Project

My topic is religion and it's effects on general well-being. I gathered research on the correlations between people who are religious vs. those who are non-religious and their health, livelihood, and levels of "happiness." My question was: Does religion make a difference in regard to these things? Are religious people happier? Healthier? Wealthier? These questions have previous research done at an attempt to answer them but as times change, the amount of people who no longer consider themselves religiously affiliated is growing and I wanted to explore if the well-being of this newer generation of people would be consistent with the research already done. I conducted interviews with various people in order to gather my research.

My hub site
My project site

Review of Wark

The Situationist International was active from the late-mid 1950’s until the early 1970’s, though one could argue that, while the organization itself may have dissolved, it theories and ideologies live onward. McKenzie Wark’s The Spectacle of Disintegration: Situationist Passages out of the Twentieth Century explains the Situationist International’s work from 1968 and onward. 

Initially, I had one large issue delving into the book: The Spectacle of Disintegration is a follow up of her previous book, The Beach Beneath the Street, so I had the initial impression that I was already going to be missing some key aspects I would need to understand. This proved to be true rather quickly, as I had to spend significant time looking into various terms and groups to get a grasp of what I was reading. While I can understand that being the case since this book is essentially a sequel, were this to be the first book or the only book, I would be disappointed that more background information were not provided. In fact, even reading under the impression that I was missing the first half of the text, I wanted more background to be provided, if nothing more than as a refresher to what had previously been discussed.

With that lens being cleared through additional research, I still found the book a bit hard to get through despite being one of the more entertaining books I have read in a while (perhaps because it was, in many instances, so metaphorical and amusing in terms of stories). I found the book to be a bit odd, sometimes actually laughing at the strangeness of some of the comparisons that I at first saw little connection between their relevance and the group. With more thought and time, I was able to draw connections, but I still found the book relatively inaccessible – it was difficult to wade through the anecdotes that changed with every chapter. It would take several pages and rereadings of passages to determine the point of a specific chapter, and though this makes sense as a type of reading for such a theoretical book, I would have almost preferred a more blunt approach, or at least a better idea starting off as to what I would be getting myself into with each chapter. Each chapter became more and more exhausting to decipher, though I applaud the creativity of the situations used to elaborate upon each point, as it kept me interested enough to continue to want to pursue understanding.

However, moving on to the idea of this book’s utility for understanding participatory culture, I can see one clear link. The Situationist International group’s members sought to provoke or use “spectacles” to make statements, or, as we may see it, to participate in culture. Though the term spectacle was considered negative, it has an ideology of turning something into something else, something that can be used for a greater purpose or critique. It is in this way that participatory culture can be linked – through the use of whatever medium, individuals can come to use the public sphere and participate in participatory culture. Following from that, the group was incredibly critical, in a way that I see can be intertwined with participatory culture: when one is participating, one may become more aware of issues that need to be critiques, and one may become even more critical of the input of others, wanting to be sure the ideologies put forth are fully understood before expressing agreement or disagreement. When engaging in participatory culture, as we are through this class, we must be vigilant in critiquing the views and opinions around us to see to come to some form of knowledge or truth. The book helped highlight how a previous group of intellectuals did just that. 

Finally, and perhaps most universally applicable, is the idea in the book that, regardless of the happening, it should be recorded that some things did actually happen. This is another aspect of participatory culture: that individuals share experiences and happenings with others, whether for critique or validation, and it through this sharing in the public sphere that we are able to truly act in a meaningful manner in a participatory culture.

Fuchs Ch. IV and VIII

Fuchs Ch. IV and VIII

In Chapter IV of Social Media, Fuchs critiques Castells writings on social communication and power struggles both within communication and outside of it. While it can be hard to determine the validity of Fuchs statements due to not having actually read Castells works there seems at least some justification for his arguments against Castells writings not being 'theory' or 'grounded' and Castells overlooking the possibility of a violence free society. While these seem to be valid arguments I would still like to read Castells work before forming a solid opinion as authors and theorists can sometimes use exaggeration to further emphasize their point. A couple examples that come to mind are Plato's Republic in which he argues that all imitative poetry is bad and in Luce Irigaray's work, particularly This Sex Which is Not One in which she argues that women are superior to men. Both of these works utilize exaggeration to show the flaws in their thinking and to shed light into the greater issues they wish to discuss.

One argument of Fuchs which I found particularly fruitless was his argument against Castells assertion that modern technology has fueled many social movements. According to Fuchs interpretation of Castells the internet, phones, and the like were and are decisive tools of modern social reform. Fuchs argued back that Castells was putting too much emphasis on technology and that technology was not an 'actor' that helped social movements and that it is an inert thing that cannot act of its own volition and is rather a product of human utilization. Castells and Fuchs seem to be arguing past one another here, instead of at each other. From what I understand Castells is not saying that the internet or technology created the social reforms but rather that the technology furthered the cause by spreading awareness and by helping coordinate those who wanted change. Castells is not saying the internet created these movements. No one believes the internet or technology in and of itself created any of the social movements of 2011 or any other time, as everyone understands that it is humans behind computers and cell phones who are making the changes. Castells is arguing that technology aided the movements giving them the power they needed and would not have had without technology. By arguing against technology as the creator of change and reform Fuchs is creating a straw man and drawing people away from Castells original point that technology can facilitate change and into absurdity where Castells is somehow personifying technology and giving it human qualities.

In truth, a better argument against Castells would have been to question just how much technology helped the movements of 2011. There have been many revolutions, social walks, parades, movements and the like throughout history, many of them performed and organized without the use of the internet or modern technology. By insisting that technology was deterministic in our modern movements Castells is making an argument that is simply unsubstantiated. While technology may have widened the scope of the movement, or brought it better coverage there is simply no way to determine if technology was a catalyst or determining factor for these social movements (unless further evidence is brought up). By arguing against the actual claims of Castells instead of creating a straw man Fuchs would create a better argument and further validate his claims while still showing how the internet has not been as helpful to social movements as Castells believes.

