Category: rhetoric

Categories
rhetoric

Interesting strategy for a phishing scam

Apparently, phishing scammers are branching out. I’ve seen an uptick in phishing spam in the last few months to my university e-mail account. Generally, these spammers claim to be Nigerian or British or children of noble-yet-cruelly-treated-by-the-new-military-government African public servants, who just happen to need to quickly transfer Dad’s (or Mom’s) hard-earned cash out of the country. The usual story.

This most recent e-mail might be clever- if not for the lack of attention to idiomatic and stylistic details. This scammer is claiming to be a US officer in Iraq, who needs to transfer (completely legally!) millions of dollars:

Good day and compliments, I know this letter will definitely come to you as a huge surprise, but I implore you to take the time to go through it carefully as the decision you make will go off a long way to determine my future and continued existence.

Please allow me to introduce myself. I am Sgt. Cole Andrew, a US Marine Sgt. Serving in the 3rd Battalion, 25th Marine Regiment that Patrols the Anbar province, Iraq. I am desperately in need of assistance and I have summoned up courage to contact you. I am presently in Iraq and I found your contact particulars in an address journal.

I am seeking your assistance to evacuate the sum of Two Million Nine Hundred Thousand US Dollars (2,900 USD) to the States or any safe country, as far as I can be assured that it will be safe in your care until I complete my service here. This is no stolen money and there are no dangers involved.

Note the implication in the first paragraph that the reader’s attention is crucial for the safety and security of the author. Whatever you do, don’t stop reading! The next paragraph attempts to build up the author’s ethos by drawing upon the regard most Americans have for members of our armed services. I haven’t checked whether there is a 3rd Battalion, 25th Marine Regiment, or whether they are stationed in Anbar Provence, but that would be easy enough to do. I’m also not sure what an “address journal” is, but I suspect what is meant here is “university address book which I used to send out a massive spam attempt.” Perhaps the use of wording like “implore,” “particulars,” and “Good day and complements” would be explainable if this supposed individual was a foreign national serving in the Marines, but the idiom is hardly American.

Next, the scammer explains where the money comes from, in an effort to assure the reader that it is certainly not stolen money (oh my, no, whyever would you suspect that?):

SOURCE OF MONEY:

Some money in various currencies was discovered and concealed in barrels with piles of weapons and ammunition at a location near one of Saddam Hussein’s old
Presidential Palaces during a rescue operation and it was agreed by all party present that the money be shared amongst us over the years, but now that and was kept in courier security vault for safe keeping.

Click Copy this link to get the full story: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/*****.stm (I removed the full link location info so no one would be tempted to click on it.)

It’s hard to parse the grammatical sloppiness of the latter part of this sentence, but perhaps “Sgt Andrew” is writing this in stressful combat conditions. More important is the invocation of Saddam Hussein- an attempt at pathos: many people would certainly welcome the attempt to get back at the dictator by helping a brave soldier take money away from him. We might argue that Hussein is already dead, so taking his money is equivalent to taking money from the new Iraqi government-and by extension the Iraqi people- but the next line tries to quash that line of thinking with another appeal to emotion:

This might appear as an illegal thing to do but I tell you what? No compensation can make up for the risks we have taken with our lives in this hell hole in Iraq which you are fully aware.

The author here presumes that the reader is an American, and one who sympathizes with the experiences of the troops sent to Iraq. Probably not a bad assumption in general, but my university does have quite a few foreign members, for whom this tactic might not be as effective.

Next, the author attempts to create a rational argument as to why, now that the US is largely leaving Iraq, “Sgt Andrew” needs to move this money, and why he is contacting the reader. An argument of logos (the grammar deteriorates here, though, harming the effectiveness of this argument):

The above figure was given to me as my share and to conceal this kind of money became a problem for me, so with the help of a British contact working with the UN here (his office enjoys some immunity)

What does the British contact enjoy immunity from? Are we meant to see this statement and interpret it as an assumption that we have some specialized knowledge about the legalities of moving stolen currency out of war zones into foreign bank accounts? Or does it just sound impressive?

