Mueller, Derek. “Grasping Rhetoric and Composition by Its Long Tail: What Graphs Can Tell Us about the Field’s Changing Shape.” College Composition and Communication 64.1 (Septembter 2012): 195-223.
Mueller investigates 25 years of citations from the journal College Composition and Communication (1987-2011) to explore the discipline’s citation practices and changing shape. He uses graphs, lists, and tables (an application of distant reading methods drawn from Franco Moretti’s work) to demonstrate the field’s growing specialization, as shown by the diminishing frequency of top-cited scholars among the data set of citations. He uses Chris Anderson’s concept of the long tail to describe what he sees in the shifting citation practices of CCC articles: not only have the top-cited authors changed over 25 years (the scholars most frequently cited in 1987-1991 are not those most frequently cited in 2007-2011), but also there has been a growing number of once- or twice-cited authors or scholars, which shows the expansion and increasingly specialization of composition and rhetoric. Mueller offers his study as a way to query the field and ask how our graduate education curriculum and professional development prepare future scholars for the field of the future.
Chris Anderson – Wired magazine 2004: the long tail. Anderson used the long tail to describe market practices, showing how online retailers are able to capitalize on less-popular niche markets (Amazon v. Borders.) Pareto distribution/power law
contains a series of graphs – some looking at the aggregate data, others split into five-year subsets
distant reading – systematic, quantitative approach to data, a different scale than close reading, and this larger scale helps us recognize patterns and developments that are not always apparent at close range. Table of contents, article abstracts as an example of distant reading. They enable decision making: “Readers rely on these devices to make quick decisions about whether to read a particular article or not, but reading the journal through these devices alone is not quite the same as reading a scholarly article in the common sense of the activity” (198). (Mueller cites Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink in his endnote.)
the usefulness of graphs and distant reading – they encourage new questions
- Figure 1- page count and citation count over 25 years (both have increased)
- Figure 2- 102 most frequently cited authors in CCC from 1987-2011
- Figure 3 – top ten most frequently cited authors in CCC from 1987-2011, divided into 5-year intervals
- Figure 4 – Chris Anderson’s “Anatomy of the Long Tail”
- Figure 5 – the long tail, references to unique names in CCC works cited 1987-2011
- Figures 6-10 – the long tail, references to unique names in CCC works cited 1987-2011, split into 5-year intervals
there is no one stable field. Growing specialization isn’t a problem to solve; it is something to query and base our actions on (215-217)
more research in the dataset – how does an author’s citation practices change over time? Are citation practices from graduates of certain programs similar? (214)
the problem of keeping up with scholarship in the field. How can one read the whole long tail? How has the field changed because of increasing specialization? (214)
our understanding of the field is based on our own vantage point (217)
extension of study done by Phillips, Greenberg, and Gibson in 1993
16,726 citations in 491 journal articles published in CCC from 1987-2011 (25 years) (197)
Who was central when? What does that say about our field? (203)
problem: “citation listings lack dimension” – the works cited does not indicate the importance or general impact of a citation on the work as a whole
dappled field (206)
“From graphs, then, come new insights, new provocations, and new questions: what has changed, over time, in the relationship between the head of the curve and the long tail?” (215)
“A deliberate adjustment in the level of detail at which we ordinarily experience texts: this is a key motive when producing graphs as a distant reading method, and it is a common tactic for mediating large datasets, including scholarly corpora” (197-198).
“Certainly the figures at the top tell us something about citation practices and centrality in the journal’s scholarly conversation; however, the larger number of figures at the bottom indicates something more. It is, after all, in this long, flat expanse of unduplicated references that we can begin to assess just how broad-based the conversations (in a given journal) have grown – and just how much the centered, coherent, and familiar locus of conversation, based on citation practices, has slid” (210).
“Burke’s parlor is nowadays full and teeming, more crowded than ever before” (214).
“A changing disciplinary density: this is not a condition for us to solve; nonetheless, it demands a certain reckoning, particularly for graduate education and professional development” (219).