The How of Writing Studies

| | Comments (10)

I thought I might return one more time to the carnival and add a couple of more thoughts. Be warned, though. I suspect that this will be more a loose affiliation of thoughts than a careful essay. It was prompted most recently by an entry over on Cara Finnegan's blog, wherein she asks whether method chapters are strictly necessary anymore. Of our own neighborhood in Rhetopia, she writes:

And I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem that my friends on the rhetoric/composition side of things have anxiety about "methods" in quite the same way.

I started a reply over there, but followed the 2 paragraph rule (when a comment gets much longer than a couple of paragraphs, I tend to copy and paste it into an entry here). First things first, I disagree with her observation. Or rather, I agree with it only in a certain way. She describes the work of "rhetorical critics and historians" thusly:

The obligatory methods section feels to me more and more like a prehensile tail, something rhetorical critics evolved at one point because it was institutionally useful (particularly in communication departments concerned with questions of legitimacy in the academy). First of all, does anybody really work that way? Aren't most of us using a variety of "methods" and approaches in our work? Most rhetorical critics and historians approach discourse more or less inductively, and adjust their critical approaches accordingly.

I wouldn't call this "a variety of methods," but rather a variety of perspectives informing a single method. I don't say this to be critical, because I do think that this is a nearly overwhelming default position in rhet/comp as well. So if indeed our field enjoys a lack of anxiety over methodology, that lack itself strikes me as a worthy cause of anxiety. As much as I tease friends for going meta with their neuroses, this is a case where we should be worried about not being worried.

This is not a direct engagement with Trimbur, but I think it's one of those layers that we might add to the questions that he discusses. To the question "Should writing be studied?" then, my gut response is to ask instead, "How should writing be studied?"

In part, my thinking on this is motivated by the fact that I'll be teaching our methods course in the fall, and I'm already thinking about what I want to do there. But it's also motivated by own lack of training in methods beyond the textual (which is what I take Cara to be describing in her entry). And finally, it's motivated by my perception that at one time, rhet/comp engaged passionately with questions of how we might study writing, but now we do a lot less of it. I could be wrong, of course, but here's a little evidence:

First, Chris Anson's talk last year at WPA (discussed by Becky here and here) Follow that second link, and you'll see a list of activities, almost all of which strike me as necessary in order for us to claim the study of writing as our province.

Second, Rich Haswell's essay, which Anson cited in his talk, on the "NCTE/CCCC’s Recent War on Scholarship." Although there's a part of that essay that I've critiqued, the essay overall is an important one. The consistent devaluation of replicable, aggregable, and data-driven scholarship in our field is interesting to me, as it supports the emergence of celebritocratic, reading virtuosity as the coin of the realm.

Third, I'd point out a couple of interesting projects, neither of which was "published" in our field, but both of which strike me as just the sort of thing that scholars in writing studies could and should be doing. The first is Joseph Williams' "Problems into PROBLEMS: A Rhetoric of Introductions," (PDF) which is one of those 'tweeners, too long for an essay, too short for a book. "Problems" attempts a structural account of introductions (as opposed to the inductive work of Swales and others), supported with several small-scale studies. (I've gushed about it before) I'd also point out one of the winners of last year's Ig Nobel prizes, Daniel Oppenheimer's "Consequences of erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity: problems with using long words needlessly" (Wiley), an essay that combines various small-scale studies about whether using longer words makes a text more effective. It's a little statisticklish, but nevertheless understsandable, and worth the read.

The thing about projects like these is that I can see them functioning as dissertation topics, but I could also easily imagine tailoring the studies so that they could be conducted in a graduate classroom, or even an undergraduate classroom. Another thing about them is that they take writing seriously, which strikes me as the sine qua non of answering the question of writing studies affirmatively.

This is to say nothing of my own methods, which increasingly take new media both as object and as an influence on method. And there are plenty of other methods I'm passing over here, from ethnography to activity theory to case studies, that might be more appropriate for writing-as-verb rather than writing-as-noun.

