Project 8: What do doctors and economists have in common?

Project 8: What do doctors and economists have in common?

Introduction:

Scholarly research from all sorts of disciplines have tackled the issue of income inequality, perhaps most notably by the discipline of economics. However, due to the growing concerns about the effects of income inequality, academic disciplines unassociated with economic concerns are venturing into the discussion. One such discipline, medicine, published a research article in 2014 discussing the causal effects of income inequality on health. Another research article from 2014, this time from economics, also evaluated income inequality and health, specifically focusing on teen pregnancies. This paper will analyze how researchers from two very different fields, medicine and economics, approach the topic of income inequality in relation to health with emphasis on their respective rhetoric conventions. Since going into a specific field shapes a researcher’s worldview, such differences can make productive collaboration difficult; thus, analysis of the language used is a valuable tool in understanding those differences and can foster stronger collaboration in the future.

Knowing the background of the researchers can help understand the motivations behind why they picked their specific topic to research. Two research articles were chosen for the purpose of this analysis. The first is from the journal of Social Science & Medicine published in 2014 by Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson titled “Income inequality and health: A causal review.” Kate Pickett is a British epidemiologist who is a professor at the University of New York. She also has trained in biological anthropology and nutritional science. Richard Wilkinson is also a British epidemiologist who studied economic history for his undergraduate degree before changing careers and getting a Masters of Medical Science and becoming an epidemiologist. Given Wilkinson’s early economic background, it may explain the researchers’ interest in causally linking income inequality to health outcomes.

The second research article, titled “Income Inequality and Early Nonmarital Childbearing,” is from The Journal of Human Resources, which was published in winter 2014 by the University of Wisconsin Press and authored by Melissa Kearney and Phillip Levine. Melissa Kearney is an economics professor at University of Maryland. Her research mainly focuses on poverty, social policy, and inequality. She has previously testified before Congress on the issue of income inequality. Phillip Levine is a professor of economics at Wellesley College who mainly researches the effects income inequality has on disadvantaged youth later in life. Given the researchers’ previous focus on the effects of income inequality, the research article aligns well with their respective field and interests.

Rhetorical Analysis:

Differences in rhetorical choices and language are evident early on between the two research papers. The more notable difference is how both papers approach the topic of income inequality at the beginning. The Kearney and Levine paper does not describe what income inequality is, but instead talks about why it may impact behavior. “Various theories exist for why income inequality, as distinct from absolute income, might affect individual-level behavior. Social scientists, particularly political scientists and sociologists, have emphasized the role of relative, as distinct from absolute deprivation—in leading to acts of social unrest,” (Kearney and Levine, 3). On the other hand, Pickett and Wilkinson’s first sentence says “world leaders, including the US President, the UK Prime Minister, the Pope and leaders at the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations, World Bank and the World Economic Forum have all described income inequality as one of the most important problems of our time and several have emphasized its social costs.”

Already early into the papers, there are already strong differences in how the two disciplines approach the topic. Pickett and Wilkinson use an ethos mode of persuasion in their first paragraph by citing world leaders, perhaps to establish why something unrelated to medicine is important for them to study. In their second sentence, Pickett and Wilkinson actually cite an earlier Kearney and Levine paper when they wrote that “there is a very large literature examining income inequality in relation to health. Early reviews came to different interpretations of the evidence, though a majority of studies reported that health tended to be worse in more unequal societies.” This once again is an ethos appeal to establish why income inequality is a health issue that needs attention.

Kearney and Levine use both a logos an ethos approach to explain how income inequality plays a role in teen pregnancy by citing other well known research (unquoted for length) and then using it make a logical connection to the topic of the paper. The language used by Kearney and Levine is formal, referencing to specific terminology that the audience of economic scholars is expected to know. The difference may come from Pickett and Wilkinson writing about a topic unusual for epidemiology, causing them to simplify the economic terms since their usual readership may not be familiar with the language.

Although both papers look at health-related consequences of income inequality, another major difference between the two approaches is how income inequality itself is defined for the purpose of the research. Kearney and Levine explicitly define what they mean by income inequality: “we focus on lower-tail income inequality, defined as the ratio of household income at the 50th percentile to the 10th percentile of the distribution,” (Kearney and Levine, 5). On the other hand, Pickett and Wilkinson, defined income inequality “by the ratio of incomes among the richest compared with the poorest 20% in each country.” What stood out about the Pickett and Wilkinson definition, aside from the different focus, was that it was never defined in the paper itself. Rather, income inequality was defined in one of the graphs attached to their report that was from an earlier 2008 study that they both conducted. The difference in defining income inequality likely comes from the focus of the papers themselves; Kearney and Levine are focusing on a specific health outcome—teen pregnancy in the United States—as opposed to Pickett and Wilkinson’s more broad approach. Since the methodology of Pickett and Wilkinson’s research is a literature review within an epidemiological causal framework, it is likely impossible for them to consistently and clearly define income inequality as each research paper will have its own definition specific to what it is studying.

