Archive | Algorithm RSS feed for this section

For Researchers, Risk Is a Vanishing Luxury

The Chronicle of Higher Education — For Researchers, Risk Is a Vanishing Luxury: In her latest book, Roberta Ness, vice president for innovation at the University of Texas School of Public Health, says a basic mission of the American research university is eroding, with predictability prized over boldness at almost every level.

Universities increasingly judge faculty members on not just their research or teaching, but also their ability to pull in dollars. They hire scientists who pay their entire salaries through grants, an employment deal that breeds incrementalism. They use metrics biased toward short-term productivity. To guide their hiring, they use peer evaluations, which, research has shown, are naturally hostile to radical ideas.

“The lack of risk taking and associated conservatism is one of the most dispiriting aspects of modern university life,” said Andrew F. Read, a professor and director of the Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics at Pennsylvania State University. “I don’t see too many people in leadership roles worrying about it.”

Something that algorithms offer, or promise to offer, is predictability. One way algorithms may be influencing humans in perceptible, concrete ways is in valuing too highly algorithmic, computational, safely predictive thinking over abstract, associational, riskily speculative thinking.

For Researchers, Risk Is a Vanishing Luxury

The Chronicle of Higher Education — For Researchers, Risk Is a Vanishing Luxury: In her latest book, Roberta Ness, vice president for innovation at the University of Texas School of Public Health, says a basic mission of the American research university is eroding, with predictability prized over boldness at almost every level.

Universities increasingly judge faculty members on not just their research or teaching, but also their ability to pull in dollars. They hire scientists who pay their entire salaries through grants, an employment deal that breeds incrementalism. They use metrics biased toward short-term productivity. To guide their hiring, they use peer evaluations, which, research has shown, are naturally hostile to radical ideas.

“The lack of risk taking and associated conservatism is one of the most dispiriting aspects of modern university life,” said Andrew F. Read, a professor and director of the Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics at Pennsylvania State University. “I don’t see too many people in leadership roles worrying about it.”

Something that algorithms offer, or promise to offer, is predictability. One way algorithms may be influencing humans in perceptible, concrete ways is in valuing too highly algorithmic, computational, safely predictive thinking over abstract, associational, riskily speculative thinking.

Refusing to Be Evaluated by a Formula

Insider Higher Education — Refusing to Be Evaluated by a Formula: Rutgers faculty members, citing philosophical concerns and errors, are pushing back against the use of Academic Analytics to evaluate their productivity.

Martínez-San Miguel [professor of Latino and Hispanic Caribbean studies at Rutgers] gave the company the benefit of the doubt, guessing that at least some of the errors in her profile were the result a working algorithm that doesn’t value many of the interdisciplinary and Spanish-language journals she’s published in, as opposed to pure inaccuracy. Still, she asked, “How is this going to affect the next generation? Will they only publish in journals that are ranked, and does that preclude taking intellectual risks?”

Refusing to Be Evaluated by a Formula

Insider Higher Education — Refusing to Be Evaluated by a Formula: Rutgers faculty members, citing philosophical concerns and errors, are pushing back against the use of Academic Analytics to evaluate their productivity.

Martínez-San Miguel [professor of Latino and Hispanic Caribbean studies at Rutgers] gave the company the benefit of the doubt, guessing that at least some of the errors in her profile were the result a working algorithm that doesn’t value many of the interdisciplinary and Spanish-language journals she’s published in, as opposed to pure inaccuracy. Still, she asked, “How is this going to affect the next generation? Will they only publish in journals that are ranked, and does that preclude taking intellectual risks?”

When Your Boss Is an Uber Algorithm

MIT Technology Review – When Your Boss Is an Uber Algorithm: How Uber controls its drivers despite its claims to be a neutral platform

She [Carnegie Mellon University researcher Min Kyung Lee] found that much of the time they were happy with the “algorithmic management” that assigned fares and raised rates during busy periods. But drivers also complained that they were sometimes pushed to do things that seemed unreasonable, such as make pickups that weren’t nearby.

