Should the US Adopt a Digitalized Social Tracking System that Monitors Identity and Social Merits?
I spoke to Simon and he told me to make a new order to rectify the older orders he has noted the situation these are requirements and underneath is a link to one of the articles attached is the second this is a continuation off of the other order that is being redone and credited. due to confusion please read notes Simon had included in my file to understand thank you
he told me to add all the files under one order so it will go to one writer but it is separate orders I have separated it into different parts such as part 1 part 2 and so on but they all build off of the previous ones
link to one of the topics
below other file uploaded
https://files(dot)eric(dot)ed(dot)gov/fulltext/ED471528.pdf
part 1:
Touchstone 3.1: Construct a Rogerian Argument
ASSIGNMENT: As you learned in this unit, a Rogerian argument is one that presents two sides of a debate and argues for a solution that will satisfy both sides. Given two articles presenting opposing sides of an issue (mandatory uniforms in schools), construct your own 2-3 page Rogerian argument essay in which you attempt to arrive at a workable solution or "middle ground."
In order to foster learning and growth, all essays you submit must be newly written specifically for this course. Any recycled work will be sent back with a 0, and you will be given one attempt to redo the Touchstone.
Article 1: "School Dress Codes and Uniform Policies"
Article 2: "Dressing Diversity: Politics of Difference and the Case of School Uniforms"
Sample Touchstone
A. Assignment Guidelines
DIRECTIONS: Refer to the list below throughout the writing process. Do not submit your Touchstone until it meets these guidelines.
1. Summary of Positions
❒ Have you briefly introduced the author and publication context (year, journal, etc.) of Article 1?
❒ Have you included a summary of the stance presented in Article 1?
❒ Have you briefly introduced the author and publication context (year, journal, etc.) of Article 2?
❒ Have you included a summary of the stance presented Article 2?
2. Thesis/Claim
❒ Does you claim address both sides of the issue, including specific points raised in the articles?
❒ Does your claim present a clear, workable solution that could be viewed as a "middle ground" between the two sides?
3. Analysis
❒ Have you backed up your claim using facts from both sides of the argument?
❒ When using direct quotations, have you supplemented them with your own explanation of their relevance?
4. Reflection
❒ Have you answered all reflection questions thoughtfully and included insights, observations, and/or examples in all responses?
❒ Are your answers included on a separate page below the main assignment?
B. Reflection
DIRECTIONS: Below your assignment, include answers to all of the following reflection questions.
How does the Rogerian model of argument help you better understand the topic that’s being discussed? Why is it a good practice to acknowledge both sides of the argument? (3-4 sentences)
Will you use the Rogerian Approach in your own argumentative essay? Why or why not? (2-3 sentences)
D. Requirements
The following requirements must be met for your submission to be graded:
Composition must be 2-3 pages (approximately 500-750 words).
Double-space the composition and use one-inch margins.
Use a readable 12-point font.
All writing must be appropriate for an academic context.
Composition must be original and written for this assignment.
Plagiarism of any kind is strictly prohibited.
Submission must include your name, the name of the course, the date, and the title of your composition.
Include all of the assignment components in a single file.
Acceptable file formats include .doc and .docx.
part 2:
Touchstone 3.2: Draft an Argumentative Research Essay
ASSIGNMENT: Using your outline and annotated bibliography from Touchstones 1.2 and 2.2, draft a 6-8 page argumentative research essay on your chosen topic.
In order to foster learning and growth, all essays you submit must be newly written specifically for this course. Any recycled work will be sent back with a 0, and you will be given one attempt to redo the Touchstone.
As this assignment builds on Touchstone 2.2: Create an Annotated Bibliography, that Touchstone, as well as Touchstone 3.1, must be graded before you can submit your research essay draft.
Sample Touchstone 3
A. Assignment Guidelines
DIRECTIONS: Refer to the list below throughout the writing process. Do not submit your Touchstone until it meets these guidelines.
