ARCHIVE FROM MY PREVIOUS WEBSITE
The English Studies curriculum at Illinois State University requires students in their graduate programs to take a series of graduate level seminars, each focusing on a different field within English studies, including literature, rhetoric and composition, linguistics, and pedagogy. I appreciate this approach due to the breadth of information and knowledge made and shared in these classes. Yet, limitations of this approach include students having to take one course a semester which does not directly relate to their field of study. This semester all three of my courses are within my field of interest, as I am enrolled in the rhetoric and composition seminar. As a result, this semester I am feel as though I can truly set the foundation for myself as a scholar working in the field. In her article “Methodologies and Methods for Research in Digital Rhetoric,” Crystal VanKooten explains the messiness associated with the development of ideologies and practices in an emerging field like digital rhetoric. This semester I have been able to identify myself as a student who wants to become a digital rhetoric scholar, so I really value the work VanKooten is doing. I specifically appreciate that she is frank concerning what Jeff Grabill, Rebecca J. Rickly, and others describe as the messiness associated with rhetorical practice in digital spaces. Of course, this acknowledged messiness concerning application of rhetorical theory in digital spaces translates directly to the invention of research practices as well. I also appreciate the interdisciplinary approach to the methodology VanKooten proposes; I see much of the work done in the humanities as interdisciplinary. How can you not see it that way? VanKooten notes in her conclusion that “These new methodological movements for digital rhetoric are located in somewhat unfamiliar spaces, spaces populated by colleagues from the learning and social sciences, from cinema studies and design, and from information science.” This is exciting to me and is one of the reasons I feel as though I am attracted to this area of study. In Digital Rhetoric: Theory, Method, Practice, Douglas Eyman presents a methodological approach to digital rhetoric research. As I make my way through the book (and the class), the more I come to appreciate what Eyman is doing, specifically concerning purpose and scope, in this text. Like VanKooten, Eyman synthesizes multiple approaches to define his methodology: “Taken together, these two positions—engaging context and expanding the scope of research methods to include the textual, the social, and the rhetorical situation—provide a platform for digital rhetoric research” (100). Of course, Eyman’s methodology is not without complications, a fact that the author notes near the end of his third chapter. Eyman acknowledges “the man factor (and the one from which he others derive) is access” (111). I agree with the emphasis Eyman places on this factor. While he focuses on issues of control (limited access) and ephemerality (instability), I would extend his argument to also explore the ecological and social factors impacting the digital rhetoric researcher in digital spaces. As I mentioned above, I really appreciate the English Studies model implemented at Illinois State University. As a result, I am establishing concrete connections between the rhetoric and composition classes I am taking this semester. The readings from this week, which also included the Introduction to Digital Writing Research by Danielle DeVoss and Heidi M. McKee and Cynthia L. Selfe’s and Gail E. Hawisher’s chapter from Writing Studies Research in Practice, correlate with the issues I have been exploring in Research Methods in Composition Studies with Bob Broad where Writing Studies Research in Practice is a required text. As I continue to envelop myself in this field of study, the questions concerning the ethical implications of this work abound. Yet, for me, each wave of uncertainty in this area of study requires me to answer complex questions and make meaningful decisions. For that, I am grateful. I leave you with my newest inquiry. Eyman and VanKooten describe the study of digital rhetoric as an emerging field. I wonder, then, about the implications of the constant evolution of digital technology on the establishment of foundational methodologies in digital rhetoric composition, digitial rhetoric scholarship, and digital rhetoric research.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Charles WoodsPhD student focusing on Rhetoric, Composition, and Technical Communication at Illinois State University. Archives
October 2019
Categories |