Class Discussion - Week 7

TCBOK and the personas:

Russell says:
I’m also perplexed by passages such as this: “For example, the person in the “actively working technical writer wanting to keep his kills current” persona comes to the site to learn more about DITA.” I assume that “kills” is a typo for “skills,” but it’s unnerving enough for me to wonder about poor DITA and what she/he did to deserve death.

Joseph says:
Personas make me nervous – I never like the “type” that is supposed to portray me. Maybe if there were an intercultural tech writer who, ahem, was a former dj and looks like Brad Pitt…. Seriously though, they most often turn me off because those in charge of the website didn’t quite “get me right” so they shouldn’t try to “get me” at all.

Steve says:
I’m not suggesting that the portal will (or should) become the exclusive domain of practice. Instead, what I’d hope is that it might become the place where theory and practice begin (finally) to interact in an active and ongoing forum.

Several of the articles we’ve read (Spilka, Savage, Rainey) assert that TC can not reach the professional status it seeks until it has a “body of knowledge.”

• What would they say about TCBOK?
• It obviously doesn’t meet that criteria right now, but could it?
• If not, where is it off the mark?
• What does a “body of knowledge” look like?

______________________________________________________________________

Organizational structure

Garth says:
I remain rather surprised by the fragmentary nature of these organizations: it seems that having multiple associations, separately incorporated, with considerable mission overlap, might lead all of the organizations to weakness in membership and finances. Since they focus on (slightly) different aspects of the discipline/profession, why not have one association with affinity groups for researchers, teachers, practitioners, business vs. engineering, international/intercultural, etc.?

Garth raises an excellent question. As the readings on ATTW and CPTSC confirm, we’re not lacking in professional organizations. In fact, there are so many that I’ve built a “cheat sheet” with names and acronyms just to help me keep them straight. Yet several of the articles we’ve read have insisted that TC needs an overarching, governing organization (Spilka, Savage).

• So what do we think about Garth’s suggestion that these organizations should consider merging?
• What would we gain? What would we lose?
• Is it realistic?
• Could any of the current organizations become an “umbrella”? Which one?

_____________________________________________________________________

R-E-S-P-E-C-T: Academe vs. practice, legitimacy, tenure and where our discipline is being formed

I thought the exchange between George and Nancy on the blog this week was so relevant and exceptionally articulated that I found myself cheering and fist-pumping as I read both posts! I’m assuming that everyone had a chance to read the conversation, but below are excerpts, just to get the conversation rolling.

George (representing the non-academic practitioner) says:
I think a better question might be why are we so ashamed of our own practice? …We spend more time worrying whether we are good enough than we do making ourselves better. …In my naïve opinion, legitimacy in academe will come once we accept our own legitimacy and stop feeling stigmatized about being practical (it should be a strength, not a weakness).

Nancy (representing the marginalized, tenure-seeking academic) responds with a “burgeoning rant” about an Eskimo poet with pink toenails, and the PhD English student who receives an MLA dissertation of the year award and an immediate tenure track position for discovering him and sharing him with the world.

Obviously this is a well-used soapbox!

• So what does this issue suggest about “where our discipline is being formed”?
• How does it relate to the humanities vs. science debate?
• Is there a “best” place for TC programs to reside in academic institutions?

____________________________________________________________

Diversity and Globalization

Joseph says:
I think that we Americans can use more intercultural communication skills. We’re nearly powned by China presently, the days of “We’re #1!” are long gone, and it’s time to get on the same page as everyone else around the world and LEARN about who folks are, where they are, and what their needs / attitudes / values are. …As technical writers, what good is our copy if we aren’t translating appropriately to our audience?

Sarah says:
Joseph, I agree with you that intercultural communication training is definitely needed – I think Maylath and Grabill would agree with you based on their survey of CPTSC and the push for diversity. I agree that it often happens naturally, but I also wonder what the marketing intentions are for programs, schools, workplaces in TCR and how that affects the “diversity”.

