University of Pittsburgh; Carly S. Woods, Department of Communication Studies, University of Nebraska-Lincoln; Matthew Brigham, School of Communication Studies, James Madison University; Eric English, Department of Communication, University of Pittsburgh; Catherine E. Morrison, Department of Communication Studies, University of Rhode Island; John Rief, Department of Communication and Institute for Clinical Research and Education, University of Pittsburgh. This essay grew out of collaborative research by the Schenley Park Debate Authors Working Group (DAWG), a consortium of public argument scholars at University of Pittsburgh striving to generate rigorous scholarship addressing the role of argumentation and debate in society. First author Gordon Mitchell led work on this DAWG essay, second author Carly Woods provided extensive editorial guidance, original research, and written revisions. All of the co-authors contributed substantially in areas of conceptual design, research, writing and revision. Special thanks go to the pair of moose whofreed the lead author from temporary confinement in the Wasatch Mountains in time to deliver an early draft of this paper at the 15th NCA/AFA “Alta” Conference on Argumentation, in August 2007 ( http://alturl.eom/p7vy).

Eric English Gordon R. Mitchell, Department of Communication, University of Pittsburgh; Carly S. Woods, Department of Communication Studies, University of Nebraska-Lincoln; Matthew Brigham, School of Communication Studies, James Madison University; Eric English, Department of Communication, University of Pittsburgh; Catherine E. Morrison, Department of Communication Studies, University of Rhode Island; John Rief, Department of Communication and Institute for Clinical Research and Education, University of Pittsburgh. This essay grew out of collaborative research by the Schenley Park Debate Authors Working Group (DAWG), a consortium of public argument scholars at University of Pittsburgh striving to generate rigorous scholarship addressing the role of argumentation and debate in society. First author Gordon Mitchell led work on this DAWG essay, second author Carly Woods provided extensive editorial guidance, original research, and written revisions. All of the co-authors contributed substantially in areas of conceptual design, research, writing and revision. Special thanks go to the pair of moose whofreed the lead author from temporary confinement in the Wasatch Mountains in time to deliver an early draft of this paper at the 15th NCA/AFA “Alta” Conference on Argumentation, in August 2007 ( http://alturl.eom/p7vy).

Catherine E. Morrison Gordon R. Mitchell, Department of Communication, University of Pittsburgh; Carly S. Woods, Department of Communication Studies, University of Nebraska-Lincoln; Matthew Brigham, School of Communication Studies, James Madison University; Eric English, Department of Communication, University of Pittsburgh; Catherine E. Morrison, Department of Communication Studies, University of Rhode Island; John Rief, Department of Communication and Institute for Clinical Research and Education, University of Pittsburgh. This essay grew out of collaborative research by the Schenley Park Debate Authors Working Group (DAWG), a consortium of public argument scholars at University of Pittsburgh striving to generate rigorous scholarship addressing the role of argumentation and debate in society. First author Gordon Mitchell led work on this DAWG essay, second author Carly Woods provided extensive editorial guidance, original research, and written revisions. All of the co-authors contributed substantially in areas of conceptual design, research, writing and revision. Special thanks go to the pair of moose whofreed the lead author from temporary confinement in the Wasatch Mountains in time to deliver an early draft of this paper at the 15th NCA/AFA “Alta” Conference on Argumentation, in August 2007 ( http://alturl.eom/p7vy).

John Rief Gordon R. Mitchell, Department of Communication, University of Pittsburgh; Carly S. Woods, Department of Communication Studies, University of Nebraska-Lincoln; Matthew Brigham, School of Communication Studies, James Madison University; Eric English, Department of Communication, University of Pittsburgh; Catherine E. Morrison, Department of Communication Studies, University of Rhode Island; John Rief, Department of Communication and Institute for Clinical Research and Education, University of Pittsburgh. This essay grew out of collaborative research by the Schenley Park Debate Authors Working Group (DAWG), a consortium of public argument scholars at University of Pittsburgh striving to generate rigorous scholarship addressing the role of argumentation and debate in society. First author Gordon Mitchell led work on this DAWG essay, second author Carly Woods provided extensive editorial guidance, original research, and written revisions. All of the co-authors contributed substantially in areas of conceptual design, research, writing and revision. Special thanks go to the pair of moose whofreed the lead author from temporary confinement in the Wasatch Mountains in time to deliver an early draft of this paper at the 15th NCA/AFA “Alta” Conference on Argumentation, in August 2007 ( http://alturl.eom/p7vy).

Abstract

The disconnect between modes of knowledge production in forensics (mostly collaborative) and academic study in the humanities (mostly solo work) is a chasm that can complicate the transition from tournament competitor to professional scholar. Might arrangements that promote joint authorship help harmonize the two modes of knowledge production and convert creative energy from the forensics setting to the academic publishing enterprise? This essay considers the possibility, reflecting on how efforts to coordinate collaborative knowledge production in debate authors working groups relate to professional development challenges isolated in the 1974 Sedalia Conference, the 1984 National Developmental Conference on Forensics, the 1993 Quail Roost Caucus, and the 2009 National Developmental Conference on Debate. The analysis sheds light on issues of perennial importance for the forensics community and also contributes understanding of how recent technological and sociological trends portend changes in the process of knowledge production for the academy writ large.

Key Words:

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

The Debate Authors Working Group Model for Collaborative Knowledge Production in Forensics Scholarship

Information for

Open access

Opportunities

Help and information

The Debate Authors Working Group Model for Collaborative Knowledge Production in Forensics Scholarship

Abstract

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Related research

To cite this article:

Download citation

Information for

Open access

Opportunities

Help and information

Keep up to date

Your download is now in progress and you may close this window

Login or register to access this feature