And finally, I should note that I started drafting this a couple of days ago, but only just got around to looking it over and touching it up. In the interim, I got a copy in the mail of Raul Sanchez's The Function of Theory in Composition Studies (Amazon). It's a fast read, but a good one, wherein he writes, among other things:

Globalization and the proliferation of technology make it imperative that compositionists develop a new kind of composition theory, one that understands its object of study very broadly and is conscious of its methodologies (72).

I couldn't have said it better myself, but have tried to say it somewhat longer here, I guess. My answer to the question "Should writing be studied?" depends in large part on what we mean both by the word "writing" and the word "studied." Not all our answers would be the same, I suspect.

That is all, except for the brief postscript that I've started brainstorming texts for the methods course (and am already at 25 books at the time I post this). Feel free to take a look--I'm using an Amazon Listmania list to do it, but may switch over to Library Thing if the list grows too big. You'll find it listed as CCR 691. Feel free also to suggest additions.

Now that is all.

10 Comments

This is semi-random, but if you are on librarything.com, please join our composition and rhetoric group! And Rick Hunter started a CompRhet New Media that could use more members.

I shall now go and check out your list of books!

What's the group name, k8? I tend to cycle in and out using LT, but right now, I'm in an "in" phase, and would be happy to join...

The name: Composition and Rhetoric

I get a little obsessed about the ways I can organize and catalog my books on librarything, but I suppose that is what comes from having an MLS.

I definitely want to TAKE this course! We used Bazerman in the authorship class last fall, but those students will probably appreciate reading it with a different prof.

& worth a look: Creswell's Designing and conducting mixed methods research.

I would add further that the answer to your question depends on what you mean by "serious." What happens when we take writing seriously? Who is being serious here?

I'm responding after reading Scot's post about academic blogs and the relative "seriousness" of that as a medium. And don't take this as a direct critique, Colin, but can't an "unserious" reaction or response be as illuminating or insightful as something "serious"? Would "rigor" be a better adjective? Is there something else?

Fair enough, Dave. I don't take this as a critique at all. I don't mean "serious" here as the opposite of "frivolous" or "playful" so much as I mean it as shorthand for "treating writing as if writing itself matters." One of the things that I really like about Sanchez's book is that it critiques the monopoly in our field that representationality (for wont of a better word) seems to hold on writing. Not that it doesn't represent, but it doesn't only represent. In this, I find some similarities with what Latour describes in Reassembling, where the (f)act of writing matters.

I'd say that some of our field's most "unserious" writers are among those who take writing itself seriously, if the distinction I'm making makes sense...

the distinction makes quite a lot of sense to me. i agree that there is certainly more than representation in writing and discourse. were it not the case, we would have a relatively easy job. i'll have to take a look @ Sanchez as well as the Latour you mention (he's too prolific).

Colin: It's great to read your take on this; thanks for engaging the questions I raised. I think you're absolutely right that there's a conflation between "method" and "methodology" going on -- one which gets resolved more or less rigorously in the universes of rhetoric/comm/writing studies. Maybe a way to clarify my argument about "using a variety of methods" is to consider the different demands of different critical objects. A recent student of mine, for example, had in a her dissertation a chapter that examined a single speech, another which examined fragments of rhetoric from a single speaker, and a third that examined sets of images paired with texts. While her overall methodology was essentially the same across all of these examples, each of the critical objects posed somewhat unique critical dilemmas for her, and these needed to be negotiated in the process of doing the critical work. So the question might then be, how much would she need to do in the dissertation in a "methods" chapter to explain the different ways she approached each of these kinds of artifacts?

Hey, Cara! Thanks for stopping by.

I see what you mean, and it makes sense to me that those various dilemmas would be treated in a "methods" chapter, although maybe it'd be worth thinking of it as a "materials" chapter. I think it's a problem that can only grow as our media proliferate--it makes a great deal of sense to me that we can't simply impose a particular method upon a range of objects without acknowledging those critical dilemmas...

Leave a comment

Archives

Pages

Powered by Movable Type 4.1

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by cgbrooke published on March 1, 2007 1:48 PM.

Updated list was the previous entry in this blog.

Information dorkologies is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.