Analytic Reflection
Technology's Role in Digital Discourse Concerns
- In Response to Ethical Concerns
A short response to another student's blog post on the ethics of catering scientific texts to broader audiences.
- A New-Age Twist on Longhand Note-Taking
New note-taking technologies available to the public sphere could eliminate issues of longhand and laptop note-taking.
- Analytic Reflection
A short reflection on how and why the above Sci-Tech blog was written and edited.
- Technology No Longer Requires Deep Reading, But Is There A Solution?
New technology is making it easier than ever to read without comprehending information. Discourse studies and critics of how technology affects reading consider why this happens and how moving away from new technologies might allow consumers to gain a deeper understanding of reading once again.
Providing Citizens with Tools for Engaging in Issues of Public Discourse
- A Citizen's Role in Public Deliberation
Ordinary citizens reserve the right to engage in matters of public discourse in public sphere settings, and may even be able to present solutions overlooked by experts due to their immediate involvement in stock issues and social controversies.
- Immigration from Prison to Public
A White Paper that seeks to resolve issues of discourse in current prison reform regarding mass incarceration, especially in black minority communities.
- Eradicating Criminalizing Homelessness through Mediated Public Discourse
Addresses the focus of human interest issues in scientific journalism in the context of a white paper covering issues of homelessness in the United States.
Editing, Remediation, Appropriation
- Old and New: Public Policy Solutions Through Remediation and Appeals to Time
The effect of using rhetorical appeals in remediated and re-appropriated news stories over time.
- Taking Back Intellectual Ownership in the Humanities
An essay regarding the need to remove educational stigmas about humanities studies to take back intellectual ownership in university systems.
- Is There Adequate Proof for the Claim: "Society is Dumbing Down"?
The Google Generation's invention of "power browsing" online seems detrimental to reading habits but may actually be teaching new generations how to take in and sort through the vast amount of information available on the Internet.
Being a Mindful Citizen Critic/Citizen Journalist
- World Wide Wikipedia
A response to another student's blog post regarding Wikipedia's set of guidelines and how this affects the success of Wikipedia as a source.
- Public Sphere Writing
An analytic reflection about the process of being a Wikipedia writer and editor for a collaborative class article on "Public Sphere Writing." The article is still under review by Wikipedia, therefore no link is yet provided.
- Citizen Critics: To Trust or Not to Trust?
Discusses what being a citizen critic means in the context of Wikipedia editing in regards to issues of validity and credibility.
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
Final Portfolio Analytic Reflection
This portfolio is built to showcase my work throughout the
Advanced Editing and Writing course. I chose a blog as my medium because
creating a course blog was a large part of how we submitted our course work and
commented on each other’s work to further learn how to work appropriately in
public discourse situations. A blog as the medium is also effective in creating
an intertext, which D’Angelo defines simply in “The Rhetoric of
Intertextuality” as, “the relationships that exist between and among texts”
(D’Angelo 33). This means that creating an intertextual portfolio allows me to
link to other parts of the blog when appropriate to show how different projects
throughout the course work in conjunction with each other to illustrate major
ideas and concepts from the course.
The organization of this portfolio is also intertextual. The
home page presents the Table of Contents
first (with a short description of the project under each title), and then this
reflection on the portfolio and class as a whole. Each piece of work listed in
the TOC is a link to that piece, and many of the writing assignments in the
portfolio have intertextual links as well, to other assignments, to other
students’ course blogs, and to outside articles and sources referenced in the
assignments.
Writing for this class required utilizing many critical
texts used throughout the course to enable us to be mindful citizen critics and
develop new ideas based off of previously established public discourse issues. In “Plagiarism and Promiscuity”
Wiebe states that, “As Moore Howard suggested, in academic writing, at least,
there is no simple ‘originality,’ no such work that simply jumps from the
student’s mind to the page in some unmediated way” (Wiebe 33). Writing
assignments for this class required making new discoveries, but most of them
did build off and utilize other texts to aid in explaining these new
discoveries. Using these critical texts in our writing gave us the tools
to actually in engage in public discourse and publish our writing to public
forums, making me more mindful of each piece of work I wrote for this class.
Corbett and Eberly state in “Becoming a Citizen Critic: Where Rhetoric Meets
the Road” that, “In a
democracy, rhetoric as the actualizer of potential depends on citizens who are
able to imagine themselves as agents of action, rather than just spectators or
consumers” (Corbett and Eberly 131). For the first time, maintaining a blog and
writing for Wikipedia, I became an agent of action, engaging in and writing
public discourse rather than just reading about it and writing private papers
for school.
Organized into four sections, the portfolio showcases four
major units/concepts/topics that work intertextually with each other to further
the learning process throughout the course. Each section begins with a blog
post or response to another student’s blog post, a major assignment from a unit
of the course (Sci/Tech Blogging, Policy Argument, Higher Education, and
Collaborative Wikipedia Article), and a short writing assignment. To bring in
the editing component of the course, each assignment has been edited, the major
unit assignments especially, for clarity and precision. Below, I have broken
down these four sections, explaining how and why they are grouped together and
how all of these sections come together to provide the reader with a better
understanding of what being a mindful citizen critic/journalist means.
Technology’s Role in
Digital Discourse Concerns
This section contains a blog response about the ethics of
writing scientific texts for non-scientific consumers, a Sci/Tech blog post
about the effect of the digital age on note-taking technologies, and a short
assignment that attempts to provide a solution for the detriments of the ease
of reading that new technologies provide. All three of these assignments
revolve around technology and issues of discourse that have arisen from new
technologies. Because science and technology writing often require expertise or
specific information that a lay reader may not have prior knowledge of, it
makes Sci/Tech writing difficult. This becomes an issue of ethics because it is
not ethically sound to provide false information or less credible information
for the purpose of creating a more interesting story because the intended
audience of the text may not be aware of these discrepancies. Attempting to
stay away from these issues of discourse in writing for general audiences
requires Sci/Tech writers for the public sphere to maintain their mindful
citizen journalist roles and provide the best information for their audience in
understandable terms.
