rhetorickly yours: works cited

Below you'll find some other ways to “engage” with the swipes. There are probably more ways to engage. So don't consider this, like, a complete list. These were just some things we thought you might find worth checking out.

You'll also find a little bit about our experiences creating Tindorhick.

Last: We promise: No monthly fee!

Just Some Ethics

There were 2wo major ethical dilemmas we had when making this project, when creating this textual activity.

Dilemma #1: The first has to do with the ethic of bringing a lot of information together that is often apart. Who we've been textually active with in the profiles we've created, besides us, had no say in what was either represented or brought together. So the profiles are influenced by our search engines and our own choices/biases. Still, we feel our project is worth it and can help citers better understand and/or at least feel more of a need to research who he/she/ze/they are citing.

Dilemma #2: The second has to do with evolution and/or change. Our project is, unfortunately, pretty static. And people's digital footprints change. Ideas change. Identities change. What we've done with this project is marry our partners to information that won't adapt/adjust/change/evolve like they will. So keep in mind the theory behind our webtext as it gets dated:) And we hope our webtext might inspire something new, something like this that is more dynamnic and participatory.

Just Some Curiosities

Professor Watchlist: Didja know there is a conservative website identifying radical scholars? Wow! Whoa! And we’re afraid to link to it. But at least two people in our database are in it: Aneil Rallin and Asao Inoue. We guess it is kinda a Tindorhick site but promoting conservative bias and conservative ideas in education.

Surprising Research: Just thought this was cool and not the typical stuff you'd see from rhet/compers. Heather Lee Branstetter wrote a nonfiction history, Selling Sex in the Silver Valley: A Business Doing Pleasure. And Jonathan Alexander writes creative non-fiction and published a memoir.

Surprising Findings: Vershawn Ashanti Young is a performance artist and actor! Susan Jarratt is a naturalist and birder! Jonathan Alexander is the YA section editor for the Los Angeles Review of Books and interviews authors for a section called “Writing Sex.” Paul Kei Matsuda has served as a program developer, evaluator and consultant for language programs and graduate programs throughout the U.S. and around the world. Carolyn Calhoon-Dillahunt and her husband make wine as a hobby. Marilyn Valentino traveled the world with her husband for two years after graduating from undergrad.

Just Some Gaps

As we worked on creating profiles, we noticed some gaps. For example, relatively few of the scholars had Twitter accounts or personal websites where they could share more information about themselves beyond their university/college biographies. We noticed that most articulated their research interests very broadly (ex: “rhetoric and composition”), perhaps to appeal to a range of possible student interests. In addition, very few of the scholars listed their preferred pronouns, ethnicity, or sexuality. In fact, while we had originally planned to include this information on profiles, there were so many gaps that we could not do so in any reliable way. Very few college/university bios included personal information, such as a sentence that “X Scholar” lives by the lake with their two kids. And it was not common to find sample syllabi for courses or much beyond a course description to give colleagues or students a sense of what these individuals teach and what their pedagogical approach is. We also noticed that, while many of the folks we reviewed had LinkedIn accounts, their accounts were sparse, with very little information provided. None of the gaps we noticed are necessarily problematic; however, these gaps do reveal spaces for us to do more with our public profiles. We would argue that, in particular, if a scholar’s identity is in some way tied to their research, such as a latina woman researching latina rhetoric, it would make sense for them to give information about this aspect of their identity.

Just Some Names

We noticed that there were some more popular names in our field. We're not saying if you name your kids these names they'll become rhetoric and composition professors or something, but we aren't not saying that either. There were 3hree Deborahs (4our if you count Deborah Tannen who was cited 2wice in “cited”) and 3hree Lisas!

Just Some Pics

Take a look at all the pics at once without having to select. You might try to click on things but ya can't. These are just the pics! What do you notice about perceived ethnicity, race, SES, personality? The possibilities are endless.

Just Some Profiles

Take a look at all the profiles without having to Tindorhick.

dating editors

dating chairs

dating winners

dating cited

dating us

Just Some Things

What follows are some things we noticed that might be something.

Across the Universe

a. suresh canagaraha was both an award winner (Braddock) and a most cited.
bryan crable and karen e. whedbee won the Kneupper Award twice in the past 20wenty years.
charles bazerman was both a chair (CCCC) and a most cited.
gregory clark was both a chair (RSA) and editor (RSQ).
kathleen blake yancey was both a chair (CCCC) and editor (CCC).
malea powell was both both a chair (CCCC) and editor (CCC).

Just Some Cite-matics

Here's a list of all who got cited at least two times over the 20wenty years of awards. This kinda feels like time travel.

