Sunday, September 27, 2009

Ethnography Unbound- Introduction

Summary by Nicole Howell
CCR 691

Executive summary: In the introduction to Ethnography Unbound Brown and Dobrin outline how ethnography has evolved away from traditional practice to critical practice. The authors clearly contend that all aspects of ethnography have changed since postmodern critique including, the concept of a field site, of the ethnographic Self, the relationship between ethnographer and participant, and desired outcomes of the inquiry (2). Additionally critical ethnography is defined as research that aims to account for the literate practices of others (4). Important ethical considerations have also been significantly informed by feminist methods in which ethnographers are asking questions such as "who does this study benefit?" Ethnographers have been charged with no longer looking at the communities being studied as objects and instead take on a peer-like partnership with the participants.

In the second half of the introduction Brown and Dobrin illustrate how the book takes up these changes in ethnography and briefly summarize the work included by each contributor.

Questions/challenges:
I feel as though I know and/or understand very little about ethnography. I believe it to be research that is localized and specific to small groups. Generally, I also understand ethnographies to consist of personal interviews or observations by a researcher that is close to the participants. I believe this introduction to be useful in two primary ways. First, it describes critical ethnography, definitions are always helpful. Second, it strongly emphasizes ethical practices and recognition of the relationship between ethnographer and participant...I like that. I think the purpose of such research is to inform social change this is what I look forward to learning more about. Anybody out there able to confirm or inform my understanding?

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

CCR 601- Lois Agnew: Teaching Propriety

Notes by Nicole for:

MLA formatted title:
Agnew, Lois. "Teaching Propriety: Unlocking the Mysteries of "Political Correctness"." CCC. 60.4 (2009): 746-763. Print.

Executive summary:
Agnew argues quite eloquently for the reevaluation/implementation of the intentions of “propriety and taste” in the composition classroom. She cautions however that this is not a return to the traditional perimeters of “taste and propriety” that are defined by the educated, white, male, British elite. Instead Agnew calls for the social negotiation of appropriate language use as informed by the rhetorical situation. Her call to action is prompted by students’ continued and consistent complaint of being stifled by “political correctness.” Agnew suggests that composition teachers consider how language is socially situated and promote a sympathetic approach to “public” discourse rather than treading down the treacherous road informed by notions such as, “everyone has the right to her own opinion.” Essentially she cautions that privileging the individual “right” to freedom of speech often comes at the expense of “wounding” other people. Although Agnew stops short of advocating the return of the terms “propriety and taste” she does call for a “new pedagogical construction of rhetorical appropriateness” (761).


Notable quotations:
“Ironically, however, our inability to find creative ways of teaching propriety has now encouraged many of our students to entrench themselves in a private realm of knowledge protected from the confusing demands of the external world” (747).

“Because taste makes individuals more sensitive to the world around them as well as more rhetorically able, Blair perceives the cultivation of taste as sharing in rhetoric’s ethical mission” (752).

“Through examining such questions through multiple perspectives that challenge their initial starting points, teachers and students can move from discussions focused on issues of private rights and opinions to an exploration of the social and historical factors that shape the construction of propriety in specific rhetorical situations” (760).

Key citations:
Blair, Hugh. Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres. 1783. Ed. Linda Perreira-Buckley and S. Michael
Halloran. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1965, 2005.
Crowley, Sharon. “The Bourgeois Subject and the Demise of Rhetorical Education.” Composition in the
University: Historical and Polemical Essays. Pittsburgh: U of Pittsburgh P, 1998. 30-45.

CCR 691 Ch 1- What Writing Does...

Notes from Nicole for:
Ch. 1 "Content Analysis: What Texts Talk About"
Author Thomas Huckin
University of Utah

Main claim(s) or research questions:
-Huckin defines content analysis and how it can be performed. He begins by detailing the background of content analysis noting that it has recently become “virtually” synonymous with discourse analysis. However, Huckin concedes that discourse analysis is more “sophisticated” and made up of a variety of approaches. Nonetheless, content analysis is still utilized as support for discourse analysis.

-Huckin provides examples of studies that utilize the quantitative and qualitative approaches separately, as well as, combined. These studies provide a “tangible” example of how important the research approach is to the results and purpose of the research.

