Short meme notes on the Mitcham review in TCQ:
M doesn't take rhetoric seriously
M ignores that "technology" in teckne rhetorike is a verb
M thinks that the neologism is a purely rhetorical move
Mitcham has the handbook tradition in mind when he says "rhetoric" or "communication"
Connection between handbook tradition and technology -- stamped and stored -- connection to Heidegger.
Other scholars such as Miller and sullivan try to get out of the technologizing [ie in the handbook tradition] of rhetoric by turning to phronesis but, the reviewer argues, we could turn to techne w/better results. Weaknesses of praxis: embedded in technological system and you can't get out. Techne: you can teach it as a heuristic process -- a verb -- of "identifying, questioning, perhaps even transcending boundaries".
Atwill : techne can "transgress boundaries" and "rectify transgressions"
Johnson: Techne focues on maker as origin and end use by the user.
Read: Technology as a form of consciousness [CR Miller].
Showing posts with label reading notes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reading notes. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Monday, February 05, 2007
reading notes
Notes on Selber[SS], Computers and Technical Communication.
The easy questions:
When was it published?
In 1997.
LINK: Selfe identifies 1997 as a critical year for something internet related [look this up!].
What group of scholars is the author addressing?
Teachers and administrators in the research discipline of tech comm The focus is on pedagogy : "the possibilities for tech comm in the academy".
What is the genre and what type of research is the author doing?
Critical anthology -- SS wants the book to be a "Burkean parlor".
LINK: SDF on virtual communities.
The hard questions:
What was going on in the field when the author wrote it – how does the book reflect the conversation that has been taking place in the field?
The most important thing to think about here is the fact that there were other "computers and" conversatiosn going on: Computers and language arts, computers and composition, computers and English studies.
What aspects of knowledge does the author focus on and why does the author focus on these aspects of knowledge?
SB focuses on "the full range of pedagogical and prgrammatic issues specifically facing tech comm teachers and program directors in the digital age".
What is the epistemological background?
A humanistic approach to tech comm (Miller).
What is the argument?
Weak: We need to take a critical, contextualized view of computers and tech comm.
What evidence does the author bring?
1) computer courses in tech comm programs are often skills based
2) Computer courses in tech comm integrate technologies in conservative ways, focusing on efficiency and speed.
3) Computing spaces in academic tech comm don't support the demands of industry
4) Few tech comm programs have systematic strategies for integrating computers.
What perspective does the author take?
Selber's "critical, contextualized view" of computers and technical communication.
What perspective is under-represented or missing?
Selber says he's not focusing on particular "artifacts of an industrial culture": IP, specific platforms, commands and that kind of stuff. This is how Selber winds up making sweeping generalizations about technology and culture -- cf his interpretation of GUI: It's good!
Chapter notes:
Selber, Hypertext spheres of influence. S argues that htext development and use is influenced by a range of pedagogical, institutional and industrial forces. This is precisely the kind of claim that gives Selber his honororary snooze button. I won't sleep with him at ATTW.
Johndan in Wild Technologies: I've read this article many times -- it's the one with primary and secondary instrumentalization. (Secondary inst. recuperates primary inst).
LINK: Secondary instrumentalization and heidegger's turn to art at the end of Essay Concerning Technology.
LINK: Like Selber, Johndan -- NOOOO, STOP, Johndan! -- seems to think that GUI is liberatory : experimental and nonhierarchical.
Wahlstrom's article: An ecological model of literacy, a liminal space where old stuff is fading out but new stuff isn't settled in, the ark of rammed earth as a "transcendent interface" (w/no silver gods), words becoming things (not just the 10 commandments but the tablets), the liminal digital space and a shift back to some of the old rules. Wahlstrom is enthusiastic about the virtual classroom -- contrast with SDF.
Burnett and Clark, "Shaping technologies: Electronic collaborative interaction". The main argument is that our communication is shaped by coll. technologies more than it shapes them. Tries to get beyond a tool metaphor.
Allen and Wikliff: New communication technologies challenge traditional assumptions about learning, work and writing.
NOTE: Why is it that the main theme of every chapter in this book is DUH?
