due 1/17/13 by 11:00 a.m., posted to your own blog
The Assignment
In preparation for our discussion of what characterizes scientific and technical discourse, and how it gets publicly remediated, I’d like you to consider the definition of several key concepts. For this short assignment, please select only one of the following options.
Option 1: Deep Analysis of 1 Text in Public Genre
For this option, select one of the following texts for your deep analysis:
- “The Future of Reading” by Jonah Lehrer, The Frontal Cortex Science Blog (8 Sep 2010)
- “The Green Apple” by David Biello, Scientific American (16 Jun 2010)
- “Introduction” to Radio Revolution: The Coming Age of Unlicensed Wireless by Kevin Werbach, New America Foundation (15 Dec 2003) [click on pdf to open pages 1-4]
- “Living in a Landscape of Fear” by Cristina Eisenberg, Scientific American (13 Aug 2010)
Drawing on Bazerman and Grant-Davie, discuss the “rhetorical situation” of your chosen text and describe how it functions as an “intertext” (or could be justified as acting intertextual). Be sure to employ Bazerman’s and Grant-Davie’s terms where they apply, and provide clear examples of them in your chosen text. However, be sure that your discussion is guided by some kind of thesis statement (i.e., some statement that answers the “so what?” or “why does it matter?” or “why should I care?”). In other words, while I do want you show me your strength at rhetorical analysis, I also want to see how well you can synthesize the readings in order to discover something insightful or particular about how your chosen text works as discourse.
You probably won’t use all of the main concepts in Bazerman’s and Grant-Davie’s essays. Select the concepts that help you best demonstrate your text’s effectiveness for a particular audience or context, then provide as strong a justification for them as you can. Please write enough to demonstrate this well.
Option 2: Comparative Analysis of 2 Blog Posts
For this option, check out the following blogs:
- Jonah Lehrer’s “Ideas” http://www.jonahlehrer.com/ideas/ (a compilation of all his blog posts on various sites, including “Frontal Cortex,” Wired.com, and The New Yorker)
- David DiSalvo’s “The Daily Brain” http://www.daviddisalvo.org/the-daily-brain
Find any 2 posts (1 on each blog) that interest you, and be sure they are full-length, as opposed to abstracts or interviews. Pay attention to how each writer develops his ideas by drawing on experience and evidence, and by bumping into other people’s ideas, published articles, and scientific studies; also, note how they comment (or don’t comment) on the information in those articles or studies, and how they interact with other sources, their readers, and their histories.
Then, write a comparative analysis of the 2 blogs, based on the posts you have read. As part of your analysis, you should plan to discuss the “rhetorical situation” of each blog, and how the posts function as “intertexts.” Be sure to employ Bazerman’s and Grant-Davie’s terms where they apply, and provide clear examples of them in your chosen posts. However, be sure that your discussion is guided by some kind of comparative statement (i.e., some statement that answers the “so what?” or “why does it matter?” or “why should I care?”). In other words, while I do want you show me your strength at rhetorical analysis, I also want to see how well you can synthesize the readings in order to discover some insightful or particular difference between the 2 blogs. Please write enough to synthesize well.
Evaluation Criteria
The goal of this assignment is twofold: you want to demonstrate and justify your understanding of Grant-Davie and Bazerman; you also want to apply that understanding to your own coherent discussion of a new text. You may organize your analysis however you like, but please keep in mind the following criteria:
- Content/Argument – your analysis brings your chosen text into conversation with Grant-Davie’s and Bazerman’s principles (beyond merely using some of their key terms)
- Coherence – your analysis 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 analysis provides specific examples from your chosen texts to illustrate the points you make about constituents, exigence, intertext, etc.
- Clarity – your paragraphs are well focused, your sentences grammatically sound
- Blogging Guidelines – your analysis not only follows these, but uses them to your advantage
