Brian Lain, Wayne State University

1994 - Immigration Regulation : Borderline Policies

We're drowning in information. We have automated the process of collecting information, but we have not successfully mastered the task of organizing and distilling the information for our productive uses. 2

In this statement three years ago, then Senator Al Gore began his plea for an "information superhighway." He discussed the challenges that lay ahead of America and the need to turn ex-formation (his term for "information that exists outside the conscious awareness of any living being but that exists in such enormous quantities that it sloshes around and changes the context and weight of any problem one addresses") into information and eventually to distill wisdom out of it. We are still engaged in what we might term an information battle. We wage war everyday to keep ourselves informed. The information superhighway is still under construction but it has changed everyone's life and every problem that one addresses.

As far as debate is concerned, the "information revolution" will effect how we research, what topics we discuss, how the policies that we discuss are formulated, and, most importantly for now, how we conceive of evidence and proof. Already we have seen the influence of the information age on research through the use of electronic databases and indices, as well as on-line full text information systems such as LEXIS/NEXIS and Dialogue. We are under the impression that the current revolution will effect not only how we research but what we think the goal of research, and evidence, should be.

The present analysis takes form in two parts. In this first part, I will discuss notions of evidence and how the information superhighway challenges traditional notions of evidence. It may be that, rather than propose definite solutions, all we can do at this time is present challenges and some initial conclusions. The second section of this study focuses on the practicalities of doing electronic research. Three years ago the author discussed high school research skills. 3 Conclusions at that time were mainly that research abilities, like athletic abilities, must be instructed and exercised to achieve proficiency. While I still agree that high school debaters need practice honing research expertise, too often it is limited access that hurts research ability. In this vein, the second article should be welcomed by most of the community. It is written from the point of view of two poor graduate students, looking, for a "free ride" on the internet. The cheapest approaches to electronic research are explored.

Traditional Standards For Evidence

In the debate community proper, there have been several discussions of "rules" of evidence. Both the American Debate Association and the American Forensic Association have proposed "rules" for evidence in competitive college debate. However, both of these proposals don't really help with evaluating cyber-evidence. Current American Debate Association Rules have this to say about evidence:

Materials - Evidence presented in debates should include the following orally presented citation: the author (if any), author's qualifications, source of publication, and date. Page numbers must be available upon request. This citation is expected for all pieces of evidence the first time the evidence is presented. For subsequent references to the same author or work, the citation may be abbreviated.

This is mostly about how to cite evidence rather than what constitutes fair game for evidence. Also, this definition does nothing to suggest what the function of evidence should be in a debate. For our purposes, this definition helps us little.

The American Forensics Association Professional Relations Committee has adopted this Code of Forensic Programs and Forensics Tournament Standards For Colleges and Universities (1982):

Evidence is defined as factual material (statistics and examples) and/or opinion testimony offered as proof of a debater's or a speaker's contention, claim, position, argument, point, or case. Fabrication of evidence refers to falsely representing a cited fact or statement of opinion as evidence when the material in question is not authentic. Fabricated evidence is so defined without reference to whether or not the debater or speaker using it was the person responsible for fabricating it. This helps a little more with presenting the concept of evidence. Basically, the standard created by this definition is that evidence is comprised of either statistical evidence (such as in studies) or expert testimony.

Rules on the high school debate level vary from state to state. Many states have adopted procedures for full citations. It is not possible to discuss the many variations of high school rule-book here. I will use the two college codes as exemplary of the high school system. All of these rules propose definitions and procedures for dealing with fabrication and using evidence out of context. I have included the AFA definition of fabrication to demonstrate such rules.

These formal "rules" may not help very much with trying to determine what evidence is and what it is used for. I feel that the community probably emphasizes four goals or standards for evidence: recency, accessibility, publication, and qualification.

Recency is more a standard of what makes good evidence rather than what constitutes evidence. However, it is important to note that electronic evidence provides the ultimate in recency. This is probably one of the best selling points of cyber-evidence. It is usually presented immediately. This does create some problems. In attempting to provide information with great speed, often some other standards, such as peer review discussed below, are eliminated. It also may be that often, in order to preserve cyber-space, old records are scrapped or removed. Usually old electronic information is "archived" or stored somewhere. It does, however, add a new element in the evidence equation.

Accessibility and publication go hand in hand and are, by far, the most important factors today in evidence. Rodger Payne has summed up the current communities attitude toward evidence in this journal eleven years ago when he titled an article "Debate Research: 'If It's in Print Read It"" The popular sentiment is that if something is in print it is accessible to everyone in the community. Libraries catalog items published. In theory, as long as you are quoting a text that is published, everyone could find it.

One reason it is important to have evidence which is publicly accessible is to provide a check on fabrication. If other debaters can obtain the same books or articles then there is a low risk that evidence will be generated by debaters themselves. Others can "check up on" your sources. Another benefit of public accessibility is education. It helps the entire community if several people have access to the same material. This allows us to discuss the author's intentions as well as expand our deliberations on particular essays.

