Tag: weekof7/5

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.