Com 721/Spring 2014
COM 721 SEMINAR: HEALTH COMMUNICATION
NARRATIVE INQUIRY IN HEALTH COMMUNICATION
Spring 2014
Tuesdays 4:00-6:40 p.m.
209 Communication
Patricia Geist-Martin, Ph.D.
pgeist@mail.sdsu.edu
244 COM 594-4182 Office hours:
Tuesdays 2-4 & by appt.
Untitled, Along Route 200 East of Winett, Montana, Craig Carlson (2010)
“A respect for narrative as everyone’s rock bottom capacity, but also as the universal gift, to be shared
with others. . . . So it goes, this immediacy that a story can possess, as it connects so persuasively with
human experience” (pp. 30, 204-205).
Robert Coles (1989) The Call of Stories
“If you want the story, you’ve got to get inside the heart of it” (p. 23).
Snow scientist Ed Adams, on learning how to predict avalanches by setting them off and then
putting himself directly into their paths so he is buried alive. (Newsweek, 2002, December 16)
“Only thing you ever own is a story. Better make it a good one.”
“The Grover” played by Hugh Jackman in Australia Luhrmann, Baz (Director, Writer,
Producer). (2008). Australia [Motion Picture]. United States: 20th Century Fox.
“Illness is the night-side of life, a more onerous citizenship. Everyone who is born holds dual
citizenship, in the kingdom of the well and in the kingdom of the sick. Although we all prefer to use only
the good passport, sooner or later each of us is obliged, at least for a spell, to identify ourselves as
citizens of that other place” (p. 3).
Susan Sontag (1978), Illness as Metaphor
“To name an illness is to describe a certain condition of suffering—a literary act before it becomes a
medical one. A patient, long before he [she] becomes the subject of medical scrutiny, is, at first, simply
a storyteller, a narrator of suffering—a traveler who has visited the kingdom of the ill. To relieve an
illness, one must begin, then by unburdening the story” (p. 46).
Siddhartha Mukherjee (2010), The Emperor of all Maladies: A Biography of Cancer
1
Com 721/Spring 2014
2
COURSE DESCRIPTION
Health communication is a field of study that encompasses theories, research, and applications of the
symbolic processes by which people, both individually and collectively, understand, share ideas about,
and accommodate to health and illness. This class is designed to be a survey of selected discourses,
both public and interpersonal, that constitute how health is communicated, especially in the U.S. In the
process of examining these discourses, we will highlight significant concepts, theories, and findings that
have emerged in health communication scholarship. The sources for this scholarship are
interdisciplinary, but the core of our attention will be focused on the communicative implications of
health beliefs, practices, and policies, as well as the particular challenges for health communication
scholarship. The assigned readings make use of various research approaches, but many feature
interpretive methodologies and, as such, argue from a subjective perspective. I encourage you to read
these works with a critical eye and to voice your responses, insights, and critical interrogation.
The major assignment will be to develop a research project of your own choosing related to health
communication, which will culminate in a written paper and an oral presentation due at the end of the
semester. Course assignments include: (a) discussion leader, (b) building block assignments that help
you progress to your research, (c) a semester research project, and (d) class participation that
demonstrates you ability to synthesize and reflect upon course readings. The seminar demands your
active participation in all in-class activities. Our objective will be to produce papers of high quality that
can be submitted for conference presentations and/or lead to thesis proposals or journal publications.
As you will learn in this course, much of human communication is in the form of stories, and what tends
to get our attention and involvement are gripping narratives that visualize and account for ordinary and
extraordinary life problems and accomplishments. This class will focus on both narrative theory and
methodology as an approach to analyzing and understanding a variety of health- and illness-related
discourses that emerge from personal, organizational, and public contexts. We will explore the
functions, forms, and effects of health narratives—stories of coping and recovery, illness and dying,
thriving and discovery in families, clinical interactions, public campaigns, profound moments and
controversies--that eventually impact every person’s life. To do so, we will use concepts drawn from
communication research, as well as from a multi-disciplinary perspective. We’ll be giving special
emphasis to the illness narrative, how personal and observed experiences of illness and health care are
conveyed and/or understood though story format.
TEXTS
Thompson, T. L., Parrott, R., & Nussbaum, J. F. (2011). The Routledge handbook of health communication, 2nd
ed. New York: Routledge. In Syllabus referred to as TPN
Clandinin, D. J. (2013). Engaging in narrative inquiry. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Frank, A. W. (2013). The wounded storyteller: Body, illness & ethics, 2nd ed. Chicago, IL. University of Chicago
Press.
Harter, L. M. and Associates (2013). Imagining new normal: A narrative framework for health communication.
Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt. (optional)
Vande Berg, L., & Trujillo, N. (2008). Cancer and death: A love story in two voices. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton
Press.
Com 721/Spring 2014
3
MY RESPONSIBILITIES
I’ve worked diligently to assemble an informative and, hopefully, intriguing group of readings and class
activities. I will lecture only occasionally, as a way of guiding us through this material. For the most
part, however, I see my chief role as posing questions as a means of encouraging reflection, and
facilitating discussion among us. It is also my job to provide guidance and feedback to each of you as
you proceed with your projects. I request that you (or you and your partner together) make at least one
30 minute appointment sometime in the first three weeks to talk with me in-depth about your final
project.
Guidance for Our Work Together
 Be Prepared. Please come to class having read the assigned materials. I do not expect that you
will like or agree with all the material (nor do I), but it is on the syllabus for a reason. All
readings are open to interpretation just as all ideas are open to debate and challenge. I hope that
we will all attempt first, to understand the readings, and then to critique them.
 Be Compassionate. This classroom is a SAFE space. Let us engage each another robustly, yet
with civility and respect. Please do let me know in advance if you need any special
accommodations and assistance for the seminar for any reason.
 Be Present. Since this is a seminar, you are required to be present at all class sessions. Please
inform me, in advance, if you are going to be absent for any given session. Legitimate absences
such as illness, death in the immediate family, religious observance, jury duty, involvement in
University-sponsored activities--some accommodation (makeup work, excused absences, change
of grade computation) will be arranged ONLY if I am contacted before our class begins that day.
 Be Honest. Plagiarism is one of the highest forms of academic offense. It represents several
ethics violations. It is theft of intellectual property. In academe, a scholar’s words, ideas, and
creative products represent essential intellectual property, which are the primary measures of
scholarly identity, status and achievement. It is fraud. Students should be assessed on their own
ideas and abilities; not the ideas and abilities of others. It is unfair. It introduces bias and inequity
in the assessment process, producing grades for fellow students based on disadvantaged
standards and expectations. It is corruption. It undermines the credibility of higher education by
misrepresenting the meaning of university grades and degrees to the rest of the public. Whether
