When students are composing a collaborative text together and share responsibility for the writing task, cognitive and metacognitive processes become external and visible and thus amenable to research. The aim of this study was to clarify how students interact and how the different student roles and activities are divided up when students engage in collaborative writing face-to-face. In this study 19 university students performed a collaborative writing task in 6 groups consisting of 2-4 students each. The purpose of the task was to assist students in learning the theories of development presented in their course book. The most frequent activities observed during the collaborative writing task were discussing concepts (31%), writing and revising (25%), planning the text (16%) and steering the group's performance (9%). The students engaged rather seldom in evaluative activities and the proportion of off-task talk was also small. Cluster analyses revealed four participant profiles: Cognitively versatile thinkers, Cognitively focused thinkers, Performance steering writers, and Textbook consulters. The participant profiles were the same for all the group members in four groups out of six.We conclude that participant profiles are not individual roles but are dependent on the discursive interaction through which collaborative groups approach the writing task.

Poster sessions aren't just for professional conferences. They are popular in a variety of academic disciplines, where they have been shown to boost motivation, foster alternative assessment, and promote peer interaction. They are gaining popularity as a classroom teaching strategy, because they promote the development of student research skills and foster positive attitudes toward research. They encourage collaboration and peer interaction. Visual presentation strategies provide opportunities for students to display their ideas and knowledge in several multimedia formats. Poster sessions also promote alternative assessment strategies such as peer and self-assessment. We report here on the ways that we have used this assignment format in our basic linguistics class, titled “The Nature of Language.” We conclude with tips on incorporating poster assignments into teacher education classes regardless of the content matter.

To build upon user-centered design methods, we used a collaborative and multi-modal approach to involve users early in the design process for a website. This article presents our methods and results and addresses the benefits and limitations of the Collaborative Prototype Design Process (CPDP), including ways in which this new method can be implemented. The CPDP is an innovative approach to user-centered website design that emphasizes collaboration, iterative testing, and data-driven design. The CPDP balances the power and needs of users with those of designers and, thus, enables design teams to test more tasks and involve more users. We divided our initial team into three independent design teams to separately profile users, test usability of low-fidelity paper prototypes, and then create and test usability of resulting wireframes. After completing the user-centered design and usability testing, the three teams merged to analyze their diverse findings and create a final prototype.

Research Problem: This study investigates the impact of deception on the performance of tasks in virtual teams. While the advantages of virtual teams in organizations have been well-studied, as the use of these teams expands, organizations must acknowledge the potential for negative consequences of team member actions. Research Questions: (1) How does deceptive communication influence the outcomes of virtual group collaboration? and (2) How does perceived deception impact the individual perceptions, such as perceived trustworthiness and mutuality, of the virtual team itself? Literature Review: Based on (1), the conclusion from the literature on virtual teams that trust and mutuality are vital toward team development, (2) the propositions put forth by Interpersonal Deception Theory that deception will be perceived by team members, and (3) from the conclusion from the literature on interpersonal deception and trust that deception will impact outcomes of an interaction, including trust, mutuality, and ultimately team performance, we developed a model of the impact of deception on outcomes in virtual teams. This model suggests that deceptive communication negatively impacts task performance. Deceptive communication is also expected to impact perceived deception both within and between groups. The model further proposes that perceived deception will negatively impact both perceived trustworthiness and mutuality. Methodology: Through an experiment, virtual teams of three members participated in a group decision-making task in which team members must cooperate to search a grid for enemy camps and then collaborate on a strike plan, with half the teams populated by a deceptive team member. Two-hundred seventeen subjects were recruited from courses at three universities. Five experimental sessions were conducted across two semesters in computer labs at the three universities. Following the virtual team experiment, subjects completed surveys related to key constructs. Analysis of variance and linear regression were used to test the hypotheses. Results and Discussion: Deception has a negative impact on task performance by virtual teams. Participants perceived deception when it was present. Perceived deception led to decreased mutuality and trust among team members. These findings suggest that organizations that utilize virtual teams must be aware of and prepared to deal with negative behaviors, such as deception. The generalizability of these findings is potentially limited by the use of student subjects in a laboratory setting. Future research may extend these findings by incorporating additional variables that have been found to be important to virtual team outcomes or studying the current model in a longitudinal design.

