Tag: unit2

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