by ignorance, accident, or intent, theft is still theft, fraud is still fraud, inequity is still inequity,
and corruption is still corruption. Therefore, the offense, no matter how minor in quantity, is still
serious, and is treated as such.
 Request Assistance. If you are a student with a disability and believe you will need
accommodations for this class, it is your responsibility to contact Student Disability Services at
(619) 594-6473. To avoid any delay in the receipt of your accommodations, you should contact
Student Disability Services as soon as possible. Please note that accommodations are not
retroactive, and that I cannot provide accommodations based upon disability until I have received
an accommodation letter from Student Disability Services. Your cooperation is appreciated.
YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES
I.
Semester Research Project
II.
Discussion Leader
III.
Building Block Assignments
IV.
Participation
40%
20%
20%
20%
Com 721/Spring 2014
4
SEMESTER RESEARCH PROJECT (40% - 400 points)
Individually or in a partnership with one other person in class, you are to select a cultural community
(broadly defined as health and social issues) and focus your investigation on narratives of health
communication. I am asking you to go out into the San Diego Community or into your families to gain
first-hand knowledge of health and culture by engaging in in-depth interviews with at least 15 people.
Some of you may decide that you want to conduct several long interviews with one person. Each
interview you conduct with the person counts as one interview. Each student (or a dyad) will design and
carry out a project investigating some aspect of health communication. All projects are to be original,
data-based projects that include in-depth interviews with individuals that belong to a health/illness
community. The objective of the semester research project is to gain first-hand knowledge about some
aspect of health communication and culture.
Possibilities may include (but are not limited to) elaboration of a theoretical/conceptual viewpoint (e.g.,
the role of humor in illness narratives); development of an autoethnographic exploration; an exploration
of a controversial health issue (e.g., medical marijuana, vaccinations, Gardasil vaccine), a cultural
community (e.g., runners, figure competitions, holistic health practices, survivors of any illness), the
organization of health practices (e.g., integrative medicine, community health fairs, cornerstore health
centers, AIDS residential facilities, half-way houses, retirement centers), and the list goes on. People are
drawn together because of similar health and illness experiences such as: chronic illness, losing a child,
alcoholism, euthanasia, medical training, family secrets and/or myths about health or illness, preparing
for death (hospice, funeral service, etc.), caring for a parent, or their wellness experiences with yoga,
acupuncture, exercise, and other health enhancing practices. The link to organizational communication
is another potential avenue. Some organizations today spend a great deal of time and money offering
wellness programs and concerning themselves with the health and satisfaction of their employees.
Ultimately, the selection of topic should be based on one of the following: a particular author whose
research you find fascinating, a particular theory that you would like to explore, or a topic of interest
based on personal experience in your own life or that of family or friends.
Once you decide on a focus, you will want to spend a few weeks immersing yourself in the context you
will be studying as a way of narrowing the focus of your project. Some of you will make the decision to
volunteer your time in the community as part of the agreement to do your research or as a precursor to
making the request to do the research. But if you know now the focus of your project, set up a time to
dialogue with me about your ideas.
While the predominant data collection strategy is interviewing, there are a wide range of other strategies
that can complement and enhance your analysis (Internet discussions, observation of clinical or health
organizational interactions; analysis of written texts such as published pathographies, news accounts,
cultural portrayals). Your project may also include observing communication, writing down the
conversations you hear, observing interactions, and asking people for their views.
All written projects will be approximately 25-30 pages in length (350 points, double-spaced, 12 font
type). Your written report will be a narrative that pulls us into the topic and engages our curiosity,
allowing us to glimpse some aspect of health and/or illness of one cultural community. All final papers
must be delivered to me no later than Tuesday, May 2014 (though papers will cheerfully be accepted
before that date). The oral presentation the last day of class is worth 50 points.
Com 721/Spring 2014
Final Papers Due: Tuesday, May 6, 2014 (350 points)
The final version will include:
 Range in length from 25-35 typed pages
 Minimum 20 sources cited and listed in APA style
 Give voice to the people sharing their stories
 Provide context by incorporating details of the cultural community.
 Be reflexive by weaving self in the text.
 See page 20 for the rubric for evaluation of the final paper/project (also pp 21-22 for more info)
Oral Report: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 (50 points)
The criteria for your oral report include:
1.
An introduction: (a) engages us, (b) shows relevance to audience, (c) describes the focus of the
presentation, and (d) previews the points to be covered in the presentation.
2.
The body includes: (a) statement of key findings, (b) a featured narrative (one type of narrative:
performed narrative(s), audio/ video tape-recorded narrative(s), and/or guest person tells their
narrative), (c) theoretical and practical implications, and (d) what you remain curious about for
future research,
3.
The closing: (a) describe what you have learned about YOURSELF doing this project, and (b)
creates a memorable closing.
4.
See page 23 for the Rubric for Evaluation the Oral Presentation
Catcher, Gail Roberts (2011)
5
Com 721/Spring 2014
6
DISCUSSION LEADER: (20%, 200 points)
One time this semester, each individual in the class will be responsible for leading the discussion for
that class period. This assignment requires that you become FLUENT in the week’s reading and devise
a plan to involve us in a discussion of the readings, the authors, the concepts, and classmate’s
perspectives on the readings. Realize that we have read the readings so there is no need to walk us
through the content of the week’s readings. Instead, create a handout that turns our attention to the
following:
1. KEY CONCEPTS (20 points). A list of key concepts that seem most relevant in ALL of this
week’s readings
 Indicate source and page number for each concept
 Indicate concepts that can be found in more than one reading
2. PROVOCATIVE INSIGHTS (40 points). Three insights that you have gained from this week’s
readings that connect one or more readings. These can be theoretical, methodological, and/or
pragmatic insights. In describing these insights about this week’s readings reveal what you feel
passionate and curious about AND how the insights might be relevant to your own and
classmate’s research. It is critical that YOU believe these ideas are engaging and provocative.
3. ENGAGEMENT (60 points). This should be the biggest part of your presentation. Engage us in
the following ways (not necessarily in this order): (a) offer, one at a time, two to three
discussion questions that facilitate dialogue about the readings, extending the discussion beyond
the readings (not just asking classmates to regurgitate information), (b) offer at least one question
that asks the class to synthesize this week’s readings with readings from the weeks prior, (c)
focus our attention on one author that is mentioned in one or more of the readings and indicate
something you have learned about their program of research, and (d) offer at least one practical
