class: center, middle, white background-image: url(images/black.jpg)
Constructing the Social: What Does the Rhetoric of Science, Technology, and Media Have to do With Collaboration?
*Tyler Quiring* *- CMJ: March 5, 2018* ??? Hi there, I'm a doctoral student here in the department. Today I want to share a snapshot of where my research program stands and then provide a glimpse of where I see it going. So I'll cover multiple projects in various phases, contexts, and . . . --- layout: false .left-column[ ## Collaborators ] .right-column-small[ **Maine** - UMaine: Bridie McGreavy (Communication); Carter Hathaway (Communication); Darren Ranco (Anthropology); Brawley Benson (International Affairs); David Hart (Biology); Maliyan Binette (Psychology); Alexandra Smyth (Communication); Emma Fox (Economics); Kaitlyn Raffier (Economics); Sharon Klein (Economics); Sam Roy (Geology); Abby Roche (Communication); Tony Sutton (EES); Cassie Page (Communication); Linda Silka (Psychology); Shantel Neptune (EES) - USM: Meg Thurrell (Biology) - Beyond the academy: Many clammers; Sara Randall (DEI) **New Hampshire** - UNH: Natasha Leuchanka (Policy); Alexandra Evans (EES); Iman Shakib (Engineering); Simone Souza (Economics); Kevin Gardner (Engineering) **Rhode Island** - URI: Emma Lundberg (Biology); Chris Brozyna (Economics); Art Gold (Natural Resources) - RISD: Emily Vogler (Design) **Wisconsin** - UW Madison: Caroline Gottschalk Druschke (English)
*some people with whom I do research* ] ??? . . . levels of collaboration . . . and here are some of my collaborators . . . but I'll also describe how they are connected. I am interested in how science, technology, and media matter for collaborative decision making about the environment, and the questions I am most often drawn to are rhetorical. I don't mean "rhetorical questions" like the ones we say teachers ask when they are afraid of what students' answers might be. I see rhetorical research questions as those that may at times seem most "basic" (to quote a student I once taught), but are some of the most rich and perplexing things we can ask about the world. For example, a research question I have become interested in is "how do stories shape the process of public participation in decision making about the environment?" Perhaps one easy answer is: "stories tell us what to think about, if not what to think, and they provide us with particular versions of reality according to stylistic conventions that suit the purposes of some more than others." This view identifies an idea of *what* stories do but not *how* they do it. Today I want to explore the *how*, by re-telling my research story. So even though many of you have heard me talk about my work before, hopefully there is still something new here for you today. I’ve been learning that it matters where we choose to begin and end stories. I’ll explore that phenomenon in more detail a bit later, but in the meantime, I'll just let you know that today I am beginning my research story at my first semester here. --- class: center, middle, white background-image: url(images/black.jpg)
Constructing the Social: What Does the Rhetoric of Science, Technology, and Media Have to do With Collaboration?
*Tyler Quiring* *- CMJ: March 5, 2018* ??? My background is in media production, and I came to UMaine interested in getting an MA degree so I could teach media production. Since my bachelor's was very hands-on, applied learning, I wanted to get some more "theory" under my belt. Well, I had no idea what I was in for, in a good way. My first class was Kristin Langellier's communication theory seminar, which Laura teaching now, and in that class I got really intrigued by the implications of social constructionist theory. This was the idea that my daily interactions with the world and the experiences I thought were so individual and familiar were actually the product of communication phenomena. This idea of personal experiences being a function of social processes opened up a world of possibility to me and got me telling my peers and family that I really loved studying communication and that I'd found my academic disciplinary home. Also that year, I came across the work of sociologist Bruno Latour (thanks, Nate!), and Latour is renowned for Actor Network Theory to the degree that it’s almost synonymous with his name. My take on ANT is that it says social theorists need to dismantle their assumptions about “the social” so they can trace the nuances of relationships and assemble more refined characterizations. Critical and helpful. Now, fast forward to the year after I graduated from the master's program here and before I began the doctoral program. That year, I was helping Bridie teach her intro-level environmental communication course, and something she told her students stuck with me. It was early in the semester, and she was explaining some of the theoretical foundations of environmental communication as a discipline. To introduce the concept of communication as constitutive, she compared it to social constructionism. She summarized the core idea of social constructionism—that the world is produced through social interaction—before saying something like—and Bridie, please feel free to fill us in if you remember this differently—"people that study environmental communication by and large don't believe that. They recognize that there are fundamental, knowable facts but that the way we understand and interact with these facts are shaped by communication." To me, this was really refreshing and made a lot of sense. In another section I was teaching that semester, students did applied final projects where they explored communication concepts in relation to decision making about dams. One student was assigned the topic of “rhetorical constructions of dams.” Rhetorical construction gets at the