Posts Tagged ‘blogging’

Is blogging “writing”?

April 8, 2010

Much of the research that has been done on writing frames what the writer does as surmounting a “rhetorical situation”. This is usually thought of as conceptualizing the audience, formulating the topic, and giving the text exigency or organization. It has also been thought of as the “rhetorical triangle”:

This is closer to the Aristotleian idea of rhetoric in which the speaker appeals to the logic of the subject (LOGOS), the audience’s emotions (PATHOS) and the author’s own character (ETHOS) in order to cause some effect on the audience.

In this view, then, is the blogger faced with a rhetorical situation?

Blogs are primarily text-based but usually multimodal, or comprised of additional modes such as images, videos, and hyperlinks, typography, layout and more. Some of the teen blogs I have surveyed contain not just text-based entries narrating their day-to-day lives, but also poetry and song lyrics, embedded video culled from video sharing sites like YouTube, and images which they drew or found online, as well as photographs taken with cellphone cameras.

When you compose with multimedia, is that “writing”? What about when you produce a new text using content not originally “yours” that you remix?

I wonder what is the most apt term for what the blogger does.

Merriam-Webster defines rhetoric as:

1 : the art of speaking or writing effectively: as a : the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times b : the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion
2 a : skill in the effective use of speech b : a type or mode of language or speech; also : insincere or grandiloquent language
3 : verbal communication : discourse

It seems to me that this definition implies, though its emphasis on “effectiveness”, that the writer or speaker is persuading. So the rhetorical situation then would be a matter of “persuasion”.

So would blogging better be called the “task of composition”? Composing it seems captures this sense of using language to produce a text as well as bringing together particular elements to create a whole.

In some sense then, blogging IS writing. However, with its multimedial and multimodal components blogging is more than approaching a rhetorical situation involving topic, audience, and form or ethos, pathos and logos.

Advertisements

The “new ethos” of writing online…what it inspires for literacy education

March 2, 2010


Lankshear and Knobel (2006) differentiate between the new “technical stuff” made of hardware and software and new “ethos stuff” (p. 93) which they define as the “the emergence of a distinctly contemporary mindset” (p. 73) which arises in conjunction with the social use of new technologies. This is the difference between the technologies themselves and how people take them up. Leu et al. (2004) describes these new ethos or mindsets as the “important new strategies and dispositions required by the Internet” (p.) Leu et al. (2008) argue for the existence of “changes in social and cultural ways of doing things, ways of being, ways of viewing the world (world views), and so on” (p. 7).

Since the Internet is a “literacy issue”, most of these new ethos have to do with reading and writing. Rhetorical approaches such as audience awareness in writing in new media environments like blogs are part of the literacy practices which comprise the new ethos. There is a dearth of research to date about how teenagers think about the creation and dissemination of online multimodal texts and specifically how they conceptualize their audience when they are writing online, although their audiences are quite different in nature and scope from those of print-based writing environments. Schools continue to teach within the framework of the ethos of print literacies alone (Gee, 2004; Lam, 2006; Sefton-Green, 2006) instead of those fostered by new media because as of yet descriptions and protocols do not exist outlining what the online writing environment and practices therein actually entail. The social context for literacy learning is changing, but not enough is known in this realm to aptly inform pedagogy.

Specifically, a focus on audience in a study of teenage bloggers writing online is important considering the characteristic of the blog and other forms of online social media to provide a real audience and thus an authentic context for writing. In traditional literacy education contexts, the writing in the classroom is decontextualized, and the only “real” audience is the teacher. The problematic aspect of this fact becomes clear in light of existing research that contends that audience is important to good writing both in terms of quality and motivation to write (cite).  Even considering that students are expected to be able to write for and expect to be evaluated by a variety of audiences in print-based approaches to literacy curriculum and teaching, audience awareness is important as a focus of research.

