Blogs and reporting...
How do blogs and "legitimate" (depends on how you define it) news outlets report on the same issue?
Take a look at the recent Hollywood writers' strike. Here are two bloggers different interpretations of issues surrounding the strike: Writer's Blog or Lowrychris's "Is the Writer's Strike in Hollywood just Gold Digging by the WGA?" and how media (newspaper and online news outlets) are reporting on the issue: "Bad Day at The Office" from MSNBC.
Questions to consider:
1. How do these different types of Internet "reports" handle the issue of the Writers' strike?
2. What are the writing style(s) shown? Are they similar?
3. Based on what you see here, where do you go to get your news?
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
References Cited (Thus far)
Here is a copy of my growing References Cited list. Not all the pieces are used in my proposal, but I believe I will be actively using them (99%, at least) in the main project.
Baynes, Kenneth, et al., eds. After Philosophy: End or Transformation? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1986.
Berlin, James. Rhetorics, Poetics, Cultures: Refiguring College English Studies. Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English, 1996.
Burke, Kenneth. A Rhetoric of Motives. Cleveland: Meridian, 1962.
Carter, Michael. Where Writing Begins: A Postmodern Reconstruction. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
China Daily. “Archaeologists Rewrite History.” China Daily, June 12, 2003. 29 Sept. 2007 http://www.china.org.cn/english/2003/Jun/66806.htm
Dobrin, Sidney. Constructing Knowledges: The Politics of Theory-Building and Pedagogy in Composition. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997.
---------. “From Writing Processes to Cultural (Re)production: Composition’s Theoretical Shift.” Conference on College Composition and Communication, Chicago, 22 March 2002.
Faigley, Lester. Fragments of Rationality: Postmodernity and the Subject of Composition. Pittsburgh: U. of Pittsburgh Press, 1992.
Fish, Stanley. “Being Interdisciplinary Is So Very Hard to Do.” Profession 89, 15–22, 1991.
Guthrie, W. K. C. A History of Greek Philosophy. 6 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 1962.
Haldane, John. “Philosophy, Death, and Immortality.” Philosophical Investigations 30(3), 245-265.
Hawking, Stephen. A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes. Toronto: Bantam, 1988.
Hyers, Conrad. The Interpreter’s Bible. 12 vols. New York: Abington, 1952.
Joyce, Rosemary. The Languages of Archaeology: Dialogue, Narrative, and Writing. London: Blackwell Publishers, 2002.
Journet, Debra. “Writing within (and between) Disciplinary Genres.” In Thomas Kent, Ed. Post Process Theory: Beyond the Writing Process Paradigm. Carbondale, Ill: Southern Illinois University Press, 1999.
Klein, Julie. Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory, and Practice. Detroit: Wayne State U. Press, 1990.
Knoblauch, Cy, and Lil Brannon. Rhetorical Traditions and the Teaching of Writing. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook, 1984.
Lucas, Gavin. The Archaeology of Time. New York: Routledge, 2005.
Luce, J. V. An Introduction to Greek Philosophy. London: Thames and Hudson, 1992.
Lukacs, John. At the End of an Age. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002.
Lyon, Arabella. “Interdisciplinarity: Giving Up Territory.” College English 54 (1992): 681–93.
McIver, Tom. “The Alpha & the Omega.” Skeptic 7(3), (ID # 10639330), 1999.
North, Stephen. The Making of Knowledge in Composition: Portrait of an Emerging Field. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton, 1987.
Plato, and Albert Keith Whitaker. Parmenides. Newburyport, MA: Focus Publishing, 1996.
Preucel, Robert. Archaeological Semiotics. London: Blackwell Publishing, 2006.
Said, Edward W. Beginnings: Intention and Method. New York: Basic, 1975.
Vandenberg, Peter, Sue Hum, and Jennifer Clary-Lemon. Relations, Locations, Positions: Composition Theory for Writing Teachers. Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English, 2006.
Vitanza, Victor. “Three Countertheses: Or a Critical In(ter)vention into Composition Theories and Pedagogies.” In Harkin and Schlib, eds. Contending with Words: Composition and Rhetoric in a Postmodern Age. New York: MLA, 1991.
Whitehead, Alfred North. Adventures of Ideas. New York: Macmillan, 1933.
Baynes, Kenneth, et al., eds. After Philosophy: End or Transformation? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1986.
