PREPARATION FOR 2/19 (BULLARD, OBAMA)

Hello, Everyone:

For Tuesday's discussion, please read (thoroughly) the genre samples by Bullard and Obama. I will give us some analysis questions to work with during class, but for now, I ask you to note the following as you read:

• places where you see conflict and perspective most clearly
• places where you think you are either included or excluded as a reader
• places where you are convinced (as a believing audience) or not convinced (as a skeptical audience)
• places where one or more "ideographs" could be unpacked.

Please also bring Style and WWC (as usual) and, because we did not get to discuss Kaufer and Jones last week, please bring those articles as well. We will use these four texts as our principal tools for unpacking "race" and "policy" in the genre samples.

Added questions for each group:

BULLARD
How does Bullard's lecture present other possibilities for response than just dis/agree? Based on how he uses historical evidence, on what stasis level is most of his argument conducted? What are one or two key terms whose definition you think he means to challenge?

OBAMA

He never explicitly defines "race" for us in this address, though he presents a number of anecdotes about how it plays out in the lives of American citizens. What role do those anecdotes play in conveyin how Obama thinks we should feel about "race"?
 

Looking forward to it,

-Prof. Graban

(TEACHING) LEVELS OF POLICY CONFLICT -- 2/14 WORKSHOP

Hello, Everyone. 

The situation: We are holding Thursday’s "(Teaching) Levels of Conflict" workshop on the blog, which gives you an opportunity to teach some of the concepts from this unit to a reader who is savvy about public discourse, but not necessarily in our class. Teach by explanation, illustration, example, situation, recontextualization, hyperlinking, etc. Write focusedly and clearly, but write specifically and accurately. Cite and reference where needed. Construct an audience who is not in this class, and don’t be afraid to present the complexities of the concept you are teaching. Also, don’t be afraid to take risks with your understanding of what makes the concepts complex.

Your task: I have included four questions, but you only have to respond to three. You will recognize some of these questions from our 2/12 discussion day. Feel free to answer them again and to build on (revise, lengthen, edit) your response from 2/12.

Your post: Please create a new post on your own blog, and include your three responses there. Please give your post coherence (so that it doesn’t look like a list of answers to three questions) by discovering a theme between your responses, or by connecting them in an artful way. Please post by Thursday (2/14) 12:15 p.m.

Question One (conflict and policy)


Briefly recount a specific disagreement or misunderstanding you have had with someone and analyze it on one of Kaufer’s “5 levels” (pp. 58-59). You’ll want to explain the conflict and then determine whether the source of the conflict was level 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. Please don’t just make something up—the point of this assignment is to reach into your own experience and try to account for it on Kaufer’s terms as accurately as you can. For this to make sense to your audience, you will need to be clear and detailed with your explanation of what happened during the disagreement or conversation. Unpack any terms that carry assumptions, no matter how small they seem or no matter how much you are sure we would share them. Also, remember the difference between "Level 5 Conflict" and "Some Associated Issues" (Kaufer 58, 63). The issue is the topic or the particular example in which the conflict resides, while the conflict itself is the opposing pair of ideologies that clash in order to make the issue.

Question Two (authenticity) 

From our <"Course Resources,"> locate a brief op-ed in one of the "Blogs and Online Journals of Opinion," or -- if you prefer -- select one of the op-ed pieces from our Texts for Editing folder on Blackboard. (Select one that is explicitly biased.) Quickly skim it and decide whether it qualifies as a “simulation” of an argument or whether it qualifies as a real “ethical deliberation” (Jones 158). Justify your choice in Jones’s terms. Also, justify your choice in Kaufer's claim about weight of policy conflicts versus scale of conflict (61).

Question Three (logic and ethical style)
 

Read through that same op-ed sample until you find a key statement that you think is pretty close to what Williams and Colomb might call an "ethical violation of style" (e.g., obscurity, misdirection, subversive clarity, opacity) (Style lesson 10) or what Jones might call a violation of “The Usage Rule” (177). Discuss what makes it so. As part of your discussion, be sure to help us know the context in which that statement was made and the argument it was being used to support. Feel free to draw on Style lesson 10, Style pages 23-26 (“Absent Characters”) and 43 (“Avoiding Distractions”), WWC 138-142 (“Clarity and Conciseness”), or WWC on punctuation (end of Chapter 8). 

Question Four (language and ideology)
 

Is there anything in the op-ed that acts like a "value" term or an "ideograph"? The concept of "Ideograph" was popularly coined for rhetoric by Michael Calvin McGee, although the word in its general definition has existed for some time. McGee's "ideograph" is a word that uses abstractions in order to develop support for a political position (e.g., "freedom," "liberty," "justice," "pursuit of happiness," etc.). Not just any term can be an ideograph, but if -- in the context of discourse -- the word carries ideological assumptions and inspires familiar associations among an audience, it is likely functioning this way.