In Chapter VIII Fuchs better addresses these issues when he acknowledges that Twitter could have raised a wider global realization but that there is no evidence that it caused the revolution. He further questions technology by exposing how Twitter is primarily used by young to middle aged, white, middle class Americans. By showing just how biased social media avenues like Twitter can be Fuchs if further questioning just how useful such social media sites are as they are not truly a representation of the people who are oppressed or in need of social change but rather a large collection of 'slactivists' who only post information to feel as if they are doing something good. Fuchs arguments against Twitter are more of what I would like to see in his arguments against Castells where he provides evidence that shows just how ineffective social media and technology can be in bringing about change.

My topic is Alzheimer's Special Care Units (SCUs).

An unresolved question within this area is how the quality of care differs between these SCUs and generalized nursing home care.

What is known is that the care providers in SCUs undergo specific training that allows them to specially deal with Alzheimer's patients. It is also known that SCUs cost more to the patient and their family as compared to mainstream nursing homes. What is unknown, however, is how the SCU itself, or the specially-trained caretakers affect the quality of care that the patient receives.

Some of the major scholars in the field are Jeroen S. Kok, RA Kane, and ML Maas. The disagreement that exists between them which I hope to resolve is whether or not Alzheimer's SCUs do in fact provide a higher quality of care for those suffering from Alzheimer's disease.


The narrowest possible description of my research question is whether or not everything that the Alzheimer's SCUs provide actually improve the quality of care that the Alzheimer's patients receive.

My data will provide qualitative descriptions of real experiences that patients undergo in both SCUs and mainstream nursing homes. Then, by comparing the qualitative data collected from these patients, I will be able to contribute to the conversation that concerns the disparities that exist in care between these two groups.

I plan on conducting interviews over Skype of patients in SCUs as well as mainstream nursing homes. The interview questions that I ask will vary among qualitative questions, with a few quantitative questions as well.

Links to Hub Site and Project Site

My Wark Review

Mckenzie Wark’s Spectacle of Disintegration explores the history of the French aesthetic and political Situationist movement. Connecting art and politics, Situationists wanted their work to be an occasion for democratic participation. Throughout history these members sought to create a participatory culture by way of provocation, or rather, through the spectacle. However, the term spectacle has deeply negative implications. Instead, spectacle might be better referred to through the connotations of an ideology, or a type of counter spectacle. Thus, Debord explains the spectacle through expression and transcendence of society’s limitations.

 By mapping the society of the spectacle, Wark traces the spectrum of Situationist ideas that can still be recognized in contemporary culture. He explains that the Situationist movement is something current intellectuals think they have outgrown. However, Wark illustrates that this is not the case. Situationists offer insightful strategies and useful tactics that have the potential to restructure the implications of lived experience. Wark describes “low theory” as critical thought believed to enhance institutional structures, which in turn merges theory and practice. He also discusses the commodification of intellectual property that promotes the rise of activism. He seeks to use low theory to understand the orientation of everyday experience. Although Wark sometimes gets caught up in the details of Debord’s role in the movement, he stresses the importance of Situationist thinking and creativity despite the constraints of capitalism. Situationists sought to restore revolutionary cultural politics out of everyday life. They encouraged the creation of a space where desires of the average person could easily and readily come into fruition. Censorship thwarted possibility and only enhanced passivity and alienation.

            Wark also provides a narrative analysis of the Situationist movement and its contemporary significance. At the same time, he offers a critique of modernity. The book seeks to ask what is both the precursor to the society of the spectacle and also what is the aftermath of the Situationist movement. He suggests that while digital culture opens up much possibility and new experiences, it can also present certain difficulties. Wark’s book is helpful in that it provides an understanding of participatory culture in the present moment and asks of its future potential. Situationist practice encourages creativity and is not hung up on originality and forms of private property.

 Similarly, Wark speaks of the technique called “detournement” which is described as the plagiarism and hijacking of past text, images, practices and forms of others. The spectacle almost turns against itself as author ownership and property is called into question. I can see how this would be problematic and raise much debate. Clearly, this theory does not settle well with the structure and premise of capitalism. This also infringes upon the legality and rights of private property in comparison to collective resources. Rather than turn individuals into passive consumers, this theory encourages cultural and political agency. Wark seeks to create a counter culture of expression similar to a creative commons of meaning and appropriation. Likewise, Situationists encourage such creative piracy and subverted originality.  Wark speaks of defiance against intellectual property and regulation of the public sphere, thus discouraging commodification in its many forms. Instead, he believes hacking is a creative form that reworks the relations of production and the circulation of both new and old information. Such resistance and refusal of the capitalist enterprise drives Situationist efforts. Thus, Situations resent engagement in commoditized activity. These thinkers sought to free both physical and mental space for new forms of experience not governed by capitalism. They wanted to create social networks not influenced by the realm of the spectacle.

More so, Wark believes that educational institutions contribute to society’s tendency toward conformity as a function of cultural capital. He rationalizes that the middle class receives both privilege and security through education, which explains much of their capital and moral investment in these institutions.

In relation to the creating a domain of one’s own project, like Wark, my peers and I are engaging in a kind adventure and culture critique. We are questioning appearances, reinventing and reimagining the humanities. This book was useful for understanding the kind of mediated intervention that we will be planning for our next and final project.

Wark review

McKenzie Wark's The Spectacle of Disintegration seeks to explain the modern work of the Situationists to readers. Situationist International was a social, political, intellectual, and artistic movement from the late 1950s to the early 1970s comprised of what Wark lovingly refers to as "a small band of ingrates" (Wark, 9). The aim of the Situationist movement was to question and subvert the conventions of capitalist society. The manner in which Wark explains Situationist theory and participatory culture is richly descriptive and strongly connected to sources, but at times, inaccessible.

