Working Definitions

After reading the texts for this week, Tyreek and I were both left with the impression that there were so many key terms that supported theories of genre that building a critical gloss would be helpful for students like us who are new to the theories. The tool that we sketched out is more than a mere glossary though. Rather, it was designed to function as a map of related terms--though we shun the word network--that would illuminate the development of those terms in between theorists across time. I won't belabor the description of the tool, which is detailed in our exploratory write-up. Briefly, we planned for the tool to be a collection of hyperlinked terms in a wiki space online, so that users could eventually become contributors as their understanding of genre theory developed. In the tool, users click on the hyperlinked text of the terms to generate a drop-down (or pop-up) field containing an evolving conceptual definition of the term with a focus on how it had changed over time as authors had repurposed it, or renewed former uses of it, in building theories of genre. Then we would list the authors from this week's readings who had used the terms. For the sake of organization, we chose to present the authors in chronological order, and following each author, the scholars influencing their use of the term. For some terms we imagined (based on our experience with the readings this week) that some terms would share common origins, so we devised a color system to show that overlap of influence. Tyreek and I each provided an example of how a term might look in the tool, but the examples we provided are only rough sketches in that they do not contain the conceptual definitions of the terms charted over time. I would like to use this critical blog post to elaborate a bit on how such a description might look for the term 'form'.

According to multiple genre theorists including Amy Devitt and Carolyn Miller, understanding of genre goes beyond treating form and content or substance as a divisible dichotomy. Devitt showed how "older" theories of genre contained many false dichotomies between surrounding terms that support theories of genre, revealing many related to the term form. One prominent dichotomy that seems to be well known across rhetorical theory (see Silva Rhetoricae) is that form and content are somehow separable from one another. In Miller's theory of genre, which she defined as "typified rhetorical actions based in recurrent situations" the fusion of form and substance results in meaning (159). Further, form and substance fuse into "symbolic meaning as action" at different hierarchical levels, which provide context for the other combinations. Drawing from Kenneth Burke, Karlyn Cambell and Kathleen Jamieson, Miller claimed that "Form shapes the response of the reader or listener to substance by providing instruction, so to speak, about how to perceive and interpret; this guidance disposes the audience to anticipate, to be gratified, to respond in a certain way. Seen thus, form becomes a kind of meta-information, with both semantic value (as information) and syntactic (or formal) value" (159). Form was a central element in Miller's theory and arguably many theories of genre. What we saw in our readings for this week was how certain authors complicated the term, noting how certain traditional theories (Miller might argue that these were not in fact theories) of genre uncritically conflated form and genre. This is also a practice that arguably still occurs today, which necessitates exposure to the "newer" genre theories. Hopefully this means that our tool could serve a vital purpose in facilitating this exposure. 

On a somewhat related note, there is one final thought that I would like to express concerning the ongoing nature of our tool, which I think derives in part from the nature of assignment. Two salient features for me are the collaboration inherent to the exploratory assignments and the technical explanation of how the tool should work (without having actually built the tool). Tyreek and I briefly discussed this yesterday following our collaborative work session. Through our collaboration we negotiated the nature of the tool itself. In this rhetorical situation, we arrive at a shared conceptualization of what our tool is and how it should work. During this process, there is some degree of trial and error in imagined functionality, especially when we put the ideas into writing. This negotiation continues after the collaboration ends, as the formal description of the tool (if this is composed when team members are apart, as was the case for us) the tool might drift in functionality as the team members work independently. With more time together, more discussion, or more revision, the "drift" might be reduced, but I think that a little a little drift is natural and even exciting. Part of this comes from spending more time thinking about how the tool can and should work as one is engaged in the act of describing it. I think this especially comes into play when we decide to "perform" or demonstrate the tool to the class. Has this been a longwinded way of expressing my anxiety about the presentation? Yes. Is our tool unfinished? Of course. But I am also excited to walk through the idea with Tyreek, possibly do some real-time negotiation, and see and hear everyone else's ideas (and if I'm lucky some real-time negotiation, discomfort, excitement, etc.).
 

Works Cited

Devitt, Amy. “Generalizing about Genre: New Conceptions of an Old Concept.” CCC 44.4 (Dec. 1993): 573-586.

Miller, Carolyn. “Genre as Social Action.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 70.2 (1984): 151-67.

Why a Genre Genealogy?

