You will be using the Social Vulnerability Index (Links to an external site.) (S

You will be using the Social Vulnerability Index (Links to an external site.) (SVI) to demonstrate your understanding of the theories .
You will do this by exploring, interrogating, and applying the Social Vulnerability Index to design a study on an urban topic or issue of your choosing.
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/placeandhealth/svi/index.html – (required main resource)
The index is being used by urbanists to facilitate studies and policies that respond to the devastating health impacts of the pandemic as well as rising social inequality and segregation.
To begin, use the Social Vulnerability Index to review the neighborhood you chose for your city exploration. If you are unable to explore a neighborhood in the United States, choose a U.S. location for this midterm assignment. Then write a paper that answers the questions in each of the three sections below.
Define the basic premise of production of space theory.
Articulate the three levels of production of space.
Describe how the three levels interact and impact urban science.
Apply the learnings about production of space and other theories to critically evaluate the use of GIS maps in the representation of space for urban studies.
Describe and apply theories related to social infrastructure.
Define the basic premise of social infrastructure.
(Articulate the mechanisms by social infrastructure theory is proposed to operate)
(the evolution of infrastructure from a building block to a facilitator of urban processes)
Section 1: Explore the Social Vulnerability Index
Use the Social Vulnerability Index to explore the census tracts that make up your target neighborhood.
Apply a Kuhnian approach to theoretical perspectives to identify the main elements of interest.
Popper’s view that irrefutable theories have no scientific value and that knowledge is accumulated as part of a linear process contrasts with that of American historian and physicist Thomas Kuhn. In 1962, Kuhn challenged this worldview in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. He wrote that that knowledge accumulation happens in cycles, forming paradigms. Different from Popper, Kuhn saw paradigms as generally acceptable lenses that do not focus scientific activity on refuting theory. Scientists use paradigms as lenses to solve problems, using findings from “puzzling” or systematic exploration to expand—not refute—the body of knowledge within the accepted paradigm. As a result, scientific knowledge accumulates during periods of normal, sustained exploration to solve problems. However, the paradigm is not irrefutable. When a dramatic discovery is made or a significant event occurs, a crisis point results, resetting the cycle of knowledge accumulation. Kuhn’s descriiption of this moment of disruption is the source of the term “paradigm shift.”
Despite the two views of scientific inquiry, urban scientists do not necessarily have to choose between Kuhn and Popper.
Both Popper and Kuhn use critical analysis in science, but Popper is critical at the level of the theory where Kuhn sees science as critiquing the paradigm, which consists of many theories.
For Popper, testing bold theories forms the aim of scientific activity, but for Kuhn, scientists are more accepting of existing theories, expanding generally accepted paradigms through “puzzling” or problem-solving. A scientist can do both—testing theories and puzzling over a problem using a specific lens can expand knowledge.
In fact, Popper’s view of science as a process of hypothesizing and testing can also lead to crisis points in existing paradigms, creating a shift that starts a new cycle of knowledge accumulation.
Also, when a paradigm shift occurs, the scientific community does not discard all previous knowledge. The accumulation of scientific knowledge has both cyclical and linear characteristics, much like the concept of time.
Finally, the complexity of some problems lends itself to theoretical puzzling and expansion more so than null hypothesis testing. For many urban phenomena, more than one theory contributes to understanding them.
As a result, many urban studies use Kuhnian paradigms (or a framework of theories) that form a lens to help us view and interrogate an urban condition or event. Also, the complexity of urban phenomena lends itself to multiple perspectives and interrogation methods. This relativism also applies to other fields in the social sciences, leading to competing and complementary theories that expand the understanding of human relations and conditions. When scientists uncover evidence—through both testing and puzzling—to refute or disrupt the equilibrium of the generally accepted paradigm, a shift happens. Sometimes, the Kuhnian process is described as “punctuated equilibrium,” and the framework can be found in many disciplines, including public policy.
