Introduction: What is a Controversy?

In this chapter, you will learn:

What a controversy is

How to characterize different kinds controversies so that you can choose one to focus on for this course

How to identify pieces of your controversy so that you can begin to research and map it**

Controversies Defined

It’s the title of your textbook and it’s the subject of this rhetoric and writing course. While taking this class, you will choose, research, analyze, and participate in discourse about a current controversy. So what is a controversy? Here’s the simplest answer and the easiest way to think about the subject of our course:

A controversy is something people argue about in public.

And if it were really that simple, then you could skip this introduction and jump right into your first major assignment. But, as you will learn over the course of Unit 1, controversies are complex. Your job in the first unit is to research just how complicated a recent or ongoing public controversy is and then explain it through writing for an audience that might include:

people who don’t know anything about the controversy
people who are already interested in your controversy and want to know more
people who should know about the controversy but don’t understand “why it’s a big deal”

In this course, we will refer to this research and explanation as “mapping the controversy” i.e.figuring out and explaining through writing the many pieces of a debate, historical and ongoing, to an interested but uninformed audience.

Let’s start with an example: A few years ago, the Texas legislature approved a bill that would allow concealed handguns on university campuses. The legislature also began to consider a second bill that would allow people with gun licenses to carry holstered guns openly. We live in a country where Second Amendment rights are broadly interpreted and rigorously upheld. We also live in a country where gun violence is common and tragic. So it is unsurprising that these bills sparked heated argument.

At a glance, you might conclude that the disagreement was between those who oppose gun safety and those who want a comfortable environment for learning. Or you might conclude that the controversy was between those who “want to protect constitutional rights” and those who “want to take those rights away.” But these descriptions oversimplify the issue and peoples’ positions within it by presenting myriad opinions as a binary. Controversies always have more than two sides. These descriptions also use biased language to describe positions, pushing readers to feel a certain way about a certain side. In this chapter and in this course, we want to avoid these kinds of oversimplification and misrepresentation.

Instead, we encourage you to take a careful and critical view of controversies: to understand what created the controversy; to appreciate the complexity of the issue; to see what is at stake for a variety of different people; and to fairly express different peoples’ perspectives and the contexts from which they arise.

As an example, let’s look again at U.T.’s Second Amendment debate to see how complicated it is. Think about the concealed and open-carry bills in the Texas state legislature. Needless to say, many people wanted to protect Second Amendment rights. Such people are typically represented by professional political organizations (such as Open Carry Texas). Such organizations may or may not be from the immediate community. Open Carry Tarrant County, for instance, has little to do with the University of Texas. This organization is not even connected to Travis County, where UT is located. Yet Open Carry Tarrant County supported the bill to allow concealed weapons on Texas college campuses because they have a broader mission. The larger organization (Open Carry Texas) boldly announces its purpose on their homepage (opencarrytexas.org): “We’re dedicated to the safe and legal carry of firearms openly in the state of Texas.” They have no direct connection to U.T. or Tarrant County yet they have political interest in decisions made about these spaces. If gun-rights advocates are one group of stakeholders, university students are another. Some UT students, in the aftermath of shootings at other American universities, fear for their safety. Others want the right to carry a firearm, a right they exercise (safely) elsewhere. University personnel like faculty, instructors, and grounds workers also have a stake in this matter. Many professors feel uncomfortable around firearms and prefer that their classrooms be a firearm free zone. Local police worry about safety but also the cost of additional measures made necessary by the bill. The chief of the Austin police, Art Acevedo, stated publicly that open carry legislation would require more extensive training for local police, training that would raise the cost of local law enforcement. And finally, the university administration had a stake in these bills. Universities must represent the interests of faculty, staff, and students and also manage the desires of their donors. Because of all of these different perspectives, the university chancellors have refused to take a firm stand. The Texas A&M System Chancellor, John Sharp, said that he wanted his students to enjoy the same rights and privileges both on and off campus. Sharp’s statement implies but does not openly support the concealed or open-carry bills. The UT System Chancellor, William McRaven, stated that he was concerned about safety but more concerned about funding higher education. McRaven’s statement, like yet unlike Sharp’s, attempts to address the concerns of UT staff, students, and faculty without firmly condemning these bills.