1. Argumentative Thesis Statement
❒ Have you included a thesis in your introduction that takes a clear, specific position on one side of a debatable issue?
2. Argument Development
❒ Are all of the details relevant to the purpose of your essay?
❒ Is the argument supported using rhetorical appeals and source material?
❒ Is your essay 6-8 pages (approximately 1500-2000 words)? If not, which details do you need to add or remove?
3. Research
❒ Have you cited outside sources effectively using quotation, summary, or paraphrase techniques?
❒ Are the sources incorporated smoothly, providing the reader with signal phrases and context for the source information?
❒ Have you referenced a range of at least 7 credible sources?
❒ Have you properly cited your sources according to APA style guidelines?
❒ Have you included an APA style reference page below your essay?
4. Reflection
❒ Have you answered all reflection questions thoughtfully and included insights, observations, and/or examples in all responses?
❒ Are your answers included on a separate page below the main assignment?
B. Reflection
DIRECTIONS: Below your assignment, include answers to all of the following reflection questions.
Provide one example of a place where you have used rhetorical appeals or source material to support your argument. How does this enhance your essay? (2-3 sentences)
Touchstone 4 is a revision of this draft. What kind of feedback would be helpful for you as you revise? Are there parts of your draft that you’re uncertain of? (3-4 sentences)
C. Rubric
Advanced (90-100%) Proficient (80-89%) Acceptable (70-79%) Needs Improvement (50-69%) Non-Performance (0-49%)
Argument Development and Support
Provide a clear argument with sufficient support.
The argument is thoroughly developed with highly relevant details to support it, including the use of rhetorical appeals and source material. The argument is well-developed with relevant details to support it, including the use of rhetorical appeals and source material. The argument is not fully developed; while it is supported by some relevant details, including rhetorical appeals and source material, some aspects of the argument are neglected. The argument is poorly developed with irrelevant details that frequently distract from the argument; there is little evidence of the use of rhetorical appeals and/or source material. The argument is not developed and/or the composition is not argumentative; details are irrelevant and distract from the argument.
Research
Incorporate sources through effective quotations, paraphrases, and summaries.
Cites all outside sources appropriately; incorporates credible sources smoothly and effectively through direct quotation, paraphrase, or summary. Primarily cites outside sources appropriately; incorporates credible sources effectively through direct quotation, paraphrase, or summary. Generally cites outside sources appropriately; incorporates credible sources adequately through direct quotation, paraphrase, or summary. Cites outside sources, but most are cited improperly; incorporates sources through direct quotation, paraphrase, or summary, but the integration is not smooth and/or the credibility of the sources is unclear. Does not cite sources, or citation is consistently inappropriate; does not reference sources and/or sources are not credible or appropriate.
Organization
Exhibit competent organizational writing techniques.
Includes all of the required components of an argumentative research paper, including an introduction with relevant and engaging background information and an argumentative thesis, an adequate number of body paragraphs with topic sentences, a body paragraph addressing counterargument(s), and a conclusion with a concluding statement. Includes all of the required components of an argumentative research paper, including an introduction with background information, an argumentative thesis, an adequate number of body paragraphs with topic sentences, a body paragraph addressing counterargument(s), and a conclusion with a concluding statement. Includes nearly all of the required components of an argumentative research paper; however, one component is missing. Includes most of the required components of an argumentative research paper, but is lacking two components; sequences ideas and paragraphs such that the connections between ideas (within and between paragraphs) are sometimes unclear and the reader may have difficulty following the progression of the argument. Lacks several or all of the components of an argumentative research paper; sequences ideas and paragraphs such that the connections between ideas (within and between paragraphs) are often unclear and the reader has difficulty following the progression of the argument.
Style
Establish a consistent, informative tone and make thoughtful stylistic choices.
