Category: Lens of caring

Digital Rhetorics and Meeting Everyone’s Needs

~ An Ethical Lens ~ Leave a comment

Professional digital spaces present an interesting situation: asynchronous (most often) conversations where a balance is attempted to be struck between what we ourselves want to communicate versus what someone else wants to communicate versus what we need versus what the recipient needs. Instead of being in a room where everyone can have a synchronous conversation about what everyone wants and needs, digital spaces create a delicate space of balancing ideas and people.

Digital interactions in a business setting can ensure they are approaching a communication ethically (at least by care ethics standards) by looking at what they (the company) want to say versus how it will affect the audience and how the audience will receive the information. For example, if a company wants to have a higher search ranking and knows that having business locations listed on Google will increase their search ranking, their needs are clear. They have the option to connect their company to a physical location even if it is not an actual store: so they are faced with a dilemma that can be routed differently based on what ethical model the company follows. If the company follows a utilitarian ethical model, they will feel it is acceptable to list store locations that are not real because they will get higher search rankings and have exposure to people who want their product. However, if a company is established in a care ethics model, they will look at how this will affect the company’s care receivers (the customers). Will customers attempt to drive to the fake location and be frustrated? Will this create confusion and distrust between customers and the company? These are questions that care ethics attempts to satisfy by saying that what is best for everyone involved, not just the company, is the ethical route to take. So striking a balance could be that the company lists any real locations it has to increase its search ranking and customers are taken care of by being able to trust that the company will meet their needs.

In terms of online classrooms, the unique challenges of this digital space can be difficult to overcome. As we’ve seen in all digital spaces, it can be difficult to not just blurt out our ideas or feelings, seeing the interaction as solely between us and an abstract idea that we either agree with or need to disagree with/attack. This behavior is lessened in a face-to-face classroom because we are taught from an early age to be more empathetic in face-to-face social interactions. This can be carried over into an online experience, however, through instructing students (and, as professors, remembering ourselves) that each of the comments is attached to a physical person. Before they post any comment or response to another person’s comment, each student should ask themselves, “Would I say this thing/say it in this manner if I was speaking with them in a physical room?” Approaching interactions in this manner allows for all parties to meet their needs; helping all communications in the space be delivered in a respectful, caring manner.

The nature of digital spaces makes it easy to focus on the only person we can physically see—ourselves. By reframing digital spaces via ethical models that focus on human interactions and relationships, we can attempt to bring in the human element into digital interactions.

Things to Consider in Online Classrooms

~ An Ethical Lens ~ Leave a comment

I have had online-classroom experiences that have varied widely—both good and bad—based on how a professor thinks a digital classroom should be constructed. There is, unfortunately, no overall standard of how to approach an online classroom, and this can affect the quality of interactions. There are many different ethical models that can be applied to this digital space, such as Rogerian or Deontological models; however, care ethics, while seen as an unusual choice for interactions that are not face to face and personal, frames the interactions in a way that weighs the care receiver’s needs heavier than the care giver’s needs.

When a professor approaches an online classroom with the concept that they are going to tell students what they know and think, they can potentially set themselves up for a more hostile digital space. They could be more abrupt with a student that has another opinion, sharp with a student that doesn’t quickly understand—or misunderstands—concepts, or not provide enough course information (expectations, deadlines, examples, etc.). However, when a professor approaches an online classroom with care ethics in mind, the professor is ethically responsible to be attentive to the students and provide an environment that fosters student learning in a way that best fits this group’s needs. A professor would approach the digital space with the understanding that it is not about them or their beliefs but rather the students’ needs and development. This could change a professor’s approach from attacking a student that presents an idea they do not like to focus on the student as a person rather than an abstract idea and exploring the concept and/or leading the student to a better train of thought with the same compassion and attentiveness that often is found in face-to-face classrooms.

Professors can also set up their online space so that way students are encouraged to approach other students’ comments the same way. By outlining behavioral expectations and explaining how comments are attached to real people, students can be encouraged to be less aggressive in their interactions. Another way to frame the digital interactions is to introduce the students to the concept of rhetorical listening. Giving students the tools they need to understand empathy in the online classroom will help for an experience that satisfies the care receivers’ needs (both professor-to-peer and peer-to-peer interactions).

Digital spaces can often cause people to relax and focus more on themselves and their feelings and ideas, but looking at the digital space through a care-ethics lens encourages both the professor and the student to see the comments and thoughts shared as attached to real people complete with feelings and needs.

 

How Care Ethics Can Be Applied to Digital Writing

~ An Ethical Lens ~ Leave a comment

Often it is easy to see the overall benefit of applying ethics–especially care ethics–to both personal and professional interactions. I can be harder to see the connection between care ethics in digital communications beyond not lying or presenting misleading information to customers. While these are both extremely important standards for all digital communications, there is a more subtle approach that can be extremely effective in creating an approach of care to digital interactions.