application of one or more of the concepts in #1 in a fascinating manner (e.g., a film clip, a
health campaign, a song lyric, a book, a quote from an interview transcript, or something else
that fits with the week’s readings). Be sure to include a paragraph description of the link
between the readings and the pragmatic application.
Written Report:
(100 points) 5-7 typed pages
 Post to BlackBoard by 3:30 before class the day you present
 For class: 1 copy for me (12 pitch font)
 For class: Written and oral rubric attached (pp. 18-19 of syllabus)
 For class: Copies for all classmates (can be reduced two to page and/or
smaller font)
 In addition to the 120 points above (clarity, depth, and relevance),
30 points evaluated based on:
(a) Organization, (b) Mechanics, and (c) APA
 Evaluation Rubric on p. 18 of syllabus
Oral Presentation:
(50 points) 60 minutes. Content of verbal presentation evaluated on:
 clarity, depth, relevance, and organization.
 ability to engage classmates with intriguing questions, listen to
classmates’ responses, integrate and facilitate classmates’ comments,
and to NOT dominate the discussion.
 Evaluation Rubric on p. 19
Com 721/Spring 2014
Discussion Leader Assignments
(20 % / 200 points)
Week 2 (Feb 4)
__________________________________________________
Week 3 (Feb 11)
__________________________________________________
Week 4 (Feb 18)
__________________________________________________
Week 5 (Feb 25)
__________________________________________________
Week 6 (March 4)
_(1)_______________________________________________
_(2)_______________________________________________
Week 7 (March 11) _(1) ______________________________________________
_(2)_________________
___________________________
Week 8 (March 18) __________________________________________________
Week 9 (March 25) __________________________________________________
Week 10 (April 8)
__________________________________________________
Week 11 (April 15) __________________________________________________
Week 12 (April 22) _(1)_______________________________________________
_(2)_______________________________________________
Week 13 (April 29) __________________________________________________
Week 14 (May 6)
__________________________________________________
7
Com 721/Spring 2014
8
BUILDING BLOCK WRITING ASSIGNMENTS (20% /200 points)
Each assignment is designed to move you forward on your research project. We will use class time as a
workshop to conduct peer review of these assignments.
#1: Tuesday, February 4, 2014: Proposed Research Topic (1-2 pages; 20 points).
This first written assignment is designed to help you to decide on the focus of your research project
this semester. Include: (a) provide a title for your paper (the central mystery; includes the word
communication), (b) describe whose stories you want to hear and why? (c) answer the “so-what
question”—what is significant about investigating their stories? (d) describe what you see as
theoretically interesting about these stories—indicating a few connections to this week’s readings
(or any week’s).
#2: Tuesday, February 18, 2014: Informational Interviews (3-4 pages; 30 points).
Arrange an informational interview with two people that reside within the cultural community you
are studying this semester. Write a one to two page introduction that indicates (a) who you
interviewed and why, (b) a rationale for the questions you asked (include them in Appendix A—
follow APA), (c) changes you plan to make for the next interviews and why.
Write a two page story that weaves together: (a) reflexivity about your experience of conducting the
interview, (b) excerpts from the interview, (c) interpretation/analysis of what you are learning in the
interview. Following Appendix A, attach a full transcript of the interview. and a list of your
proposed interview questions for future interviews. Make sure that many of the interview questions
ask participants to recall and tell a story about a particular time, incident, or moment. Ask them to
describe, in as much detail as possible, what happened, who was there, what was said. In this way
they describe specific interactions and not just philosophies about what they believe is generally
true.
#3: Tuesday, March 4, 2014: Interview Data/Analysis (4-5 pages; 40 points)
Conduct at least four more interviews with people in the cultural community that you are
studying.
Write a one page introduction that indicates: (a) who you interviewed and why, (b) the rationale for
the interview guide (place the interview guide in Appendix A), (c) what you see as communicative
patterns across the six interviews you have conducted so far, and (d) what research question you see
the data answering.
Write a 3-4 page story that weaves together: (a) reflexivity about your experience of conducting the
interview, (b) excerpts from the interview, and (c) interpretation/analysis of what you are learning in
the interview. Consider how to write this piece—there are many options as you have seen from the
readings so far. Feel free to chat with me about what you believe might be the best ways to write up
the results you are discovering. Place transcripts in a research portfolio/folder and hand it in with
this assignment.
Com 721/Spring 2014
9
#4: Tuesday, March 25, 2014: Review of Literature/Rationale (5-7 pages; 50 points)
This 5-7 page paper is a review of the literature that leads to your research question. It includes:
 Create a 2-4 paragraph introduction (Gains our interest by pulling us into the 3-4 claims, states
focus of your research, and previews the parts of your paper, transitions to the central focus of
your rationale.
 Elaborate on each of the 3-4 claims that create an argument or rationale for your research focus
 Offer support for each claim from 15 or more sources.
 Close the rationale with 1-2 research questions
 Include a reference page with a list of the 15 sources cited in the paper in APA style (feel free to
use as many sources from our class readings as you would like—I will be surprised if none of
our readings are cited in your rationale)
#5: Tuesday, April 15, 2014: Excerpts of Transcripts/Interpretation Methods (5-7 pages; 60 pts)
Conduct at least five more interviews. You now have at least 10 interviews (with the goal of 15).
Review the transcripts several times to figure out what you see as the categories that represent what
your reader learns from the perspectives of the interviewees. Write a 5-7 page paper that:
 Describes ideas for representing what you discovered in your 9 interviews. List and define the
set of categories that this data seems to fit into, how you could weave this interview data with
other data: observation data, archival, photographs, or other forms of data, and the structure for
the overall results of your project (2-3 pages). Some of what you write here will end up in the
methods section of your final paper.
 Offers a segment of your results section (i.e., weaves parts of the interview transcripts with your
experience of conducting the interview and interacting with the interviewee (setting, sensory
data, emotions, and reflexivity—before, during, and after the interview), and the
interpretation/analysis. This could elaborate one of your categories in detail or several categories
in less detail (3-4 pages)
 Describes what’s next. Who do you need to interview? What are you missing or not
understanding that you need to find out? What did you expect people to talk about and they
haven’t? What clues could be followed up to explore your research questions in more detail? (12 pages).
PARTICIPATION (20%)
Dialoging about health issues demands your attention, concern, and participation. Effective
participation in class means demonstrating your knowledge and critical thinking about the reading,
showing respect for classmates who may have different views than you, and enlivening our class
discussions with examples you have experienced or read about. There is substantial reading that is
essential material. I assume that assigned readings will be completed before each class and that you will