Publication also means that, to some extent, the text has been peer reviewed. When someone submits an article for publication their work is examined by several other "experts" before it is presented to the public. This adds a level of credibility and qualification to publications. It is not easy to get an article published in a major journal or quarterly. This contributes to the qualification of an exposition.

Last, but not least, in the examination of evidence is the issue of qualification. This standard asks the simple question, "Is the author qualified to make the claim presented?" We may find many quotations in research. Many different quotations can be evaluated based on their content. However, the use of any evidence is not simply to have a piece of well-worded rhetoric at our disposal. If that where the only function of evidence we would not need to do any citation at all. The best explained function of evidence is to have the benefit of an expert agreeing with your argument. What does it take to be an expert? Is a staff writer for Newsweek who does a weekly column on immigration an "immigration expert?" The Random House College Dictionary defines expert as "possessing special skill or knowledge; trained by practice; skillful or skilled (often followed by in or at): an expert driver; to be an expert at driving a car."5 This may not provide us with any help. Probably, the definition of expert and expertise varies from field to field. It is unfortunate that we seem to conceive of expert status as a singular, achievable title. It is more likely that, in the real world, there are different degrees of expert. Debaters should not be afraid to discuss the level of expertise of one particular author over another. This may require debaters to actually do research on their authors. However, this seems to preserve the true function of evidence: to provide expert testimony. Be sure you know why the person you are citing is qualified, make arguments as to why your opponents authors are not.

Into the Next Century. Standards Under Review

This is the backdrop against which the electronic challenge will unfold. Certain formats of electronic evidence present new challenges for the debate community. The very idea of electronic information is usually information that is not published. Should we simply ignore this information? Can we make our standards evolve to include electronically cataloged evidence? Some examples of the upcoming challenges to academic debate include: USENET news groups, discussion groups and listservers, interviews and wire service reports.

Usually, none of the good forms of cyber-evidence are in print. The function of having things on-line in the first place is to avoid timely printing delays. USENET news, as well as discussion groups, groups involve round-table-like discussions on a global network. Sometimes these groups will include contributions by some knowledgeable people in a particular field. Thus the text is printed although published. It may be written by an expert. It is usually not peer-reviewed. Is it evidence? While these sources may contribute to a debater's knowledge on a subject, it will not usually be useful as text to quote. However, it is possible for a debater to cite any of these sources. After all, the standard for evidence should not be any higher for electronic evidence than it is for regular printed evidence. We already accept interviews which are published in magazines as evidence. The quotations given there are not peer-reviewed either.

The importance of debating a qualification should expand beyond the current discussion of the position held by the author. I suggest that the setting should influence the level of qualification attributed to a source. For example, in the print world, we might suggest that a book written at the end of a study is more credible than a newspaper article written to make a daily deadline. In the electronic world, a electronically posted study may have more credibility than a discussion on USENET, or a note written to a listserver for that matter. In the same way that we conceive of authors having varying, degrees of expertise, so too should we view the ultimate source as effecting the credibility of the quotation.

Public accessibility of electronic evidence is a far more important matter in academic debate circles. It is simply easier to fabricate a piece of evidence and say it was received from some listserve rather than a published origin. This may have to do with the very low levels of public access to electronic resources. After more people use the information superhighway to do research it will be easier to verify sources. However, as noted above, there is often a problem with archiving data. As well there is an enormous amount of material currently at the disposal of academic researchers. It is strange that the greatest benefit of electronic evidence, its plenitude, is its greatest source of trouble. Problems of public accessibility are best solved through the use of full citations and personal honor.

Toward a New Citation System

I am under the impression that citation standards have fallen apart. Too often in debate the only citation read is a name and a date. "Johnson in 92," is not enough information to sufficiently discuss the quality of evidence. Many times, debaters in search of shortcuts in the research process do not place full citations on the evidence. That is deplorable. A lengthy citation serves two functions. First, it allows ground for your opponents to discuss your evidence. Second, it helps us maintain the public accessibility standard of evidence.

The ability of your opponents to adequately discuss evidence is cut off by the shortening of the citation. How can we expect an opponent to discuss the quality of evidence if all we present is the text of the quotation. Is that all that constitutes evidence? Is it OK to hold up good rhetoric from a legal scholar along side good rhetoric from the National Inquirer? The citation system on a piece of evidence provides your opponents with a fair attempt to disprove your data. Citations are critical to providing public access and ensuring qualification of sources.

Given these findings, electronic evidence requires a new system of citation. In order to leave as much room open to the debaters as possible I suggest the following method. First, a researcher must present the author and qualification as well as the date. This is a standard format of citations. All of the citations included in this DRG will follow this format. Traditionally, the next item listed is the name of the publication. In place of this, I suggest citing the electronic source in brackets. LEXIS/NEXIS, ProQuest, USENET, Dialogue, and Gopher (all discussed in detail in the next article) are all examples of a general source.

