Archive | agency RSS feed for this section

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.

MindMap: Week 15

mindmap

For my final mindmap, I had to abandon Popplet. I enlarged all of my nodes, printed the Popplet, and began color coding the lines. I think my biggest frustration was that I wanted color coded lines so that the connections were easier to trace (I also wanted to be able to multicolor the different nodes, but my mind cringed at the unsightly mess that would ensue).

Because last week I began organizing by distinguishing between human and nonhuman agency, that’s what I began with in revising my mindmap again. I removed the nodes that identified agency, though, so I didn’t really feel like I had a starting place, and so I just began drawing arbitrary lines between the many nodes that allowed for human or nonhuman agency.

The challenge of where to begin also plagued me as it came to my next two categories. By groupings and individuals, I meant “does the theory analyze based on groups or individuals”? I realized that the majority of the theories we’ve read this semester break analysis down according to groups rather than individuals. As Latour demonstrated, this is probably due to the challenges of trying to make any sort of statement based on one individual.

I also wanted to account for the theories that considered the potential multiple levels of networks (e.g. CHAT, Spinuzz), which I differentiate from theories that consider the multitude of aspects that form networks (e.g. Latour, Rickerts).

Next, I identified which theories considered systems as hierarchical and which considered them rhizomatic. I did identify starting places for these connections, namely with Deleuze and Guattari as the starting place for rhizomal structures and Althusser as the starting place for hierarchical structures. This is due to their explicit focus on these structures rather than their chronological appearance in either the class or the scholarship.

Finally, I drew connections between the approach used to analyze the networks: whether we begin externally and branch outwards or externally and dig in. I saw this as more than analyzing and individual or a group–instead, I saw the distinctions as a focus on analyzing activities or behaviors  vs. cultures and/or ideologies.

Basically, my revised mindmap is a collection of binaries, but the binaries are not necessarily consistent. There are parallels and oppositions for almost all of these theories. Revising the mindmap and seeing these connections and distinctions definitely helps me think through my Frankentheory a little more and how the ones I’ve chosen help fill in each other’s gaps.

“Play Ball!” MindMap Reframed

http://popplet.com/app/#/1571354 So, I puzzled over how to reconceptualize a mindmap 15 weeks in the making using concepts, rather than components. I reviewed our class syllabus for footholds, pondered my case study foci, watched a little ESPN on a break, checked … Continue reading

MindMap: Week 14

MindMap14

I actually got confused and thought we were supposed to start revising our Mindmaps last week. So, I started re-envisioning it based on the Theory Tree my group did–thinking about the connections chronologically and by topic. It wasn’t going well. My Mindmap was big and hard to see/follow. There were too many nodes! Then I looked at the schedule again, realized I was wrong, and gave up.

This week, however, I had a little more energy and vision in my remapping. One of the stand-out moments in class for me was when Shelley explained that most new media scholars prefer Actor Network Theory because it allows for non-human objects to serve as actors or mediators. So, I decided to begin my remapped Mindmap by dividing the theories according to those that account only for human agency and those that account for non-human agency.

Off to the side in blue are the nodes that I need to revisit and add back in. Some I didn’t understand well enough to think about agency (Foucault) and some I just don’t remember as well. I plan to add them back in next week and start to think about other concepts that will be important to my OoS as well, such as boundaries, hierarchies, and complexity.

Mindmap #13: Concept Groupings 1

This week is the first of two focused on grouping theorists and/or theories by concepts. I identified five concept groups to which I’ve connected theories: Agency, Flow, Meaning, Boundaries, and Composition/Rhetoric. I’ve included a screenshot of the area I’ve set aside for concept grouping, along with a full-map version.

Popplet mindmap visualization

Concept Groupings, Week 1 (Inset): Putting Theories in Place (Popplet)

Popplet mindmap visualization

The Entire Mindmap: Concept Groupings on the Left (Popplet)

I described the concept groups as follows:

  • Agency: Individual nodes (as opposed to groups of nodes) are given partial or full agency in the network.
  • Flow: There is movement of some material through or in the network.
  • Meaning: That which flows through the network has intrinsic meaning; it is not simply material.
  • Boundaries: The theory offers some recognition of boundaries of the network, either as affordances or as constraints to the operation or definition of the network.
  • Composition/Rhetoric: Theory offers direct or indirect reference to rhet/comp, or originates in rhet/comp.

I chose these concepts in part because several have been part of our inquiry throughout the semester and in part because these are aspects of networks that interest me most. I am becoming especially interested in boundaries in networks, whether the result of framework or infrastructure constraints or the result of relatively arbitrary efforts to circumscribe networks for study or description.