When Your Boss Is an Uber Algorithm

MIT Technology Review – When Your Boss Is an Uber Algorithm: How Uber controls its drivers despite its claims to be a neutral platform

She [Carnegie Mellon University researcher Min Kyung Lee] found that much of the time they were happy with the “algorithmic management” that assigned fares and raised rates during busy periods. But drivers also complained that they were sometimes pushed to do things that seemed unreasonable, such as make pickups that weren’t nearby.

Curating a MediaCommons Collection on Algorithms

screen capture

MediaCommons website screen capture: November 24, 2015

I was flattered a few months ago to be asked to develop a MediaCommons Field Guide survey on the general topic of algorithms. In consultation with (and following the sage advice of) the MediaCommons editorial team, I formulated the following question to be addressed by respondents:

What opportunities are available to influence the way algorithms are programmed, written, executed, and trusted?

This survey question seeks to explore ways that digital humanities pedagogy and praxis might influence, produce, direct, or capitalize on the automated activities of algorithms. As algorithms seek to more intelligently predict what we might like using profile data mined from our archived and ongoing online activities, how might our access to ideas and experiences may be limited or expanded by the predictive power of self-learning algorithm-based decisions? Will our access to and ability to explore the vast range of opportunities available to us be enhanced, or will the predictive authority of algorithms reshape the landscape and horizons of our existence? Might the predictions algorithms make prove so accurate that we have little need to see or experience beyond the horizons shaped by algorithms? Contrastingly, are there positive implications for the ways in which algorithms shape our various digital experiences? The question encompasses composing or running an algorithm along with the results of algorithmic activity.

Responses may explore any aspect of the question; some possible approaches include:

  • The role(s) of algorithms in the digital humanities
  • Ways algorithms are involved in communication
  • (Dis)connections between artificial and human intelligences
  • Coding ethical algorithms
  • Influences of algorithms on humanistic pursuits
  • Computer games as algorithmic praxis
  • “Hidden” and/or “visible” algorithms that influence human activity
  • Algorithms, surveillance, and privacy
  • Government and corporate interest/investment in algorithms
  • Big data, data analysis, algorithms and humanities research

I reached out to a wide range of colleagues, friends, acquaintances, and heroes of scholarship I’ve encountered in my doctoral studies and asked for 600± word responses to this question.

The response and results are exceeding my wildest expectations. Responses to my email requests for contributions were greeted with warmth and encouragement. Those who were unable to contribute made their apologies with grace and recommended other scholars I might consider contacting to request contributions. I followed up with those scholars, too, who turned out to be as warm and receptive as the first round of respondents; several of them, in turn, contributed to the project. The experience of requesting contributions has been pleasant, as has the process of collecting those contributions and getting them posted.

I’m currently in the process of curating the collection of contributions, encouraging conversations and engaging other scholars in the dialogue that’s emerging around these posts. You can join the conversation at MediaCommons. I’m taking this opportunity to share with you what’s out there and to encourage you to join the conversation. More posts are coming after the Thanksgiving holiday, when I’ll add a post to include them.

  1. Curator’s Introduction: Organisms in a World of Algorithms — Daniel Hocutt, University of Richmond & Old Dominion University
  2. Algorithms and Rhetorical Agency — Chris Ingraham, North Carolina State University
  3. The Essential Context: Theorizing the Coming Out Narrative as a Set of (Big) Data — Marc Ouellette, Old Dominion University
  4. Algorithmic Discrimination in Online Spaces — Estee Beck, UT-Arlington
  5. Toward Ambient Algorithms — Sean Contrey, Syracuse University
  6. How Will Near Future Writing Technologies Influence Teaching and Learning in Writing? — Bill Hart-Davidson, Michigan State University
  7. algorithms at the seam: machines reading humans +/- — Carl Whithaus, UC Davis
  8. How Are We Tracked Once We Press Play? Algorithmic Data Mining in Casual Video Games — Stephanie Vie, University of Central Florida
  9. Crowdsourcing Out the Sophistic Algorithms: An Ancient View — Walt Stevenson, University of Richmond

If you’re interested in the way algorithms are being used across a variety of fields, disciplines, industries, and situations, you will find something interesting among the posts in this collection. These contributions are intended to generate conversation — I hope you’ll read one or more and join the conversation. I can attest that the scholars whose contributions you’ll be reading are approachable and more than willing to enter into dialogue.