Howard, "Designing computer classrooms for tech comm programs". Interesting: at the time of thsi book, most university labs supported desktop publishing but not interface design. In terms of our lab, I would say that it does support interface design but it is only used for desktop publishing, and that students use a desktop publishing metaphor to do their multimedia assignments.
Emphasis on what to buy, not on finding ways to hack and customize. These people (Computer people in English studies) are eating Plato's cookery off a digital menu.
(!) Interesting: Howard talks about the layout of a computer classroom. He touches on power circuits, air filtration, lighting and static. H comments that lots of people have already talked about the layout of a computer classroom, including the pod vs row arrangement. He has a special meaning for computer classroom: the students use the computers and the teacher can teach in it (not a technology-equipped traditional classroom or decentralized lab).
Words words words: our computer classrooms and labs at WSU appear to have been assembled by sleepwalkers. There should be a grad student design team for the computer lab.
I disagree with Howard: instead, I would give my 3060 students a shoestring budget and let them design the computer classroom as a community-based tech comm project (they have to write memos, proposals, etc). That way, they're forced to take a critical, contextualized approach because they're planning for how people will write with the technology rather than mindlessly writing with the technology.
Wearner and Kaufer: "Guiding tech comm programs through rapid change".
Ecker and Staples: "Collaborative conflict and the future: academic-industrial alliances and adaptations". Support "balanced and unresolved collaboration" with a hint of "get over your fear of industry". Still, ES are alligned with the traditionalprinciples of academic freedom associated with the Boyer report. However, they think tech comm should break away from the "disciplinary definitions of english departments" and be interdisciplinary and technology-related.
The easy questions:
When was it published?
In 1997.
LINK: Selfe identifies 1997 as a critical year for something internet related [look this up!].
What group of scholars is the author addressing?
Teachers and administrators in the research discipline of tech comm The focus is on pedagogy : "the possibilities for tech comm in the academy".
What is the genre and what type of research is the author doing?
Critical anthology -- SS wants the book to be a "Burkean parlor".
LINK: SDF on virtual communities.
The hard questions:
What was going on in the field when the author wrote it – how does the book reflect the conversation that has been taking place in the field?
The most important thing to think about here is the fact that there were other "computers and" conversatiosn going on: Computers and language arts, computers and composition, computers and English studies.
What aspects of knowledge does the author focus on and why does the author focus on these aspects of knowledge?
SB focuses on "the full range of pedagogical and prgrammatic issues specifically facing tech comm teachers and program directors in the digital age".
What is the epistemological background?
A humanistic approach to tech comm (Miller).
What is the argument?
Weak: We need to take a critical, contextualized view of computers and tech comm.
What evidence does the author bring?
1) computer courses in tech comm programs are often skills based
2) Computer courses in tech comm integrate technologies in conservative ways, focusing on efficiency and speed.
3) Computing spaces in academic tech comm don't support the demands of industry
4) Few tech comm programs have systematic strategies for integrating computers.
What perspective does the author take?
Selber's "critical, contextualized view" of computers and technical communication.
What perspective is under-represented or missing?
Selber says he's not focusing on particular "artifacts of an industrial culture": IP, specific platforms, commands and that kind of stuff. This is how Selber winds up making sweeping generalizations about technology and culture -- cf his interpretation of GUI: It's good!
Chapter notes:
Selber, Hypertext spheres of influence. S argues that htext development and use is influenced by a range of pedagogical, institutional and industrial forces. This is precisely the kind of claim that gives Selber his honororary snooze button. I won't sleep with him at ATTW.
Johndan in Wild Technologies: I've read this article many times -- it's the one with primary and secondary instrumentalization. (Secondary inst. recuperates primary inst).
LINK: Secondary instrumentalization and heidegger's turn to art at the end of Essay Concerning Technology.
LINK: Like Selber, Johndan -- NOOOO, STOP, Johndan! -- seems to think that GUI is liberatory : experimental and nonhierarchical.
Wahlstrom's article: An ecological model of literacy, a liminal space where old stuff is fading out but new stuff isn't settled in, the ark of rammed earth as a "transcendent interface" (w/no silver gods), words becoming things (not just the 10 commandments but the tablets), the liminal digital space and a shift back to some of the old rules. Wahlstrom is enthusiastic about the virtual classroom -- contrast with SDF.