Another aspect of this problem of the lack of knowledge about the new mindsets or new ethos of the social use of technology is that students who use these technologies outside of school and are competent in these “new strategies and dispositions” are often deskilled when they enter the classroom. Their “ways of doing things, ways of being, and ways of viewing the world’’ (Leu et al. 2008) are not recognized. The disconnect between what is required in the way of new ethos to participate in the contemporary media environment and the kinds of literacies which are privileged by the government-sanctioned school curriculum positions these students as incompetent (Hull & Nelson, 2005; Mahiri, 2004). As Jewitt (year) purports: “pedagogic understanding of students’ mediascapes demands the adoption of strategies for engaging with the literacy worlds of students and their interests and desires. The theoretical and pedagogic focus of multimodality and multiliteracies can support teachers in engaging with the resources students bring into the classroom. This includes understanding students as sign makers, the texts they make as designs of meaning, and the meaning-making processes that they are engaged in. These can give insights into the kinds of resources that students have access to (as well as those they do not)” p. 261. The dearth of research around the new ethos of digital literacies like blogging not only hinders the literacy learning of those students who approach literacy tasks from the place of new ethos, but it also ensures that students who do not have the new ethos mindset and the concomitant strategies and dispositions will not be afforded the chance to develop them. This is problematic given assertions that these new ethos are what will be needed to be successful in our increasingly digital, networked, and globalized society (cite).
We are at an important crossroads in terms of the research being done in the realm of literacy education considering rapid and monumental changes in the semiotic and communicative landscape.  This inspires the need to develop an [adequate] theory and practice for identifying, understanding, and explaining the new of composition which includes how teenagers conceptualize their audience when they are writing online. As Reinking purports (1998): “Digital forms of expression are increasingly replacing printed forms and there is a widespread consensus, at least intuitvely, that this shift has consequences for the way we communicate and disseminate information, how we approach the task of reading and writing, and how we think about helping people to become literate” (p. xv)

Hull, G. & Nelson, (2005)

Jewitt, C.: Multimodality and Literacy, RRE 32

Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2006)New literacies: Everyday practices and classroom learning.

Leu et al. (2004)

Leu et al. (2008) H of NLR.

Mahiri, (2004).

(Gee, 2004; Lam, 2006; Sefton-Green, 2006)

Reinking (1998)

Rethinking audiences in writing online

February 23, 2010

I’m planning to begin researching the way a teenage blogger conceptualizes her audience when writing online. This study necessitates some thinking about the concepts of authorship and audience in blogging.

I argue that the blog fosters a unique relationship between author and audience mainly as a result of the way that the blog structures communication. The kinds of communicative structures blogging platforms support include asynchronous communication by way of comment boxes and response to blog posts by other bloggers via interlinked blogs (in other words, the possiblity for interaction by potentially vociferous audiences), the ability of the Internet to allow for wider, possibly global dissemination of texts to invisible, anonymous, and heterogeneous audiences and at the same time a combination of known, offline audiences as well. None of these characteristics are new, but in the kind of combination made possible by the blog, they are unique to this platform (Fornas, et al. 2002; McMillan, 2002).

Although blogging as a part of so-called “Web 2.0” applications is thought of as an artifact of “participatory culture” as defined by Jenkins (1994, 2006), audiences have been thought of as participatory before blogging or Web 2.0 audiences. Levine (1991) reminds us that audiences in the 19th century and Elizabethan theater can be characterized as “…more than an audience; they are participants who can enter into the action on the field, who feel a sense of immediacy and at times even of control, who articulate their opinions and feelings vocally and unmistakably” (p. 167). These audiences could structure the course of a performance through their vocal feedback delivered as a performance unraveled.

Furthermore, while some have argued that later audiences for television were passive and less subjective consumers of mass culture (Chomsky), other theorists have disputed this notion (Foucault, 1980, holding that the discourse dissipates the power) and research has been done about the participatory nature of even television viewing (Hall, 1974, Morely, 1980; Ang, 1991).

In this case, I hold audience to be of two parts. For a blog, there is both a real audience which are those who actually read the blog (these readers might be known to the author online or offline or unknown “lurkers”) and an audience which exists in the mind of the blogger.

Ang’s analysis relying on Foucault’s notion of discourse to examine audience is useful to me in my attempt to describe how authors are conceptualizing their audience, this audience that exists within their heads. Ang argues that television producers view their audiences as somewhat homogenous and able to be classified and controlled through the use of particular discourses which position them as consumers in order to sell them products and services. However, the audiences constructed by these discourses do not exist organically and the real audiences for television programs end up a mismatch which are more agentic than the television producers attempt to make them.

Like Ang, I believe that blog authors construct a certain picture of the audience that they envision in their head through the discourse they use in their blog text. By uncovering the discourses of the audience developed by the blogger, I think we can know more about how the blogger conceptualizes her audience.

However, because blog audiences are not only discursively constructed but also exist in the “real world”, I will examine the blog comments and interview bloggers about evidence they have of “actual” audiences for their blog.

In addition to the theoretical basis hitherto described, this approach is also based on work by Ede and Lunsford (1984) wherein they challenged the previous dichotomous approaches to audience, audience addressed and audience invoked. Those in the audience addressed camp believed that tailoring writing to a specific audience is not just a real possibility but also the key to strong, successful rhetoric. Those who believe in the audience invoked, on the other hand, see audience as a “constructed fiction” (Ong). Ede and Lunsford argue that neither of these approaches is the reality of the rhetorical situation when it comes to audience. In the case of a blogger’s sense of who their audience is, I would agree with Ede and Lunsford that audience should be viewed as both real and concrete as well as existing within the mind of the writer.

What am I overlooking in my theoretical framework? I would appreciate any feedback.