Sign in or 
Location: Question Formation and Analysis 10
Discussion: Programmatic Questions
Category:
Discussion Forum /
General Discussion
Share this
Showing 4 posts
|
amyr6531 |
Programmatic Questions
Apr 28 2008, 12:56 PM EDT
1. In this class, have we made a convincing case for the necessity of digital rhetoric as a separate methodology inherently deserving its own course title?2. In terms of working in academia, have we determined who our research is responsible to? Are we responsible only to ourselves, other academics, a wider public audience? 3. If the internet is an endless procession of simulacrum, have we established a framework by which to evaluate what work needs to be done and what work is less useful? Do you find this valuable?
Keyword tags:
None
|
|
jcover |
1. RE: Programmatic Questions
Apr 30 2008, 12:36 PM EDT
On Question #1...This question is very interesting because it implies that digital rhetoric is a methodology rather than a topic. Thus it also posits an underlying assumption that courses are delineated along methodological lines rather than in another way. This question also shows the authors view that courses should serve some "necessity"... that there would not be a reason to have an unnecessary course. Finally, this author equates the course methodology/topic with the course title. Do you find this valuable? |
|
KaraLa |
2. RE: Programmatic Questions
Apr 30 2008, 2:07 PM EDT
Amy’s questions, though each addressing different concerns, are all closely related. The questions are directed towards individuals who have studied digital rhetoric in this course: we as audience members are both students and future academics. At first glance, these programmatic questions seem straightforward, inviting “yes” or “no” answers only. Upon further consideration, however, the questions call the audience to consider not only the obvious “yes”/“no” responses but also the justifications behind each answer and how they relate to larger disciplinary and professional issues. (Although implicit, Amy does seem to ask the audience to consider how each issue functions not only in terms of digital rhetoric but also in terms of rhetorical research.) She questions, for instance, to whom researchers in academia are ultimately responsible and what theoretical frameworks related to digital rhetoric might be extended to the field of rhetoric and composition in general.Amy might rephrase or reorder her questions in order to aid audience comprehension and improve audience response. She might, for instance, ask more in-depth questions (thus avoiding “yes” or “no” responses) that explicitly require the audience to consider their understanding of digital rhetoric. She could then ask readers to draw upon—and explain—their understanding of research in the discipline and how it ties in to the current study of digital rhetoric. This rephrasing, though, would not detract from the understood goal of Amy’s questions, an attempt to articulate and establish an understanding of digital rhetoric as part of and contributing to rhetoric in general. Do you find this valuable? |
Megfish |
3. RE: Programmatic Questions
May 8 2008, 4:52 PM EDT
Amy's question requires us to make a number of definition decisions. First, we as ask to define what a "convincing case" would be. What is necessary for something to be convincing? Facts? Citations? Personal experience? We are also asked to define digital rhetoric. Then, Amy asks us to evaluate digital rhetoric's worth according to it methodological value. How does one evaluate a methodology? What differentiates it from method? Finally, Amy posits that a sound methodology would require its own course with corresponding title. Could a methodology have inherent value?
Do you find this valuable?
|