The following is an example of an original deferral email that was sent my way for editing, and under it is my revised version. I will then go into explaining how I have applied a care ethics model to the email. I have removed the personal information regarding the company and recipient, and the copy with _ implies dynamic content.

Original:

Dear NAME,

This email confirms in writing the details of your telephone conversation with a COMPANY representative on ENTER_DATE_HERE, regarding the agreed upon amendments to your System Purchase and Services Agreement.

During this phone conversation, you and the COMPANY representative agreed that COMPANY would (1) defer your monthly services fee for ENTER_DEFERMENT_MONTHS months, beginning on ENTER_START_DATE, and (2) extend the end date of your agreement by ENTER_NUMBER_OF_MONTHS months. After the ENTER_DEFERMENT_LENGTH deferment ends, you will resume paying your monthly services fee through the end of the extended term.

All other terms, provisions, covenants, and conditions set forth in the agreement shall remain in full force and effect, except as expressly modified by our agreement set forth herein.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact us.

For your reference, your Service Number is: 5611101.

Sincerely,

COMPANY

Edited:

NAME,

This email is to confirm the deferment of your COMPANY monthly payment. Your service will be suspended for ENTER_DEFERMENT_MONTHS beginning ENTER_START_DATE. Your service will resume on ENTER_RESUME_DATE.

Once your deferment ends, you will resume paying your monthly service fee through the end of your extended contract.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.

Thank you,

COMPANY

 

Now, it may seem that I simply shortened the email, but because my choices were guided by a care ethics approach, I was able to create an email that not only fits the medium better (digital communications need to be short) but also focuses on the needs of the reader.

Because Joan Tronto’s four principles of care ethics (attentiveness, responsibility, competence, and responsiveness) guide my writing and editing decisions, I am better able to approach an email with the reader’s best interest in mind. For example, the original email is not only extremely long, but it includes a lot of information that the company wants to say but the customer doesn’t need to know. Burdening the customer with this information could be seen as unethical from a care ethics approach because the email doesn’t meet the standard that is created when the people most vulnerable to the decision (the reader in this situation) is not weighed more heavily.

There is unnecessary copy in the first email (“in writing,” “telephone conversation,” “service number” etc.) is very wordy and burdens the reader with too much copy as well as information they either already know or is implied. By including the service number, for example, will make it easier for the company representative to look up their case, but because the representative can also look it up by email, phone number, address, or name, it makes more sense to not clutter the email with information that doesn’t make the email more readable to the customer. The only information a customer will want to see confirmed is that their deferment has started, how many months it will include, and what date the deferment will end. They will also want a way to contact the company if they need more help. By hyperlinking the “contact us” in the email, this also alleviates the time it will take for a customer to search for a way to contact the company.

By keeping the email short and sweet, it not only applies the standard of keeping digital communications shorter than print communications, but it also focuses on what the care receiver needs rather than what the caregiver wants. Knowing the best practices of digital interactions as well as the need to apply care ethics to digital situations helps writers ensure their content is both effective and ethical.

Taking Action as Writers

~ An Ethical Lens ~ Leave a comment

It is always important for writers to feel in control of and morally confident in their writings. Care ethics can be applied in the professional world by empowering writers to be advocates for equality and empathy when presented with something that doesn’t have the readers’ best interests in mind—caring for their readers’ needs and emotions. Often writers feel they don’t have a say in the writing process and that they are just supposed to write what they are told, but when writers apply care ethics theory to their work they find it is their moral duty (via attentiveness and responsibility) to be active participants in ensuring care ethics are applied to the text and that the customers’ needs precede the company’s wants. By including care-focused guidelines in a communication’s approach, a writer can create an email/document/brochure/etc. that is customer focused and solves the dilemma of how to apply care ethics on a more global scale.

Brenda Sims provides a great example that uses a care ethics approach in her article Linking ethics and language in the technical communication classroom. She presents the situation of an engineer an technical communicator writing a report on airbags that only had 60% inflate fully in the final test. The writer and company could advertise that all the airbags inflated, none of the airbags failed to inflate, or that only 60% of the airbags fully inflated. While none of the options are technically incorrect, only the last option has consumers’ best interest in mind—who also happens to be the person closest to the issue and therefore, according to care ethics, should have the most consideration. So, if the writer, engineer, and company were following care ethics values and had the Tronto’s four principles of care ethics in mind, they would know that the only ethical option they have is the last choice.

How Do You Show Care Through an Email?