Geopolitical boundaries fascinate me, the result of growing up in Israel. I experienced early in my adolescence the arbitrary nature and origin of current Middle Eastern boundaries initiated through global political interests and will after World War I and, to a lesser extent, World War II. With an Israeli visa stamp in my passport, I remain a victim of those arbitrary borders — with few exceptions, I can’t cross the border into most Arab states using that passport. I can visit Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Oman, and UAE, but I’m unable to visit Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, smaller Persian Gulf states or North African Arab states (Israeli Passport, 2014).

I would argue that the root of many socio-political conflicts in the Middle East stem from global influence on local boundaries. For example, the current Syrian civil war pits the minority Alawite ruling authority against the Sunni majority, the result of poorly-planned and articulated boundaries among various people groups with historic enmity toward one another. Not that individual nation-states or regions for specific people groups is the answer — reference ongoing enmity between Pakistan and India — but borders drawn in collaboration with, rather than enforced upon, local groups would surely have addressed, even mitigated, some of the pent-up enmity that has recently exploded in violence in Syria and surrounding nations. Boundaries are deeply decisive in the Middle East as borders, but they are also deeply decisive as concepts and socio-political realities. The result of divisiveness (differentiation) is discourse, and the rhetoric of boundaries, whether in reference to tricksters or Middle Eastern borders or networks, fascinates me.

At any rate, this week I limited connections to the theories rather than the theorists. I’ve maintained a running list of theories in the upper-left corner of my mindmap, each of which I’ve connected as Theorized and/or Operationalized. I’ve used that list of theories for connections. Next week, in addition to adding a concept or two, I’ll connect individual theorists to the concept groupings. This will weave a remarkably tangled web. It might even be ambient.

Reference

Israeli passport. (2014, March 27). Wikipedia. Retrieved 19 April 2014 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_passport

[ Feature image: The wall between Israel and Palestine. CC licensed image from Flickr user Peter Barwick ]

Mind Map: Ecologies Part II (March 30th)

Link: http://popplet.com/app/#/1571354 Last week’s activities asked us to apply our network questions to the Ecology readings of Syverson, Spellman, the Cary Institute, and fill in the gaps with Guattari, resulting in new connections for my mind map. And even though … Continue reading

Mind Map: Week 8

ENG  894 Mind Map8For this week’s update to my mindmap, I created two new primary nodes–one for Latour and one for Spinuzzi. To Latour I added the primary features of actor-network theory (ANT): it’s an ontology, allows for multiplicity, and considers agency as distributed. To Latour, I added the primary features of activity theory (even though he offers a comparison of the two): distributed cognition, causality, and human agency.

It’s interesting to begin to consider the theories that we’ve read thus far in terms of activity theory and ANT. Even though it at first seems that we might find activity theory easier to understand in terms of analysis methods, I can see where much of what we have read can be seen through the lens of ANT. As Shelley explained, we can consider genre theories (especially Popham’s boundary objects) through ANT by considering how genres might act as actants. Additionally, even Bitzer seems take an ANT approach, positioning events as exigences.


Mindmap #5: Operationalizing Theories

In this week’s mindmap, I started thinking about big-picture issues, like operationalization and agency.

Mindmap visualization

Mindmap #5: Added Genre Tracing, Locus of Agency, and Operationalization (Popplet)

Theorized vs. Operationalized

In terms of operationalization, I added nodes for Theorized and Operationalized, relating to each of the theories we’ve discussed to date. I found Hardware/Network descriptions matched Genre Tracing as operationalized, while the other theories were, as the name implies, largely theorized. Assessment Theory from my reading of Crow in DWAE made the cut as both operationalized and theorized, too. Foucault I labeled purely theorized, while Rhetorical Theories and Genre Theories offered traces of operationalization, if not quite to the extent of Spinuzzi’s Genre Tracing. Hardware and Network descriptions give us very little of the theorized; they are all about the operationalized.

Locus of Agency

Regarding agency, I add Spinuzzi’s genre tracing as a theory and visualized it, in part, in terms of locus of agency. Centripetal impulses for change have as their locus of agency central authorities, while centrifugal impulses for change have as their locus of agency individual workers (p. 20). Central authority originates and controls the official activity system, so I termed the locus of agency the Activity/Creator Node; local workers originate unofficial workarounds at the operations level, so I terms this locus of agency the Operations/Worker Node. I started the process of applying locus of agency to Crow’s assessment theory, where I proposed that the composition to be assessed falls squarely in the operations/worker node of an assessment network, with the assessment itself (and the surveillant assemblage of assessed assignments) managed and controlled at the activity/creator mode. I’d like to spend a little more time thinking about how locus of agency might be more broadly applicable to these various theorists we’re reading, so I anticipate reworking the mindmap design with this in mind as part of my next update.

