No matter how stellar the course design is, no matter how pedagogically brilliant the in- or out-of-class assignments are, no matter how well your carrots and sticks are set up to reward or discourage given behaviors, in the end you are still ultimately powerless to make change happen. There is no magic assignment structure, no perfect metaphor (and God knows I’ve tried thousands), no enlightenment-guaranteed koan that will make every student go “Oh! NOW I get it!”
The lightbulb has to want to change.
… I don’t mean to say that no student will be motivated by your efforts — you will undoubtedly catch the ones who are really genuinely interested in learning. But it’s important to accept that there is no way to craft a net that will catch 100% of the fish. They are more interested in escaping than you ever could be in catching them.
One of my colleagues has requested that several of us come to a graduate class and talk about our experiences with getting published in journals.
To prepare for that, I went back through this blog to look for relevant posts. This post contains some distilled information, some links, and some ruminations based on the discussion in the class.
In November 2009, about a year after I started trying to get published, I wrote a post on my publication/rejection record for my most recent work.
5 papers submitted, 2 accepted, 2 rejected, 1 pending
I try to be very careful in placing my work where it is most likely to get accepted. Even with that, my acceptance rate was a 2:3 ratio. (There were also numbers for creative pieces included in the original post.)
From my CV (and old CVs):
11 journal articles published
6 book reviews
2 chapters (2 others were accepted and not published)
(3 encyclopedia articles accepted but never published–Based on my experience, then, encyclopedia articles are not worth doing.)
At one point I wanted to include on my CV a section labeled “Not Published Due to Recession.”
I have also written 2 other articles I didn’t submit. One would probably have been published, but the other probably would not have been. Why didn’t I submit either one?
The first one was on a topic I was (at the time) thinking I needed to quit working on. I should still have submitted the article. I eventually revised the work and submitted it to a journal. If I had sent it in at the time, however, it would already be published, whereas right now it is in the submission process.
The second one was written for a presentation and the possibility of publication. However, for it to have been worth being published I would have had to have done a lot more work on it and it was a “niche” topic that was interesting to the convention I presented at, but less likely to be publishable. It also wouldn’t advance the work I want/need to do, so I am letting that go.
The work I have already put in on the second possibility is not worthless, however, because the process of considering how I could get it done in the limited time available to me (and researching what work I needed to do to make it “complete”) gave me ideas and resources for work that is within the purview of my interests and area.
I have written at least 17 other full articles that were not accepted. Unlike what I should have done, what my colleagues said to do, I have not looked for other places for those to be accepted and gone full-bore forward with the work. Having sat in on the class, I will go back through those works and consider if there is potential in the works–both are other publication sites possibilities and will this work that I’ve already done serve to advance the work I am already doing and will continue to do as I have narrowed my interests/focus.
I hope that this post offers a window into writing as academics because writing is such a large part of the work.
The students this semester suggested that perhaps instead of starting at the farthest point from modern understanding, it might be more beneficial for the students to read the modern rhetoric chapters first. These are connected to literary theory via Foucault and Derrida and are, therefore, perhaps more accessible.
Next year the modern chapters will be their first readings. In order to ensure an understanding of the text, however, I will also introduce the early theorists who are mentioned in those chapters. Plato, the sophists, Aristotle, Cicero, and perhaps even Quintilian could be introduced with a “known for these things particularly” approach.
In my desire to make the class interesting and hands-on, I have drifted from the focus on history of rhetoric in the activities in class. So I am considering what things would be interesting and prospectively helpful that focus on the history of rhetoric and historical rhetoric.
Keep the introduction and the intro to the sophists. Maybe bring in a few pages from sophistic writing. Or we could look in class at the Paul and sophists article. It is 22 pages long, so maybe instead use it to understand how Galatians is sophistic and then have the class look through Galatians and discuss in terms of sophistic rhetoric.
That would be a really good idea. I think that would work very well and would be interesting and would tie into the Christian aspect and the sophists. –Why didn’t I think of doing that before?
Perhaps also use the Ewing Lecture notes to discuss Ezekiel and rhetoric. Mark Hamilton did folkloric, but it is also clearly connected with rhetorical. Make that rhetorical connection clear and then discuss Ezekiel in those terms. …That might be a different way to approach the rhetoric history. We’re looking at how biblical authors employed it before there was a history of rhetoric. Ezekiel was written before Plato wrote, before the sophists taught.