All of these stakeholders’ positions and perspectives are nuanced and must be considered to map a controversy. Such discourse cannot be reduced to simple “pro” and “con” or “point” and “counterpoint.” You have to work through the controversy’s complexity.

Further Discussion: Controversies often focus on particular actions—legislative bills, city council ordinances, school board decisions. These are policies, plans for action, and they tend to be at the center of the most heated controversies. In your local communities, what policies are people arguing about? What policies are they debating? Who is interested in these debates and why? Are you interested in this debate? Should you be? Does the policy affect you or something you care about?</span>.

Controversies Characterized

At the end of Unit 1, you will map a controversy like the University of Texas’ response to the State of Texas’ concealed and open-carry bills: one that involves many different groups of people and an argument over a specific course of action. As a public, we argue endlessly–what to do, what to care about, what to believe. A controversy may be national in scope: Should people in the United States believe that global warming is caused by human activity? A controversy may be local in scope and focus on a particular state or city: Should Texas expand Medicaid to cover more people? A controversy can be international: Should Western nations offer military support to rebels in Syria? If you are using this book as part of a course, it is likely your instructor will set certain parameters for your project.

In our introductory example, we focused on a controversy that is particular to the state of Texas. But many controversies, while local, have broad effects on other states and the nation. For instance, The University of Texas considers students’ race in the admissions process, in an effort to increase the diversity of its student body. Such a “race-conscious” admissions policy is very specific to UT. However, if this admissions policy turns out to be unconstitutional, as alleged in Supreme Court case (Fisher v. University of Texas), then the controversy will be national because many universities in the country have similarly race-conscious admissions policies. If the Supreme Court decides in favor of Abigail Fisher, then the University of Texas and other universities around the country will have to rethink their efforts at increasing diversity through admissions policies. And there will surely be debate about the new policies.

Similarly, after the Texas legislature passed both the concealed and the open carry bills, there was much debate about what policies and procedures UT would have to put in place. The question stopped being, “Should we allow concealed weapons on campus?” and started being “How should we allow concealed weapons on campus?” The bill signed into Texas law forces the allowance of weapons on campus generally but allows universities to individually determine “safe zones” on their own campus where guns are not allowed. As a result, after it was passed, the school began asking things like “In what specific areas should we not allow concealed weapons on campus? In what specific situations can a student face consequences for concealed carry?” Now, the debate about concealed weapons on college campuses is moving outside of the state of Texas to other places, where state legislatures are considering laws that allow concealed weapons on their own campuses. What Texas and U.T. decide might, therefore, become a model for other places.

Whatever it is, the controversy you choose must have certain qualities: it must be public and it must be recent. Knowing these terms and their definitions will help you to choose a controversy and understand its larger impact.

Controversies that are public

People argue constantly—about clothing styles, movie preferences, religious beliefs, state laws, and workplace habits. We tend to think of these disagreements as either public or private. A private controversy affects only those in a particular relationship, organization, or company. For example, you can disagree with your roommates about music: “Dubstep is the greatest thing since reggae.” “Reggae is boring, and dubstep is worse.” But the controversy remains private because your personal musical preferences will not affect many people. It won’t even affect your roommate if you always wear headphones. However, whether or not you get to play your music loudly late at night is a public matter because the noise will affect everyone in your neighborhood or building.

Public controversies arise when some people want to do something that will affect many others—people outside a given club, company, or social network. For example, city governments in the U.S. have to decide whether or not to fund and facilitate recycling programs for their homes and neighborhoods. This decision greatly influences whether or not (and also how much) their civilians’ recycle with long-term effects on the environment and also on countries responsible for disposing of America’s trash.

Sometimes, it can be hard to distinguish between public from private controversies. Some matters seem private but they affect a lot of people. A company can require its employees to wear suits and skirts below the knee. The matter seems private because it seems to only affect members of the company. Yet these dress requirements affect women in the workplace everywhere by normalizing policing of their bodies and behavior. This requirement might also affect the hiring of employees from lower- or middle-class backgrounds who cannot afford required work attire, limiting job availability for lower income families and also impacting company production by limiting the variety of perspectives it draws on. So while this matter first appears to only affect members of a private corporate space, the larger public can be greatly affected by such decisions. Other times, issues made very public–like the recruitment of new football players–don’t actually affect very many people.