It would be simple enough to label Wark as being strongly in line with Marxist thought (particularly in an American cultural context where communist/socialist thought is often vilified), but if his overall "bias" were to be labeled as anything, it would be the propagation of critical consumption. Wark, of course, maintains the Situationist line of thought by demonstrating their critique of the American class system and consumerism as a whole, but then again, Situationists were critical of pretty much everything. This is an important notion because everything is worthy of critique. Every idea can be questioned, every counterargument has a rebuttal to fire back at it. A significant part of Situationism is remembering that there are no perfect ideas, or even perfect criticisms.

Perhaps that is one of the most frustrating things about this ideology. Yes, we all know that nothing is perfect, but in that case, what do you want? In Situationist culture, criticism and informed participation reign supreme. While in Situationist philosophy, it would be better to eliminate consumerism as a whole, if you must consume, it is best to consume critically. After all, it is almost impossible to avoid consumerism in Western capitalist civilization.

Now, all of these things considered, I have a great deal of issue with the manner in which this book is written. The chapters often begin with throwing the reader into an anecdote or situation for which there is no context. After a while, the reader begins to ascertain the thesis and purpose of the chapter, but it becomes exhausting to search for meaning and try to extrapolate that by applying the new found context to the history snippet that was just read. I have found this trend in other texts, such as Malcolm Gladwell's pop psychology books. I understand that this is an attempt to ease the reader into theory, but most of the stories at the beginning of the chapter are somewhat complicated to understand on their own that to try and wrestle with what is going on and then deal with the theory proves to be a frustrating exercise on the part of the reader.

Another issue I have with the book is the accessibility of it. Walking into this with almost no knowledge on what Situationism was like trying to ski on rollerskates. Yes, this book is in a language I know with concepts I can understand, but there is a certain amount of knowledge you need to already have on the subject of Situationism before reading. If you go into this book cold, you are going to be lost the majority of the time. In addition to needing to know about Situationsim, there is also this need to know a little bit about literary and cultural theory that I was just passingly familiar with. I might recommend this book as maybe the second or third book you ever read on Situationsim, but as a first, it was too much of a fight.

In terms of The Spectacle of Disintegration's utility for understanding participatory culture, I certainly did capture concepts here and there about what participatory culture is all about. Perhaps the best line of the whole book is the last, "No matter what happens here next day or next week, I just want to record the fact that this actually happened" (Wark, 204). I think that is what participatory culture is all about. We are part of this living record, and we must constantly participate in order to assure ourselves that this is all real, that this really happened. Though we think that we are making something meaningful or maybe even something that will sell, we are actually just trying to convince ourselves of our own relevance and reality in this world.

Work cited:
Wark, McKenzie. The Spectacle of Disintegration: Situationist Passages Out of the Twentieth Century. London, UK: Verso, 2013. Kindle e-book.

Fandom Mental Health

My topic is mental health in fandom communities. An unresolved question in this area is the following: are fandom communities beneficial for mental health? It is generally accepted that the formation of communities of like-minded people can be beneficial for socialization. Positive socialization experiences are psychologically healthy for human beings. What is unknown is whether or not fandom communities fall under this category of positive socialization.

Scholars in this field have some disagreement as to whether or not fandom engagement is psychologically healthy. Rudski, Segal, and Kallen suggest in their study named "Harry Potter and the end of the road: Parallels with addiction" that behaviors within fandom communities mimic that of addiction, showing unhealthy obsessive traits. However, Plante, Roberts, Reysen, and Gerbasi in "'One of Us': Engagement With Fandoms and Global Citizenship Identification" suggest that fandoms encourage social engagement on a global scale.


Narrowest possible question: How does participation in fandom activities affect psychological well-being?

"What is the data that you plan on gathering?" I plan on gathering information about the mental illnesses that are already in fandom populations and how fandom participation affects the psychological well-being of those inside fandom communities.

 "How will you help resolve the scholarly unknown?" Understanding fandom as a social community is a relatively new field, much less understanding the mental mechanisms at play inside of fandoms. Adding the dimension of mental illness at play would help add to the pool of knowledge that is still developing.


My hubsite
My project site

Project Presentation

http://app.emaze.com/@AOQFICZF/arctic-drilling

Updated Lit Review - Emma Reigel

Literature Review:
Most recently, the ‘Keystone Pipeline’ bill was vetoed by President Obama, which means no oil drilling in the Arctic for the U.S., as of now. Though Republicans tend to be pro-drilling in the Arctic, the majority of the United States does not support drilling exploration on or offshore the Arctic, specifically due to environmental and animal destruction that would occur if drilling in the Arctic ensued. Now, pro-drillers are doing more research and rallying for their cause. But for the Arctic, for now, it is secure in being a wildlife preserve and natural habitat. Many different environmental schools are studying the issue of drilling in the Arctic. Also, Natural Resources, Plant and Animal Wildlife Preserve, and other environmental companies are studying what effects drilling would have on the Arctic. Studies show that climate change due to drilling in the Arctic would effect the animals; one specific study by Kathy A Burek, Frances M. D. Gulland, and Todd M. O’Hara shows that the change would effect the marine mammals in the Arctic. Economic studies show, such as the study done by Matthew J. Kotchen and Nicholas E. Burger for Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, that we would break even in Arctic drilling, making no economic benefit possible for Americans. In a social study by Tara L. Teel, Alan D. Bright, Michael J. Manfredo, and Jeffery J. Brooks for Natural Resources, biased and inflated studies were given to a group of Americans twice, one pro-drilling article, another anti-drilling. The study found that even though both were biased, over 80% of participants reacted negatively to pro-drilling ideas, both times (Teel, Bright, Manfredo, Brooks). It was noted that prior bias towards one attitude or the other tended to allow the reader to continue their belief as they read their articles, securing their thoughts of their previous bias (Teel, Bright, Manfredo, Brooks).