Of the many fields affected by current economic conditions, the humanities are often hit especially hard because the very category “humanities” is inchoate. Mangum joins scholars who seek ways to bring the values of fields such as literature and history into focus for various public audiences. Engaging nonspecialists in practices of the humanities offers one way of “going public.” The forms of publicly engaged teaching, learning, scholarship, and collaboration can stretch as far as teachers' and scholars' imaginations and are applicable to social sciences and other disciplines as well.

Wikis enable large, diverse groups of writers to effectively collaborate online. Although Wikipedia is the best-known wiki, businesses are increasingly using wikis to build documents and resources for internal use. Although many teachers of technical communication are interested in integrating wikis into their syllabi, assessment is difficult. Assessments based on traditional assignments fail because they do not focus on the social nature of wikis. This article introduces an “archaeological” assessment framework focused on this discourse.

In my experience as a writing consultant, the writing center atmosphere Denny describes, and the collaboration it cultivates, results in a close community of consultants, staff, and students.Within this community, consultants and students alike collaborate and share their diverse knowledge, personalities, and words with each other, yet each individual student is looking for something a little different when she comes to us, and each has a different way of learning.This belief in the power of individuals and one-on-one learning suggests the importance of flexibility within collaboration.With a student re-organizing her paper, I might have her draw me a flow chart to visualize her ideas, or I might demonstrate how to do a reverse outline.During brainstorming sessions, I might write down the student's stream of consciousness responses to my questions, or we might search for Youtube videos related to her topic.We can read aloud, or I can watch as a student writes.The strategies are endless,

The one-on-one format of tutoring, which is the norm for writing centers, can foster the much-maligned view of a writing center as a fix-it shop and undermine the role of the tutor as a co-learner and facilitator of peer-to-peer interactions. The peer-interactive writing center approach , presented here, moves away from the one-on-one model and towards a format that encourages genuine peer collaboration, recreates the writing center as a place to actually engage in writing , and encourages students in their intuitions about writing . As a case study of such a peer-interactive approach, this profile provides an overview and evaluation of the Writing Drop-In Lab at the University of New Mexico, which provides a model for bringing the practice of writing tutoring into line with a view of writing as a collaborative, process-oriented phenomenon.

Collaborative Approaches to the Digital in English Studies joins the ongoing conversation about collaborative work in the humanities. Instead of focusing exclusively on the digital humanities or emphasizing only the large-scale computational analysis or archival projects typical of that field of study, the collection focuses on a variety of projects led by or involving English studies professionals in particular.

This article charts the collaborative production of a play designed to show that performing literary history enables students' perception of history as process and performance. The play Before & After highlighted conventions of seventeenth-century prologues, epilogues, and gendered theatrical performance techniques through students' performances and participation in a postproduction survey.

Increasingly, various tasks are being conducted by dispersed teams. However, such teams lack a common context, and knowledge gaps exist among dispersed team members making collaboration difficult. This paper seeks to examine whether and how properties of team context (e.g., familiarity with team members and task) have the potential to moderate the effects of structure of team context (e.g., dispersion) on dispersed team collaboration. Further, this paper teases out these effects in teams with a varying extent of dispersion. Findings offer evidence that a unique constraint of distance that dispersed teams face may not be the key factor that determines their performance.

The difficulties students face when writing academically in an L2 have been widely acknowledged (Dudley-Evans 2002 et al., Paltridge 2001 and Swales 1990). While many higher education institutions in English-speaking countries have started to offer modules that support non-native (and native) students in their academic writing, very little is being done in this respect in developing countries, for example in Latin America (Carlino 2007 and Vargas 2007). In this paper, a project will be presented that aimed at fostering academic literacy in an M.A. course on research methods in a Mexican public university. Different pedagogic strategies, such as a needs analysis, explicit instruction on the target genre (the literature review), collaborative writing, a research journal, peer-reviews and group discussions were combined in order to achieve rapid improvement in this resource-poor environment. Through constant mutual feedback from, and communication with, peers, this transitional discourse community (Bruffee 1999) of twenty-four students moved towards the norms and conventions associated with the respective genre. The strategies employed might be of interest to instructors in academic writing who work under similar difficult conditions and/or time constraints.