Trust in a System

Speaking of the next update, in my last post, Mindmap #4: Drawing Some Genre Lines, I concluded by suggesting I might include trust in the mindmap. I considered how and where to incorporate trust, but I think I found locus of agency a more complex way of addressing issues of trust. Nodes in a network system — or perhaps more accurately an activity system, according to Spinuzzi — can be placed on a continuum between centripetal and centrifugal impulses. Nodes more closely aligned to centripetal impulses are likely to trust centralized agency, while nodes more closely aligned to centrifugal impulses are likely to trust localized agency. In an assessment system, for example, students are likely to align more closely with aspects of the system that offer localized agency, like the freedom to define or envision audience, mode, and other aspects of the rhetorical situation. Administrators are likely to align more closely with aspects of the system that offer centralized agency, like developing consistent rubrics for use in assessments across the system or incorporating a single interface for posting assignments. Teachers are going to be found somewhere in the middle, advocating for localized treatments of rhetorical situation while implementing (or adapting) centralized assessment tools. Students will more likely trust teachers who adapt centralized assessment tools to their localized rhetorical situations; students will less likely trust teachers who implement centralized assessment tools without localized workarounds. Administrators will more likely trust teachers who implement centralized assessment tools without localized workarounds; administrators will less likely trust teachers who adapt centralized assessment tools to their localized rhetorical situations.

Trust becomes the result of a differentiated relationship between impulse and locus of agency. When impulse (on a continuum from centripetal to centrifugal) leans toward centralization, systemic locus of agency is more trusted. When impulse leans toward localization, operational locus of agency is more trusted. I hope to work through this emerging understanding of trust and agency as I continue developing the visualization.

[Killbot Assembly Line: Creative Commons licensed image from Flickr user pasukaru76]

Case Study #1: To the Guild Network, I Present a Bazerman

Image hosted in article "Drama Mamas: How to find a World of Warcraft guild" on Joystiq's WoW Insider

Image hosted in article “Drama Mamas: How to find a World of Warcraft guild” on Joystiq’s WoW Insider

In the worlds of Massively Multiplayer Online (MMO) games, there can be two levels of networks in regards to guilds: on a game-global level (I make this specification because some games are actually global, with players from around the world joining in on different servers), the guilds themselves are part of a larger network as they compete against one another, and on a game-local level, the members in each guild represent nodes in their particular guild network. For this particular Case Study, I am going to be dealing with the game-local level in relation to World of Warcraft (WoW) as I best understand the framework of the game, and members have quite a bit of support in-game and out-of-game with the creation of, acceptance into/experience within, and dissolution of guilds. The concepts within Charles Bazerman’s chapter “Speech Acts, Genres, and Activity Systems: How Texts Organize Activity and People” provide interesting insight into how members of guilds become part of the mini-societies within gameworlds, especially in WoW, through the speech acts and social facts that emerge through player-player interaction.

Bazerman’s theory of speech acts and systems of human activity can define the local level of MMO guilds through interactions between players and the cohesion and disruption felt once those interactions begin to collect into trends and movements. What makes guilds in virtual environments so interesting is that players conform to rules and norms much as they would in the “real world,” which is an idea that plays into the concept of “social facts” that Bazerman describes as “those things people believe to be true, and therefore bear on how they define a situation” (312). In order for the guild to work, players have to agree on certain organizational methods (usually in the form of hierarchies based on player rankings, group goals like raids or more storytelling play styles, and newer members being linked with mentors), or else the guild divides and falls apart. Guilds themselves can have very fluid hierarchies, as players establish themselves and gain rank, or as other players drop out of the guild or the game for a variety of reasons (work, family, school, injuries, financial issues, and so on). Much like “real world” groups, communication styles in guilds differ, but tend to be two-way as members offer suggestions for how to approach a particular raid, where to find the best armor, and what strategies are useful against specific creatures or bosses.

As a whole, these gamers generally agree on ideas like ranks as rightfully earned, that (most of the time) there should be a leader (or leaders) for raids and for the guild itself, and that the guild is a space worth joining. These agreements, or disagreements, come to define how the system works: are the raiding teams cohesive? Is there in-fighting among guild members? Is the guild strictly run or does the Guild Master encourage a more laissez faire style? Are newer players mentored by more seasoned players, or are they expected to learn on their own? The atmosphere of the group is determined by the group and the norms to which players are willing to submit, whether it is through explicit agreement or a quiet submission (though most gamers can be fairly vocal when they disagree or feel they are being treated unfairly).

