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.

Transformation

I've been working (for my day job) on making some of our books available as ebooks. I could ramble a good bit about the learning curve going on there with html, but that's for a different blog. As a small, niche publisher, going digital was something we should have done a long time ago, but time, resources and the aforementioned learning curve were all hurdles. Last week, primarily as a result of the transformational affect this class has had on my thinking, I decided it was time for Amazon (and Facebook...but again, that's for another blog). In the process of reading through a bunch of forums on file conversion, I learned that Amazon, not surprisingly, uses its own unique file type, while the other main competitors all share a more universal format. Also not surprisingly, I observed that there is no shortage of conversion software designed to help readers move their ebooks from one platform to the other. As a participatory culture, we don't like limits or restrictions on our media. If we buy an ebook, we feel completely entitled to read it on whatever techno gadget we want.

So I was thinking this morning that maybe I should splurge for a Kindle so that I could keep what promises to be a rapidly expanding list of class books all in one tidy, digital location and off of my already overflowing bookshelves. And I was debating with myself about which particular reader, given the conversion issues, would make the most sense. I thought that if enough people gripe about not being able to read their Amazon ebooks on a Nook, or if enough people find ways to work around the limitation with readily available free software, eventually Amazon would likely be compelled to conform. Then a spontaneous thought hit me and I said to my chocolate lab, "That would be an example of the power of personal agency pushing media convergence!" She agreed. She's a very smart dog.

Not a revolutionary observation I guess, but a positive indication that the ideas of Shirky, Jenkins and Kemp have indeed taken up residence in my brain....

A Proposal

Although I have a personal, curious interest in how and why seniors interact online, for the purposes of this class project I’ve made the difficult decision to stick with my original idea to ‘study us.' I have a professional interest in distance learning and educational technology, so I don’t want to pass up the opportunity to look critically at the epicenter of an online class: the live, personal interaction between students and instructor.

Some initial questions I want to focus on are:

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?

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.

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.

Having set my target and some research questions, my next step is to review several resources on discourse analysis and establish a plan for quantitative and qualitative data gathering. I will be looking for one primary source that clearly outlines basic approaches and methodologies to instruct my work. While I will examine every MOO transcript, my thought (at this point) is to identify one sampling on which to focus the quantitative research.

To Dr. Kemp: So You Want Me to Fly?

[A response to the post-class dialogue]

Ask me about page design. Ask me about style sheets. Ask me about grammar. Ask me about print cost, pre-press, or copyright registration. Even ask me about the finer points of a volleyball jump serve. But if you want me to fly, just don't ask me about the rhetoric of personal agency. Not quite yet. I'm still learning to walk.

It's not about lack of enthusiasm or desire...I'm in this class without the guarantee that I even have a future in the MATC program. I'm here because I wanted to be; because I couldn't wait. I wanted to dive in as soon as I started reading the course offerings. The journey had to start somewhere, at some point, and this was as good a time and place as any, I supposed.

But I am laying the tracks down even as I'm racing over them. Personal agency, collective intelligence, rhetorical analysis, participatory culture, ethnography--I've encountered all of these ideas for the first time in this class. I don't have the research history to lean on that others do. I'm at the beginning; they're nearing the end. I'm learning a new language and trying to be fluent all in one ambitious leap.

So you're going to have to exercise some patience, oh rhetorical master. Push me. Challenge me. Make me think critically. But don't neglect to teach me too. I need to know what you know before I can question it, build on it and move it forward. I need to benefit from your experience and wisdom. Graduate school, or more specifically an educational model that relies on the very thing we are trying to explore, personal agency, is necessarily constructed to engage students in seeking out knowledge for themselves. Yet against that backdrop, your role is more critical than ever. I need direction, and some parameters. Your presence is not a limitation, but a standard and a guide, so that I don't wander off the course into irrelevance.

I want to fly. And I will. But I'm smart enough to understand the value of a few good lessons. And wise enough to know that there is no substitute, not even with all the internet has to offer, for the tangible, touchable erudition of someone who knows more than I do. Respecting and learning from a teacher or mentor isn't some dusty, outdated pedagogical theory; it's a foundational, timeless truth.

Off to finish Jenkins, and see how he explains the idea that social media can be oppressive...

Window Washing, Uninvited

I pulled up to an intersection the other day and there was a man on the corner with a bucket, a squeegee, and some rags. He was cleaning windshields, looking for a few bucks. He moved toward my car. I tried to wave him off...I didn't want my windshield cleaned. But there he was, wetting, squeegeeing (is this a word?!), and wiping. He was the most enthusiastic windshield washer I've ever seen. And he did a very good job. So was I now obligated to pay him?

