Comp/Rhet

The Worrisome (dis)Advantage of Technology

2010-04-11T13:33:00.000-07:00

CCR 760
4/11/10

I find myself consistently concerned with access, specifically in terms of technology. I find that this is a fair concern given the implications of both Jones and Slattery’s articles. Both authors seem concerned with how technology has changed the “technical communicators” work. Both authors also agree the work has changed dramatically.

Jones looks at the role of collaboration in the work place and states, “I define collaboration as interaction by an author or authors with people, documents, and organizational rules in the process of creating documents” (450). Although I appreciate Jones’ definition, having worked in a “corporate” climate and in the non-profit sector it’s hard to imagine any other kind of writing. Yet, I understand the need for such clarification and it does help set up the relevance of his study. Despite the importance of collaboration I find myself most interested in the changing focus of workplace writers. Specifically, Jones claims, “In short, I found that the writing process had changed and that the writers focused less on producing text and more on developing, coordinating, and structuring the newly adopted corporate intranet” (456). I understand this to mean that the production of text itself is becoming less of a priority than developing a usable platform. This focus then will require a large degree of comfortability with technology itself. I see this need to echoed in Slattery.

According to Slattery he, “examines discussions of core competencies of technical communication while foregrounding the role of mediating artifacts, the myriad of (primarily electronic) texts and the tools used to manipulate them” (354). Additionally, he explains, “…the article describes how writers experience their trade through the various information technologies they use and reports their understanding of the role of technology in technical communication to identify the relationship between technological skill and higher-order competencies as these writers experienced them (354). Slattery finds that technological skill is imperative for higher-order competencies to develop. Again, what this implies is that a proficiency in the technology being used is required before more complex interactions can be achieved. Although Slattery concedes that there is not a need to literally know how to use every program there is a “intuitive” element to understanding new software. Slattery shares, “One participant in my study described being able to use an image editing program he had never seen before because, having used several others, he knew what it ought to be able to do. Figuring out how to do the task in that particular program was just a matter of locating the function within the program's menus” (357). In other words, having a working understanding of program conventions is useful when learning a new software. Although this may seem only logical it becomes problematic when considering the populations that are typically unable to access to technology (or limited access).

It leads me to two questions. First, do composition rhetoric teachers have an obligation to not only teach writing in traditional mediums but also in “new media?” Second, if we do teach in new media how do we ensure that students already comfortable using technology are not at an unfair advantage in our courses?

Web 2.0

2010-03-28T19:33:00.000-07:00

Disrupting the Machine: Web 2.0 Power to the People

While reading the texts for this week I could not help but to think about a conversation many of us had about Michel de Certeau’s The Practice of Everyday Life. The main question that was posed was about the possibility of “tactics” being enacted within structures (like the web) that are inevitably constrained. In other words, because the capabilities of any particular information platform are predetermined and only customizable within a particular set of parameters subversion is limited. However, it seems many of the articles were actually illustrating how web 2.0 makes it possible to use technology for purposes that it was not originally designed for. For instance in, Karl Stolley’s article, “Integrating Social Media in Existing Work Environments: The Case of Delicious,” he claims “The customization and integration of Delicious that I present here, then, can also be applied to other SMAs, which collectively provide a model of how technical communicators may ‘‘subvert’’ and ‘‘open up’’ a centralized system ‘‘and find ways to build in support for activities that it excludes’’ (Spinuzzi, 2003, p. 204)” (351). He continues to suggest a very specific way to use Delicious that will help technical communicators better understand the end user.

Because I am particularly interested in the issues of the “digital divide” and access I cannot help but to consider two important issues with this kind of “subversion” and/or social action. First, if social media applications are being used to rally support for social action then access to such technology is going to only increase in importance. Obviously, an additional concern is that access is not necessarily enough in and of itself because users need to also be comfortable with the utilizing the technology and/or know where to find it. Second, what is considered subverting? In other words, is Harfouh’s recount of using MyBO a type of subversion? Or is it a fully appropriate use of such technology? Certainly the fact that Chris Hughes, Director of Online Organizing, for the Obama campaign was also one of the founders of Facebook suggests that the use of the technology was in line with the goals, as well as the intentions of use, for the platform. I do not mean to suggest that Obama’s campaign was subversive I just wonder if it is in danger of being considered so because it used the web in ways that had not been done before. If the campaign efforts were considered subversive would that leave room for the stronger and more dominant communities that already have a large presence in technological fields work to silence more effectively small grassroots efforts?