I was able to get the package out to a safe location entirely out of trouble spot. He does not know the real contents of the package as he believes that it belongs to an American who died in an air raid, who before giving up trusted me to hand over the package to his close relative. I have now found a secured way of getting the package out of Iraq for you to pick up. I do not know for how long I will remain here, as I have been lucky to survive 2 suicide bomb attacks by Pure Divine intervention.

I am not sure if US $2.9 million can fit into an easily-carried package, but the author clearly assumes I think this is plausible. Note also the reiteration of immediate personal danger to “Sgt Andrew,” which underscores the need to contact him swiftly.

Here, we end with a few grammatical inconsistencies, as well as some more choices of terminology which an American would probably not use:

This and other reasons put into consideration have prompted me to reach out for help. If it might be of interest to you then Endeavour to contact me and we would work out the necessary formalities but I pray that you are discreet about this mutually benefiting relationship.

Respectfully,
Sgt. Cole Andrew
United States Marine Corps. IRAQ

So, this seems to be a new slant on phishing attempts. I’ve been trying to pin down why it pissed me off enough that I’d spend some time writing this post. My main objection to it is probably pragmatic. I am concerned that that this angle actually might be effective, if this type of scam is targeted toward American teens- at least more effective that the more usual “my father was a brave government official” scam. It seems to open up a potential different subset of scam victims.

Morally, is it more wrong to adopt the persona of a US soldier in order to scam Americans than to pretend to be the daughter of a foreign official? I don’t know. Members of the military put their lives on the line to defend other members of their country (leaving aside the question of whether the Iraq war in particular was morally justifiable), so they should be accorded respect in society based upon that service, but is this scam taking advantage of soldiers, or our feelings about soldiers? I think it’s the latter, so I can’t say it’s a more unethical phishing attempt than usual. But it still pissed me off.

Categories
discourse community/community of practice exam readings information representation rhetoric visuals

Exam reading: The rhetoric of visual conventions

On to my next exam reading list, which is focused on discourse communities, and the use of new media technologies and visuals in these communities.

Charles Kostelnick  and Michael Hassett’s Shaping Information: The Rhetoric of Visual Conventions wasn’t exactly what I expected. It presents a rhetorical view of visual design, in a framework of discourse communities. I think I was expecting more specific recommendations from this book, but it does provide a good link between the visual and community-focused materials on my list:

Summary: The authors attempt to construct a framework for analyzing visual rhetoric, based on conventions used in various genres, the social forces that shape those conventions, and the situation-specific interpretation of conventions by users/readers. Visual conventions frame our understanding of the world; they make design coherent and provide shortcuts for interpretation by readers. Three types of factors shape conventions: discourse community (e.g., disciplinary, cultural), rhetorical (e.g., pragmatic, imitation), and practical (e.g., cost, laws). Conventions are generated within discourse communities (and learning conventions is required for joining those communities); they’re mutable but can appear permanent. There are different levels of understanding conventions, e.g., using a physics formula on a t-shirt to evoke “geekiness;” increasing centrality in a specialist d.c. leads to more complex understanding of codes. Conventions have shifting “currency” (size of user pool + frequency of use); designers must make rhetorical choices about what to use. Finally, conventions can be hard to see, because they’re usually deployed with other conventions, and especially in specialist discourse can seem “natural.”

Comments: Emphasis is on the discourse community process as the basis for discussion of convention use in different genres; there’s a large social aspect to visual design for the authors. They discuss the ways conventions can either simplify or complicate the act of perception, but do not include a lot of detail from empirical studies; they do include a chapter on the types of convention “breakdown” that can occur (designers and users are in different d.c.’s, conflict with other conventions in the same work, etc.). They also discuss evolution of conventions, framed by the ways that the discourse communities that gave rise to those conventions changed.

Links to: Tufte 1, 2 (K&H would call his a specific type of rhetoric)

Categories
environment exam readings rhetoric science communication

Exam readings: Rhetoric and conservation management

Two papers today, involving rhetoric and environmental technical communication. I’m getting down to the end of my public understanding of science reading list, but also getting close to exam #1. So I’ll just have to concentrate on getting ready for that for the next week and a half…

First: Margaret B. Graham and Neil Lindeman. “The Rhetoric and Politics of Science in the Case of the Missouri River System.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication 19.4 (2005): 422-448.