Here are a few qualities that should help you to identify public controversies.

First, many people from different perspectives are debating the matter. When lots of people who have different interests care about the issue, then typically the controversy affects enough people to be a public matter.
Second, people are debating the issue in public spaces. This second criterion raises an immediate question: What’s a public space? If we lived hundreds of years ago, then the “public” space would be a physical location, an open area in the center of a town or a city where people gathered to discuss, to hear speeches, and to make decisions. Town squares and plazas are examples of such public spaces. Today, however, no one goes to the local park, stands on a soap box, and orates about the need for ground troops in the Middle East, the problem with farm subsidies, or the decay of American culture. Nowadays, people debate public issues in various media and various venues. Media refers to the means of communication: whether an issue is brought to an audience through the internet or through print or through the built environment. Venue refers to the specific place where discourse happens: if it occurs in an issue of the New York Times or a post on The Federalist or a History Channel television special or a BBC documentary or a Tweet. The involvement of such media and venues doesn’t provide surefire proof that a controversy is public. People discuss plenty of private matters on blogs and on the comments threads of various websites. Lots of media is about private matters—what to wear, DIY home repair, cooking shows. And many newspapers and magazines focus on shopping and tabloid journalism, decidedly private matters. You’re looking for mostly public venues: the opinion/editorial pages of any newspaper; television programs featuring debate or one strong viewpoint; websites focused on commentary rather than news reporting.
Third, when expressing their interests, values, and beliefs, people try to persuade others who may not share their interests, values, and beliefs. Of course, in many private controversies, we try to appeal to our audiences. However, in private matters it is always easier to “preach to the choir,” that is, to tell the audience things they already agree with or believe, because people who belong to the same club or work for the same corporation likely have similar beliefs and interests. Public controversies, on the other hand, affect and attract people with a broad range of interests, values, and beliefs. Therefore, to be widely persuasive, people arguing in public controversies must address many different interests.

Speakers address their different listeners in many ways: sometimes speakers directly address specific members of the audience; sometimes speakers point out where they know they and their audience members agree; sometimes speakers tell a story they think will resonate with many different people’s personal experiences; or they might acknowledge specific beliefs held by audience members to refute them. We will return to these specific parts of discourse in later chapters. For now, it is sufficient to realize public discourse must address the needs and interests of many publics within the general public to be effective. And that, if you read something and see the writer making these moves, you have likely stumbled across a public controversy.

Brief Exercise: Identify a website as public or private. Go to tumblr.com, pinterest.com, or wordpress.com. Browse a few blogs/pages/pins. (You will have to create accounts with Wordpress and Pinterest to browse their selection of pages and pins, but many Tumblr sites will be available without signing in.) In order to decide if each site is a public or private site, ask yourself the following questions:

Does this site feature opinions and beliefs about matters that will likely affect many different people in a society?

Does this venue address an audience with various interests and beliefs—not just people who belong to a particular club, work for a particular company, or share an appreciation for a certain kind of art or music?

Is this venue available to all or most of the people in a community or society?. Present evidence to support your claim that this is a public or private venue. For example, you might say, “This website is mostly a private venue because it features articles about the best fabrics for making quilts, and quilt-making is unlikely to affect anyone other than quiltmakers and fabric manufacturers. Furthermore, the website is hosted by the Quiltmaker’s Club, a magazine that sells patterns to hobbyists. Only people with a particular interest are likely to read the magazine or consult the website. Finally, the comments about the articles are written by quiltmakers.”</span>.

