Today’s Plan:
- IFS Welcome to the Space Show / Linduo Auditorium / 7pm
- Engaging An Article (How I Read Research)
- For Next Session (in the Ross Computer Lab
Engaging an Article (How I Read Stuff for School)
I’m not trying to be condescending here–I know y’all know how to read. But I do want to cover how to engage a reading and highlight the specific things I do when I’m reading material that I think I’ll end up writing about.
In rhetoric we call these things “heuristics,” a set of loose procedures to help read, write, or think. The one I generally teach in this class is called a “worknet.” The worknet approach was developed by Derek Mueller, a writing professor at Virginia Tech, in his 2015 article “Mapping the Resourcefulness of Sources: A Worknet Pedagogy. Mueller’s process has four phases; I want to talk about three of them:
- Semantic
- Bibliographic
- Affinity
The Semantic phases focuses on vocabulary. I give a reading a quick gloss looking for important key words, phrases I don’t recognize, buzz words. What words do I need to investigate further? What words help me position this text in a discursive field, context, on-going conversation?
The Bibliographic phase looks at a writer’s sources. But to do this, we don’t turn to a works cited or reference list (assuming the piece even has that). Instead, we want to look for whomever gets cited or referenced in the work. Quotes or paraphrases. And then we want to focus on the ones that are important to the argument of the whole piece, not a drive-by or hook. What are the voices (sources) with which the writer wants to align themselves?
The Affinity phase looks at the writer themselves–where did they go to school? Where do they work? What else have they written? With whom do they write? What attitudes or agendas (and I mean that as neutrally as possible) do they bring to their writing?
When I am reading something–academic or otherwise–I’m not only thinking through Mueller’s worknet, but am working with a few other things in mind.
- First, I am looking for how the writer treats their opposition (assuming I am reading an argumentative thing). Do they work to fairly present opposing view points? Do they cite sources or rely on generalizations? Do they treat opponents evidence fairly or just dismiss it? Counterargument is central to quality thinking and democratic practice. How we treat words equates to how we treat people. I want to read and think with people who are nice.
- Second, I am looking for how the writer acknowledges (or doesn’t) the limitations of their own position. In academia, we call this “qualifying” claims. There’s a pretty significant difference between writing “AI will end education as we know it” and “AI presents a threat to the way we have thought about school” and “AI will require that students, parents, teachers, and administrators thoughtfully consider how to integrate into our schools.” The first one has a certainty to it that irks me.
- Third, and perhaps most important, I am always asking myself what the author wants me to get from the thing I am reading. What is the purpose? What do they want me to do differently?
- Fourth, I am thinking about the rhetorical relationship the author is asking me to accept, the identity they want me to adopt. Who do they want me to be? What do they expect me to think?
Not every one of these questions will be relevant to every reading I do. But taken together, they provide me a wide range of strategies for engaging a reading and positioning it on a map with other readings. They provide a path to thinking. So, that list:
- Special Vocabulary
- Important Sources / Evidence
- Who the writer is, what they do, (and for academic stuff) what else they have written, where they went to school, with whom they write
- How they treat their opponents
- How sincerely they engage counterarguments
- How they qualify their arguments
- What is the central arguments? What does the writer want me to do differently (idea > action)
- How the writer sets up readerly identities
As I read, I can try and figure out how to start writing. Do I have to research a term? Look more into sources? Imagine a stronger counter argument?
For Next Session
Here’s the potential reading list:
- “Why AI Isn’t Going to Make Art.” Chiang. AND “AI-Generated Art Won a Prize. Artists Aren’t Happy.” Roose. [On Creativity]
- “How AI could explode the economy” AND “Is AI Overrated?”
[Economy / Regulations] - “Why I’m Banning Student AI Use this Year” Boryga. AND “How AI Could Save (Not Destroy) Education.” Kahn. [Education]
- “How artificial intelligence can help combat systemic racism.” Murray AND “Colorado law enforcement welcomes speedy AI facial recognition technology along with rules, some advocates worry about privacy and misuse”. Sherry. [Alignment / Bias]