We can look at Plato’s presentation of the sophists and look at this work for built-in flaws that he created to show their work. We can do that in class if it isn’t too long a work or if we can take pieces of it.
For Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian… Beef up the discussion of how and where we see the appeals. Perhaps look at book covers specifically for the appeals. Maybe even discuss the “turning in a paper” ethos or other points. Why is it important to look like what has gone before? People recognize it and have a place to put it. This is partially ethos. Definitely want to talk about how Cicero applies to writing in the modern classroom. Both Aristotle and Cicero are used in AP courses, so the students need to know those, if they don’t.
Looking at a way to introduce rhetoric and the history of rhetoric that doesn’t just involve me talking, I looked at multiple PowerPoints and videos. I wanted something that would approach the information from a common or lay perspective, but would focus on rhetoric very specifically.
I think I have found a few videos that would be useful, after the original PowerPoint introduction.
Then talk about what you know about rhetoric. How do people talk about rhetoric? That will introduce the ideas here. “Oh, that’s a rhetorical question.” Not discussed, but still would work as an answer. (Rhetorical question originally meant that the question itself was intended to persuade you or lead you into a correct answer.)
I really like this. It is well done, interesting, and introduces a lot of modern rhetoricians. Also it’s epistemic rhetoric, which is how I view rhetoric.
It discusses what rhetoric is and how it has been perceived, focusing on epistemic rhetoric.
Set of criteria, rank order the criteria, systematic way = epistemic rhetoric
Epistemic = creates understanding/perception of reality
Rhetoric is a way of knowing.
Facts are monolithic, unchanging. But how you think of them… Rhetorical.
Knowledge is a process.
Josh’s introduction to rhetoric—very fast introduction, but could pause and discuss
Focuses 3.45 minutes on ancient rhetoric. Then 3 minutes on modern. Has questions that he puts on the screen and then writes “Think about it!” Could stop the video at those points and discuss.
How do perceptions of truth, authenticity, and reality affect communication?
How does your authorship, authority, and power affect your rhetoric?
Toulmin model + semiotics can be used to examine visual and digital rhetoric.
Would need to be sure that I mention that this is a history of rhetoric (even though we’ve already seen one) and we are going to use it to talk about some questions that are relevant to all of rhetoric.
Is introducing the history of rhetoric as an overview multiple times a problem? Or can I do this as they are coming at it from very different angles?
Perhaps when I start to use the videos say that these overlap what I’ve already said and what the videos say, but they offer different discussion points that I think are valid for the course….
Think about it.
If you knew that someone was going into a field where they could only get employment at a 25% rate, would you encourage them? Apparently that is the situation with students in English looking to go into academia. Guide to Grad School Survival says there is a one in four chance of becoming a professor.
People don’t go into this field for love of money, but surely the chances of being hired should make a difference.
Yet I continue to teach graduate students and to encourage them to follow their goals. Why?
One in four will make it. That is true.
And the other three may find something just as fulfilling in related areas, perhaps staff in academics or as faculty-staff liaisons. If they don’t, being bright and capable people, I expect they will find jobs somewhere else that are fulfilling.
Finally, for some of them, the experience of the pursuit of the degrees will be worth it, even if they never go into the field. While I was frankly overwhelmed at times in my PhD program, I was doing what I wanted to do and thrilled to be doing it. If I had never gone back into full-time instruction, I still would have felt blessed to have done it.
That’s why, while I make clear that the path is not easy and many won’t make it into academia, I still cheer my graduate students on.
Sherwin, Richard K., Neal Feigenson, and Christina Spiesel. “What Is Visual Knowledge, and What Is It Good for? Potential Ethnographic Lessons from the Field of Legal Practice.” Visual Anthropology 20 (2007): 143-78. Web. 1 May 2012.