The present study identifies the problems that students of the Educational Science Faculty of the Complutense University of Madrid encounter when revising and rewriting texts. This process involves developing and clarifying their thoughts in order to rewrite the text which, in turn, implies not only evaluating and improving the draft but also transforming and constructing knowledge.It is assumed that the revision and rewriting process specifically consists of identifying, diagnosing and rewriting language units or fragments of text which can be improved. This involves applying cognitive operations of information management to rough drafts at different linguistic and textual levels until the final text is collaboratively produced.In conclusion, it is argued that the potential of collaborative revision and rewriting, as well as the need for writer tutoring through guides which monitor the process and encourage reflection, should be highlighted.

The following set of three papers, ‘University Literacies: French Students at a Disciplinary “Threshold”?’ by Isabelle Delcambre and Christiane Donahue, ‘Modeling Multivocality in a U.S.-Mexican Collaboration in Writing across the Curriculum’, by Mya Poe and Jennifer Craig, and ‘Perceptions and Anticipation of Academic Literacy: “Finding Your Own Voice”’, by Claire Woods and Paul Skrebels, represents some of the ongoing practice-oriented research of the ‘Antwerp Group’, so called because the members came together as teacher-researchers with shared interests in student writing in Antwerp in 2006.

Since 2006 the ‘Antwerp Group’ group has explored student writing from various country perspectives to understand what practices and pedagogies are country specific and what issues cut across national borders. The insights of the Antwerp Group helped inform a 2009–2010 collaboration between The Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey in which we combined Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) and English as Foreign Language (EFL) instruction. This paper describes how a theoretical model used by the Antwerp Group helped us identify the multivocality that each collaborating group brought to this new partnership. In the end, theorizing multivocality helped us recognize our diverse perspectives as a resource even as we sought to find a collaborative voice in setting project goals, defining a student survey, and implementing a curricular design for a WAC-EFL writing course.

This article describes the collaborative process of including library faculty in an online English composition course and the effect on students’ research.

Science advisory committees exercise complex collaborative expertise. Not only do committee members collaborate, they do so across disciplines, producing expert reports that make synthetic multidisciplinary arguments. When reports are controversial, critics target both report content and committee process. Such controversies call for the assessment of expert arguments, but the multidisciplinary character of the debate outstrips the usual methods developed by informal logicians for assessing appeals to expert authority. This article proposes a multi-dimensional contextualist framework for critical assessment and tests it with a case study of the controversies over reports issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The case study shows (1) how the critical contextualist framework can illuminate the controversy and guide evaluation of the various arguments and counterarguments; (2) how cases of this sort open up avenues for fruitful interdisciplinary collaboration between argumentation theorists and other fields; and (3) where further work is required in argumentation theory.

This website is the creation of a student of mine, Jacoby Boles, who is the Editorial Assistant for the e-journal Xchanges, of which I am editor. Jacoby reflects, via this site, on his experiences as a member of the Technical Communication 371 "Publications Management" course at New Mexico Tech. TC 371, in Fall 2010, was a course explicitly designed to engage students with a unique "client project," the production of an issue of the online journal Xchanges.

Changes in Web infrastructure have allowed ITexts to become a vehicle for transdisciplinary Web-scale collaboration so that large-scale teams can create new knowledge despite differences in team members’ disciplinary training, geographic location, and levels of expertise. In this article, the authors define Web-scale collaboration and illustrate the need for transdisciplinary approaches to problem solving. Then they introduce heuristics for creating and evaluating such transdisciplinary, collaborative Web-scale ITexts, drawing on examples generated at a workshop sponsored by the National Science Foundation that was held at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in April 2010.

This is the second part of a two-part article on how Web 2.0 tools freely available afford so many opportunities for collaboration among writers in the context of social networking, creating the means for student writers to write purposefully for worldwide audiences. Part I set the stage by placing writing in the context of new views of literacy due in part to revoluntionary changes since the turn of the century in how content finds its way to the Internet. It explained how artifacts created with such tools are aggregated and harvested as learning objects with potential to promote and augment communication and collaboration online, and to promote writing by giving students interesting and meaningful ideas to write about, thus significantly changing how the teaching of writing might be re-envisaged in the digital age. Whereas Part I examined the production side of this dynamic, Part II explains how the Internet resolves the marketing side of the role once played by traditional publishing and how writers and audiences can navigate this seemingly chaotic preponderance of content online by tagging their work and using RSS and other aggregation tools to find one another's written work and carry on conversations about it, thus providing truly authentic motivation for their writing.

