Here's the link to the online journal KAIROS:
http://english.ttu.edu/kairos/
Read issue 12.1 (Fall 07). (The spring 08 issue is up too, but 12.1 was the available issue in December when I was making choices.) I'll be eager to hear your thoughts on the conversation, the format, the publishing opportunities. Look all around this site.
Monday, January 28, 2008
KAIROS
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
As would be expected, the conventions for this fully online journal are fairly opened ended and flexible in terms of structuring information. The journal allows for fully developed websites (“Constructing a Tool for Assessing Scholarly Webtexts”), more leeway in terms of page layout and design, screenshots and pictures, and hyperlinks to other content.
In terms of the way content is presented, surprisingly (to me) the website developed for “Constructing a Tool…” uses a standard scientific format (navigation/content links include such standard headers as ‘Study Overview,’ Research Questions,’ ‘Methodology.’ Additionally, the author includes an abstract (the home page), her introduction starts with a purpose statement, quickly followed by a review of relevant literature (pretty standard).
On the other hand, the authors of “Collaboration, Literacy, Authorship: Using Social Networking Tools to Engage the Wisdom of Teachers” used an entirely different approach. For example, this article starts with a list of leading questions asking readers to reflect on how we ‘really’ viewing collaborative writing in the academy (setting up the ‘problem’). The 2nd paragraph then cites Bruffee’s seminal article (CE, 1984) providing the requisite credit as well as background info to launch into a more in depth exploration of the questions posed. The 3rd paragraph then simply restates the main question: ”Yet what really goes on in our classrooms and writing programs?” In the 4th paragraph, the authors ask another series of questions, yet seemingly more pointed and focused. The fifth paragraph then concedes the progress that has been made.
Rather than take a more traditional academic approach which might have been to credit Bruffee earlier on as well as discuss the progress/changes in teaching composition as a result then introduce the problem (i.e., ‘but we’re not really doing what Bruffee had in mind), instead the authors don’t discuss the ‘current state of affairs’ until the 5th paragraph. The body of the article uses specific examples and hyperlinks to Newsvine.com, Digg, and wikipedia to illustrate the nature of online ‘real world’ collaboration. The next section then discusses particular technologies used (and encouraged among their writing teachers) at University of South Florida. They also provide links to the various tools they use (as well as screen shots to illustrate).
In the closing paragraphs, the authors do add a few concessions for solitary writing (which, in using a standard academic format, would have probably appeared in the intro) as well as acknowledge the weakness of collaboration (which, again, would probably appear in the intro framed more as the ‘problem’ being addressed). Then, they close by executing a highly unorthodox academic move; they invite the reader to become a co-author!—“if you disagree or agree with us, if you believe you can add to our analysis, we invite you to visit this essay on the Web at http://teachingwiki.org/default.aspx/TeachingWiki/CollaborationLiteracyAuthorship.html and rewrite it. Don't be shy. Go ahead and add yourself as a coauthor!”
In contrast, “Where do I list this on my CV” seems to use a more traditional academic format. The author frames the essay in the first two paragraphs with Lanham’s “Electronic Word” as a launching point to discuss the implications of electronic scholarship and publishing (as well as self e-publishing—the question explored). In the second paragraph he also uses a personal anecdote about computer use at the time that Lanham’s article version first appeared in print in 1989 (the internet hadn’t yet been invented and personal computers weren’t widely available) when he was a grad student to illustrate the implications of Lanham’s predictions in hindsight (analogous to the revolution we’re currently in the midst of in terms of possibilities by electronic publication). In the third paragraph, he then links Lanham’s predictions about the ‘electronic word’ to publishing and as a lead-in to his discussion of the effect of electronic media on Scholarly publications (published in peer-reviewed, refereed journals) and scholarly publications (the self or web published work the author wants to address).
Here too the format as well as the presentation of content is more open-ended (as opposed to a print journal). The author uses screen shots to illustrate examples and includes hyperlinks.
Finally, there was link for ‘Call for Manifestos’ (which we have unfortunately missed!!--the due date was Sept. 07!) on the journal’s home page. The description is particularly intriguing: “…strong ideas acted on with passion don’t typically follow the models for how knowledge gets conveyed and acculturated within our field. This special issue seeks to change that.” Brilliant.
