questions for 11/27

 

1)     In “The Embodied Rhetoric of Hallie Quinn Brown,” Susan Kates justifies her study by noting that historical accounts such as the one she provides may help educators “search for new ways to serve a multicultural society” and “help us to generate rhetorical curricula that will respond to the needs of an increasingly diverse student population” (61).  To what extent should historical research be justified by its applicability to present-day theory and practice?

2)     What are some possible benefits and pitfalls of foregrounding emotional attachment to historical research subjects?  Are these similar to or different from issues that might arise from foregrounding emotional attachment to research subjects who are still alive?

3)     In her interview about historical/archival research, Sue Carter Wood writes that the most interesting aspect of this type of research is “finding stories.”  Could this attention to “stories” be considered a feminist approach to historical research?

questions for 11/20

1) Blair and McKee’s article touches on the notion of reciprocity discussed in Cushman’s work last week, though the nature of that reciprocity seems different than what Cushman experienced in her study.  Who determines the nature of the reciprocal relationship between researcher and participant?  Is it something that is “decided” at all, or does it grow organically out of the research site?  How can ethical standards be maintained and assessed when there is so much variety from site to site, and from person to person?

2) Eyman’s interview with McKee and DeVoss illuminates many concerns for scholars of the Internet.  One of the most fascinating questions to me is that of “am I studying persons or texts?” – a question that Rich Rowlands answered to some extent recently when he said that the review board’s position is that MySpace profiles and such are texts, not people.  In what ways is this distinction between text and person problematic?

3) Wysocki’s discussion of multiliteracies and visual literacies on page 604 revisits the contested nature of the term “literacy.”  How can we conduct research about literacy when the term itself remains so contested?  Does the flexibility of the term help us or hinder us as scholars?

questions for 11/13

In response to the Ellen Cushman readings:

1) What kinds of ethical challenges are posed by the kind of research Cushman  advocates?  In addition to the kinds of ethical challenges related to participant/observer research that we’ve already discussed, I could imagine a review board becoming especially befuddled by the “reciprocity” Cushman encourages – writing letters of recommendation, providing occasional transportation, etc.  Furthermore, how can one even go so far as to anticipate what the nature of the reciprocal relationship might be?  Does one have an ethical obligation to notify the review board when those situations occur?

2) Cushman discusses several ways in which she and her research participants identified with one another, especially as related to similarities in social class and economic experiences.  While Cushman still had to work to earn trust and status in this community as an outsider to some extent, it seems that her similar experiences made it easier to avoid the “missionary” complex that can be a major pitfall of activist/service-learning research.  How can those who wish to conduct responsible activist research engage responsibly and sensitively with communities when they may not be able to identify with participants in the same ways that Cushman was able to in her study?  How do we bridge gaps in race, ethnicity, religion, economic status, gender, sexuality, and other points of identification/division, or do we?

3) In “The Rhetorician as an Agent of Social Change,”Cushman offers a rather lengthy footnote on page 8  that serves to ground her article in her personal experiences inside and outside of academia.  Cushman clearly sees research as an inherently political process – a process that can be used to facilitate systemic change.  But is she advocating reformatory change, or more of a radical re-envisioning?  She mentions adopting academic discourse to work within the system, but other aspects of her discussion seem to indicate a desire to move beyond the “system” and seek a radical new kind of intellectual existence.  Is Cushman advocating a radical political agenda?  A reformatory one?  All of the above?  Neither?

Abstract draft

Abstract Draft.  Please Help.

When Time declared “you” its 2006 “Person of the Year,” it was an official recognition by mainstream media of the continued impact of Internet technologies on our culture.  Specifically, the recognition of a collective, abstract, yet seemingly empowered “you” was a nod to a dramatic shift in Internet technologies – namely, the development and widespread popularity of sites revolving around user-created content. This new age of Internet technologies (often referred to as “Web 2.0”) emphasizes peer-to-peer sharing, open-source software, decentralization of authority, and nonhierarchical structures, thereby revolutionizing the way that people access information and communicate with one another. 

Additionally, while the use of the Internet to support political agendas is not a new practice, the recent development and widespread popularity of sites revolving around user-generated content has led to greater conceptualization of the Internet as a public sphere – a site of political and persuasive engagement by offering advantages that may not be available through other forms of media (Warnick, 2007). Proponents claim that this “new” Internet enacts democratic principles by bringing previously marginalized voices into the public arena, by encouraging active participation, and by fostering among citizens a shared responsibility in the knowledge-building and dissemination process.  But as the popularity of these social networking and information-sharing sites continues to grow, major corporations and political figures seek ways to capitalize on and control the public discourse within these highly networked spaces.

The popularity of sites such as MySpace, Facebook, Wikipedia, and YouTube, for example, has forced media giants and large corporations to dialogue with consumers in unprecedented ways, most recently resulting in the integration of high-profile, big-media sponsored political events into Web 2.0 formats. One of the most recent instances of mainstream cultural institutions trying to capitalize on the popularity of these internet technologies is the recent CNN-YouTube debate, which was held July 23, 2007. Eight presidential hopefuls from the Democratic Party took part in the debate, in which candidates fielded video questions submitted by YouTube users, in addition to more traditional questions posed by journalists.  More than 2.6 million viewers tuned in to the debate (Seelye, 2007), and, despite some initial reluctance, some Republican Party candidates have agreed to participate in their own CNN-YouTube debate on November 28, 2007. 

YouTube, in fact, was one of the key websites mentioned in Time’s 2006 “Person of the Year” article.  Founded in 2005, the popular video sharing site allows users to upload and view video content for free and has already demonstrated considerable cultural significance, as the Time recognition and aforementioned CNN-partnered debate would suggest. Of equal interest is the way the site has perhaps revolutionized the relationship between advertisers and consumers, as major networks continue to take advantage of the site’s widespread popularity by developing their own YouTube presences.  It’s clear, then, that we will continue to see more politically invested and corporate-sponsored Web events in the future as government agencies, major corporations, and political figures work to gain favor in the minds (and purses) of Internet users.

The cultural significance of sites like YouTube, then, cannot be understated; but what does this mean for higher education? What does this mean for rhetoric and composition studies?  To what extent has Web 2.0 remediated what counts as public argumentation and who is qualified to practice it?  What are the new modes of argumentation in digital spaces, and how should/can we bring those modes of argumentation into our pedagogical practices?  As formal sites of knowledge production, many institutions struggle to reconcile traditional academic values with the open-source spirit of knowledge-sharing that rests at the heart of the Web 2.0 ethos. Additionally, many fear that Web 2.0’s pervasive linking and tendency toward a “viral” spreading of content may have negative consequences for our intellectual future, since the vast interconnectedness of these technologies means that “misinformation never goes away” (Keen, 2007). As for the civic potential of social networking sites, to what extent do issues of access and literacy still exclude populations from this revitalized “public sphere”? 

These are legitimate concerns, and the above questions therefore form the basis of inquiry for this project.  Specifically, this project aims to provide a detailed review of research relevant to conceptualizations of the public sphere, participatory rhetoric, and digital media.  This literature review is designed to set the groundwork for a dissertation project by pointing out areas of similarity and contradiction in current conversations, as well as by illuminating gaps in research and possible areas of focus for the dissertation project.  I will use Barbara Warnick’s recently published Rhetoric Online: Persuasion and Politics on the World Wide Web as a starting point, as it engages the above discussion and also provides a useful works cited list.  I will draw relevant sources from both speech communication and composition studies traditions of rhetoric, and I will also engage sources from such fields as media studies and political science, as appropriate.