894 Case study #2 outline

Somehow I missed the fact that this was to be posted on Monday with reading notes.  At any rate, here it is now.  It is a bit messy, and I don't know how robust it is, but it gives me some structure to go with.

1)      Introduction

a.       Chose these theories in order to examine the activity system and ecology within which the genre exists.  These theories more suited to genre than Foucault (previous one)

b.      Looking at my OoS: dearth of research about interviews as a genre, even less about published interviews of scholars.  There are a very few studies that might offer some slight connection

2)      AT versus CHAT—First, I’ll start by defining the theories and highlighting the similarities and differences between the theories.  I might suggest—I think this is true—that the two theories have some overlapping elements as a result of similar influences that they are drawing on. 

a.       Common background

                                                   i.      Vygotsky is a major influence

1.       See Russell, p. 53

2.       Spinuzzi, p. 38

                                                 ii.      CHAT as complex version of AT (generations idea?)

b.      Brief description of AT (key concepts & terms)

                                                   i.      Simple version (Nowacek, Russell)

c.       Brief description of CHAT (key concepts & terms)

                                                   i.      Complex version of AT (see Spinuzzi)

                                                 ii.      Prior’s adaptation for rhetoric (see p. 17 for definition of CHAT from his perspective)

                                                iii.      Problem for Prior’s version of CHAT is not indicating how three lists (p. 18) interact.  Functional systems comes closest to CHAT diagram.

                                               iv.      Use quote on p. 22 about interlocking systems

3)      How might the OoS be defined in AT & CHAT (including Prior’s version) (How does the theory define your object of study (as a whole, broken into pieces?))

a.       AT—interview genre fits slot of “tool” or “mediational means”

b.      CHAT—“instrument” or virtually identical with AT

c.       Prior?—hard to tell; it is a form of mediator but mediators are not nodes in this theory

4)      Describing the network formulation—nodes, structuring of nodes, agencies and relationships within & between nodes (What and/or who is a network node? What types of agency are articulated for various types of nodes? How are different types of nodes situated within a network? What are the types and directions of relationships between nodes?)

a.       AT—

                                                   i.      Points on diagram are subject, tools, object, motive; is “tools” a node or a connector though?

                                                 ii.      Human actors have agency (i.e. subjects)

                                                iii.      Tools are mediational, hence lie between subjects and objects

                                               iv.      Subjects+tools+objects are assembled together to drive towards motives

b.      CHAT

                                                   i.      More nodes than AT; see Spinuzzi; however, relationships are similar to the above

1.       Subject = [collaborators, knowledge, community, division of labor]; instruments=tools; objectsàoutcome (almost the same)

                                                 ii.      Not all human actors have agency—or at least not the same level of agency (“community” arguably has less impact on the activity system)

                                                iii.      Instruments are mediational

                                               iv.      Assemblage is similar to AT   

c.       Prior CHAT

                                                   i.      Mish-mash: who knows?  But obviously I have to think about this J

5)      Movement and change within the network—what moves and how & changes within the network (What is moving within the network? What happens to content or meaning as it travels through a network? How do networks emerge, grow, and/or dissolve?)

a.       AT—

                                                   i.      (Rhetorical) action to accomplish motive?

                                                 ii.      Content or meaning is mediated by tools as it is passed on

                                                iii.      ? See Russell p. 55

b.      CHAT

                                                   i.      (Rhetorical) action to accomplish objective?

                                                 ii.      Content or meaning is mediated by tools as it is passed on

                                                iii.      ?  See Spinuzzi

c.       Prior CHAT

                                                   i.      Moving through the network: “action and cognition”? (17)  In a sense, arguably cultural capital and knowledge, to be repackaged by human agents (see 22) “It’s about attending to semiosis in whatever materials at whatever point in the activity” (23)

                                                 ii.      Content is mediated by a huge array of intervening nodes and channels (see p. 17)

                                                iii.      Magic, I think

6)      How would I use this network?  Is one superior or do both capture elements that are valuable?  Can they be combined?  Or are they already in a sense combined, say in CHAT as a Frankentheory?

a.       Strength of Prior’s CHAT (see p. 23)—basically it has the terms to deal with all eventualities

b.      Weaknesses of Prior’s CHAT

                                                   i.      Incompatibility of terms—things are not quite “flattened” as in Latour and yet there aren’t levels either.  Process elements are mixed with spatial elements.

                                                 ii.      Some elements can be conflated or exchanged:

1.       Socialization arguably occurs through activity

2.       Ecology is the spatialization of socialization & activity

3.       Distribution is activity, as are production and reception

                                                iii.      Confounding connections and nodes—(some) items on list on page 18 need to be nodes, but mediators involve “historically-provided tools and practices” which Prior provides a long list of (see p. 17).  “Concrete actions” that are “situated” are probably best seen as nodes.  Or are these formations, or structures, mini-networks? At any rate, since these are then mediated, the mediation appears to be seen as connections.  Prior admits that mediation has disappeared from “Take 2” because everything is mediating.  Isn’t this kind of circular?

c.       What about AT?  Both basic version and Spinuzzi’s version

                                                   i.      Easier to conceptualize and work with (by far!)

                                                 ii.      Handles genre better

References

Nowacek, R. S. (2011). Agents of integration: Understanding transfer as a rhetorical act. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Oers, B., Wardekker, W., Elbers, E., & Van Der Veer, R. (2010). The transformation of learning: Advances in cultural-historical activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Prior, P., & Shipka, J. (2003). Chronotopic lamination: Tracing the contours of literate activity.  In C. Bazerman & D.d Russell (Eds.),Writing selves, writing societies: Research from activity perspectives (pp.180-238). Fort Collins: The WAC Clearinghouse and Mind, Culture, and Activity. Retrieved from http://wac.colostate.edu/books/selves_societies/prior/

Prior, P., Solberg, J., Berry, P., Bellwoar, H., Chewning, B., Lunsford, K.J., . . . Walker, J.R. (2007). Re-situating and re-mediating the canons: A Cultural-Historical remapping of rhetorical activity. Kairos, 11(3). Retrieved from http://technorhetoric.net/11.3/binder.html?topoi/prior-et-al/index.html

Russell, D.R. (1995).  Activity theory and its implications for writing instruction.  In J. Petraglia (Ed.), Reconceiving writing, rethinking writing instruction, (51-78). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Spinuzzi, C. (2003). Tracing genres through organizations: A sociocultural approach to information design. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.