Perhaps the most notable difference in rhetorical approaches is how both papers go about the conclusion portion of the research. The epidemiologists’ conclusion explicitly outlines ways to solve income inequality, whereas the economists’ conclusion restated the research findings and ended on saying that they “consider this a topic worthy of future research.” What is most interesting about the differences in the conclusions is that the epidemiologists who are not experts when it comes to economics also had the most to say about what should be done to fix it. To better analyze these two differences, the conclusions will be separately quoted.

Pickett and Wilkinson:

“The world leaders we mentioned at the start of this paper have all referred to inequality as a cause of social and economic harm. But to recognize the problem is not the same as tackling it effectively… the reason why politicians do not do more is almost certainly a reflection of the undemocratic power of money in politics and the media … narrowing the gap will require not only redistributive tax policies but also a reduction in income differences before tax. The halving of top tax rates since the 1970s has led not only to a widening of income differences after tax but, more surprisingly, to a more rapid rise in pre-tax incomes at the top – particularly in the private sector where CEO pay seems unrelated to company performance.”

Since the purpose of Pickett and Wilkinson’s research was to identify if income inequality had a causal effect on negative health outcomes, the ending reads nearly like a persuasive paper rather than academic literature.  To compare, when it came to methodology and analysis in the body of the paper, Pickett and Wilkinson used observational epidemiology techniques to establish that causal relationship, using formal terminology respective to their field of study to describe what they did (unquoted for length purposes). At the conclusion itself, the language again simplified much like the introduction portion. What was even more surprising was the astounding conclusion unrelated to their finding regarding income inequality.  Pickett and Wilkinson said that “the reason why politicians do not do more is almost certainly a reflection of the undemocratic power of money in politics and the media.” Nothing mentioned earlier in their research paper would indicate this conclusion. Similarly, their recommendation suggests that to fix the problem it “will require not only redistributive tax policies but also a reduction in income differences before tax.” As their paper discussed the health consequences of income inequality, this recommendation does not appear to be based on their research findings. However, it is possible given their background in medicine that they felt compelled to write a solution, the cure if you will, to a health problem. The health problem in this sense is all the negative health effects associated with income inequality. To Pickett and Wilkinson, the solution may be to have strong government policies eliminate the cause of a health issue regardless of economic outcomes since their discipline’s focus is medicine. Pickett and Wilkinson’s solutions have socialist undertones, which may also come from their European background where social programs and high taxes are popular.

Kearney and Levine:

“In conclusion, we have presented robust empirical evidence that income inequality is associated with higher rates of early nonmarital childbearing among economically disadvantaged women. Our results suggest that inequality itself, as opposed to other correlated geographic factors, is a primary driver of this relationship. We have proposed a model that could explain these findings: to the extent that income inequality leads to a heightened sense of economic despair among the poor, it will lead to higher rates of early nonmarital childbearing among those at the bottom of the distribution. This could also be part of the explanation for why high-inequality states and countries see higher rates of a host of “drop-out” behaviors, including lower educational attainment and higher rates of crime. We consider this a topic worthy of future research.”

The conclusion by Kearney and Levine reads very differently than the one by Pickett and Wilkinson. Kearney and Levine summarize their findings while maintaining a thoroughly neutral tone. They do not prescribe policy or suggest what needs to be done to fix the problem the way Pickett and Wilkinson did in their conclusion. Their only recommendation is further research, and that is stated in a way that directly states that it is their opinion, without trying to distance themselves from their opinion like Pickett and Wilkinson did. The usage of the word “we” makes it clear that it is an opinion, not a fact.

Conclusion:

Kearney and Levine would likely have umbrage with the way Pickett and Wilkinson wrote their conclusion since in the discipline of economics, policy is never prescribed unless the entire point of a research paper is to research a specific policy. Recommending a drastic policy change the way Pickett and Wilkinson did would make productive cooperation between Pickett and Wilkinson with Kearney and Levine a challenge. This likely comes from the difference in the two disciplines. Medicine is focused on finding the solution, the cure, while economics is more about looking at what may cause a problem and what the effects of a policy change may be. However, understanding these differences through analysis of rhetorical features can help bridge this gap.

Works Cited:

Kearney, M. S., & Levine, P. B. (2014). Income Inequality and Early Nonmarital Childbearing. The Journal of Human Resources, 49(1), 1-31. Retrieved from http://muse.jhu.edu.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/article/537400/pdf

Pickett, K. E., & Wilkinson, R. G. (2015). Income inequality and health: A causal review. Social Science & Medicine, 128(March), 316-326. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/science/article/pii/S0277953614008399

Nuclear Waste: Engineering and Anthropology Perspectives

To move away from fossil fuels and reduce carbon emissions, nuclear energy is a great option for energy, but there are many concerns about it. One of these issues is what to do with nuclear waste. The way different academic disciplines approach this issue is unique to each discipline. In A Multiphysics Model for Evaluating Electrokinetic Remediation of Nuclear Waste ­Contaminated Soils, the author approaches nuclear waste from an engineering standpoint, providing a possible solution for soil remediation, and supporting this with a mathematical model and experimental data. In Danger Explodes, Space Implodes: The evolution of the environmental discourse on nuclear waste, 1945-1969, the author approaches nuclear waste from an anthropology standpoint, looking at how public view has changed over time by examining news articles. While the article from the engineering perspective offers a detailed understanding of the scientific side of the issue, the article from an anthropology perspective explains what the public thinks of this issue. Through examining both of the articles, one can gain an in depth understanding of this issue, and its importance to the public.