~ An Ethical Lens ~ Leave a comment

Professional communications with customers in this day and age are done mostly through emails. However, digital writing is significantly different from writing, say, a print or environmental piece. I’ve mentioned this before in a previous post, but I want to go into more detail because I think this is an important way to apply care ethics to digital communications. When analyzing care ethics literature, it is easy to see how care ethics can help humans make moral decisions in close-proximity situations. However, one of the main critiques about care ethics is the question of how to apply this care-based morality to people with whom we don’t personally interact. However, when the values of care ethics are internalized, it is possible to implement them beyond our immediate circles—especially in professional situations.

As I’ve previously mentioned, Joan Tronto’s approach and additions to the care ethics model build out the idea Carol Gilligan and Nel Noddings developed in the early 80s. She further defended and explored the concept of care ethics in Feminist theory: a philosophical anthology, analyzing care ethics in a way that addressed many critics’ concerns. She believes that care ethics is not just a feminine trait, but rather a human trait. Both men and women are caregivers in society (whether it is in the home or at work or in a relationship), and so it is important to provide caregivers the tools with which to make moral decisions. She asserts that when people apply the four principles of care ethics, listed below, they allow both men and women to make moral decisions based on care. The following is Tronto’s list of steps for implementing care ethics:

Attentiveness

We must be attentive to those around us in order to be aware of their needs and how we can morally assist and/or respond. This is more than what the other person wants, it is what they need on a holistic level.

Responsibility

We must take responsibility for those around us (more specifically, those connected to us) and prioritize their needs over other factors.

Competence

We must develop the competence to care for others and their needs. We cannot only acknowledge that they need care, we must have the ability to act and react.

Responsiveness

We must measure the responsiveness of the care receiver to the care given. Responsiveness does not equal reciprocity, but rather it is an understanding of what has been expressed by those in the vulnerable position.

 

When these points are taken from just feminist theory and applied to real-life dilemmas, it provides a clear moral strategy based on any relationship with people around us.

Overall writing standards like helpfulness, respect, and caring help writers approach a customer-facing email in the right mindset and allows them to keep the customers’ needs at the heart of their intentions when writing. Even though a writer cannot physically see and respond face to face to the audience’s needs, a common standard in care ethics theory, they can still take steps to write in a way that is in line with care ethics and moves the needs of the audience (instead of the needs of the author or company) to the forefront. For example, when writing an email about a new product that has just been released, writers should approach the message in a way that focuses on what the audience needs to hear over what the company wants to say. Surveys are also a great way to implement the fourth principle of Tronto’s care ethics theory in a digital space—responsiveness. Surveys allow writers to analyze how their message has been received by the audience and encourages writers to care for their readers by analyzing the data and how readers responded to the content and then making changes where necessary.

A style guide with a foundation in care ethics also influences the standard of communications a company sends out. Style guides can have multiple focuses: a focus that benefits the company or a focus that benefits the customer. Rather than a sole utilitarian approach, where the company says whatever it takes to get the results they need, the foundation of care ethics puts the readers’ needs first—to be care givers of their readers. This almost always gets the same results the company wants, but it achieves it in a way that also encourages brand loyalty and equality. It is always important to treat this rhetorical and persuasive medium with a care ethics approach to ensure that the emails give those closest to the issue the loudest voice in regards to their needs.

Care Ethics and Feminism

~ An Ethical Lens ~ Leave a comment

Within feminist theory, where care ethics originated, there are many different veins of thought; however, there are some common threads within the theories. Mary Lay listed out some common feminist characteristics in her 1991 article Feminist theory and the redefinition of technical communication. She said the shared characteristics include:

  1. Celebration of difference
  2. Theory activating social change
  3. Acknowledgment of scholars’ backgrounds and values
  4. Inclusion of women’s experiences
  5. Study of gaps and silences in traditional scholarship
  6. New sources of knowledge—perhaps a benefit of the five characteristics above (p. 349–350)

This list of characteristics that traditional feminist scholarship all share is reflected in the care ethics model. For example, the study of gaps in traditional scholarship is precisely what led Carol Gilligan to challenge the justice-based morality measurement system her mentor used. From that, she developed and built up the theory of care ethics.  The inclusion of women’s care-based approaches can also be seen as moral maturity in Gilligan’s theory, where moral maturity was previously measured with a more masculine outlook in the justice-based measurement. Some feminists challenge this care-centered approach, saying that it engenders caring to women. They argue that the different ethical approaches of men and women are a result of societal constructs and that assigning “caring” to women further perpetuates the societal expectation on women to be nurturing. However, care-focused feminists assert that caring is not a woman’s approach, but rather a human approach and that applying relational ethics and care ethics to different moral dilemmas produces a more well-rounded ethical approach to situations and people than the objective and detached justice ethics.