Drilling will negatively impact the wildlife and land of the Arctic, and the benefits do not out weigh the costs of drilling in the Arctic, environmentally or economically. Research done about drilling in the Arctic comes mostly from environmental and economical research. Within the past decade research on people’s opinions on drilling has also come about revealing a general dissatisfaction on drilling in the Arctic. The question of ‘would drilling negatively effect wildlife within the Arctic,’ is most concerning to Environmentalists, however it is also important in economic terms to see if the benefits would outweigh the negatives and destruction. It has been concluded that the economic benefit would not be great enough to impact the entire American society, as the processing and distribution of the oil would breakeven with the overall value of the oil that had been dug up. As Kotchen and Burger found in their study, oil under the U.S. Arctic is worth $374 billion. It would cost $123 billion to extract and solicit. The difference being $251 billion would only benefit the inter-industry society through industry rents by $90 billion, on top of federal and state tax revenue of $37 and $124 billion. This is without thinking about the economic costs that it would take to drill. With all of the regulation costs, land, and ANWR costs, it would be a break-even scenario if oil was drilled out of the Arctic, as of the last study in 2005. Also within this study, it points out the two “benefits” of drilling within the Arctic: decrease in cost of oil, and reliance on foreign imports. However, this study proved through analysis of costs and worth that these benefits would be inconsequential. If we wanted to significantly decrease the cost of oil, we would have to drill within the Wildlife Refuge within the Arctic, being even more invasive into the ecosystem and wildlife, contributing to even more deaths and change. Though they point out there would be job creation, it would be insignificant to the overall status of Americans and Alaskans, making this also a mute point.

Environmentalists also have studied and concluded that there would be significant damage to both onshore and sea mammals, and to the ecosystem via pollution and destruction of natural habitats. Things like vehicles traveling across terrain, seismic analysis, and infrastructures built for the oil extraction would all be harmful to the Arctic wildlife and ecosystem. It is proven that seismic testing would emit a noise that sea mammals (whales) would react to, as well as bears and other animals. This could change migration patterns as well as child birthing, and ultimately stress the entire ecosystem. ANWR research has shown through the US Fish and Wildlife Service that drilling would significantly impact caribou, musk oxen, wolves, wolverines, seabirds, shorebirds, coastal fish, snow geese, and polar bears (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2001/Kotchen & Burger). This would be done by displacement of habitat due to infrastructures. Though there are some areas where animals live that would be untouched by oil extraction, the widespread issue of a potential oil-spill could threaten even the animals far away from the extraction zones, making no where a safe haven. Another environmental issue within Arctic drilling is the change of climate and the effect of this on animal population, as well as the entire global human and animal population. Burek, Gulland, and O’Hara assert that there are many direct effects of climate change on the Arctic animals. It would change the sea ice habitat, elevations of water and air temperature, increased bad weather, and the immune system of animals. Indirectly, drilling could harm animals by: altering pathogen transmission due to factors like effects on body condition due to shifts in food web, change in toxicant exposures, pollution due to runoff, and chemical waste pollution (Burek, Gulland, O’Hara). The specific study they did was on the effect of drilling on sea mammals. They prove that due to climate change the sea mammals may be directly or indirectly harmed. They also shape the argument that through pathogens, a large herd could become distinct through only one animal being infected. This shows that, potentially, one mammal could be infected via a chemical, which produced a disease. Then, this animal could give it to the rest of his/her herd as they live together and travel. This could cause a huge epidemic within animal species, as the density of the animals is so large that they would easily pass diseases around. Toxicant exposures are also a key factor into the negative impacts of drilling on animals. If water temperatures increased enough through the climate change due to drilling, deathly algae could bloom within the Arctic waters and cause marine mammal deaths, and a lot of them. Along with this effect, other effects range from changes in feeding, contamination, and physical risks such as boats colliding with whales. This study supports that infectious diseases would be more prone to effect the population of animals due to the effects – indirect and direct – that oil would have on the wildlife. Through the effects of the oil extraction, it could cause harm to the animals directly and through pollution (Burek, Gulland, O’Hara). This study also points out the fact that local indigenous peoples rely directly on the marine mammals for their livelihoods, and how important the animals are, in general, to their lives. These mammals getting diseases could possibly be transmitted into the human population, making the argument not to drill go from low to high-level importance as it potentially could cause human fatalities.

Socially, it is interesting for sociologists to see why and how people react to the pro/anti-drilling argument. In the research I have viewed, it is based on the question of if America should drill in the Arctic. While the social study by Teel, Bright, Manfredo, and Brooks proved overall emotions on the subject, the environmental and economic studies show, quantitatively, that drilling in the Arctic would not be beneficial, and would harm the animals and ecosystem within the Arctic. The research also proved that new information would not alter the mindsets of individuals, therefore the articles only strengthened previously believed ideals (Teel, Bright, Manfredo, Brooks). It is unconfirmed what exactly would happen to the animals, in a greater sense, but research has shown that there would be some negative impacts (deforestation, long-term harm to animal populations, chemical contamination of land and water, etc.). The ‘Pro-drillers,’ even note these impacts, as seen in research by UC Berkley’s study by O’Rourke and Connolly. I believe these impacts are not worth it, as economically, America would not be any better off. The main study by Teel, Bright, Manfredo, and Brooks proved that the feelings of anti-drilling cannot be affected by new data, which to me, shows an inherent want of humans to do the right thing, morally and environmentally for themselves and the animals.

After reading all of these studies, plus supplementary articles and websites, I have further realized that drilling in the Arctic would cause too much damage to wildlife and the ecosystem to make it worthwhile. The economic benefits are non-existent to anyone other than company holders and owners, and are not a valid point of argument for “pro-drilling.” The economic information actually adds to and strengthens my sentiments on no drilling. It aids in my knowledge of oil drilling in the Arctic being too costly for America by showing that on top of detrimental harm to wildlife and the land, it would do nothing for Americans. I see, however, that there might be a solution that could make both environmentalists and pro-drillers happy. This would take much more study and new science, but the idea of decreasing pollution and space-needed for drilling would be a way to continue the fight for drilling within the Arctic. If oil companies could figure out a way to extract oil using a significantly smaller plot of land and figuring out a way to decrease pollution from their machinery, I feel that more people would be apt to listen to the argument of why to drill. However, I do not believe it is worth the effort until a non-breakeven value would be available for America. If we were able to make a significant amount of money for the economy through drilling in the Arctic, I would be further inclined to listen to the ways we could potentially drill. However, it would take ten years to gather the data and set up the oil-rigs in order to extract any oil, making this a long procedure. I do not believe that there will ever be a way for oil companies to extract this oil without causing too much harm to the wildlife and ecosystem that is so very fragile within the Arctic territory. I believe that the anti-drillers should continue their protests socially and politically, and continue to gather scientific evidence of the costs of wanting to drill within the Arctic. If we are able to continue this awareness, like the social study proved above, I feel that the oil drilling will continue to be illegal as everyone will be able to see the extreme negatives that far outweigh any positives that would come from Arctic drilling.