Providing Citizens
with Tools for Engaging in Issues of Public Discourse
In this section there is a blog post introducing how
citizens engage in public deliberation and even offer solutions not considered
by experts, a white paper about the public policy issue of mass incarceration
in the United States, and a short assignment addressing how mediated public
discourse could be an aid in eradicating issues of criminalizing homeless
populations. All of these assignments come together because they enable average
citizens to engage in public discourse. Many citizens may not be aware of their
abilities to engage in public issues, or may not feel that they are expert
enough to engage in these issues. However, as long as they remain mindful
citizen critics, anyone can engage in public discourse, and average citizens
can even be more helpful than experts because they are a part of these social
issues on a day-to-day basis and often provide new ways of looking at the
situation. This is why it is important to inform the public and enable them to
successfully engage in public deliberations.
Editing, Remediation,
and Appropriation
With a blog post about how to use rhetorical appeals in
remediated news stories, an essay about falsely appropriated statistics
regarding a decrease in humanities students leading to education stigmas, and a
short assignment about the Google Generation’s invention of “power browsing”
enabling consumers to more effectively take in the vast amount of information
provided on the Internet, these three assignments are a culmination of how and why
citizen critics must appropriately use strategies on editing, remediation, and
appropriation in public sphere discourse. All of these strategies, especially
remediation and appropriation, are often not used appropriately in public
sphere writing. It is necessary for citizen critics and citizen journalists to
use remediation and appropriation accurately and successfully, relying on
editing strategies to catch instances where these rhetorical strategies are not
used effectively.
Being a Mindful
Citizen Critic/Citizen Journalist
This final section revolves around three assignments to do
with Wikipedia editing and writing, tasks that require mindful citizen critics
to embody all of the concepts included in the first three sections. In this
section is a blog post about how Wikipedia’s guidelines remain successful, a
Wikipedia article collaboratively written by all of the students in this class,
and a short assignment discussing what being a citizen critic means
specifically in the context of Wikipedia. Writing and editing for Wikipedia was
the final project for this class and required myself and the rest of the class
to be mindful citizen critics, working together to write a successful Wikipedia
article informing the very public audiences of Wikipedia about “Public Sphere
Writing.” Participating in this project brought together all of the class
principles and spheres into one cohesive realization of what being a citizen
critic means and how we all operate as citizen critics in all realms of public
sphere discourse issues.
Works Cited
Corbett,
Edward P.J., and Rosa A. Eberly. “Becoming a Citizen Critic: Where Rhetoric
Meets
the Road.” The Elements of Reading. 121-138. Web.
D’Angelo,
Frank J. “The Rhetoric of Intertexuality.” Arizona
State University, 2009.
31-47. Web.
Wiebe,
Russell. “Plagiarism and Promiscuity, Authors and Plagiarism.” 29-47. Web.
In Response to Ethical Concerns
When the audience for scientific writing shifts from the scientific community to the general public, changes must be made to accommodate to a wider audience. Both “Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts” by Jeanne Fahnestock and “Ecospeak: Rhetoric and Environmental Politics in America” by Jimmie Killingsworth and Jacqueline Palmer address whether these accommodations are ethically sound.
Fahnestock explains the genre shift that occurs when a rhetorical situation necessitates that a scientific text address a larger audience: “With a significant change in rhetorical situation comes a change in genre, and instead of simply reporting facts for a different audience, scientific accommodations are overwhelmingly epideictic, their main purpose is to celebrate rather than validate” (Fahnestock 278-279). This genre shift is also addressed by Killingsworth and Palmer who focus on how appealing to human interests rather than a scientific community causes change: “The emphasis on human interest carries the journalist out of the field of natural science and into the action-oriented fields of social movements and politics” (Killingsworth, Palmer 135).
In response to whether these accommodations of scientific texts for broader audiences is ethically sound: These accommodations, while appealing to a larger audience, take on epideictic aims in which the public is learning about new scientific findings but the facts are no longer validated which is causing these texts to lose their pedagogical nature. This also begs the question of what the public is actually gaining if the information is not validated and scientifically accurate.
In “Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts,” Fahnestock examines two magazines, both published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, in which two texts on the same subject provide very different background information and scientific information because their intended audience and purpose for reading changes from the scientific community to a lay audience. Fahnestock says, “Accommodating the scholarly piece for the non scholarly magazine is not, therefore, simply a matter of translating technical jargon into nontechnical equivalents” (Fahnestock 280). While the change in jargon is only intended to accommodate readers who are not experts on the subject, the information is still changed in the shift of this rhetorical situation, which Fahnestock mentions saying, “The science accommodator is not telling an untruth; he simply selects only the information that serves his epideictic purpose” (Fahnestock 281). Even though these changes may not be made with any intention of lessening the information provided to the broader audience, if the broader audiences are unaware of the information they may be losing, ethics can be called into question.
Killingsworth and Palmer address the ethics of the change in rhetorical situation from a scientific audience to a broader audience by examining what happens when there is a change from a “news” story to a “human interest” story. According the “Ecospeak” article, “Human interest is the leading factor in determining what scientific activities will be covered as big stories” (Killingsworth, Palmer 134). Killingsworth and Palmer recognize two issues with the human interest approach: “First, it insists that science must have social value outside of its own pursuits…that science cannot be an end in itself…Second, this approach insists that science must not only be applied to general human problems but…science must solve human problems” (Killingsworth, Palmer 135). This is creating a movement from providing information from a scientific outlook to a journalistic approach based on social movements and politics to draw attention rather than provide accurate information to the public. It appears that this is also an issue for Fahnestock who says, “In the space limits of a short notice in a magazine of popularized science, there is not room for the qualifications a more knowledgeable audience would demand, qualifications that show the author’s awareness of the criticism and refutation that an expert audience could raise against his inferences” (Fahnestock 283). Because broader audiences are unaware of the lack of information they are receiving in comparison to expert audiences, there is no demand for a change in the way popularized science magazines and journals present their information.
The “Ecospeak” article pays particular attention to magazines like Time, one of the largest circulated magazines in the world. Because these types of publications focus largely on human interest stories, “It portrays what scientists often disparagingly call the ‘popular image of science,’ preferring applied research and engineering to theoretical concerns, and wavering between reverence and mistrust in its portrayal of the esoteric knowledge of scientists” (Killingsworth, Palmer 141). Rather than focusing on providing accurate and scientific information to its broad audience, these magazines pick articles highlighting big issues for their cover stories to receive attention and readership.
Whether it should still be considered ethically unsound to provide inaccurate and unvalidated information to a general audience who is unaware of this issue is a difficult question to tackle but one that is worthy of attention and discussion.
Link to blog that this was in response to.