When Travis and I began imagining our citation-tracing tool, one concern we had to address was how, beyond its more limited scope, was this tool different from other tools readily available in the library databases, such as Web of Science? Our tool purports to trace the conversations about genre and collaboration in composition studies by tracking forward and backward from the core texts we read this week. Our choice of core texts is admittedly somewhat arbitrary, and do leave out Brooke's "Perspective: Notes toward a Remediation of Style," but we feel that as the texts selected by Dr. Graban for us to read during this turn, they represent an adequate starting point. Our tool tracks both the influences on these articles and the influence they have had on subsequent articles concerned with genre and collaboration.

This focus on genre and collaboration is what differentiates our tool from those like Web of Science and makes it more useful for a peer conducting inquiry into the concepts from the position of composition studies. Travis's blog post addresses some of the insights our tool reveals as we look to the influences on these works, so I'll turn to the future citations. When tracking Miller in Web of science, 452 results appear. Google Scholar, which offers a similar resource, finds 2497 citations. Our tool narrows those results to a more manageable and relevant number--two of our core articles, Berkenkotter and Huckin and Devitt, plus four articles drawn from the list of supplemental readings for the week. Among these supplemental articles is, not surprisingly, a later work by Miller, examining blogging as one specific genre and form of social action. The other three apply Miller's article to the role of genre in constructing texts and contexts (Bawarshi 335), to ideas of genre as ways of doing and therefore knowing (Carter 388), and to examination of a bank's communication strategies with outsiders (Smart, in Bazerman and Russell 15). Exploring Miller's treatment in these texts, we learn that she is heralded as an important figure in reconceptualizing genre and that she is also included in discussions of composition as constructive. Those conducting a more comprehensive exploration of Miller could then turn to Web of Science or Google Scholar for a more thorough listing of locations where she is cited, but someone conducting research that is specifically focused on genre in composition studies would find our tool useful in exploring the ways Miller's ideas have been taken up in the discipline.

By focusing on a curated selection of articles, drawn originally from the core readings and supplemental readings but with the intention to expand as developers found appropriate, our tool allows users to focus more in depth on the ideas connecting the readings this week and extending into a wider pool of scholarship on genre and collaboration rather than merely offering an automated algorithm for tracking citations.

Works Cited: 
Bawarshi, Ania. "The Genre Function." College English 62.3 (Jan. 2000): 335-60. 
Bazerman, Charles, and Russell, David, eds. Writing Selves/Writing Societies: Research from Activity Perspectives. Fort Collins, CO: The WAC Clearinghouse, 2002. 
Carter, Michael. "Ways of knowing, doing, and writing in the disciplines." College Composition and Communication 58.3 (2007): 385-418. 
Miller, Carolyn. “Genre as Social Action.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 70.2 (1984): 151-67
Miller, Carolyn and Dawn Shepherd. "Blogging as Social Action: A Genre Analysis of the Weblog" Into the Blogosphere: Rhetoric, COmmunity, and Culture of Weblogs.2004. 

A shift in tool

            When Netty and I first started to plan our research tool, it did not much resemble what we eventually decided upon. And I think unpacking why we’ve made a shift from one idea to the next might tell us something about genre theory—in particular, how we might use a framework of genre for analysis or how to research genre.

            In our initial plans, we had the idea to generate a visual map for users to see how a text is networked with antecedent texts—users would be able to find a text or a genre and trace it historically or to look at other texts/genres that are in parallel to the text in question.  This research tool would be more of an archive of texts that are represented in a visual way. The artifacts within the genre would be arranged visually where similar artifacts would be in closer proximity to the artifact, but also clusters of texts would denote a specific genre. This idea we borrowed from this website: http://www.music-map.com/ At this website, you can search a music group and the interface places the band at the center. Other bands circle around the band of focus—the closer a group is to the center, the more similar it is in genre, but interestingly, depending on where the other band is in terms of direction demonstrates it’s closer proximity to a different genre. So, we see how the band at the center may be operating within several genres.

            When we designed this initial tool, our main focus was on how a user might use a framework of genre to research a specific artifact: the map would be an archive that was tagged for the genre. The visual map could also tell us something about how a large genre (we were thinking like letters or even documents generally) has been organized into sub-genres. But then once we had this idea, we began to discuss whether this tool was in fact a research tool for genre specifically or was it just representing genres? We saw that this archive is more geared toward genre as an aspect of many other theories: users could use the archive to look at genres but we could not figure a way to fit the genre theorists of this week’s readings into the tool. And we saw this as a problem if we were also trying to map genre as a theory, not just as an aspect.

