Missy's CCR Coursework Notes

Tech Camp 2010

2010-06-23T12:04:00.000-07:00

Wysocki, Ann Frances. “Opening New Media to Writing: Openings and Justifications.” Writing New Media: Theory and Applications for Expanding the Teaching of Composition, 1st ed. Wysocki, Ann Frances, Johndan Johnson-Eilola, Cynthia L. Selfe, and Geoffrey Sirc (Eds.). Utah State University Press, 2004.

Yancey, Kathleen Blake. “Writing in the 21st Century.” A Report from the National Council of Teachers of English.

Lovett, Maria, Katherine E. Gossit, Carrie A. Lamanna, James P. Purdy, and Joseph Squier. “Writing with Video: What Happens When Composition Comes Of f the Page?” RAW: (Reading and Writing) New Media. Ball, Cheryl E. and James Kalmbach, (Eds). Hampton Press, March 2010.

Based on the three readings assigned for Syracuse Writing Program’s Tech Camp 2010, I was struck by the common argument insisting on the production of new media in the composition classroom over the (perhaps) more commonly adopted strategies of analyzing new media or applying new media to traditional print forms of writing. Lovett et al. made a strong argument for considering the production of new media texts in their “Writing with Video: What Happens When Composition Comes Of f the Page?” They assert that “When students become producers rather than simply consumers of new media texts they gain a fuller understanding of the ways in which new media shape how writers structure, organize, understand, and evaluate information” (5). For me, this seems an exciting way to facilitate classrooms where students are more active in their educational pursuits rather than passive consumers of it. Plus, students already come to the classroom with a range of new media literacies, literacies that hold weight in the ever growing image-driven world, as Lovett et al argue. The authors also point out the agency students already hold when entering the classroom, a writerly authority that should be fostered and upheld rather than dismissed or discouraged: “Students are experts of their own experience and educational pursuits, and when given the opportunity, they are often eager to share what they know. The course encourages students to demonstrate new technologies they are using, such as podcasting or sound editing techniques” (16). It seems new media fits in well when taking a more student-knowledge-centered approach.

Just tasking students with producing new media, however, is only a part of the calls for using new media in the writing classroom. As with any composition, textual or digital or otherwise, it’s important to acknowledge the social and political and material contexts, possibilities, and constraints. In Anne Frances Wysocki’s Introduction (“Opening New Media to Writing: Openings and Justifications”) to her coauthored book, Writing New Media: Theory and Applications for Expanding the Teaching of Composition, I was immediately interested in an early acknowledgement to the “materiality” of new media texts. The term and its multifaceted definition are taken from Bruce Horner’s Terms of Work for Composition: A Materialist Critique. The “materiality of writing” is described as referring to “socioeconomic conditions”; “networks for the distribution of writing, controls of publishing (in whatever forms), and global relations of power articulated through these”; “particular subjectivities”; “social relations”; and “the materiality of the work of teaching composition” (qtd. in Wysocki 3-4). For me, through recognizing what material restraints and possibilities come from producing new media, it seems as though students would simultaneously be analyzing and applying new media to their writerly tasks. Through even blogging, for example, participating writers might be privy to considering what material constraints and possibilities are evident: the labor involved; the technological access, knowledge, and skills required; the rhetorical power of content design and architecture; the political and ethical implications of arguing something publicly; the social implications of speaking to certain local and global audiences; the legal implications of borrowing words and images and ideas from other texts; etc. The materiality of writing as is described by Horner and summarized by Wysocki, then, seems an important aspect of teaching with new media that deserves careful attention from instructors. Using a blog as a means of writing in the classroom just to use a blog is a step, but I can imagine a much more fruitful and critical approach would be to consider as a class the material aspects of this kind of work.

I’m fairly convinced. My immediate concern, however, again goes back to the frequently posited questions we hear whenever calls for adopting new approaches in composition courses are made: How might I, the instructor, negotiate the inclusion of new curricular assignments and outcomes when I’m already pressed for time as it is? Should I eliminate other practices to make room for more of a focus on writing with new media? Just because I add in a component where students analyze, apply, and produce new media, wouldn’t it be naïve to assume that students will garner a better sense of purpose in their writing? These were concerns articulated numerous times by numerous writing instructors during Tech Camp.

This last observation—that which read: Just because I add a component where students analyze, apply, and produce new media, isn’t it naïve to assume that students will garner a “better” and more “organic” purpose in their writing?—is of particular interest to me. Yancey’s NCTE report, “Writing in the 21st Century,” attempts to contextualize, I think, some of the historical reasons for why students may not treat writing experiences as organic processes within composition classrooms. Yancey suggests that writing has historically been treated as a “rudimentary skill” or as a having the “predominant role in the testing of students” (3). Yancey offers a few broadly described goals in her disciplinary call for writing instructors to pay attention to the rise of new media and visual argumentation in the classroom, attention leading to new curriculum and pedagogical approaches. Perhaps because her focus was different and perhaps because of the minimal space she was afforded due to the nature of the genre she writes in, Yancey does not provide her readers with strategies or theoretical frameworks to guide instructors’ implementation of new media approaches to composition. I was left wondering, then, how students have responded to producing new media in the comp classroom. Do students really walk away feeling as though they achieved a more meaningful purpose than they would when writing more traditional print-based texts? It seems taking Wysocki’s argument for acknowledging the material constraints is a step towards tailoring assignments so that they speak to more organic rhetorical situation. Still, I can’t help but suspect that no matter our commitment to designing assignments for students in hopes of creating more organic writing experiences, it’s us still designing them. Students are still complying with our agendas. Students are still writing for a grade. Students are still concerned, therefore, with the “rudimentary skills” their instructor will assess by. Since a grade is attached to their performance, writing in the composition classroom is still rooted (as it has been historically) with testing. I wonder, then, if my struggle with interrogating this issue of “organic” writing has more to do with assessment practices than with students producing new media in the classroom. I am by no means trying to argue that there’s an easy way out of this dilemma. We teach in the university and grades and assessment come with the territory. I suppose I’m just compelled to complicate the issue a bit more based on the materiality of writing, as Wysocki suggests, and situate the issue within the politics of assessment and education more generally.

I’ll end here with a return again to Horner, as cited by Wysocki. I think I do this in attempt to offer some personal relief for the complicated questions that remain unanswered for me (and for many instructors, I imagine). While we may aspire to consider at all times the materiality of writing, it was a relief to me to hear of Horner’s recognition that “no representation of teaching or writing can exhaust the full range of their materiality” (xix, quoted in Wysocki). By recognizing that writing classes sometimes decontextualizes writing and, damn it, it’s ok that this happens, then it seems a reasonable task to also take a critical approach to acknowledging this with our students as well. At the conclusion of our time in tech camp and having considered some of the arguments of the authors we read together, I feel even more driven to have open dialogues about these issues of materiality, this being an important principle to apply to my upcoming teaching endeavors where new media practices will be more central to our writerly processes and our written products.

CCR 760: Textual Coordination and Curation

2010-04-13T06:36:00.000-07:00

Discussion Questions for Investing Textual Curation

We are interested in focusing on three topics of discussion that were gathered from our readings. Based on the kinds of technical communication described in our readings:

How do conceptualizations and practices of invention transform?
How are these authors alluding to what counts as “good writing”?
Who has authority in the kind of writing described by our authors?