come prepared to discuss them, taking advantage of the variety of viewpoints, interests, backgrounds,
and experiences represented amongst us. Since a seminar is only as good as the totality of contributions
that occur within it (and I am a firm believer that students learn at least as much from one another as
from the instructor), I encourage everyone’s active participation in terms of raising questions, making
observations and sharing insights, and providing feedback to your colleagues.
Participation with others who are discussion leaders is essential.
Com 721/Spring 2014
10
10%
Weekly Quotes and Integration Questions (100 points)
(12 weeks @ 8pts = 96 pts; 4 extra credit points for doing them all!)
Weekly (except for the week that you are discussion leader), each individual will type one quote
from one reading and one quote from a second reading (or second chapter of a book) and pose a
question that integrates the two quotes and helps to prepare you for participating in the
discussion led by your classmate. You will not read your question or quotes, but you might find
that they help you to be more fluent in contributing to the topics raised by the discussion leader.
You will submit these to me immediately after class. I won’t accept these late under and
circumstances.
10%
Participation in class (100 points).
This percentage is based on participating in class. At times throughout the semester, you will be
asked to participate in an activity or exercise. At other times, you will offer comments that
reveal your close reading of the texts. Speaking generally about a topic will not contribute to
your participation points. Instead, students’ participation includes making specific references to
the readings, connecting readings, and relating readings to your projects. I will make these
points available every three weeks. I recommend that you set up a time to talk with me if you
need to discuss ways to enhance your participation in class.
Com 721/Spring 2014
11
TENTATIVE CLASS SCHEDULE
Date/Activity
Written Assignments_________
Week 1 (Jan 28)
Health Communication/Theorizing
Defining the Discipline
Read: BB--Dutta & Zoller (2008)
Analysis of Crazy Sexy Cancer
Week 2 (Feb 4)
Narrative Inquiry in Health Com
Read: TNP-- Ch 1, Ch 2, Ch 3;
Clandinin (2013) Ch 1;
BB: Shafer & Zikmud-Fisher (2012)
#1: Proposed Research (1-2)
Week 3 (Feb 11)
Constructing Health Narratives
Read: Clandinin (2013) Ch 2
BB: Pennebaker (2000); Ellingson (2012)
Plump & Geist-Martin (2013); Sharf (2010)
Week 4 (Feb 18)
Narrative Medicine
#2: Informational Interviews (3-4)
Read: TNP-- Ch 18
BB: Harter, Ch 1 (2014); Geist & Gates (1996);
Charon (2006) Ch 4, Ch 6
Week 5 (Feb 25)
Health, Disability, Disparities, & Culture
Read: TNP—Ch 20, Ch 29, Ch 30;
Clandinin (2013) Ch 5, Ch 6;
BB: Geist-Martin, Becker, Carnett, & Slauta, (2008)
Week 6 (March 4)
The Wounded Storyteller
Read: Frank (2013) pp. xi-114
Clandinin (2013) Ch 7, Ch 8
#3: Interview data/analysis (4-5)
Week 7 (March 11) The Wounded Storyteller
Read: Frank (2013) pp. 115-221
Clandinin (2013) Ch 9, Ch 10
Week 8 (March 18) Co-Constructing narratives:
Provider/Patient Communication
Read: TNP—Ch 4, Ch 18
Clandinin (2013) Ch 11, Ch 12
BB: Haidet & Paterniti (2003)
Week 9 (March 25) Health, Families, Friends, & Support
Read TNP—Ch 23, Ch 24; Ch 28
BB: Anderson & Geist-Martin (2003);
Yamaski (2013)
#4: Rationale (5-7)
Com 721/Spring 2014
MARCH 29-APRIL 6
Week 10 (April 8)
12
SPRING BREAK
Health at Work
Read: TNP—Ch 8; Ch 27
BB: Geist & Hardesty (1990);
Scarduzio & Geist-Martin (2010)
Week 11 (April 15) Health, Public Discourse, & the Media
#5: Interpretation (5-7)
TNP—Ch 16; Ch 35
BB: Harter, Broderick, Venable, & Quinlan (2013)
Green, Brock, & Kaufman, (2004)
Week 12 (April 22) Life, Death, and Grief: A love Story
Read: Vande Berg & Trujillo , Cancer and Death
SATURDAY, APRIL 26, 6:00- MIDNIGHT
Week 13 (April 29)
End of Life Conversations
ALUMNI BANQUET
Film: The Art of the Possible
TNP—Ch 28;
BB:
Wittenberg-Lyles, Goldsmith,
Sanchez-Reilly, Ragan, (2008)
Week 14 (May 6)
Ethics Interdisciplinarity, & New Directions
TNP—Ch 38, Ch 39, Ch 40
DUE: Final Papers
FINALS WEEK (May 9-15)
Tuesday, May 13, 2014, 4:00-6:40
Tangled Trees: Discretion Jeanne Dunn (2009)
Final Presentations
Home of Dr. Geist-Martin
Com 721/Spring 2014
13
BLACKBOARD READINGS
Week 1 (Jan 28, 2014)
Dutta, M. J., & Zoller, H. M. (2008). Theoretical foundations: Interpretive, critical, and cultural
approaches to health communication. In H. M. Zoller & M. J. Dutta (Eds.), Emerging
perspectives in health communication: Meaning, culture, and power (pp. 1-27). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Week 2 (Feb 4, 2014)
Shaffer, V. A., & Zikmund-Fisher, B. J. (2013). All stories are not alike: A purpose-, content-, and
valence-based taxonomy of patient narratives in decision aids. Medical Decision Making, 33, 413.
Week 3 (Feb 11, 2014)
Pennebaker, J. W. (2000). Telling stories: The health benefits of narrative. Literature and Medicine, 19,
3-18.
Ellingson, L. L. (2012). Interviewing as embodied communication. In J. Gubrium, J. Holstein, A.
Marvasti, & K. M. Marvasti (Eds.), Handbook of interview research (2nd ed.; pp. 525-539).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Plump, B., & Geist-Martin, P. (2013). Collaborative intersectionality: Negotiating identity, liminal
spaces, and ethnographic research. Liminalities, 9 (2), http://liminalities.net/92/collaborative.pdf.
Sharf, B. F. (2010). The day Patrick Swayze died. Health Communication, 25, 628–631.
Week 4 (Feb 18, 2014)
Harter, L. M. (2013). The poetics and politics of storytelling in health contexts (Chapter 1). In L. M.
Harter & Associates, Imagining new normals: A narrative framework for health communication
(pp. 1-27). Dubuque, IA: Kendall.
Geist, P., & Gates, L. (1996). The poetics and politics of re-covering identities in health communication.
Communication Studies, 47, 218-228.
Charon, R. (2006). Narrative medicine: Honoring the stories of illness (Chapter 4: Telling one’s life,
pp. 65-83). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Charon, R. (2006). Narrative medicine: Honoring the stories of illness (Chapter. 6, Close reading, pp.
107-130). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Week 5 (Feb 25, 2014)
Geist-Martin, P., Becker, C., Carnett, S., & Slauta, K. (2008). The call to Hawaii: Holistic practitioners’
perspectives of their communicative practices of healing. Communication & Medicine, 5, 43-54.
Com 721/Spring 2014
14
Week 8 (March 18, 2014)
Haidet, P., & Paterniti, D.A. (2003). “Building” a history rather than “taking” one: A perspective on
information sharing during the medical interview. Archives of Internal Medicine, 163, 11341140.
Week 9 (March 25, 2014)
Anderson, J. O., & Geist-Martin, P. (2003). Narratives and healing: Exploring one family’s stories of
cancer survivorship. Health Communication, 15, 133-143.
Yamasaki, J. (2013). The poetic possibilities of long-term care (Chapter 6). In L. M. Harter &
Associates, Imagining new normals: A narrative framework for health communication (pp. 107124). Dubuque, IA: Kendall.
Week 10 (April 8, 2014)
Scarduzio, J., & Geist-Martin, P. (2010). Accounting for victimization: Male professors’ ideological
positioning in stories of sexual harassment. Management Communication Quarterly, 24, 419445.
Geist, P., & Hardesty, M. (1990). Ideological positioning in professionals' narratives of quality medical
care. In N. Denzin (Ed.), Studies in symbolic interaction: A research annual, volume 11 (pp. 255
281). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Week 11 (April 15, 2014)
Harter, L. M., Broderick, Venable, S., & Quinlan, M. M. (2013). Organizing for social change:
Personal stories and public health activism (Chapter 8). In L. M. Harter. & Assoc., Imagining
new normals: A narrative framework for health communication (pp. 149-169). Dubuque, IA:
Kendall.
Green, M. C., Brock, T. C. & Kaufman, G. F. (2004). Understanding media enjoyment: The role of
transportation into narrative worlds. Communication Theory, 14, 311-327.
Week 13 (April 29, 2014)
Wittenberg-Lyles, E. M., Goldsmith, J., Sanchez-Reilly, S., & Ragan, S. L. (2008). Communicating a
