Basics of controversy analysis

Q. How can you go about answering a controversial question?

A. You need to go to where people are answering this question (or related questions) and disagreeing.  In which case, you will need to use the technique of controversy analysis.

Q. What is a controversy analysis?

A. The observation and description of a controversy:  of the perspectives of talkers (i.e., the ‘sides’ of the debate), of all the entities, actors, or topics brought into play by these talkers, of answers to questions (e.g., “World temperature is increasing.”), of questions (e.g., “Is the world temperature increasing?”, of actors questioning the validity or the meaning or presuppositions of particular questions (e.g., “What is ‘world’ temperature?  How is ‘temperature’ measured?”), etc.  At the very least, it is an inquiry into “who is saying what?” and “which sides do they occupy?”

Q. Am I making an argument for this report?

A. For reports, what you do is observe and describe people making arguments for or against something, or asking a completely different question within the same debate.  In controversy analysis, you analyze a controversy; you don't make it—at least, not in the same way as the people that you observe.  After your 2pgs of controversy analysis, you can add your perspective.  You are trying to observe and describe a disagreement (i.e., controversy):  the problem-posing (or questioning) and problem-solving (or answering) of others around a set of disagreed upon questions, such as "Should gay marriage be legal?" (or an alternative question, “Should heterosexuals [have the right to deny] full citizenship to non-heterosexuals?”).  Your problem as the researcher is not to try to question or answer this question yourself, but rather your task is to look at how others are trying to question and answer this question themselves.  Your questions look a little more like:  "How do people justify or label as unjust gay marriage?  Which forces or entities do they call upon?  E.g., nature (“Those people are not natural.” or “Homosexual sex exists in nature, so it’s natural.”), sameness ("We are all the same."), difference ("We are all different and that is not bad." or "Difference doesn't justify inequality."), deities (e.g., God, Allah, Vishnu, Satan:  “God is for/against gay marriage.”), holy books (e.g., the Bible, the Koran:  “The Bible says…”), etc.?  Which organizations play a key role in the debate?  E.g., federal government, state govt., religious lobbies, medical companies, LGBTQ activists, etc.?"

Q. Do I know better than the debaters?

A. The analyst or researcher is the student not the teacher of the people arguing.  In a controversy, no one knows for sure, or rather, they don’t know for sure yet.  In any analysis, one doesn’t begin with the answer, they finish with it.  A detective begins with a hunch and ends with a solved case.  When doing a controversy analysis, it is good to put aside the (often firmly held) idea that “I am right, they are wrong” and instead behave as if no one knows—this includes you.  This makes it easier to really listen to what others are saying, to avoid covering up the talk of others with your own presumptions, and to empathize with the perspective of others—a process which can be uncomfortable to the point of disgusting.

Q. What is the ideal controversy analysis?

A. Analyzing a controversy 1) that you are interested in, 2) that concerns you or a people (or non-human population) that you care about, 3) that addresses (either directly or indirectly) the questions that you want to (or see as important to) ask and answer, 4) that is politically relevant to the present, 5) that is recent, 6) that is unsettled, 7) that is not too time consuming or resource-intensive to study, 8) that is open to the public and non-secretive or non-classified.