In this project, I examine the transcripts of a 2015 administrative hearing and community meeting about the Santa Susana Field Lab—a former nuclear- and rocket engine-testing facility 30 miles from Los Angeles, where an experimental nuclear reactor suffered a partial meltdown in 1959. Specifically, I identify (1) who was designated as an "expert" versus a member of "the public," (2) the structural features, and (3) the stylistic features of participants' remarks at these events; and I study how these factors mediated the flow of information at each. To do so, I view "expert" and "public" as what Michael McGee has termed ideographs, and consider the structural and stylistic features that prior scholarship has identified to impact information flow.
Based on my analysis, I theorize that role designations, structural features, and stylistic features work together to mediate whose, what, and how information flows in public engagement mechanisms. Based on my findings, I also suggest that this mediation impacts policy outcomes. As such, I contend that better understanding the relationships among these mediational means, information flow, and policy outcomes is an important step towards developing public engagement mechanisms that most effectively use the relevant knowledge and other insights of all who have a stake in policy decisions.
This study investigates whether an experience as a novice can help alleviate expert blindness in Arizona State University faculty. Expert blindness, also known as the expert blind spot, is a phenomenon in which an expert in any subject finds it difficult to teach because they are so advanced at it. Many faculty have taught the same subject for so long that certain things that are difficult for beginners in their courses are trivial for the expert. In this experiment, ASU faculty were given five weeks of instruction to learn to solve the Rubik’s Cube in five minutes or less. Before and after the five-week experience, the participants took the Interpersonal Reactivity Index assessment, which measures empathy. Throughout the Rubik’s Cube challenge, the faculty were also asked discussion questions and invited to participate in informal interviews. The study finds a significant increase in the “empathic concern” of the participants after the experience, with a sample size of five participants. The qualitative interview data confirms the survey data, and the main sentiments of the professors after going through the experience were distilled into four main themes: (a) patience and reflection; (b) individualized approaches; (c) trying, failing, and improving; (d) knowing what and when to explain. An effective teacher who is aware of their tendency towards expert blindness should be aware of these four themes and strive to include them in their own teaching. The study recommends that universities and companies should have “beginner experiences” at regular intervals to remind experts what it is like to be a beginner again. These experiences not only mitigate the expert blind spot but promote lifelong learning and an active brain.