We’ve been talking since the beginning of the course about the struggle to define TC.

• Can we (meaning TC academics and professionals) “market” to a wider demographic? How?
• Would an increase in diversity necessitate a change in how we define ourselves as a profession/discipline? If so, how?
• Could a program’s placement (English department, communications department, engineering department) be a factor in its ethnic/religious/gender make-up?

My New 'Rhetoric of Personal Agency'

"I'm taking a class."

It's not really a revolutionary statement, and not all that uncommon to hear. But it's one that still, more than halfway through the semester, doesn't roll off my tongue without a voice inflection that prefaces it with, "This may come as a surprise, but...."

The truth is, it's a surprise to me. I still can't say it without a hint of disbelief in my own statement. I know for people involved in distance learning for a long time, it seems like old hat. But I've come late to the party, so just the idea of being a student again at 44 is taking some getting used to. But the idea of having a classmate that is across the state, across the nation, and even across the world, still boggles my mind when I really stop and think about it.

I haven't quit my job or sold my house. I really haven't interrupted my life in any significant way except maybe to save for tuition and plan my time around class sessions and projects. But the fact that I can be so engaged in something completely virtual is nothing short of amazing for one like me, born on one side of the digital transformational divide, and transported to the other enthusiastically, yet fairly naively.

The language of student, to me, is in itself, a rhetoric of personal agency. It's a rhetoric that says I believe in myself and my ability. It's a rhetoric that says I have something to offer, something to say, and I think someone should listen. It's a rhetoric that refuses to accept that what I am now is all I will ever be.

Project Report #2 – Studying Us

Again, I will wrap this report around the expanded properties of rhetoric, with notes and reflections about what I am observing as I apply a coding system to one arbitrarily chosen MOO transcript:

1. A relatively defined group of users

• Can you define/describe by profession? By socio-economic status? By political/religious/(other) ideology?

Political ideology - Leans left politically as a group. A few individuals seem to reflect this in their discourse more than the rest, but I would guess the political conservatives are outnumbered significantly. The fact that I believe academia as a culture, and particularly post-grad programs, is friendlier to the left would support this observation.

Religious ideology – Since religious ideology tends to be at least loosely connected to political ideology, I would guess, again, that the group would lean left. The class discourse really avoids this field of debate however, revealing little about religious preferences. This is probably partially to preserve the mutual respect that is so valuable in an educational environment like this one. But also because in higher education, scholarly truth is generally accepted to be the product of scientific research and observation, meaning that faith-based ideals are not generally considered relevant, if they are considered valid at all.

Socio-economic status - Educationally, this group is obviously above the norm. This would suggest that they would also be above average in economic status, but that’s really conjecture based only the idea that higher education generally leads to higher paying positions. The class discussion reveals little if anything at all about personal economic status.

Profession – At least half the group teaches in some capacity. Others have worked in a variety of fields from engineering to communication related areas such as publishing, graphic design and writing. All are students in the Texas Tech University post-graduate Technical Communications program.

2. A domain of concern

• Why do people come to this discussion/site?
• Why do people stay (or not stay)?

Undoubtedly, we are all in this group because the class fills a course requirement. Given the flexible nature of the programs, however, I would presume that most of us are also here because the topic of this particular course was of special interest, or at least more so than other available options.

As a group (not necessarily everyone in the group equally, but collectively), we seem to share interest in some common issues surrounding the ‘rhetoric of personal agency” including but not limited to: 1) personal agency as it relates to effective teaching methods; 2) social media’s far reaching effects on politics, education, personal relationships, etc.; 3) the impact of web 2.0 on commerce and specifically the music and publishing industries; and 4) the impact of web 2.0 on the future of higher educational institutions and processes.

As I’ve stated before, I also believe that the motivations Shirky mentioned—autonomy and competence—fit nicely here. As professionals seeking a higher, deeper, broader, or more specialized credential, it seems inherent in the situation that in our quest for knowledge we gain a new area or different level of mastery. This achievement would be a driving force in most post-graduate work.