Burnett and Clark, "Shaping technologies: Electronic collaborative interaction". The main argument is that our communication is shaped by coll. technologies more than it shapes them. Tries to get beyond a tool metaphor.
Allen and Wikliff: New communication technologies challenge traditional assumptions about learning, work and writing.
NOTE: Why is it that the main theme of every chapter in this book is DUH?
Howard, "Designing computer classrooms for tech comm programs". Interesting: at the time of thsi book, most university labs supported desktop publishing but not interface design. In terms of our lab, I would say that it does support interface design but it is only used for desktop publishing, and that students use a desktop publishing metaphor to do their multimedia assignments.
Emphasis on what to buy, not on finding ways to hack and customize. These people (Computer people in English studies) are eating Plato's cookery off a digital menu.
(!) Interesting: Howard talks about the layout of a computer classroom. He touches on power circuits, air filtration, lighting and static. H comments that lots of people have already talked about the layout of a computer classroom, including the pod vs row arrangement. He has a special meaning for computer classroom: the students use the computers and the teacher can teach in it (not a technology-equipped traditional classroom or decentralized lab).
Words words words: our computer classrooms and labs at WSU appear to have been assembled by sleepwalkers. There should be a grad student design team for the computer lab.
I disagree with Howard: instead, I would give my 3060 students a shoestring budget and let them design the computer classroom as a community-based tech comm project (they have to write memos, proposals, etc). That way, they're forced to take a critical, contextualized approach because they're planning for how people will write with the technology rather than mindlessly writing with the technology.
Wearner and Kaufer: "Guiding tech comm programs through rapid change".
Ecker and Staples: "Collaborative conflict and the future: academic-industrial alliances and adaptations". Support "balanced and unresolved collaboration" with a hint of "get over your fear of industry". Still, ES are alligned with the traditionalprinciples of academic freedom associated with the Boyer report. However, they think tech comm should break away from the "disciplinary definitions of english departments" and be interdisciplinary and technology-related.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
reading notes
Notes on Doheny-Farina [SDF], "The Wired Neighborhood".
Hilary's shorthand review: This book should be compressed into a zipped file.
Hilary's shorthand review: This book should be compressed into a zipped file.
Monday, January 29, 2007
reading notes
Notes on C. Barabas [CB], "Technical Writing in a Corporate Culture".
The easy questions:
When was it published?
1n 1990. It's part of a series called Writing research: Multidisciplinary Inquiries into the Nature of Writing. Marcia Farr, the series editor, thinks that the book is about “literacy”.
What group of scholars is the author addressing?
Anyone who is interested in the "burgeoning" field of research on writing. MF (ed) notes that a field is a "multidisciplinary entity" focused on a set of important questions about a central concern: in this case, literacy. A discipline shares "theoretical and methodological approaches which have a substantial tradition behind them":
"If research on writing evolves into a more unified discipline, rather than remaining a multifaceted field, much will be lost from the rich multiplicity of traditions which now contribute to it" (xvii).
So much for disciplinarity. However, Barabas notes that the work is intended for a more circumscribed "heterogenous" audience: tech writing researchers, teachers and practitioners (p. xl).
What is the genre and what type of research is the author doing? Qualitative mixed-methods research: survey, dbi, ta, context-based experimental studies. CB notes that her methods are different from most research in the field of composition because it:
1) Focuses on interrelationships of writers, texts & readers (not in isolation)
2) Content-based
3) Real-world
4) Uses indigenous criteria for effective writing
(!) We don't get to the actual research until part 3.
(!) Not lots of references to the field of tech comm.
(!) Due to corporate nondisclosure rules, CB has to "contrive" the examples for her book. She notes that this is why LatourandWoolgar and KnorCetina chose to focus on drafts of published, company-sanctioned works.
The tough questions:
What was going on in the field when the author wrote it – how does the book reflect the conversation that has been taking place in the field?
Research in comp. and literacy had started to ask questions about real-world writing and writing in context, but we still didn't know very much about it.
What aspects of knowledge does the author focus on and why does the author focus on these aspects of knowledge?
TWCC is an inquiry into "what it means to write well in a corporate setting", where criteria are unclear and ambiguous. She wants to compare this to "our most cherished assumptions about writing and good writing" to make us more aware of differences btw real-world and academic settings.