An alternative to this highly dangerous, pollution-causing energy source, would be renewable energies. Many other countries have already begun their deep research into renewable energy sources, and have began to implement new energy sources for the citizens. Through reading a study by National Renewable Energy Laboratory's Stanley Bull, I saw a potential answer to our need of fuel - renewable energy. Bull saw that the use of alternative energy is increasing, and so is the research. He foresees the use of alternative energy becoming a more and more common societal tool. Around 10% of America's overall power use comes from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, hydro, biomass, etc. Renewable energies will never become extinct, unlike fossil fuels. They generate no pollution or waste, which would help our planet's climate and global warming, as we would decrease the pollution we put out into the environment, and decrease greenhouse emissions that are emitted through oil extraction. This would have a benefit for everyone within the globe. We also would not have to rely on foreign countries for energy sources, which is one of the key arguments pro-drillers have for Arctic drilling. Renewable energy would solve this problem. With Renewable energy sources, America could potentially save the atmosphere from 70 million metric tons of carbon emission each year (Bull).

Works Cited:
Bull, Stanley. "Renewable Energy Today and Tomorrow." Proceedings of the IEEE, August 2001. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 1 Jan. 2001. Web. 29 Mar. 2015. <http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ug02/barnes/grandcoulee/bull.html>.

Burek, Kathy, Frances Gulland, and Todd O'Hara. "Effects of Climate Change On Arctic Marine Wildlife." Marine Mammal Center. Ecological Society of America, 1 Jan. 2008. Web. 24 Mar. 2015. <http://www.marinemammalcenter.org/assets/pdfs/vetsci-stranding/scientific-contributions/2008/burek-2008-effect-of-climate.pdf>.

Kotchen, Matthew, and Nicholas Burger. "SHOULD WE DRILL IN THE ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE? AN ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE." NBER Working Paper Series. National Bureau of Economic Research, July 2007. Web. 24 Mar. 2015. <http://cid.bcrp.gob.pe/biblio/Papers/NBER/2007/julio/w13211.pdf>.

Rourke, Dara, and Sarah Connonlly. "Just Oil? The Distribution of Environmental and Social Impacts of Oil Production and Consumption." EScholarship. UC Berkeley, 1 Jan. 2003. Web. 24 Mar. 2015. <http://escholarship.org/uc/item/32t2x692#page-4>.

Teel, Tara, Michael Manfredo, and Jeffery Brooks. "Evidence of Biased Processing of Natural Resource-Related Information: A Study of Attitudes Toward Drilling for Oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge." Society and Natural Resources. Taylor and Francis Group (federal), 1 Jan. 2006. Web. 24 Mar. 2015. <http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2006_teel_t001.pdf>.

Updated photo for infograph and link

https://magic.piktochart.com/output/4754851-anti-drilling-pro-ecosystem  Infograph

My topic deals with the debate of space exploration human approach versus robotic approach.

An unresolved question:

• How much focus should be applied to human space exploration? robotic space exploration?

Narrowest possible description of my research question:

• "What is the significance in shifting more focus from robotic space exploration to human space exploration?"

What kind of data do I plan on gathering?

• The date I will be collecting includes interviews and opinions from scientists, science students, fans of science. I believe the data collected will assist me in gauging the significance and importance of emphasizing human space exploration.

Link to Hubsite

Link to Project Site

New Infographic

I finally finished my new infographic on the use of study drugs on college campuses. Here's the link:

https://magic.piktochart.com/output/5218465-study-drugs-on-campus

Project

My project:

Unresolved question: Do the small amount of low-income students at elite universities feel uncomfortable around their more affluent peers?

General:  Statistics show how many elite universities have very low percentages of students receiving the Federal Pell Grant, which provides money for those who would have trouble paying their tuition.  This leads to the probability of class differences within the student population in these colleges.

Narrowed Question:  Does coming from a low-income household affect students' college experiences at elite universities in comparison to their wealthier peers?

Data:  I will find information on this topic in a variety of ways, through statistics found in studies and articles and through interviews with randomly picked Emory students.  In these ways, I will try to assess the effect that low income and class difference have on the immediate experience of students at elite universities.

Arome's Project

My topic is the stereotype of starving children in Africa. My question is is Africa helped or hurt by this stereotype. It is known that hundreds of aid organizations have a raised to aid Africa. There is some truth to the stereotype. What is not known is the way that Africa is hurt by this stereotype. Some of the major scholars question the helpfulness of foreign aid. My data will answer the question of how pictures with African children are exploitative. The data I will analysis responses to a controversial picture.

 Aromespeaks.com 

Aromesproject.weebly.com

Use of Study Drugs by Field of Study

Topic: the use of study drugs on Emory's campus


An unresolved question: 

Is there a link between non-medical use of study drugs and number of classes, rigor of class schedule, degree of involvement in extra-curricular activities, etc.?


General knowledge:

Based on the work of researchers such as DeSantis et al. (2010) and Teter et al. (2006) key motivators include being able to study for longer stretches of time and enhancing reading comprehension, cognition, and memory.


Narrowest possible description of my question:

Does the use of study drugs on elite campuses vary based on field of study?


What is the data I will gather? How will it help answer a scholarly debate?

