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

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"

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*

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”:

1. 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.