Uh, Can You Use It in a Sentence?

Have you ever started reading an academic article for class, read about two pages in, and come to the realization that you understood exactly zero percent of the content so far? This recently happened in my theories of mass media class when we were assigned an article by Gayatri Spivak titled, Can the Subaltern Speak. After attempting to read the first few pages no less than ten times I gave up and went in search of an online summary, chalking up my inability to understand her writing to the fact that I am not yet well versed in media studies. When I arrived in class that week I found that everyone had trouble understanding the article (yes, even those condescending PhD students) and that it was assigned to show how troublesome it can be when collaboration is not embraced. Spivak had produced a paper that offered incredible insights and vision, but had done so in a way that made it completely inaccessible to her intended audience, and was therefore in my opinion ineffective.

In her piece Meadows describes that in addition to a deliberate approach coproduction should include: establishing long-term relationships between scientists and stakeholders, ensuring two way communication between both groups, and keeping the focus on the production of usable science. In my opinion, Meadows would most likely use Spivak's article as an example of what not to do. We can liken her paper to suggesting an environmental law that was only drafted by scientists without any outside input. That suggested law would enter the public sphere and invoke as much confusion and frustration as my classmates and I experienced while attempting to dig through Can the Subaltern Speak.

In addition to the main components suggested by Meadows for coproduction, the modes of engagement and research approaches also resonated deeply with me, especially after a "Careers in Sustainability" talk I attended earlier this week. For some odd reason I had been picturing the sustainability branch of a company to have its own office and dedicated workforce that was established and respected. While this is true in some cases, many of the panelists that night noted that they had to create their job position and work daily with other branches of the company, not within their own, which is usually non-existent. If this one single sustainability person in a company were to begin implementing "solutions" on their own in a Spivak-like fashion I highly doubt it would work. They must constantly be 1. identifying problems 2. choosing a mode of engagement and 3. choosing a research approach. By following this deliberate process end users (other employee branches) will gain a greater sense of ownership over the final product and will be more likely to participate and follow through as opposed to re-reading the suggestion/new policy over and over again until through frustration and confusion they give up.

Question: Is there necessary stakeholder engagement that you are possibly overlooking in the planning process for your capstone project? If you are already considering stakeholders, which mode of engagement will you most likely use?

PS. I'm more than happy to e-mail over Spivak's paper if you would like to give it a crack!

 

 

Comments

[Cody Janousek]

I'm afraid to commit to reading the Spivak article, but you've definitely piqued by curiosity.

Our systems are highly dependent upon coproduction, and when it is inadequate it is oftentimes felt as something "off" or "wrong" maybe without being able to put a finger on what it is just like you described for the the Spivak article.

I guess when you look at the types of people that need to develop long-term relationships with each other, like a scientist and a policy maker, they can be vastly different kinds of people. Thinking of a meeting I went to with an Electrical Engineering professor and a staffer for a senator, even the languages they frequently use vary greatly like you said making their communication ineffective. Even with a math background I found the EE professor to be using highly technical language, and it took the staffer being comfortable to begin asking questions.

[Mallika]

I think your post raises a great point about the importance of considering your audience when communicating. It’s a simple piece of advice, but too often overlooked or ignored by experts in a field. Reading your post, I was reminded of a workshop I attended, hosted by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The workshop was on changing standards for evaluating the effectiveness of energy efficiency programs in California. I was initially excited because California is generally known as a leader in energy efficiency policy. Little did I know what I had gotten myself into.

Even as someone who had worked in the energy efficiency industry for three years, I found the workshop virtually incomprehensible. There were so many acronyms and so much jargon being thrown around by different parties that I honestly couldn’t keep up. At first I chalked it up to inexperience, but when I talked to my more experience colleagues, who were also attending the workshop, they acknowledged that it was easy to get lost at these forums. They explained that people at the workshop were generally experts in a certain aspect of energy efficiency evaluation, and they all had their 1-2 methodological details that they thought were super important to include, so they were mostly at the workshop to advocate for those points. I was struck how much time people seemed to spend talking past each other, and how little time they spent talking to each other. I can’t help but feel clearer communication could have improved the situation.