The article says the legal system requires competing reconstructions of reality (defense and prosecution), with a theoretical grounding in social constructionism. Visuals are less likely to be individually interpreted (Pink 2006: 49), though their creation is not always reality based. The article then looks at the question of “what kinds of knowledge and meaning are created, and with what outcomes, when they are visually and digitally constructed” (150). They argue that visual thinking is pre-conscious and rapid, thus forming lasting impressions that can be (and sometimes are) wrong (155). Visual images have greater impact, convey more information, bring out the emotional response of the real thing, and can appear to lack human intervention (156). In addition, visual images allow meaning to be grasped at one time, a meaning assumed to be the whole available, and yet some meaning remains implicit, which they convey subconsciously (157). Narrative theory (159) and media as message (161) are discussed as well as the impact of the modern malleability of images (164). The article ends with the statement that “the production and interpretation of visual knowledge requires a new intellectual framework” (168).
Not only does the article contain quite a bit of development in social constructionism and narrative theory, it also makes its points using actual court cases in which digital images were shown and made a difference to the outcomes of the cases. Some of the outcomes were not positive (as far as the authors were concerned). Whether there actually was media manipulation is beyond my knowledge; however, our photoshop culture makes it obvious that there could have been. The article is replete with discussions of visual images, their development, and their manipulation.
The background in visual knowledge research is valuable. The physical difference in how we process images versus written words is presented in a straight-forward manner, with citations for follow up. Discussing context of visual images would certainly impact visual knowledge and would be something I could do with my history and theory of rhetoric graduate class.
“Remix is_________” Miami University ‘s English Graduate and Adjunct Association Symposium March 14, 2014
full name / name of organization:
Rachel Oriol/ Miami University of Ohio
contact email: [email protected]
The 11th Annual Miami University
Miami English Graduate and Adjunct Association (MEGAA) Symposium
Friday, March 14, 2014, Oxford, Ohio
CALL FOR PAPERS
Remix is ___________
As the world grows more connected through digital communication, globalized economies, and interdependent political structures, our work as scholars increasingly turns to questions of intertextuality and hybridity – in a word, the remix. While remix is often thought of as a digital phenomenon, when conceived more broadly, remix has the power to complicate traditional theoretical frameworks, generic definitions, disciplinary boundaries, and modes of intellectual and cultural production. This conference encourages interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary presentations that expand, interrogate, and/or disrupt our understanding of remix, the cultural work it performs, and its relationship to intertextuality and hybridity. We especially encourage conceptions of remix that move beyond remix as an object and consider how it functions as a theoretical heuristic.
We invite you to critique, analyze, and/or create remixes that challenge and expand these ideas. Just fill in the blank: Remix is____________
Possible Lines of Inquiry Include, But are Not Limited To:
* How does remix exceed our politico-legal framework of ownership, copyright, or fair use?
* How does intertextuality challenge traditional ideas of authorship, authenticity, and
* Can remix in the classroom create more innovative and collaborative spaces?
* Can the remix offer unique ways of communicating across boundaries of race, class,
nationality, gender, etc?
* What is the relationship of remix to power? When does it reinscribe or disrupt conventional
* Can remix offer new models for articulating consumption, fandom, and subjectivity?
* How are theories of remix applicable to the body? To embodiment?
* How is remix performed and performance remixed? On stage? Brechting the fourth wall?
* How is remix used in scientific and technological innovations?
* How does the Internet and emergent media change how we share, interact with, and
* Where can we locate hybridity in and after globalization? How are space and culture
* How do remix and hybridity go beyond the cultural or textual to include the material?
Jason Palmeri, Associate Professor of English and Director of Composition at Miami University, will present a talk titled, “Remixing Queer Temporality: Affective Rhetorics and Pedagogies of Disidentification in the “It Gets Better Project.” Palmeri analyzes how queer activists responded to and remixed the “It Gets Better Project”—an online video archive initiated by Dan Savage to combat the high rate of suicide among LGBTQ youth. By analyzing and performing video remixes of the “It Gets Better Project,” Palmeri elucidates rhetorical and pedagogical strategies that queer activists and teachers can employ to resist normative constructions of identity in online video narratives.
Elisabeth Hodges, an Associate Professor of French and an Affiliate in the Film Studies program at Miami University, will be speaking on her upcoming book project on interiority in French cinema. Additionally she will discuss how her own trajectory as a scholar of Renaissance cities to a scholar of French cinema is a “remix” of her interests.