This paper examines the sexual politics of the Spike Lee film She Hate Me (2004). The film’s director and collaborative writer attempts to integrate the memory of the initial whistle blower of Watergate, the Black American security guard Frank Wills, with a contemporary Black corporate hero story. She Hate Me also includes a subnarrative of sexual surrogacy and Black female sexuality, which emerges as the central narrative by the film’s end. I argue that the film presents a phantasmagoric fantasy, which postulates normative conceptions of sexuality, while purporting to represent the non-normative Black female sexual imaginary in a sympathetic way. I build upon this argument by addressing the following questions: How does the dominant narrative of She Hate Me reify conservative notions of the conjugal family? In what ways does Lee’s construction of Black sexualities undermine the cultural politics of Frank Wills’s memory? How does Lee’s compilation of sexual iconography serve the purpose of sensory stimulation, rather than a serious contemplation, of the parameters of sexual identities? Through my exploration of the homonationalist ideology upheld in the film, I assert that Lee’s stale illusion of sexual representation and underdeveloped political narrative creates a nebulous sexual and political phantasma of representation.

In this text, the author investigates the creative processes between authors and authors. The author states that he is interested in verbal-visual collaboration because the increased visual nature of communication necessitates the collaboration between those specializing in visual communication and those specializing in verbal communication. This work will be of particular interest to theorists as well as instructors in graphic design, professional communication, as well as rhetoric and composition and those studying ethnographic methodologies.

This essay revises Paula Mathieu’s call for relationship-based tactics of engagement over institution-based strategies. Because engaged scholars operate within institutional contexts, they should utilize both tactics and strategies to make the academic institutional paradigm more conducive to relationship-based engagement. In supporting this long-term goal, community-literacy practitioners can adapt Brian Huot’s theory of instructive evaluation to enable collaborative assessment of community partnerships. One possible mechanism for such institutional invention would be the establishment of quasi-strategic, quasi-tactical Community- Literacy Associations.

This article uses theories of technical communication and archives to advance a pedagogy that includes archival production in the technical communication classroom. By developing and maintaining local classroom archives, students directly engage in valuable processes of appraisal, selection, collaboration, and retention. The anticipated outcomes of this work are the critical practice of making connections, the decentering of the self, the ability to work through noise, and the ability to imagine future users of the archive. The authors conclude that local classroom archives are one new means of meaningful instruction in the technical communication classroom and the local archive concept has great potential for further development.

Abstract This essay draws on concepts developed by Kenneth Burke to examine how a rhetoric of national insecurity has saturated phishing research and antiphishing campaigns. In response to the widespread public dispersal of antiphishing campaigns, it calls for a new terminology that challenges the underlying racial violence that characterizes its current practices. Notes 1Jakobsson and Myers define phishing as "[a] form of social engineering in which an attacker, also known as a phisher, attempts to fraudulently retrieve legitimate users' confidential or sensitive credentials by mimicking electronic communications from a trustworthy or public organization in an automated fashion" (1). 2In July of 2009, Symantec observed a fifty-two percent increase in phishing attacks from the previous month. 3Robert C. Miller and Min Wu argue, "Phishing succeeds because of a gap between the user's mental model and the true implementation, so promising technical solutions should try to bridge this gap" (291). Note how the technology becomes the agent of intervention. 4See, for example, Gurak and Warnick. Later, I will discuss how phishers utilize peer networks to share components of phishing solicitations in order to make the process more efficient. This use of file-sharing technology complicates more sanguine perspectives on the role that collaboration and sharing play in digital networks (see Devoss and Porter; Moxley). I am not alone in pointing out the dangerous limitations of digital technologies such as emails and online forums (see Holdstein; Moses and Katz; Blair and Takayoshi). 5Jenkins writes, "New forms of community are emerging, however: these new communities are defined through voluntary, temporary, and tactical affiliations, reaffirmed through common intellectual enterprises and emotional investments… . Only certain things are known by all—the things the community needs to sustain its existence and fulfill its goals. Everything else is known by individuals who are on call to share what they know when the occasion arises" (27–28). 6I am grateful to RR reviewers Stephen Bernhardt and Jim Zappen for their helpful feedback on this essay. Thank you RF, MM, and MH—you are indispensable.