            So, we began to move toward a set of Frequently Asked Questions—I won’t go too far into how the FAQ operates because we describe it here . Specifically, we would get the best of both worlds: first, we could include the voices of people who were specifically theorizing genre. And second, we could include other archives or tools that imply a genre theory, but we could offer users a frame to understand the tool through theorist of genre. For example, the music map mentioned above is provided under “how do genres emerge?” That question coupled with the brief description of the tool may prompt users to see the map as contributing the questions of genre, specifically.

Tools Combined: A Termline for Locating Theorists with Terms and Dates

As we began brainstorming our tool, Charise and I wanted users to walk a way with a well-grounded sense of key terms, the theorists talking about terms, and the dates of the conversation of each term surrounding theories of genre- quite a large task at hand. Devitt explains the necessity for grounding theories of genre in time, “Understanding genre requires understanding more than just classification schemes; it requires understanding the origins of the patterns on which those classifications are based” (575). Hence, the termline: a timeline of theorists connected to identified terms related to theories of genre. We decided to not only include theorists from this week, but included the authors they referenced. To ground our project, we identified essential terms from our readings relevant to theories of genre. We also began organizing a list of theorists and terms they are connected to, to give a better idea of out aim for the tool.

There are four parts to the Termline: the search engine, timeline, theorists, and term thread. First, the user is presented with a search bar in which they can search terms they think most relevant to theories of genre. In addition to the search bar, a list of words available on the site will be accessible to the user. We decided to add this second feature of the home page since there are a limited number of terms related to theories of genre. Once a term is searched or selected, the user is brought to the term page. On the term page, a timeline is presented connecting theorists who employed the term in conversation. Users are then able to see who said what, when. Using the termline, users are then able to access articles to read to conceptualize the selected term. Inspired by Trimbur’s theories of collaborative learning, we also decided to provide a discussion forum for users to comment on the term page. The discussions are organized much like a forum, by topics created by users. Because we have allowed users to add theorists and articles to the termline, we wanted to provide a space for them to also discuss their reasons for doing so and a way to discuss relevant topics and “explore the rhetoric of dissensus that pervades writing situations” (Trimbur 610).

We envision this tool being used for research on theories of genre and as a rhetorical device to explore ideas within a shared community that could potentially lead to further theory building. We take up theories social constructivism as essential to the theory building process and as such, embedded collaborative options into the termline. Because we don’t see theories of genre as a flat entity, we want users to have the option to add to the discussion and the tool.

Works Cited

Devitt, Amy. “Generalizing about Genre: New Conceptions of an Old Concept.” CCC 44.4

(Dec. 1993): 573-586.

Trimbur, John. “Consensus and Difference in Collaborative Learning.” College English 51.6 (Oct.1989): 602-16.

Uncovering Genre Through The "Termline"

For the “Build-A-Tool” activity, Mackenzie and I wanted to demonstrate the relationship between terminology and theorists that are integrated throughout the “Theories of Genre” readings.  In order to accomplish this, we decided to create an interactive, stackable “termline,” which would organize the readings by specific criteria.  Ultimately, we wanted to combine the functions of a glossary, timeline, and annotated bibliography, while primarily maintaining vocabulary and articles that circulate within the discussion of genre and collaborative learning.  In the spirit of collaborative learning, we wanted to ensure that searchers would have the capability to add additional sources, theorists, terms, and articles onto the stackable “termline”, which would allow the term to grow as new voices entered the field.

            Because Carolyn Miller integrates multiple voices in "Genre As Social Action," it is fitting to use this text to demonstrate how our "termline" synthesizes terms and theorists. She introduces theorists, such as Campbell and Jamieson, Burke, Karrell and Linkugel, Bitzer, Fisher, Wellek and Warren, Brinton, Patton, Halliday, Blumer, Searle, Toulmin, Pearce and Conklin, Downey, and Simons.  It was our hope that our tool would contain various organizational capabilities that could allow accessibility to these theorists and publications, while sorting and displaying the abstracts according to terminology.  For instance, Miller utilizes Campbell and Jamieson’s argument that “genre study is valuable…because it emphasizes some social and historical aspects of rhetoric that other perspectives do not” (151).  If the searcher was trying to obtain materials on this topic, Campbell and Jamieson’s “Form and Genre in Rhetorical Criticism: An Introduction” would appear beside Miller’s “Genre As Social Action,” allowing the searcher to compare theorists and time of publication.  For additional clarification, a visual example utilizing the term "audience" is provided below.