A Multiphysics Model for Evaluating Electrokinetic Remediation of Nuclear Waste Contaminated Soils by Tao Miao and Tongyan Pan takes on the issue of nuclear waste from and engineering perspective. It consists of five sections: Introduction, Governing Equation Derivation, Finite Element Formulation, FEM Model Validation, FEM Model Implementation, and Summary and Conclusions. The introduction begins by discussing nuclear power and the environmental threats it poses as well as research in alternative energy and soil remediation related to nuclear waste. Most of the article is focused on detailing the steps taken to create the model and the experiment to support it. The Governing Differential Equation and Finite Element Analysis Formulation sections contain equations accompanied by descriptions of the steps that were taken to get them. The FEM Model Validation and FEM Model Implementation sections include graphs and diagrams that compare the experimental data to the predictions of the model. The authors discuss the implications and uses for this model in the Summary and Conclusions.

Danger Explodes, Space Implodes: The Evolution of the Environmental Discourse on Nuclear Waste, 1945-1969 by Judi Pajo looks at the issue of nuclear waste from and anthropology perspective, analyzing how people’s view of the issue changed over time. The article consists of five sections: Background, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions. The author provides background on the problem of nuclear waste itself and introduces the idea of public conceptualization of it. The methods detail how the author went about analyzing this issue and why they chose this approach. The majority of the article discusses the findings of study and divides the public conceptualization of nuclear waste into stages. The article ends by discussing what this means in today’s context and why it is significant.

The engineering perspective given in A Multiphysics Model for Evaluating Electrokinetic Remediation of Nuclear Waste Contaminated Soils reveals aspects of the issue that the anthropology article does not. One difference that can be seen throughout the article is that this writing talks about nuclear waste by focusing on a solution for it. The author writes, “The finite element model developed in this work allows predicting the entire evolution of pollutant concentration in soil, contributing greatly to the designing and evaluation of the cleaning efficiency and effectiveness of general electrokinetic remediation schemes.” Like the rest of the article, this line shows how the issue of nuclear waste is discussed through focusing on solutions to it. The writing in this article is accompanied by graphs and diagrams which is typical for writing in this field. 

Above are two graphs that were included to compare the results predicted by the model to the experimental results. While most of the article is made up of very specific details about electrokinetic remediation, the introduction and the conclusion discuss these things much more generally. For example, in the introduction, it states, “of the various removing mechanisms, a promising one involves using an externally applied electric field and, in general, is referred to as electrokinetic soil remediation.” This can be compared to this statement from the second section: “The transport of chemicals relevant to in situ soil contamination and remediation involves four primary mechanisms: 1) natural diffusion owning to the concentration gradient of chemical species in pore water, 2) electromigration—the movement of ions driven by the electric field executed between electrodes, 3) electroosmosis—the electric field driven movement of water that carries ions, and 4) convective diffusion with the hydrodynamic movement of pore water due to capillary suction or mechanical stirring.” While the first statement talks about electrochemical soil remediation, the second one provides many more details about it, discussing specific mechanisms involved in the process.

Just as the engineering perspective provides details that the anthropology perspective does not, Danger Explodes, Space Implodes: The Evolution of the Environmental Discourse on Nuclear Waste, 1945-1969 provides a different understanding of the issue. This article spends much more time explaining and justifying the methods used that the engineering article. In the section on methods, the author writes, “Given this timeframe, a newspaper archive is an especially appropriate source from which to draw a dataset that would address a question such as where the concept of nuclear waste disposal comes from.” While the engineering article discussed what methods they used, it does not explain why in the same way that the anthropology article does. This article also offers a view of the issue as it changes over time. It states, “the view of nuclear waste evolved over a number of conceptual stages—from an initial introduction as a byproduct that was suspected of potential distant threats, to an assessment of the nature of that threat, to a subsequent crystallization of the view of nuclear waste as danger, to the present view of a grave and implacable hazard to human health and to the natural environment that cannot be entitled to a physical presence.” Looking at how the view of nuclear waste has changed greatly expands our understanding of the issue. The engineering article only looks at the issue from present day. This article also makes important connections between the issue and people. The author describes, “In yet another portrayal, the cultural origins of “nuclear fear” may be rooted more profoundly in our shared myths if not even human consciousness. It is some kind of deep mythical fear, in other words, that is then stoked by both the imagery of nuclear warfare and the visibility of nuclear energy disasters such as the recent Fukushima meltdown or Chernobyl and Three Mile Island before it.” This helps to contextualize why this issue is important and what people’s response to it is. By referencing Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island, the author reminds us of what this issue means to people, and how directly it can affect them. Another thing that this article addresses that the engineering one does not, is how this issue is viewed by people in ways that aren’t so logical. The author describes, “A record of November 16, 1960 that reported the accidental death of a nuclear scientist at Shirley, Long Island ‘when a huge truck loaded with used atomic reactor fuel skidded on wet pavement and struck his car’ must have felt the need to address the understanding of nuclear waste as danger already in its subheading: ‘Car Is Struck by Truck Full of Radioactive Waste--None Leaks or Spills.’” This example that the author provides shows the concern that arises over nuclear waste being involved in something, even if it has little to do with the incident. A truck carrying anything else could have hit the car and the outcome could have been the same.