Deadline: February 1, 2014, 2014: 11:59 p.m. EST
Download the proposal form at: http://www.units.muohio.edu/english/MEGAA/11megaa_symposium_app.pdf.
Please provide all speaker information and presentation titles on the proposal form. Remove all personal identifiers from the proposal itself. Please limit both individual and panel proposals to 500 words.
Email completed forms to: MEGAA Symposium Committee at [email protected]
Hard copy submissions are also accepted and can be mailed to:
Department of English
356 Bachelor Hall
Oxford, Ohio 45056
Official acceptances will be emailed to participants by February 14, 2014
*If submitting visual artwork or a poster, you must be present with your work and be prepared to give a short introduction and answer questions at the end of the session.
Last year the course was once a week. This year, we had it at the “normal” time, which meant it met twice a week. I liked that organization a lot better. I felt like the students had more time to interact with each other and I could keep tabs on where they were getting lost much more easily.
Another difference between this semester and last year is that the class this semester had only five students, while last year it had fifteen.
In addition, two of those students somehow had managed to take a graduate rhetoric course before they had this introductory course. They had more knowledge, but also more questions and confusion.
For clarity’s sake, and for the sake of a continuance, I am block quoting the points I made in last year’s retrospective that relate to this year’s class. Then I am commenting on them.
During Week 1 I used a PowerPoint to talk about rhetoric: how the students could relate rhetoric to what they knew, where it fit in history, how it appeared in the Genesis account of creation, then a short intro to Greek and Roman rhetoric, and multiple definitions of rhetoric. I also used a PowerPoint to introduce the major sophists.
This year I also used the PowerPoint I created to introduce the course.
Next time I teach the class I will use the first PowerPoint I created to introduce rhetoric. However, instead of only having them discuss once (in response to the Ecclesiastes 4:12 reading), I will also add multiple discussions to the PowerPoint exercise.
I did this. I had the students talk about ways that a strand of three cords has shown up in their lives. I specifically talked about the three strands of English in our department– literature, creative writing, and rhetoric– and said that I thought this class would tie those all together as well. The students came up with multiple strands of their lives that could be viewed in threes.
After the Genesis 1-3 discussion of rhetoric, I will ask the students to think about where they see language, persuasion, verbal trickery, or argument having an effect in the Bible. These can be for good or evil. Hopefully this will help students apply the concepts of rhetoric to their biblical knowledge.
We talked about some of these. It was a good discussion.
I may add a section on the rhetorical lesson I heard at Southwest Central Conference on Christianity and Literature in 2011 on the book of Amos and entrapment rhetoric. I want to make it clear that even with a PhD emphasis in rhetoric, I am still learning.
I did do this, but, even though there are lots of details, I skimmed over it in the Ppt. That was not the focus I wanted; it was just another example of rhetoric. I had it available to talk about, if the students did not come up with lots of ideas, but they did.
I plan to repeat the slide asking how they can hook into rhetoric at the end of the presentation and have them discuss things they already know and care about which might relate to rhetoric, based on the definitions we will have reviewed of rhetoric.
We did this. This is when I found out that two of the students had been in a rhetoric class before. The rhetorics they spoke about were primarily actions (parades, costuming, and so on) or performative rhetoric.
I may shorten the Sophistic introduction. I will absolutely talk about the unilateral and bilateral approaches and where we see those in daily life. I will review the meanings after the introduction and ask students to suggest places where the unilateral approach of Gorgias (active speaker, passive audience) seems most likely/appropriate and then for the circumstances which make Protagorasâ€™ bilateral view of the relationship between the rhetor and audience most likely.
I did this. I had the students write down times when they saw the unilateral and the bilateral approaches in life. Then I asked for their lists. They came up with a lot of the ones I had listed myself and added some others.
Next time I teach the class, as homework I will assign the students to write a short blog post for each week. The students will respond to the week’s assigned readings in whatever way helps them think about and discuss rhetoric. Also, if they don’t have anything else they want to say, they will be able to answer one of the discussion questions on the blog. The longer blog post will remain the same.
I did this. The students, in our review last Thursday, said that it was the most helpful thing they did. They read from the book as homework for both Tuesday and Thursday. Then for Tuesday they had a blog post to write and before class on Thursday they had to comment on two other people’s blog posts. Partially the helpfulness came from the routine; they knew they were going to write and read each week. Partially it came from the ability to talk through things on paper with each other before they came to class.