Summary: The authors analyze rhetorical differences in two science reports by the US Fish & Wildlife Svc. in 2000 and 2003; the 03 report was created by a different writing team after changes in the political administration. While the major difference between the reports is different flow recommendations, there were significant differences in narrative structure and omission/inclusion of facts that create very different rhetorical spaces. One example is use of narrative: the 00 report begins with a historical narrative that describes the river as a dynamic system later harmed by humans (incidentally creating a romantic space that leaves little room for people in a restored river); the 03 report replaces this narrative with statistics and doesn’t evoke the river as an ecosystem (making it easier to justify human alterations.) In another example, the 00 report downplays scientific uncertainty (justifying the recommendation of large remedial changes for restoration) while the 03 report emphasizes it (setting up the recommendation for minimal remedial changes.) Rhetorically, control of information presented shapes the response of readers. Graham & Lindeman attribute these differences in the reports to the composition of the (anonymous) writing teams, motivated by their political and social interests. For them, the keys in understanding science communication are: knowledge of the context of the scientific argument(s) presented, understanding the structure and informational content of documents produced, and consideration of the audiences for whom communications are intended (both apparent (e.g., public) and hidden (e.g., supervisors).)

Comments: While this type of analysis is particularly applicable to government/institutional science communication, there are some broader issues as well. The increased public involvement in river decisions recommended in the 03 report is something many scholars have called for, but the authors point out that this sort of involvement often gives bad environmental results. Expertise in a scientific issue can counter manipulative interests in such participatory settings (rather than just being used to maintain a status quo.) There are also ethical concerns raised in this paper that would be applicable to communication research (e.g., framing.)

Links to: Groffman et al. (environmental communication); Yearley (scientific uncertainty often makes sci. a bad ally to environmentalism, public participation in decision-making for environmental issues can lead to bad results)

Second: Marie Paretti. “Managing Nature/Empowering Decision-Makers: A Case Study of Forest Management Plans.” Technical Communication Quarterly 12.4 (2003): 439-459.

Summary: Paretti analyzes forest management plans (FMPs), whose function is to inform landowners and provide practical knowledge (unlike general environmental communication, these plans give advice to active resource managers.) Most research in science communication to landowners has been in how to reach them and how to communicate controversies, not how to communicate technical information effectively. Paretti outlines four models of communication: technocratic (no interchange), Jeffersonian (experts give advice to public), Interactive Jeffersonian (experts give technical advice, public gives values), and Social Constructionist (information and values go both ways). The IJ model describes current practice; Paretti advocates the SC model. FMPs begin by the landowner stating their goals, then the expert provides a detailed description of natural resources and recommendations for achieving goals. The rhetoric of FMPs maintains the landowner-expert divide and leaves owner a novice on own land in some ways: language style is technical, recommendations are framed as directives, and the decision process is not articulated. Paretti suggests changing the consultation process: start by listing resources, then consult together on goals, then have expert give recommendations (while making specific suggestions, using different language, IDing places where local knowledge would be useful).

Comments: Paretti advocates a collaborative, discussion-based consultation process that values non-technical knowledge and emphasizes how the decision-making process works so that the landowner can be educated about it. These recommendations follow a similar pattern to other authors calling for more public participation in socio-technological issues; in this case, the landowners presumable have some local knowledge of their land, so would have something to bring to the table themselves.

Links to: Graham & Lindeman (participatory process not always best for envt.)

Categories
exam readings rhetoric science communication

Exam reading: Risk perception in science communication

People are notoriously bad at judging risk- we’re fascinated by rare, unusual events but blase about common and everyday hazards. This page is an interesting example- the comparison of lightning fatalities and shark-related fatalities between Florida and Hawaii is instructive, and bunnies in New York City are apparently really ornery…

A big part of science communication involves talking about risk and uncertainty, so this is a big deal. Today’s exam reading is by Paul Slovic: “Perception of Risk from Radiation” from Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 1996.

