Mike Caulfied’s Web Literacy for Student Fact Checkers, to learn more about how bodies of
knowledge in a field are constructed, and how those ideas are sometimes misunderstood or
even deliberately undermined as information spreads online. You will continue an approach
taken in Essay 2, where you look at some disconnect between experts and non-experts (Option
A) or a disconnect between an original study and its many iterations as ideas from that study
are conveyed to the public through various media (Option B).
Tasks
Select ONE of the following two options for your essay. Each option contains separate subtasks
related to the prompt.
Option A
For every area of knowledge, there will be some disconnect between what is understood by
experts within that field and the opinions of people outside the field. On one level, this is to be
expected. But it can be dangerous, or even undermine efforts to advance knowledge or create
systemic change, when outright disinformation and false information seem to supplant the
expert voices and are treated as legitimate, equivalent counterpoints by the general public.
Option A Tasks:
1. Locate a topic/issue in a field you are studying that you think best illustrates the
difference between expert knowledge (i.e. what credible experts largely hold to be true
or accurate or most plausible at this time) and popular [*but false*] opinion or belief in
the general public. One simple example: “It’s snowing. Global warming is a hoax!”
2. Conduct research on both things:
1) the expert body of knowledge about the topic, and
2) the popular opinions/myths that lead people to reject expert knowledge.
⇒ As you do so, be sure also to examine some of the psychology underneath
the lure of personal opinion over scholarly research and knowledge.
3. Craft an essay that presents the disconnect between expert knowledge and popular
beliefs, and shows why it matters. Basically, what’s going on, and how did it get to this
point? (Resist easy or simplistic conclusions, such as “people are stupid,” as that is rarely
helpful.) What have you learned that will help you as you advance in your education and
career? How might experts in your field better communicate the work they are engaged
in (and the principles that underlie them) to an audience that resists anything that
challenges or contradicts their deeply-held beliefs or opinions?
Note: This assignment option will be most relevant to those in STEM (especially medicine and
public health) and education (so many learning myths abound!), and to those who work in
fields of public policy, human rights, and history, since the stakes are usually higher.
If you select this essay option, then the divergence between expert consensus and popular,
layperson opinion needs to actually matter in significant ways. See the appendix for more
information about what consensus means, what the “consensus gap” is, and links to examples
that might spark some ideas for your own essay. [You’ve seen this information before, in a
previous week’s course content. It’s worth bringing it back now.]
Don’t choose a topic about which there is considerable debate among experts. Save that for
some other time. Think carefully, and choose an example where the facts (data, evidence,
published research) run counter to whatever the widely-held public opinion is.
Your task is not to write generically about how there are “different opinions” about things. This
is NOT a “pro/con” paper. As someone who will be pursuing further education and eventual
work in your field, then your own allegiances about fundamental concepts should lie with the
accepted/expert knowledge in your field. Consult a faculty member in your field for assistance
if you have trouble locating a good example.
Option B
Apply a rhetorical reading to the ways in which a published study gets disseminated across
different media outlets and platforms (including social media, such as Twitter and Facebook),
and how it becomes transformed in the process.
We see this phenomenon all the time: Researchers at some university publish their very specific
and technical (and expert-audience focused) findings on X in a highly-specialized academic
journal. Another journal or the university itself offers a press release on the study and the
findings. Soon, non-expert media outlets run with it–“Study Finds X.” The next thing you know,
all your FB friends are posting articles with sensationalist headlines: “Drinking wine is better
than exercise!” or “Vegetarians have increased risk of heart disease” or “Everyone you know is
a psychopath,” and so on. Inevitably, there will follow corrections or rebuttal articles, urging
caution; for example, “No, you can’t just drink wine to get into shape” or “No, college students
aren’t coddled” or some such. Sometimes, whatever has gone viral is outright false;
oftentimes, it’s been so wildly distorted that the original study’s authors have to defend
themselves with “I didn’t say that!” or “You’re drawing the wrong conclusion from what I’ve
said!” (This has happened a lot during COVID, by the way.)
How does this happen? You’ll need to work backwards a bit.
Option B Tasks
1. Find a recent news article that reports on some published study (conduct a Google News
search on the phrase “study says” or look at the latest collection of reports on studies
on a site such as Big Think),
2. Locate the original study and read it (making sure you understand it well enough,
seeking help from a professor or expert in the field as necessary)
3. Perform another Google News search–this time only on this one study (search for the
study’s original title and researchers who conducted it).
4. Perform a Twitter search too, and expand your search to other social media outlets.
5. Follow the results and gather enough examples so that you can present the following:
a. When and how the original study was disseminated (esp. if it went “viral”) and
for what purposes [Google Search Trends can be good for this task];
b. How the study was reported and conveyed to different media outlets’ audiences;
c. Significant changes in wording or interpretation from one iteration to the next,
what accounts for those changes, and what effect those changes have on
readers/viewers; and
d. Anything else that stands out to you (e.g. contradictory conclusions drawn by
two or more media outlets? outright distortions? plagiarism?).
6. As you do all this, perform the basic moves of rhetorical critique so that you consider
not only the surfaces of the news articles, but treat them as signs. What these signs
“mean”–what cultural, ideological, and linguistic codes are exposed in analyzing them–
is what you will ultimately need to work through, and argue for your reader. (See a
sample analysis of the above as conducted by the Columbia Journalism Review ; take
your cues as to approach and process from it)
**Our local newspaper, the Democrat & Chronicle, offered a good (though short and NOT a
college research paper) model for how to tackle something like this. On. Oct. 19, 2018, they
published this article: “The Story Behind a Viral Story About a Man Who Ate Squirrel
Brains.” READ IT.
Remember: You are writing about the dissemination and distortion of a study. You are not
writing about the study’s subject or issues. That means you are not “taking sides” on whether
eggs are healthy or not, or whatever. This is not a pro/con paper.
For this assignment option, do not select the already-much-written-about Andrew Wakefield
studies from the late 1990s and early 2000s that purported to show a link between the MMR
vaccines and autism. Those studies were retracted, and they have already been debunked;
Wakefield lost his medical license in the UK (and he does not have a US license to practice
medicine). Even though his claims are still believed and even though the safety of vaccines is
still depicted as a topic of controversy (especially on social media), select another study to
investigate and trace the media dissemination of, preferably one more recent.
Criteria for Success
Regardless of whichever option you select, an essay of this nature should do the following:
• Be organized around a clear thesis that establishes your authorial voice, purpose, and
argument relevant to the task. See the Excelsior OWL’s section on crafting an
argumentative thesis.
• Offer the appropriate rhetorical appeals in developing your thesis and supporting your
argument. The Excelsior OWL has a section on rhetorical modes of persuasion.
• Show that you understand the underlying concepts being applied (i.e. about web
literacy, fact-checking, misinformation, disinformation, reading and analyzing
rhetorically, and so on), and can adapt those concepts for your own purposes.
• Integrate plenty of support from source material (including texts from Unit 3 that are
applicable) throughout your essay. This assignment depends upon your ability to
conduct meaningful research and to use it effectively in your essay while you support
your thesis. Synthesizing information is not the same as just summarizing sources one
by one, so be sure to understand that key task before you begin writing your essay. See
“Synthesizing Your Research Findings” and more.
• To locate sources for your essay, remember that the type of sources you need
will depend on what you’re asked to write about. A “valid” source for this essay
may in fact be a disreputable source, if you are looking for examples of
disinformation.
For locating news articles, social memes, and all manner of general audience
material, Google is incredibly useful. Google Scholar and library databases will be
necessary to locate scholarly, peer-reviewed, expert publications within specific
disciplines.