-Huckin argues that Compositionists typically utilize both quantitative and qualitative data in their research.

-In closing Huckin addresses the criticism of performing content analysis and counters by providing the benefits of such analysis.

Methods and Methodology:
-Huckin provides 6 (recursive) steps for conducting content analysis research.

Keywords/ Phrases/ Concepts:
-Content analysis: identifying, quantifying, and analyzing of specific words, phrases, concepts, or other observable semantic data in a text or body of texts with the aim of uncovering some underlying thematic or rhetorical pattern running through these texts (14).

-Conceptual analysis: a concept is selected, coded, and counted for its presence in a text or corpus (set of texts) (14).

-Relational analysis: the process goes one step further (than conceptual analysis) by identifying a number of concepts and then examining the relationships among them (14).

-Quantitative approach: (“objective”) a textual analysis that utilizes the this approach would only take into account the words, phrases, or other linguistic tokens that belong to a predetermined list and thus can be tabulated reliably by a computer. In other words, this kind of research analysis DOES NOT include implicit meanings but rather looks at numbers of occurrences (15).

-Qualitative approach: (“impressionistic”) focuses on both explicit and implicit concepts in texts. This too requires gathering textual data but allows for implied meanings to be included (15).

*Methodological Procedure:
-Deductive: To start research with a proposition that will be confirmed or disconfirmed through the research (16).

-Inductive: No proposition is established at the onset and instead research is used for exploration and/or is flexible with the findings(16).

Key texts cited:
-Although several sources were used to illustrate key areas for Huckins, when outlining how to begin research he prevailed on Mary MacNealy’s Strategies for Empirical Research in Writing. Boston: Allyin & Bacon. (1999).

Questions/ Challenges:
-In the closing section in which Huckin defends content analysis his last “virtue” is, “Content analysis yields information no less valuable than that provided by other methods, and does so with greater objectivity” (28). He continues by citing Sari Thomas and suggests her argument, that making the bases for sampling and analytic choices public then makes that analysis “objective,” is viable. I, however, am not entirely convinced that “objective” is used responsibly here. Thomas argues (and presumably Huckin agrees) that all research requires analysis and thus is as vulnerable to subjectivity of the researcher. I also believe this to be true. So then I pose the question: do we, as researchers, deserve to claim a study as “objective?” Or rather should objectivity be privileged? Is it not better to recognize analysis is done with subjectivity and attend to that subjectivity as explicitly as possible?

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Researcher Profile CCR 691

Nicole Howell
CCR 691
Schell
September 9, 2009
I’m a Researcher?

I feel like I have written this before, yet I have not. Actually, my déjà vu can be attributed to the formulation of myself as a student/reader/writer/teacher (and now)/ researcher. At some point in each phase of my learning I have been asked to “reflect” on my practices in each of these areas. Each time the reflection inevitably starts with my feeling of displacement. For instance in September 2007 I was asked to consider how I learned to read and write I responded,

"How did I learn to read and write? I learned very early and apparently fairly easily. However, in my adult life I have been very conflicted with reading, writing and language. I say that because although I grew up in a Mexican-American family I do not speak Spanish. Both my parents are fluent speakers and in fact my father’s primary language as a child was Spanish. My parents made the decision not to teach us girls (there are 3 girls in my family) Spanish in order to “save” us from some discrimination in the Clovis School District. I think it worked. I didn’t feel particularly discriminated against and because my parents put such an emphasis on learning how to read and write I excelled in school very early. My sisters didn’t share the same experience that I did in elementary school. My parents were much poorer before I was born and both my sisters went to “Fresno” schools which apparently wasn’t as “good” as Clovis."

I continued on tracing the “important” moments in my learning, but focused primarily on my inability to fit in with the traditional Mexican-American or White-American community. I do not mean to imply there are only two categories, however, in my limited experience at the time they were the dominant categories. Growing up in Clovis, California, which was a predominately wealthy and white community, lead me to believe that White American values and beliefs were synonymous with “normal” American values and beliefs.