Summary: Slovic takes a rhetorical approach to communicating radiation risks-in this case, experts’ assessments of risk don’t match those of public. Public risk perception is based more on “dread” (emotion, voluntariness) and event unfamiliarity, while experts base assessments on probability of occurrence plus severity. There’s a psychological “signal effect”- rare, unfamiliar events are more scary than common, familiar ones. These differences in perception have social/political impact (e.g., Three-Mile Island had minor health effects but led to widespread public oppoisition to nuclear power.) Radiation is associated with “cosmic transmutation,” contamination, taint, and cancer; it’s a highly emotional type of pollution, e.g., there can be social stigma attached to people exposed to radiation because of “taint.” Nuclear and chemical risk perceptions share some similarities, e.g., medical applications are perceived as low-risk while environmental applications (pesticides, power plants) are high-risk. In communication, the challenge is getting from expert knowledge to recommendations for public (typical approach is to compare to a familiar risk, but be careful to compare similar hazards- nuclear exposure to x-rays, rather than nuclear exposure to chance of being struck by lightning.) There are large ethical issues with communication, because of strong framing effects- more pragmatically, it’s easy to destroy trust and hard to build it.

Comments: Slovic’s paper is more applied than theoretical, but he does mention some wider issues. For example, mentions ethical concerns around framing. Another big issue is that any type of media attention to an issue (even if saying “there’s no risk associated with doing x”) will tend to lead to perceptions of more risk surrounding that issue- this obviously has practical implications for communicating science.

Links to: Trench (risk=hazard + outrage); Irwin (risk from communications perspective); Nisbet (framing)

Categories
environment exam readings rhetoric science communication

Exam reading: Science comm for environmental issues

And here’s an applied example of the “deficit-dialogue” non-transition. Peter Groffman, Cathlyn Stylinski, Matthew C. Nisbet, Carlos M. Duarte, Rebecca Jordan, Amy Burgin, M. Andrea Previtali, and James Coloso: “Restarting the conversation: challenges at the interface between ecology and society,” from a Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment special issue.

Summary: Science communication and outreach efforts are not currently sufficient to engage the public in pressing environmental issues. The authors summarize current social research and make recommendations. Scientists are widely respected on social-policy issues, but need to rethink outreach efforts. Awareness of environmental issues varies widely (demographics, nationality) and other issues (esp. economy) currently are rated more important; communicators can increase salience of issues by connecting them to people’s lives. Most people learn about scientific issues individually, informally, and sporadically; in the U.S., mainly via TV, but the Internet is a prime source of science info for those who deliberately seek it out (selective perception and interpretation are important). The largest effect of media campaigns is awareness, rather than factual knowledge. Audiences are influenced by presentation, e.g., give both views represented equal weight. Scientists tend to focus on information deficit, rather than changing attention/salience; here’s where framing and mental models come in. There are also new tools and approaches to use: formal research communication, training for young scientists, participation in local social forums, online news communities (e.g., science blogs + news), public participation in research, and recruiting opinion leaders (social networks, etc.)

Comments: Article is introduction to a special issue of journal; other papers go into detail about some of the new approaches mentioned.

Links to: Trumbull et al., Bonney et al., Brossard et al. (public participation in research); Nisbet (framing)

Categories
exam readings rhetoric science communication

Exam readings: Science cafes and framing

This weekend, I spent two days drifting from Panera to Panera, and got a lot of reading done (although I feel like a dork for spending my weekend cafe-hopping). Did not get a lot else accomplished, aside from bunny torture (took Noe to the vet- she is fine, just had arthritis acting up). I’ll post my reading summaries as I write them up. Here are two semi-related papers on the theme of communicating science:

First, Jan Riise’s “Bringing Science to the Public,” from Communicating Science in Social Contexts: New Models, New Practices, focuses on informal science events. (As a side note, Orlando has a monthly Science Cafe, but it always seems to be scheduled on a night I have class…)

