My reading list is busting at the seams, especially this summer as I work on independent projects, multiple collaborative projects, plan my internship class, and prepare for comprehensive exams. When the summer started, I was trying to read one piece of scholarship per day. To be honest, this plan worked for a while. I got through Rhetorica in Motion and a ton of surveillance rhetorics scholarship before my dedicated reading time became less and less and my furniture restoring time and baseball watching time became more and more.
But, I did (finally) find the time to dig into, “Turning Archives into Data: Archival Rhetorics and Digital Literacy in the Composition Classroom,” by Courtney Rivard in the June issue of College Composition & Communication. I was excited to read Rivard’s piece because I was interested in the ways archival rhetorics might connect—however tangentially—to my own projects, which focus on ethical digital identity co-construction. Plus, I worked for some time as the graduate assistant archivist for the Milner Archives and Special Collections at the University of Montevallo, so I have experience—and an interest—in archival work. I appreciate the purpose of Rivard’s article, which demonstrates how converting stories generated from archival material into data helps student develop digital literacies essential to navigating and intervening in the algorithmic and data infrastructures that now shape our understanding of the world, and agree with her assertion that metadata creation and data visualization may at first seem out of place in the composition classroom (Rivard, 2019). There are a multitude of reasons why Rivard is right concerning the lack of metadata creation and data visualization in writing classrooms, including the lack of the literacies needed on the part of the instructor to teach and teach with these concepts and digital tools, as well as the potential for a lack of student interest which impedes the classroom as a space where knowledge is made. How do we overcome these hurdles? By doing what Rivard does with the students enrolled in her course: choose projects that are localized and serve the community in some way. While metadata creation and data visualization have not found their way into my writing classroom through work with archival data, I am going to challenge myself to think of ways to include this methodology in my pedagogy. I would extend the critique of the lack of metadata creation and data visualization in the composition classroom to include a call for more workshops, institutes, conference panels and roundtables which focus on these concepts and the digital literacies needed to incorporate them in the writing classroom. Of particular note is Rivard’s inclusion of the aspect of racial tagging in archival practices, and her overall feminist historiographical perspective aptly handles the nuances of this important topic. Since these tags shape the knowledge of the material itself, it is important to consider how a story is being told, and by whom (Rivard 2019). This was, of course, particularly important for Rivard and her students working with the Life Histories Collection. This is an overwhelmingly interesting, relevant, and well-written peice by Rivard, and a piece that got me thinking about how archival rhetorics play into my own work with digital genealogical databases. There is a whole other blog post there. Maybe I will get around to that in early August.
0 Comments
Here we go again. And again. And, well, again. As social media users move on from planning a Naruto run attack on Area 51 (perhaps training for a Naruto run is too difficult), users are now consumed by the FaceApp. Users download the app, which is currently #1 in the iOS AppStore, and take a selfie; the app then ages the face.
This is not a new technology; facial recognition technology has been able to apply aging features to an image for quite some time. What is concerning, for everyone, not just users of the app, is the confusing terms of service agreement and the fact that the user of the app can age pictures which are not their own. That’s right—you can be aged without your consent. This may sound funny, sure, but what does that mean for your digital DNA when someone creates that data without your consent. At Computers and Writing Conference this year, I sat on a panel with Lindsey Kim, a graduate students at the University of South Carolina, whose presentation focused on the structure of the language in user agreements as creating black boxes. It was a truly fascinating presentation. In the FaceApp user agreement, users retain the rights to their user content. What that means, though, for users, is not that they own the digital photo that they have taken—selfies used to predict future appearance—no, what users own are their actual faces. The way that I read this is very clear: the company has just told the user that the user will continue to own their face after using the app. How can a user, in this case a person, a human, not own their face? This is what Kim, and so many other scholars are talking about when they confront the confusing jargon comprising user agreements. I for one chose not to use the app, but my friend recently aged pictures of our friends, including me, without my consent. At first I was a bit upset because I knew what this data could be (would be) used for by who knows who. I didn’t know exactly what to do. It seemed like too minor of an offense to confront him, but what about future infractions of people manufacturing my digital DNA without my consent? People talk so often about digital footprints, a stoic and useful metaphor, for sure, for how we present our digital lives. This apt metaphor works because it is about individualism and uniqueness, but it does not account for imposters who do not concern themselves with the consent of fellow users or their fellow humans. Now is the time to reconsider the way we conceptualize consent in our user agreements. We would be smart to turn to Kim and other scholars as we reconsider what user agreements might look like in the future. While I have written about—and presented on—the ever-changing, often confounding relationship between Big Data and police tactics, the majority of my research has focused on a very specific technology: DNA-matching science. Of course, many of us will always look to the apprehension of Joseph James D’Angelo, aka the Golden State Killer, as a keystone moment in the expansion of police surveillance tactics, but there are other technologies being used for identification as well, particularly facial recognition technology.