By looking at both A Multiphysics Model for Evaluating Electrokinetic Remediation of Nuclear Waste ­Contaminated Soils and Danger Explodes, Space Implodes: The evolution of the environmental discourse on nuclear waste, 1945-1969, an engineering article and an anthropology article about the issue of nuclear waste, one can gain a deeper understanding of this issue, and its importance to the public. The engineering article provides details important to the issue but become more meaningful with the context provided from the anthropology article. The engineering article describes a model and experiment and states, “Based on the computation results, around 80 % of a 10 cm × 10 cm soil domain can be cleaned under an external potential of 8 V.” While details like this are important to understand, by looking at the anthropology article too, you can understand how this impacts people. The anthropology article states, “as the awareness of the hazard that nuclear waste presents to human health and to the environment mushroomed, the physical space for disposing of nuclear waste imploded.” While this doesn’t explain much about nuclear waste, it explains what the public response to this issue has been. The anthropology article provides an understanding of why this issue is important to people and how people's response to it affects what is done about it.



Sources:

A Multiphysics Model for Evaluating Electrokinetic Remediation of Nuclear Waste-Contaminated Soils:  http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11270-014-2292-3/fulltext.html

Danger Explodes, Space Implodes: The Evolution of the Environmental Discourse on Nuclear Waste, 1945–1969:  http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186%2Fs13705-015-0064-6

The Effects of Illiteracy on Society

The Effects of Illiteracy on Society

“Illiteracy is an inability to use language--an inability to read, write, listen, and speak. It is usually taken to mean being unable to read and write at a level adequate for written communication or at a level that will allow an individual to function at certain levels of society” (Buchanan, 2016). Illiteracy is an almost forgotten issue in today’s society. Back in the 1800’s, literacy was reserved for the upper class, it was a privilege (Castro-Caldas, 1997). However, now, we simply expect everyone to be literate. With public schools being free, and required through the age of 16, it is simply anticipated for those above the age of ten to know how to read and write. As illiteracy continues to be a societal problem, and as more research is developed, it has been seen that illiteracy can also cause health issues, turning it into a scientific/health problem. In “Illiteracy and Older Adults: Individual and Societal Implications” Sarah Roman takes a sociological approach through statistical data, and definitions of broad literacy issues that are then narrowed down and explained in further details. Whereas, in “Neuropsychological Aspects of Illiteracy”, Caldas, Reis, and Guerreiro look at how illiteracy affects different parts of the brain through scientific data, graphs, and historical backgrounds. Throughout both texts, illiteracy is defined in different ways, but through both contexts, it is defined as a negative individual as well as societal effect. By using both approaches, illiteracy can be more fully explained and explored, leading to a more effective solution when compared and contrasted, yielding a productive collaboration.

To fully understand how illiteracy has had an effect, and to see where it has had its greatest impact, it first needs to be defined per context, which is exactly what Sarah Roman does. She breaks down her article by different definitions of literacy. These definitions are not conflicting, but rather work together to create a better understanding of literacy and the effects it has had on individuals as well as society as a whole. Her first set of breakdowns is by types of literacy including: Functional, Health, Individual, Population, as well as ways to measure literacy. She then wraps up her article by presenting the individual versus societal implications of illiteracy and giving recommendations on how to proceed. Breaking it down this way, Roman gives a brief overview of how illiteracy needs to be seen, and then how to proceed with this knowledge. (Roman, 2004)

“Literacy is not a state of being, but a reflection of the relative fit between the individual’s various competencies and the social and historical environment” (Roman, 2004). Since literacy can be defined per context, Roman is careful to define what context she is investigating before diving further into the subject. “Very few individuals possessed basic literacy skills, because reading and writing were not necessary in early industrial and agricultural occupations” (Costa, 1988). Before she introduces further breakdowns of illiteracies societal implications, Roman also introduces a brief background of literacy. Interestingly enough, Castro-Caldas held the same approach in his article looking at the health effects of illiteracy. It’s important to know where we came from, in order to move forward, both in sociology and in health. In our changing world, the definition of literacy also changes. Rather than literacy strictly referring to reading and writing, it now also refers to the ability “to compute and solve problems, and use technology in order to become a lifelong learner and to be effecting in the family, in the workplace and in the community”, this is known as functional literacy (Roman,2004). Roman suggests that we constantly redefine literacy in order to accommodate the world we live in today. By starting with these broad definitions of literacy, and slowly becoming more detailed rather than generic, Roman is able to create a clearer picture of what it means to be illiterate. Moving from definitions to statistics and effects makes it easier for her audience to fully understand.

