Databases in the marketplace of academic debate: a response to Tucker.

• Author: Harris, Scott
• Position: Argumentation and Advocacy, this issue, p. 30

The explosion of new technology in the information age may have substantial impact on the study of argumentation and the practice of academic debate. On-line databases offer both academic scholars and debaters immediate access to public discourse on a wide variety of issues. As our ability to access greater volumes of information in ever quicker ways continues to evolve, it is important that the effects of technology on argumentation practice be monitored so that we are able to control the process of innovation rather than allowing it to control us. Robert Tucker's essay on ideology and databases is significant because it invites contemplation of the choices we make in the application of new technologies to argumentation practice. Tucker's basic premise - that the diffusion of innovations can impact on the formation of ideology - is an important point to reflect upon as we confront and choose among new technologies. This essay argues, however, that Tucker's specific concern about the impact of database research on academic debate is largely misplaced.

Tucker argues that the use of corporate sponsored databases such as Lexis-Nexis and Westlaw are promoting the political homogenization of arguments available to debaters. He offers an apocalyptic vision of a world in which the only information used by debaters is controlled by a mega-corporation whose sole purpose is the perpetuation of a capitalist system. He maintains that reliance on databases is driving radical argumentation out of the world of academic debate and that without radical arguments debaters will be incapable of contributing to a democratic way of life. As with many generic disadvantages, the internal links to his impacts seem a bit strained. There are four significant problems with the argument that make the apocalypse unlikely.

FLAWED VIEW OF RESEARCH

The first problem with Tucker's argument is that it relies on a flawed view of the practice of research. The argument rests on the supposition that debaters rely exclusively on Lexis-Nexis and Westlaw as sources of information; but, no intelligent debater relies exclusively on Lexis-Nexis and Westlaw for research. As Tucker correctly points out, there is limited access to radical literature through corporate sponsored databases. Radical literature is not the only information missing from these databases. They offer very limited access to journals in any academic discipline and no access to books. Even within its area of concentration Nexis fails to provide access to a large number of law reviews.

Debaters who only obtain evidence from on-line sources will lose a lot of debates to debaters who spend time in the library. No debater I know believes that Lexis-Nexis replaces the need to research in the library. While Tucker discusses public libraries in the past tense, as if they no longer exist, they continue to be a vital part of the activity. Good teams don't limit their research to the library. Many debaters subscribe to radical literature or call organizations to get access to information unavailable in the library. Tucker offers no empirical evidence to support the proposition that since...