CCR 760 week 8...really? Already....

2010-03-07T20:06:00.000-08:00

Tech Communicator as an Information Designer

I find that in many aspects of writing definitions are difficult to agree upon. When asked to describe what I do or what I teach I often find myself struggling to come up with a concise and appropriate description. Part of this complication is because what I do and/or teach is constantly evolving. This is particularly true if I’m trying to describe the role of “rhetoric” in what I do. So, when reading the texts for this week I realized that technical communicators probably always had a difficult time defining what they did and it has only become more complicated as communication technologies have changed.

Carliner provides early evidence of this when he states, “The Vienna-based International Institute of Information Design (1997) admits that information design ‘can be hard to define, because it is an interdisciplinary approach which combines skills in graphic design, writing and editing, illustration, and human factors. Information designers seek to combine skills in these fields to make complex information easier to understand’”(43). However, he doesn’t seem to accept the-it’s just too difficult to describe-approach and continues by adding, “Because design is focused on solving problems, a design theory must provide more than a series of guidelines about discrete characteristics of the solution; it must focus designers on identifying the problem and supplying a framework for identifying and considering the interrelated issues that must be addressed in a solution” (44).

Although Carliner goes on to describe a more detailed and structured framework and acknowledges both the benefits and the drawbacks to such an approach the difficulty of “definition” is echoed in Abers text.

Because I find most of the “definitions” reader/user-centered and the focus on purpose and context, I can’t help but to feel that writing (whether technical or otherwise) defies definition. As texts become more “visual” and readers become my diverse what and how we write will continue to change. This difficulty for definition is both ironic and liberating. I find this liberating because it allows us as teachers and researchers continue to be relevant and interested in what we do and how we do it.

CCR 760 Week 6

2010-02-21T10:14:00.000-08:00

Privileging the Multitasker

So, I’m reading through Datacloud and thinking about what the implications are for my teaching (as usual) and communication in general. Throughout this course I have been faced with concepts and theories that force me to conjure my previous workplace experience and put them into conversation with my current work as an academic. When Johsnon-Eilola is describing the workspace of Brent Faber in chapter (59-60) I am reminded of my husband’s office when he had his own sign business. He was responsible for nearly every aspect of his business (with occasional assistance from me). He worked directly with every customer from initial sign concept (including logo creation to substrate choice) to completion (installation of sign(s) on client premises). His work process was far from linear too. However, he also had to maintain a somewhat “structured” process. In other words, I wonder how far towards fragmentation is too far?

This question brings me back to the beginning of chapter 2 of Datacloud. Johnson-Eilola recounts noticing how students will vacillate between face-to- face classroom discussion and IM. In this chapter he seems to outline why this behavior should not be considered problematic and instead merely an example of the shift that has taken place in how “we” work. In other words, he suggests that because technology is now ubiquitous and we tend to have several access points to information we are always “multitasking.” Essentially our attention is shared with several concepts at a time. He then takes this example and considers some of the positive effects of being productive in a “fragmented” datacloud environment.

I understand how Johnson-Eiola gets to his point by providing material examples (workplace physical space layout) and interface/platform examples (software capabilities and technologies). And I am in favor of recognizing the non-linear conceptions that are at the core of his theories. I am however, still leery of the potentially negative results from too much “multitasking.” I think again of my husband’s job, he, at some point, has to work in a linear fashion in order to get his “main task” completed. I wonder then if there is a danger in privileging the non-linear work model too much. Are we allowing for attention spans to shrink so much that it will become counter-productive (even to symbolic-analytic work)? I believe there have been studies that call into question the lack of memory capabilities by young adults due to overstimulation. I don’t want to “fight” progress and in no way dismiss all the benefits we reap from technology. I just believe there needs to be a healthy amount of skepticism mixed in and we must remember those that such technology leaves out.

