Physics and Economics: How Rick Nelson affiliates with both Economic and Physics Discourse Communities

According to John Swales, an expert on linguistics, a discourse community is a group that has a set of common objectives, utilizes various communicative conventions to achieve those objectives, and has a specific lexis that is employed by its members to disseminate information and feedback (Wardle et al. 220). This definition is known as Swales’ “discourse community theory” and will be referred to as such throughout the essay. The purpose of this essay is to determine how the author, Rick Nelson, in Physics and Economics, uses discourse community theory to affiliate with both the economics and physics discourse communities. The magazine in which Nelson wrote the article is called Electrical Design News (EDN), which discusses new technologies and electronic products, as well as the problems that some technologies face today. It is primarily used as a mechanism of intercommunication amongst members of physics and engineering discourse communities. This essay will explore how Nelson’s objective relates to those of the economics and physics discourse communities, how his communicative convention furthers his objective, how lexis makes his objective accessible, how his ethos and that of EDN impact his affiliation with the two discourse communities, and finally, what we can learn from all this.

Concerning the objectives of economic and physics discourse communities, they are “the enrichment of everyone” (Trivium 1), and “discovering why things behave the way they do” (Utah 1), respectively. In his article, Nelson reflects on the global economic crisis of 2008, focusing specifically on the failure of economists in both predicting market outcomes and in finding solutions to the woeful economic situation. In addition, he asserts that physicists have the means to supply economists with the tools needed to predict market outcomes and to find ways of attaining economic stability. His argument is directed primarily towards experts in both physics and economics, as the lexis used is sophisticated, but at the same time familiar to both discourse communities. Although the lexis is sophisticated, however, it is often defined, allowing the novice members in both communities to understand it as well. Rick Nelson affiliates himself with both the economic and physics discourse communities by arguing that physicists can help economists predict market outcomes and achieve economic stability (establishing a common objective), by using statistical data to further his objective (providing a communicative convention that is understood by both discourse communities), and by explaining his lexis, making his article accessible to experts and novices in both discourse communities alike.

The first aspect of Swales’ discourse community theory — that discourse communities have a set of common objectives — is arguably the most important characteristic of discourse communities. Thus, in order to affiliate with them, one cannot simply produce any text; rather, the text must be tailored towards the concepts and objectives within those discourse communities. Rick Nelson does this by using the goal of physicists, which is to figure out “why things behave the way they do”, as a bridge to achieve the economists’ goal of “the enrichment of everyone”. In other words, Nelson implores physicists to use their tools of analysis to discover why the market is behaving the way it is, and with that information, help economists figure out how to fix the economic recession and increase the wealth of individuals. To do this, Nelson recommends that physicist teach economists to use “agent based computer models”, which “can simulate market dynamics from the bottom up.” (10) He elaborates, saying, “The idea… is to populate virtual markets with artificially intelligent agents who represent individuals, banks, hedge funds, regulators, and other players and to study the market behavior that emerges from the actions of the interacting agents.” (10) This simulation would then permit economists to see how the market behaves, specifically noting the weaknesses of the market, then acting accordingly to stabilize it. Here, it can be seen that Nelson affiliates with economic and physics discourse communities by incorporating their objectives into his own objective, which is to have physicists help economists figure out why the recession is happening, then fix it, in order to move toward the enrichment of everyone.   

After establishing a common objective that is relatable to those of the two discourse communities, Nelson then uses statistical data as a communicative convention to further his objective. This allows Nelson to further affiliate with both discourse communities because statistics is a commonly understood language between them. Using statistical data, the primary way he attempts to advance the use of agent based computer models is by discrediting the economists’ theory of how the market works:

“At press time, the economy was anything but stable, and… economists have no solid proposals for stabilizing it… Part of the problem is that economists still employ traditional equilibrium theory, which holds that market values change only in response to new information. The problem, he (Mark Buchanan, theoretical physicist) contends, is that ‘a classic economic study found that, of the 50 largest single-day price movements since World War II, most happened on days when there was no significant news.’ And a more recent study found that news plays only a minor role in stock-price jumps. The authors report, “We find that neither idiosyncratic news nor market wide news can explain the frequency and amplitude of price jumps.” (Nelson 10)

Here, it can be seen that Nelson cites data collected all the back from World War II, as well as data from a more recent study, which both conclude that no cause and effect relationship exists between market movements and news. Nelson elaborates on why this is:

“The reason for dissociation of price and information… is that markets have internal dynamics: They’re self-propelling systems driven in large part by what investors believe other investors believe and traders speak for good reason of the market’s optimism or pessimism.” (Nelson 10)

The evidence that Nelson presents disproves economists’ theory that the only thing that affects market prices is news. This is where Nelson then offers his objective (having physicists teach economists to use agent based computer models, which incorporate all aspects of the market, rather than just news) as an alternative method of predicting market outcomes and finding ways to achieve economic stability.

