Submit an Academic Petition or Appeal

Petition Letter: To the Associate Dean (Studies),

I am writing to appeal the mark (45) I received on my final term paper for the course SOCY363: Science, Technology, and Society (Winter 2016) instructed by Dr. Norma Mollers.I initially received a 90 in this course, followed by a 65 for a paper outline. I applied each point of feedback in my final paper, thinking doing so would bring my mark back up. I received a 45.I¿¿ve reviewed the paper and comments and don¿¿t agree ¿¿ both because I applied the direction given by the instructor and because I think the paper stands at a better level. Thus, I am requesting a review of Dr. Moller's grading decision on my final term paper.

The final examination in question required the student to write an in-depth exploration of any of the seminar's topics using recommended readings, comments to your outline, and classroom discussions. Using course readings - specifically articles by Berger and Luckmann, Collins, Bell, Latour and Woolgar - as well as lecture notes, I explored several topics in my analysis of the production and transfer of knowledge between scientists in an interdisciplinary setting. These topics include: knowledge, collaboration and coordination, knowledge economies, and knowledge productions, all of which were discussed both in lecture and tutorial.

The second component of the term paper instructions suggests that students apply comments to the paper outline submitted earlier in the semester, to their final papers. After receiving a 65, a substantially lower mark than I was expecting, I made sure to incorporate the comments from the outline into my paper as a way of bringing my mark back up. Dr. Moller's feedback asked that I provide information as to who knowledge workers are, who they aren't, and why. Using a combination of course notes and readings, in the first portion of my paper, I discuss the emergence of the knowledge economy, and as a result, the knowledge worker. I connected this discussion with the over all topic of my paper - the production and transfer of knowledge - by applying other sociological perspectives, primarily Berger and Luckmann's, as well as Bell's, concepts of knowledge. I contrast their viewpoints to show a more complete depiction of what knowledge is and how it is important in our society. Furthermore, I discuss the emergence of experts, which ties to the comment regarding who knowledge workers are and why. In her outline feedback, Dr. Mollers also suggested that I discuss interdisciplinary collaboration, which is done throughout the paper, particularly in the section detailing the use of tacit knowledge to communicate ideas between fields, by using an example discussed at length in my presentation earlier in the semester on the TEA Set, a study conducted by Collins, who is cited in the paper. I also use, and expand upon, concepts regarding boundary crossing that were developed by Hawthornthwaite.

Therefore, I believe it is clear that I applied her feedback on my outline to my final paper, as is suggested in the term paper instructions. After doing so, I was unpleasantly surprised to receive such a drastically low mark on my final paper. In the feedback regarding the term paper, Dr. Mollers says, it is hard to identify your claim in this paper and how what little evidence you give would connect to it. In my paper, I claim, in the introduction, that an analysis of how scientists produce and exchange scientific knowledge reveals that these communities rely heavily upon a combination of social and cognitive components that are influenced by the social context within which they exist. I then state my intent to prove how these social and cognitive factors impact the internal dynamics between scientific knowledge workers. I did so by providing evidence for each claim I made in the introduction.

In my paper, I discussed how scientists produce knowledge, from a realist and constructivist perspective, both of which were discussed in class. I claimed that knowledge was produced both cognitively and socially. I proved this by discussing cognitive production, specifically the concept, development, and results of tacit knowledge. I also discussed how tacit knowledge is context specific, which ties into my claim that scientific knowledge is socially constructed, as well as cognitively. I was quite confident in my discussion of tacit knowledge, as I spent a long time learning and understanding the concept, as it was the topic of my presentation, on which I received a 90. To further substantiate my claim that knowledge is produced socially, I discussed boundary crossing and interdisciplinary collaboration.

Another aspect of my claim was that scientific knowledge is pertinent to the social context it is created within. I explore this claim in two ways. First, I use an article detailing the transfer of knowledge between marine biologists and decision makers. This is the same article I used in my paper outline, which Dr. Mollers suggested I use in my analysis of the communication of scientific knowledge. I applied their analysis of the relationship between scientists and decision makers working in the same organization to my analysis of how scientific knowledge is particular to a specific social context, thus suggesting that because knowledge is socially and cognitively produced and transferred, it is difficult to adequately articulate it among groups. In addition to this article by Citanovic et al., I used Collin's TEA Set experiment to demonstrate how not only are outsiders unable to comprehend the knowledge produced within scientific spheres, but so are those in different sectors of the same field. Therefore, it is clear, that I analysed the production and transfer of knowledge from several sociological perspectives, all of which supported the claims made in the introduction.

Dr. Mollers' feedback regarding my final paper also states that I am missing a discussion section. However, no where in the instructions for the essay doesn't mention including a separate, distinct discussion section. As such, I did not feel it was necessary to include a separate section and I think it can be argued that the discussion is prevalent through out the paper.

In conclusion, I believe my paper contained elements of a paper deserving of more than a 45.I have demonstrated where I feel that the correct elements have been counted as incorrect, i.e. the evidence and analysis I used to support my claims. I followed the directions outlined in the term paper assignment and I feel my paper has been substantially undervalued and inadequately evaluated. I hope I have been able to provide an articulate explanation that demonstrates why I believe my final mark should be reconsidered. I appreciate your time and consideration.

All the Best,
Clare Zarb 10121869