We often used the blog posts as starting points for the week’s discussion. There were some really good questions that came up and I was able to clear up some misunderstandings. But even more important, I think, they saw that they had learned enough about rhetoric to talk about it (at least a little bit) and were able to build on that each week.
I will still assign a single question each, just to make sure we can stay on track with the reading and that the students make the effort to understand the readings. In addition, I sometimes learn how other things in the book are related to the question because the students try to cover all the material that might possibly impinge on the question.
I did not do this. Some of the students in the other class seemed to feel it was a bit patronizing, because of course they know how to read, analyze, and synthesize. I think it was helpful last year, but I also think that the blog posts let this year’s students do the same thing without any negative feelings attached to it.
Finally, next time I teach the course, I will add a short primary reading (or possibly two) and/or an article applying the rhetoric to each reading in Herrick. These will be based on an accessible online text. For the first week’s homework, I like the article on Paul’s use of sophistic rhetoric. For the second homework, I would use Cicero’s canon section and Aristotle’s appeals. For the next reading, I would take a section of Augustine’s discussion of why Christians should use rhetoric, probably. I do like the idea of incorporating an early female rhetorician, though. I have purchased a book of their works to read, but have not yet read through it. If one wrote particularly well on the rhetoric of poetics or Christian persuasion, I would use her work. For the final week’s reading, I am not sure what I would do yet. I am leaning personally toward Bahktin, but the students seemed more interested in Foucault and/or Derrida.
I did this, but not the way I expected.
The students read from Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, and Augustine. The modern authors, however, we did not read from. It turns out several of the students (not just the two in rhetoric classes) had already been exposed to some of their writings.
Last year, because the class only met once a week, the week of SCMLA we had no class, so my section was actually short a full week. This year, however, SCMLA is in the week after our class and, since we are meeting twice a week, they will only miss one class–if any. I think the professor will be here during SCMLA, so they won’t actually miss any.
I used a history Powerpoint as introductions for the sections they were going to be reading (medieval) and used the Augustine’s rhetoric Powerpoint afterwards to draw out students’ understanding of Augustine’s interpretation of Aristotle and rhetoric.
This year, we finished the readings with one class period left and no more textbook. Because of that, they read the introduction from a book called Spiritual Modalities: Prayer as Rhetoric and Performance and the theory chapter from my dissertation. I picked the first because I had been reading it and it applied Burke’s theories particularly well and, as it covered a religious form of speech/writing/action, it was particularly relevant for our university. I picked the second one because I had no idea if the introduction was going to be over their heads and I knew the dissertation theory chapter would not be. In addition, two of the students had asked persistent questions about theoretical backgrounds of the rhetoricians in the department and about what theories might be most applicable to their work.
I gave the students both chapters and asked them to let me know if Spiritual Modalities was within their range of interest. The response I got decided me. The students were asked to read the introduction and first chapter of the book for homework; they could read the chapter of the dissertation if they wished, or not.
Our final class we had quite a discussion over Spiritual Modalities. I think I may have talked more about my own personal beliefs than I have outside of a private discussion with friends, in explaining things I thought the book was saying while answering their questions. I don’t know if that was helpful or not, but it was the only way I felt that I could answer them with examples that didn’t just repeat what the book said.
I know at least one of the students also read the chapter from my dissertation, as they asked for the bib list to check out a few of the referenced works.
I will work on adding applications of rhetoric to each class period.
We will look at ethos, pathos, and logos in commercials one week. This will be fine in the same week that I present my freshman lessons.
We will look at politicians’ metaphors one week. This will be particularly appropriate with the Roman rhetoric readings.
We will examine lyrics and contrast them with music videos one week. This will work well with the Renaissance rhetoric, since it talks about the rhetoric of poetics.
We will look at book covers and album covers one week. This will be specifically visual rhetoric and we can compare/contrast more masculine covers with feminine covers and see if there is anything to the oppressive persuasion versus the invitational idea.