Berlin, James. Rhetorics, Poetics, Cultures: Refiguring College English Studies. Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English, 1996.
Burke, Kenneth. A Rhetoric of Motives. Cleveland: Meridian, 1962.
Carter, Michael. Where Writing Begins: A Postmodern Reconstruction. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
China Daily. “Archaeologists Rewrite History.” China Daily, June 12, 2003. 29 Sept. 2007 http://www.china.org.cn/english/2003/Jun/66806.htm
Dobrin, Sidney. Constructing Knowledges: The Politics of Theory-Building and Pedagogy in Composition. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997.
---------. “From Writing Processes to Cultural (Re)production: Composition’s Theoretical Shift.” Conference on College Composition and Communication, Chicago, 22 March 2002.
Faigley, Lester. Fragments of Rationality: Postmodernity and the Subject of Composition. Pittsburgh: U. of Pittsburgh Press, 1992.
Fish, Stanley. “Being Interdisciplinary Is So Very Hard to Do.” Profession 89, 15–22, 1991.
Guthrie, W. K. C. A History of Greek Philosophy. 6 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 1962.
Haldane, John. “Philosophy, Death, and Immortality.” Philosophical Investigations 30(3), 245-265.
Hawking, Stephen. A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes. Toronto: Bantam, 1988.
Hyers, Conrad. The Interpreter’s Bible. 12 vols. New York: Abington, 1952.
Joyce, Rosemary. The Languages of Archaeology: Dialogue, Narrative, and Writing. London: Blackwell Publishers, 2002.
Journet, Debra. “Writing within (and between) Disciplinary Genres.” In Thomas Kent, Ed. Post Process Theory: Beyond the Writing Process Paradigm. Carbondale, Ill: Southern Illinois University Press, 1999.
Klein, Julie. Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory, and Practice. Detroit: Wayne State U. Press, 1990.
Knoblauch, Cy, and Lil Brannon. Rhetorical Traditions and the Teaching of Writing. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook, 1984.
Lucas, Gavin. The Archaeology of Time. New York: Routledge, 2005.
Luce, J. V. An Introduction to Greek Philosophy. London: Thames and Hudson, 1992.
Lukacs, John. At the End of an Age. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002.
Lyon, Arabella. “Interdisciplinarity: Giving Up Territory.” College English 54 (1992): 681–93.
McIver, Tom. “The Alpha & the Omega.” Skeptic 7(3), (ID # 10639330), 1999.
North, Stephen. The Making of Knowledge in Composition: Portrait of an Emerging Field. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton, 1987.
Plato, and Albert Keith Whitaker. Parmenides. Newburyport, MA: Focus Publishing, 1996.
Preucel, Robert. Archaeological Semiotics. London: Blackwell Publishing, 2006.
Said, Edward W. Beginnings: Intention and Method. New York: Basic, 1975.
Vandenberg, Peter, Sue Hum, and Jennifer Clary-Lemon. Relations, Locations, Positions: Composition Theory for Writing Teachers. Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English, 2006.
Vitanza, Victor. “Three Countertheses: Or a Critical In(ter)vention into Composition Theories and Pedagogies.” In Harkin and Schlib, eds. Contending with Words: Composition and Rhetoric in a Postmodern Age. New York: MLA, 1991.
Whitehead, Alfred North. Adventures of Ideas. New York: Macmillan, 1933.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Class Exercise: Blog Genres
In small groups, present your topic and discuss the blog leaders in your field. Come up with a list of reasons (a rationale) as to why these might be the bloggers you discuss for your final paper. For example: What makes them a leader? site popularity? Current on issues? Writing style? Technical prowess?
Break apart from groups and write a “review” of one of these bloggers (you can use this as one of your posts next week).
Note: If there are no other bloggers on this topic, you can either broaden your genre (from Colbert to politics in general, for example) or you can write about why you’re the lone blogger on this topic.
Monday, October 29, 2007
The Dissertation Process ...
In this blog post I'm going to outline the process of getting through my particular Ph.D. program in English composition. Each university’s academic program has different requirements for the degree, so this one is particular only to Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
What Happens Before the Dissertation:
Students who have survived the application process should select a focus for their studies pretty soon upon entering (by about 12 hours into the program). In our program, a student could focus on English (composition) or English (Teaching English as a Second Language). We also have a sister department that is literature based. The courses themselves cover everything from “Quantitative Research” to “Teaching Writing” to “Second Language Literacy.” After taking the first 9 hours, students are required to submit a qualitative proposal (QP) that is a packet of documents including new writing, samples of previous coursework, etc. After passing the QP, students move to candidate status, continuing their courses, selecting appropriate electives, and finishing required ones. What's good about this is that the variety of professors, feedback, and coursework should prepare most students for the longer, sustained project of the dissertation.