For instance, in Johnson-Eiola’s “Coda” (ch. 8) he reveals that “the digital divide” is still prevalent in our society. On page 156 he states findings from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (2004), “The data reveal that the digital divide—the disparities in access to telephones, personal computers (PCs), and the Internet across certain demographic groups—still exists and , in many cases, has widened significantly. The gap for computers and Internet access has generally grown larger by categories of education, income, and race.” Obviously then this statement brings up concerns of access and opportunity to be a part of the symbolic analytic culture that is being developed and/or evolved. Perhaps, as usual, after reading I am left with more questions than answers.

AT ANT and the relevance of the University

2010-02-07T17:25:00.000-08:00

AT ANT and the relevance of the University

For hopefully obvious reasons I could not stop thinking about my teaching practices and pedagogy while reading "Worlds Apart," by Patrick Dias, Aviva Freedman, Peter Medway, and Anthony Pare. My contemplation only deepened while revisiting Clay Spinuzzi's Network: Theorizing Knowledge Work in Telecommunications. I found it remarkably interesting to read these two pieces in tandem and through the lens of technical communication.

As what seems to be standard practice here at SU, I structure my classes around a theme of my own choice and then create writing tasks that allow me to teach students how to approach said task. However, while reading both pieces I couldn’t help but wonder if I would be more effective in the classroom by teaching genre theory, rhetoric, and composition studies. In other words, instead of developing a class around a theme that is not only interesting to me but also “hopefully” interesting to the students then providing opportunities for students to “practice” important rhetorical strategies, I am considering focusing on “writing” itself.

Although the authors of “Worlds Apart” focus on courses and workplaces that are not typically considered writing centered I felt it was very insightful. According to the authors, "As studies of nonacademic writing proliferate, it is possible to see the extent to which writers rely on situation-specific knowledge in the preparation of texts. This "local knowledge" (Geertz, 1983) concerns all aspects of the writing situation, from disciplinary and institutional regulations governing the form and substance of texts to relationships among writers and readers. Such a view of writing has been confirmed in the growing consideration of genre theory in theorizing about writing (Bazerman, 1988; Bazerman & ParadiS, 1991b;Berkenkotter & Huckin, 1995; Cope & Kalantzis, 1993; Freedman & Medway, 1994a, 1994b: Swales, 1990)" (qtd in “Worlds Apart”).

After reading the excerpt above I was reminded of how often we talk about genre in class but how rarely we focus on the importance of such knowledge. Spinuzzi echoes this concern with genre when he explains, "Genres—which can be glossed as typified rhetorical responses to recurring social situations (Miller, 1984)—do much of the enacting that holds a network together. They do this work not by virtue of being simply text types or forms but because they are tools-in-use. That is, in this analysis, I stress genre as a behavioral descriptor rather than as a formal one (cf. Spinuzzi, 2003b; Voloshinov, 1973)" (qtd in Network).

In fact both the theories Spinuzzi invokes (activity theory and actor-network theory) are greatly contingent on genre. Because “Worlds Apart,” articulates the importance of understanding how to negotiate writing tasks within the workplace and Spinuzzi illustrates the significance of genre for networks to be effective, it seems imperative that genre be central to writing instruction.

To be clear I do not posit composition as a “service industry” but rather as a discipline that is deeply concerned with making transparent what is often opaque.

A Dream of Access: Not the Tech Comm History I Was Expecting

2010-01-24T20:21:00.000-08:00

A Dream of Access: Not the Tech Comm History I Was Expecting

When I imagined the history of computer development I always pictured a multitude of governmental -war games-loving men in a white walled, dust free, fluorescent lighted, room conspiring to make the world's most "powerful" and dominating machine. I suppose that image was implanted from several films and growing up in a time that featured "powerful" and often mischievous computers.

Unlike my made up history I was pleasantly surprised to find that most computer developers hoped to use the technology for good. Both Wells and Licklider/Taylor wrote directly about the potential benefits to all humankind that computers or access to a central "bank" of information/knowledge could have. When detailing the possibilities created by open access to "knowledge" Wells states, "And its creation is a way to world peace that can be followed without any very grave risk of collision with the warring political forces and the vested institutional interests of today. Quietly and sanely this new encyclopedia, will not so much overcome these archaic discords, as deprive them, steadily but imperceptibly of their present reality" (88). Although I believe this statement to be naive the emphasis on open access and world peace is interesting. It also seems to be in stark contrast to the road tech comm eventually went down (the objective-unemotional-positivist approach).

