We invite readers to imagine Graphic RHM as more than a column but a growing community of practice (CoP) and offer two analogies for doing so: 1) a mycelial network with connections branching across the fields of rhetoric, health and medicine, and the graphic arts, and 2) a beehive, where sustained growth comes from intentional contributions and shared effort. The comics featured in Column 2 (https://medicalrhetoric .com /graphicRHM /home /archive/column -2/), including Ann E. Fink’s “The Work of Grief,” reflect the range and depth of work emerging from this CoP.

This dialogue examines rural health and healthcare by putting rhetoricians who study rural communities in direct conversation with healthcare professionals who practice in and advocate for rural communities. Thematic analysis of the dialogue revealed that conversations about healthcare in rural communities can simultaneously address what rural communities lack, how rural communities are exploited, and how strong and resilient rural communities are, while also emphasizing what opportunities there are for scholars and practitioners to partner together for the benefit of rural communities. The dialogue demonstrates how working directly with key stakeholders like medical providers can be both practically and intellectually fruitful when addressing complex issues like rural health and RHM.

With significantly higher rates of comorbidities and limited access to health care, some Appalachian rural communities face magnified health challenges due to COVID-19. This article looks at one example of how data visualizations might draw attention to health care realities in rural communities and yet render invisible the realities of the most vulnerable community members. The authors urge technical and professional communicators to contextualize data-driven accounts of public health crises in order to call attention to the needs of rural communities and support community members who are multiply marginalized and thus especially vulnerable.

In this essay, we extend prior discussions of user interactions with wearable devices, framing these interactions in the context of identification and rhetorical invention. We identify the limitations of the preset identifications made available by the logic of what we term screened wearing, a representationalist framework for understanding wearable devices and the data they produce. In contrast to these logics, we identify the inventional opportunities for wearables enabled by what we term diffractive wearing, an open-ended approach to wearables that situates data within larger systems of activity.

As wearables become increasingly prevalent, there is a concurrent and growing expectation that we use these devices to track and monitor our bodily states in order to be responsible "biocitizens." To mitigate this, some health, design, and usability scholars have advocated for greater patient control over health data. To support these efforts, this article offers a set of criteria for analyzing wearables, criteria that account for the handling of data and user connections via wearables as they relate to three priorities: accessibility, adaptability, and iterability. These are meant to support analyses that will clarify the ways wearables can more ethically serve end-users'---that is, patients' and wearers'---emerging needs, rather than primarily serving the intermediary goals of care delivery personnel and systems to monitor and manage patient behavior. To do this, this article addresses the usability of wearables as it relates to other critical care issues, such as "information integrity" and enabling patients to maintain their own health records and participate in shared decision making.

The essays in this special issue identify and analyze the rhetorics enabled and disabled, disclosed and foreclosed by wearable devices and the discourses attending to them, focusing on new rhetoric...

Preview this article: Comment & Response: A comment on "Conversation at a Critical Moment: Hybrid Courses and the Future of Writing Programs", Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/72/5/collegeenglish10805-1.gif

Because hybrid first-year college writing programs are an emerging phenomenon, it is important for composition specialists to identify their potential strengths and possible disadvantages. The author reviews the various forms that such programs have taken so far, and she engages in an extended critique of one particular institution’s model, questioning especially its claims to objectivity.