I was scanning through some social media platform, maybe it was Facebook, maybe it was Twitter... oh who am I kidding? It was definitely Twitter. I came across an article from Vice News (hyperlinked here: https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/9kx7np/ice-has-been-mining-dmv-databases-using-facial-recognition-for-years?fbclid=IwAR2TWvVfo2hDqFIhdggDSRcFr3NVnFPhTeCcoiXOoPQUIZjpyMLW7rNG1wM) with the headline: “ICE Has Been Mining DMV Databases Using Facial Recognition for Years.” To be completely transparent, I am not a big supporter of Vice News, and often times find myself doubting the validity of their sources and the news that the outlet reports. However, I went with it; the headline was intriguing. My first thought—before even scrolling past the banner image—was, “Of course!” Of course, the DMV is providing data to ICE (and other government agencies). Before we proceed, a bit of caution. The disdain one might feel for the DMV, a government entity in the business of banality, should not impress upon the disgust you have for the human rights violations taking place at the southern US border. It is pretty clear what is going on here; it’s simple, really. ICE asks the DMV for information on immigrants and the DMV shares images and other data from their records. As we know and should always remember facial recognition is, as Vice calls it, an “unofficial surveillance infrastructure” without oversight. Even though, as the article points out, cities like San Francisco have banned this sort of technology due to privacy infringement, companies like Amazon continues to sale facial recognition software to police agencies—and don’t pay taxes on the profits they make! There is no comprehensive oversight for the use of this technology, and, as a result, this police tactic when seen as a rhetorical act. Due to this lack of oversight, as Vice points out, states like Utah and Washington, which offer identification cards for undocumented immigrants, now must turn over their data to ICE, which includes images. The improper use of facial recognition technology—and other surveillance technologies like genealogy databases—continues to be defined by our police agencies. This issue is a small portion within the larger field of surveillance culture and unethical police actions, but we need to shed light upon this issue now (and in the future) as the human rights crisis at the border persists. One way you might consider helping those in crisis at the border is donate your time or your money to RAICES: https://www.raicestexas.org/donate/ ARCHIVE FROM MY PREVIOUS WEBSITE
As the course presenter for this week, I feel as though it is important that I interact with the readings in this blog post. Therefore, I will discuss Cindy Selfe’s Toward New Media Texts, Barbara Monroe’s Crucible for Critical Literacy, and Stephanie Vie’s Digital Divide 2.0. I want to start with Vie’s work. This is the second text I have read by Vie, and I am coming to realize her work is important (necessary) to the foundation I am setting as a rhetoric and composition scholar interested in the intersection of pedagogy and technology. I really like her style, as I feel her scholarship is accessible for readers. As Vie works toward a definition of technological literacy, I really appreciate what she says about the role of the compositionist, “Compositionists should focus on incorporating into their pedagogy technologies that students are familiar with but do not think critically about: online social networking sites, podcasts, audio-mashups, blogs, and wikis” (10). Many of the assignments I include in my courses include digital components and, in my efforts to sustain a paperless classroom, I utilize technology whenever I can. However, not all my objects of production are new media texts. As I continue to grow as an instructor, I hope to develop a course where all the major assignments are new media texts. The next text I want to discuss in Barbara Monroe’s Crucible for Critical Literacy, wherein the author maintains that implementing technology in the form of digital communication makes for a more effective learning experience. Monroe details the correspondence between two schools, one which is primarily Latino/a and one which is primarily populated by indigenous Americans. The conversation concerning access in this piece is what struck me the most. When Monroe details how limited access to the technology, even homework, based on cultural differences, such as when Monroe describes the home as a place for family, not for work, for the Garland students, make me realize my privileged position when it comes to technological access. Moreover, it made me reflect on the kind of house my parents ran when I was growing up. I think my parents never came home to a family homebut came home to a place where they could keep