Demonstrates thoughtful and effective word choices, avoids redundancy and imprecise language, and uses a wide variety of sentence structures. Demonstrates effective word choices, primarily avoids redundancy and imprecise language, and uses a variety of sentence structures. Demonstrates generally effective style choices, but may include occasional redundancies, imprecise language, poor word choice, and/or repetitive sentence structures. Frequently includes poor word choices, redundancies, imprecise language, and/or repetitive sentence structures. Consistently demonstrates poor word choices, redundancies, imprecise language, and/or repetitive sentence structures.
Conventions
Follow conventions for standard written English.
There are only a few, if any, negligible errors in grammar, punctuation, spelling, capitalization, formatting, and usage. There are occasional minor errors in grammar, punctuation, spelling, capitalization, formatting, and usage. There are some significant errors in grammar, punctuation, spelling, capitalization, formatting, and usage. There are frequent significant errors in grammar, punctuation, spelling, capitalization, formatting, and usage. There are consistent significant errors in grammar, punctuation, spelling, capitalization, formatting, and usage.
Reflection
Answer reflection questions thoroughly and thoughtfully.
Demonstrates thoughtful reflection; consistently includes insights, observations, and/or examples in all responses, following or exceeding response length guidelines. Demonstrates thoughtful reflection; includes multiple insights, observations, and/or examples, following response length guidelines. Primarily demonstrates thoughtful reflection, but some responses are lacking in detail or insight; primarily follows response length guidelines. Shows limited reflection; the majority of responses are lacking in detail or insight, with some questions left unanswered or falling short of response length guidelines. No reflection responses are present.
D. Requirements
The following requirements must be met for your submission to be graded:
Composition must be 6-8 pages (approximately 1500-2000 words).
Double-space the composition and use one-inch margins.
Use a readable 12-point font.
All writing must be appropriate for an academic context.
Composition must be original and written for this assignment.
Plagiarism of any kind is strictly prohibited.
Submission must include your name, the name of the course, the date, and the title of your composition.
Include all of the assignment components in a single file.
Acceptable file formats include .doc and .docx.
Your annotated bibliography must be graded before your research essay draft will be accepted.
part 3:
Touchstone 4: Revise an Argumentative Research Essay
ASSIGNMENT: Review the in-text comments and summary feedback you received on your Touchstone 3.2 draft to enhance your writing. You will then submit a revision of your Touchstone 3.2 draft that reflects the evaluator's feedback. Make sure to include a copy of your Touchstone 3.2 draft below the reflection questions for this unit.
As this assignment builds on Touchstone 3.2: Draft an Argumentative Research Essay, that Touchstone must be graded before you can submit your final research essay.
Sample Touchstone 4
A. Final Draft Guidelines
DIRECTIONS: Refer to the list below throughout the writing process. Do not submit your Touchstone until it meets these guidelines.
1. Editing and Revising
❒ Have you significantly revised the essay by adjusting areas like organization, focus, and clarity?
❒ Have you made comprehensive edits to word choice, sentence variety, and style?
❒ Have your edits and revisions addressed the feedback provided by your evaluator?
2. Cohesion and Source Integration
❒ Is the information presented in a logical order that is easy for the reader to follow?
❒ Have you included smooth transitions between sentences and paragraphs?
❒ Have you introduced your sources clearly and in a way that demonstrates their validity to the reader?
3. Conventions and Proofreading
❒ Have you double-checked for correct formatting, grammar, punctuation, spelling, and capitalization?
❒ Have you ensured that any quoted material is represented accurately?
4. Reflection
❒ Have you displayed a clear understanding of the revision process?
❒ Have you answered all reflection questions thoughtfully and included insights, observations, and/or examples in all responses?
❒ Are your answers included on a separate page below the composition?
B. Reflection Questions
DIRECTIONS: Below your assignment, include answers to all of the following reflection questions.