terminal prognosis in a palliative care setting: Deficiencies in current communication training
protocols. Social Science & Medicine, 66, 2356-2365.
Com 721/Spring 2014
CONFERENCES
Submit
Conference
Attend
Deadline passed
International Communication Association
May 22-26, 2014
Seattle, WA
March 26, 2014
National Communication Association
www.natcom.org
November 2014
Chicago, IL
June 1, 2014
Organization for the Study of Comm,
Language, and Gender
October 9-12, 2014
San Francisco, CA
September 1, 2014
Western States Communication Association
http://www.westcomm.org/conventions/
February 19-24, 2014
Spokane, WA
November 1, 2014
International Communication Association
http://www.icahdq.org/conferences/2011/
index.asp
2015 - San Juan, Puerto Rico
May 21-25, 2015
San Juan, Puerto Rico
15
SDSU&’s Plagiarism Policy
The 2008-2009 SDSU Graduate Bulletin policy1 states:
Plagiarism is formal work publicly misrepresented as original; …. Work shall be deemed
plagiarism: (1) when prior work of another has been demonstrated as the accessible source; (2)
when substantial or material parts of the source have been literally or evasively appropriated
(substance denoting quantity; matter denoting qualitative format or style); and (3) when the work
lacks sufficient or unequivocal citation so as to indicate or imply that the work was neither a copy
nor an imitation. This definition comprises oral, written, and crafted pieces. In short, if one
purports to present an original piece but copies ideas word for word or by paraphrase, those ideas
should be duly noted. (Lindey, 1952, Plagiarism and Originality)
The 2008-2009 Graduate Bulletin continues by stating:
San Diego State University is a publicly assisted institution legislatively empowered to certify
competence and accomplishment in general and discrete categories of knowledge. The president
and faculty of this university are therefore obligated not only to society at large but to the
citizenry of the State of California to guarantee honest and substantive knowledge in those to
whom they assign grades and whom they recommend for degrees. Wittingly or willfully to ignore
or to allow students’ ascription of others’ work to themselves is to condone dishonesty, to deny
the purpose of formal education, and to fail the public trust.
One of the primary objectives of higher education is to advance humanity by increasing and refining knowledge.
Such an objective is therefore threatened by students who commit plagiarism, in which the evidence of the
student’s knowledge is not genuine. Given the gravity of the offense, students suspected or accused of
disregarding, concealing, aiding, or committing plagiarism must be assured of thorough, impartial and conclusive
investigation of any such accusation. Likewise, students guilty of such an offense must be liable for an
appropriate penalty, even severance from the University and in some cases revocation of an advanced degree,
should the demonstrated plagiarism clearly call into question a student’s academic ethics, competence or
accomplishments.
1
San Diego State University Graduate Bulletin, 2008-2009, p. 35.
Com 721/Spring 2014
16
THE ACADEMIC DISHONESTY POLICY OF THE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION
In any case in which an instructor identifies evidence for charging a student with violation of academic conduct
standards or plagiarism, the presumption will be with that instructor’s determination. The instructor(s) will confer
with the School Director to confirm the evidence. Once confirmed, the student will be informed and presented
with the evidence. Some conditions and terms below clarify the School policy and procedure.
Proper source attribution: Proper attribution occurs by specifying the source of content or ideas. This is done by
(a) providing quotation marks around text, when directly quoted, and (b) clearly designating the source of the text or
information relied upon in an assignment.
Intellectual contents: Intellectual contents include all forms of ‘text’ produced by another person or persons. It
includes: writings, course syllabi, course lectures and recordings of lectures, visual information such as models,
videos, lyrics, software, etc.
Secondary citations: Secondary citation is not strictly a form of plagiarism, but in blatant forms, it can present
similar ethical challenges. A secondary citation is citing source A, which in turn cites source B, but it is source B’s
ideas or content that provide the basis for the claims the student intends to make in the assignment. For example,
assume that there is an article by Jones (2006) in the student’s hands, in which there is a discussion or quotation of
an article by Smith (1998). Assume further that what Smith seems to be saying is very important to the student’s
analysis. In such a situation, the student should always try to locate the original Smith source. In general, if an idea
is important enough to discuss in an assignment, it is important enough to locate and cite the original source for that
idea. There are several reasons for these policies: (a) Authors sometimes commit citation errors, which might be
replicated without knowing it; (b) Authors sometimes make interpretation errors, which might be ignorantly
reinforced (c) Therefore, reliability of scholarly activity is made more difficult to assure and enforce; (d) By relying
on only a few sources of review, the learning process is short-circuited, and the student’s own research competencies
are diminished, which are integral to any liberal education; (e) By masking the actual sources of ideas, readers must
second guess which sources come from which citations, making the readers’ own research more difficult; (f) By
masking the origin of the information, the actual source of ideas is misrepresented. Some suggestions that assist with
this principle:
 When the ideas Jones discusses are clearly attributed to, or unique to, Smith, then find the Smith source and
citation.
 When the ideas Jones is discussing are historically associated more with Smith than with Jones, then find
the Smith source and citation.
 In contrast, Jones is sometimes merely using Smith to back up what Jones is saying and believes, and is
independently qualified to claim, whether or not Smith would have also said it; in such a case, citing Jones
is sufficient.
 Never simply copy a series of citations at the end of a statement by Jones, and reproduce the reference list
without actually going to look up what those references report—the only guarantee that claims are valid is
for a student to read the original sources of those claims.
Self-plagiarism: Students often practice some form of ‘double-dipping,’ in which they write on a given topic across
more than one course assignment. In general, there is nothing wrong with double-dipping topics or sources, but
there is a problem with double-dipping exact and redundant text. It is common for scholars to write on the same
topic across many publication outlets; this is part of developing expertise and the reputation of being a scholar on a
topic. Scholars, however, are not permitted to repeat exact text across papers or publications except when noted and
attributed, as this wastes precious intellectual space with repetition and does a disservice to the particular source of
original presentation by ‘diluting’ the value of the original presentation. Any time that a writer simply ‘cuts-andpastes’ exact text from former papers into a new paper without proper attribution, it is a form of self-plagiarism.
Consequently, a given paper should never be turned in to multiple classes. Entire paragraphs, or even sentences,
should not be repeated word-for-word across course assignments. Each new writing assignment is precisely that, a
new writing assignment, requiring new composition on the student’s part.
Specific exemplary infractions and consequences:
 Course failure: Reproducing a whole paper, paragraph, or large portions of unattributed materials without
proper attribution, whether represented by: (a) multiple sentences, images, or portions of images; or (b) by
Com 721/Spring 2014