Fast forward to November 2008 (the application period) for PhD programs and in my letter of interest I found myself once again reflecting on my relationship with reading and writing. It was important I laid out the reasons for my interest in programs based on what I had already done and why I wanted to continue doing it. My letter to Syracuse University included the following excerpt,

"[L]anguage has played an important role in my life because of who I am and who I am not. I am a Mexican-American who does not speak Spanish and does speak impeccable English. I am a product of the public school system but mostly attended “magnet” programs. Both my parents are fully bilingual but neither practiced overtly Mexican traditions. I suppose because of this I often feel that I am staunchly outside of two very distinct cultures, Mexican-American and “just” American. This has fueled my fascination with language and has turned into an urgent desire to help reshape the university."

After outlining how I became a student of Composition/Rhetoric I detailed the kind of research that interests me and how I plan to continue my work.

"As a PhD student I aim to continue my research geared toward examining language use and how it shapes behaviors. I plan to focus on an awareness of how language determines values and specifically research the link between popular culture and cultural values. In addition, I believe the current trend toward Cultural/Critical pedagogies in Rhetoric and Writing is valuable but needs to be extended to include room for unique (non-classified) voices opposed to the determinate classifications that are currently in place. For instance for many years I felt defined by being a “Mexican-American-female” and was part of the “other” often studied, yet I did not always share the experiences being displayed. Because of this I have been able to connect with my students and recognize that “diversity” is not always diverse. In my current work I am calling into question the appropriateness of Rhetoric/Composition being categorized under the umbrella of English Studies. I have chosen to take on this task because how we define ourselves often sets limits. By continuing to place “Rhetoric/Composition” under English studies we are limited by students and teachers connotations with what is privileged in a traditional English setting, aesthetics, creativity, and high art values for example."

So now that I am charged with the task of profiling myself as a researcher I am again compelled to consider what research questions and projects have preoccupied me over time and why. By surveying the works quoted above, and a few others, I can see that I have been “preoccupied” with how language shapes behaviors. Of course, I start my inquiry by looking at how it shaped(s) me. However, I then extend that inquiry to include the students I teach. This is where my research gains exigency. Student performance, and how it is guided, nurtured and attended to, is my primary focus. Because I am from a diverse community and because I inhabit a station that is not traditionally part of “the Academy” I take up projects that look at students with similar circumstances.

For me research is deeply personal. I am not clear on what is professionally privileged in Composition/Rhetoric research methods and methodology. I am not sure if what I have done thus far or hope to do in the future is relevant to the whole field of Composition/Rhetoric. However, I am certain that it is an understudied area. I am also certain that many individuals who are now inside of large “institutions,” that were once off limits to them, are seriously interested in how they got there and even more importantly how to navigate through them. Yet, the questions I ask, and plan on continuing to ask, are ones intimately related to student success, the effect of connotations attached to the word/subject of “English,” race and how it relates to literacy, student lack of “meta-knowledge,” teacher accountability to student psychological disruption/trauma, and the misconception of “dual citizenship.” I recognize each of these categories could take an entire career to examine meaningfully but I believe they each deeply inform one another.

Each of my areas of inquiry have been prompted by my own reflection on how I came to be in the field of teaching and specifically Composition/Rhetoric. Although I am just now learning the methods and methodologies used to approach research, I believe I have a utilized a close case-study-like approach to my analysis of student work as well as my own participation in the academy. I am a bit conflicted by this method because of 2 major issues. First, case-studies feel a bit anecdotal to me especially after attending several colleges and getting a small survey of the major differences between institutional practices and student body. Second, because the research is quite “close to home,” I fear my interpretations are easily skewed (subconsciously of course) by my personal experience and expectations. In my ear I hear a warning that Victor Villaneuva put forth last spring during his visit to the California State University, Fresno. He suggested the danger in qualitative research and specifically ethnographic research in Composition/Rhetoric is that it never “fails.” In other words he suggested that the researcher inevitably “proves/illustrates,” what s/he “wanted to” in the first place. I found his words startling and only hope to properly heed his warning. Again, as a novice in the field I am/was not able to counter-argue nor was I prepared to respond at all.

Honestly it is with great anxiety I meet the challenge of drafting myself as a researcher. I have for most of my life considered myself a critic. I enjoy looking at what others have done and then draw my own conclusions about the subject and/or findings. I believe this to be a very “studently” way of approaching research and I am currently working through the process of becoming more “scholarly” in my approach. Essentially I aim to learn to take up the questions I have and be willing to apply the due diligence by effectively, ethically and responsibly enacting the kind of research necessary to contribute to our field.