Measuring literacy is not a straightforward process, rather, it has become an issue of concern “to society at large, various techniques for measuring its prevalence have been developed” (Roman, 2004). These techniques are usually broken down to measure either individual literacy or population literacy. In 1992, a population literacy survey was conducted. According to the results, 23% of adults in this country are functioning at the lowest level of literacy; that’s roughly 44 million. Next, 25-28% of the adult population had level two literacy skills. Therefore, over half of adults in America had reading skills that were well below the 8th grade level. Only 3% of adults surveyed exhibited level five literacy skills. These facts are monumental, and devastating. Using statistics appeals to the audience’s logic, and makes us stop in our tracks and think about the effects that illiteracy can have (Roman, 2004). This same survey was most recently done in 2003, where 14% of American’s were below the basic literacy level and 29% exhibited the basic reading level. Furthermore, 14% of the population can’t read; 21% read below the 5th grade level, and 19% of high school graduates can’t read (Crum, 2014). These statistics are staggering. Roman knows that these will grab our attention. She also, as a sociologists, sees the need to look at the population statistics and then to dig deeper and find out their implications. These percentages can also change based on what definition of literacy is used.

Being a sociologists means taking population information and looking at its comparisons to individual information, and vice versa, and then applying both to societal problems. This is precisely what Roman does. She presents her data on individuals and population in statistical form so she shows she has research to back her up. “Studies have found that up to 70% of illiterate adults have not told their spouse and over 50% have not told their children. This poses a significant challenge with regard to addressing our literacy crisis” (Roman, 2014). Here is one example of looking at an individual action and then zooming out to look at the population in comparison, and then taking another step back to look at how it may affect society. “Zooming in” your societal scope to certain areas of the population can also be effective. Roman decides to look at how poverty and unemployment affects literacy, to give more insight and depth to her data. She then zooms out to see the bigger picture of illiteracy. It can have a large economic impact, as well as an impact on productivity in the workplace. Using all her data she has collected, as well as the ways she defined literacy, Roman uses her sociological skills to then interpret how we can make strides in eradicating literacy. Again, she focuses on ways to improve individualized instruction, and then a broader range of the population through communication in healthcare. (Roman, 2004)

Roman’s sociological approach helps us to determine how literacy affects the way we live and function as a society. Another approach to literacy is the scientific/ health side. Yes, literacy affects our population’s ability to function in the economy and the workplace, but furthermore, there has been research that illiteracy can affect our health and our brains. Castro-Caldas, Reis, and Guerreiro have studied the Neuropsychological Aspects of Illiteracy. Through scientific data, historical research, graphs, and conducting studies, they effectively show how literacy can affect brain function.

First, they give a historical background of theories of illiteracy effect on the brain, and look at how these theories can’t be entirely true because of their many flaws; this is the same thing Roman did: look back at past research and data in order to proceed. Next, they look at the literacy and oral language of non brain-damaged subjects. They work as a control group. Being scientists means that everything has a hypothesis, and in order to prove and test that hypothesis they have to have a control group. This article obviously reflects a scientific background due to their breakdown of groups into a control group as well as the experimental group. Their first experiment looked at how those who were literate compared to literate subjects in different tasks. First, they tested the subject’s abilities in repetition tasks of words and nonwords. “Adrian (1993) studied this problem in populations of different educational backgrounds and concluded that the capacity to use the phonological system was reduced in illiterate subjects” (Castro-Caldas, 1997). Here is another area that scientists are known for: breaking down their subject groups. Not only is there a control and experimental group, they are further broken down into their educational backgrounds. “The performance of illiterate subjects in this task revealed a poor capacity for segmental analysis and a tendency to process the meaning of the word rather than its form. This calls attention to the possibility that illiterate subjects prefer to process language through semantics rather than morphology” (Castro-Caldas, 1997). The article continues to explain how this hypothesis then needed to be tested, so a second test was designed. To further advance their studies, scientists continually have to make new hypotheses and to prove.

After considering subjects with fully functional brains, just differences of education, they looked at literacy and the cerebral representation of language mechanisms. Again, a historical background is given of past research in this particular study. In 1971, a study was published where transitory or persistent aphasia was present in 78% of the literate subjects, 64% of the semi-literate subjects, and in only 36% of the illiterate subjects. When a second study was performed, the results contradicted the findings in the 1971 study. Therefore further research needed to be done. This is an important aspect of the scientific world. The table above is a breakdown of the second study. It is used as a graphical tool in this article to make some of the scientific language easier to understand. (Castro-Caldas, 1997).