Fahnestock explains the genre shift that occurs when a rhetorical situation necessitates that a scientific text address a larger audience: “With a significant change in rhetorical situation comes a change in genre, and instead of simply reporting facts for a different audience, scientific accommodations are overwhelmingly epideictic, their main purpose is to celebrate rather than validate” (Fahnestock 278-279). This genre shift is also addressed by Killingsworth and Palmer who focus on how appealing to human interests rather than a scientific community causes change: “The emphasis on human interest carries the journalist out of the field of natural science and into the action-oriented fields of social movements and politics” (Killingsworth, Palmer 135).
In response to whether these accommodations of scientific texts for broader audiences is ethically sound: These accommodations, while appealing to a larger audience, take on epideictic aims in which the public is learning about new scientific findings but the facts are no longer validated which is causing these texts to lose their pedagogical nature. This also begs the question of what the public is actually gaining if the information is not validated and scientifically accurate.
In “Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts,” Fahnestock examines two magazines, both published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, in which two texts on the same subject provide very different background information and scientific information because their intended audience and purpose for reading changes from the scientific community to a lay audience. Fahnestock says, “Accommodating the scholarly piece for the non scholarly magazine is not, therefore, simply a matter of translating technical jargon into nontechnical equivalents” (Fahnestock 280). While the change in jargon is only intended to accommodate readers who are not experts on the subject, the information is still changed in the shift of this rhetorical situation, which Fahnestock mentions saying, “The science accommodator is not telling an untruth; he simply selects only the information that serves his epideictic purpose” (Fahnestock 281). Even though these changes may not be made with any intention of lessening the information provided to the broader audience, if the broader audiences are unaware of the information they may be losing, ethics can be called into question.
Killingsworth and Palmer address the ethics of the change in rhetorical situation from a scientific audience to a broader audience by examining what happens when there is a change from a “news” story to a “human interest” story. According the “Ecospeak” article, “Human interest is the leading factor in determining what scientific activities will be covered as big stories” (Killingsworth, Palmer 134). Killingsworth and Palmer recognize two issues with the human interest approach: “First, it insists that science must have social value outside of its own pursuits…that science cannot be an end in itself…Second, this approach insists that science must not only be applied to general human problems but…science must solve human problems” (Killingsworth, Palmer 135). This is creating a movement from providing information from a scientific outlook to a journalistic approach based on social movements and politics to draw attention rather than provide accurate information to the public. It appears that this is also an issue for Fahnestock who says, “In the space limits of a short notice in a magazine of popularized science, there is not room for the qualifications a more knowledgeable audience would demand, qualifications that show the author’s awareness of the criticism and refutation that an expert audience could raise against his inferences” (Fahnestock 283). Because broader audiences are unaware of the lack of information they are receiving in comparison to expert audiences, there is no demand for a change in the way popularized science magazines and journals present their information.
The “Ecospeak” article pays particular attention to magazines like Time, one of the largest circulated magazines in the world. Because these types of publications focus largely on human interest stories, “It portrays what scientists often disparagingly call the ‘popular image of science,’ preferring applied research and engineering to theoretical concerns, and wavering between reverence and mistrust in its portrayal of the esoteric knowledge of scientists” (Killingsworth, Palmer 141). Rather than focusing on providing accurate and scientific information to its broad audience, these magazines pick articles highlighting big issues for their cover stories to receive attention and readership.
Whether it should still be considered ethically unsound to provide inaccurate and unvalidated information to a general audience who is unaware of this issue is a difficult question to tackle but one that is worthy of attention and discussion.
Link to blog that this was in response to.
Analytic Reflection
For my Sci/Tech Blog “A New-Age Twist on Longhand Note-Taking” I focused on Mueller and Oppenheimer’s article “The Pen Is Mightier Than the Keyboard” using additional sources from Wired.com and International New York Times to build my own argument. The principal source that I used, the Mueller/Oppenheimer article, focused on how laptop note-taking in the current digital age is leading to decreased academic performance compared to traditional longhand note-taking. The other two sources that I used focused on the importance of newer technologies and how they are shaping the face of note-taking today. None of these articles focused on putting these two things together though. So for my blog post I brought out a new idea: what if new technologies like smartpens would allow for digital versions of handwritten notes so that students are still transcribing their own ideas and not losing out on information by typing lectures verbatim.
To create a blog narrative, I took Rettberg’s Blogging into account, focusing on her definition of “blogging.” In the text, Rettberg uses the Oxford English Dictionary definition of “blog” as “A frequently updated website consisting of personal observations, excerpts from other sources, etc., typically run by a single person, and usually with hyperlinks to other sites” (Rettberg 34). This definition precisely describes the blog post that I created. My individual class blog takes my personal observations of note-taking as a current student into account while bringing in other sources through hyperlinks to their articles to provide credibility and citation on old and new note-taking technologies. Part of the assignment in creating a Sci/Tech blog was also to give our blogs a “Sci/Tech” appearance. I changed my blog temporarily for this assignment, changing the background and fonts. I created a new green background that I feel is fitting for the assignment and chose a serif font to give my blog post a sharp appearance.
Rettberg also focuses on how blogging changed how we define authors and publishing saying that blogging “[opened] up publishing to regular people” (Rettberg 12). This is an important concept to consider for this assignment because as students and young professionals it is necessary to still take a credible stance on the issue. While I am not strictly a professional in the field of note-taking, I am a student who relies on note-taking to receive an education on a daily basis, thus giving me credibility on this issue. For some classes I use a laptop for note-taking and in others I am prohibited from using a laptop so I can argue for the benefits and detriments of both.
In “Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts,” Fahnestock focuses on how science writers accommodate to their non-science audiences. Referencing how science writers address their lay audiences, Fahnestock says, “Accommodating the scholarly piece for the non scholarly magazine is not, therefore, simply a matter of translating technical jargon into nontechnical equivalents” (Fahnestock 280). The same was necessary in writing my Sci/Tech blog. While I was translating information and creating a new idea about note-taking in the modern age, I was still writing for an academic audience; therefore, the assignment was not just about translating the issue into more understandable material, but presenting a new argument for a new audience. Fahnestock also says, “In the space limits of a short notice in a magazine of popularized science, there is not room for the qualifications a more knowledgeable audience would demand, qualifications that show the author’s awareness of the criticism and refutation that an expert audience could raise against his inferences” (Fahnestock 283). While only composing a short individual blog post, I had to establish credibility in that amount of space but only the credibility necessary for the audience I was trying to reach. This intended audience would be other students and frequent note-takers like myself. I established credibility quickly because of my knowledge of note-taking as an academic student as well as by providing hyperlinks for the articles I referenced so that readers can access them and gain more information for themselves without my unnecessarily lengthening my post to provide extraneous information that does not directly add to my specific argument.