In regards to care ethics and feminist theory in technical and professional communications, Erin Frost, a professor at East Carolina University, asks some very important questions in her 2016 article Apparent feminism as a methodology for technical communication and rhetoric. “How might feminist technical communicators persuasively point out the bias inherent in all worldviews, even those that people often perceive as neutral? How might they intervene in unjust situations, particularly in technical contexts in which objectivity is highly valued? And how might they best decide which situations are most deserving of this sort of attention?” (p. 4). By acknowledging that all communications are built on a worldview and ethical model (or lack thereof), different approaches to ethics can be explored and matched with the model that fits, which, in my opinion, if often care ethics.

Applying Rhetorical Listening

~ An Ethical Lens ~ Leave a comment

Listening is a skill that many people think they’ve mastered but, in reality, lack a deeper understanding of this ability. I was in a workshop this summer, and my professor turned us onto this book: Rhetorical Listening (2005) by Krista Ratcliffe. My professor talked about the principles in the book and the common reasons we listen: to use the information for our benefit or to defend against what has been said. These two listening approaches limit us in our understanding of others, but rhetorical listening allows us to listen and understand/empathize, not to take or debate their thoughts. In other words, listening is something that we do naturally, but rhetorical listening is something we must learn and develop.

Taking this concept and adding in care ethics principles, only with rhetorical listening can someone truly understand and care for the other person. The four ways to implement care ethics, as created by Joan Tronto, are as follows: (1) attentiveness, (2) responsibility, (3) competence, and (4) responsiveness. By applying rhetorical listening and looking at it through a care ethics lens, one can see how this would improve understanding across all kinds of barriers and differences; changing why we listen to others and making us more attentive and responsive to their needs.

Now, applying these concepts to a digital realm, it is clear to me how online interactions would benefit greatly from this approach. It is easy for instructors/students/peers/strangers to get into arguments online when someone is just listening to respond or defend, and it is easy for a company to digitally interact with their audience in a way that focuses on what the company wants rather than what consumers want—constantly ready to defend. This often is the natural response in digital spaces because it is easy to see online writings as unattached to any human feelings. As ideas rather than people. But, by approaching these writings and conversations with an empathetic mindset, listening becomes a much more valuable tool to learn about the other’s needs and how to meet them.

Empathy as Rhetoric

~ An Ethical Lens ~ Leave a comment

Eric Leake wrote an article in 2016 titled Writing Pedagogies of Empathy: As Rhetoric and Disposition. This quote stood out to me as an important way to look at digital writing through an empathetic lens: “Teaching empathy as rhetoric has broad application as a suitable means of more closely examining the personal, social, and rhetorical functions of reason, emotions, and judgments. Empathy can be a means of invention, a heuristic, a way of considering audience and situation, an instrument of revision, and a tool for critical analysis. Teaching empathy as rhetoric attunes us to all of its possible uses and liabilities as a means of persuasion.”

When we look at writing through this lens, it makes it clear that online spaces host the emotions of real, feeling people. Their need to be cared for should influence the approach one takes towards rhetoric in online conversations. The approach to digital writing needs to change from blunt to caring—after all, they are human! Writing in digital forms should look beyond the abstract presence it often presents and consider the audience to see that digital interactions are with people rather than concepts.

For example, when writing in an online classroom, one should take the same level of caring for others that they give in real life. In professional settings, such as with an email campaign, the focus should be on what the audience needs to hear rather than what the company wants to say. By implementing this level of honesty rather than a utilitarian approach, audiences feel cared for, that their needs are met, and that their loyalty to the company is well placed. This, in turn, benefits the reputation of the company and attachment to the brand.

On Caring

~ An Ethical Lens ~ Leave a comment

I stumbled across an amazing book written by Milton Mayeroff titled On Caring. While the book was written in 1971, it holds some extremely valuable principles that, when applied to today’s online ethical dilemmas, help support a care ethics approach to digital and professional writing. In this post, I’m going to explore one of his principles on caring for a person (or audience) and how this concept can be applied to modern-day digital rhetoric.

In the first few pages of his book, Mayeroff writes, “And here too, whatever the important differences are between caring for a person and caring for an idea, I would like to show that the is a common pattern of helping the other grow” (p. 2). This quote is preceded by the exploration of the different things people care for and the different ways they do so. Taking this quote and applying it to digital rhetoric, I focus in on the concept of people vs. ideas.

One of the biggest challenges I notice digital writers facing is that they see the rhetoric on the screen or the email list that has been gathered as an idea rather than people. This can lead to a more aggressive or utilitarian approach to writing, making the focus on oneself or the ends rather than the receiver or audience. As Mayeroff writes, central to caring for others is helping them grow; by framing digital spaces with an ethical model such as care ethics, the focus moves away from How does this benefit me? to How does this benefit or care for my audience? This crucial shift in thought makes all the difference in how one approaches writing in digital spaces–whether it is a professional email campaign, online classroom, or Web 2.0 interaction.