On average, dissertations are approximately 205 pages in length (Hearther, 1998). During a recent conversation I had with my dissertation director, Dr. Claude, he asked me in all seriousness, "do you think you can cover all this in 200 pages?" He had been reviewing my proposal section that outlined the project. In the back of my mind, I was wondering, do I have enough to make 200 pages? But it seems that with the actual writing itself, the text flows. That's another great thing about directors. They can see the forest through the trees, definitely highlighting potential pitfalls along the way. What I thought was not enough content was becoming a content flood.
Clarifying the Content
So I'm about to start the third round of this proposal, hopefully my last. My job now is to show how my dissertation project both relates to English compositionist and NCSU professor Michael Carter's Where Writing Begins while standing on its own. The similarities are probably clearer than the differences: My text will complete the cyclical nature of the question Carter's book ends with: if the next question is where writing ends, that's what I plan on exploring. My chapters will mirror Carter's chapters, too; however, I'll have less "room" to maneuver because Carter's manuscript probably closed in on 350 pages. I have about 60% of the space to theorize.
But it's in the differences and details that I'm getting stuck: Carter uses the Greek archê (beginning) to deconstruct how we view beginnings, and then to apply that meaning to reconstruct how we envision beginning writing and how we can teach that, knowing what we know now. He uses a break-down/build-up method. I want to move from Carter’s conception of archelogical to my understanding of archaeological; the differences are not just temporal mor the addition of an extra "o" in the word. As Carter sees "beginnings"; I'm looking to "endings." I want to view the “end” of writing through the lens of writing as an artifact. This is a huge departure from his work, and justifying this transition is getting tough.
My next step is being able to articulate this difference, submit it as a new proposal, and get that approved. Then, I can work on convincing two other professors to sit on my committee. And, then, over the next two years, I write, and research, and theorize, and make corrections, get feedback, and repeat. I have two defenses to prepare for, and then when all that is said and done? I’ll have 200 pages of writing that probably only 4 people will ever read. What a strange process academia is ...
References Cited
Hearther, N. K. (1998). Dissertation Abstracts Database Now Tops 1,500,000. Retrieved October 29, 2007, from http://www1.umn.edu/oit/newsletter/0398-itn/abstracts.html
What Happens Before the Dissertation:
Students who have survived the application process should select a focus for their studies pretty soon upon entering (by about 12 hours into the program). In our program, a student could focus on English (composition) or English (Teaching English as a Second Language). We also have a sister department that is literature based. The courses themselves cover everything from “Quantitative Research” to “Teaching Writing” to “Second Language Literacy.” After taking the first 9 hours, students are required to submit a qualitative proposal (QP) that is a packet of documents including new writing, samples of previous coursework, etc. After passing the QP, students move to candidate status, continuing their courses, selecting appropriate electives, and finishing required ones. What's good about this is that the variety of professors, feedback, and coursework should prepare most students for the longer, sustained project of the dissertation.
On average, dissertations are approximately 205 pages in length (Hearther, 1998). During a recent conversation I had with my dissertation director, Dr. Claude, he asked me in all seriousness, "do you think you can cover all this in 200 pages?" He had been reviewing my proposal section that outlined the project. In the back of my mind, I was wondering, do I have enough to make 200 pages? But it seems that with the actual writing itself, the text flows. That's another great thing about directors. They can see the forest through the trees, definitely highlighting potential pitfalls along the way. What I thought was not enough content was becoming a content flood.
Clarifying the Content
So I'm about to start the third round of this proposal, hopefully my last. My job now is to show how my dissertation project both relates to English compositionist and NCSU professor Michael Carter's Where Writing Begins while standing on its own. The similarities are probably clearer than the differences: My text will complete the cyclical nature of the question Carter's book ends with: if the next question is where writing ends, that's what I plan on exploring. My chapters will mirror Carter's chapters, too; however, I'll have less "room" to maneuver because Carter's manuscript probably closed in on 350 pages. I have about 60% of the space to theorize.
