Book Review| February 01 2020 Review: An Argument on Rhetorical Style, by Marie Lund Marie Lund, An Argument on Rhetorical Style. Denmark: Aarhus University Press, 2017, 220 pp. $25 (paper). ISBN 9788771844344 Arthur E. Walzer Arthur E. Walzer Arthur Walzer Professor Emeritus, Communication Studies University of Minnesota 40 Prospect Park W, 1J Brooklyn, NY 11215 awalzer@umn.edu Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (2020) 38 (1): 129–132. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2020.38.1.129 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Arthur E. Walzer; Review: An Argument on Rhetorical Style, by Marie Lund. Rhetorica 1 February 2020; 38 (1): 129–132. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2020.38.1.129 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. © 2020 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press's Reprints and Permissions web page, http://www.ucpress.edu/journals.php?p=reprints.2020 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Rhetoric is a resilient art.Its stability and mutability across centuries attest to its dynamism as a domain of knowledge production and engaged practice.While resilience is understood differentially across scholarly and popular domains, it nearly always addresses questions of how to respond, adapt, and persist through adverse circumstances (for a review of this diverse literature, see Flynn, Sotirin, & Brady, 2012).For example, resilience has become a key trope for describing the practices of (bio)security, sustainability, human health, child development, infrastructure, technological systems, and other common sites of study in rhetorics of science, technology, and medicine (RSTM).Recently, rhetoricians have also taken up resilience; these scholars are interested both in using rhetoric to understand resilience and using resilience to understand rhetoric.This special issue of POROI is intended to further the scholarly conversation on resilience rhetorics.In particular, we hope to highlight the deeply rhetorical, critical, cultural, and materialsemiotic work being done by and with theories and metaphors of resilience.The collection of articles assembled here initially arose from our experience co-chairing the Association for Rhetoric of Science, Technology, and Medicine's (ARSTM) second annual preconference at the biennial Rhetoric Society of America (RSA) conference in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in 2018.The ARSTM preconferences at RSA and the National Communication Association (NCA) meetings always focus on a core theme; other themes have included trust, evidence, and translation (ARSTM, 2019).

This article reports on a large-scale study of peer and instructor response and student reflection on response. The corpus of instructor and peer response to 864 drafts of student writing was collected via ePortfolios from first-year writing courses and courses across disciplines at 70 U.S. institutions of higher education. The following questions guided a qualitative analysis of the data: (a) What are the similarities and differences in the ways instructors and peers respond to college writing? (b) What perspectives do college students have on the feedback they receive on their writing from instructors and peers? Three themes emerged from a review of the literature on peer and instructor response and the results of the analysis of the data: (a) peer responders tend to be more focused on global concerns than instructors, (b) peer responders tend to be less directive than instructors, and (c) students learn as much from reading their peers’ drafts as they do from the comments they receive from peer responders or the instructor. The findings support an argument for placing peer response at the center of the response construct, rather than thinking of peer response as merely a complement to instructor response.

Review of Social Writing/Social Media: Publics, Presentations, and Pedagogies by editors Douglas M. Walls & Stephanie Vie.

Review of The Adjunct Underclass: How America’s Colleges Betrayed Their Faculty, Their Students, and Their Mission by Herb Childress.

Review of Community Literacies en Confianza By Steven Alvarez.

This essay presents a polyvocal review of the 2019 Conference on Community Writing. It is composed of a series of vignettes and reflections written by the authors, community partners, conference organizers, educators, and others who attended the conference. Together, these reflections examine a central theme of the conference, “the work” of community writing, by attending to four questions: 1) What is the work of the Conference on Community Writing, and what does it tell us about the state of the subfield of community-engaged writing?; 2) What spaces does the conference encompass, and who is included in these spaces?; 3) What are the material realities that enable and constrain our work, in and beyond the conference?; and 4) What work is unfinished, and what will sustain us as we tackle it? The polyvocal essay presented here examines these questions through multiple positionalities within community writing studies, ultimately arguing that attending to the diversity of voices, stories, and perspectives in community writing must guide our efforts to understand community writing as a field and imagine its future work.

Review of Unruly Rhetorics: Protest, Persuasion, and Publics by editors Jonathan Alexander, Susan C. Jarratt, and Nancy Welch.

Review of Field Rhetoric: Ethnography, Ecology, and Engagement in the Places of Persuasion By Candice Rai & Caroline Gottschalk Druschke.

Preview this article: Review: Feminist Rhetorical Questions and the Broadening Imperative, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/82/3/collegeenglish30480-1.gif

This webtext focuses on Lockridge's production of Rhetorlist, an inventory of new books published in Rhetoric and Writing, Composition Studies, Technical Communication, and related disciplines. Tracing the histories and challenges of these disciplines' engagement with digital tools, Lockridge argues for an attention to small, meaningful projects of service to field, and offers strategies for the development of such projects.

In the intimate spaces of writing centers, how do we advocate for students-as well as tutors and directors-who closet or guard private struggles, particularly when they feel less than safe revealing who they are amid larger public controversies? This is a central question

It makes sense that writing studies scholars, from their position on the frontlines of academic writing support, would be among the first to notice graduate student needs around writing. In the 1980s, scholars began pointing out why this population of writers deserves more attention. Fast forward to today, popular

Book Review.

Book Review.

