due 1/31/13 by 11:00 a.m., posted to your own blog
The Assignment
As we conclude our discussion of this sphere, I'd like you to explore the notion of mis/use and mis/representation in scientific and technical discourse, since this is often a concern for texts or ideas that get publicly remediated. So, I will ask you to locate, from any source, a text that loosely falls in our scientific and technical sphere, that you think makes a good case study for possible misrepresentation, illegitimacy, or misuse. Then, write a critical and nuanced explanation of why you think that is, discussing how the misuse or misrepresentation could occur -- or, in some cases, did occur -- and considering the audience(s) or context(s) for it. You might explain the reasons why you think this text blurs boundaries between legitimate or illegimate, why it could have been believed in the first place, how it violates fair use or copyright, or the factors on which you think the bogus-ness was determined. So, rather than do an analysis like you did in SA #1, I’m asking you to build a theory, but to let your theory be guided by some analysis.
Sources of the (Questionable) Text
If you'd like, you may draw on already publicized discussions of questionable texts, like the controversy surrounding sci/tech blogger <Jonah Lehrer>, or the well-known <"Alan Sokal hoax."> So, you might use one of Lehrer's blogs that was questioned, or you might use Sokal's published text that turned out to be bogus. But I encourage you to explore and find your own text that blurs the boundaries between il/legitimate and un/viable. Feel free to look at the list of blogs and popular news sources on our <Course Resources> page, in databases, or in other venues. Be sure to embed a link and/or provide the citation for the text you have chosen.
Tools for Your Discussion
Obviously, at least 2 of the critical texts in this unit, especially Fahnestock/Secor, Killingsworth/Palmer, Grant-Davie, Rettberg, and Miller/Shepherd.
But also, please draw on the following "four-factor test" that resulted from the 1997 Conference on Fair Use (CONFU), and is discussed in Jeffrey Galin's chapter entitled <"The Fair Use Battle for Scholarly Works."> (We did not read Galin's chapter as a class, but it is a wonderful resource for anyone curious, and in it, Galin explains each factor with helpful examples. See pages 6-9 of the chapter.) While these four factors are really intended for people who want to borrow a copyright text fairly in the context of education, at least one of them will probably be useful in your discussion about how your text could have been misused or confused. For example:
- The confusion/misuse could be seen in the purpose and nature of how the text is used, whether it is an academic text used for a commercial venture, or whether it is a nonprofit text used for for-profit educational purposes.
- The confusion/misuse could be seen in the nature of the work, whether it is factual but passed off as creative, or vice versa.
- The confusion/misuse could be seen in the amount and substantiality of the text used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole (e.g., How much of the total text has been mis/appropriated into the text you are analyzing?).
- The confusion/misuse could be seen in the effect it has on the potential market for the text, i.e., does the mis/appropriation increase the economic value of sale-ability of the text?
Evaluation Criteria
You may organize your analysis however you like, but please keep in mind the following criteria:
- Content/Argument – your discussion uses analysis and brings your chosen text into conversation with at least 2 critical texts (beyond merely using some of their key terms)
- Coherence – your discussion is guided by a thesis statement that demonstrates the complexity of your argument and acts as a “thread” for your claims
- Depth – you write enough to demonstrate or synthesize well.
- Evidence and Justification – your discussion provides specific examples from your chosen texts to illustrate the points you make about fair use, mis/use, recontextualization, blogging, stases, or etc.
- Clarity – your paragraphs are well focused, your sentences grammatically sound
- Blogging Guidelines – your discussion not only follows these, but uses them to your advantage (please take some time to review them; it's likely you won't need to review all of them, but perhaps as a writer, you know you're weaker in one of them more than the others)
Have fun with it!
-Prof. Graban