Curating a MediaCommons Collection on Algorithms

screen capture

MediaCommons website screen capture: November 24, 2015

I was flattered a few months ago to be asked to develop a MediaCommons Field Guide survey on the general topic of algorithms. In consultation with (and following the sage advice of) the MediaCommons editorial team, I formulated the following question to be addressed by respondents:

What opportunities are available to influence the way algorithms are programmed, written, executed, and trusted?

This survey question seeks to explore ways that digital humanities pedagogy and praxis might influence, produce, direct, or capitalize on the automated activities of algorithms. As algorithms seek to more intelligently predict what we might like using profile data mined from our archived and ongoing online activities, how might our access to ideas and experiences may be limited or expanded by the predictive power of self-learning algorithm-based decisions? Will our access to and ability to explore the vast range of opportunities available to us be enhanced, or will the predictive authority of algorithms reshape the landscape and horizons of our existence? Might the predictions algorithms make prove so accurate that we have little need to see or experience beyond the horizons shaped by algorithms? Contrastingly, are there positive implications for the ways in which algorithms shape our various digital experiences? The question encompasses composing or running an algorithm along with the results of algorithmic activity.

Responses may explore any aspect of the question; some possible approaches include:

  • The role(s) of algorithms in the digital humanities
  • Ways algorithms are involved in communication
  • (Dis)connections between artificial and human intelligences
  • Coding ethical algorithms
  • Influences of algorithms on humanistic pursuits
  • Computer games as algorithmic praxis
  • “Hidden” and/or “visible” algorithms that influence human activity
  • Algorithms, surveillance, and privacy
  • Government and corporate interest/investment in algorithms
  • Big data, data analysis, algorithms and humanities research

I reached out to a wide range of colleagues, friends, acquaintances, and heroes of scholarship I’ve encountered in my doctoral studies and asked for 600± word responses to this question.

The response and results are exceeding my wildest expectations. Responses to my email requests for contributions were greeted with warmth and encouragement. Those who were unable to contribute made their apologies with grace and recommended other scholars I might consider contacting to request contributions. I followed up with those scholars, too, who turned out to be as warm and receptive as the first round of respondents; several of them, in turn, contributed to the project. The experience of requesting contributions has been pleasant, as has the process of collecting those contributions and getting them posted.

I’m currently in the process of curating the collection of contributions, encouraging conversations and engaging other scholars in the dialogue that’s emerging around these posts. You can join the conversation at MediaCommons. I’m taking this opportunity to share with you what’s out there and to encourage you to join the conversation. More posts are coming after the Thanksgiving holiday, when I’ll add a post to include them.

  1. Curator’s Introduction: Organisms in a World of Algorithms — Daniel Hocutt, University of Richmond & Old Dominion University
  2. Algorithms and Rhetorical Agency — Chris Ingraham, North Carolina State University
  3. The Essential Context: Theorizing the Coming Out Narrative as a Set of (Big) Data — Marc Ouellette, Old Dominion University
  4. Algorithmic Discrimination in Online Spaces — Estee Beck, UT-Arlington
  5. Toward Ambient Algorithms — Sean Contrey, Syracuse University
  6. How Will Near Future Writing Technologies Influence Teaching and Learning in Writing? — Bill Hart-Davidson, Michigan State University
  7. algorithms at the seam: machines reading humans +/- — Carl Whithaus, UC Davis
  8. How Are We Tracked Once We Press Play? Algorithmic Data Mining in Casual Video Games — Stephanie Vie, University of Central Florida
  9. Crowdsourcing Out the Sophistic Algorithms: An Ancient View — Walt Stevenson, University of Richmond

If you’re interested in the way algorithms are being used across a variety of fields, disciplines, industries, and situations, you will find something interesting among the posts in this collection. These contributions are intended to generate conversation — I hope you’ll read one or more and join the conversation. I can attest that the scholars whose contributions you’ll be reading are approachable and more than willing to enter into dialogue.