working. There are pros and cons to this setting, as my parents had to work very hard to provide for me and my siblings, and I was well-provided for; also, I have a strong work ethic, something I credit for my successes, as limited as they might be. Cons, however, include me not feeling the strongest sense of community among my immediate family at times, among other things. This blog post kind of got away from me for a moment, but I think all these things are important. Like Vie, Cindy Selfe is emerging as a scholar I rely on a great deal. I have read a lot of her work at this point, and each piece seems to be important. The text we read for this week is great, as it presents ideas for activities which call for the composition of new media texts. I have read this text before, and even had my student at UAB read it before creating a multimodal composition. I really like this text and could see using it in classes at ISU such as ENG 145, ENG 145.13, ENG 249, and others. ARCHIVE FROM MY PREVIOUS WEBSITE
My blog post this week is the third of three blog posts which profile a journal within the field of rhetoric and composition. This week, I have decided to focus on the journal Hybrid Pedagogybecause it is a journal I have not viewed before. Based on the title, I think it will be a journal that I enjoy because I appreciate and am interested in hybridized methodologies (thinking about J. Blake Scott here), as well as how those methods inform our individual pedagogy, specifically my own a I develop as a scholar and an instructor. Hybrid Pedagogylabels itself as “an open-access journal of learning, teaching, and technology.” I think it is crucial to understand what this means as a scholar navigating the world of academic publishing clouded by the publish or perish mentality at work within academia. While this journal is not considered a tier-one journal, I think it is a wonderful resource for anyone working in the field of rhetoric and composition. On the website,Hybrid Pedagogy describes itself as “a community, a conversation, a collaboration, a school, and a journal. It is a place to discuss Critical Digital Pedagogy by advocating for students and fostering awareness of academic hierarchies.” I appreciate this description and also appreciate the editors of this journal placing themselves as colleagues, not superiors, to the writers who might publish in this journal. Upon further investigation, I found this quote interesting:“Hybrid Pedagogy was launched in 2011 by Jesse Stommel and Pete Rorabaugh and offers a new academic publishing model influenced by digital culture. As a scholarly journal, we encourage participation in the composition and peer review of articles across disciplinary and professional boundaries. We use what we call “collaborative peer review,” in which members of the editorial collective engage directly with authors to revise and develop articles, followed by post-publication peer review.” I think it is coolthat this journal is relatively new and is impacting the field in a positive manner. Included on the primary web page for the journal are links to recently published scholarship, which I think is great because it makes the website user-friendly. Ease of access is always appealing to this scholar. One will also the typical web-based journal tabs, including “About Us,” “Journal Articles,” and “Donate.” One tab, however, is unique: “Podcasts.” So, obviously I am going to explore that tab further. Under this tab, one will find information for The HybridPod podcast, which, “explores conversations of Critical Digital Pedagogy, listening for ways to empower students and champion learning.” The podcast is hosted by Chris Friend who is associated with Saint Leo University and episodes feature interviews “with creative pedagogues working in or out of academia, sharing insights and perspectives on how we can enhance learning and teaching in our lives.” There is an extended description, including the podcast’s mission, located on this page as well. I really enjoyed reviewing this journal and look forward to exploring it further soon. I think it is a critical journal in the field in which I have chosen to work. I also think this would be a good journal for me to seek publication in, in the future. ARCHIVE FROM MY PREVIOUS WEBSITE
