जुस्त अ रौघ Draft

**This is just a rough draft, to give you kind of an idea about how I am going to analyze a controversy.**


Abstract

In January of 2006, Donato et al. presented a brief commentary on post-wildfire logging after the 2002 Biscuit Fire, in Oregon.1 Soon after in February, the first critique of Donato et al.’s work by Newton et al. emerged, followed by B.N. Baird’s critique in March. First, in this paper I would like to present the method I will use to study the arguments, through Bruno Latour’s (1987) teachings and through a coding method providing consistency in questioning the papers and the authors’ intentions. Secondly, I would like to state the argument, and then implement Latour’s approach at dissecting the argument, by applying it to Donato et al., Newton et al., and Baird’s papers.

The goal of this paper is not to persuade the reader to accept one argument as more persuasive than the other, but to de-construct the scenario presented by both sides of the argument, to better understand the mechanisms and processes at play. The idea is to take a non-conventional survey of the situation, to perhaps reach conclusions that are not so apparent through a superficial review.

Lastly, I would summarize Latour’s approach, its application to the Biscuit Fire controversy, the validity and reliability of claims presented, and my overall findings through content analysis of Donato et al., Newton et al., and Baird’s works.

Methods

The method used in conducting this study is content analysis and Latour’s teachings on the making of an argument, the application of the argument, and then the finalizing or closing of the argument. Latour designates contextual variables as affecting the making of an argument, and different contextual variables affecting the argument once it is “made.” Latour’s approach is to designate the notion that practically-made reality is a collective process (Michael Flower). In understanding this process, he argues that an “outsider” to an argument can become the “insider” by either agreeing with the argument, or being a dissenter. Furthermore, Latour depicts the flow of an argument or controversy in terms of “upstream” and “downstream.”

Upstream is the process of taking a claim back to it’s making (origin), analyzing what forces were in effect, and what the contextual understanding of the argument was. Questioning who the sources are, and who gains what from (motives) the outcome/argument are questioned and analyzed. Downstream is where Latour refers to an argument becoming complex, a “black box.” This black box is representative of a practical end, where alternative explanation at the time does not exist. However, Latour argues that though there is practical end, principal end does not exist. The argument is grounded till a new argument arises to dispute the claims (Latour).

Positive and negative modalities are introduced by Latour to help analyze the structure of an argument in texts. Positive modalities, using the weaker elements of a sentence to direct it towards the stronger argument (Latour). Finally, any claim or statement in an argument is just as good as another, however the essential element of any argument is the supporting text, sources and the literature providing the foundation for each argument. This also helps identify the key figures who benefit or lose from the closing (downstream) or the investigating (upstream) of an argument. This is the politicization of science, where science is no longer the focus of the argument based on purely a technical point-of-view, rather the latent indicators of a politico-scientific controversy de-rail the effort towards the stronger participant in the argument (Latour). This is measured through persuasion, intimidation, and “facts.”

Therefore, I will analyze Donato et al.’s assertions, Baird and Newton et al.’s response, and then Donato et al.’s counter response based on: Latour’s upstream/downstream notion, black box theory, sentence structure analysis through modalities, source examination, and resource reliability and validity. While keeping in mind that there is no right or wrong argument, just the context, structure and foundation of the argument that defines its place as either strong or weak.

The second method that I would use in conducting content analysis is coding. The coding process is a list of questions I have compiled to analyze the structure of the papers published by Donato et al. and their critics. The questions are:

Does the author present a clear problem?
Is the significance of the problem clearly established?
What is the author’s research style?
Has the author analyzed the literature relevant to the problem?
In the research design, how good are the variables being studied and quantified?
What appeals are used by the author to trigger response in the reader, toward or away from an argument?
Does the conclusion reflect an accurate outcome of the argument presented?
What is the structure of the argument? Does logical reasoning exist? Is there a causality relationship?
What are the strengths and limitations of the study/literature?
Who are the key players benefiting from the success of this argument? From the failure of this argument?
Donato et al.