A theme that seemed to resonate for us throughout each of the texts was authors’ tendency to view textual coordination as a type of “remixing” of already existing texts:

Slattery explains ways in which TCers borrow, move around, and re-use information. One strategy he describes is “Modifying,” a strategy where “writers were more often responsible for changing text and images than for creating them” (356, emphasis added).
Jones found in his study of corporate writers collaborating that “the writers focused less on producing text and more on developing, coordinating, and structuring the newly adopted corporate intranet” (456, emphasis added).
Describing the curation in Chambers’ Preface to Cyclopædia, Kennedy explains that “the Encyclopedic Author is…a compiler, assessor, and re-composer of texts” (123, emphasis added). She illustrates that “rather than aligning himself primarily with the first canon, invention, he sees his work as more closely integrated with the second canon, arrangement” (125).

If most folks in our field understand invention as prewriting and brainstorming towards creating original ideas, culminating as the fruit of reading, research, and writing labors, then how might these authors’ claims challenge such traditional notions? What may be problematic in privileging one definition of invention over the other?

In Jason Alexander’s plenary presentation last Thursday, he posed some interesting questions about the Cs position statement online that explains goals for how students might create “well-composed” essays. Alexander then asked his audience, “What does ‘well-composed’ mean?” and “Who gets to determine what well-composed means?” With his provocative questions in mind, we were struck by the following excerpts from this week’s authors:

Slattery’s title, for example, reads, “Technical Communication as Textual Coordination: An Argument for the Value of Writers’ Skill with Information Technology.”
Also in Slattery’s text, Carliner is quoted for describing qualifications of information designers: “They must be broad thinkers…The must be comfortable designing interfaces and interaction…have a good ‘eye’ for the visual look of a communication product and a good ‘ear’ for its verbal tone” (Qtd. in Slattery, 353, emphasis added).
Kennedy argues that “we can best understand this [encyclopedic] author as a textual curator in much the same sense as a museum curator: working to bring together the best textual samples available, assessing their quality, arranging entries in the most effective order, and writing a variety of additional texts to transform the gathered elements into a cohesive whole” (123).

With Alexander’s charge in mind, we ask: What is this “writers’ skill” that Slattery speaks of? How can we define for both instructors and students of TC what it means to be “broad thinkers” with “a good ‘eye’” and “a good ‘ear’”? Is it clear from our readings what “skills” are “best” and “most effective”? Can we imagine how these skills might be understood and described?

Last, we noticed these quotes as speaking to issues of agency and authorship of TC textual “products”:

“[TCers] seldom get to call the shots in terms of what tools they will use for this inherently collaborative effort. Client preferences almost always dictate the medium in which documentation will be published and the technologies that will be used for storing, retrieving, producing, and providing feedback on texts” (Slattery 357).
According to Jones, writers in his study worked on “a collection of documents rather than a document in and of itself” through “an ongoing project with no end” (Jones 462).
Referencing Wikipedia, Kennedy illuminates that “Originality” in Widipedia “is explicitly banned, to the point of specifying which possible peripheral forms of originality are not allowed” (120). Referencing Cyclopædia, she explains that “The basic goals of the textual situation at hand determine the form of authorship that can be successfully employed….The author’s agency, then, is indeed effected by both the demands of the rhetorical situation and form” (121).

Based on these examples (and any others you can think of), who—and (perhaps more interesting) what—has agency in technical writing in scenarios like those above? How do these constructs challenge romantic notions of the single author acting as “solitary genius” and “legal owner” over some supposedly “finalized,” “creative,” and “original” product?

Post-Activity Reflective Framework

Based on the Collaboration Continuum framed by Jones, what kinds of collaboration did you participate in with your groups? What challenges/benefits were apparent?
Imagining you took a different approach than you did, what other strategies/practices might have you undertaken? In other words, how might the co-authoring and collaboration have been enacted differently while obtaining the same ends?

From Slattery:

Techniques of Mediation

The author presents some of the patters that emerged from his study:

Textual re-use: “the re-use of information (such as phrasing or formatting) from existing texts to produce new documents” (355).

Whole-cloth (open doc, rename it, edit it for new purpose)
Pastiche (copy/paste from selected sources)
Direct and indirect incorporation (copy or change depends on the “fit”)
Feedback sometimes solicited

Remediation of information (“the need to move information from one medium to another” 355)

Retrieving (retrieving necessary information from/about client and/or document systems)
Staging (“ability to manipulate electronic and print documents”)
Producing (adding new information, words, formatting, etc.)
Modifying (more likely to change/edit rather than invent)
Sharing (collaborative work; social awareness needed)
Dissemination (media and audience awareness

CCR 760: Diehl et al (2008) "Grassroots: Supporting the knowledge work of everyday life"

2010-03-28T13:00:00.000-07:00

Diehl, A., Grabill, J.T., & Hart-Davidson, W. (2008). Grassroots: Supporting the knowledge work of everyday life. Technical Communication Quarterly 17(4), 413-434.

Abstract from article:

“This article introduces a simple mapping tool called Grassroots, a software product from a longitudinal study examining the use of information communication technologies and knowledge work in communities. Grassroots is an asset-based mapping tool made possible by theWeb 2.0 movement, a movement which allows for the creation of more adaptable interfaces by making data and underlying database structures more openly available via syndication and open source software. This article forwards three arguments. First is an argument about the nature of the knowledge work of everyday life, or an argument about the complex technological and rhetorical tasks necessary to solve commonplace problems through writing. Second is an argument about specific technologies and genres of community-based knowledge work, about why making maps is such an essential genre, and about why making asset maps is potentially transformative. Third is an argument about the making of Grassroots itself; a statement about how we should best express, test, and verify our theories about writing and knowledge work” (413).

Summary:

The authors report their experiences with and reasons for developing a mapping software called Grassroots, an interface comparable to Google Maps except Grassroots also works in conjunction with Web 2.0 features that permit users to design their own routes and store information. The authors draw on their research in WIDE (Writing in Digital Environments) and CACI (Capital Area Community Information) projects. These studies often included field observations, usability evaluations, and interviews with citizens working with designers for creating knowledge work. Based on their research, the authors examine how knowledge work is accomplished in the writing and using of mapping software, especially in regard to the rhetoric of mapmaking, the problems with mapping use in communities, and the potential possibilities made through Grassroots. They argue that since “the ability to create usable knowledge and meaningful action are too often assumed by planners” then, “Actual writing—work—is invisible” (419). Therefore, the authors present Grassroots as a means of making “visible the knowledge work activity that is required for common forms of civic participation” (422). Grassroots is illustrated as being an interface that is more accessible for users to accomplish their specific rhetorical and community-building needs in mapping: users can create their own maps; add photos, texts, and other media; augment information; add tags for searching; share and collaborate; etc.

