You may attend the keynote as an event and then any panel as another event.
Dr. Steven Schwarze, awarding winning scholar of environmental communication, will present the keynote address at the upcoming 31st Annual Communication Studies Conference "Constructing Healthy Communication Environments."
“Unhealthy Communication, Unhealthy Environments: Diagnosing the Asbestos Crisis”
Dr. Steven Schwarze
Associate Professor of
During that address, Dr. Schwarze will discuss his research on how rhetorical discourses, such as those surrounding the asbestos crisis in
On Tuesday, April 14 and Thursday, April 15 poster and panel sessions will be held throughout the day in Warren Hall, Transitions highlighting original undergraduate scholarship, exceptional service learning projects, and outreach by students in the School of Communication Studies. As part of this conference, a special performance by nationally ranked members of the JMU Individual Events Team will be included on a panel discussing performance studies as scholarship on Tuesday, April 14 from 3:30 - 4:30 pm.
The complete conference program can be found online at: http://sites.google.com/site/jmuscomconference/
These events are sponsored by The College of Arts & Letters and the
17 comments:
I always knew that asbestos was a major health hazard, but I had no idea that asbestos is always right under our noses. After hearing Dr. Steven Schwarze, an associate professor of communication studies at the University of Montana, speak about the asbestos problems in Libby Montana, I realized that this is a problem that is affecting the nation. Not only does this affect the people of Libby, but because there is vermiculite in attic insulation, it could potentially affect over 13 million residents. One of the most upsetting things that Dr. Schwarze talked about was that vermiculite was found all over the town of Libby. Not only was it in the mines, but it was used to fill in a skating rink and high school track, as well as gardens and yards around the town. There was also an export plant right next to a little league field, and unfortunately, children used to play in the vermiculite. Also, because the workers bring home the dust from the mines with them, their entire family could possibly become contaminated as well. Because there is a 40 year latency period with the asbestos, it is a long term problem and more people can become sick as time goes on.
Since asbestos are such a major health hazard, Dr. Schwarze questioned how Libby became the big problem it is without anyone trying to stop it. His answer was that silence from the miners, W.R. Grace, and the environmentalists gave this problem more room to grow. I also found it interesting that he showed melodrama has played a part in this problem. Many people were not giving Libby the attention it deserved, so melodrama helped complicate the situation and show people that the vermiculite asbestos was indeed a big problem.
I really enjoyed listening to this speech, and although it was not optimistic, it was realistic. I found it very unsettling that many officials knew about this problem, yet no one tried to stop it. Also, when he mentioned that asbestos could be lurking everywhere, even on college campuses, it made me want to do some research to make sure that I stay asbestos free. I find it shocking that the government is not doing more about this problem, especially because it could potentially affect over 15 million homes in the United States. But at least by giving this speech, Dr. Schwarze is making people aware of this problem and maybe more people will demand that something gets done about it.
On Monday night, Dr. Steven Schwarze, associate professor of communication studies at the University of Montana, addressed the JMU students and faculty about the asbestos crisis in Libby, Montana. Prior to his speech, I had heard about the problems that occurred in Libby but never really understood exactly what happened. Dr. Schwarze gave an outstanding summary of the events that took place and provided the audience with an abundance of facts about asbestos. However, I feel like he focused too much on the event itself rather than actually addressing the communication issues. Now I know he touched on it towards in the end of the speech, I just found it hard to stay engaged. I came away from the speech much more knowledgeable about the asbestos problem, but not so much about how to fix it by utilizing communication tactics and skills. Now don’t get me wrong I thought he executed his ideas effectively, I was just expecting something else I guess. I was able to relate his presentation to our class though. By using the “appeal of fear” approach, he was able to present his audience with a convincing argument. If you can lure the audience in by appealing to their emotions, then I think you have a good chance of changing their behavior thus executing a persuasive argument. I know I’m much more concerned with the asbestos problem, especially after he stressed the fact that it is prevalent here in Virginia. He made me want to learn more about what I can do to make a difference, which I think exemplifies a good argument.