In addition to Wells, Licklider's text also seems to focus on the positive possibilites afforded by technology. In other words, the attention was definitely on the benefits of new technology that could allow for direct interfacing,"modeling," and collaboration. The possibilty for collaboration is what appeared to be the most effective development in technology. Again ,I find this in contrast to the critiques we read for last weeks class. Although I understand that tech comm's desire for "objectivity" is primarily due to its attachement to science and the need to merely "transmit the facts," however, I imagined a somewhat maniacle figure behind the development of the inital technology. Licklider and Taylor's essay (perhaps idealistic) did make an interesting case for the important role of messaging software and the role of modeling. The authors state, "And through them, all the members of the supercommunity can communicate-with other people, with programs, with data, or with selected combinations of those resources. The message processors, being all alike, introduce an element of uniformity into an otherwise grossly nonuniform situation, for they facilitate both hardware and software compatibility among diverse and poorly compatible computers" (32). The opportunity to connect "communities" offered by technology actually points to a more harmonious existence than that without computers.

What was most striking about these two articles was the sense of "hope" offered by technological advances. I wonder if many of still feel this way or if we are more perplexed and feel more akin to Sullivan (from last week).

Notes for History, Rhetroic and Humanism

2010-01-18T11:13:00.000-08:00

CCR 760

Rutter, Russel. "History, Rhetroic and Humanism." Central Works in Technical Communication.

Rutter calls for more inclusion of imagination and liberal arts education in technical writing. He argues that technical writing has gotten too pragmatic and generally ignores the rhetorical nature of any communication. He opens with a powerful example from the the space shuttle Challenger disaster.

Quotable quotes:
It is intellectually simple, though astronomically dull, to regard writing merely as a matter of polish, but worse yet, it leads to a trap. Colleges and universities turn out graduates who discover by experience that recipes for writing that their college instructors once adopted in response to sudden demands for technical writing courses do not satisfy the needs of science and industry as they are now constituted. (28)

Technical communicators, because they depend on both "knowledge and practice," because they rely on learning as a guide to experience, and because they need to bring elogquence, empathy, and imagination to the world of work are--should be expected to be--rhetoricians. (29)

General comments:
As this is new terriory for me it's difficult to consider this essay critically. So far I buy it. I think all communication typically needs to be considered rhetorically. I also like how he points to the importance of theorry. He approaches theory in terms of its importance to the "applied" science in order to strengthen the argument for more attention to the liberal arts in science and technology education. I also like to see this in writing classes. In other words students need not only immulate models of how to write but also be introduced to theory of communication practices so that students can be the problem solvers. I see this analogous with the saying that goes something like "it's better to teach a man to fish than to give him a fish...."

CCR 691 Project Proposal

2009-11-19T11:11:00.000-08:00

Nicole C. Howell
Eileen Schell
October 12, 2009
CCR 691 Project Proposal Final Draft
Overview:
· Scope- In this project I intend to take a general survey of current work by and about Latinos in the field of Composition/rhetoric. I will begin with a brief general history and then transition to the current environment. Although I will begin with a broad survey of work I do intend on focusing on Chicana scholars and specifically their current representation in our field. Inevitably I would like this work to investigate why there is a large discrepancy between the number of Chicanas entering the Academy and those largely informing the field of Composition rhetoric.
· Parameters- I will focus my research by including only the most prevalent voices in Latino rhetoric, those that informed them, and those concerned with Latino rhetoric. I will also map the framing subjects of their research. In other words I will look at the fields most heralded theorists and then determine what and who they study (ex. classroom practices, communities, high theory, literature, published texts, cultural artifacts, etc).
· Key Questions-
o How have Latino/as (in general) been represented in the field of Composition/rhetoric?
o How has the research conducted so far represented Latino/a’s as a whole and/or to what cause?
o Where do Latino/a’s figure into the field of Composition/rhetoric?
o What kinds of issues/challenges arise from the several cultures represented by “Latino?”
o How are Chicanas (specifically) represented in the field?
Rationale:
· Importance- I find this work important for several reasons. First I am a Mexican-American female entering into the field and I do not “see” very many scholars that “look” like me. In other words, although “Hispanics” account for over 25% of the U.S. population the percentage of Hispanics that hold graduate degrees is much smaller. Second, because Composition is a required course at most universities our teachers are quite visible to the general student body. This point is particularly important as the university setting becomes more diverse and our teachers do not accurately “represent” that diversity. Third, because literacy narratives vary by culture and experience it is imperative to consider what kind of narratives are informing our field and if they remain exclusionary. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, this work has not been done before.
· Contribution- This research “of research” will help situate the current state of Latino scholars in the field of Composition rhetoric. As I compile information about the fractured state of Latino scholarship (fractured primarily because of the variation within the description of “Latino”) I hope to draw some conclusions about how to make our field inviting to the Chicana population. In other words, this work will help form a foundation for a call to action.
· Further plans- In addition to this project I intend at looking at the qualities of academic authorship and how it relates to the Chicana population. I see this initial mapping as a starting point for my authorship inquiry which will be explored for CCR 720. In addition, I will further situate and uncover the theories and scholars informing current Latino rhetors by creating a “genealogy” map of citations for CCR 601. Although I am only in my first year of the PhD program I anticipate this line of inquiry as one of my exam areas and therefore hope to gather as much information as possible.