Definitions:

Knowledge work: “By knowledge work, we mean analytical activity requiring problem solving and abstract reasoning, particularly with (and through) advanced information technologies and particularly with and through acts of writing. Johnson-Eilola (2005) notes that knowledge work is also typically concerned with the production of information, as distinct from the production of material goods, and he also points out that many of us do not just work with information, we inhabit it. Thus knowledge work, or what Johnson-Eilola calls symbolic production, is the making of largely discursive performances that, quite literally, do work (pp. 3–4)” (414).
Asset-based community development (Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993): “whereby community building is based on seeing communities as active participants of change and not passive clients (see also Turner & Pinkett, 2000)” (415).
GIS: Geographic Information Systems (GIS) tools as they have developed are principally geospatial databases meant for experts, although their use has been transferred to public domains as well” (418).
Web 2.0: “The Web 2.0 movement perhaps can be best described as the untethering of content and information available via the Web from the very places and pages with which we usually associated that content. That is, the information or content itself becomes the product and is created and distributed in such a way that it can be easily syndicated, repurposed, or added upon in ways quite possibly unimagined by the original content creators or distributors” (424).
XML: “Extensible Markup Language (XML) is not a traditional coding language, but rather a set of rules and standards for creating and distributing a semantically appropriate language for content, in a way that styles can then be applied separately and that allow for the contextual granulation of larger pieces of information into more discrete, separate units” (425).
Grassroots: “a simple tool (http://grassroots.wide.msu.edu)...based largely on Google Maps so it allows users to create map locations using addresses or by clicking on the map, and we also added the ability to draw routes on the map” (415). This way, Grassroots acts not only as a map, but as a database for storing routes and other map additions added on by users. The authors “understand Grassroots to be an asset-mapping tool, by which we mean that it is intended to enable communities to name, locate, and thereby create maps of their communities using variables of their choosing and focusing as much on capacities as deficits” (427).

Points of Interest with Questions:

The authors liken “knowledge work” to “invisible work” where the value of writing, especially writing done well, is not visible (414). This reminds me of Marx’s argument in Capital about the fetishism of use value where labor becomes invisible in the commodification of products (414). Could this be a case for how much power TCers have in information design and/or an argument that TCers ought to be more ethically conscious of how design and rhetorical choices are made invisible?
The authors see an “intersection of writing and civic activity” (415), and since they believe that some mapping interfaces “can prevent people from acting as citizens,” they explain that their goal for Grassroots is to “render visible the knowledge work activity that is required for common forms of civic participation” (422). Connecting writing with citizenship and civic participation seems very Deweyan in the sense that education, especially as adopted in the composition classroom, recognizes learning and writing as a means of civic engagement. It seems from our authors’ understanding of writing, then, that writing is understood in the field of technical communication to be (at least in some cases) grounded in democratic conceptualizations. Though researchers from both disciplines may be accepting of this theory, I’m not so convinced that many students, of FYC or techn comm, would adopt such a stance on the purposes of writing (thus, service-learning in comp comes into play). Since I’m less versed in the pedagogical practice of the tech comm classroom, I wonder: What strides are (or can be) taken in teaching tech comm that foster a more democratic conceptualization of information and interface design? Is Web 2.0 our best solution?

CCR 760: Albers (2003) "Introduction" to Information Design

2010-03-07T12:34:00.000-08:00

Albers, M.J. (2003). Introduction. In Albers, M.J. & Mazur, B., Content and Complexity: Information Design in Technical Communication. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. 1-8.

In this introduction to Content and Complexity: Information Design in Technical Communication, Albers illustrates the purpose of the edited collection, offers some general and introductory definitions of “information design,” and outlines each contributing author’s projects and arguments. As part of his discussion, Albers explains how difficult it has been to define “information design,” providing what he sees as some promising definitions from five varying sources. It is within the very first definition provided that I found some compelling areas of inquiry as related to the topics of ethics and technical communication.

The quoted definition from Janice Redish emphasizes the importance of considering the user as a first priority for information design, prompting the technical communicator to ensure that (through the design) users are able to “find what they need, understand what they find, and use what they understand appropriately” (2). This definition certainly privileges the user as the most important agent in considering what information ought to be managed and how information ought to be designed and presented, but it also assumes that TCers can know what the user needs. I wonder, then, how this assumption might be complicated when considering that the clients (those folks paying technical communicators for information design) are not the end users and so the end users may not often have a say in such content management and design. I’m left wondering: How might this claim (that end users’ needs are the most important element in determining information design) conceal (or at least fail to acknowledge) the political and ethical implications of TCers being the ones who actually choose, store, organize, and design information knowledge that will eventually be accessed, received, interpreted, and applied by users?

I understand, of course, that some users may be consulted in the information design process, but I imagine that for at least some content on the web--like online dating search engines, for example, where users are given selective and predetermined criteria to choose from when searching for potential mates—most users never have a say in what information is to be managed through criteria or how that information is to be designed. I realize how impractical it would be for all end users to provide input on the information they seek, and so part of the TCer’s job might be to investigate and imagine the needs and wants of potential users. Still, I’m left with the old “chicken or the egg” dilemma. Do TCers design information based on what users need, or do users merely end up relying on what TCers design? I imagine it’s a bit of both, but I wonder to what extent. I suppose I’m concerned it might be dangerous to assume that it’s mostly end users’ needs driving good information design and not the TCers’ and/or clients’ own assumptions, experiences, and goals. Recognizing this dilemma, Albers thoughtfully suggests that information designers “must avoid their own affinities, prejudices, and jargon, while developing a design” (7). But isn’t subjectivity in any composition inevitable and wouldn’t it be more precise to just acknowledge our subjectivity instead of pretending we can avoid it?

Also in his short introduction, Albers sends me through another ethical whirl spin when he explains that information design “must be considered the practice of enabling a reader to obtain knowledge” (7), and argues that the potential problems in creating effective designs has to do with making the design invisible to the user:

The hard part for the information designer is making the design disappear. Rather than being something the reader focuses on, the design must carry the information to the reader in a clear manner while remaining out of sight….In a good design, readers can effortlessly extract the information they need without being conscious about how they gain information” (6-7).

In other words, the TCers job is to make sure s/he erases any traces for how the information was designed so as to ensure the user experiences the content as painless and least confusing as possible. This seems a worthy outcome for TCers since I imagine most users just want to grab the info they need and get the hell out of there without having to waste any time considering the processes TCers took in gathering and designing the information. And though it seems a bit goofy and impractical to confront this argument with Marxist and Freirean claims that it is detrimental to knowledge construction and to the experience of knowledge seekers when gatekeepers aren’t forthcoming about unveiling the structures that so neatly design and package the knowledge seekers seek, I can’t help but see the value in doing so. I’m not going to argue that information designers need some sort of disclosure where users get the 411 on how much information designers subjectively construct the knowledge users receive. I’ll leave this blog post as unsure about this dilemma as I was when I started. I’m left unsure (and uncomfortable) with how TCers and/or researchers in the field might proceed when considering (a) how to be more forthcoming to users about the influences of TCers’ subjectivities, and (b) how to be more transparent about how information designs construct the knowledge users seek and perceive.

Oh my.

Johnson-Eilola (2005) *Datacloud: Toward a New Theory of Online Work"

2010-02-21T23:02:00.000-08:00

Johnson-Eilola, Johndan. Toward a New Theory of Online Work. Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press, Inc., 2005. Print.

