skip to main content
10.1145/3615335.3623007acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdocConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Climate Change, Snowball Sampling, and Discourse-based Interviews: A Mixed Method for Studying Networked Rhetorics

Published:26 October 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

Climate science communicators actively use rhetorical strategies as they network online, but such strategies are often tacit and difficult to articulate. This paper offers a mixed-methods approach by which researchers can identify actors in a network and uncover tacit strategies used when communicators expand their networks and communicate across them. Drawing from actor-network theory and assemblage theory, I suggest that pairing snowball sampling and discourse-based interviews provides insight into these tacit knowledges. I describe a study in which I interviewed climate science communicators using these methods, and I offer one result that emerged: participants engaged in a form of identification as they communicated with their audiences. I conclude by offering two takeaways: first, that communicators should make conscious decisions about the building of their networks; and second, that even as they communicate publicly, they should focus on directing messages to specific groups or individuals.

References

  1. Neil Baird and Bradley Dilger. (2022). The discourse-based interview: Forty years of exploring the tacit knowledge of writers. Composition Forum, 49. https://compositionforum.com/issue/49/dbi-introduction.phpGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Sweta Baniya. (2022). Transnational assemblages in disaster response: Networked communities, technologies, and coalitional actions during global disasters. Technical Communication Quarterly, 31(4), 326-342. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2022.2034973Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Jane Bennett. (2005). The agency of assemblages and the North American Blackout. Public Culture, 17(3), 445–465.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Aryal Bhushan, Brody Bluemel, and Myrna A. Nurse. (2022). Negotiating traditions and charting a different future at an HBCU: The Composition and Speech Program at Delaware State University. Composition Forum, 49. https://compositionforum.com/issue/49/delaware-state.phpGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Emma Frances Bloomfield and Denise Tillery. (2019). The circulation of climate change denial online: Rhetorical and networking strategies on Facebook. Environmental Communication, 13(1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1527378Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Laura C. Bowling. (2021, June 16). And we tried to take an initial look at the reduced hours available for safe farm work in Indiana in the Indiana Climate Change Impacts Assessment https://t.co/7h8bQiJjVY [Tweet]. Twitter. https://twitter.com/LauraBowling11/status/1405183223165034498Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Laura C. Bowling, Melissa Widhalm., Keith A. Cherkauer., Janna Beckerman, Sylvie Brouder, Jonathan Buzan, Otto Doering, Jeffrey Dukes, Paul Ebner, Jane Frankenburger, Benjamin Gramig, Eileen J. Kladivko, Charlotte Lee, Jeffrey Volenec, and Cliff Weil. (2018). Indiana ’s agriculture in a changing climate: A report from the Indiana Climate Change Impacts Assessment (Paper 1; Agricultural Reports). Purdue University. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284316778Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Casper Bruun Jensen. (2019). Is actant-rhizome ontology a more appropriate term for ANT? In A. Blok, I. Farias, & C. Roberts (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Actor-network Theory (pp. 76–86). Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Kenneth Burke. (1969). A rhetoric of motives. University of California Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Lauren E. Cagle and Denise Tillery. (2018). Tweeting the Anthropocene: #400ppm as networked event. In H. Yu & K. M. Northcut (Eds.), Scientific Communication: Practices, Theories, and Pedagogies (pp. 131–148). Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Michel Callon. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, Action, and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? (pp. 196–233). Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Kari Campeau. (2022). Unofficial vaccine advocates: Technical communication, localization, and care by COVID-19 vaccine trial participants. Technical Communication Quarterly, 32(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2022.2100485Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Damon Centola. (2020). How behavior spreads: The science of complex contagions. Princeton University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. James S. Coleman. (1958). Relational analysis: The study of social organizations with survey methods. Human Organization, 17(4), 28–36.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Toni Crouse and Patricia A. Lowe. (2018). Snowball sampling. In B. B. Frey (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation (pp. 1532–1532). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506326139.n636Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Madeline Crozier and Erin Workman. (2022). Discourse-based interviews in institutional ethnography: Uncovering the tacit knowledge of peer tutors in the writing center. Composition Forum, 49. https://compositionforum.com/issue/49/institutional-ethnography.phpGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Manuel DeLanda. (2016). Assemblage theory. Edinburgh University Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia (B. Massumi, Trans.). University of Minnesota Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Gilles Deleuze and Claire Parnet. (1987). Dialogues. Columbia University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Jessica Evans. (2021, February 9). Places you don't expect to find @NASAEarth? In @Beyonce's videos! My awesome colleagues at the Scientific Visualization Studio bring us cool views of our home planet every day! [Tweet]. Twitter. https://twitter.com/JessKeepTalking/status/1359187917621583872Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Gail T. Fairhurst and François Cooren. (2004). Organizational language in use: Interaction analysis, conversation analysis, and speech act schematics. In D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick, & L. Putnam (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Discourse (pp. 131–152). SAGE Publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Ignacio Farias, Anders Blok, and Celia Roberts. (2019). Actor-network theory as a companion: An inquiry into intellectual practices. In A. Blok, I. Farias, & C. Roberts (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Actor-network Theory (pp. xx–xxxv). Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Janice Fernheimer. (2016). Confronting Kenneth Burke's Anti-Semitism. Journal of Communication & Religion, 39(2), 36–53.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Andrew Flachs. (2022, July 12). Glyphosate became widespread on the promise that it was environmentally benign, and is now instrumental to both large and small farms—But as usual toxins bioaccumulate and harm other life because they are...poisons https://t.co/1bcr9zoq9j [Tweet]. Twitter. https://twitter.com/DrFlachsophone/status/1546773735037931523Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. John R. Gallagher. (2018). Considering the comments: Theorizing online audiences as emergent processes. Computers and Composition, 48, 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2018.03.002Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Leo A. Goodman. (1961). Snowball sampling. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 32(1), 148–170.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Mark S. Granovetter. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Carolyn Gubala, Kara Larson, and Lisa Melonçon. (2020). Do writing errors bother professionals? An analysis of the most bothersome errors and how the writer's ethos is affected. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 34(3), 250–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651920910205Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Douglas D. Heckathorn. (2011). Comment: Snowball versus respondent-driven sampling. Sociological Methodology, 41, 355–366.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. John J. Hondros. (2016). Problematizing the internet as a video distribution technology: An assemblage theory analysis. Information, Communication & Society, 19(2), 221-233. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1050439Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Victor Kaptelinin and Bonnie A. Nardi. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Bruno Latour. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Bruno Latour. (1996). On actor-network theory: A few clarifications. Soziale Welt, 47(4), 369-381.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Bruno Latour. (1999). On recalling ANT. In J. Law & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor Network Theory and After (pp. 15–25). Blackwell/Sociological Review.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Bruno Latour. (2002). What is iconoclash? Or is there a world beyond the image wars? In B. Latour & P. Weibel (Eds.), Iconoclash (pp. 14–37). ZKM, Centre for Art and Media ; MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Bruno Latour. (2005a). From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik – An introduction. In P. Weibel & B. Latour (Eds.), Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy (pp. 4–31). MIT Press. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02057240Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Bruno Latour. (2005b). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Bruno Latour. (2013). An inquiry into modes of existence: An anthropology of the moderns. Harvard University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. John Law and Annemarie Mol. (1995). Notes on materiality and sociality. The Sociological Review, 43(2), 274–294. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1995.tb00604.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. John Law and Vicky Singleton. (2005). Object lessons. Organization, 12(3), 331–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508405051270Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Ashley Rose Mehlenbacher. (2019). Science communication online: Engaging experts and publics on the internet. The Ohio State University Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Ashley Rose Mehlenbacher and Brad Mehlenbacher. (2021). Rogue rhetorical actors: Scientists and the social action of tweeting. In S. Auken & C. Sunesen (Eds.), Genre in the Climate Debate (pp. 179–193). De Gruyter Open Poland. https://doi.org/10.1515/9788395720499-010Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. José Luis Molina, Miranda J. Lubbers, Marian-Gabriel Hâncean, and Ignacio Fradejas-García, I. (2022). Short take: Sampling from transnational social fields. Field Methods, 34(3), 256–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X221105920Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Cathryn Molloy. (2019). Durable, portable research through partnerships with interdisciplinary advocacy groups, specific research topics, and larger data sets. Technical Communication Quarterly, 28(2), 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2019.1588375Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Thomas Nail. (2017). What is an assemblage? SubStance, 46(1), 21–37.