Bibliography
Baca, Damian. Mestiz@ Scripts, Digital Migrations and the Territories of Writing. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. Print.
Cintron, Ralph. Angels’ Town: Chero Ways, Gang Life and Rhetorics of the Everyday. Boston: Beacon, 1997. Print.
Dicochea, Perlita R. “Chicana Critical Rhetoric: Recrafting La Causa in Chicana Movement Discourse,…” Frontiers 25.1 (2004): 77-92. Print.
Enoch, Jessica. “Survival Stories: Historiographic Approaches to Chicana Rhetorics of Sterilization Abuse.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 35.3 (2005): 1-30. Print.
_____.“’Para la Mujer’: Defining a Chicana Feminist Rhetoric at the Turn of the Century.” College English 67.1 ( 2004): 20-37. Print.
Flores, Lisa. “Creating Discursive Space Through A Rhetoric of Difference: Chicana Feminists Craft A Homeland.” Quaraterly Journal of Speech 82 (1996): 142-156. Print.
Galindo, Rene. “Voices of Identity in a Chicana Teacher’s Occupational Narratives of the Self.” The Urban Review 39.3 (2007): 251-280. Print.
Latino/a Discourses . Ed. Hall Kells, Michelle, Valerie Balester and Victor Villanueva. Portsmouth: Boyton/Cook, 2004. Print.
Lunsford, Andrea. “Toward a Mestiza Rhetoric: Gloria Anzaludua on Composition and Postcoloniality.” Journal of Advanced Composition 18.1 (1998): 1-27. Print
Orosco, Jose-Antonio. “Neighborhood Democracy and Chicana/o Cultural Citzenship in Armando Rendon’s Chicano Manifesto.” Ethics, Place & Environment 10.2 (121-139): Print.
Rivera, John-Michael. The Emergence of Mexican America: Recovering Stories of Mexican Peoplehood in U.S. Culture. New York: New York University Press, 2006. Print.
Teaching Writing with Latino/a Students. Ed. Kirklighter, Cristina, Diana Cardenas, and Susan Wolff Murphy. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2007. Print.
Torres, Edén E. Chicana Without Apology = Chicana Sin Vergüenza : The New Chicana Cultural Studies. New York : Routledge, 2003. Print.
Villanueva, Victor. Bootstraps: From an American Academic of Color. Urbana: NCTE, 1993. Print.
_____.“On the Rhetoric and Precedents of Racism. "College Composition and Communication 50.4 (1994): 645-661. Print.
_____.“’Memoria’ Is a Friend of Ours: On the Discourse of Color.’” College English 67.1 (2004): 9-19. Print.

Spinuzzi The Conclusion...or is it?

2009-11-19T09:02:00.000-08:00

Spinuzzi's conclusion to Network, is a strategic summary of his book. He not only returns to the keyterms and concepts iterated in his book but also provides evidence from his case studies to support his call to action. His call to action is what I find most relevant. In the last lines of his book he states, "Only by taking a strategic stance will we be able to identify objectives, set goals, take action, and retain the dynamism and flexibility necessary to cope with net work--whether we're workers, managers, researchers, or theorists. Others can bite ankles; let's concentrate on strengthening hands, making right and left equally dextrous, and teaching them the cunning they need for performing net work" (207). I am compelled to "sign-up" and consider how this will inform my work and my methods.