Summary: Discusses the importance of scientists speaking to the public directly, in informal settings- events, “science cafes,” online. The location and venue of such interactions is important, e.g., cafes at coffeeshops, festivals and street events at various venues. These events can attract passers-by, they’re on neutral ground (less intimidation), and people don’t need to venture into formal settings. Different audiences might frequent different venues (older, educated folks at lectures, young adults at malls). Such events are becoming more common among scientists for two reasons: communication is becoming thought of as a negotiation, and it’s now considered an integral part of the scientific process. One key aspect is the face-to-face interactions between scientists and the public without mediation- opens up space for discussion. There is, however, a need for support and training for scientists for these events. Finally, different types of content are discussed: basic understanding, “fun” science (e.g., contests), academic-level science, science in culture (partner with arts & humanities content), and “new” discovery science.

Comments: Riise’s evidence is mainly anecdotal, and based in Sweden, but this is an area of active development in many regions. Mentions Internet comm. in passing, but doesn’t discuss it again.

Next,Matt Nisbet’s “Communicating Climate Change: Why Frames Matter for Public Engagement” applies some mass-media communication theory to science communication. His approach contrasts with sci. comm. researchers who are focused on increasing dialogue; mainly this is due to medium.

Summary: Nisbet’s focus is on increasing public engagement with science (specifically global warming), rather than public education. While traditional approaches to sci comm assume that wider coverage leads to wider understanding and engagement, research shows that people have selective interest in news (generally what’s salient for them personally.) GW in particular is a highly-partisan issue in the U.S., and barriers include its complexity and the fragmented nature of news media (e.g., easier to read just sources that agree with you.) Nisbet advocates framing GW in order to connect the issue with targeted groups- tailoring the message while remaining true to the science. Likens framing to creating interpretive storylines that allow people to connect a new issue with underlying mental models. For GW, liberal and conservative commentators/institutions frame the issue in different ways, maintaining the partisan divide (“Pandora’s Box,” public accountability vs. uncertainty, conflict, economics.) Each frame can include pro/neutral/anti positions, so it is possible to reframe or use frame in novel ways. The overall idea is to identify possible frames to unify partisan divide, and effect greater engagement by increasing issue salience.

Comments: Nisbet’s aim is to increase the salience of issues, rather than purely factual communication; this is different focus than some other authors, who take a more educational stance. He mentions critique of framing because it’s similar to political “spin,” but maintains that it’s a different process- perhaps because of “remaining true” to underlying science.) Framing here replaces the deficit model (assumption that more information is what is needed.)

Categories
exam readings rhetoric science communication

Exam readings: how scientists see reporters, online persuasion

No extra commentary today: I’m powering through a bunch of papers.

First paper: Peters, Brossard, de Cheveigné, Dunwoody, Kallfass, Miller and Tsuchida. “Science-Media Interface: It’s Time to Reconsider.” 2008.

Summary: This paper is a further analysis of the authors’ recent survey on attitude of scientists to reporters, in response to criticism; the major finding that was controversial was that most scientists’ recent experience with journalists were positive. Scientists’ assessments of media coverage of science overall were neutral and there were concerns with the process of science journalism, but they rated their personal experiences positively. While past scientist-journalist studies had reported greater problems, the sci-media relationship has been addressed (e.g., workshops) for several years, but there is still the primary issue that meanings of messages change when they go from the scientific to journalistic spheres. Another source of tension might not be recognizing changing sci-media relationships (e.g., professionalization of sci journalism, media strategies of scientists have changed.) They point out that scientists might be more willing to discuss research with journalists (and more trained to communicate with media), but that there is a need for journalists not to be led astray my media-savvy scientists (ecpecting them to be non-savvy.)

Comments: The authors address some of the negatives in the increasing media orientation (medialization) of science research. This includes the possibility that funding/research decisions will be made with publicity in mind, or that PR-related goals are becoming more emphasized than accuracy when scientists talk to reporters (or press releases are created.) Both issues tie into the politics of scientific institutions, and are areas for concern.

Links to: Bucchi (bypassing levels of communication)

__

Second article: Minol, Spelsberg, Schulte, and Morris. “Portals, Blogs and Co.: the Role of the Internet as a Medium of Science Communication.” 2007.