In this week’s blog post, I highlight the three readings for Week 10 in ENG 467 at Illinois State University: “MOAR Digital Activism, Please” published in the interactive journal Kairosby Lauri Gooding, the Computers and Compositionarticle “#MyNYPD: Transforming Twitter into a Public Place for Protest” by Tracey J. Hayes, and Stephanie Vie’s “In Defense of ‘Slacktivism’: The Human Rights Campaign Facebook Logo as Digital Activism” published by First Monday. I found these articles extremely informative concerning my present scholarly pursuits. I want to focus on Hayes’ article first, as it if foundational to what I want to discuss in this blog post. One of the issues I have been having as I think through some of the assignment in this course is how to focus in on the activity as it takes place in the digital realm and to resist my inclination to transfer that activity into the physical action that takes place in the world. Hayes’ article allowed me to make a connection with provides a bit of clarity concerning how I see my work in this field unfolding throughout the remainder of the class and in the future. I connected Hayes to the article, “Location Matters: The Rhetoric of Place in Protest" by Danielle Endres and Samantha Senda-Cook. By having the methodology concerning place-based rhetoric in physical places, I feel comfortable thinking about the protests that take place in digital places and the associated methodologies for analysis. Another scholar I thought of this week is Ellen Cushman, and specifically, “The Public Intellectual, Service Learning, and Activist Research” published in College English in 1999. As we approach the twentieth anniversary of this article, I feel as though this article is as timely as ever, especially considering the current political climate in America, and, as an instructor, I continue to develop pedagogically with this text in mind. I think that I continue to develop as a scholar and a composition instructor, and even in my role as a Writing Program coordinator next year, it will benefit me a great deal to consider how we can get students to consider the implications of social activity on digital platforms in terms of activism. I did not strike me until I was preparing to write this blog post, but there was a bit of irony present in the articles assigned for this week and my personal social media usage. As I was reading through “MOAR Digital Activism, Please” by Gooding, I found myself struck by the quote, “We are in a position to shape understanding, perception, agency, and efficacy surrounding the use of public rhetoric, and we should not ignore the digital as a means to accomplish those goals.”I immediately Tweeted this quote. If the irony is not apparent, in Tweeting, I became an activist for the way Gooding sees the role of digital activism in our society. Of course, the implications of my moment of digital activism do not carry the same weight as those who were affected by the #MyNYPD movement, as well as those who protested in digital places for the right to equality in marriage, or the protesters who took to social media during the Standing Rock Nation/Dakota Access Pipeline standoff in the past. I continue to learn so much from the readings each week and am beginning to establish some authority in the way I see things within this field. Of course, this is not arrogance, only a young scholar developing some ethos. With these scholars, and more, including Cushman informing my decisions, I am excited to see how I continue to develop pedagogically. ARCHIVE FROM MY PREVIOUS WEBSITE
For my blog post this week, I have decided to interact with the readings which were scheduled for the course. The readings include include “Chapter 3: Remix: Afrofuturistic Roadmaps—Rememory Remixed for a Digital Age” from Digital Griots: African American Rhetoric in a Multimedia Ageby Adam Banks, the chapter devoted to Practice in Douglas Eyman’s book on Digital Rhetoric: Theory, Method, Practice, and a piece published by Dustin W. Edwards in Computers and Compositionentitled “Framing Remix Rhetorically: Toward a Typology of Transformative Work.” I begin my blog post by discussing Banks’ text. While I was reading Adam Banks’ text (a text Ii enjoyed so much earlier in the course that I purchased my own copy), I had a lightbulb moment when I realized that the remix—this future text which draws upon preexisting text or texts—might be perfect to teach in the unique writing program here at Illinois State University, one which draws heavily on the tedious, yet comprehensive, Cultural-Historical Activity Theory. When we look at the seven concepts which comprise this theoretical paradigm, I think that, as instructors, we could yield interesting and effective uptake through teaching the remix. What this means is dependent upon the instructor. (Edwards approaches the pedagogical usefulness of remix in his article. I want to note that because I think it is important to put these readings in concert with one another, and if more than one scholar is saying similar things, maybe we should listen.) I could see instructors finding success in creating an assignment where students create a text, analyze through a Cultural-Historical Activity Theory lens, and then remix the text, while noting how aspects of production, distribution, reception, etc. deviate from the original genre produced. I also see the benefits in