Monday, September 7, 2009

Notes on Julien Hofman- CCR 720

Thankfully Hofman’s claim of a “plain language” guide to copyright is true! Chapter one outlines the major events that precede the copyright laws of today. As her opening paragraph states explicitly chapter one is a history of copyright and is primarily there to add context.

-“The debate about whether copyright existed before the printing press is not just about history” (1).

· One possible implication of copyright not existing before the printing press- it may not be necessary as electronic publishing replaces the traditional printing press. What I take this to mean is that if before we the printing press was created as a mechanism to widely distribute texts copyright was unnecessary so too it might be again once authors have more control in how and what gets published. She doesn’t address this or extend it in the first chapter but she states, “So the debate is really about whether copyright is a fundamental, inalienable right of an author or just a convenient way of managing a certain technology. We will return to this question in Chapter 12 when we discuss the future of copyright” (1).

-“And it was London that events led to the modern idea of copyright” (2).

· Before the printing press “stationers” published books by copying works by hand, illustrating, binding, and selling them. Stationers organized themselves into a guild in 1403.

· 1557- King Phillip and Queen Mary gave stationers a royal charter which created the Stationer’s Company. Stationers were required to register books with the Stationer’s Company and were not allowed to print anything that may be considered “offensive” to those in authority.

· Under the royal charter stationers did very well. In 1662 under Charles II Parliament passed and even tighter censorship act.

· Up to this point none of the legislation gave any rights to the authors!

· By end of 1600’s censorship was being widely questioned.

· Philosopher John Locke complained that stationers were abusing legislation and allowing poor quality copies to remain in circulation. “Whatever the exact reasons, Parliament allowed the Licensing Act to expire in 1679” (3). Sounds like it could have been do to the questioning of the censorship or the trouble being raised by Locke and/or both.

· From 1679-1710 publishing went unregulated in Britain. “Publishing flourished and the first professional journalists and independent newspapers appeared” (3).

- “In 1710 copyright legislation finally came into force in the form of what is known as the Statute of Anne” (emphasis mine 4).

· Statute of Anne gave exclusive rights to authors for 14 years…if they were still alive after the first term then they were extended another 14.

· Stationers no longer had a monopoly and authors were still required to register with the Stationer Company.

· S of A also required that copies be deposited in 9 libraries: 4 in England and 5 in Scotland.

· S of A drafters did not actually use the term “copyright.” First usage was in the House of Lords (1735).

· Often to make a profit it took upfront money for publication which individual authors did not have therefore authors were often forced to sell their copyright to publishers. Essentially, publishers were still making a large profit off the authors. Alexander Pope likens publishers as “pimps.”

· “The Statue of Anne did, however, put authors in a stronger position when it came to bargaining with publishers” (5).

· S of A only referred to literary works. However, in 1734 the Engravers Copyright Act was passed and it protected both “literary and artistic” works.

-“Codification of copyright law came only with the Copyright Act of 1911” (6).

-“In the United States the US Constitution gave Congress the power ‘to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writing and discoveries’” (6).

· 1790- Congress passed the first US copyright Act similar to S of A in that it required registration and was set for 14 year renewable terms. However it only protected works from US citizens and residents.

-“French copyright developed differently from British copyright” (7).

· French attached more value to the “creative contribution” of the author and distinguished between “propriety” rights and “moral” rights. Propriety were related to publishing and distribution while moral rights determined authorship and reputation.

-BERNE CONVENTION

· Up to this point copyright laws did not account for foreign publishing.

· 1878 Victor Hugo founded (ALAI) and international association for art and literary protection

· 1886- 10 countries met in Berne and signed the International Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.

-Patents have been around longer than copyright laws.

· “Patent and copyright have begun to overlap because some countries are using patent instead of copyright to protect computer software. We will compare those two forms of protection in Chapter 10 (Software Protection)” (9).

KEY POINT OF CONCLUSION:

“In the 21st century new technology is changing the way people publish work. These changes are as significant as those the printing press introduced in the 16th century” (10).

Friday, September 4, 2009

Getting used to all this

Well I guess I've now entered into the world of "blogging." My husband believes I will love it...he figures it's a lot like talking so I'll most likely be a natural. I hope he's right. Here goes...