Authors as Symbolic-Analytic Workers

People in this type of work identify, rearrange, circulate, abstract, and broker information in response to specific, concrete situations. They work with information and symbols to produce reports, plans, and proposals. They also tend to work online, either communicating with peers (they rarely have direct supervision) or manipulating symbols. (28)

Johndan Johnson-Eilola’s description quoted above is in reference to “symbolic-analytic workers”—those folks working under titles such as “investment banker, research scientist, lawyer, management consultant, strategic planner, and architect” (28). I imagine for individuals researching in the field of comp/rhet—like me—this passage can be read synonymously as the work of writers writing. We too “identify, rearrange, circulate, abstract, and broker information in response to specific, concrete situations.” We too “work with information and symbols to produce reports, plans, and proposals” among other genres of writing. We too “tend to work online either communicating with peers…or manipulating symbols” through various avenues of collaboration, most times without “direct supervision” or explicit direction or guidance from our mentors or superiors. For me, writers—whether we’re novice students writing in first year comp or we’re seasoned professors writing for publication—can be seen as “symbolic-analytic workers.” While I imagine for compositionists this analogy may not be all that surprising, I was struck by imagining this analogy, mostly because I personally hadn’t ever given much attention to analyzing the role of digital technology when it came to “academic writing.” Of course, I considered the possible limitations of generic formats such as Word when it comes to composing (which the author nicely criticizes on page 105 as too linear for the ‘clouds of data’ strategically negotiated and creatively assembled by today’s digital worker), and I’d considered how much technology impacted our research practices, but I guess I just hadn’t given much credit to (nor really acknowledged the potential possibilities of) digital technology when it came to our writing formats and practices. I was realizing the limitations of writing genres, but I wasn’t realizing any real alternatives for transforming them.

Johnson-Eilola, a teacher of writing and innovator of transformative approaches to genres for writing, (see Johnson-Eilola and Selber’s “Plagiarism, Originality, Assemblage,” which I need to revisit since now buying into Johnson-Eilola’s argument here) apparently makes similar connections as mine as is apparent with his likening of symbolic-analytic workers to rhetoricians. His emphasis, though, remains on the intersection of technology and rhetoric: “we might think of symbolic-analytic workers as technical rhetoricians or rhetorical technologists” (29). When it comes to the modern understanding of the term “rhetoricians,” it’s now a bit challenging for me to separate the two terms “rhetoric” and “technology,” especially when it comes to writing (which, as I can’t seem to stress enough, surprised the hell out of me).

If ya’ll are interested—as I am now—in learning about some of the ways that Johnson-Eilola has implemented a transformed approach to writing genres in the writing classroom, you might want to check out his article from Computers and Composition, “Plagiarism, Originality, Assemblage,” that he co-authored with Selber. We read this in Becky’s authorship class and I plan to revisit it since now buying into many of Johnson-Eilola’s arguments in Datacloud. See my blog below to read the summary I wrote on this text last semester.

Johnson-Eilola and Selber (2007) "Plagiarism, Originality, Assemblage"

2010-02-21T23:00:00.000-08:00

Johnson-Eilola, Johndan, and Stewart Selber. "Plagiarism, Originality, Assemblage." Computers and Composition 24.4 (2007): 375-403.

Summary

In their article titled, “Plagiarism, originality, assemblance,” published in Communication and Composition in 2007, authors Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber propose a new approach to composition instruction, one that complicates traditional views of plagiarism and originality. They construct their argument by first criticizing the common practice in composition instruction where assessment of student writing is based on students’ ability to produce original ideas as inspired by their reading of other texts—projects where students are asked to illustrate their new and unique perspectives, using sources in their arguments or analyses only as secondary background information or supporting evidence. The authors criticize this traditional method for maintaining hierarchical assessment practices, where exceedingly more value is placed on the students’ unique contributions and originality, rather than the student’s practices of consulting, framing, modeling, and/or quoting texts during the composition process.

It is suggested that the traditional approach assumes that students’ ideas and writing are the intellectual property of students and not the product of social, cultural, and historical contexts—contexts where writing is inherently shaped by discursive practices and the intertextual nature of texts. The authors demonstrate that traditional practices, therefore, reinforce notions of the “lone, creative genius” and ultimately weaken other scholars’ recent attempts for reimagining complicated concepts such as plagiarism, authority, and creativity (Howard, 2000; Porter, 2006; Price, 2002; and Spigelman, 2000 are cited as examples). The authors further explain that placing such value on student originality is counterproductive since it results in students being more likely to plagiarize: if teachers value most students’ unique creativity, students may be more inclined to hide their borrowing and appropriation of texts in order to appear as the original authors of ideas or sentences.

In response to their criticism of the traditional approach, Johnson-Eilola and Selber argue that instructors should design projects where students problem-solve through “assemblance”—a practice where writers borrow, remix, and reformulate texts into new texts. Instead of instructors valuing most a students’ unique originality and fresh contributions, this approach recognizes that all writing is an assemblance of ideas, words, and discursive practices and that students can find creativity in reconstructing this information in new ways. Since the authors claim that such borrowing and sharing of practices have been accepted and widely adopted in other disciplines and contexts, they support their argument for this new approach with examples of “remix” and “assemblage” found in web design, music, films, and architecture.

Ultimately, their examples work to illustrate a number of qualities apparent in this new approach: how originality is accomplished through assemblance of other texts, discourses, and formats; how authors and creators borrowed are still cited or otherwise acknowledged when remixed; how assemblance requires substantial rhetorical sophistication and should not be viewed as mindless copying and pasting; how plagiarism likely decreases with approaches such as assemblance since writers are less inclined to hide their borrowing of sources; and how common creativity is promoted through the remixing of others’ ideas and texts. While it is not their goal to have remixing practices replace all approaches to teaching composition, the authors ask that instructors at the very least include new practices in hopes of deconstructing hierarchies that limit the value of remix, collage, and assemblance in composition.

CCR 760: Dias, Freedman, Medway, and Pare (1999) Worlds Apart

2010-02-07T20:53:00.000-08:00

Dias, Patrick, Aviva Freedman, Peter Medway, and Anthony Pare. Worlds Apart: Acting and Writing in Academic and Workplace Contexts. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999.

Chapter 1: “Introduction: Researching Writing at School and at Work

Reading Notes (scroll to end for my questions)

· Research question driving this book: “What are the relationships between writing as it is elicited in the university and writing as it is generated in the workplace? A particular stress we give to that question is: how and to what extent can we speak of writing in school settings as preparation for writing at work?” (3).

· A fantastic take on writing! They “acknowledge that writing is not a single clearly deniable skill acquired once and for all; that writing is shaped fundamentally by its sociocultural context; that writing is often more than transcription or communication, and that, certainly in school, writing functions as a way of learning and knowing (and not just a way of demonstrating learning and knowing); that the functions of writing carry widely—from making discoveries to impacting knowledge, from persuading to asserting status, from establishing credibility to negotiating power; that there is considerable variation in strategy—by individual and by task or context; that, in some settings, composing is an intensely collaborative activity, involving intricate layers of responding and revising, each with its own complex political and social dimensions. Writing, in other words, is a very complex act; to understand what is being accomplished in writing in any social setting requires lengthy in-depth observation and analysis” (4).