I attended Panel Session IV: Cultural Drama and Popular Culture in Transitions during class this afternoon. I wasn't exactly sure what to expect at the SCOM Conference panel presentation, but I must admit that I was pleasantly surprised at the experience. It is always refreshing to hear fellow students share their outstanding work, and I was quite impressed by the papers that were presented today. The topics varied greatly, ranging from PostSecret, to President George W. Bush's post 9/11 speech, to Virginia's Natural Bridge. The first presenter was fellow classmate Amanda Philips, whose paper was titled "God's Creation (Complete with Stage Lighting): An Analysis of "The Drama of Creation"." She discussed the nighttime dramatic show that is held at sunset at the Natural Bridge, consisting of a visual and an environmental tenant. The show provides a condensed interpretation of Genesis 1 and uses verbal text, lighting, and musical reinforcement in order to create a theatrical performance. I was especially interested in learning more about this, since I did not realize that such a show even existed. Amanda closed by discussing the implications of the show on society, including the possible effects that may result from commercialization of such natural landmarks. I thought Amanda's analysis and ideas were very well formulated, and her presentation was very clear and easy to follow. Very impressive!
Next, Justin DeLockery presented his paper, titled "President G.W. Bush's Address following September 11th." He discussed how Bush's presidency prior to 9/11 could be considered "uneventful" or even "uninspiring," but his speech on September 20th marked the beginning of his rise in public approval. This speech also introduced a new vocabulary that would be heard and referenced for the duration of his presidency. This includes terms such as radical Islamic terrorism, Osama Bin Laden, and homeland security. This speech was intended to "bolster American spirit," solidify the upcoming fight as a battle of good vs. evil, and provide assurance to the American people during a time of worry and unrest. Justin went on to discuss the varying personas that President Bush's took on during this time. I felt that Justin presented an excellent analysis of President Bush's speech.
Lastly, Jamie Koslosky presented her paper, titled "PostSecret: A Study in the Art of Confessional Fetishes." Jamie analyzed Frank Warren's fourth book: "A Lifetime of Secrets," which is a collection of postcards that have been submitted to him that divulge individuals deepest secrets. She conducted her analysis based on 3 themes, including future outlook, families & parenting, and humorous personal stories. She deducted that the young adults who send their secrets to Warren are not engaging in an effective form of communication, since there is no interaction involved and the intended recipient never actually receives the message. Jamie answered many follow-up questions after her presentation, and yet again, I was very impressed with her analysis.
In closing, I would just like to say thanks to Mike for allowing us to attend this panel presentation during class. I found it to be not only informative, but enjoyable. I certainly would not want to be a judge for the panel, as I feel that all 3 presenters are deserving of an award.
Today I attended the Cultural Drama and Popular Culture portion of the Conference Events. Amanda, Justin and Jamie all presented papers to the audience that they had constructed throughout the semester. All three focused on a different topic and approached it from a unique perspective. The first speaker, Amanda, analyzed the drama of creation at a local natural setting, the Natural Bridge. She focused her attention on the concept of forcing religion on environmental settings and the implications of that. She took the audience through all of the steps that take place at the natural bridge and then discussed the problems with this phenomenon. I thought she delivered her paper very well. I was able to stay engaged the whole time and she illustrated the topic very well, it almost felt like I was actually at the bridge. Her organization was outstanding and I was never out of the loop. The second speaker, Justin, talked about the speech George W. Bush gave to the public after the events of September 11 occurred. He exercised the notion of pathos very well because he made himself appear credible through the use of sources and examples. As far as argumentation goes, I thought he was pretty convincing. I can’t exactly say I am a fan of GW but he was able to get me to accept his idea that Bush’s speech was effective at that certain time. The third speaker, Jamie, discussed the popular cultural phenomenon that is known as “post-secret”. What really kept me engaged in her delivery was her use of pictures. Not only did it add to the aesthetic aspect of her speech but also made her appear more credible because she provided us with an abundance of examples. Her argument was that “post-secret” exercised inadequate communication because it’s a sender base concept thus no feedback exists. This was persuasive for me because of the amount of times it was reiterated to me in my entry level SCOM classes. I was able to relate to her argument, which helped a lot. Overall, I thought all three presenters did an excellent job and I’m glad I had the opportunity to hear them speak about such diverse topics.
I went to this event with very high expectations, and unfortunately, I was a little disappinted. I had no idea that the asbestos crisis was so major or so prominent, so I think Dr. Schwarze's work is not only interesting, but necessary. However, I think he spent too much time giving background information, causing him to rush his analysis of the communication, which was something I was waiting to hear. Being a communication conference, I was expecting to hear more about his analysis of the melodrama and how the crisis became part of public policy. Overall, his speech was rather overwhelming and scary, but some of his effectiveness was lost in the amount of background information- I do not feel compelled to investigate or seek information regarding the asbestos crisis. I think his speech had the potential to serve as a model for how papers should be presented and how rhetorical analysis can be done, but it fell short. Interesting topic, but I was left wanting more.