Do well, but have fun with this!

-Prof. Graban

PREPARATION FOR 2/12 (KAUFER AND JONES)

Hello, Everyone:

We will most likely spend the first few minutes of Tuesday's class blogging in groups to prepare for our discussion of David Kaufer's "A Plan for Teaching the Development of Original Policy Arguments" and Rebecca Jones's "Finding the Good Argument." Here are some questions to help you read (they are long-winded, but not difficult):

1. Jones distinguishes between "simulations" of arguments and real "ethical deliberations" (158). What makes something a simulation vs. an authentic ethical deliberation? Search her entire chapter to see if you can generate a list of qualities, characteristics, principles, or criteria that you think fall under each side of the distinction. For example, based on her dissatisfaction with multi-panel talk shows, we can guess that one of the properties of "simulated" arguments is that the various people who participate are only responding to each other in order to rebut other positions or defend their own (159). Generate as full a list as you can.
2. From our <"Course Resources,"> locate a brief op-ed in one of the "Blogs and Online Journals of Opinion," or -- if you prefer -- select one of the op-ed pieces from our Texts for Editing folder on Blackboard. (Select one that is explicitly biased.) Quickly skim it and decide whether it operates based on inductive or deductive reasoning (Jones 164-165).
3. Notice the difference between "Level 5 Conflict" and "Some Associated Issues" (Kaufer 58, 63). The issue is the topic or the particular example in which the conflict resides, while the conflict itself is the opposing pair of ideologies that clash in order to make the issue. Can you locate the conflict (the opposing pair) in the op-ed piece you selected?
4. Is there anything in the op-ed that acts like a "value" term or an "ideograph"? The concept of "Ideograph" was popularly coined for rhetoric by Michael Calvin McGee, although the word in its general definition has existed for some time. McGee's "ideograph" is a word that uses abstractions in order to develop support for a political position (e.g., "freedom," "liberty," "justice," "pursuit of happiness," etc.). Not just any term can be an ideograph, but if -- in the context of discourse -- the word carries ideological assumptions and inspires familiar associations among an audience, it is likely functioning this way.
5. For analyzing and improving some arguments, Jones suggests a "middle ground" activity (160). However, some issues may lend themselves better to a middle ground than others. Isolate the issue that is at the heart of the op-ed you selected, and see if you can perform Jones' middle-ground activity on that issue. Is it a particularly polarizing issue, or not that big of a deal? What are the difficulties of finding a middle ground, or, what makes it easy to find a middle ground?
6. Apply the Toulmin method (Jones 169, 171) to the argument in the op-ed you selected. Does analyzing the argument this way allow you to notice any complexities in audience construction (i.e., how the text was written to make an audience feel they are being addressed as a kind of specific person or group)? Does analyzing the argument in this way allow you to notice any disruption of coherence or cohesion? Feel free to visualize the argument if you find that easiest.
7. Which one of Kaufer's "levels" of policy conflict (58-59) shows a violation of the Unexpressed Premise Rule (Jones 174), or the Starting Point Rule (Jones 175)?
8. Of the ten rules Jones summarizes, it is highly likely that Williams/Colomb would be interested in The Usage Rule (Jones 177), which may be one reason why their longest chapter in Style has to do with ethical violations of clarity. Can you quickly skim their chapter on "Ethics of Style" and find a statement or passage in their discussion that reflects what Jones has to say about The Usage Rule? Can you find connections between The Usage Rule and Williams/Colomb's sections on "Avoiding Distractions"(43)  and "Absent Characters" (23-36)?
9. Jones claims that -- in the history of rhetorical argumentation -- there is a distinction to be made between being logical and being truthful (163). How does this resonate with or differ from Kaufer's claim about weight of policy conflicts versus scale of conflict (61)?
10. (Added question) Visit  <http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/> and select any campaign ad from any year, OR visit <http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/election/> and read about various ways that digital tools can re/present electoral results. Each of these visualizations makes an argument about re/presentation. I invite you to draw on any aspect of today's readings in order to explain how the argument works.

Looking forward to our discussion,

--Prof. Graban

EXTRA-CREDIT OPPORTUNITY

Hello, Everyone:

I'd like to announce an extra-credit opportunity for those of you who desire to pick up an extra blog post (10 points), but really, I'm creating the opportunity because I think you will truly benefit from and enjoy some of our upcoming local PD events. I will offer extra credit for a well-rendered blog post that -- obviously -- meets our blogging guidelines, demonstrates a real exigence, and ties one of the following events to what you are learning in the course so far:

1. "Composition and Copyright," Professor Dánielle Nicole DeVoss's public presentation 
2. "Creative Labor" Colloquium (it is an all-day colloquium, but they will publish a schedule of presentations, and I just ask you to attend one of them)
3. Silent Spring 50th Anniversary Symposium (it is an all-day symposium, but they will publish a series of events, and I just ask you to attend one event).

