My qualifying examination reading list
(Updated Aug 19 to add picture and correct typos!) Below is the bibliography of the 150 or so books, book chapters, and articles I’m studying for my PhD qualifying exams in spring 2013. I need to pass these exams to be permitted to write my dissertation. The texts are actually divided into four groups, based on the faculty members who will be writing the question and reading my answer for each group: Rhetorical theory (Dr. Berkenkotter); scientific and technical communication (Dr. Breuch); law, language, logic (my specialty; Dr. Schuster); and computational methods (Dr. Pakhomov). There are two items yet Read More …
Why I got gay-married in NYC…
… and why even (or especially) flat-earth fundamentalists should not be threatened by it On January 13, 2012, on the 23rd anniversary of our first date—which was also a Friday the 13th—Bob and I got married in New York City. This union has little legal significance: Minnesota does not recognize it, and if some folks have their way, by year-end there will be a state constitutional amendment preventing its recognition. A few states and countries will honor our decision to claim responsibility for each other, but not our home state, where we spend most of our time. Our relationship did Read More …
Preparing readers for texts… my first CogSci colloquium
I attended my first colloquium hosted by the Center for Cognitive Sciences at the University of Minnesota. (Information about the weekly series is available on CogSci’s web site.) Today’s presenter was Michael Mensink, a PhD candidate in Educational Psychology. He presented the results of research (by him and his colleagues) into the ways that the attention of students reading texts can be focused by certain kinds of “prereading questions.” The research is reported in Mensink’s forthcoming dissertation and the following article: Peshkam, A., Mensink, M. C., Putnam, A. L., & Rapp, D. N. (n.d.). Warning readers to avoid irrelevant information: Read More …
Readings for 8011 for November 29
This week we’ll have a visit from Drs. Tom Reynolds and Patrick Bruch to talk about research in pedagogy. We had several readings to prepare for this discussion. Here they are: Herndl, C. G. (2004). Teaching discourse and reproducing culture: a critique of research and pedagogy in professional and non-academic writing. In J. Johnson-Eilola & S. A. Selber (Eds.), Central Works in Technical Communication (illustrated edition., pp. 220-231). Oxford University Press, USA. Young, I. (1990). Introduction. Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press. Connors, R. J., & Lunsford, A. A. (1993). Teachers’ Rhetorical Comments on Student Read More …
Readings for November 22 in 8011
We had four readings for this week, focused on feminist criticism and theory in technical communication research: MacNealy, M. S. (1998). Qualitative Research with Special Lenses: Feminist and Teacher Research (Chapter 12). In Strategies for Empirical Research in Writing. Longman. Schuster, M. L. (2006). A Different Place to Birth: A Material Rhetoric Analysis of Baby Haven, a Free-Standing Birth Center. Women’s Studies in Communication, 29(1), 1-38. doi:Article Schuster, M.L. (writing as Lay, M. M.) (2002). Feminist Criticism and Technical Communication Research. In L. J. Gurak & M. M. Lay (Eds.), Research in Technical Communication: Ablex Publishing. Discussed in a previous Read More …
The Phenomenology of Error
I received a link from friend and colleague Trent Kays to this article: Williams, J. M. (1981). The phenomenology of error. College Composition and Communication, 32(2), 152-168. (I UPDATED this post 11/22 with notes from Prof. Sihler below.) It’s a good read, and points up a key problem: Self-appointed arbiters of writing style, unofficial state grammarians, and teachers of writing often feel compelled to point out errors in the writings of others. Unfortunately, an “error” may not really be one, because most readers would not react to it that way. And the grammar police themselves commit similar or identical errors Read More …
Propen and Schuster reading for 8011
One of our readings this week gets special treatment from me, as I have to lead discussion of it. This post includes my summary and questions about it. (Full disclosure: Mary Schuster is my PhD adviser, so I make no claims of objectivity.) Propen, A. D., & Schuster, M. L. (2010). Understanding genre through the lens of advocacy: the rhetorical work of the victim impact statement. Written Communication, 27(1), 3-35. doi:10.1177/0741088309351479 Study overview The authors sought to explore the “rhetorical work” of a victim impact statement (VIS), a statement given at the time a criminal is sentenced in which the Read More …
Readings for November 15 in 8011
In today’s class, we’re having visits from Dr. John Logie and Dr. Christina Haas, both professors in the department. Logie will be talking about rhetorical analysis and Haas about grounded theory. We read two studies for today; not surprisingly, they employed rhetorical analysis and grounded theory. Here they are: Harper, F. M., Weinberg, J., Logie, J., & Konstan, J. A. (2010). Question types in social Q&A sites. First Monday, 15(7). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/2913/2571 Teston, C. B. (2009). A Grounded Investigation of Genred Guidelines in Cancer Care Deliberations. Written Communication, 26(3), 320 -348. doi:10.1177/0741088309336937 The Harper study (on which Prof. Logie Read More …
Thoughts about making a guest visit to WRIT3001
Tom Wright, a PhD candidate in my department, has asked me to come and speak to his students in “WRIT 3001 Introduction to Scientific and Technical Communication” on November 29 about technical communication in the law. I had originally suggested to Tom that we have the students read an interesting article about the denial of rhetoric in legal discourse for which I’m hoping soon to post an annotation (Wetlaufer 1990). After talking to Tom today, though, I think I want to take a different tack (and I think he’d prefer that, too). What we discussed today is that I would provide a Read More …
Readings for Nov 8 in 8011
On November 8, we are having a visit from Dr. Carol Berkenkotter to talk about textual analysis. The readings for this week generally center around that topic. MacNealy MacNealy, M. S. (1998). Discourse or Text Analysis (Chapter 7). In Strategies for Empirical Research in Writing. Longman. In this book chapter, Mary Sue MacNealy provides an overview of discourse and text analysis, setting out the reasons scholars choose these methods, decisions scholars make to employ them, examples of their use, and their advantages and disadvantages. MacNealy uses the terms “discourse” and “text” interchangeably to refer to oral, written, and graphic materials Read More …