17
percentage of assignment length, will result in assignment of an “F” in the course in which the infraction
occurred, and a report to the Center for Student Rights and Responsibilities (CSRR2).
Assignment failure: Reproducing a sentence or sentence fragment with no quotation marks, but with
source citation, or subsets of visual images without source attribution, will minimally result in an “F” on the
assignment, and may result in greater penalty, including a report to the CSRR, depending factors noted
below.
Exacerbating conditions--Amount: Evidence of infraction, even if fragmentary, is increased with a
greater: (a) number of infractions; (b) distribution of infractions across an assignment; or (c) proportion of
the assignment consisting of infractions.
Exacerbating conditions--Intent: Evidence of foreknowledge and intent to deceive magnifies the
seriousness of the offense and the grounds for official response. Plagiarism, whether ‘by accident’ or ‘by
ignorance,’ still qualifies as plagiarism—it is all students’ responsibility to make sure their assignments are
not committing the offense.
Exceptions: Any exceptions to these policies will be considered on a case-by-case basis, and only under
exceptional circumstances.
Com 721/Spring 2014
DISCUSSION LEADER GRADING RUBRIC (20%; 200 POINTS)
Name ___________________________________________
Written Portion, 5-7 pages (15%: 150 points)
Time _______/60 min.
_____________/ 150
*Copies for classmates can be in smaller font and reduced two pages to one
1. (20 pts)
Key concepts
List each reading in APA style
List the concepts under each reading, and page number where it can be found
2. (40 pts)
Provocative Insights
3. (60 pts)
Engagement
(a) Discussion questions
(b) Synthesis questions
(c) Program of Research of one author
(d) Practical application
4. (10 pts)
Organization
(a) Introduction
(b) Topic sentences
(c) Transitions
(d) Previews/Reviews
(e) Conclusion
5. (10 pts)
Mechanics
(a) Spelling
(b) Punctuation
(c) Grammar
6. (10 pts)
APA
(a) Citations in the text
(b) References
(c) All other aspects (spacing of ellipses, lettered points, spacing after
punctuation, etc.)
18
Com 721/Spring 2014
Discussion Leader Oral Presentation (5 %, 50 points)
1.
5 pts Length:
2. 10 pts Preparation:
________/50
60 minutes
Fluid movement from one point to the next
3. 10 pts Organization: Effective opening, transitions, and closing
4.
5 pts Clarity: Clear description of each part
5. 10 pts Leading: Effective leading of discussion
6. 10 pts Engaging: Effective engagement of classmates in content and form of presentation
19
Com 721/Spring 2014
PARTS OF THE FINAL WRITTEN REPORT
Typed, double-spaced in APA, including:
 25-30 pages
 title page
 page numbering
 reference page
 cover memo
 1-2-page outline of your paper
I.