Summary: The authors describe an effort to disseminate research about GM crops widely to the public, and influence public attitudes, via the Internet. They point out that it is difficult to evaluate the credibility of online content (anonymity removes consequences.) While Web 2.0 tools have changed the Internet from an info storage medium to a communication medium, even crowdsourced sites (like Wikipedia) can be disproportionately influenced by a small group with inaccurate views. They suggest creating portal sites to provide accurate scientific info. They report about their portal, which is designed to influence public attitudes toward biotechnology in Germany. Their goals are to provide access to info, contextualize risk in scientific terms, promote transparency, and build trust. Their approach has four parts: provide accurate info on testing procedures for GM crops, online “marketing” of the site (search engine optimization), satisfying first time users (usability, aesthetics), and creating user affinity (creating a discussion community.) The portal is accompanied by a mass-media campaign to make scientific viewpoints more well-represented in public discussions of GM crops.

Comments: It sounds like the described portal is a good example of an approach to communication that includes some aspects of dialogue, but is primarily designed for one-way persuasion (even though persuasion is to take into account social valies & not just factual information.)

Links to: Einseidel (forms of public dialogue); Irwin (risk & broader societal impacts of science)

Categories
environment exam readings rhetoric science communication

Exam readings: metaphors and NGOs in science communication

More chapters from the Handbook of Public Communication of Science & Technology. First, Iina Hellsten and Brigitte Nehrlich discuss how metaphors are used to frame new or changing ideas in science:

Summary: Discussion of metaphors as framing devices. In life/medical science, they identify 2 important frames: “breakthrough/key to cure disease” and “playing god/Pandora’s box;” both grounded in a narrative of linear progress (journey or creating a map.) Function of metaphors is to create boundary objects between two or more domains either within science (between disciplines, novel models) or in popularization (help understand complexities, evoke emotion, concretize concepts.) Metaphors are both flexible enough and robust enough to remain identifiable across domains. They approach metaphors as “discourse metaphors:” they evolve within disciplines, but can become fixed and create stable (sometimes limiting) structures. They end with an analysis of the metaphors used in the Human Genome Project: metaphors changed as goals changed (e.g., “language of life” and “mapping” to “blueprint” as unexpectedly few genes discovered), and outdated metaphors are still in use (“book of life” predates idea that genetic info has multiple layers, but attempts to include complexity haven’t caught on, e.g., “orchestra,” “ecology”.) Metaphors also have ethical implications: e.g., journey/race metaphors might possibly exacerbate competition & lead to breaches in research ethics.

Comments: Key concepts: metaphors as boundary objects, metaphors providing internal structure within disciplines, metaphors competing for insight in different contexts. Selection of metaphors is a key popularization issue, esp. in areas of science with large social/political implications.

Next, Steven Yearley discusses a related topic with his chapter on the role of NGOs (specifically environmental NGOs) in science communication:

Summary: Environmental groups and other NGOs rely to a large extent on empirical data to back up their claims, so have a unique need to balance powerful imagery with accuracy. First case study on climate change, in which the primary skeptical position is to cast doubt on research; NGOs find themselves in the (unusual) position of urging the public to accept government/institutional claims, as well as point out the vested interests of denialist groups. This position makes it harder for NGOs to counter “official” views in other situations (a key reason being that, given the wide scope of the IPCC, it’s hard to find peer reviewers that are both informed and disinterested). Second case study on GMOs, in which NGOs have argued that regulation is insufficient compared to the possible magnitude of adverse impacts. The strategy here has been to align with other pressure groups, and basically throw every objection possible at the issue; the more professional NGOs have tried to mobilize public engagement with the issue and have been less successful at drawing public into dialogue than generally riling them up. NGOs are generally wary of stepping out of their role as mediators of public action/lobbying for policy decisions, because they fear govt./business manipulation of public and the unpopularity of the best environmental choices (becomes a case of touting public wisdom when it aligns with their goals).