· Writing based on the social theory of writing: “[Writing] is not discrete clearly definable skill learned once and for all; moreover, both in school and at work, writing is seldom the product of isolated individuals but rather and seldom obviously, the outcome of continuing collaboration, of interactions that involve other people and other texts. Writing practices are closely linked to their sociocultural contexts, and writing strategies vary with individual and situation” (9-10).

· History of composition as related to their text:

o >1960s: writing was teaching rhetorical structures; modeling and imitation privileged; student experiences central to content; no research/investigation

o 1970s: student population changes so teaching changes too

§ focus on writing as a process: invention, writing, and revision are key

§ WAC helps make all disciplines responsible for students learning to write

§ New Criticism (writing as stagnant) switches to New Critical (writing as context-specific)

o 1980s: genre theory helps folks to see writing as social, context-specific, not autonomous, and discipline-specific

· The study

o Investigated 8 settings (4 academic, 4 workplace), comparing among location and among discipline, asking “what functions did the writing perform” and “how do sociocultural settings shape writing practices” (11). Used “a multiple-case study approach” focused on participant perspectives (12). Gathered the following data: inventory of genres, document histories, document criteria, ethnographic observations, interviews, and participant validation (12-13). Data analysis consisted of textual analyses, analyses of oral discourse, and sociolinguistic analyses (13-14). They aspire to help “develop appropriate programs to help facilitate the transition between the two environments [academic and workplace settings]” (14-15).

Quotes ‘n’ Questions o’ Concern:

The authors point out in their introduction that—historically, in the field of rhetoric and composition—genre theories and social theories of writing led folks across the disciplines to consider writing as a social, collaborative activity dependent upon cultural discourse conventions specific to particular communities and readership. They further imply the extreme (dis)advantage facing writers who can(not) conform to such conventions: they acknowledge that “texts must often stay within strict guidelines (stylistic, legal, procedural) and the consequences of ignoring those rules can be severe” (9). Just a paragraph later, the authors summarize their views of writing by explaining that “[Writing] is not a discrete clearly definable skill learned once and for all; moreover, both in school and at work, writing is seldom the product of isolated individuals but rather and seldom obviously, the outcome of continuing collaboration, of interactions that involve other people and other texts. Writing practices are closely linked to their sociocultural contexts, and writing strategies vary with individual and situation” (9-10).

What strikes me about these two passages is how, taken together, they present an unfortunate position for novice writers: we composition folks understand that writing experiences and processes will be unique for each writer, especially considering the combination of historical, cultural, political, and social forces impacting the rhetorical situation; at the same time, however, we also understand that writers must conform to very specific writing conventions and genres if they are to gain entrance within certain academic communities (and, furthermore, we composition teachers are often gatekeepers to such communities). I wonder, then, to what extent has the field worked to challenge such fixed and communal formats in accordance with the recognition that writing is a fluid and individual phenomenon?

Sure, we tell our students that the five-paragraph essay limits creative possibilities, that they should explore alternative organizational schemes and take some chances, yet most of us don’t hesitate to conform to the writing conventions of the journal we’re submitting to, all the while taking few rhetorical risks since we strive for every advantage for eventual publication. I know I’m being general, and I’m sure many of us take risks when writing for academia (otherwise things would look the same as they did fifty years ago…and, they don’t). I also recognize that to some extent public documents might serve readership if there are similar formats and processes adhered to. I also know this topic happens to a personal area of frustration for me, so I’m sure I’m coming on strong. Still, I’d love to hear what folks have to say about this topic. Here are questions I’ve often wondered, questions that this text re-invited into my imagination: How much space does textual formatting leave for change in knowledge-production? How might genres limit creativity? How might novices and/or outsiders be at a disadvantage when (and if) format trumps content? How are we putting students at a disadvantage if we don’t explicitly teach them genre conventions of their discipline? How are we putting students at a disadvantage if we do?

Last note: These questions of concern are obviously related to our recent discussions of how to situate technical communication as a rhetorical activity and how to design our tech writing classes to promote student creativity as well as foster individuals’ attention to ethics and critical reflection, all while remembering that focusing on such transformative skills may contradict the demands and professional constraints in students’ future employment (i.e., when their job privileges their formatted accuracy over their rhetorical attention to creative solutions and social justice). It remains unanswerable for me, then, just how we go about negotiating this dilemma. It appears, though, that the authors hope to provide at least some insight into solving the tensions between academic approaches and practices and workplace approaches and practices.

CCR 760: Licklider and Taylor's "The Computer as a Communication Device"

2010-01-24T14:31:00.000-08:00

Licklider, J.C.R. and Taylor, Robert W. “The Computer as a Communication Device.” Science and Technology, (Sept. 1968): 20-41.

Summary:

In their 1968 article, “The Computer as a Communication Device,” authors Licklider and Taylor present their argument that computers—which were primarily used for information gathering, storing, analyzing, and transferring—will soon take on new and important roles in corporate communication. Their prediction of computers being used as networks where real-time collaborative communication and data sharing takes place is accompanied by their discussion of the expected hurdles in technology, production, and costs associated with this new use of computers. They justify their call for the development and use of computers as a means of communication under the claim that current practices for sharing data and collaborating on projects is extremely expensive, time consuming, and inefficient. These claims are warranted by the assumption that communication is best accomplished through visual models and numerous contributors interacting simultaneously on conceptually similar issues agreed upon by all participants. This definition of communication at its best leads the authors to argue that communicating through computers will be the most efficient way for business and technological advancements to be instigated. In short, the authors aim to support the following:

We can say with genuine and strong conviction that a particular form of digital computer organization, with its programs and its data, constitutes the dynamic, moldable medium that can revolutionize the art of modeling and that in so doing can improve the effectiveness of communication among people so much as perhaps to revolutionize that also. (27)

The authors support their argument mostly with reasoning and anecdotes, though they also refer to some current practices of computer communication already happening among small research communities. They appear to speak to audiences interested in the advancement of computer technology and corporate communication, whether from the business or engineering perspective.

Quotes/Questions:

· The authors claim that “the increasing significance of the jointly constructive, the mutually reinforcing aspect of communication—the part that transcends ‘now we both know a fact that only one of knew before.’ When minds interact, new ideas emerge. We want to talk about the creative aspect of communication” (21). This quote reminded me yet again of Giroux’s “transformative” approach to teaching, where information is not merely transmitted; it is transformed by each interlocutor. Though the authors don’t attend to this aspect, I wonder how individual agency might have been influenced through the advent of online networking. How might an individual become empowered to become a subject in communication and project design rather than object and recipient of information?

· The authors predict that the “programmed digital computer…can change the nature and value of communication even more profoundly than did the printing press and the picture tube, for, as we shall show, a well-programmed computer can provide direct access both to informational resources and to the processes for making use of the resources” (22, italics in original). Reading this quote I am reminded of some of the readings we did in Becky’s authorship course, mostly those that showed how the advent of the printing press helped to historically root Western conceptions of published texts as either the holy words of God or the original works of solitarily-working geniuses. Since the implications of this perspective are many, I’m curious: what (negative) implications arise from viewing communication as the authors do—as a collaborative process of information sharing and transformation?