Fahnestock, Jeanne. “Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts.” Written Communication 3.3 (Jul. 1986): 275-96. JSTOR.
Rettburg, Jill Walker. Blogging: Digital Media and Society Series. Cambirdge, 2014. Print.
A New-Age Twist on Longhand Note-Taking
Note-taking
has recently become a topic of intellectual interest. Experiments have been
conducted and conferences have been held to determine how modern technology has
changed the face of note-taking and how this is affecting one’s ability to
effectively take in and regurgitate information. The benefits of traditional
longhand note-taking versus laptop note-taking have been widely discussed, but
an alternative medium could be the answer to making hand-written notes digital
for purposes of sustainability and shareability, with some scholars even
wanting to explore the option of public notes.
Taking
notes is an important mode of learning. Each individual person has their own
methodology for note-taking in a manner that best facilitates their learning
style. Ann Blair, a professor of history at Harvard is quoted in “Note-Taking’s Past,
Deciphered Today” asking, “What is reading, after all? Even if you look
introspectively, it’s hard to really know what you’re taking away at any given
time. But notes give us hope of getting close to an intellectual process”
(Schuessler). This stresses the importance of note-taking and why we should be
working toward discovering the most effective note-taking mediums.
Scholars
at a conference discussed in Schuessler’s article called “Take Note” discussed
the benefits of digital note-taking because it gives the ability to put notes
in a more lasting form than paper and allows for easier sharing. David
Weinberger, a Harvard technologist who attended the conference, is quoted in
Schuessler’s article as saying, “Private note-taking seems selfish to me. Make
it all public, using standards. Big clouds of notes!” (Schuessler).
The
results of making notes public could provide students and scholars with a place
to add and take away knowledge, creating one cohesive intellectual process for
note-taking allowing everyone to gain information in the most beneficial
manner. If notes were regulated and standardized in a public place, students
might pay more attention and be more cautious of what they decide to write or
type down.
While
taking notes on a laptop allows for a student to record more information at a
quicker pace, professors express concerns over the distractions that laptops
offer. In the article “The Pen Is Mightier
Than the Keyboard” Mueller and Oppenheimer state, “Empirical research tends to
support the professors’ view, finding that students using laptops are not on
task during lectures, show decreased academic performance, and are actually
less satisfied with their education than their peers who do not use laptops in
class” (Mueller/Oppenheimer 1).
Due
to widespread technology use in classrooms, laptop note-taking allows students
to record information quickly enough that their notes are verbatim to the
lectures they are hearing. Mueller and Oppenheimer conducted three experiments,
all of which ended with similar results. Those taking longhand notes recorded
far fewer words than those using laptops and the lack of verbatim notes when using
longhand resulted in superior performance in each experiment. Even when
instructed not to take verbatim notes in the second experiment, it was
completely ineffective in reducing verbatim content, once again leading to
results proving superior academic performance after longhand note-taking.
Mueller and Oppenheimer take these results into consideration, concluding, “For
that reason, laptop use in classrooms should be viewed with a healthy dose of
caution; despite their growing popularity, laptops may be doing more harm in
classrooms than good” (Mueller/Oppenheimer 8).
An
attendee of the conference “Take Note” in Schuessler’s article, Peter Burke addresses
the comparison of enthusiastic note-takers to “compulsive hoarders” saying,
“But I distrusted the students who took lots of notes as much as the students
who didn't take any” (Schuessler). This is a similar concern for professors who
are beginning to ban the use of laptops in their classrooms due to the
decreasing academic performance that results from verbatim note-taking on
laptops.
While
there is adequate defense for both longhand and laptop note-taking, neither of
these articles sought a medium that would encompass the benefits of both. New
technologies that combine these two mediums, especially if this technology
incorporates notes going into a public cloud, could give students the solution
to forming an intellectual process for the way in which they record notes,
eliminating issues of detrimental note-taking.
Several
smartpens have been created in recent years, which operate using wi-fi,
allowing students to hand-write notes that are directly uploaded to a digital
format. These pens can also simultaneously record audio so that students can go
back and listen to lectures again and record any additional information they
may not have had time to write down. In her article “Hands-On With Livescribe’s
Sky Wi-Fi Smartpen,” Christina Bonnington discusses her personal experience using
the smartpen and how the convenient technology allows for making hand-written
notes digital.
Technologies
like the Sky Smartpen are still new mediums for note-taking and their affect on
academic performance has yet to be fully tested. However, smartpens do provide
a medium that allows for taking longhand notes that can be converted to a
digital format, eliminating issues of laptop note-taking like verbatim content.
If the wi-fi capabilities of these kinds of technology also enable notes to go
into a public cloud, notes could become sustainable and shareable, providing
students and scholars with regulated and cohesive notes.
Bonnington, Christina. “Hands-On With Livescribe’s Sky Wi-Fi Smartpen.” Wired.com. 29
October 2012. Web.
Mueller, Pam A. and Daniel M. Oppenheimer. “The Pen Is Mightier Than the Keyboard:
Advantages of Longhand Over Laptop Note Taking.” Psychological Science. 23 April
2014. Web.
Schuessler, Jennifer. “Note-Taking’s Past, Deciphered Today.” International New York Times. 6
November 2012. Web.
Technology No Longer Requires Deep Reading, But Is There A Solution?