Post-wildfire logging is viewed as an essential intervention tool to reduce fire-risk and to help regenerate forests (Donato et al.). Commenting on the Biscuit Fire of 2002, in Oregon, Donato et al., presented an alternative explanation posing the regeneration-intervention efforts as “detrimental” to the natural growth of the forest. The argument takes the notion of intervention by post-fire management, back upstream to question the validity of a conventional approach, and a widely held belief—post-fire intervention tactics.

The black box here is the commonly held believe that post-fire logging is essential, and “required” for the regeneration of the forest. Donato et al., argue that by conducting existing statistical analysis on previously conducted studies on regeneration and fuel loads studies, the need for intervention is not evident. Donato et al., conducted content analysis and historical/comparative analysis of prior studies, to provide supporting material in light of their hypothesis.

Their sources include: D. B. Lindenmayer (Center for Resource and Environmental Studies, The Australian National University), D. R. Foster (Harvard Forest, Harvard University), J. F. Franklin (College of Forest Resources, University of Washington), M. L. Hunter (Department of Wildlife Ecology, University of Maine), R. F. Noss (Department of Biology, University of Central Florida), F. A. Schmiegelow (Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, Canada), and D. Perry (University of Hawaii), whose work: Salvage Harvesting Policies After Natural Disturbance, which was published in the Science magazine in February of 2004.

Donato, at the time the paper was written was a graduate student at Oregon State University, Department of Forest Science. Further references include: J. B. Fontaine (Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, OSU), J.L. Campbell (Department of Forest Science, OSU), W.D. Robinson (Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, OSU), J.B. Kauffman (Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry, US Department of Agriculture Forest Service), and B.E. Law (Department of Forest Service, OSU). Additional commentary and review provided by: J. Sessions. Whose resume highlights (taken from http://www.cof.orst.edu/cof/fe/People/sessions.php):

University Distinguished Professor of Forestry Stewart Professor of Forest
Engineering

Registered Professional Civil Engineer: Washington and Colorado
BS, Engineering, 1966 University of California, Los Angeles
MS, Civil Engineering, 1968 California State University
MS, Forest Engineering, 1971 University of Washington
PhD, Forest Economics, 1979 Oregon State University
This impressive list of “allies” formulates an argument that is strong based on

academia that supports Donato’s research. At this point, the structure of Donato et al.’s paper may be fragile, because of the lack of scientific backing, however the addition and referencing of professionals who are experts in their respective fields, provides for credibility upon which they choose to assign their names.

Inquiring about the benefits to, and intents of Donato et al. in writing their paper, one finds that there are no apparent indicators weighing the scale of any benefits other than a strictly informative/research paper. Even though an argument can be developed based on the nature of research being “value-laden,” and based on the reality of the researcher. I am keeping by role to a neutral, Latourian; analyzing the controversy based on the information provided.

The interesting element of Donato et al.’s article is that they state their own shortcomings: “Scientific data directly informing this debate are lacking” (p. 352). Thus, the approach taken by Donato et al. is representative of shifting the post-wildfire logging and regeneration debate from downstream to upstream. This debate has become a black-box that is the reason why there is not significant scientific data — the lack of experimentation, and the lack of desire to provide alternate approaches to regeneration, enables for the black box to continue to exist.

Newton et al.

The argument developed here is based upon inadequate support provided by Donato et al. in clearly communicating their data and conclusions. Newton et al. argue that Donato et al. only made “inferences,” and does not provide “key information regarding agency post fire management directives for reforestation or downed wood levels” (Newton et al.). Analyzing this argument through the coding process presented above, one sees that though the sentence structure may seem very sophisticated, the underlying messages do not communicate the issue at hand.

Newton et al. want to address post-fire management, policy-creation and fuel continuity. The argument when analyzed without comparing it to Donato et al.’s argument can stand alone. However, when placed next to the Donato et al.’s paper, one can see that the research approach taken by Newton et al. is actually shifting the focus of the reader. Donato et al. argued the validity of natural reforestation as opposed to intervention and logging. Newton et al. is presenting a irrelevant argument on how Donato et al. should have address post-wildfire issues.