But it's in the differences and details that I'm getting stuck: Carter uses the Greek archê (beginning) to deconstruct how we view beginnings, and then to apply that meaning to reconstruct how we envision beginning writing and how we can teach that, knowing what we know now. He uses a break-down/build-up method. I want to move from Carter’s conception of archelogical to my understanding of archaeological; the differences are not just temporal mor the addition of an extra "o" in the word. As Carter sees "beginnings"; I'm looking to "endings." I want to view the “end” of writing through the lens of writing as an artifact. This is a huge departure from his work, and justifying this transition is getting tough.
My next step is being able to articulate this difference, submit it as a new proposal, and get that approved. Then, I can work on convincing two other professors to sit on my committee. And, then, over the next two years, I write, and research, and theorize, and make corrections, get feedback, and repeat. I have two defenses to prepare for, and then when all that is said and done? I’ll have 200 pages of writing that probably only 4 people will ever read. What a strange process academia is ...
References Cited
Hearther, N. K. (1998). Dissertation Abstracts Database Now Tops 1,500,000. Retrieved October 29, 2007, from http://www1.umn.edu/oit/newsletter/0398-itn/abstracts.html
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Analysis Paper Overview & Checklist
Things that’ll get you ready to write your analysis paper:
1. What is your topic?
2. Who are the other bloggers on your topic? What are they saying?
b. How do you fit into this crowd?
3. A good selection of your blogs--Aim to have 8-10 blogs completed by the time of your beginning this paper
4. At least 3 references (excluding your blog)
5. Comfort in formatting a paper in MLA or APA style (see dianahacker.com/resdoc)
6. Accurate documentation standards (quoting/paraphrasing)
What to cover in your paper:
This paper is an analysis of your blog community (including you!).
It should cover the following points:
1. What is the background on your topic?,
2. What are bloggers saying about this topic/issue?,
3. How you have become part of this community? (Have you?),
4. What’s good/bad/working/not working about writing about this topic?
5. Suggestions for future bloggers on this topic.
Remember, this is a 4-5 page document.
Keep your text focused (on topic), full of details, accurate with documentation, etc. I want you to see what the issues have become in your blogging community. This is were the analysis comes in.
Fall Semester 2007
New Topic Brainstorming
And so we start another round of blog writing. And I wonder to myself, what do I write about this time? The first round was about politics, the second round about finances. I suppose I could discuss why the Broncos are doing so poorly this season or why Florida State just can't crack the top 25, or I could write about home improvement, the improvements I just finished and my plans for more, or I could write about my dissertation, or that marathon I keep gearing up for while letting injuries and school get in the way.
All of these topics require research on my part: for the Seminoles and Broncos I have to become an arm-chair coach of a game I've never played. For home improvements I have to really evaluate costs, home values, and the market. For my theoretical dissertation, which is in the hands of my director, I have to keep reading, writing, and exploring on a variety of topics related to compostion. For my running, I have to figure out why everything gets in the way of training, and come up with a new training scheme. All of these things can become part of my blog experiences for the next 8 weeks. However, I can only choose one.
Although all these topics are related to me personally, they're scattered as such and I must narrow the field. A blog on everything would have no sound structure, no overall development on one topic that can really enhance both my writing and my experiences with(in) the world. Thankfully I have a few days to decide.
And so we start another round of blog writing. And I wonder to myself, what do I write about this time? The first round was about politics, the second round about finances. I suppose I could discuss why the Broncos are doing so poorly this season or why Florida State just can't crack the top 25, or I could write about home improvement, the improvements I just finished and my plans for more, or I could write about my dissertation, or that marathon I keep gearing up for while letting injuries and school get in the way.
All of these topics require research on my part: for the Seminoles and Broncos I have to become an arm-chair coach of a game I've never played. For home improvements I have to really evaluate costs, home values, and the market. For my theoretical dissertation, which is in the hands of my director, I have to keep reading, writing, and exploring on a variety of topics related to compostion. For my running, I have to figure out why everything gets in the way of training, and come up with a new training scheme. All of these things can become part of my blog experiences for the next 8 weeks. However, I can only choose one.
Although all these topics are related to me personally, they're scattered as such and I must narrow the field. A blog on everything would have no sound structure, no overall development on one topic that can really enhance both my writing and my experiences with(in) the world. Thankfully I have a few days to decide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)