Revolution Lullabye

February 9, 2009

Rose and Weiser, The WPA as Researcher and Archivist

Rose, Shirley and Irwin Weiser. “The WPA as Researcher and Archivist.” In The Writing Program Administrator’s Resource. Eds. Stuart C. Brown and Theresa Enos. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2002. 275-302.

Writing program administrators need to see archiving the program’s records as an intregral and necessary part of their job, for it provides a rich source for future WPAs to understand the history and development of the specific program, and it invites questions that result in further WPA-led research in the program. Archiving takes more than just scanning documents and saving them or throwing them in a file cabinet; every writing program needs to develop documentation strategies that create systems in which to evaluate, analyze, and store records so that they can be both a usable and accessible archive. It is vital that the WPA oversees the archival process, for only she has the disciplinary knowledge through which to understand the potential rhetorical importance of a document (both currently and for future WPAs.) Futhermore, creating an archive of WPA documents demonstrates that WPA work is important knowledge that should be kept and looked at in the future.

Quotable Quotes

“Records become an archiveand thus a potential resource for research when intellectual control has been exercised over them; that is, they must be organized and accessible to use. Thus, archiving, like research, is a deliberate activity, one requiring the exercise of agency” (277).

“Writing program research and writing program records management are essential and interdependent responsbilities of every WPA” (276).

WPA work “merits documentation, preservation, and subsequent investigation” (284).

Notable Notes

work with professional archivist, but take responsibility of record storage and documentation strategy in your own hands

document-event relationship; shifting significance of a document with different audiences over time

importance of collaboration with document creators to create a dynamic documentation system that retains records as they are being made

the outcome of WPA research (through archiving) is immediate with obvious impact

difficulty of carving out the time with all other more immediate WPA duties to go about creating and maintaining an archive, requires long-range vision for the future of the program

Advertisements

January 23, 2009

Lunsford and Ede, “Audience Addressed/Audience Invoked”

This (and subsequent posts) were in editions 2, 3, and 4 of The Writing Teacher’s Sourcebook.

Lunsford, Andrea and Lisa Ede. “Audience Addressed/Audience Invoked: The Role of Audience in Composition Theory and Pedagogy” 243-257.

The two ways of thinking of a writer’s audience – audience addressed (an actual, researchable, real-world audience) and audience invoked (an audience that is imagined and created by the writer) – have significant shortcomings by themselves, but when combined, they form a more complex, accurate understanding of how audiences are formed, how they function, and how the circular relationship between writers and readers work. The major problems with the audience addressed model include the absence of the writer as a reader who forms an internal dialogue with the emerging text, constantly analyzing, getting feedback, and creating their own vision of who the audience might be. With the audience invoked model, there is an overemphasis of the Ong distinction between written and spoken communication (oral communicators can know their audiences; written communicators can’t), resulting in a writer-centered text that doesn’t take into consideration the concerns of potential readers. Lunsford and Ede emphasize the importance of the writer as a reader of their own work as part of the writing process.

Quotable Quotes

“Writers create readers and readers create writers” – that’s how communication happens (257)

“The most complete understanding of audience thus involves a synthesis of the perspectives we have termed audience addressed, with its focus on the reader, and audience invoked, with its focus on the writer” (255).

“integrated, interdependent nature of reading and writing” (256).

The two models fail to recognize “(1) the fluid, dynamic character of rhetorical situations; and (2) the integrated, interdependent nature of reading and writing” (244).

Blog at WordPress.com.