This is a cunning way of perhaps, demeaning Donato et al., but when viewed through Latour’s point of view it is easy to see the shift from upstream to downstream. Newton et al. associates with the black box, and want to continue maintaining the “facts” as they have known it. Often politicians, scientists and other influential players restructure and re-focus the statements of each other to present their respective fiction and reality (Latour). The intended message of the original piece can not be interpreted when read through Newton et al.’s counter argument, because the depiction of Donato et al., is modified and based on the view of Newton et al.. Additionally, Latour states “the fate of what we say and make is in later users’ hands” (p.29), thus these users can interpret in their own way, and using modalities restructure the words to form a stronger argument.

Newton et al.’s argument also shed light on the Federal Agencies responsible for reforestation, and how difficult their job is. Agencies were not directly targeted or named in Donato et al.’s paper, however one can safely make the assumption that the entity to have the biggest lost through Donato et al.’s paper are the ones previously conducting reforestation and those entities that endorse reforestation through intervention.

An idea can be formulated through investigating the list of 13 references presented by Newton et al.. The most interesting aspect of the bibliography is the citing of J. Sessions, the same professor who had previously reviewed Donato et al.’s work. I am not in a position to make assumptions, as I will weir off my research goal. But, I can not help and wonder why the same person would be cited in both papers; perhaps a shift of opinion, or an understanding of common ground. The bibliography depicts Newton et al.’s allies, and is a strong foundation with 15 references, all varying from USDA Forest Services to US Department of the Interior.

These Federal sources present allies that are far more powerful then the ones presented by Donato et al.. Their power does not only lie in the research and statistics they provide on the subject of reforestation, but represent the aims of the administration in power; the Bush administration. Furthermore, critics have presented a link between these allies and the College of Forestry at Oregon State University—the college receives 10% of its funding from taxes collected from logging (Biscuit Fire publication Controversy Information). One can now begin to understand the nature of the shift from Donato et al.’s paper, upstream, to conventional methodology, downstream. The college has financial support that can be taken away if the key players, or influencers are not kept in agreement. The argument begins to weaken, regardless of the number of allies, due to the linkage formulated through this financial backing.

In order to diffuse any doubts that this was an isolated example of the Bush administration’s logging policies, I collected the following information through a Google search: Sequoias face loosened logging regulations by Rich Heffern (http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives/031403/031403l.htm), The Tongass – Waste, Fraud and Abuse in America’s Rainforest, Sierra Club (http://www.sierraclub.org/forests/), Sequoia Task Force, Sierra Club (http://www.sierraclub.org/ca/sequoia/), The Need for the Act to Save America’s Forests in Response to the Bush Assault on the National Forests (http://www.saveamericasforests.org/congress/ASAFvBush-3.2.06.htm), and several othe resources. These sources show a pattern of supporting economic gain over environmental effects, on the part of the Bush administration.

B.N. Baird

The second article, which criticized Donato et al.’s work, was by the (now) Democratic Congressman Brian Baird (Washington). His paper argues that due to the lack of sufficient supporting documents, like plot selection in experiment, alternative factors effecting seedling survival, and the inconsistency of research design and methodology (B.N. Baird). The argument is designed to challenge the statistical nature of Donato et al.’s data, and data collection. The paper it self is divided up in four paragraphs, and asks the reader, “ results of this study (Donato et al.’s) should not be used to make broad inferences about the impacts of other postfire harvest practices on forest health and recovery” (B.N. Baird). The other interesting element of Baird’s paper is his bibliography; it only consists of Donato et al., and the url to their article in Science Magazine.

Due to the lack of allies, and directing statistical errors as weaknesses of Donato et al.’s work, Baird’s argument is weak. His only influence seems to stem from the fact that he is a member of the US House of Representative, from Washington, which is stated in the paper. This paper was also published in the Science magazine, as a “Technical Comment” to Donato et al.’s paper. Baird’s use of statistical terms, highly technical to the discipline do not shed light on the research hypothesis of Donato et al. Additionally, Baird does not provide sources or environmental data to counter the results of Donato et al. The black box here is the approach taken in deciphering the statistical data and its interpretation. Donato et al. deciphered their data in a manner to support their claims, and Baird is questioning that upstream approach, and by providing, alleged-technical flaws, sliding the research back downstream. The lack of sources on the part of Baird, allows for the reader to doubt his accusations. As Latour says

"Attacking a paper heavy with footnotes means that the dissenter has to weaken each of the other papers, or will at least be threatened with having to do so, whereas attacking a naked paper means that the reader and the author are of the same weight: face to face."(p.33)


Baird’s paper to Latour is a “naked” paper, the non-existence of allies, and actually citing only Donato et al. is his further weakening of his argument.

