Preparation for 10/2: Case Study #2, Complexity in/and Action

Hello, Everyone:

In preparation for our second Case Study, I'd like the class to read/prepare in groups, giving each group a set of materials to browse in advance of class.

I will ask everyone to review Kaufer's and McDonald's essays, and to read Jones's "Finding the Good Argument" (all in Bb). Those will be our critical tools for navigating the case study on Thursday, along with Style, which we might dabble into if there is time.

And then, I'll ask the following groups to read/annotate these genres before we meet on Thursday. These are all in "Case Study #2," nested inside the folder entitled "Case Studies & Genres" in Bb:

• last name beginning with A-D
• please look at Alexander "The New Jim Crow," Bouie "Criminal Justice Racism," and Christian "Alexander Interview on New Jim Crow"

• last name beginning with E-M
• please look at Bouie "Criminal Justice Racism," Bullard "Race Response to Katrina," Klein "Beyond a Simple Solution," and Constantin "Lunchlines"

• last name beginning with N-V
• please look at Klein "Beyond a Simple Solution," Nat Nakasa's "Writings," and the informational pieces in the NYT and Rand Daily Mail about Nakasa 

Come ready to share your notes with the class on Thursday.

Looking forward to it,
-Prof. Graban

Preparation for 9/30: Conflict and Perspective

Dear All:

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 James McDonald's "I Agree, But ...". In the interest of helping you prepare, I offer you some questions to guide your reading:

1. McDonald will argue for a specific understanding of "citizenship" and a specific understanding of "deliberation" in order to put forward his theory of rhetorical engagement for the public sphere. As you read his chapter, keep track of the various characteristics and qualities that citizens and deliberation should have. It may help you to call these out in the margins as you read, or to construct a separate list; whatever you do, try to just call out or note the qualities and characteristics that make sense to you, as you navigate his intertext. 
2. Based on that list of qualities/characteristics you have compiled, why do you think McDonald selected Le Suroit (the gas-fired power plant) as a case study? In other words, in his discussion of Le Suroit (pp. 202-04), how do you see his expectations of "deliberation" or "citizenship" playing a role?
3. McDonald articulates a method for analyzing public debates--his "inductive, rhetorical approach" (pp. 204-13). As you read through his case study, keep track of how this method works. In what ways is it similar to, or different from, Kaufer's "Levels of Policy Conflict Analysis" (pp. 62-69)? Consider all of the ways that these two analytical methodologies require something of their analyzers, and consider whether their assumptions about "deliberation," "citizen," "discourse," and even "rhetoric" might align or not align with each other.
4. Ultimately, McDonald seems interested in preparing public citizens to deliberate better, while Kaufer seems interested in teaching the arts of developing policy arguments. Why does each of them write? In other words, what justification does each author provide why there is a need to deliberate better or construct more original policy arguments? Why, for Kaufer, are "stock issues" not enough? And why, for McDonald, are "anti-" positionings not enough?
5. Of the terms we began defining last week--symbiosis, empathic, communality, embodiment, aesthetic sense--which one(s) seem(s) most relevant to each of these chapters we read for today? Why?  
6. Of the articles we read last sphere, which one(s) seem(s) most relevant to what you read for today? Why?
7. Which one of Kaufer's "levels" of policy conflict (pp. 58-59) do you think best reflects McDonald's "accepting key opinions" (pp. 206-13)? Be willing to explain why using details from his case study.

Looking forward to our discussion,

--Prof. Graban

Sci/Tech Blog Feedback Conferences

I'll be giving you feedback on the Sci/Tech Blog Assignment in person, via face-to-face (f2f) conferences, during which we can talk about how your blog did or did not meet the assignment objectives, how well it informed or where you struggled to inform through it, what you think went well about it, and how you might improve on or revise it for your portfolio. We'll talk a lot, but you'll take notes so that you can get the satisfaction of fairly immediate and thorough feedback on the first major assignment of the semester, and on your other writing so far. These conferences are required, so please don't delay in claiming a spot on our <schedule>.

-Prof. Graban

Preparation for 9/23: Workshop #1, Rhetorical Moves

Folks, again we're following the syllabus!

This means that on Tuesday we'll have our first dedicated workshop on Working with Words and Style, so I have asked you to read sections out of each text before Tuesday's class. Laptops and books will be needed.

If you decide to tackle the <Analytical Essay> in this sphere, please remember that it is due on Tuesday, as well. I have extended the deadline to 7:00 p.m. from 2:00 p.m. (You're welcome.)

See you then (if not before),
-Prof. Graban

Preparation for 9/18: Citizen Journalism, White Papers, and Explanatory Genres

Folks, you're doing great so far in working out your struggle with multiple editorial demands and writerly concepts. Yes, the composition and construction of the Sci/Tech Blog assignment is asking you to fire on all cylinders, as you have to keep in mind not only what you're observing in mediated public discourse, but also what we're learning about it, which sometimes urges us to rethink what we observe. As well, you're doing the hard work of figuring out your principal challenge, which will be to re/create a plausible narrative that allows you to make good and transparent use of someone else's research (which you or may not choose to enhance with research of your own).