This information is not sufficient for someone else to find the evidence though. It is necessary to also describe the research path you used to find the evidence. I suggest placing this in parentheses. For LEXIS/NEXIS a path name could be as simple as LAWREV, the bank for all law review articles. USENET may require a path that describes the particular discussion group (alt.current-news.russia for example). Gopher menu searching is often listed as a series of backslashes. A hypothetical search might list the gopher client then describe the menu path, for example [Gopher leo.nmc.edu] (/library/ CICnet Gophers/national government/supreme-court). This may be a lot of information but it Guarantees that others can follow the same path that you did. The same format can be followed for file transfer protocol stations. An example from a large ftp cite might include [ftp ftp.uu.net] (/pub/news/ Clinton). In fact, this system of listing, the source and then the path will work for all electronic evidence. Also, the format of the path (whether it contains backslashes or periods for cites) will provide a double-check on the source. I feel that this method includes adequate information to let debaters debate and allow researchers to research.

An important concept that may help with the confrontation of cyber-evidence is summary citations. We usually conceive of evidence as an actual quotation from a specific author. We consider it necessary for debaters to provide an actual quotation to prove that an author truly agrees with one's argument. However, what if a debater were to make an argument on his or her own and simply cite an author's work in summary as an agreement with him or her. Of course you would not have the force of the author's rhetoric on your side. However, you could phrase the argument in your own words. What if instead of always yielding to others to write the arguments, debaters took the ideas of others and phrased them in their own language. There would still need to be a way to check to make sure that the author truly agreed with the student. I suggest carrying the entire document or documents that you are citing with you to the tournament and the rounds. Instead of dissecting a text into a usable quote, try wording an argument on your own and reading a citation as another who agrees with you. You might be surprised with the judge's interest in your originality and research knowledge.

Ethics and Evidence

No discussion of evidence can be complete without a discussion of ethics. Our activity is maintained by the belief that everyone who participates conducts research in an ethical matter. We expect participants not to fabricate evidence nor to quote authors against their original intentions. If everyone was familiar with everyone else's sources there would be no need for a commitment to honor in research in this activity. However, we support and encourage individual's creativity and education through the research process. You will almost never have read all the same sources as your opponents.

The level of discussion in this activity requires a code of honor. We pride ourselves on persuading and arguing using current library materials. If you feel you need to have a piece of evidence that says a certain thing a certain way don't create it as a fabricated piece of evidence. Create it as your argument. You are not restrained in this activity to only discuss the arguments of others. You are to some degree an immigration expert. If you feel that when reading an essay by an author and they are not exactly making the argument the way you need it to be made don't destroy the context of that essay. Either do more research to find it said the way you need it or cast it as your own argument and footnote the author who gave you the idea. There is a tension created between plagiarism and fabrication. On the one hand, we object to people creating their own arguments and giving them names of others. On the other hand, we object to individuals using other's ideas as their own. Electronic research will be the hardest to check against both of these objections. We suggest people not be afraid to make arguments on their own and also to not be scared to give credit where credit is due. The use of a summary citation may provide the best of both worlds.

Conclusions

The onslaught of the information age will surely change the nature of debate. Several ethical and practical challenges are presented by electronic evidence. We are in a revolution. What form debate will take in the future no one knows, but it is being formed right now. As Al Gore has stated: When one is in the middle of a technological revolution, one has two choices: to follow yesterday's map or quickly chart a new course and grab the opportunities that we find. As a great philosopher once said, "What we have here is an insurmountable opportunity."...It is once again time to steer by the stars.

--------------

1 Nothing in this article should be construed as suggesting any rule or set of rules. If needed, you may mentally insert the phrase "I think" at the beginning of every sentence. I may be able to present some challenges but this paper is in no way considered a solution to the problems. Several ideas for this article were generated by discussion on the NDT-L (Listserver cited below). Thanks to all its participants as well as the moderator Doyle Srader, University of Georgia.

2 Gore, Albert Jr. "Information Superhighways: The Next Information Revolution." The Futurist, January-February 1991: 21-23.

3 Lain, Brian and Lyle Scruggs. "A Research Primer." Addressing Homelessness: Social Services in the 1990s: Debater's Research Guide. Wake Forest Univ.: Winston-Salem, 1991.

4 Payne, Rodger. "Debate Research: 'If It's In Print Read It."' American Justice: Courting Disaster: Debater's Research Guide. Wake Forest Univ.: Winston-Salem, 1983. This article was brought to my attention by Arnie Madsen conversing on the NDT-L (cited below).

5 Random House College Dictionary, revised edition. ed. Jess Stein, 1980. p.465.

6 Gore, p.23.