way that words and other persuasive acts portray the world in specific ways that connect with values and expectations. Unfortunately, due to a failure of communication on both his and my part, the student didn’t get the “rhetorical” part of it and produced a final project that dealt with the technical engineering challenges that construction companies need to overcome in building dams. This experience showed me that the words we use to talk about rhetoric and theory really matter. So today, I want to explore that challenge and trace some of the things that rhetoric and discourse do for collaborative work. I want to explore what happens when we use stories to compose our ideas about how decision making works, how groups come together to collaborate, and how media intersect with these processes. I want to ask how and why the stories we make matter. I also want to ask what this means for engaged research that wants to address complex social issues in the face of unparalleled environmental pressures. And above all, I want to highlight how (to use a Bridie phrase), the world has pushed in and demanded certain things of my engaged scholarship. --- layout: false .left-column[ ## Today's Talk ] .right-column[
1. Sustainability science context ] ??? First, I’m going to introduce the context of sustainability science as I have encountered it. I’ll tell you about a media project I produced that was focused on telling stories about team marine science. I’ll explain how this project was a catalyst for new collaborative opportunities. Then I’ll describe how my doctoral research program has let me continue to address matters of collaboration in doing sustainability science. --- layout: false .left-column[ ## Today's Talk ] .right-column[
1. Sustainability science context 2. Hydropower technology context ] ??? Second, I will explore how my doctoral work has opened opportunities to trace how rhetoric about hydropower technology intersects with collaborative decision making about dams through a number of key examples. --- layout: false .left-column[ ## Today's Talk ] .right-column[
1. Sustainability science context 2. Hydropower technology context 3. Participatory media context ] ??? Finally, I will describe how media matter for decision making in the kinds of contexts I study and for the engaged scholarship that I really hold dear. My plan is to work through all of this by 12:40 so we can have about 10 minutes of discussion. --- class: center, middle
Sustainability science context
??? During my master’s program I was a graduate research assistant on the New England Sustainability Consortium, or NEST. It’s a National Science Foundation-funded team of researchers at New England institutions including UMaine. I started out working for Teresa Johnson in the School of Marine Sciences on stakeholder interviews that explored threats that the shellfish industry in Maine faces. In this work we collaborated with Bridie on her own set of shellfish management focused interviews. While working on this project, I became very drawn to the highly collaborative nature of the work and the ways that diverse approaches and disciplines came together on the team in what I saw as really productive ways. --- class: fullback background-image: url(images/nestsite1.png) ??? Because of this, I decided to make the team’s story the focus of my master’s project. I’ve talked about this project at length in a colloquium a while back so I won’t belabor it too much further today, but the general principle was to use what I knew about media production to explore opportunities for telling stories about how the team’s science mattered for the world and also to promote further forms of engagement between science and society. My conceptual framework for that project was based largely on transmedia storytelling, which refers to how producers can strategically use different forms of media to create more expansive storyworlds. The idea is that by involving these multiple forms of media, producers can “do more” than they could by working in any one medium alone. Most of the time this is done through fictional storytelling, and key examples of transmedia storytelling often include entertainment narratives or franchises like the Blair Witch Project, the Matrix, and Star Wars. In more recent years, people have been exploring transmedia for nonfictional documentary purposes, and these were the types of uses that interested me. So I used my experience on the Safe Beaches and Shellfish project to produce a . . . --- class: fullback background-image: url(images/nestsite2.png) ??? . . . storytelling website that featured the team’s work and our efforts to engage with stakeholders. I did it by working with a number of team members and a couple of stakeholders to tell stories about sustainability science. These ranged from an audio piece that collected critical reflections about the concept and implications of sustainability itself to videos and writing about how our team’s research, teaching, and outreach techniques produced forms of engagement that we wanted to have make a difference. One of the things that I find really interesting about all this is how transmedia storytelling means bringing together different forms of media in dialogue with each other, and sustainability science means bringing researchers from a range of academic disciplines to produce science that connects with real world issues. There are a lot of similarities between these approaches to media and collaboration, and in the final section today I’ll talk a bit more about what it means to use these kinds of media archives as catalysts for engagement. But one of the key takeaways that Bridie has encouraged me to appreciate from my experience on the Safe Beaches and Shellfish project is how this kind of collaborative work begets collaboration. The