I also genuinely hope you will find something of interest in one of these sessions -- something to inspire you, to give you a vision for your present (or future), and help you think concretely about some of the implications of what we are doing in this course.

Please complete the post within 1 week of the event you attend, and send me an e-mail signaling that you have done so. (This way, I won't miss the post.) I will be attending some of these, and look forward to seeing some of you there!

-Prof. Graban



 

PREPARATION FOR 2/5

Hello, Everyone:

Do well and prosper as you draft your sci/tech blog posts this weekend! Getting your questions articulated and answered is an important part of the process of writing this assignment, so I appreciate how many of you offered up your questions to the class before, during, and after today's workshop. Your classmates appreciate you, too.

As a reminder, we'll conduct a workshop on "Rhetorical Moves and Rich Features" during Tuesday's class, focusing on language and style, and working mainly out of Style and When Words Collide. Posted pages (or sections) in Style and WWC can be found <here>. Please be sure you bring the books to class.

Looking forward to it,

-Prof. Graban

PREPARATION FOR 1/31

Hello, Everyone:

There is no new reading for Thursday, but I will ask you to reread Wald's "Is Ethanol for the Long Haul?" (in BB "Genre Samples") and refresh your memory of our <in-class analysis> on 1/24, so that we can revisit each group's conclusions in preparation for our sci/tech blog workshop. Before the workshop, we'll also spend a little bit of time looking specifically at the genre of white paper, because I think it will make a good case on which to focus your questions about the assignment. Remember: You are well qualified and well positioned to write this sci/tech blog, so bring as much as you can to Thursday's class--i.e., ideas, drafted paragraphs, questions, your 2 additional research sources, a redesigned blog template, a narrative "arc" or theme, and any or all of the above!

See you soon,

-Prof. Graban

PREPARATION FOR 1/29 (RETTBERG AND MILLER/SHEPHERD)

Hello, Everyone:

We will spend the first part of Tuesday's (1/29) class discussing the results of your group analysis of genres from Thursday, before discussing what Rettberg and Miller/Shepherd argue about blogs as genre. Their articles are not difficult, but they are lengthy because they are building theory based on an analysis of different case studies. Please give yourselves time to read thoughtfully for their claims and examples, but also make note of places where their claims may rub against or conflict with how you understand "blogging" or "citizen journalism." Our goal will be to recognize the take-away concepts in each article, and to consider the possibilities and limitations of those concepts.

Here are some discussion questions that may help you read in advance of Tuesday's class:

1. How does Miller and Shepherd's discussion of genre reflect other genre theories you may have studied, in English, EWM, or media studies classes? Or, if you're new to genre theory, then try to unpack the quote by Berkenkotter and Huckin that they use in the third paragraph of their article. In a way, that quote -- and that paragraph -- holds the genealogy of Miller and Shepherd's genre theory. Do you think the assumptions they make about genre generally hold up when applied to blogs?
2. What are some of the reasons Miller and Shepherd give for studying the blog as a genre? Their overarching claim seems to be that blogs both support and disrupt the distinction between public and private, but there are probably other reasons as well.
3. What is "kairos" in their argument? How is it significant? What does it mean that subjectivity is a product of time and place, formed in interaction with a kairos (second paragraph in final section of the article)?
4. In a way, Rettberg applies genre analysis to three case studies (Dooce.com, Kottke.org, dailykos.com) in order to come up with sub genres, or categories within the blog genre. How does she determine each sub genre? How do her sub genres act like -- or not act like -- Miller and Shepherd's concept of genre? Do you think they have the same expectations of genre?
5. Consider Liebling's 1960 statement about free speech, or free press (Rettberg quotes it in the beginning of her chapter on "Citizen Journalism"). Unpack it, for its assumptions and implications. Why do you think Rettberg opens her chapter with it? Does it apply today?
6. What do you see as the principal justifications or main reasons why Rettberg compares the "blogger" to a "citizen journalist"? And then, what are the main reasons or principal justifications for why this could be a tricky comparison? If it helps, try answer this question by using one of the specific examples Rettberg provides, e.g., Columbine, Baghdad, etc.
7. What is "symbiosis" in Rettberg's argument? How is it significant?

Enjoy the readings!

-Prof. Graban

IN-CLASS ANALYSIS OF SCI/TECH GENRE SAMPLES 1/24

Hello, Everyone:

In teams of 2-3 people (no more, please!) during Thursday’s discussion of our sci/tech public genre samples, I will ask you to spend some time writing a brief but coherent post on the question that corresponds with the genre you are assigned.

Genre Assignments
Wald’s “Is Ethanol for the Long Haul?”: How does Wald push the limits of current research on ethanol use and production to increase the certainty of his position on the topic?