What is the epistemological background? Huh. The shift to the reality of writing as it functions in the world of context(ie not in archives). Bazerman and Paradis also make this point. CB claims that this research cycles back to the function of writing at its origin, "ten millenia ago".
What is the argument?
Here are the shortcomings of comp: the emphasis on structure over substance, content and functions. The requirments and standards of writing in corporate settings are different, and teaching students to be "good academic writers" may inadvertently make them "poor real-world writers". Academic criteria linger in real-world writing, causing problems for (college-educated) real-world writers.
These are some strong claims here. It's nice that CB suggests that tech comm can tell comp. something. I think a consequence of the heightened specialization that defines tech comm apart from comp/rhet is that tech comm can't tell comp/rhet anything anymore -- tech comm has to stick to its own territory. Tell Ruth: This is a good argument for having resistant tech comm grad students (ie me) read in comp for the QE.
CB also clames that much other real-world writing research is based on a priori academic assumptions.
What evidence does the author bring?
A history of the interest in real-world writing, some research on sci and tech writing and the study.
What perspective does the author take?
CB is interested in the dissonance between academic and real-world writing.
What perspective is under-represented or missing?
How useful is this disctinction between academic and real-world writing? Zappen notices that scientific and technical writing have a lot in common depending on context. Can the same thing be said for academic and real-world writing?
Side Notes:
(!) "In our teaching of research and writing, we have gone a long way out of our wayb by ignoring the connection between writing and communication" (p. 5) .
B offers critiques of the 3 models from business / tech writing. (!) "What other skill-related disciplines, I wonder, have developed theories of proficiency by studying the abberant behavior of students?" (46).
(!) Students trained in the cognitive process model tend to take their writers on a "vicarious, cognitive journey". When they grow up, their real-world reports are structured inductively with extraneous info.
(!) It's hard to create meaningful nonacademic contexts when students know they're in an academic context.
(!) Writing is a context -- CB notes that a firm's upper won't streamline proposal writing practices, because the all-night cram sessions are exhilirating. Note: The middle-and-lower-level employees are NOT exhiliarated.
Most corporations need, but do not have, communication policies.
(!) This book seems to follow the cognitive model. I know what CB thought that made her write it (ie the dissonance between comp and corporate writing), the background for her model and her critique of earlier model. She might lose me before I get to the results.
(!) CB laments that the art of CYA is not covered in textbooks. Metis?
Corporate writers in some R&D organizations write "idea papers" .
In the organization studied by CB, only poor writers call their progress reports stories. This conflicts with something I read in Anderson, Brockman and Miller about stories.
CB concludes that the following shapes writing intentions:
1) General conceptions about comm, tech comm and what goes in a tech report.
2) Concepts that distinguish data, result and conclusion.
3) Awareness of general company expectations and guidelines.
4) Awareness of immediate directors' and supervisors' expectations and guidelines.
Academic tech writing traditionally only touches on 1 and 2. CB calls for guidelines in industry, real-world and direct contact between tech comm pedagogy and industry and covering stuff not usually dealt with in textbooks. She does not go so far as to suggest ways that students can uncover the tacit, organization-specific guidelines -- i.e. guerilla research techniques for figuring out the expectations.
The easy questions:
When was it published?
1n 1990. It's part of a series called Writing research: Multidisciplinary Inquiries into the Nature of Writing. Marcia Farr, the series editor, thinks that the book is about “literacy”.
What group of scholars is the author addressing?
Anyone who is interested in the "burgeoning" field of research on writing. MF (ed) notes that a field is a "multidisciplinary entity" focused on a set of important questions about a central concern: in this case, literacy. A discipline shares "theoretical and methodological approaches which have a substantial tradition behind them":
"If research on writing evolves into a more unified discipline, rather than remaining a multifaceted field, much will be lost from the rich multiplicity of traditions which now contribute to it" (xvii).
So much for disciplinarity. However, Barabas notes that the work is intended for a more circumscribed "heterogenous" audience: tech writing researchers, teachers and practitioners (p. xl).