· The authors ground their claims for the advancement of computer communication through their claim that “modeling” is the most efficient way to communicate. Participants of this communication, according to the authors, “are strongly influenced by insight, subjective feelings, and educated guesses. Thus, each individual’s data are reflected in his mental model. Getting his colleagues to incorporate his data into their models is the essence of the communications task” (23). To me, this sounds very similar to how rhetoricians might view communication: a process where a rhetor successfully communicates to an audience by assessing what information must be presented for that audience to understand the intended message. Since we’ve been talking about how technical communication is inherently rhetorical, I wonder what mediums are at the disposal of technical communicators that might transform traditional forms and definitions of rhetoric (I’m thinking of the canon here: invention, arrangement, style, memory, delivery)? Especially when the communication is collaborative and in real time, for instance, how might we view this medium of communication as transforming how information is arranged and delivered?

· Finally, what can we learn from the diagram of the big-busted-bikini-bicycle on page 24? Okay, so that’s not really a question of mine. It just really cracked me up.

CCR 691: Logan's (2008) Liberating Language

2009-11-11T17:52:00.000-08:00

Logan, Shirley Wilson. Liberating Language: Sites of Rhetorical Education in Nineteenth-Century Black America. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2008.

INTRODUCTION: “‘By the Way, Where Did You Learn to Speak?’”

An overview of her study, scope, method, and purpose as explained in her “Introduction”:

WHAT and WHEN: Logan seeks to answer the question, “Where did [African Americans in the late 18^th-early 19^th century] learn to speak?” Specifically, she’s interested in identifying and analyzing sites of rhetorical education—those places where AAs were instructed explicitly or implicitly in being rhetorical in their communicative experiences.

2. WHERE and HOW: Her sites of research and textual artifacts analyzed within her book are:

a. CH1: “white-sponsored slave missions and initiatives emerging from within communities of the enslaved,” “the black Union regiments during the Civil War,” “the activities of the Republican Loyal League” (6-7)

b. CH2: diaries from multiple individuals; published advice manuals (7)

c. CH3: literacy societies “primarily in Philadelphia and New York, both single sex and mixed, church-affiliated, school-affiliated, and community-based” (7)

d. CH4: Black periodicals (8)

e. Throughout each of her chapters: calls on famous Black rhetors to make “cautious generalizations” (9)

3. WHY: She seeks answers to her research question because she hopes it will “broaden our approaches to contemporary rhetorical education and thereby help to further participation in democracy” (3). She also hopes to inform: “This study will expand our understanding of the various ways in which African Americans, faced with the consequences of enslavement and oppressive color prejudice, acquired rhetorical competence during the late eighteenth century and across the nineteenth century” (9).

Her strategies for supporting her methodology:

· Shows exigency in her study by providing a few examples of the challenges AAs faced in engaging in literacy practices and illustrating how so many white folks were shocked (this being “a form of ‘soft bigotry,’” quoting Anna Perez, 3).

· Defines her terms (e.g. rhetorical education, basic literacy) by calling on main rhetoric folks (Burke, Bitzer, Aristotle).

· Situates her methods of analyzing literacy practices of a population in the margins by likening her study to other main literacy folks (Royster, Williams, Jarratt, Zaluda, Gold).

· Situates her focus on AAs by citing others with a similar target population (Kates, Schneider, Anderson, Franklin, Porter, McHenry).

CHAPTER 1: “Free-Floating Literacy: Early African American Rhetorical Traditions”

Her method:

· She investigates rhetorical traditions and literacy practices in multiple sites to make claims about the experiences of AAs in the 18^th-19^th centuries. Sites and summaries include:

o “Plantation Literacies”: Records of “invisible institutions” (like group meetings in the woods where members could develop expression and worship) and slave missions where AAs received literacy education. These practices often helped to engrain the oral traditions of the culture.

o “Pulpit Literacies”: Missions helped AAs develop memorization skills. Rhetoric textbooks like The Columbian Orator helped AAs like Frederick Douglas realize the power of rhetoric in enacting freedom.

o “Battlefield Literacies”: Since AAs were coming together in the military and sharing literacy skills and since some military officials would initiate literacy education and/or develop schools for these soldiers, much of their rhetorical traditions were garnered through these experiences. Specifically, AA individuals participated in literacy practices by reading, discussing, and producing letters, newspapers, and speeches/poetry readings.

o “Political Literacies”: Sponsored by Union or Loyal League Movement, AAs also experienced literacy through night schools and other community gatherings aimed at promoting political activity and power.

o “Postbellum Workplace Literacies”: Some AAs may have also experienced literacy through working at cigar factories where they practiced la lectura, a custom where individuals were elected (based on mutual respect for their intelligence) to read texts aloud during cigar rolling and workers would use these texts as bases for debate and public argument.

· The evidence she presents come from various sources:

o Examples of AA’s experiences in the 19^th century and many of her terms of analysis from scholars’ previous studies (Costen, Nunley, Raboteau)

o References to historical moments, folks, or events (antebellum South, slave laws, slave mission movements, Militia Act, etc.)

o Analysis of primary texts of published AA writing and of AAs’ personal narratives (Elizabeth Johnson Harris, Frederick Douglas, Charles Colcock Jones, Amanda Berry Smith, Christian Recorder, Weekly Anglo-African)

· She keeps the analysis informational and refrains from making connections between the literacy practices of then to what’s happening today.

Key people and their terms:

· Ralph Ellison’s “free-floating literacy” (11)

· Shirley Brice Heath and Beverly J. Moss’ “literacy events” (11)

· Melva Wilson Costen’s “Invisible Institutions,” (12)

· Vorris L. Nunley’s “hush harbor rhetoric” (12)

My question:

Since in class we’ve been really emphasizing the importance of methods, methodology, and the building of a researcher ethos, it was a bit surprising to me that Logan does not spend time detailing her methods and methodologies. While she references primary sources and other scholarly work, we never seem to learn where and how she collected data. I then remembered how in our colloquium Lois focused less on step-by-step methods for a historical approach in her discussion of her research and Tolar Burton also stayed away from explicit discussion of procedural methods (even stating something about it might be boring for us to hear her methods). Although I imagine this trend for not detailing methods and methodologies is not unique to historiographers, I wonder why some are less inclined to provide such detailed accounts of data gathering and analysis. I wonder if we associate such descriptions as “boring” or too “science-like.” Maybe archival research feels too open-ended and exploratory to be defined methodologically. Maybe we just haven’t valued this practice as much until recently. Maybe historiographers assume we already know methods for historical approaches. Either way, I was interested to observe this trend, and I’m curious as to why researchers might be inclined to leave out discussions of their methods and methodologies and how we might work to address this issue.