II.



III.



IV.



V.




Introduction (1-2 pp.)
Engages reader
States central mystery of research
Previews parts of the paper
Rationale (Review of the literature) (6-7 pp.)
Offers a set of 3-5 claims creating an argument or rationale for research focus
Supports claims by reviewing research in the area of one or two concepts
Ends by offering one or two research questions
Methodology (1-2 pp.)
Provides a justification for using ethnography as a method for addressing research question
Lists and describes each of the methods utilized to collect data
Describes method of analyzing/representing data
Results (14-15 pp.)
Weaves together the data selected to represent the “story”
Has a beginning, middle, and end
Has smooth transitions between stories
Discussion (3-4 pp.)
States the conclusions or interpretations drawn from the data
Discusses theoretical and practical implications from the data
Discusses limitations and directions for future research
Closes in an interesting way
20
Com 721/Spring 2014
21
Strategies for Writing Final Paper
1. Introduction (three goals)
 Create a first level heading that has introduction in it
 Engage from the first sentence (perhaps with a story)
 State generally the focus of research through the set of claims your rationale will elaborate
 Preview the parts of your paper
2. Rationale
 Create an engaging 1st level heading that tells us the focus of the rationale
 Create an engaging opening that pulls us in, makes us think, and previews the subsections to
follow (these subsections should be related to your 3-5 main claims)
 Create engaging 2nd level headings for each subsection
 Be sure that each paragraph begins with a topic sentence that states a claim (not a quote) and that
all the other sentences and support in that paragraph fit with that claim.
 Transition to next subsection—do not allow the title of the subsection serve as your transition.
 Do not bring data into the rationale
 Do not bring yourself or personal experience into rationale
 Do not offer prescriptions of what people should do.
 End the rationale with a paragraph that more specifically describes the focus of your research,
then transition to methodology
3. Methodology
 Feel free to create a title for this section that is engaging and includes the word methodology
 Once again create an engaging opening that pulls us in, makes us think, and previews the
subsections to follow (these subsections should be related to each of the methods you will
employ in this research)
 Create engaging 2nd level headings for each subsection
 Be sure that each paragraph begins with a topic sentence that states a claim (not a quote) and that
all the other sentences and support in that paragraph fit with that claim.
 Transition to next subsection—do not allow the title of the subsection serve as your transition.
 Be sure that you include the final section on Data Analysis and Representation where you
describe what you did to analyze your data to discover patterns and what decisions you made to
represent the data in the way that you did. Transition to Results
4. Results
 Feel free to create a title for this section that is engaging and includes the word results
 Once again create an engaging opening that pulls us in, makes us think, and previews the
subsections to follow (these subsections should be related to each of the methods you will
employ in this research)
 Create engaging 2nd level headings for each subsection that usually represents a statement of one
of the patterns in the data.
 Be sure that each paragraph begins with a topic sentence that states a claim (not a quote) about
the pattern that you discovered and that all the other sentences offer quotes from participants that
support that claim.
 Transition to Discussion
5. Discussion
 Feel free to create a title for this section that is engaging and includes the word Discussion
Com 721/Spring 2014