I agree with Karly in response to Steven Schwarze's presentation on the asbestos crisis. I was, at first, impressed with his extensive knowledge of the issue and the amount of information he gave the audience to understand what exactly the problem was, but he let his presentation fall in to exactly what he was speaking out against. He explained the issue to the room but didn't take enough time to explain the communication behind it that allowed the crisis to happen in the first place. I would have loved to hear more examples about the melodramatic frame put on this issue by the people of Libby and how that has been used by people in other similar situations to fight against environmental contamination. It would have also been interesting to hear about the environmental justice movement and the importance placed on people's health when looking at environmental issues.
I attended the panel during class on Tuesday. Amanda, Justin, and Jamie all presented their papers. Amanda's presentation was great and it was nice to see classmate representation at the event. I have unfortunately never been to the Natural Bridge but I think examining the secular messages with the "light show" at night was a very unique and interesting topic. I would be interested to know if there are other instances of this around the country. Justin's paper was extremely well-written. I felt like his presentation would have been a little more effective if he showed actual clips of George Bush's address. I also admired the fact that he wrote his paper and gave his presentation with very little bias. Jamie's presentation was probably the most "fun" and it was by far the most organized and easy-to-follow. I liked that she categorized the confessions into Post Secret as fetishes. It probably wasn't the best idea to talk about the definition of communication with a bunch of communication professors in the room, but she did the best she could in the question and answer session. Overall, I learned a lot and I am glad class was held at this event.
I went to Panel Session IV and heard Amanda, Justin, and Jamie's speeches who are all in at least one of my classes. It was interesting to see what they were doing their research papers on for our 381 class as well. I enjoyed Amanda's paper on the Natural Bridge and the "religious" light show. I liked it because I wasn't aware that A) there is a light show that quotes Genesis on a regular basis and B) the natural bridge, a naturally occuring geological feature, could be and is privately owned. It makes me question the concept of land ownership in general and how any human being could think they own parts of a forest or a natural geologic structure, such as the natural bridge. But all criticisms aside, the bridge is privately owned and is used as a way to enlighten people with biblical verses and a light show - perfect. Amanda's speech was well-organized and I found the topic interesting. I also enjoyed Jamie's speech and thought it was all very well organized and interesting. Post secret is a very interesting topic to me because hey, maybe I do have a fetish with reading other people's secrets. I thought her only drawback was giving her own definition of what communication is. She said she went back to her GCOM class in defining it but from what I remember from GCOM and 240 and 245, my professors always stressed that there are so many definitions of communication and some people define it differently than others. I knew giving a definition of communication in a room of SCOM professors and students would cause a stir, and it did. I think she knows where she could have done better in her speech and paper and have a feeling she will making some changes to her paper before we have to turn it in.
I also attended the SCOM conference during class time on Tuesday. I really had no idea what to expect, but did enjoy what I heard. Amanda's presentation on the Natural Bridge was very interesting. I first off did not know that it was privately owned and even more surprised to see that the beauty of the natural structure is connected to the story of creation. I enjoyed her presentation on how the spectacle of lights and narrative combined with the bridge creates such a spectacle. It was very interesting to hear how the communication is advanced by the light spectacle. The other one that I thought was interesting, but was not presented in a way that I would have thought was the communication or lack there of according to the presenter in the Post Secret book. It was only a few months ago that I even knew such a thing existed, never mind that there were books written with the postcard secrets. I can see where she would say that there is not effective communication for some of the post cards if the intended reader never sees it, but I think the more interesting aspect to analyze is the communication the author of Post Secret conveys based on his placement of the post cards and figuring out his views on different issues on the various topics. This I do think would be an effective form of communication because the readers of his book would be the intended audience, and even though he may not be using his own words, he is definitely communication his stance on certain situations. Overall I thought this event was a good advocacy event for communication because there was an array of different types of communication being presented, not only by the presenters but by the posters of other students that did not present during that session.
After attending the panel of presenters during class on April 14th. While I thought that all the presenters did an excellent job conveying the goals of their research, I was a little unclear as to what precisely the three presentations had in common. The label for the panel was a little misleading I think. Regardless, I think Amanda, Jamie and Justin all tackled very unique topics to explore the usage of texts and how the employment of those texts can be focused or targeted to convey a message not explicitly contained within those texts. It showed me alot about how pieces of writing often contain much more subtle meaning than initially meets the eye.