In a blog post titled “The Future of Reading,” Jonah Lehrer brings to light a pertinent issue that is arising in response to current technology making it easier than ever before to read and buy books. Lehrer says, “[His] problem is that consumer technology moves in a single direction: It’s constantly making it easier for us to perceive the content” (Lehrer). However, Lehrer also proposes a solution: by stepping away from technology, readers can once again gain a deeper understanding of the discourse they are consuming, and begin learning at a more developed level. The ongoing shift to e-books becoming the main medium for reading allows for content to be more accessible but this deters readers from reading slowly and actually taking in the content. Lehrer explains the reason for this by bringing in research from Stanislas Dehaene, a neuroscientist at College de France. According to Dehaene, the literate brain has two distinct pathways for making sense of words. The first is the ventral route which is a process of grouping letters into words into semantic meaning. Lehrer says, “When you are reading a straightforward sentence, or a paragraph full of tropes and cliches, you're almost certainly relying on this ventral neural highway” (Lehrer). Whenever something on a page forces us to pay conscious attention to a sentence, the second reading pathway, called the dorsal stream, is turned on. This force to pay closer attention to what we are reading is necessary for Lehrer who suggests a solution to the easily perceivable content provided by consumer technology: “I’d love them to include a feature that allows us to undo their ease, to make the act of reading just a little bit more difficult” (Lehrer). By bringing in an intertextual component through the use of the neuroscience research regarding the brain’s two distinct reading pathways, the rhetorical situation that Lehrer creates in “The Future of Reading” brings meaning to this discourse as an argument for the way in which consumer technology is making it easier to perceive content.
Discussing the factors that allow a reader to consume and participate in discourse, in his journal article “Rhetorical Situations and their Constituents,” Grant-Davie defines the rhetorical situation as “a situation where a speaker or writer sees a need to change reality and sees that the change may be effected through rhetorical discourse” (Grant-Davie 265). Lehrer has created the kind of rhetorical situation that Grant-Davie is referring to as he sees a need to change the way in which consumer technology is making content easier for readers to perceive and affecting their ability to really understand texts. In order to address this rhetorical situation, Lehrer’s discourse touches on all four of Grant-Davie’s constituents for situation. The first, exigence, is clearly explained by Lehrer when he says, “I do have a nagging problem with the merger of screens and sentences. My problem is that consumer technology moves in a single direction: It’s constantly making it easier for us to perceive the content” (Lehrer). This clearly addresses what the discourse is about and why it is needed and Lehrer also later explains in the article what accomplishing his discourse will do: make reading more difficult so that readers will better understand the words they are consuming. Grant-Davie’s second constituent, rhetor(s), makes Lehrer the rhetor in this situation as he is the only one directly providing the discourse. The third constituent is audience which Grant-Davie defines as “Those people, real or imagined, with whom rhetors negotiate through discourse to achieve the rhetorical objectives” (Grant-Davie 270). Following this definition, the many audiences for Lehrer’s discourse include book consumers and those involved in industries providing books to consumers. The final constituent, the constraints, are “Factors in the situation’s context that may affect the achievement of the rhetorical objectives” (Grant-Davie 272). Numerous constraints can arise in any given rhetorical situation and Lehrer’s in particular include intertextual information like the neuroscience study on distinct reading pathways (which could be considered a positive constraint) and the fact that it has never been easier to buy and read books (which could be considered a negative constraint as most people would view this as a good thing).
Using Porter’s definition for “intertextuality” from his article “Intertextuality and the Discourse Community,” the way in which Lehrer’s blog post functions as an “intertext” can be clearly understood. According to Porter, all texts are interdependent and we can understand a text only insofar as we understand its precursors (Porter 34). This leads Porter to define intertextuality as, “the principle that all writing and speech - and, indeed, all signs - arise from a single network” (Porter 34). In “The Future of Reading” Lehrer provides several examples of “intertext” which include e-books like the Kindle, a reference to Shakespearean language, and included the most, information from a neuroscientist on the two distinct literary brain pathways and how these come into play in reference to new consumer technology. These examples of “intertext” present in Lehrer’s blog represent both of Porter’s types of intertextuality. Presupposition, which Porter says, “refers to assumptions a text makes about its referent, its readers, and its context,” would include the reference to Shakespeare in the blog because Lehrer does not include any sort of background information on Shakespeare as he is an important literary figure whose name provides all of the information necessary (Porter 35). The inclusion of the distinct literary brain pathways, however, is an example of iterability which, “refers to the ‘repeatability’ of certain textual fragments, to citation in its broadest sense to include…unannounced sources and influences…” (Porter 35). If Lehrer had simply mentioned that a neuroscientist had previously defined two types of brain pathways for reading, the average reader would not understand how this information applies to the rest of the blog post. Lehrer brings in this information then explains in depth what the two distinct pathways are and how they affect the ability of readers to perceive a text through new consumer technology. By providing this explanation, Lehrer gives meaning to his discourse so that the rhetorical situation he has created can be understood by his audience and a solution can be provided to force consumers to step away from the technology and begin receiving a deep understanding from reading once again.
Discussing the factors that allow a reader to consume and participate in discourse, in his journal article “Rhetorical Situations and their Constituents,” Grant-Davie defines the rhetorical situation as “a situation where a speaker or writer sees a need to change reality and sees that the change may be effected through rhetorical discourse” (Grant-Davie 265). Lehrer has created the kind of rhetorical situation that Grant-Davie is referring to as he sees a need to change the way in which consumer technology is making content easier for readers to perceive and affecting their ability to really understand texts. In order to address this rhetorical situation, Lehrer’s discourse touches on all four of Grant-Davie’s constituents for situation. The first, exigence, is clearly explained by Lehrer when he says, “I do have a nagging problem with the merger of screens and sentences. My problem is that consumer technology moves in a single direction: It’s constantly making it easier for us to perceive the content” (Lehrer). This clearly addresses what the discourse is about and why it is needed and Lehrer also later explains in the article what accomplishing his discourse will do: make reading more difficult so that readers will better understand the words they are consuming. Grant-Davie’s second constituent, rhetor(s), makes Lehrer the rhetor in this situation as he is the only one directly providing the discourse. The third constituent is audience which Grant-Davie defines as “Those people, real or imagined, with whom rhetors negotiate through discourse to achieve the rhetorical objectives” (Grant-Davie 270). Following this definition, the many audiences for Lehrer’s discourse include book consumers and those involved in industries providing books to consumers. The final constituent, the constraints, are “Factors in the situation’s context that may affect the achievement of the rhetorical objectives” (Grant-Davie 272). Numerous constraints can arise in any given rhetorical situation and Lehrer’s in particular include intertextual information like the neuroscience study on distinct reading pathways (which could be considered a positive constraint) and the fact that it has never been easier to buy and read books (which could be considered a negative constraint as most people would view this as a good thing).