Southwest Popular/American Culture Association Conference Roundup

I’m returning from the Southwest Popular/American Culture Association (SWPACA) conference in Albuquerque, New Mexico. It’s my first time to this conference, the first time to New Mexico, and the first time to present a paper since my master’s degree days. I’m pleased to report that my paper presentation went well, although I think I excelled more as a panel chair than as a paper presenter. Never mind. I’m fortunate to have skill sets for both.

My paper, Boundary Crossings: (T)here Lies the Trickster, proposed the mythological trickster construct as a contemporary boundary object, synthesizing the boundary object definitions of Star and Griesemer (1989), Popham (2005), and Wilson & Herndl (2007). I used a class I proposed and taught called “Tracking Contemporary Trickster” as a case study demonstrating the benefit that using a trickster lens as boundary object has on the way students see the world.

In a sense this was a remarkably interdisciplinary paper. Although I presented it in one of the Myth and Fairy Tales panels, my topic connected to mythology only in that it used the trickster, a character that appears in many mythologies, as my object of study. My critical approach was application of professional and technical composition theory (the boundary object), while my case study involved pedagogy.

My experience suggests that this interdisciplinarity is the conference’s strength. The conference ethos is deeply accepting and encouraging, and represents, with few exceptions, an invitational rather than persuasive rhetoric. Presentations were not about presenting claims and theories as fact, but were instead aimed at capturing ideas and sharing them with others for consideration and feedback. Post-presentation comments were not about tearing down or critiquing arguments, but about praising areas of strength and offering suggestions for continued, further, or parallel research work. Interdisciplinarity appeared to be encouraged and appreciated, with a range of critical approaches and methods accepted and valued. More importantly, individual presenters were valued, an ethos handed down in large part, as I observed by the panel chairs.

That said, I didn’t actually find my research niche during the conference. I guess I wasn’t really looking for a niche, but I found several of my ODU colleagues gravitating toward areas of study and consecutive panels in the same areas. Game studies was a very popular strand throughout the conference, and the networking and collegiality of the group was obvious and warm, even inviting to non-games people who were willing to listen and observe. As I seek to further refine my research agenda, particularly in the realm of the intersection of technology and rhetoric, I found the games studies researchers and scholars the most akin to my imagined future work. Digital games are spaces where technology and rhetoric intersect deeply and successfully, as are, perhaps to a lesser extent, classrooms. The parallels between classroom and game are striking and intriguing; there’s potentially a case to be made (one that I think Megan McKittrick is working toward) that the classroom itself is game space, or can be conceived of as game space.

A brief chat with Marc Ouellette about indexical signs and algorithmic rhetoric was intriguing. Ouellette shared that he is interested in questions surrounding the practice, current and future, of indexical signs subsuming the human sign — of identity becoming indexed as data points rather than human or lived. We talked very briefly about the use of so-called small data in medical practices for diagnostic and health maintenance purposes, along with the use of health product purchasing data by pharmaceutical companies to target advertising toward those who are depressed or under stress, based on their buying habits. He was quite open to the idea of algorithmic rhetoric. And he offered two pieces of advice: talk to the librarians and follow the content. Librarians use algorithms regularly and are well aware of the impact that algorithms have in providing search results. The content I think is about what people are seeking for, although I’m not entirely sure what that means or how it relates. It likely has to do with the materials that pass through our bandwidth, characterizing and beginning to develop algorithmic modeling that can start predicting search results. Maybe. I’ll need to think and read around this topic.

I also met briefly Stephanie Vie and Dawn Armfield, both rhetoric or composition/rhetoric or digital rhetoric and communications scholars that I follow on either Facebook or Twitter. It’s delightful to connect faces to Twitter handles.