I attended the panel on April 14th that ranged from the Natural Bridge drama to Bush's 911 speech. I thought that the presenters obviously understood their rhetorical criticism theories that applied to their texts.
The presentation on Post Secret was lacking some rhetorical analysis, however. When addressing the topic of Post Secret, I think the presenter could have addressed the combination of text and images. Sometimes the post cards had images that were juxtaposed to the text, and it has some influence on the rhetorical aspect of the message.
I attended Panel Session IV: Cultural Drama and Popular Culture with the rest of our class. I was not sure what to expect, but I truly enjoyed all three of the presentations. I found all of them to be interesting and I definitely learned a lot from listening to these presenters.
The first presentation was by fellow classmate, Amanda. Amanda's paper was on Virginia's Natural Bridge and the nighttime show that is held at sunset. Amanda talked about how the show at the Natural Bridge depicts the biblical story of creation through the Genesis I text. The show includes many theatrical elements such as lighting, text and music to create a show for the audience. Amanda then examined the fact that since the bridge is privately owned, it is up to them to do what they want with the bridge and it is their right to decide how the show is depicted. It is a communicative decision to remove things from the story and that can impact how the audience views the show and creation. I did not know much about the Natural Bridge, and I though Amanda did a great job with presenting her paper and I enjoyed listening to it. Amanda gave a thorough speech on how privately owned landmarks can affect others through many communication aspects. I thought her paper was well written and after hearing it, it made me want to do more research to learn more about the Natural Bridge.
The second speaker, Justin, presented his paper on the address former president George W. Bush made after the attacks on September 11. Justin started off the speech by talking about how Bush’s presidency was very uneventful which led him to have bad credibility until the attacks happened and he became a legitimate leader of the people. His speech on September 20, 2001 marked the beginning of his rise in credibility and public approval. Bush was able to relate to the emotions of the American people and was able to shed light on what had happened. This made him a strong leader of the people and was the turning point of his presidency. He also introduced a new set of vocabulary words such as homeland security, war on terror and Taliban, that would follow him through the duration of his presidency. Justin did a great job of explaining the role of President Bush after the September 11 attacks and how this led to a new presidency for him. I thought Justin's paper was very interesting, especially because it showed how a medicre president stepped up in a time of need and became a leader for the nation. I really enjoyed his presentation and it made me think about how Obama is gaining credibility right now just as Bush gained it during the September 11 attacks.
The final presenter was Jamie, and she wrote her paper on Frank Warren’s fourth publication, A Lifetime of Secrets. Jamie talked about how Frank Warren is now seen as the most trusted stranger in America because so many people trust him with their secrets. Jamie based her analysis on three themes which were future outlook, families and parents, and embarrassing or humorous stories. After evaluating the process of people sending in secrets, she determined that effective communication is not happening because only one party is sending, and there is no receiver or feedback. If a person sends in a secret, the chances that the person it is meant for will see it, is very slim. Therefore, effective communication is not taking place while people anonymously send in their secrets. I look at Post Secrets every week, and even own a couple of the books, so I was very interested in her speech. I agree with her on some points, like effective communication isn't taking place if the person meant to read the postcard never does. But, I also disagree because perhaps Warren is the intended person meant to read the postcard. I feel that this can do either way, and more research has to be done to determine the true answer. I really enjoyed her presentation and it made me think about Post Secret and how it works as communication.
I attended the panel during class on Tuesday. Amanda, Justin, and Jamie all presented their papers. I think I liked Jamie's paper the best simply because it dealt with post secret which I've heard about before, and which has interested me. I thought that it was particularly interesting that post secret was not seen as communication because it was not interactual. It was also interesting to hear the group's questions, some of which involved hypothesizing about ways in which it could become communication. I also enjoyed Carlos' response about the emerging rhetorical devices like post secret in which a message may be seen as a selfless divulgence when it is really a venue to recieve praise or attention.
~ Dylan Fawcett
I attended the panel session with the rest of the class featuring the work of Amanda, Justin and Jamie. I was particularly interested in Amanda's paper, as it seemed to be the most clear in advocating a specific position (that it was inappropriate for a "natural wonder" like Natural Bridge to be presented in a biased way). Though I strongly disagree with the implication that public property rights should trump private property rights, I was impressed by the way her argument was constructed. She began with a subtle illumination of how it could be seen that the Natural Bridge presentation was misrepresenting a Christian interpretation of the world, which served to disarm the most avid opponents of her proposal to eliminate privately endorsed religious messages connected with "public" property.