Using Porter’s definition for “intertextuality” from his article “Intertextuality and the Discourse Community,” the way in which Lehrer’s blog post functions as an “intertext” can be clearly understood. According to Porter, all texts are interdependent and we can understand a text only insofar as we understand its precursors (Porter 34). This leads Porter to define intertextuality as, “the principle that all writing and speech - and, indeed, all signs - arise from a single network” (Porter 34). In “The Future of Reading” Lehrer provides several examples of “intertext” which include e-books like the Kindle, a reference to Shakespearean language, and included the most, information from a neuroscientist on the two distinct literary brain pathways and how these come into play in reference to new consumer technology. These examples of “intertext” present in Lehrer’s blog represent both of Porter’s types of intertextuality. Presupposition, which Porter says, “refers to assumptions a text makes about its referent, its readers, and its context,” would include the reference to Shakespeare in the blog because Lehrer does not include any sort of background information on Shakespeare as he is an important literary figure whose name provides all of the information necessary (Porter 35). The inclusion of the distinct literary brain pathways, however, is an example of iterability which, “refers to the ‘repeatability’ of certain textual fragments, to citation in its broadest sense to include…unannounced sources and influences…” (Porter 35). If Lehrer had simply mentioned that a neuroscientist had previously defined two types of brain pathways for reading, the average reader would not understand how this information applies to the rest of the blog post. Lehrer brings in this information then explains in depth what the two distinct pathways are and how they affect the ability of readers to perceive a text through new consumer technology. By providing this explanation, Lehrer gives meaning to his discourse so that the rhetorical situation he has created can be understood by his audience and a solution can be provided to force consumers to step away from the technology and begin receiving a deep understanding from reading once again.
A Citizen’s Role in Public Deliberation
In McDonald’s chapter of Rhetorical Citizenship and Public Deliberation he defines an individual’s place in the public sphere: “individuals become citizens by discursively - and thus rhetorically - engaging one another in the public sphere” (McDonald 199). McDonald explains how citizens are involved in these academic sociotechnical controversies when he says, “Sociotechnical controversies, that is, those pertaining to society, science, and technology, seem to occupy a particularly important place in the contemporary public sphere and are the subject of numerous analyses in various disciplines, including rhetoric and the sociology of science and technology” (McDonald 201). Ordinary citizens are usually not welcomed into contributing to sociotechnical controversies because they typically lack expertise in these fields; however, the presence of these controversies in the public sphere gives credibility to these lay audiences whose public lives revolve around sociotechnical stock issues.
In “A Plan for Teaching the Development of Original Policy Arguments” David S. Kaufer defines stock issues: “Stock issues are points of disagreement that recur regularly when people deliberate on questions of justice or public policy” (Kaufer 57). Stock issues are widely addressed among individual citizens, especially in today’s digital world where they can discuss and respond to stock issues on public forums like blogs or social media. In the article, Kaufer says, “They knew that stock issues (1) aid invention by helping speakers single out from the list of stock issues those obtaining in the immediate case; (2) aid organization (or arrangement) by insuring speakers against omitting information needed to marshal a comprehensive argument; (3) aid adaptation of speech to audiences by guiding speakers to include the points audiences expected them to address” (Kaufer 57). In this instance, Kaufer is referring directly to students learning how to write about public policy but these aims of raising and discussing stock issues can also apply to individual citizens who interact with these stock issues outside the classroom.
Both Kaufer and McDonald support the role of the individual citizen’s participation in these issues. Kaufer explains the role of the student - which can also be applied to individual citizens in general - when he says, “Instead of urging or opposing legal judgments, student policy writers urge or oppose actions…They are the judge because they are finally responsible for deciding the greater merit of one side over the other. They are the advocates because they must try to maximize the possibility that their decision has been informed, even if not equally influenced by, the analogies of both sides” (Kaufer 62). McDonald also takes a stance on individual citizens being beneficial to the deliberation process saying, “They suggest that, for a rhetorical democracy to flourish, controversies should be welcomed, encouraged, stimulated, and even organized in order to implicate ordinary citizens in government decision making” (McDonald 200).
Sociotechnical issues are often not seen as issues that the general public is knowledgeable about. In his chapter, McDonald says, “The main particularity of these controversies is their heterogeneity: the issues come from several registers, from ethics to economics, from psychology to atomic physics. As Lyne affirms, ‘science and technology controversies are not just about science and technology. They are also about our culture, our comfort, and our metaphysics’” (McDonald 201). This is, therefore, why the public is not often involved in the deliberation of these issues. McDonald, however, recognizes that the public should be involved in contributing to discussions and solutions of these issues because sociotechnical issues are about more than just science and technology at academic levels.
Individual citizens clearly have a place in the deliberation of stock issues or sociotechnical controversies, but what are the benefits of their involvement? McDonald defines public deliberation for us: “The aim of public deliberation therefore need not be to consolidate different points of view but rather to learn, understand, and test a party’s beliefs about an issue by juxtaposing them with those of an opposing party. Thus deliberation has the potential to generate new ways of interpreting a controversy, even when the parties do not arrive at an agreement” (McDonald 200). Allowing individual citizens to involve themselves in issues of public deliberation can be beneficial in resolving these issues because they are members of the general public who experience, relate to, respond to, or maybe sometimes even cause these issues. In his chapter, McDonald recognizes this important role of these individual citizens saying, “Remy and Callon, Lascoumes, and Barthe have shown that ordinary citizens, when discussing technical issues, can think of solutions to complex scientific problems that have been overlooked by experts” (McDonald 201).
These texts also both address that public deliberation does not always lead to one conclusion or solution. McDonald says, “This suggests that public deliberation is not only about persuasive strategies but also about developing a better comprehension of important issues and consequently modifying one’s initial opinion” (McDonald 215). This clearly suggests that the point of public deliberation is not always to achieve clearly outlined answers. Public deliberation is complex and because it involves so many audiences and contributors. Endless ideas and rhetorical situations can be created and each member of the public deliberation can learn something new or view an idea from a new perspective.
- Christina Morgan
Kaufer, David S. "A Plan for Teaching the Development of Original Policy Arguments." College Composition and Communication. 35.1 (Feb. 1984): 57-70. Web.
McDonald, James. "I Agree, But...Finding Alternatives to Controversial Projects Through Public Deliberation." Rhetoric and Public Deliberation. 199-217. Web.
Immigration from Prison to Public
Google Doc PDF Version
The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world and a majority of these people in prison are of racial and ethnic minorities (Incarceration 1). Many studies have taken place to observe why the US utilizes a system of large-scale incarceration and whether or not this is an effective system. Studies have shown that large-scale incarceration is not the most effective answer to achieving public safety; however, incarceration rates are still continuing to rise, especially in black populations. This has created a stock issue, both for prisoners and the public, as current prison system policies are not preventing re-entry into the prison system or providing substantial safety for the public.