Repetition makes the heart grow fonder (all in alphabetical order)

michel foucault (5)
peter elbow (5)
a. suresh canagarajah (4)
charles bazerman (4)
braj b. kachru(3)
deborah brandt (3)
paul kei matsuda (3)
shirley brice heath (3)
susan wells (3)
alastair pennycook (2)
adam banks (2)
bruce horner (2)
chris thaiss (2)
constant leung (2)
deborah tannen (2)
david bartholomae (2)
douglas downs (2)
eve kosofsky sedgwick (2)
harvey j. graff (2)
jeff rice (2)
linda adler-kassner (2)
linda harklau (2)
malea powell (2)
mary louise pratt (2)
min-zhan lu (2)
plato (2)
shannon carter (2)
steve parks (2)
w.e.b. du bois (2)

Just Some of Our Experiences

Bailey's Experiences
Throughout the process of finding biography information on the Braddock and Kneupper Award winners, I found that I enjoyed looking elsewhere to find out about who these people were. Although most information that I did gather on these scholars were through their college or university biography page, other personal information was acquired from websites like Rate My Professor and LinkedIn. As someone who is from a much younger generation than these scholars, it was rather interesting to see the comments by students on their teaching methods and how they run their class. This was one of the methods I think I would take into account when deciding whether I want to cite an author; if they have multiple and consistently negative reviews by students, I feel that in understanding students, I will refrain from citing that author. When I was citing these authors and gathering information, I found that I was most confident with the well-known scholars such as Peter Elbow and Charles Bazerman. In saying “well-known,” I suppose I am referring to their lengthy tie spent as a scholar and the amount of information I was able to find on them. If a scholar had a Wikipedia, college page, and Rate My Professors page for example, I felt that I was able to trust that they are reliable. The more that was written about these scholars make me feel more likely to read their materials and cite them in my own work. Secondly there were also some scholars that didn’t have as much information online. For whatever the reason may be, it brings into question whether it is unfair to not trust them because they don’t share a lot of personal information. I don’t think it is necessarily fair to immediately distrust those who do not have a lot of their information online. There are some scholars who might want privacy or feel uncomfortable with the digital age, so they do not have social media pages or websites. Some people might feel that the world is more dangerous than it actually is, causing the resistance to share personal information such as where they’re from and where they work online. This could help explain the lack of sources for certain scholars. However, I think that if it is extremely difficult to even find a Wikipedia page or write up on a scholar, it does allow for some suspicion from those trying to cite them. Especially today, the amount that an author appears online aids in their credibility and likelihood of being cited.

Paul's Experiences
So wow! I learned a lot and a little:) There were some scholars that are really out there, like with regards to information. A. Suresh Canagarajah is one, for instance, whose university profile was really thorough and helpful. It had a biography section, a scholarship and pedagogy section, and a community service section, all going into detail about who he is and why he does what he does. It was really looooong though:) Other scholars were a little harder to find information about. Like who the heck is Sabrina Marsh! What we found sounds like ad copy for a consulting firm. Maybe there is more out there. Ok-non-sequitur. I hate my RateMyProfessors rating at McDaniel College! Only 2wo ratings but one like kept me up at night:( Plus, it wasn't exactly true. My class on branding and social media where students blog, I say I know this isn't in real life but I'd like to use MLA for any citations. And in general when you blog it is good practice to cite somehow! As far as it has an effect on who I cite and get textually active with...doesn't do much, which sucks, because I wanna know more about these characters, these scholacters:) Apaulogeez if this answer's terrible. I think all my creativity and insight went into the project.

Jenna's Experiences
While Paul did the hard work of building the site, much of my time was spent on creating the databases of names and images and collecting the information for individual profiles, as well as working with Paul on strategy–determining what to include and why…or why not. One thing I noticed that I had a strong discomfort with was trying to identify someone’s race or pronouns if they had not explicitly stated them; while assumptions can be made, those assumptions are necessarily problematic. I wanted to be able to say, from looking at the pictures and profiles, that the field’s leading scholars and the shapers of our field are becoming increasingly diverse, for example. I think that’s true, but it’s hard to know for sure based on the information we can glean publicly about these scholars. I found myself interested in the images, trying to see what texts these rhetoricians had on their bookshelves or pondering about why they selected a particular background - a photo of them traveling versus a photo of them in their offices. At the same time, I knew I couldn’t draw many accurate conclusions from these interests, particularly if I could only rely on their university profiles rather than their own personal websites because there might be branding requirements or constraints, among other issues. Ultimately, I found value in the creation of a website that humanizes the people who we read all the time in our field and the people who shape who and what we read. Their photos, websites, Twitter profiles, Wikipedia pages, and YouTube videos left me wanting to befriend some and question others, cite some more and some less. While we found that we can’t give you, our readers, accurate stats (e.g., 60% of CCCC presidents have been white men), we hope we have offered a different lens or view of the field and those shaping it.

tindorhick

+ plus