storytelling goals opened up new opportunities for me to work with team members I wouldn’t have otherwise, and sowed some seeds for future collaboration. At the same time, there were also some tensions in taking this kind of approach. For example, what were the implications of focusing the work of storytelling in one lead producer (me)? In what ways might this have limited the potential for broader participatory learning and shared meaning-making among our team? Bridie and I have been taking up questions like these in our current work. In 2016, I joined the doctoral program here in CMJ and also the next phase of NEST’s work . . . --- class: fullback background-image: url(images/fodgroup.jpg) ??? . . . a project called the Future of Dams focused on developing a diverse set of tools to support decision making about dams. Building on some of the tensions I highlighted from the transmedia storytelling project, we and other scholars have identified other tensions that matter for collaborative, interdisciplinary sustainability science work among groups of teams distanced by geography as well as differences of academic style. Two of the main challenges that come from this kind of work include reconciling different expectations and definitions of success and providing support for diverse forms of leadership. We’re using an ethnography of our team to explore these questions, and some metaphors we’ve used to describe our praxis-oriented approach include automotive ones like “getting under the hood” or bodily ones like “taking the pulse” of our sustainability science team. The idea is to get a sense of how our project is going, hear how team members want it to go, and then feed findings back to the team to inform next steps for collaboration and integration planning. We organize this approach through participatory ethnographic methods including participant observation at and after team meetings and 24 interviews with team members so far. Since we are committed to bringing these data to inform our team’s decision making, we use a unique approach we call “rapid insight tracking” where we take in-depth notes during interviews, produce detailed transcriptions of these notes, aggregate the responses according to the questions we asked, and synthesize key themes that emerge in the process in interim reports we’ve shared with team members on a regular basis. This has let us track insights and inform the team’s decision making more rapidly than we could had we needed to wait until full interview transcription was done, so rapid insight tracking has helped our team make decisions about process questions and emerging needs pretty rapidly. Through this process, we generate practical insights about how our team is working and how it might work better, but we also are learning about how an emerging team ecology is enriching the possibilities for our collective science. Some examples of the integrated materials our team has been working together with include . . . --- class: fullback background-image: url(images/nedams.png) ??? . . . a comprehensive inventory database produced at URI that catalogs more than 7000 New England dams . . . --- class: fullback background-image: url(images/dcacoding.png) ??? . . . a media discourse database of 1,480 news articles that cover dam removal and that we’re linking with that dams inventory . . . --- class: fullback background-image: url(images/protocol.png) ??? . . . and a year-long process of shared interview protocol development—which was itself informed by the media discourse database—by one of our team’s working groups focused on coordinating around stakeholder engagement. Bridie and I have never been on a project like this before where data is shared so widely and social science is supported so extensively, so we find that really productive and exciting, but it can also be challenging. Recently, our team has realized that a lot of these decisions and activities complicate key research considerations like authorship. One of the things we’re starting to work through as a group is how to recognize and acknowledge the rich mix of collaborative contributions that feed into each other’s work, and what this means for negotiating and assigning author order. In a recent meeting we had about planning further data sharing and coordinated analysis, some of us said that we were interested in thinking broadly and openly about authorship while others said that they didn’t think they should be an author on any manuscript they couldn’t describe in depth to a person on the street, no matter how much their data and insight had shaped the work. These sorts of challenges and the conversations about them have been possible because of things like simultaneous note-taking and writing in a shared Google Drive archive and regular videoconference meetings with team members in different states have become the norm for us. In some ways this problem has emerged through the communication and collaboration technologies that we’ve been using to span boundaries and share processes. So now I want to look more closely at how technology organizes rhetoric and how energy technologies like dams produce certain types of collaborations. --- class: center, middle
Hydropower technology context