CCR 601: Rhetoric Review and Rhetorical Analysis: Danisch, Eubanks, Ritter, and Elliot

2009-10-31T10:52:00.000-07:00

601 Notes

10/28/09

Rhetoric Review

Each of these articles are from RR, Vol. 27, No. 3, 2008

Features

Obviously the focus is rhetorical studies / rhetorical analysis
Short abstract of argument
Argument laid out up front and often restated
Review of lit is on rhetorical traditions/definitions usually provided
Sometimes organization of article laid out
Sometimes methods of analysis defined
Key passages from texts are used for analysis
Other scholars used as framework and evidence for analysis
Concludes with a call for new ways of analyzing the terms in question
Endnotes and works cited (MLA)
Topics in this issue (rhetorical analysis of…): rhetorical features in the rhetorics of law; rhetorical features in the rhetorics of globalization and government; student public discourse online meets classroom practices; Jewish laws and morals (midrash) as applied to democratic culture and literature when analyzing an author’s work

ROBERT DANISCH

“Aphorisms, Enthymemes, and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. on the First Amendment”

Investigates how Supreme court justice Holmes uses aphorisms for enthymematic reasoning
Some of his moves:

Introduction: outlines his argument, reviews some rhetorical traditions of analyzing law, defines aphorism and enthymeme, restates his thesis in most paragraphs
Application: provides key passages from these texts for the reader before analyzing them, analyzes Holmes calling on sources (Morson, Lerner, Menand, Posner) and in later sections argues how enthymemes and aphorisms are alike (in the ways that they persuasive through audience’s held assumptions and how they leave interpretations going).

PHILIP EUBANKS

“An Analysis of Corporate Rule in Globalization Discourse: Why We Need Rhetoric to Explain Conceptual Figures”

Investigates how metaphors (specifically the metaphor Corporations are Government) work to influence linguistic choices and the ideologies depended upon to interpret evidence. Applies conceptual metaphor theory to argue rhetoric works to create metaphors that cognitively reshape “political and ideological commitments” (237).
Some of his moves

Introduction: outlines his argument, defines key terms (conceptual metaphors) by drawing on Lakoff and Johnson and then providing examples, explicitly signals his argument (“I argue that…”),
Provides a method of analysis section (part of a larger case study, reviews his selection process) and overviews the organization of his argument (in 3 sections)
His analysis: provides historical context of globalization and his texts under analysis, points to common metaphorical phrases in these texts for analysis, provides key passages from these texts for the reader before analyzing them, cites sources as evidence for his analysis (Karliner, Hightower, Perkins, etc.)

KELLY RITTER

“E-Valuating Learning: Rate My Professors and Public Rhetorics of Pedagogy”

Placing rhetoric as public discourse and civic resistance, Ritter investigates how RMP works as a way for students to engage in public assessment of pedagogy, thus leading teachers to think in new ways about classroom instruction focusing on civic engagement and online communication.
Some of her moves

Historicizes student evaluation, provides a framework of rhetorical studies; defines terms (public discourse, rhetoric as resistance); Cites Berlin, Enos, Couture, Crowley, Giroux, among many others; organizes under major claims (we value evaluation, pedagogy and civic engagement is going public in online discussion forums, we should bring RPM discourse in the classroom); provides clear examples of the online text

NORBERT ELLIOT

“A Midrash for Louise Rosenblatt”

Analyzes Louise Rosenblatt’s Literature as Exploration to argue that literature works to shape democratic culture and citizenry.
Some of his moves

Provides context of Rosenblatt and argues that she’s hugely under-recognized in the field; likens Rosenblatt’s philosophies to the New Deal; defines “midrash,” contextualizing how rabbinic literature contributes to woman studies and lit theory; organizes analysis under the three steps for midrashing: parable (her bio), paraphrase (summary of her works), and prophecy (what she foresaw in the discipline); uses a dramatic monologue to illustrate liberated expression; ends with the words of Louise

(Rhetorical) Analysis

Collin’s answer: when performing RA, we are performing some kind of separation (opposite of synthesis). Break down layers or scales of a particular object. Differentiating the reality from what is perceived or looking at new scale to alter our perception of a particular event or text or phenomenon. For the purpose of noticing things that we hadn’t noticed before.
We start with a site or text or something we want to investigate
Framework of investigation that you take a closer look at a common thread
Subjective Purpose

CCR 691: Moss, Kirsch, Cushman (Ethnography)

2009-10-31T10:48:00.000-07:00

CCR 691 Notes

10/29/09

Moss, Beverly J. “Ethnography and Composition.” Methods and Methodology in Composition Research. Eds. Gesa Kirsch and Patricia A. Sullivan. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Seeks to answer two questions:

1. What do comp studies need to know about ethnography?

a. “ethnography in composition studies is generally topic oriented and concerned more narrowly with communicative behavior or the interrelationship between language and culture” (156).

2. What challenges arise when we investigate communities through which we are a part of?

Some principles of ethnography

· Often participant-observer

· Context is crucial

· Usually a hypothesis or focus and a conceptual framework, but new interests should arise and old questions should be revised (157).

· You must negotiate access and interact with community according to that community (158)

· Fieldwork: gather as much info/data as is available, such as interviews, recordings, artifacts, notes, questionnaires (159)

· Data analysis is designed to discover patterns or interesting observations (160)

· Writing the report is usually in a narrative, story-telling fashion (160-161)

· Insiders must work to make the familiar unfamiliar: interrogate assumptions, find interest in the mundane, be cautious about not ignoring or overlooking patterns or significant connections (164-167)

· Insiders must acknowledge the effects of their own roles and participation in the community (165). Work to reflect on ethnocentrism and bias (168).

· Insiders must be cautious about how to present the material so that they are fair, accurate, critical, and loyal, while not going overboard in the opposite direction either (169).

Kirsch, Gesa E. Ethical Dilemmas in Feminist Research: The Politics of Location, Interpretation, and Publication. New York: State University of New York Press.

· Basically, she’s discussing how in feminist research, our goals are to become very close to and collaborate with our participants, but this is problematic since our findings and interpretations may be offensive or disempowering to our subjects. She suggests that we enact in dialogic interactions with participants and allow them say in how data are interpreted and presented.

Cushman, Ellen. The Struggle and the Tools: Oral and Literate Strategies in an Inner City Community.

· It’s ethnographic, but she has a “activist methodology” (x), where she investigates literacy on a class and race level.

· Wants to look at both the politically-infused struggles individuals experience and the coping strategies/tools individuals call on (these individuals being inner-city residents, mostly women and children)

· Looks at “linguistic abilities and political insights” (xi) individuals have for negotiating “institutional language” (xii)

· Data gathered (tapes, artifacts, field notes) (xi)

ETHNOGRAPHY

Possibilities

· Not being held to “false consciousness.” Looking within our social worlds (TJ).

· Co-interpretation: process is fluid (Cushman and Eileen).

· Explore what is present (TJ).

· Empower your people; reciprocity; expose power (Justin)

· Strategic essentialism (Amber, Steve, Eileen, Melissa)

· Activism

Limitations

· Ethics: message you send out is not what you observe, cuz participants are not performing the truth that they claim (Justin).

· Co-interpretation: material limits, time, space, connection/understanding

· Representing negotiations in your text (Eileen)

· What are you giving back? (TJ)

· High stakes! Intervention vs. access (Eileen)

· Insiders: remember to make the unsurprising surprising (Eileen/Moss)

Ethical Dilemmas

· Views and positions of participants and their “claim” to inhabit (false consciousness) (TJ).

