skip to main content
10.1145/3472714.3473632acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdocConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

The Price is Right: An Orders of Worth Analysis of Positions on Housing Prices: An Orders of Worth Analysis of Positions on Housing Prices

Published:12 October 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

In this pilot study, we investigate how community leaders in a rural Texas small town argue about economic development. To study this, we examine 33 semistructured interviews collected by undergraduate interns and analyze this data using Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot's Orders of Worth framework. Using this approach, we find that morals exacerbate a local housing crisis. This study extends Saul Carliner's work by showing an alternative way to name the competing value systems that trouble the assessment of technical documentation. However, this pilot study is also important to the field of communication design insofar as it models the use of a new theoretical framework to study the articulation of different value systems at work in practices of community advocacy.

References

  1. Belinsky, S. J., & Gogan, B. 2016. Throwing a change-up, pitching a strike: An autoethnography of frame acquisition, application, and fit in a pitch development and delivery experience. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 59, 4 (2016), 323-341.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Blokker, P. and Brighenti, A. 2011. Politics between justification and defiance. European Journal of Social Theory. 14, 3 (2011), 283–300. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431011412346.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Boltanski, L. and Thévenot, L. 2006. On justification: Economies of worth. Princeton University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Boltanski, L., and Thévenot, L. 1999. The sociology of critical capacity. European Journal of Social Theory, 2, 3 (1999), 359-377. https://doi.org/10.1177/136843199002003010Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Carliner, S. 2003. Characteristic-Based, Task-Based, and Results-Based: Three Value Systems for Assessing Professionally Produced Technical Communication Products. Technical communication quarterly 12,1 (2003), 83–100. Web.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlson, E.B. 2020. Embracing a metic lens for community-based participatory research in technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly. 29, 4 (2020), 392–410. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2020.1789745.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Carlson, E.B. and Gouge, C. 2021. Rural Health and Contextualizing Data. Journal of Business and Technical Communication. 35, 1 (2021), 41–49. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651920958502.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Corbin, J. and Strauss, A.C. 2008. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage Publications, Inc.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Gerding, J.M. and Vealey, K.P. 2017. When Is a Solution Not a Solution? Wicked Problems, Hybrid Solutions, and the Rhetoric of Civic Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business and Technical Communication. 31, 3 (2017), 290–318. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651917695538.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Grabill, J.T. 2003. Community computing and citizen productivity. Computers and Composition. (2003), 131–150.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Hanchek, B. and Potts, L. 2019. Expanding the boundaries of community by making space for inclusive participation. In Proceedings of the 37th ACM International Conference on the Design of Communication. AMC, 2019. 1-5. Web.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Hanrieder, T. 2016. Orders of worth and the moral conceptions of health in global politics. International Theory, 8,3 (2016), 390-421. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971916000099Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Jacquemain, M. 2008. Boltanski's moral sociology and his implicit theory of ideology. https://orbi.uliege.be/bitstream/2268/90314/1/Boltanski%27s%20moral%20sociology%20and%20his%20implicit%20theory%20of%20ideology.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Jones, N.N. 2017. Rhetorical Narratives of Black Entrepreneurs: The Business of Race, Agency, and Cultural Empowerment. Journal of Business and Technical Communication. 31, 3 (2017), 319–349. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651917695540.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Mercier-Roy, M. and Mailhot, C. 2019. What's in an App? Investigating the Moral Struggles Behind a Sharing Economy Device. Journal of Business Ethics. 159, 4 (2019), 977–996. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04207-7.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Miles, M.B. 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. Sage.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Ornatowski, C.M. and Bekins, L.K. 2004. What's Civic About Technical Communication? Technical Communication and the Rhetoric of "Community ". Technical Communication Quarterly. 13, 3 (2004), 251–269. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1207/s15427625tcq1303.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Patriotta, G. 2011. Maintaining legitimacy: Controversies, orders of worth, and public justifications. Journal of Management Studies. 48, 8 (2011), 1804–1836. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00990.x.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Propen, A.D. and Schuster, M.L. 2010. Understanding genre through the lens of advocacy: The rhetorical work of the Victim Impact Statement. Written Communication. 27, 1 (Nov. 2010), 3–35. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088309351479.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Rose, E.J. 2016. Design as Advocacy. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication. 46, 4 (2016), 427–445. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281616653494.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Shirley, B. J. 2019. “Adapting Environmental Ethics and Behaviors: Toward a Posthuman Rhetoric of Community Engagement.” ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2019. Print.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Simmons, W.M. 2007. Participation and Power. SUNY Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Walls, D. 2007. “Distributed Value System Matrix: a New Use for Distributed Usability Testing.” Proceedings of the 25th Annual ACM International Conference on Design of Communication. ACM, 2007. 256–262. Web.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Walton, R. 2013. Stakeholder Flux: Participation in Technology-Based International Development Projects. Journal of Business and Technical Communication. (May 2013). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651913490940.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Walton, R. 2015. Values and validity: Navigating messiness in a community-based research project in Rwanda. Technical Communication Quarterly. 24, 1 (2015), 45–69. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2015.975962.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    SIGDOC '21: Proceedings of the 39th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication
    October 2021
    402 pages
    ISBN:9781450386289
    DOI:10.1145/3472714

    Copyright © 2021 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 12 October 2021

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate355of582submissions,61%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format