How much time did you spend revising your draft? What revision strategies did you use and which worked best for you? (2-3 sentences)
List three concrete revisions that you made and explain how you made them. What problem did you fix with each of these revisions? Issues may be unity, cohesion, rhetorical appeals, content, or any other areas on which you received constructive feedback. (4-5 sentences)
What did you learn about your writing process or yourself as a writer? How has your understanding of the research process changed as a result of taking this course? (2-3 sentences)
C. Rubric
Advanced (90-100%) Proficient (80-89%) Acceptable (70-79%) Needs Improvement (50-69%) Non-Performance (0-49%)
Revising
Demonstrate comprehensive “re-visioning” of the composition.
There is evidence of comprehensive re-visioning of the draft composition, including adjustments to organization, focus, clarity, and/or unity where needed or appropriate. There is evidence of significant re-visioning of the draft composition, including adjustments to organization, focus, clarity, and/or unity where needed or appropriate. There is evidence of some re-visioning of the draft composition, including adjustments to organization, focus, clarity, and/or unity where needed or appropriate; however, a few areas need some additional revision. There is little evidence of re-visioning of the draft composition, such that multiple areas in need of changes were unaltered. Revisions are absent or did not address the issues in the essay.
Editing
Demonstrate comprehensive sentence-level edits throughout the composition.
There is evidence of comprehensive edits to the draft composition, including adjustments to word choice, sentence completeness, sentence variety, and/or style where needed or appropriate. There is evidence of substantial edits to the draft composition, including adjustments to word choice, sentence completeness, sentence variety, and/or style where needed or appropriate. There is evidence of some edits to the draft composition, including adjustments to word choice, sentence completeness, sentence variety, and/or style where needed/appropriate; however, some issues were overlooked. There is little evidence of edits made to the draft composition, such that many errors remain. Edits are absent or did not address the issues in the essay.
Source Integration
Integrate source material appropriately and effectively.
Introduces sources smoothly and effectively through direct quotation, paraphrase, or summary. Primarily introduces sources effectively through direct quotation, paraphrase, or summary. Introduces some sources effectively through direct quotation, paraphrase, or summary, but more variety could be used. Relies too heavily on one method of source integration (direct quotation, paraphrase, or summary); does not thoughtfully apply source integration techniques. Shows no attempt to integrate source material into the composition or relies on quoted source material for over half of the composition.
Cohesion
Establish and maintain a logical flow.
Sequences ideas and paragraphs logically and uses smooth transitions (within and between paragraphs) such that the reader can easily follow the progression of ideas. Sequences ideas and paragraphs logically and uses transitions (within and between paragraphs) such that the reader can easily follow the progression of ideas. Primarily sequences ideas and paragraphs logically and uses sufficient transitions (within and between paragraphs) such that the reader can generally follow the progression of ideas. The progression of ideas is often difficult to follow, due to poor sequencing, ineffective transitions, and/or insufficient transitions. The progression of ideas is consistently difficult to follow, due to poor sequencing and lack of transitions.
Conventions and Proofreading
Demonstrate command of standard English grammar, punctuation, spelling, capitalization, and usage.
There are few, if any, negligible errors in grammar, punctuation, spelling, capitalization, formatting, and usage. There are occasional minor errors in grammar, punctuation, spelling, capitalization, formatting, and usage. There are some significant errors in grammar, punctuation, spelling, capitalization, formatting, and usage. There are frequent significant errors in grammar, punctuation, spelling, capitalization, formatting, and usage. There are consistent significant errors in grammar, punctuation, spelling, capitalization, formatting, and usage.
Reflection
Answer reflection questions thoroughly and thoughtfully.
Demonstrates thoughtful reflection; consistently includes insights, observations, and/or examples in all responses, following or exceeding response length guidelines. Demonstrates thoughtful reflection; includes multiple insights, observations, and/or examples, following response length guidelines. Primarily demonstrates thoughtful reflection, but some responses are lacking in detail or insight; primarily follows response length guidelines. Shows limited reflection; the majority of responses are lacking in detail or insight, with some questions left unanswered or falling short of response length guidelines. No reflection responses are present.