Once again create an engaging opening that pulls us in, makes us think, and previews the
subsections to follow (these subsections should be related to each of the typical sections of the
discussion: conclusions/interpretations, theoretical implications, practical implications,
limitations and directions for future research, and closing)
 Create engaging 2nd level headings for each of the subsections indicated above.
 Be sure that each paragraph begins with a topic sentence that states a claim (not a quote) about
results (e.g., “The results of this research lead to three conclusions”)
GENERAL TIPS
 No right justified
 Do not use “as cited in”, translates to “I was too lazy to locate the original article”
 Don’t use the word “done”. Cakes are done.
 This research is designed to investigate
 FOLLOW APA
22
Com 721/Spring 2014
COM 721 HEALTH COMMUNICATION
FINAL PROJECT ORAL PRESENTATION (50 pts)
____
NAME: ______________________
Points/Grade: ________________
Introduction (5 points)

Engaging opening

Relevance to audience (even if not members of the community studied)

Focus of presentation

Preview of the presentation
____
Statement of the key findings (10 points)
____
Featured Narrative (10 points)
____
Theoretical and Practical Implications (5 points)
____
Describe what YOU are still curious about / Future Research (5 points)
____
Conclusion (5 points)
____

Describe what you have learned about YOURSELF in this project.

Create a memorable closing.
Delivery (10 points)

Use of Visual

Conversational Voice

Presence (posture, gestures, eye contact)

Well-Organized
23