Mann’s “The Coming Death Shortage”: What role do metaphors, lore, speculation, and prediction play in conveying how Mann thinks we should feel about the impending “death shortage”?

Joy’s “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us”: What role do literature, contemporary science, historical science, and current events play in conveying how Joy thinks we should feel about genetic engineering technology?

Lehrer’s “The Future of Reading” (and related links in BB on the Lehrer controversy!): For Lehrer's blog post(s), wherein lies ownership of the ideas he uses? In other words, do you think his blog post(s) reenacts and transforms technical information, borrows it, represents it, or develops it further, or a combination of the above?

Tools/Concepts
To help you develop your response, here are some talking points that will aid your analysis, so I suggest that you compile notes on as many of these things as are helpful:

• shared value(s), ideologies, or assumptions on which the article is based (use 1-2 passages from Killingsworth/Palmer)
• evidence of community formation (use 1-2 passages from Killingsworth/Palmer)
• stasis (or stases) that seems to drive the argument (use 1-2 passages from Fahnestock/Secor)
• arrangement/organization of the article
• evidence of audience accommodation
• key terms, or buzzwords, that the article takes up to challenge, complicate, or reaffirm
• whether/how the article blurs genre or discursive aim, i.e., is it pretty focused in a sci/tech problem, or does it extend the problem out to other fields, such as law, politics, education, business, economics, etc.?
• implied narrative(s) (e.g., dominion, apocalypse, stewardship, anthropomorphization, shared ecology, biodiversity, colonization, etc.)
• relevant concept(s) from Style lesson 3 in “characters” (especially pp. 24-25) or lesson 7 in “shape” (especially pp. 71-75)
• relevant concept(s) from WWC chapter 8 (the final section on ellipses and parentheses) or chapter 10 on “clarity” (especially pp. 138-139, 141-142)

Feel free to post your group response by "commenting" to this post, signing your names (or pseudonyms).

-Prof. Graban

PREPARATION FOR 1/22 (FAHNESTOCK/SECOR AND KILLINGSWORTH/PALMER)

Hello, Everyone:

Thanks for your collaborative construction of the sci/tech discourse grid during yesterday's class (1/17). I have made my contributions to the grid and uploaded it to Blackboard, where you'll see the Google Docs link is also still active. Next week, we will use stasis theory to help us consider close interactions between logic, language, arrangement, and style -- especially when sci/tech genres begin to "go public."  

Here are some discussion questions that may help you read in advance of Tuesday's class:

1. In Fahnestock and Secor's article, what do the stasis patterns in scientific discourse and literary criticism have in common with each other? What do you think is the most important difference between them (sci discourse and lit crit)? 
2. How do Fahnestock/Secor build their theory? Whose ideas do they inherit and take up, what do they keep the same, and what do they change?
3. Selecting any one of the stasis levels they identify, do you think that stasis functions the same way as in Grant-Davie's article (the section on Exigence)? Could you see that stasis in the sci/tech genre that your group examined during yesterday's class?
4. In describing various "transformations" of scientific discourse across the public sphere, Killingsworth and Palmer present a theory that is based on a principal distinction between "news" and "common interest." Let's explore that distinction for all of its worth, including the reasons why it is still valuable for building discourse theory even in a highly mediated society such as ours, while also keeping in mind its limitations -- i.e., specific instances or examples where we see the distinction being challenged.
5. Does Killingsworth and Palmer's discussion of "community formation" (through case studies of different genres) in any way complicate -- or clarify -- the distinctions between Fahnestock and Secor's stasis levels?
6. In the final section of Killingsworth and Palmer's chapter, they analyze Time magazine to propose various ways that Time -- and similar news publications -- can represent a kind of "public environmentalism." Which example in that section do you think best explains the shift from "news" to "public" involvement, and why? What happens in the language of that example?

-Prof. Graban

STYLE AND WWC PAGES ANNOUNCED

Hello, Everyone:

Beginning next week (1/22), please do bring Style and When Words Collide to class each day. While I cannot promise that we will always use them as planned, I know that I do plan to use them and imagine they will become useful as we work through our spheres. Also, please note that I have assigned chapters from these texts on the days we are scheduled to read them more focusedly, so please make this change on your syllabus or in your calendars (wherever you keep track of your daily work):

• 2/5/13 Style chapters on "Actions" and "Cohesion/Coherence"; WWC chapter on "grmr: CWOT?"
• 2/14/13 Style chapter on "The Ethics of Style"; WWC chapter on "10 Little Secrets"
• 3/7/13 Style chapter on "Global Coherence"; WWC chapter on "Style"
• 4/11/13 Style chapter on "Emphasis"; WWC chapter on "Sense and Sensitivity"

Looking forward to it, and good luck on <Short Assignment #1>.

-Prof. Graban