Ultimately, the aim of our tool is to build and create conversations among the theorists presented in our weekly, while expanding the conversation to additional sources.  Because the interactive, stackable “termline” synthesizes theorists, terms, and ideologies over the span of time, the searcher can also draw conclusions based in historical findings and contemporary ideologies.  This can prove to be beneficial when observing theoretical turns in genre study.

Works Cited

Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs., and Kathleen Hall. Jamieson. Form and Genre: Shaping Rhetorical Action. Falls Church, VA: Speech Communication Association, 1978. Print.

Miller, Carolyn. “Genre as Social Action.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 70.2 (1984): 151-67

Everything Else is in the Cloud These Days, Why Not Terms?

For this exploratory, we wanted to construct a tool that would reflect the multiple meanings and layering of terms present throughout this week’s readings. We also wanted to demonstrate the connections between the readings in order to help users navigate through the networked concepts put forward about genre. In order to accomplish these tasks, we decided to build a full text archive, in which key terms would be hyperlinked. These hyperlinks would enable users to not only view the definition of how the term is being used in the one particular context, but also to see the other ways in which the term is used in a kind of critical gloss.

On the home page of the archive, we would have a word cloud comprised of key terms that we see present across the readings: genre, discourse, social, ecology, collaboration, rhetorical situation, social construction, etc. Though we realize that this list of terms in not exhaustive, we do think it provides a good starting point for theorizing the interconnections and subtle nuances of these terms and how they have circulated within a network of meaning. These key terms would be clickable so that a user can select a term and be directed to readings that address or include that concept.  We chose these terms in particular because most of them are relatively fluid as employed or interpreted across our readings for this week. As we wrote in our theoretical tool description, the most obvious example of this fluidity is the term “genre.” The concept is present in each of the respective readings—though not always explicitly named. For me, it was difficult to see the slight differences that characterized each scholar’s definition of genre, so we wanted to create a tool that would make the intertextual conversation more apparent and highlight the slight nuances of use between the terms.

Furthermore, we want these same key terms to be hyperlinked in the full texts themselves. These hyperlinks, when hovered over, would provide a definition of the term as employed in that particular text. When clicked, the link would take the user to a separate page that lists the various ways in which the term could be defined in reference to the other archived texts.  We do realize that in providing definitions for these terms, we might be constraining the potential meaning. However, we think the benefits of definition outweigh the costs. Having multiple definitions available and embedded within the texts creates a navigable intertext that allows user to see the many similarities between each scholar’s uses of the terms, and prevents reducing the term to just one definition. This, I think, incorporates Miller’s understanding of genre as a social act: “If we understand genres as typified rhetorical actions based in recurrent situations, we must conclude that members of a genre are discourses that are complete, in the sense that they are circumscribed by a relatively complete shift in rhetorical situation” (159). Miller also discusses the ways in which genre can be used as a classification system. Devitt takes up a similar approach, but cautions, “Understanding genre requires understanding more than just classification schemes; it requires understanding the origins of the patterns on which those classifications are based” (575). We hope that by providing multiple definitions, we are helping to make the origins of these more terms accessible without conforming or resulting in “accommodation” (Trimbur 603). In a sense, our glossary of terms may actually represent what Trimbur refers to as consensus: “In its deferred and utopian form, consensus offers a way to orchestrate dissensus and to turn the conversation in the collaborative classroom into a heterotopia of voices—a heterogeneity without hierarchy” (615). The gloss may in fact work as a “heterotopia of voices” in which the multiple definitions serve as an instrument to incite conversation of parallels and divergences.

            In sum, we see our tool as offering a networked archive that chronicles the existing intertextual conversation within this particular group of readings. Providing multiple definitions of our terms through hyperlinks enhances this intertext by allowing users to more easily access and note the parallels and divergences of each scholar’s use of terminology. Our archive is intended to be a network of meaning, in which users can explore the layers of this intertextual conversation. As Julianna wrote in her blog post, “The terms are never intended to be read only singularly, but rather, we invite viewers to view the terms in isolation only to better understand the larger meaning created through the intertext.” Though our tool is complicated and multi-layered, we believe that if navigated correctly, it could provide a useful way of approaching these readings. We even see the potential for adding new texts, key terms, and materials to supplement the grouping of texts about genre.