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.

Everyday Indivisibility: How Exclusive Religious Practices Explain Variation in Subnational Violence Outcomes

This project explores the puzzle of religious violence variation. Religious actors initiate conflict at a higher rate than their secular counterparts, last longer, are more deadly, and are less prone to negotiated termination. Yet the legacy of religious peacemakers on the reduction of violence is undeniable. Under what conditions does religion contribute to escalated violence and under what conditions does it contribute to peace? I argue that more intense everyday practices of group members, or high levels of orthopraxy, create dispositional indivisibilities that make violence a natural alternative to bargaining. Subnational armed groups with members whose practices are exclusive and isolating bind together through ritual practice, limit the acceptable decisions of leaders, and have prolonged timeframes, all of which result in higher levels of intensity, intransigence and resolve during violent conflict. The theory challenges both instrumentalist and constructivist understandings of social identity and violence. To support this argument, I construct an original cross-national data-set that employs ethnographic data on micro-level religious practices for 724 subnational armed groups in both civil wars and terror campaigns. Using this data, I build an explanatory “religious practice index” for each observation and examine its relationship with conflict outcomes. Findings suggest that exclusive practice groups fight significantly longer with more intensity and negotiate less. I also apply the practice model to qualitative cases. Fieldwork in the West Bank and Sierra Leone reveals that groups with more exclusive religious practicing membership are principle contributors to violence, whereas those with inclusive practices can contribute to peace. The project concludes with a discussion about several avenues for future research and identifies the practical policy applications to better identify and combat religious extremism.

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.

Comparative Evaluation of Groundwater Management Practices of the Ogallala Aquifer

Mining of groundwater, or extracting a larger quantity of water than what is naturally returned to the aquifer through recharge, has been occurring for more than fifty years. The minimal natural recharge to the Ogallala Aquifer makes sustainable use of this resource a daunting task for states across the High Plains that rely on it to support their well-established ways of life. This task is compounded when considering the different combinations of federal, state and local governance, as well as regional economic and social frameworks that each state overlaying the aquifer experiences. This project critically examines factors contributing to groundwater management successes and failures of three states that overlay the majority (87%) of this resource: Nebraska, Kansas and Texas.

A Quantitative Exploration of Social Networks: Verifying the Legitimacy and Equitability of Social Networks in Recruiting

In this digital age organizations must focus on connecting with candidates and aspire for innovation in recruiting practices to remain competitive. This author investigated social networking to determine whether or not it provides reliable candidate information when recruiting for hire. Online media such as LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter and MySpace, have become an integrated part of social and professional lives. Analysis of social networking revealed use for recruiting but posed challenges and advantages for organizations. A quantitative cross-sectional survey of social network members (N=136) indicated discrepancy in generational use of social networks and concerns regarding the validity and reliability of candidate information. Social networking promotes innovation in recruiting, however, by itself might not endorse equitability, validity and reliability.