??? Dams embody necessity, permanence, familiarity, and dread in ways that I think capacitate really unique and complex social situations. We’ve found in our work that the rhetorics that connect with dams are powerful, both literally and metaphorically. Metaphorically, depending on who, where, and when you are . . . --- class: fullback background-image: url(images/hoover.jpg) ??? . . . a dam can resemble a monument . . . --- class: fullback background-image: url(images/oroville.jpg) ??? . . . or a menace. Literally, arguments for keeping and removing dams are inventive, but they’re inventive in ways that are directly capacitated by material forces. We have been interviewing people involved in decision making about dams in Maine, and we ask them about the types of arguments they typically encounter to keep or remove a dam. Some of the key arguments we’ve heard to remove dams are related to fish passage (like restoring historical habitats, protecting endangered species, and supporting humans and other animals that feed on fish), cultural connections to land and rivers (like the use of free-flowing rivers as transportation corridors and restoring flooded historical locations), and recreational and financial reasons. Some of the arguments we’ve heard to keep dams are related to aesthetics (the visual appeal of dams and the potential ugliness of newly free rivers), cultural connections to dams (many of them are part of regional, town, or personal histories), supplying water (like for irrigation, drinking, and firefighting) and, interestingly, recreational and financial reasons. All of these are direct expressions of real material concerns in ways that connect with values and preferences. --- class: middle, center #### *"the only thing a community hates worse than a new dam being put in is removing an existing dam"* ??? As one scientist told us in an interview, "the only thing a community hates worse than a new dam being put in is removing an existing dam." This quote describes how decision making about dams can seem really fickle sometimes. But, it deemphasizes how the diverse ways we value and communicate about dams produce complex social arrangements. --- class: middle, center #### *"we require each other in unexpected collaborations and combinations, in hot compost piles. We become-with each other or not at all. That kind of material semiotics is always situated, someplace and not noplace, entangled and worldly"* ##### - Donna Haraway: *Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene*, 4) ??? Like Donna Haraway says, "we require each other in unexpected collaborations and combinations, in hot compost piles. We become-with each other or not at all. That kind of material semiotics is always situated, someplace and not noplace, entangled and worldly." So Bridie and I are studying a number of these hot compost piles (I think) and one that we’re trying to make sense of is the Penobscot River Restoration Project. This project was an extended process of negotiation, fundraising, public participation, physical construction, policymaking, and scientific monitoring focused on the main stem of the Penobscot River right here in UMaine’s backyard. --- class: fullback background-image: url(images/howland.jpg) ??? The result was the modification or decommissioning of 2 dams . . . --- class: fullback background-image: url(images/damremoval.jpg) ??? . . . and the outright removal of 2 other dams to restore historical access to the river for fish and humans. We are tracing this project through an archive of case study materials including news articles, interviews, and documents. We’ve often heard this project being described as a “success” in terms of specific target outcomes including the return of key species of migratory fish and optimization of hydroelectric infrastructure. These metrics of success are complicated by a key theme that I have identified in my analysis of our case study materials. Basically, the timeline and collaborative arrangement of the project is messier and more difficult to pin down than I once suspected, and the ways that stakeholders describe collaborative progress is convoluted and tense. For example, one interviewee with the Penobscot Indian Nation explained how regulatory and financial constraints were a key factor that lead Pennsylvania Power and Light, the multinational corporation that then owned the dams, to consider negotiating in 1999. --- class: middle, center #### *"PP&L wanted to get these licenses approved. So they first came to us individually and said to the tribe, ‘We’re going to give you a lot of money. We’re going to give you a dam’ . . . if we agreed to support the licensing. We said . . . ‘we will negotiate with you and we will go down this road under two conditions. Number one, mainstem dam removal must be on the table. And number two, that you agree that we're going to bring in our friends, the NGOs.’ And they hemmed and hawed for a few months but came around . . . and that's when this current Penobscot River Reservation Project really started to take hold."* ??? In their words, "PP&L wanted to get these licenses approved. So they first came to us individually and said to the tribe, ‘We’re going to give you a lot of money. We’re going to give you a dam’ . . . if we agreed to support the licensing. We said . . . ‘we will negotiate with you and we will go down this road under two conditions. Number one, mainstem dam removal must be on the table. And number two, that you agree that we're going to bring in our friends, the NGOs.’ And they hemmed and hawed for a few months but came around . . . and that's when this current Penobscot River Reservation Project really started to take hold.” --- class: middle, center #### *"we really didn’t start digging into the Penobscot Project until 2004 . . . and while scientists had been meeting about what they wanted to do, there was no plan. So I took it upon myself to corral the group."* ??? Another interviewee with an NGO said that "we really didn’t start digging into the Penobscot Project until 2004 . . . and while scientists had been meeting about what they wanted to do, there was no plan. So I took it upon myself to corral the group." --- class: middle, center #### *"we started the project. We recommended that they reconsider a couple of the dams on the lower stem of the Penobscot River, and this grew to include all the dams."