However, in light of yesterdays colloquium and the call from Margaret to consider the classroom I couldn't help myself from considering how ANT/AT could inform classroom practices. When I think of adopting or adapting ANT/AT I think about methods as they relate to teaching more so than research (although I see a great deal of overlap). How could I provide space for students to---as Spinuzzi states in regards to study participants--"consitute their work, what's a tool, and what is an action?" I feel there is something valuable to bringing students into the negotiation but how that can happen is something I'll have to continue to consider.

Spirtual Literacy Ch. 1

2009-11-05T10:10:00.001-08:00

Executive Summary:
In chapter 1 Tolar-Burton introduces John Wesley, outlines her argument and defines key terms.

Wesley is situated as a man who clearly understood the power of language and therefore encouraged "ordinary Methodist men and women" to become "readers, writers, and public speakers" (1). Tolar-Burton is primarily interested in the role of Methodist women primarily because their work has gone largely unstudied regardless of their importance to the development of Methodism. Although the introduction provides an overview for subsequent chapters, the majority of the chapter provides contextual information and analysis surrounding the early development of Methodism. In total Tolar-Burton uses eight sections to separate and identify relevant traditions of the time which informed, supported and complicated Wesley’s approach to religious practices.

Questions/Challenges:
Maybe it’s just me and my very “unreligious” background but I found myself enjoying Tolar-Burton’s prose and condemning the content. I very clearly appreciate the inclusion of “ordinary” people as promoted by Wesley and am thankful for literacy artifacts that were created by followers. However, in describing the typical rhetorical elements of the Church before Wesley Tolar-Burton states, “The printed sermons of famous preachers were used liberally by the lazier or less gifted Anglican clergy as a way to avoid the burden of having to write their own sermons week after week, year after year” (15). I’m struck by the description of Church clergy as being “lazy” or “less gifted” if they utilized sermons from “famous preachers.” Perhaps it’s my new found interest in “authorship” but I wonder if drawing from and delivering “famous” sermons would be nothing more than a literacy practice or a method for keeping consistency in the doctrine?

Epilogue

2009-10-22T08:41:00.000-07:00

Executive Summary-
In the epilogue Welch recounts several pivotal moments of social activism that took place at UVM and helped inform "The Crossroads" protest of 1985. She utilizes that particular protest to reflect on the activist history or UVM and propel it forward to the more current climate. She also counters the perspecitive of "oh my university has a tradition of conservatism...not like UVM," with the recounting of UVM's VERY conservative and elitest past. Her aim is provide examples of empowerement and student/faculty/citzen involvment when engagement is achieved.

Questions/Challenges (more like a personal response)-
I know we are charged with the task of reading for methods and methodology but I cannot help but to get swept away by Welch's social activism and call for more of it. I find myself reading for ways to incorporate this in my own classroom and how to remain motivated vs. apathetic about how much "voice" one person has. My students tend to believe there is "nothing" they can do about representations in media. They are willing to make amends with "the media" being like "the weather"...no one can control it. I am dismayed by this attitude when "the media" is made up people (albeit in the form of large corporations with very politically and economically driven gendas). Nonetheless, the throw-up-our-arms and deal with it approach is inadequate for burgeoning intellectuals (in my not-so-humble opinion). So I suppose my question/challenge today is how do I incorporate this in my class when I honestly know so little about it? I feel remiss to say...I haven't ever organized a protest...not even attended one...I haven't even ever submitted an "op ed" piece. My intentions and concerns are there, just not my actions. How then do I become a PROFESSor of such? I guess when I think of methods I'm thinking Welch may have approached this book through the lens of social action and rhetorical analysis and employed the very rhetorical canons that she uses to analyze social movements.

Ethnography Unbound- Introduction

2009-09-27T20:51:00.001-07:00

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?

CCR 601- Lois Agnew: Teaching Propriety

2009-09-16T14:21:00.000-07:00

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...

2009-09-16T07:04:00.000-07:00

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?

Researcher Profile CCR 691

2009-09-10T10:06:00.000-07:00

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.

Notes on Julien Hofman- CCR 720

2009-09-07T11:15:00.000-07:00

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

Getting used to all this

2009-09-04T11:43:00.000-07:00

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...