This list did not happen quite as integratedly as I had hoped. We did talk about ethos, pathos, and logos, but the computer would not show the movie clips I had to go with those, so they had to make do with explanations. (We also didn’t get to watch the music videos.) However, we did look at particular images as ethos, pathos, and/or logos.
In addition, I brought in an ethos assignment I have used with freshmen, had the grad students do it, and then we discussed their responses. It was an interesting discussion in terms of determining what makes people credible from their point of view.
I did not bring in the politicians’ metaphors, as I had intended. However, we did have a lively discussion on the rhetoric of politics and the gender differences in expectations (both what the men vs. the women expected and what the students expected from male vs. female politicians). This actually was very useful, since it grew out of student questions on both politics and gender. It tied in well with our discussion of credibility, also.
One thing I did this semester, which was not on the list, but will be for next year, was a rhetoric of display. I brought things in from my office and placed them around a large table. (There were probably fifteen different items.) I told the students they could pick them up, play with them, look at them, ask questions. Then I asked them to comment on what they thought those particular display items might mean.
That was actually very interesting as an exercise because, since I display them, I think of them in one way. However, it allowed me to see the way others interpret them, too. Some of the items were perceived as relating to my sons, when, in fact, they had no connection to my sons. One piece, which is a painting by my grandmother, but which was done in about five minutes while she did thirty others as party favors, was perceived as being a typical family painting. I realized that I have the piece up because it was Grama’s, but it does not show that my grandmother was actually an accomplished artist. I am seriously reconsidering the placement of that item (and the replacement of it).
In addition, I brought to the class things that I was reading or saw that showed rhetoric in action. There was a news article about a study on strong- and weak-futured languages and how the language influenced people’s actions. We read the article and discussed that.
I brought examples of communication problems, where people did not succeed with their rhetoric or where their rhetoric failed, such as the Three-Mile-Island memo and signage with significant errors (such as the Pubic School System sign about how wonderful the Pubic School was and the truck sign for a business named Apostrophe in which they misused an apostrophe).
We also talked about the rhetorical aspects of fashion and looks: business suited people are seen as more trustworthy/persuasive (a study from the 70s I referenced) and good-looking people are viewed as smarter and are more likely to be hired over someone less good-looking but equally qualified, for example.
The students’ favorite rhetorical application work we did was when I asked them to post images that reminded them of God on the blog. Then other students were supposed to go on and comment on how those images made them think about God. This was actually a metaphor assignment that was borrowed from Sherry Rankin, but I heard about due to Al Haley and Shelly Sanders’ wonderful metaphor presentation: “Beyond King and Throne: 21st Century Metaphors for God.”
I enjoyed that experience particularly because it got everyone thinking about God in different ways. Then, when we came together again in the next class, the students who posted the images said what they had been thinking about when they put them up. Some of the metaphorical conceptions were incredibly detailed and intricate and seemed particularly apropos. I wish Al and Shelly could have been there to hear the students talk; then they would know their presentation is impacting beyond that particular class time.
Overall, I would say that this class went very well.
Next time I teach this class, I will continue to integrate practical examples of rhetorical analysis and increase those. (Including checking with the tech team on getting the software updated so we can have videos running on the computer again.) I will match each exercise very concretely with the readings for the week; I want them to supplement and not supplant the discussion of the readings.
One suggestion the students made, but which I am unsure of the practicality and utility, was to have student-led classes. In a course where students are being introduced to a topic, it is particularly hard to have students lead discussion. I like the idea, but giving students something in rhetoric, when they have no knowledge of rhetoric and it is a required class, is a bit stressful as an idea.
I am considering the idea, but it would have to have some changes. Perhaps I could have them identify an interest they have (like Chris’ interest in Eastern rhetoric) and do some research and present to the class. Maybe a modified paper of some form? Think about this and see if it will actually fit within the parameters of the class objectives.
Right now the second paper allows for this (and, for example, at least three of the students from last year took advantage of that), but the second paper means the students already have five weeks’ of introduction to rhetoric. I am not sure that reading a theoretical paper (or even a research paper in rhetoric) would be a level the students were prepared for earlier.
It would be a good final class period, if we have a small class, where each student reads one scholarly paper on the rhetorical topic of their choice and presents on their findings to the class. Perhaps that is the way to go with that idea. I will try to flesh that out a bit more.