Abstract Relatively little is known about the politeness strategies used by technical communicators and designers in group settings, particularly in the decision-making, collaborative meetings of a real-world, naturally occurring group. This study explores the degree to which members of a well-established group linguistically express concern for their fellow collaborators and how that concern may be affected by the type and imminence of their deadlines. Notes In actuality, Brown and Levinson give a fifth strategy of not speaking the request at all. Henceforth, all discussions of "substrategies" will include the bald, on- record strategy as well. Additional informationNotes on contributorsErin Friess Erin Friess is an assistant professor of technical communication at the University of North Texas. Her research explores discursive strategies and user-centered design processes in workplace settings.

Based on an action research project implemented at two South African universities, we argue that content and language integration (ICL) collaborative partnerships benefit not only from collaboration between language and content specialists, but in addition, from collaboration between language specialists, general education specialists and content specialists from a variety of disciplines. However, as we illustrate below, these benefits may be accompanied by substantial challenges. We make a further claim, for the value of a transformative approach towards collaboration for content and language integration, in which the teacher/researchers engage in their practice in a critical and reflexive manner, and by so doing, foster their own deep learning, as well as the deep learning of the students.

This article focuses on the methodology for an academic literacies research project in an Integrated Content and Language (ICL) collaboration in economics and the ways in which the findings from the research contributed to further development and expansion of the ICL endeavour. The research was conducted independently rather than collaboratively and the paper reflects on the reasons for this. Experience from the project suggests the research methodologies and epistemologies in the two collaborating fields of economics and academic literacies lack congruence and points to the complexities of conducting collaborative research when research paradigms are so different.

This paper discusses an ongoing research-based collaboration between an academic literacies researcher and a lecturer in the field of Social Work aimed at exploring the nature of everyday writing in social work. The paper outlines the key principles of the methodology adopted—a text-oriented ethnography—and discusses the extent to which this methodology is facilitating a collaborative partnership towards meeting three interrelated goals: the empirical goal of building rich descriptions of writing in everyday social work practice; the ideological-epistemological goal of challenging a deficit discourse on writing (and writers); and the interventionist goal of working with institutions to harness writing in productive ways to learning and professional practice. Central to this methodological approach is an attempt to build a three-way conversation between the fields of 'new' literacy studies, in particular academic literacies; the discipline of social work education; and social work agencies/practitioners. We outline the methodology and foreground some key congruencies across these fields which are helping to facilitate successful collaboration.

In this paper I address the issue of collaboration between content lecturers and language lecturers or educational researchers. Whilst such collaboration is a desirable goal for disciplinary learning in monolingual settings, I suggest it takes on extra significance when two or more languages are involved in teaching and learning a discipline. Drawing on work in the area of scientific literacy, I make a case for the concept of disciplinary literacy as a useful vehicle for such collaboration, with the Carnegie Foundation's notion of the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) being used as the overarching motivation. I argue that input from peers in other disciplines can help content lecturers, make informed decisions about the particular mix of communicative practices that are needed to develop disciplinary literacy in their courses. Clearly, this mix will be different from discipline to discipline and indeed vary within a discipline depending on the local linguistic environment and the nature of the course under discussion. As an aid to collaboration, I present a simple heuristic tool for initiating inter-faculty discussion—the Disciplinary Literacy Discussion Matrix. Using the matrix, content lecturers can discuss the disciplinary literacy goals of their teaching with other professionals, making their own decisions about the particular mix of communicative practices desired and the most appropriate methods for promoting these.

The authors of this article, a researcher and a practitioner, revisit the collaborative process by which a training program addressing report writing for police officers was developed and implemented as a means of understanding why and how this collaboration was successful. From this reflection, the authors offer four guidelines for others involved in similar efforts to help them obtain a direct pipeline to practice.

This project is devoted to the memory of my grandmother, Olive. It is at once her life story and not a story at all. In a sense it represents the product of an intimate family collaboration and of the close journey we shared in collecting and preserving her oral history. But this project is not a product, nor is it entirely about my grandma, about me, or about the sentiment out of which it emerged. The Olive Project is aboutprocess, and at its core it is also aboutyou, about your encounter with it, and about your participation in the ongoing process of composing memory.

all the organizing committee for inviting Lisa and me to participate in the 2010 IWCA-NCPTW Conference here in Baltimore.Lisa was, unfortunately, unable to be with us today, but this talk is very much a collaborative effort, one that grows out of a larger project which we have just completed.