D. Requirements
The following requirements must be met for your submission to be graded:
Composition must be 6-8 pages (approximately 1500-2000 words).
Double-space the composition and use one-inch margins.
Use a readable 12-point font.
All writing must be appropriate for an academic context.
Composition must be original and written for this assignment.
Plagiarism of any kind is strictly prohibited.
Submission must include your name, the name of the course, the date, and the title of your composition.
Submission must include your graded Touchstone 3 assignment.
Include all of the assignment components in a single file.
Acceptable file formats include .doc and .docx.
Part 3 Touchstone 4: Revise an Argumentative Research Essay:
Should the US Adopt a Digitalized Social Tracking System that Monitors Identity and Social Merits?
George Lamboy
Sophia Learning
Part 3 Touchstone 4: Revise an Argumentative Research Essay:
Should the US Adopt a Digitalized Social Tracking System that Monitors Identity and Social Merits?
Introduction
Hailed strongly by the Chinese government and a select community of leaders around the world, the Social Credit System (SCS) has been criticized as an “Orwellian” project that advances and facilitates the rise of digital totalitarianism. The Orwellian dystopian vision of a dominated society is that which governments use technological tools of surveillance to monitor and control the behaviors and actions of citizens (Holligan, 2020). Western democracies have also perceived the system in its present form as disorganized and underdeveloped to serve the interests of the people and the governments. The Chinese SCS is partly inspired by the credit score systems that have been around in Western economies such as the FICO® scores in the United States but extends the functionalities to include broader aspects of an individual’s life such as politics involvements, purchase history, and interactions with other citizens (Wong & Dobson, 2019). The system is intended to not only track people’s movements and actions but also process data resulting in a quantified score (Creemers, 2019). The main intention of SCS is to foster honesty among the Chinese as the government seeks new digital technologies to reward trust while punishing dishonesty that results in commercial fraud, high-level corruption, food safety crimes, and the proliferation of counterfeit goods. The Chinese government is also optimistic that the SCS will address issues such as citizens fleeing bank debts and evading taxes (Wong & Dobson, 2019). As the debate on social credit system continues to gain traction, western liberal democracies such as the United States should adopt the social tracking system that monitors identity and social merits by considering the benefits of the system to governments, corporations, and citizens while understanding the necessity to protect the privacy and security of personal data and the freedoms that have been provided by the United States Constitution and other laws.
The Chinese social credit system (SCS) promotes honesty, which is a highly valued moral virtue in the country, and the system comprises of disciplinary technology that rewards honesty, trust, and virtuousness while punishing individuals displaying dishonesty, deception, and corruption (Wong & Dobson, 2019). Through technology, the Chinese government is optimistic that it will fix the rampant moral decay in society thus encouraging social harmony of a virtuous state. The concept of Guanxi or automatic and personal trust among individuals with personal relationships with each other is highly valued, while strangers are often shown distrust. The country is facing a crisis of trust-related challenges such as corporate corruption and fraud and several cases of mismanagement such as the 2008 baby milk poisoning scandal (Wong & Dobson, 2019). Furthermore, China has remained to be the leading counterfeiting country in the world with many firms producing counterfeit luxury brands. Individuals marked as not trustworthy lose their reputations and the maintenance of one’s trust and reputation or social standing has become important in China because individuals do not want to become a shame to their families. In China, losing “face” means tarnishing personal dignity and the way people are viewed by others (Wong & Dobson, 2019). The SCS has, therefore, been associated with these important values of trust and has been supported as the remedy to the trust and dishonesty crisis in Chinese society. In the United States, cases of trust and dishonesty are commonplace in the corporate world, with executives manipulating financial statements and balance sheets to mislead investors (van Driel, 2019). In the United States, WorldCom and Enron are examples of corporations that have been involved in such a scandalous practice, also known as accounting manipulation or the “cooking-up” of financial reports to achieve budgetary targets, and caused by greed, immorality, and desperation (Madan & Bhasin, 2016). A similar system can serve to uphold honesty and result in a better society.