Background: Previous research on user-generated content in technical communication focused primarily on non-traditional forms of technical communication outside of traditional institutions and organizations. User-generated content from the forum StackOverflow provides rich knowledge and stories behind problems faced by web and software developers. This study explores how technical communicators engage in this knowledge-rich content specific to web and software developers. Our findings provide insights into how researchers, instructors, and practicing technical communicators might leverage user-generated forum content in their work. Literature review: Previous research examined how user-generated content is a form of technical writing and technical editing. Furthermore, some research in technical communication has examined how technical user forums present a type of user-generated content to which technical communicators might add value. However, no research on user forums has explicitly examined how technical communicators engage in user forums to gain subject-matter familiarity or expertise. This study seeks to explore how technical communication students engage in user forums to troubleshoot coding problems. Research questions: 1. Are technical communication students able to successfully solve unfamiliar coding problems using user-generated content posted on the StackOverflow website? Are they able to identify the conceptual knowledge needed to solve the coding problem? 2. When learning about new, unfamiliar technical content, how do technical communication students search for information and decide which forum content to engage with? 3. Do technical communication students make meaning and actively fill knowledge gaps when they engage in new, unfamiliar technical content on StackOverflow? 4. After searching and reading through user-generated forum content to troubleshoot a coding task, do technical communication students feel confident enough in what they learned to teach someone else? Results: Most participants were unable to solve any of the coding problems using StackOverflow. Those who did successfully troubleshoot the coding problems exhibited more active scanning when selecting a search thread and made meaning of thread content more closely. Conclusions: Actively engaging and making meaning of thread content reveals insights into the stories behind the thread. These stories provide important details and clues for gaining subject-matter familiarity, but users must actively engage in meaning-making to access the stories and fill knowledge gaps. Practitioners and instructors can leverage content on StackOverflow to better understand coding problems. StackOverflow threads, along with other user-generated forum content, also give instructors insight into technical audiences and can be leveraged to teach students how to use primary research to better understand audiences. Researchers can continue to study how novice users interact with user-generated content by investigating how confidence levels affect meaning-making.

Designing for Life offers a thorough background in advances in technology that have improved the human condition. The book details the history of technological development as well as recent advancements and their implications for the future. The authors want designers to think about human perception and experience as the foundation of design best practices, and they achieve this goal by including multiple citations to help designers and researchers follow up with additional reading.

Background: The participatory web complicates professional communicators' goals of providing accurate, usable, and trustworthy content, especially for health and medical topics. Professionals can better reach their audiences by understanding individuals'purposes for using e-health. Literature review: Previous literature has shown the need for audience analysis in e-health, and has called for personalized, nuanced, and contextualized methods for developing audience-centered content. Professional communicators in e-health can use personas as a strategy to help account for users' diverse, evolving, and extra-institutional purposes in accessing e-health, whether that content is professionally-generated or user-generated. Research questions: 1. What are patients' larger information-seeking contexts? 2. For what purposes do patients use e-health? 3. How can professional communicators leverage this deepened understanding of their audience's purposes to improve their content? Methods: In-depth interviews were conducted with seven community members who self-identified as e-health users. They were asked about their larger health information-seeking practices, specific instances of using e-health, and website preferences. Results: Participants use e-health among other sources including medical professionals. They use an array of e-health sites, including professional and user-generated sites, and have diverse purposes in using that array of sites. Conclusion and implications: The results suggest that professional communicators deepen their audience analysis to account for informational context, emotional context, and the diverse and shifting purposes of their users. Heuristics for professionals are provided to develop purpose-driven personas.

The reviewers feel that what makes "Digital Justice: Technology and the Internet of Disputes" so valuable is its relevance to a wide range of professional and nonprofessional applications, including healthcare, technology, e-commerce, social media and social relationships, law, and the workplace. Readers who use digital media for organizational and business communication can benefit from Digital Justice and its insights into disputes, access to justice, and the influence of digital media on barriers to justice. Ethan Katsch and Orna Rabinovich-Einy address the emerging disputes brought by the advancement of technology as well as the ways that these disputes could be resolved or prevented altogether. There has yet to be a dispute resolution and prevention process that works flawlessly in all cases, but the authors provide valuable insight toward what issues need to be addressed, as well as how and why these issues affect users involved in disputes.

Background: Consumer-to-consumer (C2C) e-commerce involves consumers re-selling products to other consumers using online platforms. Research identifies trust as a major factor in this exchange. It concludes that seller-generated product descriptions can mitigate mistrust. Further, technical and professional communication research can reveal what content sellers tend to provide and can reveal how platform design may encourage that content. Literature review: C2C e-commerce and TPC researchers agree that mistrust can be mitigated by detailed content, and they call for platform designers to help improve platform and seller reputations. Research questions: 1. What content do sellers provide about their technical products? 2. How do the platforms' web form designs and the associated documentation about listing a product for sale encourage certain content types? Research methodology: Four platforms were chosen using specific criteria. Product descriptions were collected once per week for six weeks, generating 1900 product descriptions. These descriptions were unitized and given reliable content categories, a methodology called quantitative content analysis. Further, the documentation and processes for posting items were explored to determine how they may encourage content types. Results/discussion: Sellers mostly provide product information and sales procedures, and they rarely give benefits and goodwill to the buyer. The platform design seems to encourage this content because of the content-entry process, the content-entry options, and the required and unrequired content entry. Conclusions: This study invites technical and professional communicators to provide more guidelines for users about the kinds of content they may include, and designers to explore the content entry process using usability and user-experience research.

Preview this article: Review Essay: Se hace camino al andar or 道行之而成: Performing Rhetorical Way-Making, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/71/2/collegecompositionandcommunication30425-1.gif

Other| November 21 2019 Books of Interest Michael Kennedy; Michael Kennedy Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Mark Schaukowitch Mark Schaukowitch Department of English Language and Literature, University of South Carolina Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2019) 52 (4): 437–444. https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.52.4.0437 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Michael Kennedy, Mark Schaukowitch; Books of Interest. Philosophy & Rhetoric 21 November 2019; 52 (4): 437–444. doi: https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.52.4.0437 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search You do not currently have access to this content.