The challenges of redesigning and reviving Longwood University’s Rhetoric and Professional Writing program involved skills in collaboration, negotiation, and advertisement. While unexpected obstacles arose, taking an honest look at the existing program design and working to maintain the focus on rhetoric helped to circumvent failure. Finally, student involvement, student feedback, and the use of online resources became key elements in bringing a weak program to life.

Since 2003, the International Writing Centers Association has held a Summer Institute for Writing Center Directors and Professionals. Encouragement of scholarship, writing, and publication are important aspects of the institute. We have compiled a bibliography of scholarly works emerging from the first seven institutes. These works include web publications, peer-reviewed journal articles, conference presentations, dissertations, and one book. The entry for each work is followed by a narrative by the author or authors describing the influence of the Summer Institute, how they conceived and developed the work, and how they met their collaborators. Through these narratives we see that the IWCA Summer Institute offers a model for seeding an active community of practice that brings people together from diverse institutions, giving them new perspectives on their work through mentoring, collaboration, and the development of professional friendships. For many, this also results in development of a professional and scholarly identity more deeply connected to writing centers and their attendant fields. We also speculate on the meaning of identified publication patterns and make suggestions for future endeavors.

Technology use and adaptation are the center of attention in research on virtual teams. Through empirical observations from six interpretative cases of virtual teams, we suggest conceptualizing the relationship between technology-use practices and collaborative practices as a technology-alignment process. We define technology alignment based upon four key perspectives on technology-use practices: continuous iterative process, reflection-on-action activities, malleability and reconfigurability, and transformation. Moreover, we show how these four key perspectives influence the design, the outcome, the task processes, and the socioemotional processes of the particular virtual team.

In light of what has taken place since their presentation at the IEEE International Professional Communication Conference in 2005, the authors describe additional requirements and merits of matching technical writing students in the US with translation students in Europe in a collaborative assignment. Where the original article dealt with how to set up and organize the collaboration, this tutorial delves into the pedagogical challenges and the process dynamics involved in such an exchange, including mediation, power, and teamwork issues.

This study assesses the benefits and drawbacks of assigning a collaboratively written midterm paper in nontraditional and traditional introductory college composition courses. Students’ responses suggest a radically different model to be tested in the future.

This article defines research centers as associative enterprises for solving scholarly and societal problems that cannot be adequately addressed by individuals. We identify more than fifty research centers in rhetoric and writing, past and present, and argue that they function as change agents by emphasizing collaboration and conducting research focused on publics.

This study explains the development, implementation, and preliminary findings of an after-school pilot writing program that drew upon a peer collaborative model and a community literacy perspective. Preliminary findings suggest important benefits of this partnership for young children, parents, and the surrounding community.

The work highlighted in this essay focuses on an ethnographic study of a group of African American women, members of Phenomenal Women, Incorporated, who come together not necessarily to read and write, but who, in their “sista space”—their club—often read and write when they come together. In this space, they promote self-help through reading and writing and use their literacy skills to promote civic action and engagement and cultural enrichment. This essay examines the literacy practices in which these women engage in two types of literacy events during their annual Black History Month celebrations.

Analysis of required reading lists sheds light on the factors that underlie admission to pedagogical canons. These variables can serve as a springboard for collaborative faculty development of pedagogical literary canons. By constructing and enacting criteria-based pedagogical canons, professors will be better able to maintain their authority over curricular content.

The fragmentation of science and medicine research in recent years has led to the creation of subdisciplines with distinct identities and ethics. Like many social communities, these subdisciplines have found websites of federal funding agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) to be an effective and efficient home in which to solidify that identity and communicate those values. Despite the lack of collaborative, Web 2.0 technologies, the sites of NSF and NIH are able to communicate the ethics of the science communities they serve through rhetorical structures as diverse as graphics, page layout, and site structures. This article explores that role of NSF and NIH, including the rhetoric used, the ethics presented, and their broader implications.

This article reports on a digital ethnography that examines writing, authorship, and self-publication in an online niche market. Drawing on interview and web data collected over 3 years, it focuses on the writing practices that have supported the production, distribution, and sanction of 13 ebooks self-published by online poker players. The article advances an understanding of authorship as sustained interaction among writers and readers as the work of publishing becomes absorbed into online networks as literate activity. In lieu of the capital investment of publishers that produces the materiality of the book, participants in these spaces have manufactured valued texts through collective literacy practices, coming to a loose consensus on what constitutes a book, and working together to enable proprietorship over texts, even amid environments of mass collaboration.