Jeff Pruchnic—"The Atlas of Love and Hate: William Bunge's Detroit and the Quantitative Representation of Ethical Relationships"

Jeff shared a paper in which he discussed Bunge's visualizations and the ethical implications that his creations presented and the role of technical communication in these visualizations. He cited Barton & Barton, Dombrowski, Dragga & Voss, Katz, and Young's studies that address TCers responsibility to humanize the representation of data.

Jeff reiterated that we need to be clear and accurate when we present information and we need to ensure that we do not do "bad" things. We also need to identify that the aesthetics of our visualizations can affect the audience's response to the data. Jeff showed a series of cartograms that map information—visualize data in map-like format (e.g., "Children's Automobile 'Accidents' in Detroit" to identify location of accidents and if those are predictable or preventable).

We create different perspectives when we emphasize new information—we humanize quantified information to change the perspective on the information and create an objectivity. Bunge created that objectivity by emphasizing information with new techniques (like mapping the lonely child on the street).

Conor Shaw-Draves—"Ethical Carographies: Digital Information Visualization and the Teaching of Ethics in the Technical Communication Classroom"

Conor addressed how to teach students to write ethically. He addressed three texts that addressed students and how they must consider ethics by providing scenarios that present ethical issues from external (the employer) and the internal (personal beliefs) pressure and that require that we consider the stakeholder to ensure that communicators don’t mislead or present information inaccurately but also consider the audience’s perspective. The texts however still focus on the communicator’s activity.

The focus on the negative ethical challenges are plenty, but we need to teach the students to consider positive perspectives that we can use for our students and assignments that we present.

Conor used Bunge’s experiences and examples (summarizing Bunge’s professional biography first) to create assignments that encourage students to consider ethics in the workplace. Students have already written several assignments; this assignment comes midterm.

One assignment. . .intersection of TC and ethics. . .emphasize the positive elements of TC. Create an image or visualization that requires you to address an audience to reflect information. Students study Bunge’s work, specifically

• “Bloomfield Hills Area” versus “Mach Avenue Area”
• “Region of Rat-Bitten Babies”
• “Make-Shift Versus New Toys” (purchased or homemade toys)
• “Where Commuters Run Over Black Children on the Pointes-Downtown Track”
• “Recreational Facilities.”

Students have freedom to choose the data and the methods, and the results have been mixed, but the examples provide students the chance to discuss ethics and some create visuals that follow Bunge’s spirit. Conor then shared examples that students created to present some of the students’ deliverables for the assignment.

Barbi Smyser-Fauble—"Technical Communication, Ethics, and the Healthcare Industry: Interrogating the Silencing of the 'Non-Expert'"

Barbi presented an analysis of two FDA documents—"Guidance for Industry: Clinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Cancer Drugs" and "Training materials for Clinical Trail Investigators"—and also reviewed Bazell's review “Her-2: The making of herceptin, a revolutionary treatment for breast cancer.” She illustrated the emphasis on the value of scientifically measurable data in research but also emphasized the lack of articulation on the value of qualitative data that reflects patients' experiences reflected in oral exchanges during clinical trials.

She asks questions of how TC can become involved, including

• What can TCers learn from oral exchanges between professionals and patients?
• What are the results of these exchanges on participants?
• How do these document dictate the oral exchanges in clinical trials?

The ambiguous language of the guidelines emphasizes quantitative data, but only on further investigation with the language put into context, and the exclusionary criteria for studies deemphasizes inclusion of patients who report improvement in clinical trials but don't "provide" data to support the clinical trials' purpose. (Researchers have concern that ineligible patients might "dilute" treatment effects.")

Barbi also addressed "acceptable risk." What is an acceptable risk for patients who do not anticipate surviving and thus are willing to take the risk to make their fights worthwhile in their eyes—sacrifice that they see valuable—and that might potentially extend their lives or improve quality of life. Barbi presented stories of real patients from the Her-2 trials (those included, exempt, and removed) that illustrate the lack of ethics in silencing the participants.

Barbi concluded with a call for instructors of TC and TCers: We must integrate accountability and responsibility into our courses. Perhaps allowing students to analyze similar texts to allow students to connect a need for creating ethically responsible texts and considering the lives involved in the process.