Lastly, they looked at illiteracy and other aspects of Neuropsychology. Neuropsychology is “the study of the relationship between behavior, emotion, and cognition on the one hand, and brain function on the other” (Google definitions). A study was conducted on a large test battery administered to extreme educational groups (non brain-lesioned illiterates and professionals). “The test battery included visuospatial, memory, language, and praxis abilities. There were differences in most of the subtests related to educational level” (Castro-Caldas, 1997). It then proceeds to break down each subtest and how it was related to each educational level. In scientific research it is important to be detailed and to look at every group possible so that your data is accurate and effective, and that is exactly what is done. At the end of the article, it is pointed out that there are more areas that need more detailed studies done, including calculation. One lady was able to make a list of telephone numbers using drawings to identify the person or the place and she also created her own system that involved the representation of the quantity for each digit. Some further research was done and a hypothesis was created that illiterate subjects have to memorise the quantity itself and not its symbolic representation. Again, we see the continuous cycle of studies being done to create new hypotheses. (Castro-Caldas, 1997)

Sociologists and Scientists look at the effects of illiteracy very differently, however, instead of presenting opposing ideas, they work together to give us a fuller and more detailed picture of illiteracy effects. Sociologists focus more on how humans function in society and how being literate effects that, whereas, scientists focus on how the brain processes language and how being literate can lead to a higher brain function. Their approaches aren’t conflicting, just different. Both are extremely informative and effective. While Scientists do study after study to prove and create new hypotheses, sociologists compare individual effects to population effects.

Citations:

Buchanan, Candace. "The Problem Of Illiteracy." The Problem Of Illiteracy. 2016. Web. 26 Apr. 2016.  

Castro-Caldas, A., A. Reis, and M. Guerreiro. "Neuropsychological Aspects of Illiteracy." Neuropsychological Rehabilitation 7.4 (1997): 327-38. Web.

Costa, M. (1988). Adult literacy/illiteracy in the United States. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC- Clio.

Crum, Maddie. "The U.S. Illiteracy Rate Hasn't Changed In 10 Years." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, Sept. 2013. Web. 26 Apr. 2016.

Roman, Sarah Poff. "Illiteracy And Older Adults: Individual And Societal Implications." UEDG Educational Gerontology Educ. Gerontology 30.2 (2004): 79-93. Web.

Different Perspectives on Nuclear Waste

In a recent Wired article titled Nuclear Power is too Safe to Save the World from Climate Change, Nick Stockton discusses the dangers and costs associated with nuclear power, as well as the relevance new reactor the is set to go online this year. The reactor that will go online later this year is called Watts Barr Unit 2, and most of it was constructed at the same time as Watts Bar Unit 1 during the 70s and 80s. A major issue tied to nuclear power is nuclear waste. There are many different perspectives concerning nuclear waste, but this post will focus on the engineering and anthropological viewpoints. By examining articles from both perspective, conclusions can be drawn about the different approaches of these two disciplines.

The article Turning Nuclear Waste into Glass by Ian Pegg begins by providing background on nuclear waste remaining from the cold war and that left over from commercial power plants. The main part of the article Discusses the process of vitrification and dealing with the waste stored at the Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (Hanford WTP). Vitrification is the process of containing nuclear waste in glass. The author finishes the article by summarizing the costs of treating the waste at the Hanford WTP and the challenges that the plant has faced. This article provides a viewpoint focused on the engineering of dealing with nuclear waste and provides information about issues in treating existing nuclear waste.

The next article that looks at nuclear waste from an engineering perspective is titled A Multiphysics Model for Evaluating Electrokinetic Remediation of Nuclear Waste-Contaminated Soils. It describes the process of coming up with an accurate model for electrokinetic soil remediation and backs up this model with experimental data. Electrokinetic soil remediation is the process of using DC current to clean up soil that has been contaminated with nuclear waste. This model can predict the amount of radioactive material that will remain in a soil sample after applying different levels of DC current for different times. The article compares the effectiveness of using higher or lower current. Like the first article, this article presents a model on an engineering solution to dealing with nuclear waste.

The article, Plasma Filtering Techniques for Nuclear Waste Remediation begins by discussing nuclear waste left over from the cold war and the glass vitrification process used at the Hanford WTP, similar to the first article. It then discusses how plasma filtering techniques could be used for pretreatment processes of radioactive waste. The plasma filtering techniques discussed separate different components of radioactive waste based on their mass. Using plasma filtering as a pretreatment reduces the mass of the treated waste, lowering storage costs. This article provides another method for nuclear waste remediation, and it again approaches the issue from an engineering perspective.