My original intent was to come up with an informal survey for class participants, and I haven’t ruled that out. However at this point, I’m not sure that a survey would reveal any new information.

3. A (more or less) clearly articulated catalog of effective usage

• What are the "master terms" that are repeated?
• What is the apparent level (socio-economic/educational) of articulation or expression?
• What is the emotional "volume" of the interaction?
• What are the markers of "commitment" to the issues at hand?

Obviously, the level of articulation and expression in the MOO is extremely high. The emotional ‘volume’ seems to match. Not sure about markers of commitment. I don’t think I really understand what this point is asking.

Master Terms or Buzz Words (still adding….)

cognitive surplus
collective intelligence
media convergence
participatory culture
social media
web 2.0
aggregate
transformational
rhetoric / rhetorical
agency
universal knowledge
adhocracy
prosumers
global / globalization

4. A (more or less) understood set of applicable psychological levers

• How do people attempt to convince others?
• Do people ever play the "status card"?
• What is the nature of the "evidence" people assert to create their validity as a discussant and the validity of the points they make?
• What are the markers of antagonism (digs) that people employ, if ever?
• What are the markers of colloquy, of friendship, of approval that people use?

Three primary psychological levers:

References – One of the ways individuals in this group attempt to establish credibility (ethos) is by referencing outside sources such as books, journal articles, or websites. Not surprisingly, the most common use of this lever is to reference the course materials (Shirky, Jenkins or Lessig), since those texts have been a big part of our discussions, and presumably, everyone has read (or is reading) them. Referring to these three demonstrates comprehension of the material, but is the weakest form of this lever since the readings are required. More powerful are references to additional scholarly works, since these references demonstrate a wider knowledge base and possibly insinuate a more rigorous approach to the class (i.e. reading beyond what is required).

Challenge statements – In coding the transcript, one of my comment labels was ‘Challenge.’ I assigned this label to any statement made in response to someone else’s assertion, which basically challenged the truth or validity of that assertion, or questioned it in some manner. These kinds of comments in the MOO seem to be a rhetorical move aimed, again, at establishing ethos. If I challenge someone else’s opinion or idea, I am communicating that I am confident in my own knowledge or understanding. This seems especially true if the challenge is directed at the professor.

Emote comments - As I would have predicted, the emote function in the MOO is a primary tool used for establishing empathy (pathos), friendship or approval. I was somewhat surprised to find that we employ these emote comments, which were primarily tagged as ‘Sub-Text’ in my coding system, almost as often as the other more content-directed comments. I think this indicates that even in an online environment, building relationships is an important aspect of the class interaction. I would predict, in fact, that we utilize these levers much more in the MOO than we would in a f2f class setting, where such comments might seem patronizing, shallow, or too expressive.

I don’t see any evidence in our dialogue of antagonism that could be classified as a dig or jab. I also don’t see evidence of any attempts at sarcasm (either positive or negative), which relies heavily on tone of voice to carry its meaning. The scholarly context seems to dictate a silent yet effective code of mutual respect and collective inquiry. Again, I would theororize that this code is more strictly enforced and honored in the online setting where non-verbal communication, so essential in assessing the underlying tone of sarcastic or cutting remarks, isn’t accessible.

Comment @Nancy

I agree with much of what you're saying, and am amazed at how you have, with such clarity, brought the ideas of these books into focus, especially in 15 minutes :-). I want to be able to reflect like this when I grow up.