* ??? In another interview, someone with a federal agency said "we started the project. We recommended that they reconsider a couple of the dams on the lower stem of the Penobscot River, and this grew to include all the dams." --- class: fullback background-image: url(images/bdn.png) ??? Other stories about how the project got started also circulate in the news, which we’ve found through our work with the media database I mentioned earlier. One piece was published in the Bangor Daily news in Summer 2016, right around the time I was joining the Future of Dams project and the Penobscot River Restoration Project was ending. This piece begins "Pat Keliher still remembers an early morning phone call during which a professional colleague outlined a bold idea that could help transform the Penobscot River. '[Andy Goode of the Atlantic Salmon Federation] said, "Hey. We want to take two dams off the Penobscot and build a big river around another dam. What do you think?" . . . I said "Hey? You know what? Maybe that will work."' It worked." Now, this is public data so I can share their names, but also know that I didn’t quote either of these people earlier, so this is yet another example of how the Penobscot Project story can be sliced and retold from different perspectives. These retellings leave a convoluted timeline with competing memories and claims to ownership in terms of how the project emerged and went. --- class: center, middle
Participatory media context
??? The example I just gave was from a news story, so let’s pivot to talk about how media interact with the collaborative practices I’m tracing in my engaged rhetorical work. There are three examples I want to share that show how media matter for collaboration. The first example is still about the Penobscot Project. We’ve repeatedly heard in our interviews that media depictions of the project are important. Members of the Penobscot Indian Nation have expressed interest in knowing which news articles discuss the Penobscot Project in terms of the Nation’s involvement and in those, how the Nation was portrayed in relation to the overall collaboration. Some project participants have described how it is increasingly hard to get local papers to pay attention to stories that have to do with local decision making about fish and dams. --- class: middle, center #### *"democracy is messy business . . . if you’re entering into a [decision making] process with a very, very large corporation, you need to meet them sort of at the vertical levels, and that’s on the ground, the public relations, in the newspapers, in the courts, potentially, in technical fields. And that’s what the conservation community is building."* ??? As another interviewee, in favor of dam removal, explained, “democracy is messy business . . . if you’re entering into a [decision making] process with a very, very large corporation, you need to meet them sort of at the vertical levels, and that’s on the ground, the public relations, in the newspapers, in the courts, potentially, in technical fields. And that’s what the conservation community is building.” In this account, media don’t take a back seat so much as they enter into a richer web of relationships that compose what the interviewee calls democracy. So news media figure prominently in how issues relating to dams are portrayed. And also, the intersection of media production practices, science, and technology is a fraught intersection. Some of these tensions manifest as crises of representation (who gets to speak for whom?), legitimacy (whose voices are privileged?), and agency (who gets to decide or impact the decisions of others?). These issues also highlight a need to invent new kinds of media production, research, and public participation practices. I am interested in participatory approaches to media production and research archive building. On the Future of Dams project, our team is trying to explore some of these possibilities through online storytelling without limiting ourselves to a single producer in the way my master’s project was set up. --- class: fullback background-image: url(images/bloggroup.jpg) ??? So we’ve been developing a student-lead collaborative blog where our team members can practice science communication, speak across academic disciplines, and further enrich our science through public engagement. --- class: fullback background-image: url(images/blog.png) ??? We’re pretty well underway, since our platform is built and we’ve been producing content for a little while now. But, there is still a need to find out whether collaborative blogging makes a difference, if so how, and if it really matters for some key issues like whether people making decisions about dams trust the available science. So I’m considering collaborative blogging as a digital field site in my research as well. The final example I want to share also connects back with my transmedia storytelling master’s project. Part of that project is still living on, and a lot of you probably know where I am going with this. --- class: fullback background-image: url(images/clamflat.jpg) ??? Almost exactly three years ago, Bridie and I went out to the coast during spring break 2015 and outfitted some clammers with chest-mounted GoPro cameras. At the time I was most interested in how this could open up more possibilities for transmedia storytelling, but along the way it became so much more. --- class: fullback background-image: url(images/clamcam.png) ??? We call it Clam Cam, and it’s become its own engaged digital rhetoric project. After we reviewed the footage from that first recording session, Bridie and I realized that we and the clammers were onto something, that this was a very different way of visualizing the fishery and of doing fieldwork. So we decided to make a study out of it, since we were interested in how these