I’m already asking myself if I intend to return next year, and I can’t yet answer that. I find the ethos useful and supportive, inviting, even — but I’m not sure that’s going to be enough. I think it will depend on what I believe I can propose in terms of algorithmic rhetoric or technical literacy at the conference, and whether I can find the right group of people with whom to network. Right now games studies, somewhat to my surprise, feels relatively comfortable, even though I myself neither play the games nor think about or theorize their development. But given the way game studies theory addresses agency and rhetorical choices, along with the digital component and the advanced use of technology to code and play games, the intersection of rhetoric and technology appears, at the moment, to include games studies. Perhaps games studies is a boundary object that will enable me to pull together disparate disciplines in a pedagogically sound way that focuses on the technical writing, rhetorical agency, and user-designed interface.

A final note, about being a panel chair. The Myth and Fairy Tales area chair was originally the panel chair for each of the three Myth and Fairy Tale sessions. However, she fell ill and asked each panel if one member would take on the role of chair for the session. I agreed to do so, which explains how I found myself both chairing and presenting in the same panel. I appreciated the opportunity to chair; as a result, I intend to volunteer to chair additional panels in the future, as appropriate and capable, both as valuable experience and as an opportunity to include the experience on my CV.

Southwest Popular/American Culture Association Conference Roundup

I’m returning from the Southwest Popular/American Culture Association (SWPACA) conference in Albuquerque, New Mexico. It’s my first time to this conference, the first time to New Mexico, and the first time to present a paper since my master’s degree days. I’m pleased to report that my paper presentation went well, although I think I excelled more as a panel chair than as a paper presenter. Never mind. I’m fortunate to have skill sets for both.

My paper, Boundary Crossings: (T)here Lies the Trickster, proposed the mythological trickster construct as a contemporary boundary object, synthesizing the boundary object definitions of Star and Griesemer (1989), Popham (2005), and Wilson & Herndl (2007). I used a class I proposed and taught called “Tracking Contemporary Trickster” as a case study demonstrating the benefit that using a trickster lens as boundary object has on the way students see the world.

In a sense this was a remarkably interdisciplinary paper. Although I presented it in one of the Myth and Fairy Tales panels, my topic connected to mythology only in that it used the trickster, a character that appears in many mythologies, as my object of study. My critical approach was application of professional and technical composition theory (the boundary object), while my case study involved pedagogy.

My experience suggests that this interdisciplinarity is the conference’s strength. The conference ethos is deeply accepting and encouraging, and represents, with few exceptions, an invitational rather than persuasive rhetoric. Presentations were not about presenting claims and theories as fact, but were instead aimed at capturing ideas and sharing them with others for consideration and feedback. Post-presentation comments were not about tearing down or critiquing arguments, but about praising areas of strength and offering suggestions for continued, further, or parallel research work. Interdisciplinarity appeared to be encouraged and appreciated, with a range of critical approaches and methods accepted and valued. More importantly, individual presenters were valued, an ethos handed down in large part, as I observed, by the panel chairs.

That said, I didn’t actually find my research niche during the conference. I guess I wasn’t really looking for a niche, but I found several of my ODU colleagues gravitating toward areas of study and consecutive panels in the same areas. Game studies was a very popular strand throughout the conference, and the networking and collegiality of the group was obvious and warm, even inviting to non-games people who were willing to listen and observe. As I seek to further refine my research agenda, particularly in the realm of the intersection of technology and rhetoric, I found the games studies researchers and scholars the most akin to my imagined future work. Digital games are spaces where technology and rhetoric intersect deeply and successfully, as are, perhaps to a lesser extent, classrooms. The parallels between classroom and game are striking and intriguing; there’s a strong case to be made (by Maury Brown or Megan McKittrick and other ODU games scholars, I think) that the classroom itself is game space, or can be conceived of as game space.