For Further Discussion: Why is it so difficult to identify the venues of public argument? Why can’t we just go to one place where everyone gathers to talk about public affairs? Such a single place existed and was used a long time ago. The Roman forum was a large space in the middle of a city, a place where people shopped. Since everyone came there regularly, public officials (senators, consuls, and so forth) often spoke publicly about the affairs of the state. They stood at a rostrum and orated about the res publicae, the public affairs. Sometimes an orator would simply stand and deliver news about an ongoing war or a recent law. Sometimes an orator would try to drum up support for a military campaign or a proposed law. In modern society, after the printing press was invented and literacy became more widespread, newspapers and pamphlets took the forum’s place. As recently as the eighteenth century, when there were many who could not read, people still gathered in the town square (also a common location for the market) to hear someone read the newspaper aloud. Reading newspapers aloud to illiterate citizens also occurred in public houses (bars) and coffeehouses where they spent their leisure time, and in factories where they worked. Nowadays, most people can read, so print culture has all but replaced oral delivery. In this brief historical narrative, you can see a major shift in public media and venue. From oral media to print. From the venue of the forum to that of the newspaper. How is the move from newspapers to the Internet another major shift? What does it change about the way people receive information and argue about controversies? Do you think Twitter is replacing the New York Times just as the New York Times replaced the town square?

Controversies that are Recent

Right now, no one is debating whether the United States should be part of Great Britain. No one in the United States is debating whether or not we should implement a nationwide ban on the production, importation, and sale of alcoholic beverages. No one is debating the overturn of the 19th Amendment that gave women the right to vote. These enormous and specific public controversies are past, even if we are still dealing with their systematic causes and effects. In this textbook, we are looking at issues that currently require decision and action–in other words, recent controversies.

For your project, look for a specific issue that people are debating right now. We suggest that there is a critical time during a controversy—after people are affected and before they are fed up—when they can resolve their differences with discourse and argumentation.

Example 1: People no longer argue about whether the United States should have a public retirement system because we agreed to create Social Security. This is a past controversy. People DO argue about how much the public retirement system should provide for each citizen. This is a current controversy.

Example 2: People no longer argue about how we should deal with the AIDS epidemic in the United States because anti-retroviral drugs have largely made AIDS a chronic condition, something manageable with proper medical treatment. This is a past controversy. People DO argue about how to make such anti-retroviral drugs cheaper, more widely available, and how to prevent the further spread of HIV. This is a current controversy.

Most controversies are ongoing controversies, flaring up and dying down as circumstances inspire people to revisit old disagreements in new forms. Since its inception, the United States has experienced ongoing controversies about race relations, border reform, income inequality, gender equality, and more. These controversies evolve over time. Throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, for instance, people debated the “proper” economic roles in a heterosexual marriage. At first, people debated whether a woman could own property. Then people debated whether a woman could or should work outside the home. Now, we debate whether women should be paid the same as men. We debate requirements for family leave. We debate issues of sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace.

Ongoing controversies develop into long standing divisions between publics, which means they engage many different people’s interests. Politicians run on platforms built from “solutions” to ongoing controversies. But they are also difficult to engage because of their complexity and longevity. Often, ongoing controversies will disappear from mainstream public discourse for a time and then pop back up, often prompted by an event. For example, in 1998 Lilly Ledbetter sued the General Motors Corporation for not paying her the same wage earned by men with similar status. She lost the case on technical grounds. Her loss in court prompted the U.S. Congress to pass the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which, in effect, removed the technicality that led the Supreme Court to rule against her. During the decade between Ledbetter’s initial suit and the Ledbetter Act’s approval, people revisited the issue of gender inequality in the workplace. Because of a Supreme Court case and a pending U.S. bill, an ongoing controversy became a recent controversy.

It is important to remember that just because an ongoing controversy has “disappeared” from mainstream public discourse does not mean it is no longer affecting people’s lives. It does not mean the issue is “solved.” It just means primary news sources and primary media outlets are not talking about it.

Further Discussion: “Black Lives Matter” demonstrations have developed across the country protesting police brutality and discrimination against African Americans. These protests were triggered by the murder of George Floyd, a Black man accused of passing a $20 counterfeit bill who died when an officer knelt on his neck for eight minutes. George Floyd’s death triggered enormous protests across the nation, but he is one example of a much larger and much longer tradition in America’s history and law enforcement where Black lives are valued far less, protected less often, and also ended more quickly than White lives. The counterprotest “All Lives Matter” has propagated in response to the “Black Lives Matter” movement. Is this a recent controversy? How do these two arguments understand the larger, ongoing controversy? Who is protesting that “Black Lives Matter” and what is their investment in the movement? Who is protesting that “All Lives Matter” and what is their investment in this counter movement? How do both manifest the deep-rooted and ongoing issues of injustice related to race in this country?