On Jenkins, you hit the nail on the head for me: "...Jenkins made sense but didn't resonate with me--I can see it happening, agree that it's interesting in a basic intellectual way, understand that it has ramifications for personal (v. institutional) agency and marketing and communications, and appreciate how the net is revolutionizing the ways we discover, cooperate, teach/learn, affect change, etc.--but I don't necessarily feel drawn into the participatory act." I found that Jenkins caused me to look at much of what is evolving around us in pop culture in a new way, a more analytical, even appreciate way. I would even say he convinced me to see some potentially applicable value in the otherwise seemingly useless collaborative behaviors that I would have completely dismissed before. BUT, he didn't motivate me to participate. And maybe that wasn't his purpose.

My real fascination with your blog, though, is in your thoughts on freedom vs regulation, and by extension, personal vs institutional agency. I love the play yard analogy. So true. My question is, isn't that paragraph ("Playing with that simile, Lessig is saying...") pretty much an accurate description of the rhetorically negotiated society that we call the United States, land of freedom? We depend on technically trained people (elected officials) to hold the property owners (other elected officials) accountable. Sometimes we deal with security breaches (planes flying into buildings and killing people). And sometimes the landlord (political party in power) makes changes without our consent (health care legislation, budget cuts...) and we find ourselves at odds with the regulation. Affecting change is possible, but slow, confusing and expensive.

The bigger point to me, though, is this: show me any form freedom—political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom in personal relationships or expression of taste, freedom as a consumer, religious freedom—and I'll show you the pen. Because freedom, in a society larger than one, will always have boundaries. Always. In fact, I would go so far as to argue that you can't really have freedom without first defining its boundaries. The boundaries are actually a part of the freedom.

When you were watching your 4 year-old play at the park across the street, you probably weren't regulating how she played, what she said, which part of the park she chose to play in. She had a relative amount of freedom in her play, and I'm guessing she felt secure and safe. Why? Because she understood several things 1) I'm in a park which is designed by its architecture to be a safe place to play; 2) I know the rules: don't leave the part, don't talk to strangers, don't jump off the top of the slide.....; and 3) my mom is watching. Freedom is, I think, most enjoyed inside of appropriate boundaries.

Don't get me wrong....I'm really not saying that I think the Net should be locked down and over-regulated. I definitely see the value of personal agency, much as we all would undoubtedly agree that freedom of speech is a good thing. And I recognize that regulation of any kind comes at a price, namely, the loss of some part of freedom. And I definitely think it's worth exploring how the impending regulation (as Lessig seems to believe that it is) is crafted and applied so that freedom and privacy can be maximized. So maybe the question is, how much freedom is enough? How far out can we push the boundaries?

You sum up by asking "What good is the identification and cultivation of personal agency, if we know that underlying all the "surface" possibilities of freedom in the playground is really a controlling force that will have the final say?" And I would ask, how productive can a culture of personal agency really be, and how long can it survive, if we recognize that at any given moment, any person in the chat room with us could be a deranged 'rapist,' and in spite of all of our collective intelligence and freedom, no one really has the power to kick him out?

Freedom, Reality and Charlie Sheen

I just have to start by getting something off my chest: if I never hear another mention of Charlie Sheen's name, or see another photo or video clip of his dorky face, it will be too soon. Arrogance and stupidity are a really bad combination. Come on, people! A tantrum-throwing toddler needs to be sent to a quiet corner for a time out, not put on camera and given a microphone. I'm calling for a Charlie Sheen reporting moratorium...

So looking back over our MOO conversation from last week, and the introduction to Lessig, it struck me that at times, we seemed to be debating about freedom vs regulation as if the two were mutually exclusive...an 'either/or' proposition. But, and I think this is what Lessig is also saying, freedom is never really without limits. Where my freedom and your freedom might collide, there is a boundary. It's the same with privacy vs security. Where your privacy threatens my security, something's gotta give. I found this statement, which was actually in the HBGary email in Jon's post about the Feds plotting an invasion of social media, spot on: "When choosing to participate in social media an individual is only as protected as his/her weakest friend." That's a very good point, and an important thing to remember.