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Lee Odell., Dixie Goswami, and Anne Herrington. (1983). The discourse-based interview: A procedure for exploring the tacit knowledge of writers in nonacademic settings. In P. Mosenthal, L. Tamor, & S. A. Walmsley (Eds.), Research on Writing: Principles and Methods (pp. 221–236). Longman.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Pamela Oliver, Gerald Marwell, and Ruy Teixeira. (1985). A theory of the critical mass. I. Interdependence, group heterogeneity, and the production of collective action. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 522–556.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. John J. Posillico, David J. Edwards, Chris Roberts, and Mark Shelbourn. (2022). A conceptual construction management curriculum model grounded in scientometric analysis. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, preprint. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-10-2021-0899Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Liza Potts. (2009). Using actor network theory to trace and improve multimodal communication design. Technical Communication Quarterly, 18(3), 281–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572250902941812Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Liza Potts and Dave Jones. (2011). Contextualizing experiences: Tracing the relationships between people and technologies in the social web. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 25(3), 338–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651911400839Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. Linda Prokopy. (2021, June 14). Serious, serious issue. Which is why “Heat Related Mortality of Farmworkers” is a key climate indicator in this @USDA report: Https://usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/climate_indicators_for_agriculture.pdf [Tweet]. Twitter. https://twitter.com/lprokopy/status/1404538992826200064Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Alex Reid. (2010). Exposing assemblages: Unlikely communities of digital scholarship, video, and social networks. Enculturation, 8. http://www.enculturation.net/exposing-assemblagesGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Gwendolynne Reid. (2019). Compressing, expanding, and attending to scientific meaning: Writing the semiotic hybrid of science for professional and citizen scientists. Written Communication, 36(1), 68–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088318809361Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Gwendolynne Reid, Christopher Kampe, and Kathleen M. Vogel. (2022). Tech trajectories: A methodology for exploring the tacit knowledge of writers through tool-based interviews. Composition Forum, 49. https://compositionforum.com/issue/49/tech-trajectories.phpGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Clay Spinuzzi. (2008). Network: Theorizing knowledge work in telecommunications. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Marinus Spreen. (1992). Rare populations, hidden populations, and link-tracing designs: What and why? Bulletin of Sociological Methodology/Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 36(1), 34–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/075910639203600103Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  57. Jason Swarts. (2010). Recycled writing: Assembling actor networks from reusable content. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 24(2), 127–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651909353307Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. Denise Tillery and Emma Frances Bloomfield. (2022). Hyperrationality and rhetorical constellations in digital climate change denial: A multi-methodological analysis of the discourse of Watts up with That. Technical Communication Quarterly, 31(4), 356–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2021.2019317Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. Aimee E. Vincent. (2022). Tacit knowledge, reading practices, and visual rhetoric: A feminist application of eye tracking and stimulated recall methods on comic books. Composition Forum, 49. https://compositionforum.com/issue/49/feminist-application.phpGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Kyle Vincent and Steve Thompson. (2022). Estimating the size and distribution of networked populations with snowball sampling. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 10(2), 397–418. https://doi.org/10.1093/jssam/smaa042Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  61. Ane von der Fehr, Jan Sølberg, and Jesper Bruun. (2018). Validation of networks derived from snowball sampling of municipal science education actors. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 41(1), 38–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2016.1192117Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Climate Change, Snowball Sampling, and Discourse-based Interviews: A Mixed Method for Studying Networked Rhetorics

        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 '23: Proceedings of the 41st ACM International Conference on Design of Communication
          October 2023
          289 pages
          ISBN:9798400703362
          DOI:10.1145/3615335

          Copyright © 2023 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 the author(s) 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: 26 October 2023

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed limited

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate355of582submissions,61%
        • Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)44
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)7

          Other Metrics

        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