Although the new frontier of digital surveillance using the Chinese social tracking system may seem like another form of mass-scale and totalitarian government-imposed project, the role of big data technology is appreciated and applicable in democratic societies such as the United States (Creemers, 2018). Mac Sithigh and Siems (2019) observe that in the sharing economy, big data technologies have benefited online platforms such as Airbnb, eBay, and Uber that have used consumer ratings similar to the Chinese SCS to improve their business models. Nevertheless, many critics in Western democracies have viewed the SCS as a paradigm shift from the conventional rating systems because it aims for a uniform and comprehensive social rating that is based on the reward and penalty mechanism. Instead, Mac Sithigh and Siems (2019) have identified shortcomings in both systems and discussed regulatory approaches and issues that legal experts need to consider before adopting such systems. Already, China has openly manifested its high-modernist belief in data technology that values order and control of its citizens over privacy (Diab, 2017). The United States needs to determine how it can integrate this technology into its economy and politics and understand the trade-offs it can make or reject. In particular, the United States needs to respond by establishing a data protection framework that will limit surveillance by private corporations and the government to protect the inalienable benefits of Americans to simultaneously pursue security, democracy, and growth (Kostka, 2019). The Chinese government has manifested its intention to reinforce regulatory, legal, and policy processes through technology and the United States need to weigh the implications of the system and reap the benefits of enormous data available in the modern day.
Critics of the Chinese SCS have argued that the world at present has not reached the age of universal surveillance and transparency and that there are intricacies of transparencies that make the adoption of the system unripe (Hansen & Weiskopf, 2019). Western scholarship regards transparency as a critical requirement in governance and has become part and parcel of emerging surveillance culture. Many corporations and governments around the world have been monitoring and profiling uses and citizens who knowingly or unknowingly become victims of surveillance and data breaches (Liang, et al., 2018). In China, similar systems such as Alipay’s social credit system known as Sesame Credit have aligned with the Chinese government’s tradition of monitoring the behaviors of populations by storing personal data in their databases (Chong, 2019). It has remained the tradition of the Chinese central government to collect and report personal information to make decisions. For instance, under the rule of Mao Zedong, personal information was traditionally recorded in the dang’an. However, in today’s China, there are over 1.3 billion mobile phone users with 772 million Internet users, allowing the government to replace the dang’an with big data algorithms and cloud storage (Hansen & Weiskopf, 2019). As the Chinese government harvests massive data from its citizens, it is unclear how the data could be used among other third parties with commercial interests. This lack of transparency on the use of data has raised concerns about the effectiveness of the SCS in China, especially among Western democracies.
Besides the issue of transparency issues that have meddled the Chinese use of the SCS, data privacy and security have been long been realized as critical in many Western economies. SCS has been thought of as a surveillance system that directly breaches the rights of citizens through privacy invasion. According to Hansen and Weiskopf (2019), concepts of anonymity or invisibility, confidentiality, and privacy of business intelligence and secrets are critical in the modern age of big data. In the age of ‘information overload,’ there has been a frequent assumption that information provided will produce an engaged and informed public that will hold accountable people and businesses in positions of power on how data is processed and shared (Langer, 2020). In the Western states, credit scoring systems differ from SCS in many respects. For instance, the use of scoring systems in the United States is restricted to commerce and financial purposes and the existing systems afford some levels of privacy protection. Nevertheless, such protections are lacking in the Chinese SCS as authorities draw on all kinds of data for rating businesses and citizens, which include traffic data, credit data, criminal records, online and shopping habits, as well as interactions in social networking sites. Observers note that in China, there has been a growing symbiosis between the state and the market where the Chinese government and technology firms such as Alipay have developed mutual interests in maximizing their political and economic gains from the harvested data (Shen, 2019). Therefore, the fact that data security and privacy are not assured in the Chinese system, the United States and other Western democracies are reluctant in adopting digitalized social tracking system that monitors identity and social merits.
