This special issue addresses social media and their effects on the field of technical communication. Through various methodologies and distinct sites of inquiry—from research into ways knowledge workers use specific social media sites, to collaborations by scholars across the globe using social media and other technologies, to classroom practices that investigate social media—contributors consider the imbricated nature of social media in public life and its significance to our work as researchers and teachers.

Abstract This article explores the boundaries of technical communication as knowledge work in the emerging era of social media. Analyzing the results of an annual survey offered each year from 2008 until 2011, the study reports on how knowledge workers use publicly available online services to support their work. The study proposes a distinction between sites and services when studying social media in knowledge work and concludes with an exploration of implications for technical communication pedagogy. Keywords: genreknowledge workonline servicessocial media Notes Note. Data from Divine, Ferro, and Zachry (Citation2011). Note. Empty cells represent questions not asked in the indicated year. Note. Bold values represent the highest percentage of participants reporting a single site in a given year. Note. Bold represents sites that were reported by 15% or more of all participants in 2011. Note. Data from Ferro and Zachry (p. 949). Additional informationNotes on contributorsToni Ferro Toni Ferro is a PhD candidate in the Department of Human Centered Design & Engineering at the University of Washington. She received her MS in human-centered design engineering at the University of Washington and her BS in general engineering at the University of Redlands. Mark Zachry Mark Zachry is a professor in the Department of Human Centered Design & Engineering at the University of Washington. His research areas include the communicative practices of organizations and the design of systems to support collaboration.

In this essay I explore the paradoxical operation of the rhetoric of individualism. While individualism suggests the demarcation of liberal subjects and even opposition to communities, groups, and collectives, its rhetorical deployment can call people together in powerful ways, offering them a common identity and a shared perspective. In short, the rhetoric of individualism can be used to create community. To illustrate the paradoxical operation of the rhetoric of individualism, I analyze William James's popular lecture “The Will to Believe,” which deployed individualism as a response to various social, political, and intellectual shifts at the end of the nineteenth century. In particular, James's individualist rhetoric helped foster a community of religious believers ready to oppose the evidentiary demands of modern science. Although “The Will to Believe” represents only one instance of the rhetoric of individualism, it suggests that community building may be a natural function of individualism's rhetorical deployment.

Preview this article: From the Editor, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/76/3/collegeenglish24522-1.gif

Preview this article: From the Editor: Outside Conventional Practices, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/65/2/collegecompositionandcommunication24500-1.gif

Other| November 01 2013 Addresses of Contributors to This Issue Rhetorica (2013) 31 (4): 466–467. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2013.31.4.466 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Addresses of Contributors to This Issue. Rhetorica 1 November 2013; 31 (4): 466–467. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2013.31.4.466 Download citation file: Ris (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 ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. © 2013 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved.2013 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Other| November 01 2013 Index to Volume 31 (2013) Rhetorica (2013) 31 (4): 461–465. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2013.31.4.461 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 Index to Volume 31 (2013). Rhetorica 1 November 2013; 31 (4): 461–465. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2013.31.4.461 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. © 2013 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved.2013 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Immediately, the Preface and introduction of Rex Hartson and Pardha A. Pyla's (2012) co-authored The UX Book: Process and Guidelines for Ensuring a Quality User Experience , grounds the reader in a specific overview of the practical and pedagogical components of the UX design process. The practical aspect of the text centers on what the authors call the UX lifecycle, a highly structured framework that orchestrates the many different design and evaluative stages of system or product completion. The pedagogical approach of the text is an awareness of audience that translates into a customizable book. Both authors encourage their readers to decide what parts of the text are of interest and to focus on those sections only. Central to the text's overall approach is the refrain "user experience is more than usability" (pg. xi). Within this approach, for instance, Hartson and Pyla address some of the ineffective metaphors that cloud or muddle the UX lifecycle process. Previous models often rely on testing, or lab-based metaphors that fail to generate a quality user experience. With the rise of design-oriented techniques today, the development process has been wrested from previously-held beliefs that a system or product can be generated independent of the user's environment.