using a preexisting text and allowing students to remix into a new text on their own. So often, students complain about a lack of creativity in introductory writing classes, to these would be interesting assignments which allow the students to participate successfully in the class, which is heavily influenced by genre studies, while triangulating student creativity, student learning, and the learning objectives outlined for the course by the writing program. I find it interesting to note as I transition to discussing Eyman’s chapter, that one of the case studies he focuses on as he develops his chapter on practice is the Kairos article from 2007, the one with twelve authors, one of whom is Joyce Walker. I think this is interesting, very interesting, and I have read that piece. One of the great things about this chapter is that Eyman, who is, already, someone I respect a great deal and look forward to hearing, and possibly interacting with at Computers and Writing, writes specifically about what he does when he designs a digital rhetoric class. This is early in the chapter on page 117, but it is something that I noted for future reference, as I am finding my voice as a scholar studying rhetoric and composition. I think one of the things I have been doing as Ii navigate the readings and concepts for this class, is I have been taking my criticism out of the digital realm and into the real world. After some expert advice and some follow up research, I feel as though I have a better grasp not only of the practices associated with digital rhetorical studies, but also how I can pursue my own interests in the field in a way that is beneficial to my academic career. Finally, I mentioned that I am finding my voice. Each day I have something new I am interested in researching, one day it is access to technology, the next it might be the impact of black comedians on digital spaces. While I still see myself grounded in technical communication and digital rhetoric, the possibilities of study continue to reveal themselves to me on an almost hourly basis, and the implications of what I might study become clearer each day. I truly believe in the idea that it takes a village, and every day I find myself reflecting on how lucky I am to have found my village, and the community of scholars and peers who are going to help raise and shape me into the Rockstar scholar that I want to become. ARCHIVE FROM MY PREVIOUS WEBSITE
My blog post this week is the second of three blog posts which profile a journal within the field of rhetoric and composition. My previous blog post of this nature featured The Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy, and this week a feature Computers and Composition: An International Journal. As I have mentioned in previous blog posts, my interests in composition studies research lie at the intersection of pedagogy and technology, so since Computers and Composition: An International Journalfocuses on the use of computers in writing programs, writing classes, and writing research, I feel as though understanding how this journal operates (i.e. the content of the articles they are publishing) will be beneficial to my success as a scholar working in the field of rhetoric and composition.This quarterly journal publishes articles in a variety of genres ranging from explorations of the ethical implications of using digital technology in the classroom to the discursive nature of digital interaction. High profile scholars in the field of rhetoric and composition such as Cynthia L. Selfe and Gail E. Hawisher have been associated with the journal, leading to, from what I gather, the journal, through its various reincarnations and name changes, remaining at or near the top of the field. By accessing the journal online, you will find tabs such as” Recent Articles,” “Most Downloaded Articles,” “Most Cited Articles,” and “Recent Open Access Articles.” One articles which stuck out to me under the “Recent Articles” tab is Uncovering Student Perceptions of a First- Year Online Writing Courseby Lisa M Litterio, which I might find useful since I a joining the ISU Writing Program as the ENG 145 Coordinator in the Fall of 2018. One of the goals for 145 in the next two years is to rewrite the curriculum, so it may be interesting to see how including an online component might play into that (I am excited about the possibility of adding a Service Learning component to the course.). Clicking on the “Most Downloaded Articles” tab will take you to some interesting articles, but one I found interesting is ‘Devilish Smartphones’ and the ‘Stone-Cold’ Internet: Implications of the Technology Addiction Trope in College Student Digital Literacy Narratives by Jenae Cohn. I find the premise of this articles interesting because I have taught the literacy narrative in ENG 101 before, and just this semester I began urging students to explore aspects of their digital literacy as well as print literacy. One of the articles found under the “Most Cited Articles” tab is FB in FYC: Facebook Use Among First-Year Composition Studentsby Ryan P. Shepherd. I plan on using this article as a resource for a conference presentation later this spring with the pre-colon title “Establishing Electronic Ethos.” The presentation focuses on how composition instructors can foster student awareness of the implications of their actions across a variety of social media platforms. I really love the content of this journal and I look forward to reading more of the articles published within the journal. ARCHIVE FROM MY PREVIOUS WEBSITE