A brief chat with Marc Ouellette about indexical signs and algorithmic rhetoric was intriguing. Ouellette shared that he is interested in questions surrounding the practice, current and future, of indexical signs subsuming the human sign — of identity becoming indexed as data points rather than human or lived. We talked very briefly about the use of so-called small data in medical practices for diagnostic and health maintenance purposes, along with the use of health product purchasing data by pharmaceutical companies to target advertising toward those who are depressed or under stress, based on their buying habits. He was quite open to the idea of algorithmic rhetoric. And he offered two pieces of advice: talk to the librarians and follow the content. Librarians use algorithms regularly and are well aware of the impact that algorithms have in providing search results. The content I think is about what people are seeking for, although I’m not entirely sure what that means or how it relates. It likely has to do with the materials that pass through our bandwidth, characterizing and beginning to develop algorithmic modeling that can start predicting search results. Maybe. I’ll need to think and read around this topic.

I also met briefly Stephanie Vie and Dawn Armfield, both rhetoric or composition/rhetoric or digital rhetoric and communications scholars that I follow on either Facebook or Twitter. It’s delightful to connect faces to Twitter handles.

I’m already asking myself if I intend to return next year, and I can’t yet answer that. I find the ethos useful and supportive, inviting, even — but I’m not sure that’s going to be enough. I think it will depend on what I believe I can propose in terms of algorithmic rhetoric or technical literacy at the conference, and whether I can find the right group of people with whom to network. Right now games studies, somewhat to my surprise, feels relatively comfortable, even though I myself neither play the games nor think about or theorize their development. But given the way game studies theory addresses agency and rhetorical choices, along with the digital component and the advanced use of technology to code and play games, the intersection of rhetoric and technology appears, at the moment, to include games studies. Perhaps games studies is a boundary object that will enable me to pull together disparate disciplines in a pedagogically sound way that focuses on the technical writing, rhetorical agency, and user-designed interface.

A final note, about being a panel chair. The Myth and Fairy Tales area chair was originally the panel chair for each of the three Myth and Fairy Tale sessions. However, she fell ill and asked each panel if one member would take on the role of chair for the session. I agreed to do so, which explains how I found myself both chairing and presenting in the same panel. I appreciated the opportunity to chair; as a result, I intend to volunteer to chair additional panels in the future, as appropriate and capable, both as valuable experience and as an opportunity to include the experience on my CV.

Southwest Popular/American Culture Association Conference Roundup

I’m returning from the Southwest Popular/American Culture Association (SWPACA) conference in Albuquerque, New Mexico. It’s my first time to this conference, the first time to New Mexico, and the first time to present a paper since my master’s degree days. I’m pleased to report that my paper presentation went well, although I think I excelled more as a panel chair than as a paper presenter. Never mind. I’m fortunate to have skill sets for both.

My paper, Boundary Crossings: (T)here Lies the Trickster, proposed the mythological trickster construct as a contemporary boundary object, synthesizing the boundary object definitions of Star and Griesemer (1989), Popham (2005), and Wilson & Herndl (2007). I used a class I proposed and taught called “Tracking Contemporary Trickster” as a case study demonstrating the benefit that using a trickster lens as boundary object has on the way students see the world.

In a sense this was a remarkably interdisciplinary paper. Although I presented it in one of the Myth and Fairy Tales panels, my topic connected to mythology only in that it used the trickster, a character that appears in many mythologies, as my object of study. My critical approach was application of professional and technical composition theory (the boundary object), while my case study involved pedagogy.

My experience suggests that this interdisciplinarity is the conference’s strength. The conference ethos is deeply accepting and encouraging, and represents, with few exceptions, an invitational rather than persuasive rhetoric. Presentations were not about presenting claims and theories as fact, but were instead aimed at capturing ideas and sharing them with others for consideration and feedback. Post-presentation comments were not about tearing down or critiquing arguments, but about praising areas of strength and offering suggestions for continued, further, or parallel research work. Interdisciplinarity appeared to be encouraged and appreciated, with a range of critical approaches and methods accepted and valued. More importantly, individual presenters were valued, an ethos handed down in large part, as I observed, by the panel chairs.