I will collect demographic data on non-medical use of study drugs focusing on field of study. I will also assess what Emory students use as key motivators/justifications for such use and whether these motivators differ across fields of study.

I think my data will help to further parse out what it is that causes non-medical use of study drugs. We live in a hyper-competitive environment and many students nationwide seem to feel compelled to take them for a number of reasons. Some of these reasons include: there are relatively low stigmas against its use, the future dividends of scholastic achievement justify the means, and to not fall behind others who habitually take study drugs.

Emory students and administration have the ability to shape the environment we live in. Perhaps if we can find out what drives students towards these extreme measures we can begin to implement change to ease the levels of stress and competition we as a university currently experience.

In Class Exercise (3/24)

My topic is how will drilling in the arctic effect the ecosystem and wildlife within the Arctic

My major unresolved question that I am answering is are the benefits worth the multiple negative impacts on the ecosystem and wildlife that would occur if drilling ensued? I use data studies to support my stance that NO, it is not worth it, and YES the animals/ecosystem would be effected.

It is generally accepted that there are many different sides to this debate, and it is accepted that as of now, there will not be drilling within the Arctic as Pres. Obama vetoed the Senate-passed "Keystone Pipeline" bill. It is also accepted that liberals tend to want no drilling and republican conservatives tend to want to drill. A majority of scholars within the topic have all agreed - majority-wise - that drilling would not have enough significant benefits to the overall American population to make the negative effects worthwhile.

The data I am gathering helps me answer the question of 'how will drilling effect wildlife/ecosystem?'

Data planned on gathering - I looked into specific studies on the economics of drilling, the environmental issues/impacts that drilling would produce, and a social study about how bias effects people on their ideas about drilling in the arctic, and it supports the idea I am proving, that drilling would effect the wildlife and it would be negative. It explains what will happen and projects also what they think would happen, furthering my argument that drilling would be too destructive.

Project Site: http://helpthearcticc.weebly.com/ 
Hub Site: http://emmarei.weebly.com

My topic is on biracial identity, particularly on half white individuals, with an emphasis on 'racial passing' and how their white half affects their personal identity.

An unresolved question in this area is whether 'passing' as white is an abandonment of the individuals other half or if it is simply a utilization of their available 'resources'.

Many scholars believe racial identity is influenced by the 'one-drop' rule which states that a single drop of 'non-white' heritage causes the individual to no longer affiliate with their white halves.

How does being bi-racial affect the opinion of 'white identity'?

The data I plan on gathering will be gleamed through interviews to try and gleam biracial individuals' relationship with their own personal identity.

Here is my hub site and my project site.

Third party data and web user benefits

My topic is that the privacy given up by consumers or users for targeted marketing may be failing the to be beneficial in providing relevant advertisements and may not be a fair or transparent transaction in terms of user privacy.

The major unresolved question is whether or not target marketers to are accurately creating a consumer profile from data points in order for them to market relevant information.

What is known: target marketing is generally accepted as fact or truth to be one of the most effective investments of advertising dollars for marketers.

The disagreement: third-market parties that pull data from the users who do not have blocking for tracking are seen as perhaps unethical and the targeted marketing is seen to be potentially irrelevant or repetitive for the users.

The narrowest research question: Do the data points that are pulled from consumer activity proportionately make better a user's web experience in exchange for their privacy? Or do the data points that are often unethically pulled from consumer activity generate relevant advertisements for consumers?

What is the data I plan on using to find what is scholarly unresolved: -data on the profits for advertisements/marketers -the amount of increased clicks for users -the amount of third party sources that pull information -the systems by which the pulling of information is streamlines -the way that the user data is collected -the breach of privacy in the lack of transparency in terms and conditions and third party sites

My topic is the relationship between fitting into society and striving to remain true to ones own identity.

An unresolved question in this area is the following: is it possible to be an individual within a group?

What is known with respect to this question is that some parts of each individual must be sacrificed in order to emerse into a group. What is unknown is how much is acceptable to retain. Some of the major scholars in this field say that it is an innate human characteristic to want to belong and we will do anything to meet this goal.

The narrosist possible description of this research question is it necessary to relinquish individuality in pursuit of success as valued by society at large?

The data I plan on gathering will be mostly drawn from survey of my peers about individual experiences. It is my hope that it will a level of collegiate depth to the conversation and examine the pressures felt by people who are still struggling to find where they belong.


Kmaragh.weebly.com
Priceofmembership.weebly.com

Nicole Reynolds's Project

My topic is what has allowed the recent increases in diversity representation (particularly for Asian Americans) in American television.

The major, unresolved question to be addressed is the following: What has driven ABC's to air Fresh Off the Boat?

What is known and generally accepted is that networks air shows that make money, increase viewership, and have good ratings.

Some of the major scholars believe that ABC's sole reason in airing Fresh off the Boat is that diverse shows are profitable and have better ratings. Others contest that ABC is simply trying to account for the diversity inherent in America already. Thus, there is debate about whether ABC's motive is profit or representation.

The narrowest possible description of my research question is as follows: Can the data show that America is becoming more diverse and that ABC is trying to represent that diversity, or will the data instead show that America has already been diverse, but diversity is now "selling" and more profitable than before.
Is ABC promoting more diverse programming because America is becoming more diverse or because more diverse programming makes more money?

The data I would like to collect is mainly demographic across the United States and television networks. I want to trace trends in American demographics, trends in the diversity in television networks, and trends in monetary expenditures in television. I believe that the data of diversity in America and in American television will provide some insight as to how this has affected (or not affected) trends in American television. I would also like to "follow the money" to see where this leads.

My Personal Site
My Project Site

Lily Kronfeld's Project

Are internships a mechanism for inequality? My topic is to research the exploitative nature of internships.

The major unresolved question i will be adressing is how to evaluate and determine whether unpaid internships are deemed legal or illegal.