Comments: Some groups generate their own data; these tend to have a more data- than emotion-based persuasive strategy. This chapter is more useful in an applied context, and not central to the direction my research has been going recently…

Categories
exam readings research methods/philosophy rhetoric tech design

Exam reading: “User-centered technology”

In this book, Robert Johnson explores technical design from a rhetorical perspective. His “system-oriented” and “user-oriented” distinction brings to mind this cartoon.

Summary: Johnson explores the relationship between technology and people from a technical communication perspective. He articulates two types of knowledge: expert theoretical knowledge and applied practical knowledge; traditionally, theoretical knowledge is valued more highly. End-users are often invisible in the design process, which can lead to problem-prone technologies. Johnson advocates getting users involved from the start of the design process, and incorporating their practical, task-based knowledge into design. He contrasts this approach (user-centered design) to system-centered and user-friendly design processes. Johnson grounds his book in a “user-centered rhetorical complex of technology:” a reworked version of the rhetorical triangle which places the user at the center; has the designer, the system, and the user tasks as the vertices; and places this relationship within concentric circles of general activities (learning, doing, producing), constraints of human networks (institutions, disciplines, community), and finally large social factors (culture, history). He emphasizes the importance of reflecting on assumptions about technical determinism when designing large projects. He also discusses the specific case of producing technical explanations for computer systems (e.g., documents should be organized in a task-oriented way). He ends by connecting the ends of technical writing pedagogy to those of rhetoric (focus on the user/audience, supposed to be working toward “the good”), and suggesting a service-learning approach for tech writing classes.

Comments: Johnson falls somewhere in between Feenberg and Norman on an axis of “politics and philosophy” vs. “design for easy use.” For non-technical writers, there are still some good design ideas here (though he does emphasize the application of his ideas to this field), mainly having user input throughout the design process, designing with specific tasks in mind, and avoiding a “design for dummies” approach.

Links to: Norman (user-friendly approach); Feenberg (phil./politics of technology); Gee (learning by doing)

Categories
exam readings hypertext rhetoric

Exam reading: “Lingua Fracta”

Another exam reading: Collin Brooke’s “Lingua Fracta,” which tries to apply the canons of rhetoric to new media. My approach to rhetoric tends to be fairly informal, because I don’t come from a composition background with a heavy investment in using it in a strict way. Brooke’s approach seems reasonable, but I’m planning to re-read several of the texts he mentions, so we shall see what that turns up…

Summary: In this book, Brooke reinterprets the canons of rhetoric for new media. He begins by discussing three units of analysis: individual texts, interfaces, and broad theoretical constructs; he focuses on the interface level. He breaks down media studies into three levels of scale: code, practice (which he focuses on), and culture. He describes the canons as “ecologies of practice”: dynamic, interlocking, socially constructed and medium-dependent systems of sites, practices, and objects (rather than fixed, prescriptive stages in composition). Invention becomes proairesis: generation of open-ended texts that function as sets of possibilities, rather than as hermeneutic investigations to a conclusion (e.g., social bookmarking sites). Arrangement becomes pattern: usually database-driven, pattern emerges from repeated searches (e.g., tagclouds). Style becomes perspective: the viewer, interface, and objects operate together to create a viewing experience (different from traditional external perspective of rhetorical analysis; e.g., gaming interfaces). Memory becomes persistence: not just storage, memory is a matter of building patterns (“persistence of cognition”- particularly appropriate to Web) and more thorough traditional synthesis (e.g., RSS feeds, tagclouds). Delivery becomes performance: not a simple transaction, it includes both the content and the medium as they interact in a particular social setting (e.g., Wikipedia and credibility).

Comments: Many connections to (non-core) new media, composition, and critical theorists: Barthes (readerly/writerly texts), Derrida (perspective for critique), Hayles (pattern/randomness, embodied memory), Landow (hyperext), Lantham (looking at/looking through). Seems reasonable to look at expression of canons as medium-dependent. Logically organized and understandable (after reading Burnett), making it a hermeneutic text, I suppose…

Links to: Bolter (hypertext studies, Lantham cited); McLuhan (medium); Manovich (B. disagrees with M’s assertion that narrative & database are mutually exclusive forms)