sorts of video texts and textures could open up new affective encounters with material rhetoric in the shellfishery. Over the past three years, we have collected more than 24 hours of footage with clammers, we’ve shared more than three and a half of those hours on a public website where anyone can explore the world of clamming as seen through our cameras, and had numerous engagement sessions with clamming communities and individual clammers to get feedback on our insights and shape our approach. --- class: fullback background-image: url(images/seaweed.jpg) ??? Along the way, Carter joined us as a coauthor and really made invaluable contributions to the analysis of the archive the three of us have built with clammers. Since this section is all about how media and rhetoric matter for each other, I’d be remiss not to mention the media coverage that the project has drawn, including a segment on WERU community radio, a story on UMaine’s website, a feature on Bangor’s WABI TV station, an article in an online newspaper called Mainebiz, and a story in the Bangor Metro magazine. For the magazine story, this was a really different experience because there were journalists on the mudflat with us and the clammers, and it was a very different sense of relationality. Since that story last summer, we’ve seen other evidence that our work is valuable, like clammers asking us to go back out and do more research with them—which for anyone who does work with this population knows, it’s a big deal—and colleagues like Tony [Sutton] and others trying out this technique. Before we wrap up here today, I want to show you what it looks like in action. So this is the world debut of our most recent episode, which I took a bit different approach to with picture-in-picture video that shows multiple perspectives at once.
[play episode from 2:00-3:00]
Right now we’re in the very final stages of getting our research article about the project ready for submission, so we’re also looking forward to future stages of the study. We’re not quite sure what form it will take, but we are interested in using creative recording techniques to get unique perspectives like burying the camera in mud to simulate the experience of a clam, timelapse photography to show full tidal cycles, and using drones or GPS work to get a better sense of how clammers, water, and mud move. I also think there is the potential to make this project even more participatory by turning over the cameras to the clammers and letting them record and upload their own videos or by working even more closely with clammers to do collaborative videography with external cameras while the GoPros are recording. And I’m really interested in if our future work can explore how this type of approach fundamentally shifts the researcher-participant relationship where we are appearing on camera and clammers get a direct, bodily say in how their industry is visualized (like the example from the video showed). --- class: center, middle
??? So I think Clam Cam is a good final example to end on because it really viscerally demonstrates what you can do with rhetorical fieldwork and how engaged scholarship can inform how something like a fishery is portrayed and understood. In summary, we explored a range of collaborative contexts and projects. So what can we learn from them? Here are three takeaways I can propose for consideration. --- layout: false .left-column[ ## Key Takeaways ] .right-column[
1. Ecological collaborations require new kinds of science. ] ??? One, ecological collaborations require new kinds of science. --- layout: false .left-column[ ## Key Takeaways ] .right-column[
1. Ecological collaborations require new kinds of science. 2. Technologies work with us to organize particular social processes. ] ??? Two, technologies work with us to organize particular social processes. --- layout: false .left-column[ ## Key Takeaways ] .right-column[
1. Ecological collaborations require new kinds of science. 2. Technologies work with us to organize particular social processes. 3. Media compose the world in ways that demand participation. ] ??? And three, media compose the world in ways that demand participation. As I’ve discussed, I think that rhetoric and collaborative decision making matter for each other, and some of the ways they matter have to do with science, technology, and media. I think that the study of rhetoric is needed to understand how these inform collaborative decision making. By the same token, rhetoric has to attend and contribute to collaborative work in order to inform these contexts. Latour would be pleased to know that I don’t see the social as a domain ripe for scholarly exploitation as much as an opportunity to understand how collaboration and engaged rhetorics require each other to address what kinds of science, technology, and media we need in the world now. I think that “constructing the social,” instead of reassembling it, emphasizes the ways that people and things must commit to care in producing the kind of world we want and need. So those are some of that ways that I think rhetoric and collaboration shape how we can work with science, technology, and media, and there’s a glimpse of some of the things that I think about. --- layout: false .left-column[ ## Funders ] .right-column[
* National Science Foundation * Department of Communication & Journalism * Maine Economic Improvement Fund * Diana Davis Spencer Foundation * UMaine Humanities Center ] ??? I'd like to thank our funders, including the National Science Foundation, the Department of Communication and Journalism, the Maine Economic Improvement Fund, the Diana Davis Spencer Foundation, and the UMaine Humanities Center. --- class: middle, center # Thank you. ??? I'd also like to thank all of you! Do you have any questions or things you'd like to talk about?