And that’s what you’re looking for—a recent controversy. It doesn’t have to be part of an ongoing controversy; you can choose something relatively new such as the debate over the legalization of marijuana. While it is related to long-time debates over drug use in America, it is new because of certain states’ recent decisions to legalize marijuana for recreational consumption. There are, therefore, two kinds of controversies in this discourse:

An ongoing controversy—made recent by new laws: Does the personal use of marijuana have mostly good or mostly bad public consequences?
A new controversy—made possible by new laws: How should we regulate the sale, distribution, and personal use of marijuana? We can also anticipate another new controversy that may erupt:
How and when should we punish those caught driving while under the influence of marijuana? Of course, this last question remains a future controversy, something we don’t argue about (yet) because we do not yet feel or acknowledge the public effects of people smoking marijuana and driving. Once we do feel or acknowledge these effects—once a stoned driver kills a child—we will begin to debate this question.

For Further Discussion: Controversies about race and the criminal justice system have been ongoing in the United States for more than a century. In the last few decades, we have debated several questions: Should police be allowed to use tactics—like stopping and frisking people at will—even when those tactics disproportionally affect people of color? Why are people of color incarcerated at exponentially higher rates than “White” people? How does the justice system help sustain ongoing inequity in minority communities? Recently, two kinds of events have brought these issues back to mainstream public discourse: police killing of innocent black men, women, and children and protests against police treatment of certain populations. How are these recent events connected? Did recent police actions cause an ongoing controversy about race and criminal justice to become recent? Or did the protests raise awareness about longstanding police behaviors? Or is there something else to consider? Can we attribute awareness of this recent controversy to the sudden proliferation of cell phones with video cameras that enable public recording of police and protest activity? Many people attribute 1960s controversies about civil rights to the media’s use of video cameras during marches and sit-ins, etc. When Americans saw segregation and police violence against peaceful marchers on their television screens, they became invested and angry. Can we say the same about the events in Ferguson, New York City, or Madison, Wisconsin? Did people start to care about race and criminal justice when they saw YouTube videos of Staten Island police choking a man or when they saw a cellphone video of a South Carolina officer shooting someone in the back? </span>

In sum, for your project, you are looking for a controversy people are debating right now, whether new or part of an ongoing debate, because of a contemporary development. You want to choose something that requires a decision be made or an agreement be reached or law be passed in the near future.

Brief Exercise: Find two opinion articles. After reading both, answer the following questions:

What controversy (major question) does each article try to address?

Is the controversy recent, past, or future?

If the opinion article addresses a recent controversy, what event prompted this debate?

If the opinion article addresses a past controversy, has the question already been settled, or is it ongoing?

If the article addresses a future controversy, what would have to happen for people to really start debating this question?

Based on your answers to the above questions, decide which article addresses a controversy that deserves to be mapped and explain why.

Parts of a Controversy

All controversies include a range of viewpoints that come from different stakeholders, each uniquely invested in certain interests, beliefs, and values. Knowing these terms and their definitions will provide structure for mapping your controversy understand its affects on specific individuals and communities. This vocabulary will become the foundation for your research and writing in this course.

Identifying Stakeholders

So far, we have explained the status of a controversy by talking about its place in time. A more current or recent controversy is likely to engage more people than a because we tend to care more about things that affect us now. We also care most about things that affect us most directly. People become stakeholders in a controversy when they are directly affected by its issues. The stakeholders in any controversy are the ones most likely to write opinion columns, to collect signatures, to donate money, and to organize protests.

Of course, a controversy with more stakeholders is likely to be more important to more people. Consider the ongoing debate about the U.S. healthcare system. We are all stakeholders in this controversy because we all depend upon doctors, hospitals, and other medical services. As a result, this controversy will not go away anytime soon.