Conclusion
Surveillance technologies in Westernized democracies have been used in this information age to collect personal data from individuals which are treated as intelligence data to protect citizens from harm. Similar to the Chinese social credit scoring systems, surveillance systems also pose risks among citizens as they lose their rights to anonymity, privacy, and freedom of speech. As this paper has discussed, the main intention of the Chinese system is to reward honesty and responsible business practices while punishing dishonesty in the age when China is increasingly fighting challenges related to fake products in the market and irresponsible citizenship. Perhaps to benefit from massive data collected from individuals and businesses, the United States needs to adopt the digitalized social tracking system that monitors the identity and social merits while at the same time ensuring that individual privacy, anonymity, and rights to freedom of speech are protected. These benefits may be realized with proper legal frameworks that protect personal data from irresponsible use by third parties. In a sharing economy, companies such as Airbnb and eBay are already using scoring systems to improve customer experiences. The adoption of a similar approach to the Chinese social scoring system will add more benefits to American citizens, businesses, and the state in terms of security, business processes, and governance.
Reflection Questions
How much time did you spend revising your draft? What revision strategies did you use and which worked best for you? (2-3 sentences)
I sent 45 minutes to revise my draft. Revision strategies that I employed while working on the draft was checking through the comments within the paper to make changes as recommended. I also checked the rubric and feedback section to ensure that the revised draft conforms to the requirements.
List three concrete revisions that you made and explain how you made them. What problem did you fix with each of these revisions? Issues may be unity, cohesion, rhetorical appeals, content, or any other areas on which you received constructive feedback. (4-5 sentences)
1 I made the first revision on explaining the Orwellian project by looking at examples of how the Orwellian concept has been used in other research articles and providing an approporate explanation of the concept in my draft. This revision appears in the second sentence of the introductory paragraph.
2 I also provided examples of companies in the United States that have been involved in financial reporting scandals such as WorldCom and Enron to show how dishonesty is not only a problem in China, but also in the U.S. corporate world. This revision is in the second-last sentence of the second paragraph after the introductory paragraph.
3 Lastly, I modified the first sentence of the last paragraph before the conclusion to follow a proper transition by changing the wordings for clarity.
What did you learn about your writing process or yourself as a writer? How has your understanding of the research process changed as a result of taking this course? (2-3 sentences)
I have learned much from the writing process especially on how to make arguments based on evidence. Using the Rogerian argument, I have learned that examining both sides of the argument ensures the presentation of facts without bias. Providing examples throughout the argument makes the presented facts understood to readers and will continue to use this technique in my future writing projects.
References
Chong, G. P. L. (2019). Cashless China: Securitization of everyday life through Alipay's social credit system—Sesame Credit. Chinese Journal of Communication, 12(3), 290-307. https://doi.org/10.1080/17544750.2019.1583261
Creemers, R. (2018). China's social credit system: evolving practice of control. Available at SSRN 3175792. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3175792
Diab, R. S. (2017). Becoming-infrastructure: datafication, deactivation, and the social credit system. Journal of Critical Library and Information Studies, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.24242/jclis.v1i1.19
Hansen, H.K., & Weiskopf, R. (2019). From universalizing transparency to the interplay of transparency matrices: Critical insights from the emerging social credit system in China. Organization Studies, 42(1), 109-128. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0170840619878474
Holligan, C. (2020). Orwellian codes of behavior exploing ideological power in education research policy. Power and education, 12(3), 261-275. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1757743820968595
Kotska, G. (2019). China’s social credit systems and public opinion: Explaining high l...