This is what I thought of as I read Jenkins' chapter on the Potter wars, and the murky line of ownership between those who create stories, and those who love them. The fans who consume these original works and then become consumed by them; writing themselves (uninvited) into the fantasies may be enthusiastic, and even very good. But neither their passion nor their talent gives them ownership. Should they be able to engage with the material, and with each other? Of course. And is this good for the publishers/studios? Absolutely! But should the fans be able to alter the stories? Should they be able to politicize them? Create new characters? Reinvent the plot? Hmm. Coming from a publishing perspective, I'd have to stand with the creators. You may be very enthusiastic, and you may do an excellent job, but if the work was unsolicited, you may or may not receive the compensation you hope for.

Contemplating Jenkins

If Shirky's cognitive surplus theology was a bit rosy, then Jenkins' ideologies of media convergence, participatory culture, and collective intelligence feel like they border on egocentric at times. Not that I could question the ideas themselves...Jenkins, the MIT professor, is undoubtedly much more clever than I am, and the ideas are interesting enough. It just seems funny to me that for a couple of millennium or so, people have been relating, learning, inventing, and educating without multi-modal media and without participating in global collaboration. Yet Jenkins can make these concepts sound almost messianic.

And side note: who's idea was it to fill the pages with extended, loosely related examples in the sidebars? His publisher should be sanctioned....

I was reading about media literacy today, and had issue with his fundamental comparison of Heather's right to co-opt Rowling's material for her own writing pleasure (or more broadly, fans' right to co-opt any published material they consume) to literacy as we know it. He asserts:

All of the above suggests that the Potter wars are at heart a struggle over what rights we have to read and write about core cultural myths—that is, a struggle over literacy. Here, literacy is understood to incude not simply what we can do with printed matter but also what we can do with media. Just as we would not traditionally assume that someone is literate if they can read but not write, we should not assume that someone possesses media literacy if they can consume but not express themselves.

More to come...

You and Me. And Bingo.

If I'd met you all at a dinner party, you wouldn't know half of what you know about me just from this blog, because I probably wouldn't tell you f2f. We'd talk about the weather and the food and the news of the day. Funny how the internet, which is often accused of being too impersonal, can be so much more personal than being there in person! One of the dynamics that has always fascinated me about it is how it removes any preconceived ideas or judgments we could have about people (conscious or otherwise) based on appearance. We're influenced, whether we think so or not. But on the web, we meet new people based solely, or at least primarily, on their written expression of thoughts and ideas.

I found some great discussion groups on the AARP site today. Some of the most popular topics: bingo, dating, job hunting, politics, religion, online games and pets. Aside from maybe the desire to chat about bingo, it would appear that seniors online are...well...pretty much like the rest of us online...

Chasing Digital Rabbits

So I'm working my way through Twitter, and trying to define this blog space, and I'm pretty sure a wiki is in my future. And I want to spend some time reading about 1) rhetorical analysis/discourse analysis, 2) the Turkle book that's been mentioned several times (Alone Together), and 3) the little book that Dr. Kemp recommended to me on literary criticism and rhetoric (Literary Theory by Terry Eagleton). And of course I am daily thinking about the project and those 4 properties...

All of this has somewhat sidetracked me from Jenkins, which I'm now stuck in the middle of.

The First MOO

The first time I attempted to water ski, my cadre of well-meaning instructors failed to emphasize the importance of one seemingly obvious directive: when you fall, let go of the rope. You might think that would be second nature, but to the 8-year-old mind, letting go of the rope, and thus the boat and my only connection with the safety of dry land, was anything but natural. It was counter-intuitive.

Fortunately, I didn't drown. But for a few very long moments, I imagined I might. Searching for air, I felt disoriented and completely at the mercy of the motor boat.

Maybe a dramatic analogy, but I've jumped into the social media river (or been pushed? :-)and it feels more like a tidal wave. I can't seem to come up, but I don't want to let go either.

After my first MOO, and before I created this blog, I typed out a response to no one in particular. I will post it here as my first official blog, since that's really what it was:

__________________________________

January 19, 2011

I learned a lot last night in my first MOO encounter. It was a blur, so I’m still processing. I had to go back over the transcript this morning and reread every comment; I totally missed some good ones. And I made a ‘character list’ for this journey, writing down everything that each of you shared about yourselves. That’s the thing about online relationships—being a fairly visual person, I struggle to put that composite picture together in my mind without the face to face contact.

So rather than putting together some web content, which I am supposed to be doing right now, I’m thinking about this class, and the ‘rhetoric’ from last night. Here are my observations and thoughts that I would have inserted, had I not been a tad overwhelmed trying to keep up. In keeping with the theme of the class, they are in no particular order.