It is with this understanding of critical rationalism and punctuated equilibrium that we start our exploration of urban science and theory. It’s also important to note that, historically, scholars have equated urbanism with the discipline’s foundational unit of analysis, the city. Cities include many components, including streets, neighborhoods, buildings, and, of course, people. And cities can form networks to create a unit of scientific analysis that extends beyond the bounds of the city.
Interpret real-world phenomena in terms of theory.
Use real-world phenomena to critique and refine theory.
Write a brief descriiption of demographics and socioeconomic conditions in the neighborhood and how they have changed over the past 20 years.
How does the neighborhood compare to at least one other neighborhood in your city?
Compare how the neighborhood compares to at least two other neighborhoods in two other cities.
What similarities do you see?
What differences arise?
How do you account for the similarities and differences between the three locations?
Section 2: Interrogate the Social Vulnerability Index
Examine the fact sheet, documents, FAQs, and other notes about the Social Vulnerability Index and its methods.
How have the creators of the Social Vulnerability Index defined “neighborhood”? What units of analysis do they use for presenting data about social vulnerability?
What are some of the other key variables that they use, and how are they defined?
Which theories that we have studied so far most closely relate to the Social Vulnerability Index and why?
What hypotheses could the creators have used to design the SVI?
What facts did the creators use to design the SVI?
What facts does the SVI offer to users?
What are some of the potential limitations of the SVI?
Section 3: Apply the Social Vulnerability Index
Now you will design a study based on a topic of interest, such as public health, housing, taxation policy, or transportation.
Provide a short background of your selected topic.
Based on that topic, generate a hypothesis for scientific investigation, rooted in one of the theories we explored through Module 6.
What facts from the SVI would be most useful for testing your hypothesis?
How would you propose to test your hypothesis and why?
What alternative methods might be available to test the hypothesis?
What other facts would you need beyond the Social Vulnerability Index to test the hypothesis?
How could your hypothesis potentially contribute to either expanding or shifting the paradigm of the chosen theory?
Assignment Format
The assignment must be an essay or paper, no fewer than 3,000 words in length, not including references and charts/tables. Do not exceed 7,000 words.
Be sure to include:
Your name, in the filename and at the top of the document itself
Page numbers
An introduction
A conclusion
Citations and references for all sources using the Chicago Manual of Style
(Links to an external site.)
Author, Date method
Submit all assignments as either a Word document (DOC, DOCX) or Rich Text file (RTF).
Feel free to use the same section titles listed in the assignment descriiption. Has to be constructed as an essay. Do not simply answer the questions. You are to construct a cohesive narrative that answers all sections and questions listed above.
Also include any screenshots from the Social Vulnerability Index and other illustrations (charts, tables, photos, screenshots from websites) that you think are necessary to tell the story of your neighborhood and its vulnerability in the event of a crisis or disaster.
Use the rubric below the descriiption in Canvas to check your paper prior to submission. You are also encouraged to use a grammar, language, and spelling checker like Grammarly. The more you proof, the easier it will be to both understand and grade your writing.
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStructure
How is the paper’s:
– Organization
– Flow of thought
– Transitions
– Format
10 pts
Exceeds Expectations
– Logically organized – Easily followed – Demonstrates a professional format – Uses effective, smooth, and logical transitions
8 pts
Meets Epectations
– Clear organizational structure with some digressions, ambiguities, or irrelevances – Basic transitions – Easily followed – Structured format.