Example of a "guild window" from WoW. Image hosted on WikiHow.

Example of a “guild window” from WoW. Image hosted on WikiHow.

Almost all of the interaction between players is done through speech acts, whether verbal or written. Players can either found their own guild or seek one out (through in-game means or through forums) that has already been established, and then gain acceptance into that guild (with a growing trend of actually having to file an application, especially for the more prestigious guilds). Once in a guild, players find that they have a balance of how much agency they can have within the group. Their abilities and experience define what role(s) they may play when raiding (tank, damage per second also known as dps, or healer), but the player can choose to hone skills that would give them access to other roles or make them more desirable as a combat buddy. Guild members can contact other members through the guild window (displayed above and below) for small raiding parties, or they may choose to join in larger raids (though stricter guilds demand players be present or they may be kicked out of the guild), and loot tends to be shared among players, with certain pieces being set aside for players trying to finish an armor set or guild officers being allowed first pick. For guilds that are more story-based, players have the chance to introduce origin stories for their characters, drawing on the mythology set up by the game creators, which allows players to carve out a space for themselves in the gameworld and establish their character as a more three-dimensional entity within the world and the group.

Each guild window includes a roster of members, which include options for each member to contact another member or to leave the guild altogether. Image hosted on WikiHow

Each guild window includes a roster of members, which include options for each member to contact another member or to leave the guild altogether. Image hosted on WikiHow

As social networks, guilds in WoW are the embodiment of communication technologies. While players initially had to depend on keyboard chats in order to communicate with other players, advancements in technology have opened the way for players to chat over headphones and now remote chats on cell phones. Players also communicate using official forums, through emails and phone calls, and may utilize websites like WoW Guild Hosting to stay in touch. One of the major motivations for a strong communication network within the guild is to prepare for and execute raids that require larger numbers of people. While there can be unexpected obstacles, guild and raid leaders focus on ensuring that members of raid groups understand their roles and the strategy the guild has decided on. Breakdowns in communication can be disastrous, ending with entire teams being slaughtered in more difficult dungeons (any experienced WoW player will shudder and laugh at the Leeroy Jenkins incident).

_

Doing well in raids and as a guild altogether has gained greater importance with the introduction of Guild Perks, moving from player motivation for guild banks (which is in-game storage) to actual competition to have and be included in a higher level guild. Guild perks, as defined by WoW Wiki, are “special benefits received when a guild reaches a particular guild level and the corresponding guild achievement.” This new dynamic of perks into the guild network has altered how WoW is played, with most players now belonging to a guild instead of traversing the world alone or with a companion/small group. Players come to be defined by what network they belong to, finding safety and prestige in being a connected node instead of a solitary adventurer.

Remote WoW guild chats on an android phone. Image hosted on Curse.

Remote WoW guild chats on an android phone. Image hosted on Curse.

Bazerman’s theory of speech acts allows me to look at how guild members become enough of a collective to create their own mini-society in a virtual space, which becomes even more interesting in light of the fact that these players may never meet in real life, are coming together based on common goals, and are being judged based on merit, personality, and design choices represented by their avatars’ appearances and classes. His theory is helpful in that it looks at how players’ interactions through speech acts start to create movements in the guild itself, helping to establish boundaries between players, norms for the group to follow as a whole, and can also bring about the dissolution of the guild. Though interaction between players is done through speech acts, Bazerman’s theories of genre, felicity conditions, and typification would help to define how the kinds of communication players have to enrich the game experience and ensure the success of their guilds.

To Make This Quest Just a Little Easier:

Works Cited

Bazerman, Charles. ”Speech Acts, Genres, and Activity Systems: How Texts Organize Activity and People.” What Writing Does and How It Does It: An Introduction to Analyzing Texts and Textual Practices. Charles Bazerman and Paul Prior. (Eds.). London: Routledge, 2004. 309-340[PDF]

WoW Wiki. Wikia, n.d. Web. 09 Feb. 2014.


Reading Notes: Spinuzzi

Spinuzzi, Clay. Tracing Genres through Organizations: A Sociocultural Approach to Information Design. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2003. Spinuzzi’s work is a practical application of theory, and as such serves as a fulcrum of sorts on which many of our previous theorists … Continue reading