All three of these article focus on discussing a method of cleaning up nuclear waste. Two of the discuss the Hanford WTP specifically and the problems associated with it. The article on plasma filtering compares plasma filtering to the chemical separation process that was also discussed in the glass vitrification article. While the glass vitrification article focuses on the vitrification process, the plasma filtering article focuses on the process of separating the waste. The electrokinetic soil remediation article focuses on the remediation required for contaminated soils, while the other two are concerned with the waste that has been stored in containers.

Danger Explodes, Space Implodes: The evolution of the environmental discourse on nuclear waste, 1945-1969 addresses the issue of nuclear waste from an anthropological perspective. It explores how public views of nuclear waste changed over time. The main point it makes is that “as waste grew ever more harmful in the public understanding, the space available for disposing of it shrank and eventually disappeared.” by examining news articles from 1945 to 1969 it analyzes how public perception of nuclear waste has changed over time. This article provides an anthropological look at the issue of nuclear waste, focusing on how it is perceived and what the impacts of this are.

The article Back to the Future: Small Modular Reactors, Nuclear Fantasies, and Symbolic Convergence argues that scientists and others in the nuclear industry are building support for small nuclear reactors through presenting five different “nuclear fantasies,” or visions for the future. These visions include risk-free energy, empowering remote communities, water security from desalination plants, carbon-free electricity, and space exploration. It then discusses each of these five visions, and how they seem to contradict each other. A key point that the author makes in discussing the faults of these visions is how nuclear waste is dealt with. The anthropological viewpoint of nuclear waste presented in this article discusses how scientists are seeking to improve the public's view of nuclear power, and combat the negative views that are related to nuclear waste.

A Longitudinal Study of Human Exposure to Potential Nuclear Plant Risk looks at the sociodemographics of communities that are at potentially at risk from nearby nuclear power plants. It quantifies different risk levels to make accurate comparisons, and the communities living in areas with higher potential risk included more minorities. This is another article that looks at nuclear waste from an anthropological perspective by observing the risk posed to different sociodemographic groups.

While the articles with an engineering viewpoint focused on different solutions for treating nuclear waste, those with an anthropology perspective focused on how people impact and are impacted by the issue. The article on environmental discourse on nuclear waste focuses on how nuclear waste is seen by the public. The article about nuclear fantasies continues to discuss how nuclear waste is perceived, but shifts towards how this perception is being influenced, and what the implications of this influence are. The final article is not concerned with how nuclear waste is seen, but how it affects different populations, and which populations are more at risk.

Both the Engineering and Anthropology perspectives agree that nuclear waste is a problem that needs to be discussed and dealt with. The anthropology perspective discusses the public perception of the issue, and the engineering discipline recognizes the problems associated with this too, but it focuses on finding solutions to improve the way we deal with nuclear waste. In the article about nuclear fantasies, the author criticizes how scientists are trying to change how the public views nuclear power, claiming that they are spreading an unrealistic vision for it. These two disciplines approach the issue of nuclear waste differently, while the engineering viewpoint is more concerned with improving how nuclear waste is treated, the anthropology viewpoint is concerned with how it impacts people, and what this means for nuclear power.




Sources:

Nuclear power is too Safe to Save the World From Climate Change: http://www.wired.com/2016/04/nuclear-power-safe-save-world-climate-change/

Turning Nuclear Waste into Glass: http://web.a.ebscohost.com.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/ehost/detail/detail?sid=23af17bd-555f-4969-96d0-9c2898d9940e%40sessionmgr4005&vid=0&hid=4114&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl&preview=false#AN=100810874&db=ulh

A Multiphysics Model for Evaluating Electrokinetic Remediation of Nuclear Waste-Contaminated Soils: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11270-014-2292-3/fulltext.html

Plasma Filtering Techniques for Nuclear Waste Remediation: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304389415003568

Danger Explodes, Space Implodes: The evolution of the environmental discourse on nuclear waste, 1945-1969: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186%2Fs13705-015-0064-6

Back to the Future: Small Modular Reactors, Nuclear Fantasies, and Symbolic Convergence: http://sth.sagepub.com/content/40/1/96.full.pdf+html

A Longitudinal Study of Human Exposure to Potential Nuclear Plant Risk: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13753-015-0075-0

Project #7: Taxes and Populism

Project 7: Taxes and Populism

In the last decade, politicians are increasingly eager to impose new taxes hikes without any consideration on what effect this would have on the economy, while economists have been strongly advising against such actions. The clash between economics and politics reached a new peak when Bernie Sanders announced his tax plan in 2015 to pay for his social programs that resulted in even the most liberal economists pointing out that such action would drastically shrink the economy by ten percent. The discipline of sociology explains why, despite the discipline of economics showing the negative effects of taxes, such disastrous tax proposals continue to remain popular.