Knowing who stakeholders are and why they care about an issue will help you understand why the controversy has taken a particular shape. In the healthcare debate, for instance, you might wonder why people argue about whether all states must expand Medicaid. If we really want to give healthcare to everyone, then expanding coverage to include the poor sounds like a good idea, something we can all get behind. But to see why some people disagree, let’s think about two groups of stakeholders: Some politicians have been elected to state office (state governors, senators, representatives). They have an interest—a stake—in maintaining local control over what their government does. A federal requirement (or incentive) to expand Medicaid takes some of that local control away. Other politicians, especially those elected to national office (the president, U.S. senators, and U.S. representatives) have a stake in expanding federal authority over state governments, especially when that authority allows them to do things they think right and good. So two stakeholders—local politicians and federal politicians—argue about expanding Medicaid. Federal politicians say the Medicaid expansion is a good extension of the federal government’s authority. Local politicians say the Medicaid expansion is a bad infringement on state government. This example is, of course, oversimplified. Many members of the U.S. congress side with their state governments because they want to reduce the size of the federal government or for other reasons—the Medicaid expansion is costly, may be ineffective, and so forth. And many state officials favor the Medicaid expansion because they believe it will bring extra money to their local economies. Though oversimplified, this example is useful because it highlights two kinds of stakeholders and the reasons they have taken particular positions in this controversy. If you can similarly identify the stakeholders in your controversy, then you can begin to imagine what these people might say, based on their interests, their beliefs, and their values.

Before moving on to the next section, take a moment to think carefully about three terms we have used in this chapter so far and will use later in this textbook: interest, belief, and value. These three terms offer a useful way to analyze stakeholders.

Interests: These are individuals’, groups’, or communities’ material stakes in a controversy. People become interested in an issue typically because their lives are affected in negative or positive ways. Depending on the controversy’s outcome, they stand to win or lose something. Asking “What is materially at stake for this group of people?” is crucial to understanding a controversy. In the healthcare controversy mentioned above, politicians stand to win or lose authority and also campaign money. The healthcare controversy touches on many other groups’ financial interests as well. Healthcare providers and medical-device manufacturers might gain or lose money. Patients might pay more or less for care that is better or worse. People might pay more or less for their insurance. A quick reflection reveals four stakeholders with financial interests: healthcare providers, medical-device manufacturers, patients, and insurance-policy holders. Their interests are also more than financial. A stakeholder’s interests may be aesthetic. Someone owning a house in a neighborhood may care about a building development (a new shopping mall, for example) because it will be ugly or beautiful. And separate interests may overlap. The same person who frets about that unsightly new shopping mall might also worry that their property value will go down once this eyesore is visible from their front yard. When you try to identify stakeholders according to their interests, ask yourself: Who stands to win or lose if this controversy is decided one way or the other? What will this person/organization gain? What might be taken away or reduced? Keep in mind that interest can be anything that a person or an organization cares about: money, power, beauty, prestige, friends, family.
Values: When we talk about interests, we focus on the things that directly affect individuals. When we talk about values, we focus on things people care about even when they are not personally or directly affected by those things. I have an interest in my own house and its architecture. But I may value your house and its architecture. I want to protect my house so that I will have a place to live. I may want to protect your house so that the bungalow style of home architecture will live on. You have an interest in your own marriage so that you will have a stable and loving relationship. But you may value the institution of marriage because it has been historically important. An art collector has an interest in a painting they recently acquired. But they may value all art because it embodies creativity. People become stakeholders in controversies not just because they are directly affected (not just because they have an interest in its outcome) but also because they value something affected by the controversy’s outcome.
Beliefs: Our interests and our values affect our opinions, but so do our beliefs. For instance, right now, in Texas, people are arguing about how to regulate a new method of drilling for natural gas (usually called “fracking” or “hydrofracking”). Those living in areas where this drilling happens are likely to believe that hydrofracking affects the land and the water supply because they have experienced these effects first-hand. Those involved in the industry are likely to believe that hydrofracking is safe because they know the precautions taken while drilling. And those who enforce current regulations are likely to believe that there may be a problem with hydrofracking because they know how many reported violations have occurred. The town resident might have first-hand knowledge of ground tremors, pungent well water, and air pollution. The petroleum engineer might know all the efforts taken to prevent contamination and to monitor seismic activity. The business owner might know how expensive alternative options and self-monitoring regulations are and oppose them based on financial reasons. The environmental regulator might know of many complaints about tremors and water contamination, but they might also know that the investigations remain inconclusive. The resident, based on their beliefs (and interests and values), may favor stricter regulations. The engineer, based on their beliefs, may oppose any new regulations. And the environmental regulator, based on their experiences, might support some new regulations to prevent possible damage that, as of yet, cannot be verified.

