Matching Items (2)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

130911-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
This study considers what it means to acquire a literacy, and in this case, a
literacy that is capable of transforming barriers into pathways through a rhetorical
approach to methods. The problem we are trying to solve is how exactly we as
rhetorical decision makers can acquire the type of literacy that can

This study considers what it means to acquire a literacy, and in this case, a
literacy that is capable of transforming barriers into pathways through a rhetorical
approach to methods. The problem we are trying to solve is how exactly we as
rhetorical decision makers can acquire the type of literacy that can allow us to
approach a method as a way to transform barriers when we are stuck. This
problem space is especially challenging because it is one thing to master a literacy
of being part of a Discourse whose practices are well codified, but another thing
to learn to master a literacy that by definition employs methods to transform
barriers into pathways. This is what makes this problem space, so significant and
worthwhile to investigate as rhetorical decision makers.
ContributorsWelch, Kaylee Patricia (Author) / Long, Elenore (Thesis director) / Bennett, Kristin (Committee member) / Department of English (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2020-12
141315-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

The majority of trust research has focused on the benefits trust can have for individual actors, institutions, and organizations. This “optimistic bias” is particularly evident in work focused on institutional trust, where concepts such as procedural justice, shared values, and moral responsibility have gained prominence. But trust in institutions may

The majority of trust research has focused on the benefits trust can have for individual actors, institutions, and organizations. This “optimistic bias” is particularly evident in work focused on institutional trust, where concepts such as procedural justice, shared values, and moral responsibility have gained prominence. But trust in institutions may not be exclusively good. We reveal implications for the “dark side” of institutional trust by reviewing relevant theories and empirical research that can contribute to a more holistic understanding. We frame our discussion by suggesting there may be a “Goldilocks principle” of institutional trust, where trust that is too low (typically the focus) or too high (not usually considered by trust researchers) may be problematic. The chapter focuses on the issue of too-high trust and processes through which such too-high trust might emerge. Specifically, excessive trust might result from external, internal, and intersecting external-internal processes. External processes refer to the actions institutions take that affect public trust, while internal processes refer to intrapersonal factors affecting a trustor’s level of trust. We describe how the beneficial psychological and behavioral outcomes of trust can be mitigated or circumvented through these processes and highlight the implications of a “darkest” side of trust when they intersect. We draw upon research on organizations and legal, governmental, and political systems to demonstrate the dark side of trust in different contexts. The conclusion outlines directions for future research and encourages researchers to consider the ethical nuances of studying how to increase institutional trust.

ContributorsNeal, Tess M.S. (Author) / Shockley, Ellie (Author) / Schilke, Oliver (Author)
Created2016