There is one final analytical step I think we need to make -- understanding the "white paper" genre, and observing how that genre already does some of the transforming and re-narrativizing that we need to do with highly technical information. So, we'll spend Thursday's class period focusing on this genre, and I'll offer you time to complete Short Assignment #2 in class, so that you have the benefit of a workshop environment. You can find preparation notes linked to that assignment description. Please come prepared.

Please bring with you Style and Working with Words! We are now entering the time in the semester when we need to have both books handy.

See you then,
-Prof G

9/16: In-class Discussion of Blogging as Social Action

Hello, Everyone:

We will spend the first part of today's (9/16) class discussing what Rettberg and Miller/Shepherd argue about blogs as genre. I will be especially interested to know 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.

After our discussion, I will provide you with a short list of blogs to examine in a guided fashion, and then I'll ask you and your partner(s) to respond to one of the following questions in some depth. You can choose to respond as an editor or a writer, since you will be playing both roles in the construction of your sci/tech blog. Whichever role you decide to play, please remember that this is more than just a class analysis activity; as you compose your response to the question below, I need you to formulate a real sense of what questions or concerns you have about your own sci/tech blog, and let your response begin to address them:

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 to the idea of genre, 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 -- to the blog you just examined? What must you keep in mind, practically and concretely, as you construct your blog for next week?
2. What is "kairos" in Miller and Shepherd's 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)? Do you think the assumptions they make about kairos generally hold up when applied to blogs -- to the blog you just examined? What must you keep in mind, practically and concretely, as you construct your blog for next week?
3. 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, and if so, how does it apply -- especially in light of the notes we compiled as a result of our Jonah Lehrer case analysis? If it does apply, what assumptions do you think Rettberg needs you (or exhorts you) to keep in mind in the construction of your own sci/tech blog?
4. 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.
5. What is "symbiosis" in Rettberg's argument? (This term appears near the end of her chapter on "Citizen Journalism," but the concept is implied all the way through her book.) How is it significant? Do you think the assumptions she makes about generally hold up when applied to blogs -- to the blog you just examined? What must you keep in mind, practically and concretely, as you construct your blog for next week?

Feel free to compose your group response by adding an in-depth "comment" to this post.

-Prof. Graban

Preparation for 9/16: Blogging as Social Action

Folks, again we're following the syllabus! Tuesday is another day of discussion blogging, so please check the <blogging schedule> to find out whether you are initiating or responding. All posts and responses are due to your own blogs by 12:00 p.m. (noon) on Tuesday. When we convene as a class, we'll think about blogging as citizen journalism, and some of the ways this enhances--or complicates--our writing and editing imperatives in the sci/tech sphere. We'll also decide whether Miller/Shepherd have successfully argued for blogs as social action genres.

Looking forward to it,
-Prof. Graban

Preparation for 9/11: Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts

Folks, we're following the syllabus! Thursday is our first day of discussion blogging, so please check the <blogging schedule> to find out whether you are initiating or responding. All posts and responses are due to your own blogs by 12:00 p.m. (noon) on Thursday. When we convene as a class, we'll think about the various narratives that scientific discourse takes on when it goes public, i.e., we'll consider its many transformations by considering all of its aspects--from logic to form to delivery.

Looking forward to it,
-Prof. Graban

Preparation for 9/9: SA #1, Sci/Tech Sphere and Sci/Tech Blog

Hello, Everyone:

Please remember that you are posting your first <Short Assignment (SA #1)> directly to your own blog. If the URL to your blog isn't showing up at right, that means I don't yet have the address to your blog and must have it ASAP (else I can't give you credit for SA #1).

On Tuesday, we're ready to jump straight-away into deconstructing the <Sci/Tech Blog Assignment> and we'll talk a bit more about the first "sphere" of the course: Sci/Tech Writing.

Your in-class analysis of the Lehrer Controversy on Thursday generated some good notes, although we are not quite finished complicating it for all its worth. So, please review our notes on the "Lehrer Case Analysis" (in Bb) before coming to class on Tuesday, since we will likely start there.

Although Tuesday is not technically one of our workshop days, your bringing a laptop will still be very helpful for our class discussion.

Looking forward to it, as always,
-Prof. Graban

Preparation for 9/4: Case Study #1, Earning the Public's Trust

Hello, Everyone:

In preparation for our first Case Study, I'd like you to browse the relevant materials in our Bb site ("Case Study #1," nested inside the folder entitled "Case Studies & Genres"). It is not necessary for you to read everything prior to class; however, I would like you to spend some time browsing Jonah Lehrer's old and new blogs -- the blog prior to 2014, and the one beginning March 2014 -- and make some observational notes about likenesses and differences. You do not have to read every single post on his blogs; I simply want you to read enough in order to be able to differentiate the blogs from one another.

Then, I would like you to select two (2) of the four (4) articles explaining different aspects of the Lehrer controversy and/or Lehrer's "journalistic misdeeds." Each of these four articles reflects a different public source. After reading your two articles, revisit your observational notes about Lehrer's blogs, and make note of any questions that are raised for you, as a reader or an observer of mediated discourse.

Come ready to share your notes with the class on Thursday.

Looking forward to it,
-Prof. Graban