And then there's this question about 'reality' that keeps coming up. Is cyberspace real? Of course it's real. If you're reading this, you're part of it. But is it a place? I'm not sure I would call it that. To me, a place is something you can find (or put) on a map. That's the definition I'm going with. And to that degree, cyberspace isn't a place exactly. That's why people call it a 'virtual place,' noting that it has some of the characteristics of a place, but isn't a place in the sense that Chicago or the park by my house are places. So in a virtual place, what's reality?

The reality of cyberspace is the very real interaction between very real, tangible people. It's you reading my words, just the same as you could read them on a page in a book. It's people getting together in a chat room to discuss their shared experiences with caring for a parent with Alzheimer's, or dealing with teenagers, or following the Houston Texans. Real people. Real issues. Real interaction.

But not everything in cyberspace is real, just like not everything in real life is real. Cartoons, fantasy fiction, alternative gaming worlds....these things are not reality, regardless of where they live. Real people may watch the cartoons, or read the fiction, or play the games, but that doesn't make them reality. I'm pretty clear on that. The problem is that much of the activity on the Web falls somewhere in between: real people interacting in made-up places. Or made-up people solving problems in real places. So maybe it's not so clear after all.

So to sum up...we need both regulation and freedom on the internet. And we need both privacy and security. And cyberspace is both real and imaginary, depending on where you surf. And I don't like Charlie Sheen.

I guess maybe some blog topics are just easier to articulate than others....

Another Great Podcast Run

Well I'm trying to climb out of the post Jenkins hole I seem to have fallen into. After finishing Convergence Culture, I tried to dabble in a couple of free reports that I think Jon posted: one by Jenkins called Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture and another by Carrie James on Young People, Ethics and the New Digital Media. I also got caught up reading Jenkins' 3-part blog series in which he answered an esteemed critic of his book, Ian Bogost (http://henryjenkins.org/2006/08/hmm_buttery_a_response_to_ian.html). This exchange was really interesting, sort of like watching Jenkins explain himself to the jury. It helped clarify his ideas for me a little bit. I wanted to read Turkle, but was afraid to get sidetracked knowing that Lessig is looming large before me. So into Lessig I have plunged (OK, more like stuck in my big toe to test the waters, but at least I'm in the vicinity).

Podcast #6 was particularly interesting to me and generated several random reflections. Hope I can remember:

Dr. K's discussion about effective discourse, and his comments about the nature of the MOO, got me thinking about what kinds of "moves" or "levers" we use there. Particularly, what purpose does the non-class related, background rhetoric serve? You know, the banter about turbans, old girlfriends, and margaritas.... It may seem less valuable than the communication about deep, rhetorical concepts, but is it? Or is it somehow an integral part of the rhetorical situation?

Geertz - I'm adding him to my reading list. Like stringing beads on a piece of yarn with no knot...

Process over product? I think this is, perhaps, one path to the heart 5369 and our collective inability to define our existence last week, at least to the satisfaction of the prof 'zenning' the class (Nancy's term for leading by pondering...very descriptive). Beyond course requirements for a degree plan, I heard several comments that indicated a common thread: we love being here and interacting with smart people about a topic that interests us. Some online communities may serve a more concrete purpose; others may exist primarily because the participants experience in it a satisfaction that may difficult to pin down, yet is nonetheless very real.

Writing vs. Face to Face - which is more real? I sort touched on this topic in my previous blog (Progress Report #1) in trying to articulate what I see as the differences between the MOO and a traditional classroom. Person to person interaction may have the historical edge, but online interaction like what happens in the MOO seems more pure to me. And wouldn't more pure equate to more natural? Online communication isn't weighed down by social perceptions.

Probability and project methodology - I must admit I'm struggling with the how at this point. So it was helpful for me to focus on the concept of probability, and on the idea that we are not trying to achieve, nor are we claiming, any kind of rigorous research credibility. We are trying to gain insight into something that is slippery, complex, and ultimately impossible to neatly nail down.