When I logged off and sat thinking back to all I had just read, I found myself frustrated, knowing that I had just participated in a vibrant, interaction, with people from all over the globe, yet unable to remember or hold on to much of it. To me, it represented the nature of social networking and personal agency in a microcosm.

I met a bunch of interesting new people, how many, I wasn’t even sure until I reread this morning. I watched you go by like a fast moving train, catching glimpses now and then of a face or a voice, and thinking how fun it would be to have a conversation. You’re all smart and witty and incredibly intelligent. Intimidating even. But every face was a blur, there and gone. I listened, yet wouldn’t say we really conversed, because that would imply that there was dialogue back and forth, and it moved much too fast for that. It was loud, and social, and loosely organized, kind of like a dinner party, with everyone having their own conversations at once. Takes some getting used to.

I live in The Woodlands, TX, which is about 35 miles north of Houston. I have been working from home for the past 15 years as a ghostwriter and editor for a self-started publishing company. We partner with a non-profit ministry organization and do conferences across the US. I’m also currently working as a consultant for a local radio station on some web content (the thing I need to be working on which I’m not). This is an area of growing interest to me and I find it a fascinating new (to me) arena for writing.

I love to write, but admittedly only about things that I can muster some passion for. Otherwise, it’s really laborious. I enjoy reading, although I do it slowly. I sort of absorb books more than read them. And I’m a thinker, a contemplative kind of person. In a room full of people (or apparently also a MOO), I tend to listen more than I talk. Other people interest me. It’s not that I don’t have anything to say, but I like to process, and chew, and think, and then speak. It’s not a quality that lends itself easily to social media, where conversations happen at wireless speed and everything is in tweet sized parcels. How in the world do you train your brain to think that way? Mine doesn’t. In a few years, maybe people like me will become extinct due to natural selection, trampled by the speed of this new rhetoric.

So obviously this is my first class in MATC, but I’m actually not even in the program yet. I discovered it too late to apply for spring, but couldn’t wait until fall to start. I’d been thinking about a Master’s for a long time, but never was motivated enough I guess until I found this. I read the class descriptions online like a menu in my favorite restaurant. It was a moment of epiphany, that something so tailored to the things I love, or want to love, existed. I was too excited! Joyce was nice enough to humor me by giving me this class, even as I’m perched out on the proverbial limb.

At 43, I think of myself as being pretty tech savvy, or I did. Although I do still keep my calendar on a paper ‘day runner’ (the same one I’ve had for 15 years….I buy the refills every December), I love my iphone, mess around on Facebook, and live on my computer. However, I discovered last night that I am, I’m afraid, to the new waves of social media and technology like Fred Flinstone would be to modern transportation.

I observed in last night’s conversation an interesting thing about social media. While ‘personal agency’ has a rhetoric of its own, which I guess we are attempting to explore, within each community, there is a unique dialect that defines and connects the members (and possibly keeps others out). People new to the community may find it hard to jump in until they’ve learned the lingo. This is, of course, true in ‘f2f’ communities also, but the effects are compounded when interaction is stripped of all other forms of communication, leaving only the dialogue.

I also observed, as I already made reference to, that the media age presses communication into tiny, bite sized pieces, rewarding the quick-witted, efficient mind and eschewing contemplation by its very structure. Does that make it shallow? Maybe. It’s a soundbite environment…wide, but not necessarily very deep (can you say ADD?) It doesn’t sit on the porch and sip tea. It is in constant motion.

Much of what I know about social media I’ve learned from my teenager. Perhaps this digital transformation is making this upcoming generation more flexible and adaptable as you discussed last night. But what concerns me is that a new set of social ‘rules of engagement’ seem to be lagging far behind. The idea about shifting the power from adults to young people has some truth, but it’s not just about empowerment, it’s about connection, or disconnection. My comment about boys who used to have to go through mom or dad to speak with girlfriend, now have free (meaning no restraints) and total access, 24/7. One of the costs of leveling the rhetorical playing field through social media is the loss of social hierarchy, which may seem like a good thing, but it has a slippery downside. Without hierarchy, respect loses its context. Respect for time, for privacy, for age, for position…many of my daughters friends and people her age have NO idea how to interact with an adult because they’ve never had to learn. It’s hard to teach your child that it’s important to address her friend’s mother as “Mrs. Walker” when she never has any occasion to have to speak to Mrs. Walker. That something has been lost in the transition is evident in reports of suicides brought on by shocking disregard for the power of transmission and any concept of propriety. That’s what I was thinking when I asked, “Young people know how to operate the technology, but do they know how to use it?” It isn’t inherently good or bad in and of itself. Not until we give it a purpose.