Snowpocalypse 2021: Understanding Stakeholder Topoi in the 2021 Texas Power Grid Failure

IF 1.5 4区 文学 Q2 COMMUNICATION
R. M. Harlow
{"title":"Snowpocalypse 2021: Understanding Stakeholder Topoi in the 2021 Texas Power Grid Failure","authors":"R. M. Harlow","doi":"10.55177/tc350749","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: This research is the first step in exploring how public policymakers use the expert knowledge and nonexpert knowledge they acquire in oversight hearings. This step is focused on learning what the testimony in oversight hearings reveals about how the primary stakeholders\n of the February 2021 power loss event understood that event. Method: The researcher used NVivo, a content analysis application, to examine public comments, witness testimony, and a combination of legislators' press releases and the text of bills they drafted. All texts\n were generated in February and March 2021. The researcher ran both a word frequency analysis and a thematic analysis of each set of texts to identify topoi used by each stakeholder group and compared the results. Results: The analysis revealed that the three primary\n stakeholder groups perceived the February 2021 power loss event differently, though some of the most salient, significant, or urgent concerns of each group overlapped. The stakeholder groups shared some topoi, but the ways each group used those topoi suggested different ways\n of understanding and interpreting the event. Conclusions: Technical communicators who are tasked with reconciling technical and nontechnical audiences in situations like this can use the techniques discussed here to better identify specific places where the respective groups'\n use of topoi diverged from one another or aligned with one another. The more that is known, and not just surmised, about stakeholders and how they understand and interpret their technical knowledge, the better we can address how that knowledge may be communicated throughout the legislative\n process.","PeriodicalId":46338,"journal":{"name":"Technical Communication","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Technical Communication","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55177/tc350749","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This research is the first step in exploring how public policymakers use the expert knowledge and nonexpert knowledge they acquire in oversight hearings. This step is focused on learning what the testimony in oversight hearings reveals about how the primary stakeholders of the February 2021 power loss event understood that event. Method: The researcher used NVivo, a content analysis application, to examine public comments, witness testimony, and a combination of legislators' press releases and the text of bills they drafted. All texts were generated in February and March 2021. The researcher ran both a word frequency analysis and a thematic analysis of each set of texts to identify topoi used by each stakeholder group and compared the results. Results: The analysis revealed that the three primary stakeholder groups perceived the February 2021 power loss event differently, though some of the most salient, significant, or urgent concerns of each group overlapped. The stakeholder groups shared some topoi, but the ways each group used those topoi suggested different ways of understanding and interpreting the event. Conclusions: Technical communicators who are tasked with reconciling technical and nontechnical audiences in situations like this can use the techniques discussed here to better identify specific places where the respective groups' use of topoi diverged from one another or aligned with one another. The more that is known, and not just surmised, about stakeholders and how they understand and interpret their technical knowledge, the better we can address how that knowledge may be communicated throughout the legislative process.
Snowpocalypse 2021:了解2021年德州电网故障的利益相关者Topoi
目的:这项研究是探索公共政策制定者如何使用他们在监督听证会上获得的专家知识和非专家知识的第一步。这一步的重点是了解监督听证会上的证词揭示了2021年2月停电事件的主要利益相关者是如何理解该事件的。方法:研究人员使用内容分析应用程序NVivo检查公众评论、证人证词以及立法者的新闻稿和他们起草的法案文本。所有文本均于2021年2月和3月生成。研究人员对每组文本进行了词频分析和主题分析,以确定每个利益相关者群体使用的拓扑结构,并对结果进行了比较。结果:分析显示,三个主要利益相关者群体对2021年2月停电事件的看法不同,尽管每个群体的一些最突出、最重要或最紧迫的担忧重叠。利益相关者团体共享一些地形,但每个团体使用这些地形的方式表明了理解和解释事件的不同方式。结论:在这种情况下,负责协调技术和非技术受众的技术传播者可以使用这里讨论的技术,更好地确定各个群体对地形的使用存在差异或一致的特定地方。对利益相关者以及他们如何理解和解释其技术知识的了解越多,而不仅仅是猜测,我们就越能解决如何在整个立法过程中传达这些知识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Technical Communication
Technical Communication COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
20.00%
发文量
15
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信