While we encourage you to think about stakeholders in terms of their interests, their values, and their beliefs, we caution against any attempt to pigeonhole a stakeholder. When you are trying to identify stakeholders, start with real people. Then ask yourself these questions: What affects this person? What do they care about? What do they believe? And how do these interests, these values, and these beliefs lead them to take this position in the controversy? If you can explain one stakeholder’s position based on their interests, values, and beliefs, then you can predict what similar people might feel or think.

Identifying Viewpoints

If you have identified a recent public controversy and you know who the stakeholders are, then you can imagine what their viewpoints will be. But, typically, those trying to map a controversy do not start with profiles of the stakeholders. Instead, they start with viewpoints—the arguments made by stakeholders. And that’s what we recommend you do. Once you suspect that there is a controversy, try to find a few viewpoints, such as articles in which people express their opinions.

If you suspect that there is a controversy about capital punishment, look for opinion articles arguing in favor of and articles arguing against capital punishment. You might find, based on the viewpoints you locate, that such a controversy does exist. Right now, people do argue about capital punishment. You might read a viewpoint article in which one stakeholder (a politician who wants to seem tough on crime) argues in favor of capital punishment. And you might find another article in which another stakeholder (a clergyman who values mercy) argues against it. But through your research you might find that the controversy is not quite what you predicted. Maybe the most recent controversy is not about executing criminals but about executing foreign criminals. In January of 2014, because the state of Texas planned to execute Edgar Tamayo Arias, a Mexican citizen, many argued about whether this execution would constitute a breach of international law. Or you might see that people are debating the manner of execution. Is death by a certain combination of drugs “cruel and unusual punishment”? In April of 2014, as the state prepared to execute Tommy Lynn Sells, many people defended and many attacked lethal injection. The debate became so heated that the state refused to release information about where it got the drug used in executions.

Concluding Advice

In a nutshell: you need to identify a controversy that is recent, public, and has many stakeholders who express different viewpoints. Once you have identified a recent public controversy, you can begin researching its pieces: what people are currently arguing about, who is arguing, and why they take the positions they take. The next chapter will help you find and evaluate sources related to your controversy by focusing on viewpoints.

Chapter Assignment: Brainstorming Topics & Generating Keywords

Think about two or three issues you think might be controversies and you might be interested in researching. Write a sentence for each that expresses your specific interest. Saying “I’m interested in income inequality,” while important, is too enormous to tackle in one semester. Make it manageable by focusing on a specific issue within income inequality debates such as whether or not the federal government should raise minimum wage. Or whether or not the federal government should mandate student debt relief.

Example 1: I’m interested in the #defundthepolice hashtag and movement within BLM protests
Example 2: I’m interested in the lack of protection for women’s health care in government * regulation of insurance companies
Example 3: I’m interested in hydrofracking in North Texas

After you’ve named some potential topics, brainstorm by pre-writing or mindmapping what you already know about the issues. Ask yourself:

What do I already know is affected by this issue?
Who do I already know is a stakeholder?
What do I already know about these stakeholders’ interests, beliefs, and values?
What viewpoints do I already know people have about this issue?
What long-term issues do I already know this topic is part of?

Choosing your controversy: Look over what you’ve written. Based on this activity and this chapter, can each of your potential topic ideas be characterized as a recent, public controversy? Does each fulfill your instructor’s requirements? Can any of your ideas be weeded out? If all of the topics you came up with are recent, public controversies, you have a few options. You can:

go ahead and pick the one you’re most interested in now to research in Chapter 2 OR
use Chapter 2 to do some research about each of your choices and choose based on what you find

Generating keywords for research: Because of the brainstorming you’ve done, you can now begin researching your controversy. Reread your answers and circle terms that appear most often or that seem most important. For Example 1 (above), my keyword list might look something like: “Black Lives Matter,” “police brutality,” “Blue Lives Matter,” “All Lives Matter,” “law enforcement,” “funding,” “protests,” “discrimination,” “militarization,” “hashtag activism,” etc. Using and combining these keywords and phrases in different ways will help you conduct effective research in the next chapter.</span>