· Participants “hurt” by your study (when you interrogate institutions, for example)

· Co-interpretations: disagreement, what do you do?

· Theoretical framework: using a lens doesn’t allow the participant to define themselves (Justin)

· Framing your subject in the deficit: how do you push against it without romancing it? (Amber)

· Intervening: helps right then, but maybe not helping others in the future? (Melissa)

CCR 691: Heath (1999) Ways with Words

2009-10-27T20:48:00.000-07:00

Heath, Shirley Brice. Ways with Words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge: University Press, 1999.

Quick overview of Method:

· What and when: As described in her “Prologue,” Heath conducted ethnographic research during a time post-school-desegregation in the 1960s. Heath collaborated with numerous fellow teachers and graduate students on gathering and comparing recorded (field notes or audio tapes) and interpreted data of communication occurring in two populations during this time.

· Where: The sites she investigated were communities in the Piedmont Carolinas: one town consisting mostly of black farm families new to the working-class (Trackton) and one consisting mostly of long time working-class white folks (Roadville).

· How: Data consists of recorded communication occurring at school, at home, or at the textile mills, where most of the families from both towns work.

· Why: Based on their cross-cultural comparisons of communicative trends in Trackton and Roadville (both of children and teaching practices), the collaborating researchers worked to answer the following research question: “For each of these groups, what were the effects of the preschool home and community environment on the learning of those language structures and uses which were needed in classrooms and job settings” (4).

Some notes on Heath’s “strategies” for an ethnographic approach:

· 9 years! (1969-1978)

· Entered the community naturally, through acquaintances

· Acted as a participant-observer (did the work and knew and respected the town, the people, and the ways)

· Upfront with her focus: the physical boundaries, other communicative limitations, patterns of choice, and values associated within the socialization of language (5-6).

· Considers herself an anthropologist

· Acknowledges that her study is not a model for methods of other ethnographic research, admitting that it shouldn’t and likely won’t be replicated by other researchers (7-8).

· Defends her methodology by arguing that quantitative data approaches don’t account for social and cultural contexts (8).

· Acknowledges that participants “are the products of their history and current situation” and that her focus is on cultural, not racial, influences (10).

· Repeatedly refers to this account as a “narrative” or “story”

· Acknowledges that she affected the “social reality” of how classrooms were conducted at the time: “From ethnographer learning, or coming to ‘know,’ I have become ethnographer doing.”

· Acknowledges that these stories are incomplete (13)

· Conceals names of people and locations (13-14)

· Tries to capture the varying dialects as they naturally occur in speech (15)

Some questions/challenges/interesting topics:

1. I found great interest in Heath’s approach to being “responsible” to the community she researches, whether that be through the ways she entered the community, avoided generalized comparisons of race or socioeconomic status in her findings, used only equipment already accepted by the community (audio recorders), or sought to be respectful and considerate of her influence and presence at all times. Based on our conversations in class, I imagine others may have considered these acts of “responsibility” as answers to earlier calls for researchers to have the best interests for their participants when doing ethnography. Being “responsible” to our participants has been an unsettled issue for me all semester, though, since I suspect some of my research goals may not be perceived as well-intentioned (like when we wish to “infiltrate and assess” an institutional department, for example). I consider my aims to be aimed at positive action for some communities, but the actual community I seek to investigate may not see it that way. If our conclusions lead to arguments that our participants won’t be content with, I’m still unsure about how that complicates our responsibilities to our participants.

2. Heath acknowledges that “educators should not look here [in her book] for experiments, controlled conditions, and systematic score-keeping on the academic gains and losses of specific children. Nor should psycholinguisitics look here for data taped at periodic intervals under similar conditions over a predesignated period of time” (8-9). It’s hard not to respect her approach to using long term ethnographic participant-observation to make claims about how some individuals communicate. Still, having just read Chris Anson’s “The Intelligent Design of Writing Programs: Reliance on Belief or a Future of Evidence,” (where he argues that the discipline of college composition needs to perform research in the field that provides actual evidence, not just our own practical theories and story-telling) and based on our numerous conversations in 691 regarding our discipline’s call for evidence-driven research, I’m interested in thinking about how ethnography can be aligned with other methods to provide such results that Anson calls for. How might have Heath approached the study differently to accomplish this? How might we design a multi-method approach for our future ethnographic studies?

CCR 720: Haswell (2005): "NCTE/CCCC's Recent War on Scholarship"

2009-10-27T09:18:00.000-07:00

Haswell, Richard H. "NCTE/CCCC's Recent War on Scholarship." Written Communication 22.2 (April 2005): 198-223.

Informal summary:

Investigates the trend of replicable, aggregable, and data supported research within published literature of the field (on research papers, gain in writing courses, and peer review) sponsored by National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) and Conference on College Composition (CCCC). Results indicate that there has been a dramatic decline in published RAD research within NCTE and CCCC. Warns that we’re hurting the future of our discipline: “As when a body undermines its own immune system, when college composition as a whole treats the data-gathering, data-validating, and data-aggregating part of itself as alien, then the whole may be doomed” (219).

CCR 720: Anson (2008): "The Intelligent Design of Writing Programs"

2009-10-27T07:25:00.000-07:00

Anson, Chris M. "The Intelligent Design of Writing Programs: Reliance on Belief or a Future of Evidence." WPA: Writing Program Administration 32.1 (Fall 2008): 11-36.

Informal summary:

· Argues that the discipline of college composition needs to perform research in the field that provides actual evidence, not our own theory based on story-telling (lore, ethnography) of our experiences in the classroom. Get away from essay-driven articles and towards evidence-driven articles.

· Shows how one critic of composition classrooms (although not grounded in evidence either) has great power in damaging the discipline (in the sense of public opinion) (cites Nan Miller’s report, 2006).

· Likens our disciplinary dilemma to historical court case (State of Tennessee vs. John Scopes) where it was eventually overturned by the Surpreme Court (by way of technicality) that evolution theories be abolished in public schools over the Divine Creation of Man. Aruges, therefore, that we’re a discipline of intelligent design and not of evolution and

o “intelligent design theory is not ready for parallel treatment in the schools because it is based on belief, not on a preponderance of evidence. Current practice—in the teaching of science or the teaching of writing—needs to be supported not by hunches buy by the best that the research traditions of these tow disciplinary areas can provide us, with the understanding that their very existence depends on an openness to challenge and a spirit of continual inquiry” (20).

· Argues for six movements in our discipline

o Foundational research and synthesis (24)

o Replications and extensions (26)

o Graduate education (27)

o Connections with our publics (28)

o Increased scrutiny and critique (29)

o Improved research communities (31)

· Quotable quote:

o “My point is this: if we continue to rely on belief in our pedagogies and administrative decisions, whether theorized or not, whether argued from logic or anecdote, experience or conviction, we do not better to support a case for those decisions than what most detractors do to support cases against them. Instead, we need a more robust plan for building on the strong base of exiting research into our assumptions about how students best learn to write” (11-12).