The Affective Dimensions of Social Controversy

Social controversy is a sustained, mediated debate between at least two oppositional parties which is more than just a difference of opinion; rather it is a persistent conflict over the political and cultural implications that dominant forms of communicative reasoning, practices, and norms have for a public. Simply put, during social controversies the norms guiding public life can be negotiated, reaffirmed, negated, and/or transformed. This can lead to progressive political, cultural, and/or social change in some instances, while establishing or reifying conservative and even oppressive norms, practices, and laws in others. Building upon Olson and Goodnight's (1994) theoretical and methodological framework of social controversy, this dissertation argues that scholars should analyze the role affect plays in this type of conflict as a means to address the regulation of public conduct as well as public discourse. The rhetorical and argumentative significance of the affective dimensions of social controversy have been conceptualized and analyzed via an examination of emotion-based claims and affective states that have become salient, discernable and/or apprehendable during specific public disagreements. Such a conceptualization demonstrates that critical insights regarding the norms that guide public conduct, the role risk and vulnerability play in the regulation of individuals' public behavior, and the relationship between affect and citizenship can be gained by focusing on a controversy's affective dimensions. To highlight the importance of the study of affect in social controversy as well as better understand the larger critical significance affect theory has for rhetorical and argumentation studies, this dissertation has analyzed the affective dimensions of three conflicts. They are: the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse social controversy, the International Freedom Center social controversy, and the controversy over the 2004 French ban on conspicuous religious attire in public schools. The findings from this dissertation that have specific and general implications for future work in the field of controversy as well as rhetoric and argumentation, respectively.

The Relationship Between Social Support and Self-Advocacy in College Students With Disabilities

This study explored the connection between social support and self-advocacy in college students with disabilities. The College Students with Disabilities Campus Climate Survey (Lombardi, Gerdes, & Murray, 2011) was used to gather data from undergraduate students at a midsize western private university. Social support was found to be a significant predictor of self-advocacy in college students with disabilities. Peer support, family support, and faculty teaching practices made up the construct of social support. Peer support and faculty teaching practices were found to be significant predictors of student self-advocacy. Family support was not found to be significant. The data was examined for group differences between genders, disability types, and disability status (high incidence disabilities versus low incidence disabilities). No significant group differences were found. These findings suggest helping students build social support will increase their level of self-advocacy, which in turn may increase academic success.