Progress Report #1 - Studying Us

I need to start this report by listing our four properties, along with their paraphrased equivalents, mainly for my own benefit. They are serving as my reference point and guide:

1. A relatively defined group of users (try to identify who seems to be typical participants)
2. A domain of concern (try to figure out from their discourse why they are doing this)
3. A (more or less) clearly articulated catalog of effective usage (dig down into the typical words and expressions they use)
4. A (more or less) understood set of applicable psychological levers (try to figure out how they "score points" among the community)

As I evaluate my progress, and what I’m thinking and observing so far about our class community, I’m still drawn to the four questions I posed in my proposal:

1. How do we, as a group, reflect the key concepts put forth by Shirky and Jenkins: cognitive surplus, media convergence, participatory culture and collective intelligence?

To state what several have already observed, this graduate class, as part of a traditional, academic institution, is, in many ways, a microcosm of the very concepts we are exploring. Representing several cities and states within the US, and spread across three continents, it is only by the virtue of the internet that we exist as a community.

However beyond that, one of the things I’ve observed about our interaction as a class that is a direct result of the fact that we are meeting online and not in a traditional classroom, is that no one is able to ‘hide in the corner.’ While a physical setting offers one the option of habitually slipping into a seat in the back row for an entire semester, never really interacting with either the instructor or the other students, the online setting redefines ‘participation.’ To participate in the MOO requires more than just my physical presence in front of the computer screen, since my contribution to the dialogue is the only evidence of my engagement. In other words, if I’m not actively joining in the conversation, I’m virtually invisible. In addition, the MOO creates a kind of equivalency, or a level playing field, of communication, meaning that each of our contributions, stripped of voice inflection, facial expression, or any other visual cue, is weighed solely on its own merits. In contrast, in a face-to-face classroom setting, any number of factors might add or detract ‘agency’ from an expressed idea or thought, such as the physical appearance, age or verbal ability of the speaker. By encouraging individual active participation and giving everyone an equal voice, the online class forum facilitates a rhetoric of personal agency based on a culture of collaboration.

2. What drives us? How can our motives be characterized, beyond fulfilling degree requirements? I believe Shirky’s ideas on autonomy and competence will frame this answer.

I’ve concluded that to ask why each of us is taking English 5369 this semester doesn’t seem to be the right question. As an offering in either the Masters or PhD program which each of us has committed to, this class fills a requirement. We’re here, in one sense, because this class is part of an institutional plan. However, the fact that the course has such a practical application in no way mitigates the its benefits. So I believe the more relevant question is What do we, as individual scholars and professionals, feel that we are gaining from the class?

In order to gain insight into this question, I’m trying to develop a simple questionnaire for each class member to respond to. By asking you to assign relative value to what I believe are the primary benefits, I hope that we can draw some conclusions that might even answer Dr. Kemp’s query, “Why do we exist?”

3. What are we each trying to accomplish specifically through our discourse in the MOO? What techniques do we employ? How does the setting (MOO) affect the discourse (in contrast to a real world setting)?

4. I am particularly interested in examining our use of the ‘emote’ function, and what we gain by articulating thoughts in third person.

To answer these two questions, I am plowing around in the MOO transcripts and trying to identify some specific patterns that I might be able to code and record (for example classifying comments as content related, digression/redirection, personal aside, comic relief). This is a work in progress. As I analyze, I’m looking for those levers; the rhetorical tools we use to score points. I have a couple of ideas that I’m looking at, but I’m not ready to articulate those.

I’m also looking at the ‘emote’ comments and possibly working to categorize them in some manner as well (I will select one transcript to code, not all). I liked Nancy’s comment on the discussion board in which she referred to the emote feature as ‘sub-text.’ I think that is a very descriptive term. I want to look carefully at how we make use of this device, and see if it matches up with my observations.

Finally, I’m engaged in my own personal self-discovery/crash course regarding the various approaches to discourse analysis, trying to define and establish what method seems to fit this research situation, and how to implement it.