What is known and what is unknown is respect to this unresolved question? What is generally accepted as fact or truth about this question and what is not within the scholarship?
While some internships are mutually beneficial for both the company and intern, many are not. There is especially must discrepancy toward lower income students. What is unknown is how to diminish the exploitative nature of internships or a method to evaluate their legitimacy.

What are the major scholars in the field and what disagreement amongst them am I trying to hep resolve?
Whether or not unpaid internships should even exist.

What is the narrowest description of my individual research question?
Are unpaid internships exploitative?

What is the data I plan on gathering and how will it help resolve a scholarly unknown?
I plan to gather data from both my peers and the Emory career center to collect data on their experience and expertise to propose a new way to evaluate internships.

Links:
Hubsite- www.lilykronfeld.weebly.com
Project site- www.lilykronfeldproject.weebly.com 

My topic/research question is: is it worth it for a middle-class student to attend an elite private university if they incur massive amounts of debt from it?

Unresolved question: If you have the grades to get into an elite private, but not the money (around $250K), should you go there? Will you be just as successful at a state school?

What is known:
-Having a bachelor's degree matters
-Your grades in high school are indicators of future success
-Certain school names matter (Ivies, Emory, etc.)
-Elite privates have more wealthy students than public schools
-State schools incur lower debt

What is unknown:
-If state schools produce the same results as elite privates for two equally smart students
-How much the school name matters
-If elite privates have a new way to combat debt

Major scholars:
Dale and Krueger argue that where you go to school does not matter (the debt is not worth it!)
Weissman (not as much of a "scholar") argues that the name does matter

Data:
-Average student loan debt from a middle class student at an elite private
-Income after graduation for state school student vs elite private student
-Satisfaction with college choice 10 years after graduation

Hubsite
Website

Hypertext and Literature Review Now Completed

http://fandommentalhealth.weebly.com/

Updated Research Website and Literature Review: Emma Reigel (3/24)

Website: http://helpthearcticc.weebly.com/

Literature Review:

Most recently, the ‘Keystone Pipeline’ bill was vetoed by President Obama, which means no oil drilling in the Arctic for the U.S., as of now. Though Republicans tend to be pro-drilling in the Arctic, the majority of the United States does not support drilling exploration on or offshore the Arctic, specifically due to environmental and animal destruction that would occur if drilling in the Arctic ensued. Now, pro-drillers are doing more research and rallying for their cause. But for the Arctic, for now, it is secure in being a wildlife preserve and natural habitat. Many different environmental schools are studying the issue of drilling in the Arctic. Also, Natural Resources, Plant and Animal Wildlife Preserve, and other environmental companies are studying what effects drilling would have on the Arctic. Studies show that climate change due to drilling in the Arctic would effect the animals; one specific study by Kathy A Burek, Frances M. D. Gulland, and Todd M. O’Hara shows that the change would effect the marine mammals in the Arctic. Economic studies show, such as the study done by Matthew J. Kotchen and Nicholas E. Burger for Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, that we would break even in Arctic drilling, making no economic benefit possible for Americans. In a social study by Tara L. Teel, Alan D. Bright, Michael J. Manfredo, and Jeffery J. Brooks for Natural Resources, biased and inflated studies were given to a group of Americans twice, one pro-drilling article, another anti-drilling. The study found that even though both were biased, over 80% of participants reacted negatively to pro-drilling ideas, both times (Teel, Bright, Manfredo, Brooks). It was noted that prior bias towards one attitude or the other tended to allow the reader to continue their belief as they read their articles, securing their thoughts of their previous bias (Teel, Bright, Manfredo, Brooks).

Drilling will negatively impact the wildlife and land of the Arctic, and the benefits do not out weigh the costs of drilling in the Arctic, environmentally or economically. Research done about drilling in the Arctic comes mostly from environmental and economical research. Within the past decade research on people’s opinions on drilling has also come about revealing a general dissatisfaction on drilling in the Arctic. The question of ‘would drilling negatively effect wildlife within the Arctic,’ is most concerning to Environmentalists, however it is also important in economic terms to see if the benefits would outweigh the negatives and destruction. It has been concluded that the economic benefit would not be great enough to impact the entire American society, as the processing and distribution of the oil would breakeven with the overall value of the oil that had been dug up. As Kotchen and Burger found in their study, oil under the U.S. Arctic is worth $374 billion. It would cost $123 billion to extract and solicit. The difference being $251 billion would only benefit the inter-industry society through industry rents by $90 billion, on top of federal and state tax revenue of $37 and $124 billion. This is without thinking about the economic costs that it would take to drill. With all of the regulation costs, land, and ANWR costs, it would be a break-even scenario if oil was drilled out of the Arctic, as of the last study in 2005. Also within this study, it points out the two “benefits” of drilling within the Arctic: decrease in cost of oil, and reliance on foreign imports. However, this study proved through analysis of costs and worth that these benefits would be inconsequential. If we wanted to significantly decrease the cost of oil, we would have to drill within the Wildlife Refuge within the Arctic, being even more invasive into the ecosystem and wildlife, contributing to even more deaths and change. Though they point out there would be job creation, it would be insignificant to the overall status of Americans and Alaskans, making this also a mute point.