In 2004, economists Steven Davis and Magnus Henrekson released a study that assessed the effects of various tax differences among countries. What they found was perhaps unsurprising to economists but was a shock to the broader public. Their study found that taxes directly affect the amount of work people do on average, with higher taxes on income and consumption resulting in less work time in the labor market and more time spent working within the household. For instance, a 12.8 percentage point tax hike would lead to 122 fewer hours of work per year for an adult, as well as less employment overall. Higher taxes also resulted in a larger underground economy, meaning that more people would pay for goods and services in cash or by other means in order to avoid having it reported to the Internal Revenue Service. The researchers also noted that the negative employment effects are stronger in higher-income countries with higher taxes because the welfare programs tend to be more generous, which also creates a disincentive to work.

Another study from 2002 by economists WIlliam Gentry and Glenn Hubbard found that higher tax rates decrease the likelihood that a head of household would move up to a better paying job during the coming year. Conversely, a five-percentage reduction in taxes increased the odds of people moving up to a better paying job 0.79 percentage points, which translates into an eight percent increase in turnover propensity. Coupled with the 2004 study, there is strong evidence that not only do taxes hurt employment, they also affect future employment prospects. 

Bernie Sanders, a Democratic presidential candidate, released a tax plan that would have profound effects. The tax plan would raise the marginal tax rate on all income brackets by 2.2 percent, tax households earning over $250,000 at 39.2 percent as opposed to the current 33 percent, and create two additional tax brackets for high earners at 54.2 percent, whereas currently it tops out at 39.6 percent. Although these increases may appear modest on paper, economists found that the effects would be felt across all income levels. In 2016, economists from the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan think tank, released a report analyzing that should Bernie Sanders’ tax plan come into effect, it would shrink the GDP by 9.5 percent over the next decade and result in 6 million fewer full-time jobs. Additionally when accounting for the reduction in GDP, all taxpayers’ after-tax incomes would fall by 12.84 percent.

So if high taxes, as demonstrated by the discipline of economics, are so negative for the economy and even individual well being, why are they so popular amongst politicians? Sociology may offer an explanation for that. A 2011 study on attitudes towards environmental taxes found that support for such taxes can be determined by how strong those consequences to self are. For example, if individuals believe that they will be negatively impacted by emissions but not by the taxes on such emissions directly, they will be more likely to support such taxes. Guided by self-interest, individuals are likely to support policies that benefit them as long as the cost is not transferred to them. This may explain why with Sanders’ tax plan, the tax increase on low-income earners is small compared to the 14.6 percentage point increase on wealthier individuals. His supporters are more likely to be lower-income individuals who would directly benefit from his social programs while the direct cost is transferred to other people. Although even a tax increase on the wealthy would ultimately result in lower wages and employment opportunities for the poor, supporters of the populist tax policies often overlook that long-term economic consequence.

Indeed, populism has been a driving factor for the support of Sanders and his policies. Recent research from 2015 noted that populist movements often arise because of a crisis. Furthermore, the article argues that populism doesn’t just follow a crisis, but that populism also attempts to trigger a crisis as well. Such a crisis “allows populist actors to pit 'the people' against a dangerous other, radically simplify the terrain of political debate and advocate strong leadership,” (Moffitt). Anyone who had a few minutes to listen to Bernie Sanders rhetoric would immediately notice that he often references to the 2008 financial crisis, blaming the wealthy for it. Furthermore, Sanders talks about about the “one percent” as essentially oppressing the rest of the population and how his followers must rise up and have a revolution. This creates the crisis of economic inequality (although it is an issue, the way Sanders presents it is like an all-out war) with the “one percent” being the “dangerous other” that the people are pitted against. Sanders presents himself as the “strong leadership” that would then resolve the problem. His tax policy is an extension of his strong leadership that he uses to rally people behind him. A 2012 paper by political scientists also found that most Americans view the Democrats as the party of the people, which would further explain why Bernie ran as a Democrat despite previously identifying as an independent. As sociologists and political scientists noted, these types of populist movements will tend to have the immediate goal in mind and may disregard the far-reaching economic consequences of such a movement. This may perhaps explain why despite the severe economic implications, Sanders and his tax plan continue to remain popular.

In a sense, sociology and economics can be seen as analyzing a problem and effects of solutions in depth. Economics can be thought of as looking at effects of proposed solutions, such as tax proposals. Sociology looks at the problem in depth, trying to understand the state of the world and the drivers for various political movements. In short, analyzing Sanders’ movement from both the economic and sociological perspective helps understand both the cause and effects of his tax proposals. As political science and sociology demonstrate, people tend to vote in their self-interest. That self-interested vote coupled with populist movements would explain the large support for economically harmful policies.

  ___

  On the web:

NBER: http://www.nber.org/papers/w10509

NBER: http://www.nber.org/papers/w9226

Tax Foundation: http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-bernie-sanders-s-tax-plan

The Fed: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/DSPIC96

Oxford Journals: https://ser.oxfordjournals.org/content/6/1/35.full

ProQuest: http://search.proquest.com.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/docview/1682037005?pq-origsite=summon

ScienceDirect: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421511001868

JSTOR: http://www.jstor.org.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/stable/23262451?pq-origsite=summon&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents