Bogost’s Rhetorical Moves

Here are five rhetorical moves I see Bogost using in “The Problem With Diversity in Computing” and a few comments about them.

1) Bogost opens his article using an anecdotal story about Amy Webb’s experience at a TSA checkpoint. This helps us visualize an example of human and technology interaction and also creates empathy in his readers, because Webb’s experience is not pleasant, and most of us can relate to it. Bogost uses this example to introduce his main point (diversity is much needed in the tech industry but it’s not an easy problem to solve). This works for me, although I would have liked to have the TSA experience of men described to highlight the difference in treatment.

2) In the 5th paragraph, Bogost uses a direct quote from Webb to emphasize and support his main point. Because Webb is a professor who has written about human-technology interaction, he draws on her view as an expert to support his argument. Webb says: “someone like me wasn’t in the room.” This works as supporting evidence for me, but since Bogost leads into her quote using the words “the fact that” I’d like to see some facts or statistics too.

Several times, Bogost uses a strategy of stating a commonly held belief or quotation (they say), followed a bit later by a transition phrase that signals that he is not necessarily in complete agreement (I say). I liked these moves because they allowed him to discuss the diversity issue from various sides and helped support his overall point that there is no easy solution. Here are 3 examples:

3) In paragraph 5, he writes: “That idea echoes a popular suggestion to remedy computers’ ignorance…increase the diversity” Then he starts paragraph six with: “But that’s an aspirational hope.”

4) In paragraph 7, he writes: “Fixing the flow of talent into this system, the thinking goes, will produce the workforce that Webb and others are calling for.” At the beginning of paragraph 9, he acknowledges this idea but returns to his point when he writes: “Those efforts have merit. But their impact might be a drop in the bucket…”

5) In paragraph 12, Bogost quotes Charles Isbell, a dean of computing, who says: “Diversity is just membership…. Integration is influence, power, and partnership.” Bogost immediately follows this expert opinion with yet another statement that returns to his point about the complexity of the problem: “But integration is much harder than diversity.”

Overall, Bogost’s rhetorical moves allow him to explore the diversity issue from many angles and help him make his point that we know what the problem is, but fixing it is a lot harder than it looks.

Bogost’s Rhetorical Moves

In “The Problem with Diversity in Computing”, by Ian Bogost, a writer at The Atlantic, there were a variety of rhetorical moves used to emphasize the writer’s main purpose for the article. This was that the culture in the tech industry will most likely not change in the mere future, even with the increasing number of opportunities for women and underrepresented groups. The first time I read through the article, I did not notice the rhetorical moves in the writing. After going through a second time and paying close attention to the wording, I found that Bogost had crafted his arguments and reasoning extremely well, as all of the rhetorical devices he included supported his argument.

To begin the article, Bogost uses an anecdote about Amy Webb, a professor at NYU going through airport security. Due to the fact that she had a boot on her foot, she had to go through a different machine than the metal detector, a backscatter. While getting patted down, she noticed that most women had the same problem areas as her in the machine. According to Webb, this was due to the fact that “someone like me wasn’t in the room when the system was designed”. After Bogost gives this story to the reader, he speaks about how it is due to the ignorance of the computer most likely due to the fact that only men were in the room when designing the backscatter recognition programming. As a reader, I found this example to be very helpful in realizing that many people in the tech industry are unaware of how useful another person’s perspective is, such as a woman because they have never had to experience pat downs at the airport just because of what they may be wearing or their hair.

The second rhetorical device Bogost uses in the article is an idiom. The purpose of the idiom is to engage the reader and help emphasize the fact that their impact may be small, but the reader may not understand how small the impact that the Constellations Center for Equity in Computing may really be. The center gives the opportunity for women and underrepresented groups, particularly in neighborhoods where there was minimal access before to have access to computer science classes. It is a fantastic start towards giving people in the community a chance to learn something new, but as Bogost puts it, “their impact might be a drop in the bucket, given the size and composition of the tech industry.” After stating that the impact of the center may be a drop in the bucket, the author goes on to give the example at Google, and how it will only increase the percentage of underrepresented minorities in the industry up by a miniscule amount.

Another rhetorical move he uses in his article is a metaphor. Bogost first presents a question, which is whether we want integration or diversity. This is an interesting question, because on surface level in my opinion, it would just mean inclusion within the workforce for everyone.  Isbell, an incoming dean of computing at Georgia Tech, presents the idea that “Diversity is just membership, Integration is Influence… power, and partnership”. Along with this, Bogost splits up this quote into two sections, even though it seems as though he said the two together. I believe that what Bogost was trying to do was emphasize the point that Isbel was making about the difference between the two. As I put above (the quote), it does not feel as powerful as the way that Bogost stated in his article, “Diversity is just membership, Isbell said. Integration is influence, power, and partnership.”. By allowing the two to be separate, it also allows the reader to help process the two words separately. I thought this really helped the idea stick. Along with this, the metaphor he uses comparing diversity to only membership, but integration to partnership helped me comprehend the difference between the two.

Bogost goes on to use an analogy to demonstrate to the reader just how different computing professionals are to everyone else. He presents the idea that underrepresentation in the tech industry is not a fundamental problem. They are separated because of their way of approaching problems is most likely different than an average person’s solution to a problem as “computing professionals constitute a tribe, separated from the general public not primarily by virtue of their race, gender, or nationality, but by the exclusive culture of computing education and industry.” The tech industry is a relatively new industry compared to many others, such as business, education, and even science. Both of my brothers are majoring in computer science, and I have seen some of the course work. It is so different from the ways that a person approaches problems in business, as well as the education in general. By giving the analogy of computer professionals being a tribe, I think this really illustrates the point about how their education is different from others and helps emphasize the exclusivity of working in the tech industry in general.

The final rhetorical device that Bogost uses in his article is another analogy. In using the analogy, it also strengthens the metaphor he included earlier in the article, about how diversity is just membership, while integration is partnership. In today’s culture, diversity is just a checkpoint on a company’s box, they do not really see the value of having different perspectives be involved and have power in the workplace. Also, as the article earlier noted, the older people in the industry must be willing to integrate. Currently, many companies are not willing, as “their goal is to get more people in the game, not necessarily change the rules of that game.”. This quote helps illustrate that many people within the tech industry are not changing for the right reasons. The author compares it to a game, instead of real life. The right reasons would be because it is the morally correct thing to do, not only because it has a positive economic impact on the company. By comparing the diversity efforts to a game, Bogost helps demonstrate that the tech industry is not really ready for integration, rather they are only ready for the membership of others.

These rhetorical devices really stood out to me as they helped me understand the point that Bogost was trying to convey. I found these to be the most useful in understanding his ideas and the point that he was making surrounding diversity in the tech industry.

Bogost’s Rhetorical Moves

In Bogost’s “The problem with diversity in computing” he uses different rhetorical techniques and moves to clearly and effectively get his ideas across. He is expressing the importance of diversity in computing but it is also problematic, as one can tell from the title of the article. The first point he makes stood out to me because he gives an example as to why diversity is important in computing. He explains the time that Professor Amy Webb had a hard time going through airport security because of her boot for her ankle, the underwire of her bra, and, believe it or not, her hair. She then says that the reason this happened to her and has most likely happened to other people it because “someone like me wasn’t in the room”. I found this to be important because in order to discuss what the problems with having diversity in computing are, there needs to be a point made as to why diversity in computing is important to begin with. The reader can actually see the importance of having a diversity of people creating a machine by Bogost painting a picture of what happened to Webb and why.

Another rhetorical move that Bogost used was the point he made about how “integration of women, people of color, and other underrepresented voices would mean that the behavior of the entire industry would change as a result of their presence…”. Whether the change in behavior would be positive or negative, the idea comes from the question that Charles Isbell rose: “are we interested in diversity, or are we interested in integration?”. Integration and diversity are not the same thing, but both of them would cause issues if integrated into computing. Here Bogost uses a hypophora by posing Isbells question about integration and then explaining what the difference between the two is and going into what the goal and his point of the article as a whole is.

Bogost also uses an oxymoron to exaggerate how big of an issue diversity in computing really is. “Tech-industry is improving, buy it’s still pretty terrible”. By using the phrase “pretty terrible” he dramatizes the problem of the lack of diversity in the tech-industry and goes onto explain how that is important for computing systems.

Bogost also makes a point that “inclusion is first a problem of economic equity; any resulting social or moral benefits would just be gravy”. He comes to this conclusion by identifying the goal of Google which is “to get more people in the game, not necessarily change the rules of the game”. This falls right under what Isbell asked about integration vs. diversity. Getting more people into the game is more diversity, but the issue with having diversity in computing at all is being able to make a change along with the inclusion of underrepresented voices. Here Bogost uses an antanagoge by mentioning getting more people involved and the company being diverse but following it with the idea that the company is not willing to change what they do which needs to take place along with the inclusion of underrepresented people.

Another rhetorical move that I found to be powerful was identifying what would need to happen to allow diversity or integration to happen. “But integration is much harder than diversity. Isbell thinks that two separate conditions need to be met in order to accomplish it: ‘one is that the new folks are both capable and confident. The other is that the old folks are willing'”. This is important because without both of those factors, integration might as well be impossible to achieve anywhere. By mentioning Isbells idea of what he believes needs to happen to achieve integration, Bogost is using apophasis. He identifies that these two things need to happen but does not elaborate on the idea that should one happen and not the other, it is useless.

Discussion Questions Week of 7/5

Response to 1

I truly enjoyed reading all of the Expanding the Canon posts, having so many people contributing their ideas was fantastic. With that said, I enjoyed reading the post that Sherri made on Algorithm-Driven Hiring Tools: Innovative Recruitment or Expedited Disability Discrimination?. Also, reading Bogost’s article this week makes me want to relate this to that because if you think about it, many of the people who create algorithms are white men who may have biases. They are often the only ones in the room creating the algorithms and are unaware of other people’s perspectives. Sherri did a fantastic job of making me want to dive deeper into the topic, as well as explain why machines should not be analyzing people’s every move, whether it is on their resume or in an interview, as “machines ignore nuances and context and lack of empathy”, according to Sherri. Machines do not have emotions, cannot sense if someone has autism just through the way they move, so it would be unfair to judge their personalities only using algorithms. Humans have emotions and tend not to assess every movement that another person makes, which is much more beneficial. The video that Sherri included a trailer for Persona, a series on HBO max, was also interesting. I think the trailer did a great job of illustrating that AI labels someone immediately off the bat, whether it is using a personality test, or recording movements and voice and then analyzing it. I doubt anyone could ever comprehend how much data machines collect on each one of us.

Another post I found interesting was Edwards, on the lack of diversity with CEOs and HR management. He read more into whether or not the CEOs’ public versus private beliefs were the same, and if there was a difference in the two whether or not that impacted the organization.  I found that reiterating the percentage of male and Caucasian respondents, whether it was about CEO or HR management positions, illustrated that there is no diversity in the workplace, for these two positions at least. I also feel as though Edward’s use of pictures was also helpful. His last picture, a bunch of white men sitting at the table saying “congratulations on the 20th meeting of our diversity committee” really spoke volumes to me on the fact that there needs to be a larger presence of diverse individuals, whether it be in HR management positions or elsewhere. The picture illustrates a bunch of white men talking about diversity efforts, but they are not acting on hiring diverse individuals, if they were acting, there would not be so many white men sitting at the table.

For the Expanding the Canon post, people posted in different areas that are considered diverse. This included diversity in business, LGBTQIA+ experiences, gender gaps, along with others. If there is one thing that this unit has taught me is that to progress in society, I have to have an open mind about everything. So many people go through different journeys and have their own experiences, previously I did not realize how broad the term diverse was, or its applications. One thing that all of these posts shared was the fact that the world is changing, and people are becoming more accepting and welcoming of others. Diversity has a direct impact on the organizational culture, along with the success of the organization in general. Before these posts, I did not realize how much more progress needs to be made regarding the promotion and inclusion of diverse individuals within organizations.

Response to 2

For this, I walked through what the TSIS book recommended. I tried to first introduce the point that he tried to make in the article, and then where he moved his viewpoint from diversity in the workforce currently being a huge benefit to the idea that it could risk tokenization. I then gave the quote and put in a summary of how I saw the quote. After that, I gave my own viewpoint on his view, and then related it back to the tech industry as a whole. I think I did it right, but I would appreciate any feedback that anyone has.

Bogost, a writer at The Atlantic, presents the article “The Problem with Diversity in Computing” where he writes about how the tech industry needs to be more inclusive in hiring and listening to the ideas of diverse individuals, as they are not being heard. He wants change to happen now through new programs and centers to open, promoting a new generation of diverse individuals going into the tech industry. However, Bogost himself writes “But there’s a risk of tokenization; inviting a black man or curly-haired woman into the room could make a difference in the design of the systems produced… But it probably will not substantially change the thrust of the tech industry as it currently operates.” The essence of Bogost’s argument is that although bringing in diverse individuals to work on computing technology now might have an impact on a few pieces of programming, the industry would not have diverse individuals in positions that make a meaningful impact on the industry as a whole, such as management positions. I agree that changing the industry to reflect the experiences of everyone more accurately will take time and will not happen immediately. In my experience, even at Syracuse, change happens slowly, as people need time to adjust to new ideas and situations. Hopefully, people will realize the benefits of having people with different viewpoints than their own office space and management positions, as it would benefit the collective industry.

Discussion Questions Week of 7/5

Response to #1

I really appreciated Joanna’s contribution to the Canon because she included real accounts from real people when it comes to oppression in the LGBTQIA+ community. I feel as if when exploring these issues, we often forget to include and listen to the voices of the people who are actually experiencing them. I think it is essential to include the oppressed voices because often, authors who don’t include them tend to delve into the issues as if they are experiencing the issues. This is subconscious, but ambitious writers love to take on issues themselves and solve the problem. However, you need real accounts when it comes to creating change and understanding. Caitlin’s post also caught my attention. I often forget that not only are minorities subject to oppression on a day-to-day basis but that women are also systematically seen as submissive and passive even in the workplace and the police force. Women have gotten so far in civil rights and equality, but there is still so much to be done. I recognize that I am privileged and could say I still am somewhat guarded when seeing the reality in which women are reflected. Caitlin’s TED Talk video struck me; it mentions that 13% of the police force have been women for the past twenty years. I knew most police officers were men, but I did not think the percentage of women was that low. The video actually made me pretty sad because I know how strong women are and how strong they can be if it weren’t for systematic foundations that have stayed prevalent that oppress our opportunity. After exploring the canon posts, I realized how dire the need for change really is. I always knew it, but now I know. Hearing about so many different occasions in which oppression is still prevalent, to be honest, brought my mood down, but gave me a sense of hope. I gained hope because conversations are being had; even if I just see it in our class, it is happening, and the expansion of knowledge is only going to grow.

Response to #3

When reading Bogost’s article, I first noticed how clean his transitions were. They were so clean that one could have missed them. An example of this would be when Bogost notes that by increasing the diversity of representation among the people who make the systems, the world would be better. However, he then writes that this is just an “aspirational” hope. At the moment, this transition looks like he is shutting down the idea of change and will move on. However, this transition sets the whole tone of the rest of the article. Bogost then writes, “That makes diversity a necessary but insufficient solution to social equity in computing systems.” This sentence on its own dictates what will be said in the paragraphs to come. Bogost wants the readers to realize the real issue is the computing systems that have been set into place and that they need to be redone with diverse teams and thinking to support a diverse workforce and world. His point is very evident through this transition and is made without too many words to deliver it. Bogost then explains how certain people acquire jobs within the tech industry, seamlessly transitioning yet again. In my rhetorical exercise regarding Bogost’s article, I mentioned how he “shows and doesn’t tell.” He shows the readers what he is trying to say without writing it out word by word. He uses previous remarks to transition, and these remarks embody a point that he wants to use again. This method is very effective for the efficiency of his writing and for creating a relatable body of work. As mentioned in my analysis of TED talks last week, the most important way to successfully deliver a message, I believe, is to connect with the audience and have them believe that they are a part of the conversation. Bogost does this through his transitions, whether that being satire or mentioning relatable situations with which readers can connect.

Bogost’s Rhetorical Moves

In Ian Bogost’s “The Problem with Diversity in Computing,” from The Atlantic, Bogost’s rhetorical writing is very effective and delivers his messages perfectly. His rhetorical moves clearly hit the tech industry and even some people within it. The first line of text that caught my eye as a reader was, “computers have started issuing prison sentences.” That is because one wouldn’t think of an object dictating someone’s future, so it makes you really think. Bad technology can ruin someone based on the lack of knowledge and representation the systems in place has. This reminded me of Heffernan’s point of needing inefficiency instead of efficiency that still fails time and time yet again. This sentence also hits the lack of diversity representation in fundamental programs in our country, without even saying it. Showing and not telling clearly is a strong suit of Bogost.

Another rhetorical move I found successful in the article was when Bogost wrote, “In this line of thinking, inclusion is first a problem of economic equity; any resulting social or moral benefits would just be gravy.” Through this line, Bogost shows the reader that tech companies will introduce diversity but won’t alter the corrupt systems in place but will still assume that they will get a pat on the back for short-term change. The industry does not really care about long-term amendments, Bogost explains. Using the slang term “gravy” as well, Bogost adds a bit of humor through sarcasm. This causes readers to probably laugh to themselves and acknowledge the audacity the industry has.

Another rhetorical move noted is when Bogost wrote, “But there’s a risk of tokenization; inviting a black man or a curly-haired woman into the room could make a difference in the design of the systems that produced Webb’s experience at airport security. But it probably won’t substantially change the thrust of the tech industry as it currently operates.” He gets his point across here very clearly. Still, he does it with relating to his opening paragraph. By using the “curly hair” reference, he does not need to explain what he means, because he already has. It creates almost a short cut for the reader. It again provides the “show not tell” method he used before.

Bogost also writes, “It was because of underwire bras, she later learned, which the system sometimes can’t distinguish from potential weapons.” This statement is completely true and has no sarcastic metaphor included, which shows the reader how insane these systems are. So a bra, a needed garment for most women, can’t even be differentiated from a weapon? Oh, because most men created these technology systems. Got it.

Bogost finally closes his article by writing, “‘Anyone who falls outside of that core group of interests is not being represented,’ Webb said. If she’s right, 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.” Here, Bogost is taking a direct hit at Webb and does not need to explain what is so wrong with her thinking. He uses sarcasm when saying “the problem with computing is computing,” and does not need to explain that he knows this is not true. Through his voice in his article, the readers know that he believes the problem with computing is much bigger and leaves it.

Overview for Week of 7/5

Apologies for the delay in posting this–I spent the weekend celebrating my newly-minted teenager (my youngest turned 13 yesterday), and it was a day full of grandparents and cousins and cake and swimming and rockets and no computer time whatsoever.

We begin Unit 2 this week, during which each of you will identify and begin to plot out your research path and assemble a body of sources to carry your inquiry along. For many of you, this will mean continuing to build on something you learned in Unit 1, but you are not limited to that topic. Our work will continue to unfold beneath the big umbrella of “diversity and organizational culture,” but as you’ve seen from how your classmates have taken up this work, there are a whole lot of possibilities to explore. Read on for an overview of this week’s assigned work.

Readings

Writing Assignments

Blog post in which you list at least 5 rhetorical moves you see Bogost making in “The problem with diversity in computing”–in other words, 5 different places in the text where you see that how he says something helps you as a reader understand what he is trying to say. Think about how he works to make a connection with the reader, how he introduces key ideas/evidence, how he tries to make a point stick.  Quote these briefly so we know what you’re talking about, and try to name/explain what you see him doing there (due on blog by Wednesday, 7/7). Categorize this as Discussions/Homework, and Tag it with “weekof7/5,” “unit2,” “bogost,” and [your name].

Complete the Focusing Flowchart exercise on Blackboard (due in Unit 2 dropbox by Sunday, 7/11)

Discussion work on blog. See this post for the prompts and instructions (due by Thursday, 7/8)

Discussion prompts for Week of 7/5

As we move forward into Unit 2 this week, our focus will be twofold:  identifying and practicing rhetorical strategies (thinking about how we say what we do) and working to articulate the specific issues we’re interested in exploring further beneath this big umbrella of organizational culture. This will be foundational to the larger work of Unit 2: exploring.

For this week’s discussion work, please respond to question 1 and either of the other questions. Your posts are due by Thursday, 7/8–an extension from the original date, as you have a brief analytical exercise due by Wednesday (see the Unit 2 schedule of assignments and the associated dropbox on Blackboard).

  1. Our primary purpose in Unit 1 was to expand the body of shared knowledge on the subject of diversity and organizational culture, and each of you has made an individual contribution to that effort. Now I’d like you to review your classmates’ contributions to see what they’ve added–click on “canon” in the tag cloud to read these. What have you found interesting and significant in what you’ve read in their posts? Please be specific in naming the issues that have stood out to you and in pointing us toward 1 particular media element (graphic, video, link, etc.) that really made an impression on you. Taking these contributions as a set, how are you seeing the idea of “diversity and organizational culture” differently?
  2. “Flashpoint” is one of those buzzwords used in lots of different ways, in fields as far removed as management and gaming and exercise and chemistry. And since it’s proven to be so flexible, in rhetoric, too. For our purposes, it refers to a sort of rhetorical spark, a moment in the text when we see an important genesis or shift—when something important suddenly becomes clear. Pick such a flashpoint in “The Problem with Diversity in Computing,” and walk us through your chain of thought using one template from TSIS that’s designed for presenting the reaction you want to capture. (Chapters 4 and 5 of TSIS offer lots of ideas)
  3. Crafting effective transitions can be a real challenge for writers, but we can learn a lot from examining how others approach the task. Consider how Bogost uses transitions to develop his argument by focusing on a specific passage—the movement between one paragraph and another or between one section and another. How does he lay the groundwork for the move? How does he pick up on one of those pieces to move forward with? Be specific—quote and analyze in detail.

Please categorize your posts as “Discussions/Homework,” and Tag with “unit 2,” “weekof7/5,” and [your name]. Read through your classmates’ posts later this week, and respond where you see fit.

Moving on from Unit 1

Let’s start pulling some things together. Here are a few lessons from our first unit of the course that I hope you will carry forward in our next projects:

  • We need to understand a text’s rhetorical situation before we can work with it—over the last few weeks, we’ve been looking at some sets of texts that talk around some of the same issues but from different angles. Looking closely, we can trace many of these differences to facets of their writing situation: i.e. different audiences, different purposes, different credentials/experiences of the authors, different contexts. In order to figure out how much stock to put in folks’ ideas, what ideas of our own we might build upon them, or how to use these sources to help explain ideas to other people, we MUST first understand the texts themselves and where they’re coming from.
  • Understanding a text’s rhetorical situation also gives us a window in to whether and how it works, and what we might learn from its example as writers—we can see how writers try to appeal to their readers (using 2nd person, anticipating and responding to their concerns, styling their text to be visually engaging). We can see how writers build their arguments (linking evidence to claims, providing the reader with opportunities to follow their chain of thought back through hyperlinks to sources or citations). We can see writers drawing on their personal experiences to tell us stories about how they came to wonder about something and how they developed their understanding of it. By watching how other people do this work, we prepare ourselves to do it, too.
  • We need a variety of tools—we’ve examined how-to texts (from Harris and TSIS) and content-focused ones; we’ve watched videos; we’ve discussed. We’re coming to appreciate the complexity of our big topic area and to see how we’re only really going to make progress toward our understanding by engaging with a variety of resources and voices. That’s not just an academic exercise for us in this course; that’s a core guideline for research. As researchers and writers, we will also need that multi-faceted set of perspectives if we’re ever going to make progress toward understanding. AND we need to use a multitude of tools in presenting our ideas to our readers—whether that’s templates, graphic representations of data, varying levels of formality, etc. Furthermore, this sort of diversity of perspectives and approaches is a core value for organizations–an essential component of fair and effective collaboration.

So let’s continue. We’re growing our body of knowledge this week through accretion—each of you is adding something to it with the article you’re going to explain to the rest of us, and reviewing your classmates’ posts will be an important part of this week’s work. As we move forward, we’ll continue to learn from each other even as we head down individual research paths.

One final point, summary isn’t just a hoop for you to jump through. It’s how you test yourself to ensure that you’re conversant enough with the text to work with it in your own writing. If you can’t effectively summarize it, you probably shouldn’t be working with it in a project, because you can’t be sure you’ll fairly characterize its perspective and utilize its full value. A careful definition and description of a source (as part of a summary that also details its main take-away points) is a necessary precondition to be able to work further with that material.

Ready to move on? The unit 2 assignment sheet is available here and on Blackboard. Take a look, and let’s get ready to go.

Unit 2 assignment

Now that we’ve built a foundation of knowledge about organizational culture, it’s time to take part in some of these ongoing discussions. We’ll be using the analogy of research as conversation throughout the remaining units—we will be both listening and ‘talking.’ 

Your work in this Unit will build toward 2 written products–a research plan that will guide your work, and a portfolio that will constitute the foundation for that work. Please read through the overview linked below.

You can also download the Unit 2 assignment sheet and schedule on Blackboard.

WRT-205-summer-2021-unit-2Download