In addition to using a communicative convention to advance his objective, Nelson also establishes a lexis that makes his objective accessible to experts and novices alike in both discourse communities. He does this by actually defining the terms he uses, which may not be familiar to either novices in one discourse community or members in a completely separate discourse community. In the excerpts above, for instance, he uses sophisticated terms such as “equilibrium theory”, “internal dynamics”, and “agent based computer modelling”. Each of these terms he defines to the point where someone who is not part of either discourse community, like myself, can understand their meanings. In addition to defining these terms, however, Nelson also makes use of terms that are relevant to both discourse communities when asserting his position, examples of which include “frequency and amplitude” (when referring to price jumps), “control variables” (referring to the circumstances of the market), and “dynamics” (referring to the motion of economic bodies).

Although Nelson effectively utilizes the three primary aspects of Swales’ discourse community theory (objective, communicative convention, and lexis), there are nonetheless some constraints on both his ethos and that of the magazine he wrote for. After searching myriad databases, the most detailed biography of Nelson was on the “About Us” tab of a website owned by Evaluation Engineering:

“Rick became Executive Editor for EE in 2011. Previously he served on several publications, including EDN and Vision Systems Design, and has received awards for signed editorials from the American Society of Business Publication Editors. He began as a design engineer at General Electric and Litton Industries and earned a BSEE degree from Penn State.” (1)

This very short excerpt, combined with the amount of searches needed to locate it, indicates that Rick Nelson is not a well-known author. Thus, when producing an article that suggests to economists what they should do to fix the economic situation and how they should do it, experts in the economic discourse community would most likely ask two questions: “Who are you, and what gives you the right to tell us what to do?” Due to his lack of ethos in economics, Nelson falls short in affiliating with experts in the economic discourse community, as he does not possess any credentials that give him credibility in this field. Furthermore, the magazine in which Nelson wrote the article, Electrical Design News, has no affiliation with the economic discourse community either, and certainly does not receive the same attention that The Wall Street Journal does by economists (as a side note, it published its last article in 2013, which indicates it probably did not receive much attention anywhere at all). The same cannot be said entirely, however, about Nelson’s and EDN’s affiliation with the physics discourse community. As stated in his biography, Nelson received several awards for his editorials on articles related to engineering technology, worked as a design engineer at General Electric and Litton Industries, two very well known companies, and earned a bachelor of science in electronic engineering at Penn State. Here, it can be seen that Nelson’s credentials and credibility give him considerable ethos in the science and technology discourse communities. Though Nelson’s lack of notoriety is still present, his credentials, combined with EDN’s emphasis on science and technology, still makes the physics discourse community more receptive to his article than it does the economics discourse community.   

Apart from the pros and cons inherent in Nelson’s article and ethos, there is nonetheless an important lesson we can learn from his text: collaborative research can facilitate the evolution of human intellect. In Nelson’s article, physicists are but one example of how experts in one discourse community can provide the knowledge and resources necessary to achieve the objectives of experts in another discourse community. In collaborative research, various discourse communities can establish a mutually beneficial agreement, which can include savings in areas such as monetary cost and time required for research. If collaborative research was more widely practiced, as Nelson passively suggests it should be, perhaps mankind would see significantly greater intellectual progress in significantly less amounts of time. Wouldn’t that be awesome?      

Word Count: 1,793

Citations:

Wardle, Elizabeth A., and Doug Downs. “The Concept of Discourse Community.” Writing about Writing: A College Reader. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2011. 215-29. Print.

Trivium. “What Is the Goal of Economics?” The Platonist. N.p., 06 Mar. 2012. Web. 14 July 2016.

Agent Utah. “Physics Buzz: Can Physics Predict the Future?” Physics Buzz: Can Physics Predict the Future? N.p., n.d. Web. 14 July 2016.

Nelson, Rick. “Physics and Economics.” Electrical Design News 30 Oct. 2008: 10. Computers & Applied Sciences Complete [EBSCO]. Web. 12 July 2016.

“About Us – Evaluation Engineering.” Evaluation Engineering. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 July 2016.