Although rhetoric and composition has long engaged with emerging digital technologies, historians in our field have not yet in large part entered these conversations. In this special issue, we present four essays by scholars building digital historiographic projects, each of which directly addresses values and concerns that lie at the heart of critical practice in rhetoric and composition: engaging underrepresented and marginalized communities; taking up critically important questions regarding historiographic investigation; and emphasizing collaboration among both scholars and stakeholder groups. Together, these essays contribute significantly to the still nascent conversation regarding how the digital intersects with the historical.

y copy of the first issue of Literacy in Composition Studies is thoroughly marked up.It engages issues, questions, and even anxieties I have carried with me over my roughly twenty years as a teacher and literacy researcher.In an effort to continue the conversation I am going to take up two themes that thread through many of the initial articles and their responses.The first theme regards the conceptual tropes we use to describe our work.The second relates to transformative potential and, equally as important, limitations of scholarship that is directed to providing access and opportunity to historically disenfranchised students and communities.This interest in equity is something I believe many share across the areas of Literacy Education and Composition and Rhetoric.In his opening essay, Bruce Horner argues for a shift from spatial to temporal metaphors in the conceptualization of literacies.Spatial metaphors risk essentializing literacy practices-exoticizing or romanticizing them-and even reproducing the very autonomous ideologies the field has worked so hard to deconstruct.A methodological focus on temporality may help researchers work through some of these contradictions (Horner 4-5).In a similar vein, many of the subsequent authors invoke the terms "purpose, " "labor, " "intentionality, " "process, " "circulation, " "work, " and "movement, " a historicizing direction that I for the most part endorse, and which seems to be in line with the empirical realities of global migrations and transnationalism.My qualification is because phrases like "emergent dynamism" shade into the discourse of neoliberal incursions into education, which valorize innovation, as there will always be new literacies, and literate identities, to market.A renewed emphasis on temporality may also exist in tension with another acknowledgement made by several of the contributors: that there is often, following Pierre Bourdieu, significant social inertia and reproduction in the field of education, even as we work within and against the system to try to expand what constitutes academic knowledge and practice.This tension can induce some self-reflection and soul searching for scholars who try to balance an analytical disposition, the pressures to generate new terms and ideas for the academic market, and the desire to make a difference in students' lives.My own contribution engages these themes from the vantage point of having taught and conducted research with elementary school students and their families in predominantly under-

We understand "community literacy" as the domain for literacy work that exists outside of mainstream educational and work institutions.It can be found in programs devoted to adult education, early childhood education, reading initiatives, lifelong learning, workplace literacy, or work with marginalized populations, but it can also be found in more informal, ad hoc projects.For us, literacy is defined as the realm where attention is paid not just to content or to knowledge but to the symbolic means by which it is represented and used.Thus, literacy makes reference not just to letters and to text but to other multimodal and technological representations as well.

Other| October 01 2013 Contributors Pedagogy (2013) 13 (3): 563–565. https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-2377700 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Contributors. Pedagogy 1 October 2013; 13 (3): 563–565. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/15314200-2377700 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 Books & JournalsAll JournalsPedagogy Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. © 2013 by Duke University Press2013 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal Issue Section: Contributors You do not currently have access to this content.

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Acknowledgments This essay is an outcome of a workshop on the topic of "Sound Studies and Rhetoric" at the 2013 Rhetoric Society of America Summer Institute, created at the behest of Ph.D. candidate and workshop participant Jon Stone, held in Lawrence, Kansas, last June. The authors thank Jon for his advice and keen insights, as well as workshop "sounders": Katie Fargo Ahern, Gina L. Ercolini, Lisa Foster, Andrew Hansen, Jamie Landau, Martin Law, Amy Patterson, and Anne Shea. This essay is better read as a "report" collaboratively authored by the workshoppers.

Preview this article: From the Editor, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/76/1/collegeenglish24193-1.gif

Editor Kathleen Blake Yancey introduces this special issue.

Other| August 01 2013 Addresses of Contributors to This Issue Rhetorica (2013) 31 (3): 348–349. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2013.31.3.348 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Addresses of Contributors to This Issue. Rhetorica 1 August 2013; 31 (3): 348–349. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2013.31.3.348 Download citation file: Ris (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 ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. © 2013 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved.2013 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.