6 pts
Needs improvement
– There is some level of organization though contains too many digressions, ambiguities, and irrelevances. – Difficult to follow – Ineffective transitions – Rambling format
5 pts
Inadequate
– No apparent organization to the paper – Difficult to follow – No or poor transitions – No format
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeLanguage, Grammar, & Mechanics
– Vocabulary and use
– Tone
– Sentence Structure
– Punctuation/Mechanics
15 pts
Exceeds Expectations
– Writer’s tone is clear, consistent, and appropriate for the intended audience – Uses and manipulates sophisticated vocabulary for effect/impact – Manipulates complex sentences for effect/impact – No punctuation or mechanical errors
12 pts
Meets Expectations
– Varies vocabulary use and uses subject-specific vocabulary correctly – Vocabulary is specific, appropriate – Writer’s tone emerges and is generally appropriate for the audience – Uses complex sentences – Few punctuation or mechanical errors
9 pts
Needs Improvement
– Vocabulary is used properly – Infrequently uses subject-specific vocabulary correctly – Tone exhibits some level of audience sensitivity – Uses compound sentences – Many punctuation and/or mechanical errors
8 pts
Inadequate
– Vocabulary is unsophisticated and/or used improperly – Sparingly or rarely uses subject-specific vocabulary – Uses simple sentences – Excessive punctuation and/or mechanical errors
15 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDataset Exploration
How well does the paper answer the questions in section 1?
25 pts
Exceeds Expectations
– The central and supporting ideas are well developed and the paper exhibits a clear purpose throughout – Fully answers all questions – Abundant evidence of critical, careful thought, analysis, and insight – Specific and vivid evidence and examples while remaining tightly focused
20 pts
Meets Epectations
– Central and supporting ideas and a clear purpose are generally evident throughout the essay – Answers all questions, although some more generally – Evidence of critical, careful thought and analysis and/or insight – Includes good, relevant supporting examples and evidence
15 pts
Needs improvement
– The central and supporting ideas are expressed, although vague or broad – Answers many of the questions vaguely or broadly – Maintains some sense of purpose throughout the essay – Some evidence of critical, careful thought and analysis and/or insight – Some examples and evidence, though general
14 pts
Inadequate
– Central and supporting ideas and purpose are absent or incompletely expressed and maintained – Answers few or none of the questions in the assignment – Little or no evidence of critical, careful thought or analysis and/or insight – Too few or no examples or evidence or they are mostly irrelevant
25 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDataset Interrogation
How well does the paper answer the questions in section 2?
25 pts
Exceeds Expectations
– The central and supporting ideas are well developed and the paper exhibits a clear purpose throughout – Fully answers all questions – Abundant evidence of critical, careful thought, analysis, and insight – Specific and vivid evidence and examples while remaining tightly focused
20 pts
Meets Epectations
– Central and supporting ideas and a clear purpose are generally evident throughout the essay – Answers all questions, although some more generally – Evidence of critical, careful thought and analysis and/or insight – Includes good, relevant supporting examples and evidence
15 pts
Needs improvement
– The central and supporting ideas are expressed, although vague or broad – Answers many of the questions vaguely or broadly – Maintains some sense of purpose throughout the essay – Some evidence of critical, careful thought and analysis and/or insight – Some examples and evidence, though general
14 pts
Inadequate
– Central and supporting ideas and purpose are absent or incompletely expressed and maintained – Answers few or none of the questions in the assignment – Little or no evidence of critical, careful thought or analysis and/or insight – Too few or no examples or evidence or they are mostly irrelevant
25 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDataset Application
How well does the paper answer the questions in section 3?
25 pts
Exceeds Expectations
– The central and supporting ideas are well developed and the paper exhibits a clear purpose throughout – Fully answers all questions – Abundant evidence of critical, careful thought, analysis, and insight – Specific and vivid evidence and examples while remaining tightly focused
20 pts
Meets Epectations
– Central and supporting ideas and a clear purpose are generally evident throughout the essay – Answers all questions, although some more generally – Evidence of critical, careful thought and analysis and/or insight – Includes good, relevant supporting examples and evidence
15 pts
Needs improvement
– The central and supporting ideas are expressed, although vague or broad – Answers many of the questions vaguely or broadly – Maintains some sense of purpose throughout the essay – Some evidence of critical, careful thought and analysis and/or insight – Some examples and evidence, though general
14 pts
Inadequate
– Central and supporting ideas and purpose are absent or incompletely expressed and maintained – Answers few or none of the questions in the assignment – Little or no evidence of critical, careful thought or analysis and/or insight – Too few or no examples or evidence or they are mostly irrelevant
25 pts
Total Points: 100