The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world and a majority of these people in prison are of racial and ethnic minorities (Incarceration 1). Many studies have taken place to observe why the US utilizes a system of large-scale incarceration and whether or not this is an effective system. Studies have shown that large-scale incarceration is not the most effective answer to achieving public safety; however, incarceration rates are still continuing to rise, especially in black populations. This has created a stock issue, both for prisoners and the public, as current prison system policies are not preventing re-entry into the prison system or providing substantial safety for the public.
Many Americans are unaware of issues of large-scale incarceration occurring in their own country. The problem continues to worsen because American citizens feel safer when criminals are incarcerated, thinking that large-scale incarceration is benefitting them as citizens. This has created further issues of prison re-entry rates as prisoners cannot safely and successfully enter back into society. Leaving the prison system and entering back into society can be equated to immigrating to a new country, as the customs of society outside of prison are no longer the norm for someone who has been isolated in a prison environment. In “Finding the Good Argument” Jones says, “Argument as collaboration would be more closely linked to words such as dialogue and deliberation, cornerstone concepts in the history of American democracy” (Jones 157). A focus on dialogue and deliberation as effective approaches to reforming the stock issue of US prison system incarceration and re-entry to the public will be effective in examining the problem for possible solutions.
Ineffectiveness of Large-Scale Incarceration
In “Appeals to Time” Killingsworth says, “A modern person thinks that the world, or at least the human understanding of it, is generally improving. Because of advancing technology, accumulating knowledge, and increasing information, North Americans and western Europeans are inclined to see our world as better than that of our ancestor” (Killingsworth 39). A majority of the public who do not come in contact with anyone who has been in the prison system are unaware that large-scale incarceration is not effective for their safety. Removing these people from the public makes US citizens feel safer and believe that this is causing improvement. However, this is not the case and the public should be made aware so that effective changes can be made.
The United States is currently the world leader in incarceration, with 2.2 million in the nation’s prisons and jails, a 500% increase over the past thirty years (Incarceration 1). This is creating an issue of prison overcrowding and a lack of government funding, despite the overarching evidence that large-scale incarceration is not an effective means of protecting the public. Large-scale incarceration is also becoming an issue of race with more than 60% of the people in prison being of racial or ethnic minorities (Racial Disparity 1). A study from the Bureau of Justice Statistics shows that only 1 in 17 white men will end up in prison in their lifetime while 1 in 3 black men will be incarcerated. In an article by Bouie titled “White People Are Fine With Laws That Harm Blacks,” Bouie quotes a study that was done saying, “More than half of the participants who viewed the ‘less-black’ photographs
agreed to sign the petition. But of those who viewed the ‘more-black’ photographs, less than 28
percent agreed to sign” (Bouie 2). Bouie’s article provides evidence that there is a stigma that
relates blackness and criminality. This is likely causing staggered incarceration rates, with police
focusing on black offenders, because as Bouie says, “we know that - among white Americans -
there’s a strong cognitive connection between ‘blackness’ and criminality” (Bouie 3).
Issues of Prison Re-Entry
In “Teaching Policy Argument” Kaufer defines stock issues as, “...points of disagreement that
recur regularly when people deliberate on questions of justice or public policy” (Kaufer 57). As
it has been proven that large-scale incarceration is not the most effective means for achieving
public safety, it has created a stock issue as reformers for prison policy recognize that changes
need to be made to successfully integrate prisoners back into the public and to protect the
public’s safety overall.
Another major problem with the stock issue of current prison systems is an issue of re-entry. Being released from the prison system and re-entering into society can be equated to immigrating into a new country. In “Finding the Good Argument” Jones says, “Logic is not synonymous with fact or truth, though facts are part of evidence in logical argumentation. You can be logical without being truthful. This is why more logic is not the only answer to better public argument” (Jones 164). While
Another major problem with the stock issue of current prison systems is an issue of re-entry. Being released from the prison system and re-entering into society can be equated to immigrating into a new country. In “Finding the Good Argument” Jones says, “Logic is not synonymous with fact or truth, though facts are part of evidence in logical argumentation. You can be logical without being truthful. This is why more logic is not the only answer to better public argument” (Jones 164). While
prisoners in the US prison system are not actually citizens of another country, this untruthful statement is a logical way to view this issue and a logical way for US citizens to sympathize with the process of re-entering the public after release from prison. Spending time in prison leads to damaged relationships with friends and family, loss of money, and a lack of other necessities for successfully living in US society. Current prison systems do not provide prisoners with these necessities upon their release, causing offenders to
fall back into old habits or intentionally commit crimes to cause their re-arrest. Statistics show
that 30% of offenders are re-arrested within 6 months and 67% (2 out of 3) are re-arrested within
three years (Day 2). If prison systems were to provide offenders with an effective means of re-
entering society, incarceration and re-arrest rates may be dramatically improved.
Prison system reform will be necessary in resolving the stock issue of large-scale incarceration in
the United States, especially pertaining to black incarceration rates. Careful use of language will
be required in order to reach American citizens to explain this stock issue and why it is an issue
of incarceration and black criminalization. In “Finding the Good Argument” Jones presents ways
in which to appeal to an audience: “(1) to reason logically, (2) to understand human character
and goodness in its various forms, (3) to understand emotions” (Jones 166). By outlining the
stock issue of incarceration, including emotional appeals through statistical proof, recognizing
the stigma relating blackness to criminality, and explaining the metaphor equating leaving the
prison system to immigrating to a new country, writing new prison reforms for incarceration and
release from the prison system would shed light on this issue for unaware Americans.
Clearly Defining the Stock Issue
A solution to the ineffectiveness of the United State’s system of large-scale incarceration for public safety cannot be reached simply or quickly. There are many factors to why large-scale incarceration is used and many factors that contribute to why it is not effective. The most important points in the stock issue of prison reform are the way in which racism is creating a staggered increase in incarceration and the high re-arrest rates of offenders.