I attended the panel session IV that had each of the presenters talking about topics that ranged from the natural bridge in Virginia to Bush's post 9/11 speech and finally to post secret. I thought that each of the presentations had their positive effect, but I feel the Bush 9/11 speech was lacking in emotion. i don't know what it was that he was really arguing for or against or if he was advocating that Bush was a good or bad president. He presented the speech as if he was just telling us what it said instead of how he really felt about it and how it intertwined with communication. The other 2 presentations I feel provided solid personal opinions and let all of us know about what it meant to have a natural bridge in Virginia and the way communication can be looked at when you are seeing it from an anonymous source. I think both of these presentations advocated topics they felt were important to them.
I would like to first start of by saying that conference was nothing like I had expected. After witnessing Amanda, Justin and Jamie present, I wish I had gotten a chance to see more of the various types of presentations held at the conference. In my critical response to the event, I will shortly summarize what I obtained from each of the three presenters and then go into the strengths and weaknesses of the event itself. Amanda’s topic covered Natural Bridge’s visual and auditory aspects of architecture as a text. Throughout her presentation she gave brief glimpses of each scene and how the visual and auditory aspects related to each. An ideological approach was taken to rhetorically analyze the text which main purpose is to offer change in society, and adherence to a set of ideals where conformity already exists, through a normative thought process. A few implications that I found her to justify were the impact versus the interpretation of Natural Bridge and the impact of environmentally enhancing these features.
Justin, on the other hand, rhetorically analyzed a more basic form of text: the speech President Bush gave after September 11. This speech, given to congress on September 20, marked a time when Bush’s approval ratings skyrocketed. Throughout Justin’s presentation, he demonstrated a thorough understanding of the subject matter rhetorically analyzing the text by using Campbell’s typology. The two main aspects that he looked at of the seven typologies were purpose and persona. The purpose was described as promising that, “Justice will be done.” He described Bush as a legit leader of the people, defining him as having these qualities: directly relatable, tone of assurance, defined what, who which ultimately gave him credibility, and represented a wartime president. Using this text, Justin concluded that this text gives us a good understanding of possible crisis management techniques and how to build the American spirit.
Immediately following Jamie’s presentation, I went home, signed onto the Internet, and Googled PostSecret. PostSecret is a series of publications that has been developed where people can blog, etc. about their own personal secrets. She further went on to justify the examination of secrets as text but as an inadequate form of communication. She developed PostSecret into three categories: future outlook (gloomy), talking to family (embarrassment), and humor (silliness). These three categories were rhetorically analyzed by their theme and in particular their placement within the publication. The most interesting image came when she related the sharing of secrets to fetishes and ultimately a strip tease.
Strengths
As I stated at the beginning of the paper, the conference was nothing like I had expected. I almost felt as if I was in a press conference discussing top-secret things. The part that I liked most about the conference was the fact that there was a discussion period at the end, which allowed the viewers to interact with the presenters. I felt each student did a descent job at answering his or her questions on the spot. Jaime did get the brute of most of the questions, but kept her composure and answered them to the best of her ability. Another aspect that I liked about the conference were the actually topics themselves. Natural Bridge, President Bush’s speech, and PostSecret were all fascinating topics that I had never rhetorical considered before. The students did a wonderful job choosing text that I felt like interested them and therefore allowed for a more emotional connect to the piece of text. Another aspect that I enjoyed was the capability of using visual images. As an individual who has a very hard time learning strictly from auditory presentations, I was better able to understand and visual see the text.
Weaknesses
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed attending the communication conference and gained a better understanding of not only the topics covered but also the different ways in which individuals analyze text rhetorically. My only thought about how the event was hindered was the room in which it took place. Having a room that large and placing a projector screen in the middle in front of the podium with chair that made it even harder to see the screen hindered by ability to fully appreciate the event itself and made it harder for me to concentrate on the presentations. Other than the layout of the event, I felt like the promotion for the event was obsolete. If I hadn’t been required to go by another class or was in a research class, I would have had little to no knowledge about the event (like years before). In conclusion, I would give the communication conference a 94 as it’s grade.
Post a Comment