A note of interest here is that, according to GovTrack.us, Rep. Greg Walden of Oregon and Baird co-sponsored a bill in November of 2005:


H.R. 4200 [109th]: Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act

To improve the ability of the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to promptly implement recovery treatments in response to catastrophic events affecting Federal lands under their jurisdiction, including the removal of dead and damaged trees and the implementation of reforestation treatments, to support the recovery of non-Federal lands damaged by catastrophic events, to revitalize Forest Service experimental forests, and for other purposes” (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-4200).

What perhaps the real motives lay behind the statistical approach at arguing Donato et al.’s paper becomes questionable after understanding what is at stake for Baird and Walden. The dissenters to an argument are designated with the duty to produce doubt in the mind of the ‘outsiders’, to perhaps sway their opinion one or another. In this case the dissenters were Baird and Newton et al. both of whom provided arguments to rebut Donato et al.’s paper.

Response

Finally, Donato et al. responded to their dissenters in the article Response to Comments on “Post-Wildfire Logging Hinders Regeneration and Increases Fire Risk.” The argument it self elaborates on the questions brought up in Baird’s paper and in Newton et al.’s paper, and goes beyond by disclosing a complete structure of their experiment, research and data collection. This two and a half page article, does not just completely describe the process textually, but also offers graphs, diagrams and tables to substantiate their argument. The illustrative nature of this article provides for a stronger argument, as these figures present a tangible, visual clue, that brings data to life—makes it solid (Latour), perhaps more believable.

Conclusion

My approach to dissecting the arguments through a Latourian view questioned the lack of allies presented in Newton et al.’s argument and in Baird’s argument. This same technique was used in the concluding paragraph of Donato et al.’s response paper, as they say, “Newton et al. and Baird present different perspectives, but provide no data or evidence from other studies to contradict our findings and conclusions” (p. 615c). Additionally, Donato et al. cite 33 references and notes—a list of allies, stronger than any of their dissenters. Though, I mentioned in the introduction, that I would like to analyze the validity and reliability of each argument, through the course of this paper, I have decided to leave that to the reader. Though, using Latour’s approach, one can de-construct each argument and understand why and how the black box was opened, the movement of the “facts” from downstream to upstream and back, and finally where the information rests at the conclusion of these arguments.

I would like to conclude with Latour’s words as he sums up Donato et al.’s position:

“The ‘average man who happens to hit the truth’, naively postulated by Galileo, will have no chance to win over the thousands of articles, referees, supporters and granting bodies who oppose the claim” (p.44).


References

Baird, B. N. (2006). Comment on "Post-wildfire logging hinders regeneration and increases fire risk". [Electronic version]. SCIENCE, 313(August), 615b.

Donato, D. C., Fontaine, J. B., Campbell, J. L., Robinson, W. D., Kauffman, J. B., & Law, B. E. (2006). Post-wildfire logging hinders regeneration and increases fire risk. [Electronic version]. SCIENCE, 311(January 20), 352.

Donato, D. C., Fontaine, J. B., Campbell, J. L., Robinson, W. D., Kauffman, J. B., & Law, B. E. (2006). Response to comments on "post-wildfire logging hinders regeneration and increases fire risk". [Electronic version]. SCIENCE, 313(August), 615c.

Google. (2007). Retrieved May/5, 2007, from www.google.com

GovTrack.us independently tracking the united states congress. (2007). Retrieved May/5, 2007, from www.Govtrack.us

Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Newton, M., Fitzgerald, S., Rose, R. R., Adams, P. W., Tesch, S. D., Sessions, J., et al. (2006). Comment on "post-wildfire logging hinders regeneration and increases fire risk". [Electronic version]. SCIENCE, 313, 615.

The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. (2005). Literature reviews. Retrieved April/17, 2007, from http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/literature_review.html