Author: Michaela Reis

1. When reviewing my classmates’ contributions I could see that many new categories of diversity are discussed throughout these posts. Each topic of focus added to the canon simply because they analyzed a topic that we have yet to discuss. What I found interesting was that before reading the post discussing language diversity, I had not thought the topic was an issue related to diversity. It made me think outside my perspective, and since I know many people with non-native accents it allowed me to connect and empathize. The addition of the article Language Diversity, Non-native Accents, and Their Consequences into the canon was significant to me because it added a unique inclusive perspective of multiple people who struggle with the challenges of language diversity at work. The media element from the same post, which was a TED talk from cognitive scientist and professor Lera Boroditsky, was informative and connected well with the article, working as supportive evidence. After reading all of these posts I can now see how diversity and organizational culture is so complex. Reflecting on the first reading we looked at where there was so many definitions of organizational culture I can see how this came to be due to a extensive list of diverse groups in the world.

3. The transitions that Bogost uses throughout his writing help move along his argument clearly, keeping it focused and concise. Some of the ways he approaches moving between one paragraph and another include a tactic where he seems to begin his paragraphs with a response to the question that the previous posed. The use of language to begin a paragraph such as “But” and “even though” continuously reference the content in the paragraph above giving his writing a continuous flow. To do this he begins his text with the story of Webb, making them familiar with her from the start so that the continuous inclusion of her perspective does not feel random or unrelated to the other facts or opinions he includes.

The title from Ian Bogost’s article, The Problem With Diversity in Computing is a great example of how authors use rhetorical moves within there writing. The title is clear in stating the simplest point that Bogost connects back to throughout the text, which is problems with diversity in computing. A simple title gives the reader context making them comfortable immediately with the reading, it allows them to anticipate what else the article will discuss. The short description below the title “Tech’s discriminatory culture might never change, no matter how many women and people of color are invited into the room” note the potential conclusion that the article will come back to, beginning with the point of the article might seem like the author is giving away the ending, but it is a great strategy to convince the reader to keep reading and find out why the author makes this claim. 

The introduction paragraph tells a real story of Amy Webb who broke her ankle and had to wear a boot making her notice that her trip through PSA was riddled with problems due to the computer systems “not anticipating all the types of people who might use them.” The use of a real-life example connects the reader to the article because since most people have experienced going through TSA they can put themselves in the shoes of Amy Webb allowing them to understand what she went through creating an emotional appeal. That emotional appeal engages the reader, which is helpful when the goal is to persuade them. Using language like “all the types of people” also foreshadows that the article will discuss inclusion. 

Throughout this text, the author provides evidence to back up his claim by linking other articles that support the point. The addition of linking googles diversity report in a sentence that states “At Google, for example, more than 95 percent of technical workers are white or Asian” reassures the reader that the author is using correct data and allows them to follow emphasize the key points through other sources. 

There is plenty of facts and opinions from other experts on this topic such as “Kamau Bobb, the global lead for diversity research and strategy at Google and a senior director at Constellations”. The use of credible people agreeing with the author’s points gives the article credibility itself. Bogost also continues to use Webb’s narrative and what she concluded from her experience, as evidence keeping that connection with the audience that was developed in the first paragraph. Bogost uses Webb’s because the audience is aware of why she would think this way given they already know her story “Webb points to China as an alternative. There, kindergarten-age students nationwide will begin studying a textbook this year that’s designed to teach students the new basics of knowledge they need to succeed in a computational future.” This evidence is credible because it can be understood why Webb believes this. The article even concludes with a quote from Webb followed by the author stating “If she’s right”. The use of a statement like “If she’s right” poses a question the audience might have while reading this article. Following that up with “then the problem with computing isn’t just that it doesn’t represent a diverse public’s needs. Instead, the problem with computing is computing” provides the audience with the answer to that “what if” type of question leading the audience toward a distinct point to conclude.

1. When watching Renata Salecl’s TED talk her rhetorical approach stood out to me. She begins this talk about human’s unhealthy obsession with choice by stating a choice that she had to make when preparing. Since it is the first thing she discusses it sets a theme. She connects the topic to herself making it feel relatable. What was interesting was that the choice that she had to make was deciding between three quotes, these quotes were also about choice, giving the audience an example that stays directly on topic, making a clear and concise purpose. As she continues with the talk she uses quotes from philosophers, and psychoanalysts to prove her points, using credited people to back up her argument makes her seem more reliable to the audience. She also gives real-life examples about herself, or her friend’s experience, which allows the audience to connect to their own life. That engages the audience because they can picture themselves in the situations she speaks giving them a better understanding. She also uses language strategically, for example, she addresses the audience as you, making them feel like they are in a conversation. To conclude she goes back to what she talks about when she first begins the speech, the choice she had to make herself. This rounds out and connects all the points she made to one conclusion, it makes the talk feel more whole like there isn’t a cliff hanger or missing piece. Overall her rhetorical approach is convincing and showcases her purpose, that everyone has individual choices but we also need to focus on choices as a society.

2. Margaret Hefferman’s TED talk is a great example of how a speaker works with evidence. One form of evidence she uses is telling real-life stories. She tells these stories to introduce her topic of technology and human skills but she incorporates her own bias and judgment to show what side she is arguing. In the talk there are transitions from the real-life examples to her argument, connecting back between that evidence when she needs support in communicating her purpose. She makes her points more clear by summarizing the credited facts she includes as evidence, for example, she uses a word like “so what that means” to connect her evidence back to her claims. She walks the audience through the argument by using tools like metaphors to give them something to relate her point to. That allows her to talk about a wide variety of topics, such as global warming and company predictions, and still be able to relate it to her argument on efficiency and the unexpected. Evidence from past mentalities is paired with the thought of the future to encourage that her ideas enhance positive change that others should believe in.

1. Overall my search for materials is focused on diversity and inclusion. We have touched on diversity in regards to topics like gender, race, ethnicity, and neurodiversity so when adding to the canon I am looking for a diverse group that we have not spoken about yet. I want to pick one similar to neurodiversity that before reading the Austin and Pisano reading I did not think of. That being said to find a topic in diversity we have not touched on yet I first started by a google search of the types of diversity. After doing that my interest was peaked in the areas of able-bodied vs disable. I also have an interest in looking at gender in the workplace, although we have already touched on that, as a woman that will be going into her senior year and going into the workplace soon I am really curious about that topic. Google Scholars and the Syracuse Library are my main sources of research because the scholarly articles from both sources are credible. The authors of these readings that I am looking for need to be an expert in the subject and the work less than 5 years old so in my filters when searching those will also be included.

2. They say/I say sentence: Introducing Summaries and Quotations

In my They say/I say sentence I utilize the verbs for summaries and quotations.

Over the last two weeks, we read texts from Austin and Pisano and Kaplan and Donovan that discussed diversity and inclusion. While Austin and Pisano endorse the inclusion of diversity in regards to neurodiverse people, Kaplan and Donovan remind us of all diversity and inclusion in the workplace and suggest how it can appear in our everyday life. I agree with Austin and Pisano’s writing educating people on what neurodiversity and advocating for their inclusion in the workplace but I complain that they lack the solution to the problem. I celebrate the fact that Kaplan and Donovan give examples of how diversity isn’t made a priority in the workplace and then give the steps to solving the issue and making the environment more inclusive. I do not deny that Austin and Pisano show examples of companies creating programs to help Neorodiverse candidates but I encourage that they add a section similar to Kaplan and Donovan where they state what is involved in creating and maintaining a diverse workforce.