Useful Appeals for Writing Reform
In Jones’s “Finding the Good Argument” she says, “What is often missing from these discussions is research, consideration of multiple vantage points, and, quite often, basic logic” (Jones 158). All of these factors are missing from the discussion of prison reform. There is research proving the ineffectiveness of large-scale incarceration and the large gaps in incarceration rates between blacks and whites. Bouie’s article “White People Are Fine With Laws That Harm Blacks” touches on the lack of considering these factors when Bouie provides a conclusion for the studies discussed in his article: “Taken together, the conclusion was that ‘exposing people to extreme racial disparities in the prison population’ led to a greater fear of crime and - at best - an unwillingness to support reform” (Bouie 3). This issue of race needs to be addressed in order to appropriately reform the prison incarceration system.
Clearly Defining the Stock Issue
A solution to the ineffectiveness of the United State’s system of large-scale incarceration for public safety cannot be reached simply or quickly. There are many factors to why large-scale incarceration is used and many factors that contribute to why it is not effective. The most important points in the stock issue of prison reform are the way in which racism is creating a staggered increase in incarceration and the high re-arrest rates of offenders.
Useful Appeals for Writing Reform
In Jones’s “Finding the Good Argument” she says, “What is often missing from these discussions is research, consideration of multiple vantage points, and, quite often, basic logic” (Jones 158). All of these factors are missing from the discussion of prison reform. There is research proving the ineffectiveness of large-scale incarceration and the large gaps in incarceration rates between blacks and whites. Bouie’s article “White People Are Fine With Laws That Harm Blacks” touches on the lack of considering these factors when Bouie provides a conclusion for the studies discussed in his article: “Taken together, the conclusion was that ‘exposing people to extreme racial disparities in the prison population’ led to a greater fear of crime and - at best - an unwillingness to support reform” (Bouie 3). This issue of race needs to be addressed in order to appropriately reform the prison incarceration system.
Leaving the prison system and integrating back into society can be
equated to immigrating to a new country where one is unaware of
the customs. Using this theoretical view, reformers can consider
multiple vantage points and attempt to provide a solution for
effectively enabling offenders to re-enter society and be conscious
citizens. These offenders were once a part of the public and will
once again be part of the public upon their release. Appealing to this
on an emotional and human level will allow reformers to ask for
sympathy and a call to action from their audiences who will be
approving the necessary reforms.
Appealing to time could also be a useful approach. In “Appeals to Time” Killingsworth says,
“Time becomes a position of value that authors use to draw audiences to their own positions.
Authors may appeal to the past, present, or future, but the focus tends to fall on the need for
changes, the pursuit of something new, in the present” (Killingsworth 39). A theoretical view of
prison systems puts the public in pursuit of something new to create reforms for prison system
enrollees upon their release, allowing these offenders to be a part of the public once again and no
longer be a threat to public safety.
In “Teaching Policy Argument” Kaufer says, “Instead of urging or opposing legal judgments, student policy writers urge or oppose actions...They are the judge because they are finally responsible for deciding the greater merit of one side over the other. They are the advocates because they must try to maximize the possibility that their decision has been informed, even if not equally influenced by, the analogies of both sides” (Kaufer 62). This method of deliberating on legal judgments applies to policy writers in general, requiring them to fairly examine all sides and advocate for the best possible solution. There is not one answer to prison reform that will immediately lower incarceration rates (especially in minorities) and prevent high re-arrest rates. However, there are many sides and solutions to this problem, and considering each of them fairly is the first step to addressing prison reform and using careful language to pose possible solutions.
Conclusion
As the world leader in incarceration, with over 60% of its prisoners being racial or ethnic minorities, the United States prison system needs to address the increasing evidence that large- scale incarceration is not providing the most effective means for public safety. Bouie presents a possible method for deliberating prison reform: “The immediate takeaway is that advocates might want to try different language (or a different approach) in their campaign to reform the criminal justice system” (Bouie 4). Using a different approach or different language as the focus for prison reform that does not address race in any way could remove the stigma toward blackness and criminality and allow reformers and their audiences to consider solutions that benefit both offenders and the public.
In “Teaching Policy Argument” Kaufer says, “Instead of urging or opposing legal judgments, student policy writers urge or oppose actions...They are the judge because they are finally responsible for deciding the greater merit of one side over the other. They are the advocates because they must try to maximize the possibility that their decision has been informed, even if not equally influenced by, the analogies of both sides” (Kaufer 62). This method of deliberating on legal judgments applies to policy writers in general, requiring them to fairly examine all sides and advocate for the best possible solution. There is not one answer to prison reform that will immediately lower incarceration rates (especially in minorities) and prevent high re-arrest rates. However, there are many sides and solutions to this problem, and considering each of them fairly is the first step to addressing prison reform and using careful language to pose possible solutions.
Conclusion
As the world leader in incarceration, with over 60% of its prisoners being racial or ethnic minorities, the United States prison system needs to address the increasing evidence that large- scale incarceration is not providing the most effective means for public safety. Bouie presents a possible method for deliberating prison reform: “The immediate takeaway is that advocates might want to try different language (or a different approach) in their campaign to reform the criminal justice system” (Bouie 4). Using a different approach or different language as the focus for prison reform that does not address race in any way could remove the stigma toward blackness and criminality and allow reformers and their audiences to consider solutions that benefit both offenders and the public.
Works Cited
Bouie, Jamelle. “White People Are Fine With Laws That Harm Blacks.” Slate.com. 2014: 1-4. Web.
Day, Eric. “Project Hope Alabama.” The United States Attorney’s Office. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.
“Incarceration.” The Sentencing Project. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.
Kaufer, David S. "A Plan for Teaching the Development of Original Policy Arguments." College Composition and Communication. 35.1 (Feb. 1984): 57-70. Web.
Killingsworth, Jimmie M. "Appeals to Time." 38-51. Web.
Jones, Rebecca. “Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother With Logic?” Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing. 156-179. Web.
“Racial Disparity.” The Sentencing Project. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.
Bouie, Jamelle. “White People Are Fine With Laws That Harm Blacks.” Slate.com. 2014: 1-4. Web.
Day, Eric. “Project Hope Alabama.” The United States Attorney’s Office. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.
“Incarceration.” The Sentencing Project. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.
Kaufer, David S. "A Plan for Teaching the Development of Original Policy Arguments." College Composition and Communication. 35.1 (Feb. 1984): 57-70. Web.
Killingsworth, Jimmie M. "Appeals to Time." 38-51. Web.
Jones, Rebecca. “Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother With Logic?” Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing. 156-179. Web.
“Racial Disparity.” The Sentencing Project. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)