What is the genre and what type of research is the author doing? Qualitative mixed-methods research: survey, dbi, ta, context-based experimental studies. CB notes that her methods are different from most research in the field of composition because it:
1) Focuses on interrelationships of writers, texts & readers (not in isolation)
2) Content-based
3) Real-world
4) Uses indigenous criteria for effective writing
(!) We don't get to the actual research until part 3.
(!) Not lots of references to the field of tech comm.
(!) Due to corporate nondisclosure rules, CB has to "contrive" the examples for her book. She notes that this is why LatourandWoolgar and KnorCetina chose to focus on drafts of published, company-sanctioned works.
The tough questions:
What was going on in the field when the author wrote it – how does the book reflect the conversation that has been taking place in the field?
Research in comp. and literacy had started to ask questions about real-world writing and writing in context, but we still didn't know very much about it.
What aspects of knowledge does the author focus on and why does the author focus on these aspects of knowledge?
TWCC is an inquiry into "what it means to write well in a corporate setting", where criteria are unclear and ambiguous. She wants to compare this to "our most cherished assumptions about writing and good writing" to make us more aware of differences btw real-world and academic settings.
What is the epistemological background? Huh. The shift to the reality of writing as it functions in the world of context(ie not in archives). Bazerman and Paradis also make this point. CB claims that this research cycles back to the function of writing at its origin, "ten millenia ago".
What is the argument?
Here are the shortcomings of comp: the emphasis on structure over substance, content and functions. The requirments and standards of writing in corporate settings are different, and teaching students to be "good academic writers" may inadvertently make them "poor real-world writers". Academic criteria linger in real-world writing, causing problems for (college-educated) real-world writers.
These are some strong claims here. It's nice that CB suggests that tech comm can tell comp. something. I think a consequence of the heightened specialization that defines tech comm apart from comp/rhet is that tech comm can't tell comp/rhet anything anymore -- tech comm has to stick to its own territory. Tell Ruth: This is a good argument for having resistant tech comm grad students (ie me) read in comp for the QE.
CB also clames that much other real-world writing research is based on a priori academic assumptions.
What evidence does the author bring?
A history of the interest in real-world writing, some research on sci and tech writing and the study.
What perspective does the author take?
CB is interested in the dissonance between academic and real-world writing.
What perspective is under-represented or missing?
How useful is this disctinction between academic and real-world writing? Zappen notices that scientific and technical writing have a lot in common depending on context. Can the same thing be said for academic and real-world writing?
Side Notes:
(!) "In our teaching of research and writing, we have gone a long way out of our wayb by ignoring the connection between writing and communication" (p. 5) .
B offers critiques of the 3 models from business / tech writing. (!) "What other skill-related disciplines, I wonder, have developed theories of proficiency by studying the abberant behavior of students?" (46).
(!) Students trained in the cognitive process model tend to take their writers on a "vicarious, cognitive journey". When they grow up, their real-world reports are structured inductively with extraneous info.
(!) It's hard to create meaningful nonacademic contexts when students know they're in an academic context.
(!) Writing is a context -- CB notes that a firm's upper won't streamline proposal writing practices, because the all-night cram sessions are exhilirating. Note: The middle-and-lower-level employees are NOT exhiliarated.
Most corporations need, but do not have, communication policies.
(!) This book seems to follow the cognitive model. I know what CB thought that made her write it (ie the dissonance between comp and corporate writing), the background for her model and her critique of earlier model. She might lose me before I get to the results.
(!) CB laments that the art of CYA is not covered in textbooks. Metis?
Corporate writers in some R&D organizations write "idea papers" .
In the organization studied by CB, only poor writers call their progress reports stories. This conflicts with something I read in Anderson, Brockman and Miller about stories.
CB concludes that the following shapes writing intentions:
1) General conceptions about comm, tech comm and what goes in a tech report.
2) Concepts that distinguish data, result and conclusion.
3) Awareness of general company expectations and guidelines.
4) Awareness of immediate directors' and supervisors' expectations and guidelines.
Academic tech writing traditionally only touches on 1 and 2. CB calls for guidelines in industry, real-world and direct contact between tech comm pedagogy and industry and covering stuff not usually dealt with in textbooks. She does not go so far as to suggest ways that students can uncover the tacit, organization-specific guidelines -- i.e. guerilla research techniques for figuring out the expectations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)