Technology & Human Values
 


Major Essay: 5-7pp. / 1300-2000 words

Below are two essay topics I suggest.  I encourage you to pursue a topic of your own choosing, so these are only suggested topics.  However, if you choose to work on another question, you must consult me about it in order to make sure that (1) it is relevant to the course, and (2) it is a manageable project.  It will probably take a good ten minutes to figure this out, so you should come to my office hours or make an appointment.

Still further below are the general essay policies and guidelines:
Formal Requirements
Lateness
Collaboration
Structure
Tips
Further Consideration
 
 

ESSAY TOPIC #1
“David versus David”

Given David Gelernter’s arguments that form(s) of beauty are found in luxury technology such as computers, can David Strong maintain his criticism of devices?
 
 

ESSAY TOPIC #2
"Please, please, Mr. Postman"

According to Neil Postman, languages as much as machines are technologies, in part because how they work is “invisible”, that is to say inconspicuous.  Does this make languages the sort of technological devices David Strong argues are problematic?  Consider Margaret Lowe Benston’s argument that the popularity of language about technology reinforces sexist social structures.

[Back to top]

 
 

ESSAY POLICIES AND GUIDELINES

FORMAL REQUIREMENTS

Papers must be submitted in hard copy either in class, at FIMS, or at the Department of Philosophy (3rd floor Talbot College, mailbox across from TC316).  No e-mail or faxed papers will be accepted, and it is never advisable to slip papers under office doors.

Papers must be on 8.5” x 11” paper, double-spaced, with at least 1-inch margins.  All pages except the first should be numbered.  Please staple the pages together in the top left-hand corner and do not use a folder.  You should have a title page that clearly indicates the following: title, date, student name, course, and instructor.

An argumentative or position paper is the general style (See “General Structure” below).
Use a standard form of reference - I don’t mind which one, just be consistent and thorough.  (It is advisable to learn a standard format for the discipline in which you usually work: PSA for social science, MLA for humanities, etc.)  If you have any concerns or questions about this, contact the Effective Writing Program (see below).

Good spelling and grammar are required; poor grammar and spelling will be penalized up to 20%.  So, you may be better off taking a lateness penalty than submitting unpolished work.

[Back to top]
LATENESS POLICY: 3% per day (weekend = one day)

COLLABORATION

You must each submit individual compositions, but I encourage you to work together by discussing the questions and sharing resources.

Don’t skimp on citing resources.  It is better that your work should appear to be a patchwork of other views than that it should not give credit that is due.  Plagiarism is an extremely serious academic offense and will not be tolerated.  For advice on how to avoid plagiarism, consult the Effective Writing Centre.  Students may be required to submit their assignments in electronic form for plagiarism checking.

[Back to top]
STRUCTURE

1. Introduction

Your introduction should act as a roadmap for your essay: explaining the issue, what positions you will address; and what argument you will make.  The outline provided in the introduction should guide the reader through your essay.

1. The Body

Argumentative (or “position”) papers have two elements to the body: the background and the argument.  They may be intermingled in your paper, but if you are not experienced at this style of writing, I recommend you treat these as separate parts.

a. The Background (Literature Review)*

The literature review, sets the stage for the position you are going to take.  Explaining the issue you are addressing and the position of the authors that you will be engaging will take about half of your essay. You must spend a good deal of time and effort making clear in your own words the positions of the authors you will address in your argument, or positions you will be opposing.  All quotations must be accompanied by your own interpretation of the passage or phrase.

You should find some sympathy with the views with which you disagree. Exercise “the principle of charity”: give them the benefit of the doubt.  In the first place, any perspective worthy of arguing against should appear on the surface to be reasonable.  Second, finding some basis for agreement or sympathy before you begin to criticize will help make your criticism fair.

Include definitions of technical terms.  For instance, it is often appropriate to explain how other authors use these terms in their discussion.  If they have not been clear, explain what the terms seem to mean, and why it seems so.  Explain if you are using the terms differently, and why.

* In some very short papers you may only need to use the background section to explain the alternative positions available.  You should explain the issue and the position that you oppose, construed in a reasonable fashion, but you need not address any particular literature.

a. The Argument

Explain your position on the issue you have raised.  How is it supported by reasonable assumptions?  Evidence?  Examples?  Now you can be critical, or you may expand on a position you have already presented.  How does your position contrast with the others explored in your literature review?  You must show how your position is related to the other literature on the subject.  Do you completely or partially agree?  Disagree?

3. Conclusion

In papers of fewer than eight pages, a concluding section is often unnecessary.  If you don’t have any further comments to make about the implications of your argument, don’t bother.

[Back to top]
TIPS

Good theoretical writing requires clear and precise expression.  Use language that you understand and can use accurately rather than language that seems to sound impressive.

Consult dictionaries, including dictionaries of philosophy, to ensure your language is accurate.  However, do not treat dictionaries as authorities on theoretical matters; they only describe how words are generally used.  We are concerned with specific normative or evaluational terms, and often with some very precise formulation of these terms only partially reflected by common use.  This is why you should explain the technical terms you use, and if you adopt a dictionary definition you must defend it.  For instance, the Oxford English Dictionary definitions of “ethics”, “knowledge”, “race”, “feminism”, etc. are only someone else’s descriptions of the accepted meanings.  You need not accept the accuracy or appropriateness of such accounts; and you may find a need to construct new definitions that show how we should use certain terms.  (See “Background” above.)

In order to achieve explicitly gender-inclusive language, use “one”, “a person”, “he/she”; or plurals such as “people”, “humans”, “humanity”, but be careful to maintain consistent grammar.

Good writing requires rewriting.  Try to make an early draft and leave it alone for a few days, then go back and edit it.  Also, getting a friend to look at it and comment on style, clarity or content can be helpful.

I especially recommend that you consult the Effective Writing Centre.  In addition to the improvement you can expect in your paper, you will receive a bonus of 1% on top of your final grade in the course for a one-hour consultation on a paper for this course.  You will need to book your appointment at least a week in advance: phone 661-3031 or drop by the Student Development Centre.  I also encourage you to make use of the other resources in the Effective Writing Program.  See www.sdc.uwo.ca/writing/

[Back to top]
WHEN THE ASSIGNMENT IS RETURNED:FURTHER CONSIDERATION
If you wish me to reconsider your paper after it is returned to you, you have two immediate options:
1. For further comments, make an appointment, or drop by my office hours.
2. For reevaluation - including things so small as errors in addition- you must submit to me a written account of your concerns along with your assignment.  I reserve the right to lower grades as part of the reevaluation process.
[Back to top]
last updated:  February 21. 2002

Faculty of Information & Media Studies
University of Western Ontario

[HOME] - [OUTLINE] - [SCHEDULE] - [LECTURE] - [FINAL PAPER]