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

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 720: Inge (2001) "Collaboration and Concepts of Authorship"

Inge, M. Thomas. "Collaboration and Concepts of Authorship." PMLA 116.3 (May 2001): 623-630.

Executive Summary:

Inge begins his argument by criticizing English and composition for holding on to narrow definitions of authorship—mainly the view that the author works alone and is considered what Stillinger calls a “solitary genius”—despite our recognition that all texts are constructed based on various influences of social and political interactions, including social interactions amongst multiple individuals during composition and revision processes. After providing numerous convincing examples of how prominent literary authors (like Milton, Fitzgerald, and Dreiser) have depended on various individuals (like friends, family, acquaintances, editors, and proofreaders, among others) for writing their famous works, Inge questions why we still deny the extensive social and authorial collaboration occurring during the writing of literary works. Inge posits that our habit of viewing texts as unique works of individual authors (instead of collaborative pieces) falsely substantiates an idealistic view of how literary texts are constructed. He stresses that holding on to this view also negatively promotes the common reaction to and criticism of collaboration as producing less original—and, therefore, less valuable—texts.

Quotable Quotes:

· “there should be a change in attitude about how we discuss our literature and culture so that we do not constantly downgrade authors according to the extent to which they compromise with the pragmatic and economic forces of time and place. We might reconsider the priority we give to what authors think is best for their works, since like parens thay are too often blind to the imperfections of their children. If we allow more for a social and contextual concept of authorship, perhaps we can provide a more realistic and less romantic view of literary production” (630).

· Texts “are the result of any number of discourses that take place among the writer, the political and social environments in which the writing occurs, the aesthetic and economic pressures that encourage the process, the psychological and emotional state of the writer, and the reader who is expected to receive or consume the end product when it reaches print. Even if not intended for an audience or the publishing marketplace, a piece of writing cannot escape the numerous influences that produce it. All discourse is socially constructed” (623).

Citable Sources:

· Stillinger, Jack. Multiple Authorship and the Myth of Solitary Genius. New York: Oxford UP, 1991.