*Adapted from Scot Barnett's Rhetorical Criticism Research Paper Assignment & David Blakesley’s Technology Autobiography Assignment*

(Guidance from our Writing Center)

The research paper project includes a variety of options for research topics while offering you several ways to approach your topic. The project will be an original work of research and criticism that employs some of the texts we’ve discussed this semester and those you find on your own. You will gain experience using those sources as a way of seeing, interpreting, and analyzing a particular act or artifact. (topics not outlined here will also be considered; please feel free to propose those to me).

One of our goals for this assignment is to juxtapose the traditional research paper to writing an encyclopedia article such as in Wikipedia.

Options (*may be a combination of these):

• Technology Autoethnography or Ethnography
• Rhetorical Criticism

Technology Autoethnography or Ethnography

Write a technology autoethnographic research paper that tells the story of the role(s) that technology has played in your life. For the first draft, compose your autobiography as a narrative essay. For the final draft, compose it as a research paper.

Key Words:

• Ethnography is the study and systematic recording of human cultures in the social sciences; also known as the descriptive work produced from such research
• Autobiography is the biography of a person told by him or herself
• Autoethnography “refers to writing about the personal and its relationship to culture. It is an autobiographical genre of writing and research that displays multiple layers of consciousness . . .” (Ellis 37).

Autoethnographies are normally written in the first-person point-of-view and depict specific instances or stories that illustrate the writer's experiences, usually to make a point about it or to learn from it and include critical analysis.

For example, are there social consequences for your lifestyle that hinge on your technological literacy? What are they? How would your relationships with others be affected if you suddenly had no access to technology? What positive or negative trends in technological development do you see unfolding? How do you think they will affect you? How do you learn new technologies? Among your friends, are you considered an "early adopter," a "late adopter," or somewhere between? What technologies do you carry with you or use?

These questions could be seen as way to examine how individuals generate meaning and how their identities are created. D.K. Kondo writes, “. . . individual identities are contextually constructed within fields of power and meaning and cannot be easily separated from specific situations, from culturally specific narrative conventions, or from abstractions we label history, politics, and emotions” (The Eye/I pg. 47). Your task for this assignment, then, might be to examine identity with regard to society.

Rhetorical Criticism

Key words:

• Rhetoric
  

• Rhetorical Criticism

Acts of Criticism

Sonja K. Foss defines rhetorical criticism as “the investigation and evaluation of rhetorical acts and artifacts for the purpose of understanding rhetorical processes.” A rhetorical act, she says, is often executed in front of an audience and can include a speech or musical performance. A rhetorical artifact, then, is the “trace or tangible evidence of a rhetorical act.” Put differently, when a rhetorical act is transcribed into print,recorded on film, preserved on a canvas, distributed to the web, etc. it becomes a rhetorical artifact—something we can witness, study, and develop new theories around. Rhetorical criticism,therefore, examines specific acts and artifacts in order to develop, test, and revise theory. For this project, you will examine a specific rhetorical actor artifact using some of the texts we’ve discussed this semester (or those you find on your own); however, bulk of you analysis and criticism will be based on your own research—examining the act or artifact you’ve chosen—framed by one or more of the concepts used in Jenkins’s Convergence Culture: knowledge communities (Survivor spoiler communities, ch 1); lovemarks (Coca-Cola’s presence on American Idol, ch 2); transmedia storytelling(The Matrix story, ch 3); and grassroots creativity (Harry Potter fan fiction and Star Wars fan productions, ch 4-5).

An important goal of most rhetorical criticism is putting theory and artifacts into dialogue with the hope of animating and extending our understanding of both. So, by identifying and analyzing examples you can come to a fuller understanding of theory. You can see this in action in Convergence Culture. Jenkins builds much of his discussion of Alphaville, one neighborhood within the The Sims Online, upon the assumptions of what a participatory democracy should be: “Here again, popular culture may be preparing the way for a more meaningful public culture; in this case, the most compelling example comes from the world of video games” (228). Theory is also used extensively to understand the potentialities for literacy and learning within massively multiplayer online games in Constance Steinkuehler’s essay "Cognition and literacy in massively multiplayer online games" and the examples she uses also give us a way to understand theory.

REQUIREMENTS

The project will be an 8-10 page paper using source material/theory to engage a specific expeience or rhetorical act or artifact. Though there are a number of ways you might arrange this paper and present your ideas, one way to begin would be to closely examine your chosenact or artifact without the use of source material. For example, what does it tell us about knowledge communities, transmedia storytelling, lovemarks and affective marketing, or grassroots creativity?

Don’t forget to make an argument. This can come in many forms: using an act or artifact to draw attention to a gap in a theory or concept; using an act or artifact to illustrate and extend a theory or concepts using an act or an artifact to construct an original hybrid theory composed of several theories and concepts; using theory to address a gap in existing scholarship on an act or artifact. In any case, try to imagine yourself contributing to an ongoing discussion concerning new media and participatory culture.

Consider audience. Don’t assume your readers will already know about your act or artifact. Likewise,don’t assume your readers will already know the theories and concepts you’ll use in your analysis. In both cases,you’ll need to devote some space to summarizing relevant information.

Keep it balanced. Be careful about submitting to the fan temptation—e.g. “I love The Matrix,so here’s my chance to write enthusiastically about it for 8 pages!” In most rhetorical criticism, acts and artifacts work best when they have something greater to say about a pressing and/or ongoing discussion within a field. In fact, most readers of rhetorical criticism are more interested in how your analysis supports, revises, or calls into question a theory and its related concepts (see Jenkins and Steinkuehler).

Specifics

• 8-10 double-spaced pages
• MLA or APA citation format, including a Works Cited/References page
• Use of scholarly material
• Use of popular/non-scholarly material

Timeline of Completion

• Week 5 (Conferences): Discuss Research Proposal
• Week 7 (March 7): Research Proposals Due
• Week 8: Discuss proposals in conferences
• Week 10 (March 24): Draft 1 Due
• Week 10 (March 28): Peer review of drafts (f2f)
• Week: 13: Second Peer Review (via Google Docs)
• Week 16: Final Draft due with Portfolio