For my blog post this week, I feature The Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy. I discovered this digital platform for scholarship after making a list of academic journals within the field of rhetoric and composition or related fields. I focus on this journal in this blog post due to the title; The Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogyincludes the intersection of one of my primary interests: technology and pedagogy. The way I am viewing my development as a rhetoric and composition scholar, a scholar interested n digital rhetoric, is that I am, “still figuring it out, still finding my place. Last week, I read Heidi McKee and James Porter’s book, The Ethics of Internet Research, which, admittedly, is a bit out of date, due to it being a decade old, and falls a bit short in expansive focus due to the narrowness of the argument. However, the text does set a foundation for considering the ethical implications of the internet research rhetoric and composition scholars are conducting. How does this relate to The Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy? On the site, which is found at the URL, https://jitp.commons.gc.cuny.edu/, there is a tab for Teaching Fails, which I really appreciate, not because I a teacher who fails all the time, but because I think this is a good way to build a community of scholars who are working together to become more effective instructors. Most of my fails come in my role as a student; one failure came last week while discussing McKee and Porter’s book, a failure which I hope to remedy in this blog post. The Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogystates the mission is “promoting open scholarly discourse around critical and creative uses of technology in teaching learning, and research,” which I appreciate because these are my interests within rhetoric and composition. This digital journal has tabs which direct you to aspects of the journal such as, “Issues,” “Assignments,” and “Reviews.” For the sake of time, I will focus on the most recent issue, Issue 12, which is a themed issue focusing on digital technologies in art history. While this issue is not devoted to rhetoric or composition, it does focus on the implementation of digital technology in pedagogy, which I find useful pertaining to my interests. The Assignment tab opens a new page within the site where instructors can explain assignments and projects they completed in their classes. The first assignment is from late 2017 and is titled, “Digital Humanities and the First-Year Experience: Teaching Reading, Writing, and Research with Digital Critical Editions. I think this assignment would be beneficial for an emerging rhetoric and composition scholar. After reviewing some of the other offerings under the “’Assignments” tab, it is apparent that not all these suggestions are for rhetoric and composition, but are aimed at the humanities, specifically digital humanities. Earlier I mentioned I failed when discussing McKee and Porter’s book The Ethics of Internet Research. During small groups in class, we were discussing the binary McKee and Porter establish concerning internet research as text-based or human-based, and I mentioned that if I was pressed to choose one of the two, I would choose text-based. After reflection and revisiting the text, my assertion there is wrong. Not only is internet research human-based, but I was not working to disrupt the established binary. While I am not going to submit this failure to The Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy(it wouldn’t be appropriate), I feel it can be cathartic if not reassuring to discuss failures as both an instructor and a student. Since this featured journal also values failures, and learning from failures, I decided to highlight one of my failures. I can see this journal that I rely on in the future, and perhaps one in which I seek publication as well. 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. |
Charles WoodsPhD student focusing on Rhetoric, Composition, and Technical Communication at Illinois State University. Archives
October 2019
Categories |