Environmentalists also have studied and concluded that there would be significant damage to both onshore and sea mammals, and to the ecosystem via pollution and destruction of natural habitats. Things like vehicles traveling across terrain, seismic analysis, and infrastructures built for the oil extraction would all be harmful to the Arctic wildlife and ecosystem. It is proven that seismic testing would emit a noise that sea mammals (whales) would react to, as well as bears and other animals. This could change migration patterns as well as child birthing, and ultimately stress the entire ecosystem. ANWR research has shown through the US Fish and Wildlife Service that drilling would significantly impact caribou, musk oxen, wolves, wolverines, seabirds, shorebirds, coastal fish, snow geese, and polar bears (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2001/Kotchen & Burger). This would be done by displacement of habitat due to infrastructures. Though there are some areas where animals live that would be untouched by oil extraction, the widespread issue of a potential oil-spill could threaten even the animals far away from the extraction zones, making no where a safe haven. Another environmental issue within Arctic drilling is the change of climate and the effect of this on animal population, as well as the entire global human and animal population. Burek, Gulland, and O’Hara assert that there are many direct effects of climate change on the Arctic animals. It would change the sea ice habitat, elevations of water and air temperature, increased bad weather, and the immune system of animals. Indirectly, drilling could harm animals by: altering pathogen transmission due to factors like effects on body condition due to shifts in food web, change in toxicant exposures, pollution due to runoff, and chemical waste pollution (Burek, Gulland, O’Hara). The specific study they did was on the effect of drilling on sea mammals. They prove that due to climate change the sea mammals may be directly or indirectly harmed. They also shape the argument that through pathogens, a large herd could become distinct through only one animal being infected. This shows that, potentially, one mammal could be infected via a chemical, which produced a disease. Then, this animal could give it to the rest of his/her herd as they live together and travel. This could cause a huge epidemic within animal species, as the density of the animals is so large that they would easily pass diseases around. Toxicant exposures are also a key factor into the negative impacts of drilling on animals. If water temperatures increased enough through the climate change due to drilling, deathly algae could bloom within the Arctic waters and cause marine mammal deaths, and a lot of them. Along with this effect, other effects range from changes in feeding, contamination, and physical risks such as boats colliding with whales. This study supports that infectious diseases would be more prone to effect the population of animals due to the effects – indirect and direct – that oil would have on the wildlife. Through the effects of the oil extraction, it could cause harm to the animals directly and through pollution (Burek, Gulland, O’Hara). This study also points out the fact that local indigenous peoples rely directly on the marine mammals for their livelihoods, and how important the animals are, in general, to their lives. These mammals getting diseases could possibly be transmitted into the human population, making the argument not to drill go from low to high-level importance as it potentially could cause human fatalities.

Socially, it is interesting for sociologists to see why and how people react to the pro/anti-drilling argument. In the research I have viewed, it is based on the question of if America should drill in the Arctic. While the social study by Teel, Bright, Manfredo, and Brooks proved overall emotions on the subject, the environmental and economic studies show, quantitatively, that drilling in the Arctic would not be beneficial, and would harm the animals and ecosystem within the Arctic. The research also proved that new information would not alter the mindsets of individuals, therefore the articles only strengthened previously believed ideals (Teel, Bright, Manfredo, Brooks). It is unconfirmed what exactly would happen to the animals, in a greater sense, but research has shown that there would be some negative impacts (deforestation, long-term harm to animal populations, chemical contamination of land and water, etc.). The ‘Pro-drillers,’ even note these impacts, as seen in research by UC Berkley’s study by O’Rourke and Connolly. I believe these impacts are not worth it, as economically, America would not be any better off. The main study by Teel, Bright, Manfredo, and Brooks proved that the feelings of anti-drilling cannot be affected by new data, which to me, shows an inherent want of humans to do the right thing, morally and environmentally for themselves and the animals.

After reading all of these studies, plus supplementary articles and websites, I assert that drilling in the Arctic would cause too much damage to wildlife and the ecosystem to make it worthwhile. The economic benefits are non-existent to anyone other than company holders and owners, and are not a valid point of argument for “pro-drilling.” The economic information actually adds to and strengthens my argument for no drilling. It aids in my argument of oil drilling in the Arctic being too costly for America by showing that on top of detrimental harm to wildlife and the land, it would do nothing for Americans. I assert, however, that there might be a solution that could make both environmentalists and pro-drillers happy. This would take much more study and science, but the idea of decreasing pollution and space-needed for drilling would be a way to continue the fight for drilling within the Arctic. If oil companies could figure out a way to extract oil using a significantly smaller plot of land and figuring out a way to decrease pollution from their machinery, I feel that more people would be apt to listen to the argument of why to drill. However, I do not believe it is worth the effort until a non-breakeven value would be available for America. If we were able to make a significant amount of money for the economy through drilling in the Arctic, I would be further inclined to listening to the ways we could potentially drill. However, it would take ten years to gather the data and set up the oilrigs in order to extract any oil, making this a long procedure. I do not believe that there will ever be a way for oil companies to extract this oil without causing too much harm to the wildlife and ecosystem that is so very fragile within the Arctic territory. I believe that the anti-drillers should continue their protests socially and politically, and continue to gather scientific evidence of the costs of wanting to drill within the Arctic. If we are able to continue this awareness, like the social study proved above, I believe that the oil drilling can continue to be illegal as everyone will be able to see the extreme negatives that far outweigh any positives that would come from drilling.

Works Cited:

Burek, Kathy, Frances Gulland, and Todd O'Hara. "Effects of Climate Change On Arctic Marine Wildlife." Marine Mammal Center. Ecological Society of America, 1 Jan. 2008. Web. 24 Mar. 2015. <http://www.marinemammalcenter.org/assets/pdfs/vetsci-stranding/scientific-contributions/2008/burek-2008-effect-of-climate.pdf>.

Kotchen, Matthew, and Nicholas Burger. "SHOULD WE DRILL IN THE ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE? AN ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE." NBER Working Paper Series. National Bureau of Economic Research, July 2007. Web. 24 Mar. 2015. <http://cid.bcrp.gob.pe/biblio/Papers/NBER/2007/julio/w13211.pdf>.

Rourke, Dara, and Sarah Connonlly. "Just Oil? The Distribution of Environmental and Social Impacts of Oil Production and Consumption." EScholarship. UC Berkeley, 1 Jan. 2003. Web. 24 Mar. 2015. <http://escholarship.org/uc/item/32t2x692#page-4>.

Teel, Tara, Michael Manfredo, and Jeffery Brooks. "Evidence of Biased Processing of Natural Resource-Related Information: A Study of Attitudes Toward Drilling for Oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge." Society and Natural Resources. Taylor and Francis Group (federal), 1 Jan. 2006. Web. 24 Mar. 2015. <http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2006_teel_t001.pdf>.