That said, I didn’t actually find my research niche during the conference. I guess I wasn’t really looking for a niche, but I found several of my ODU colleagues gravitating toward areas of study and consecutive panels in the same areas. Game studies was a very popular strand throughout the conference, and the networking and collegiality of the group was obvious and warm, even inviting to non-games people who were willing to listen and observe. As I seek to further refine my research agenda, particularly in the realm of the intersection of technology and rhetoric, I found the games studies researchers and scholars the most akin to my imagined future work. Digital games are spaces where technology and rhetoric intersect deeply and successfully, as are, perhaps to a lesser extent, classrooms. The parallels between classroom and game are striking and intriguing; there’s a strong case to be made (by Maury Brown or Megan McKittrick and other ODU games scholars, I think) that the classroom itself is game space, or can be conceived of as game space.

A brief chat with Marc Ouellette about indexical signs and algorithmic rhetoric was intriguing. Ouellette shared that he is interested in questions surrounding the practice, current and future, of indexical signs subsuming the human sign — of identity becoming indexed as data points rather than human or lived. We talked very briefly about the use of so-called small data in medical practices for diagnostic and health maintenance purposes, along with the use of health product purchasing data by pharmaceutical companies to target advertising toward those who are depressed or under stress, based on their buying habits. He was quite open to the idea of algorithmic rhetoric. And he offered two pieces of advice: talk to the librarians and follow the content. Librarians use algorithms regularly and are well aware of the impact that algorithms have in providing search results. The content I think is about what people are seeking for, although I’m not entirely sure what that means or how it relates. It likely has to do with the materials that pass through our bandwidth, characterizing and beginning to develop algorithmic modeling that can start predicting search results. Maybe. I’ll need to think and read around this topic.

I also met briefly Stephanie Vie and Dawn Armfield, both rhetoric or composition/rhetoric or digital rhetoric and communications scholars that I follow on either Facebook or Twitter. It’s delightful to connect faces to Twitter handles.

I’m already asking myself if I intend to return next year, and I can’t yet answer that. I find the ethos useful and supportive, inviting, even — but I’m not sure that’s going to be enough. I think it will depend on what I believe I can propose in terms of algorithmic rhetoric or technical literacy at the conference, and whether I can find the right group of people with whom to network. Right now games studies, somewhat to my surprise, feels relatively comfortable, even though I myself neither play the games nor think about or theorize their development. But given the way game studies theory addresses agency and rhetorical choices, along with the digital component and the advanced use of technology to code and play games, the intersection of rhetoric and technology appears, at the moment, to include games studies. Perhaps games studies is a boundary object that will enable me to pull together disparate disciplines in a pedagogically sound way that focuses on the technical writing, rhetorical agency, and user-designed interface.

A final note, about being a panel chair. The Myth and Fairy Tales area chair was originally the panel chair for each of the three Myth and Fairy Tale sessions. However, she fell ill and asked each panel if one member would take on the role of chair for the session. I agreed to do so, which explains how I found myself both chairing and presenting in the same panel. I appreciated the opportunity to chair; as a result, I intend to volunteer to chair additional panels in the future, as appropriate and capable, both as valuable experience and as an opportunity to include the experience on my CV.

#MakeItHappy and Algorithmic Rhetoric

Check out this Gawker article on its attempts to reveal the insipidity of the nifty algorithm Coca Cola developed as part of its #MakeItHappy Twitter campaign. Several aspects of the story interest me, which I plan to address in upcoming posts. For now, consider this irony: Coke’s algorithm got called out by Gawker’s algorithm.

#MakeItHappy and Algorithmic Rhetoric

Check out this Gawker article on its attempts to reveal the insipidity of the nifty algorithm Coca Cola developed as part of its #MakeItHappy Twitter campaign. Several aspects of the story interest me, which I plan to address in upcoming posts. For now, consider this irony: Coke’s algorithm got called out by Gawker’s algorithm.