Candice, I too was suprised by the conventional opening of "Collaboration"--as I would have expected the authors to cut to the chase, especially since the article is long anyway and especially since the ending heats up so beautifully; I was quite amazed by what they're doing at South Florida--the range of collaborative activities. (I reviewed an alternative version of this article for C&C but don't think it got published--at least yet. It was quite different in that the author(s) discussed the resistance of teachers to all of these innovations--I really liked the article.) Did you by any chance create a log in for the praxis/wiki place? Evidently they're done with the conversations generated by these narratives--but I would like to hear what it was about.
Also--question for you and Greg and Leslie (not to exclude others): Where on this site do you imagine putting your work--and why?
I did look at the praxis/wiki but didn't create a log-in yet. I also really, really wanted to write a Manifesto (on visual rhetoric) when I saw the CFP--I just thought this was so intriguing and presented a genre in which one wouldn't have to so carefully adhere to standard academic format. I look forward to seeing that issue (this summer) and hope they'll do another issue in the future.
At Clemson last semester, Josephine had to prepare a manifesto as a class assignment----probably was asked to submit. What did you think of the idea of "narratives" (a really different form of publication also in that praxis section, I think.) I've watched KAIROS develop over time, and an abiding concern has been the credit one gets, the scholarly weight accruing to these alternative forms. So the piece on scholarly publication is the extension of a longstanding conversation about how to get tenure, jobs, etc. if this is your venue of publication. This problem may also account for the long Bruffee-laden intro to the collaboration piece.
Hmmm--we should also take a look at Parlor Press, which is a self-publishing venue (I don't know much about it but do know that people are using it).
This is the one journal I am pretty certain I will not attempt to publish in. I am, if not technophobic, at least techno anxious. That being said, I found the journal interesting. Really I found it challenging. I had trouble getting to the beginning of articles, or even deciding if the piece I was reading was what I had clicked on initially. I felt like my grandfather when VCRs first came out, and he had to ask me how to operate the remote. The overall display is somehow clean and very busy at the same time. I guess the point of this is a question. How important is technology and knowledge about it to people hoping to publish or teach in rhetoric and composition generally?
I don't mean to put down this journal, but only to express my fear that journals like this will be the norm in the near future, and those of us without savvy will be left out in the cold.
I agree with Dylan on two points. First, I also found the visual aspect of this site to be cleanly cluttered (if such a thing is possible). Although it wasn't completely off-putting or difficult to navigate, I think it could be done much better, especially for a site that deals specifically with electronic rhetoric!
Second, I don't think I would submit to this journal either, but for different reasons. Mainly, my focus for my class project has nothing to do with technology. As I read through the home page and submission guidelines, I found myself wishing that I was working on something relevant though. The website is very inviting for novices like me--they even state on the homepage that they like to work with "marginalized" authors such as grad students. I'll keep this in mind for my next project...
I guess I'm admitting my age here, but my first comments are in respect to reading on-line in the first place. I've always been the type of person who needs to have a document in front of them (hands-on). So getting back into the swing of things where digital media is concerned is somewhat challenging. In looking at KAIROS, I was initially overwhelmed, but I think it only had to the with the fears of a sometimes challenging technology resting at my fingertips. But as I slowly moved around the site, I became more comfortable and began focusing on the intent of KAIROS - "exploring the intersection of rhetoric, technology, and pedagogy" and how this digital scholarship is affected by these intersections.
I also looked carefully at the way the information was presented, the rhetorical strategies, and really, how comfortable/easy it is to move around this site. I was especially moved by the comment which states that KAIROS "supports marginalized voices in the academy" focusing on graduate students, adjunct faculty, and part-time faculty. I will remember to look for this in future issues.
I paid particular attention to the introduction of INVENTIO and wasn't really sure if they only published one webtext per year. That's what it sounded like. They mentioned that authors can examine their "reasoning...avenues...strategies, and meta-commentary on their work." They promise a close working relationship with the author with the main focus or intent of these webtexts is contributing to the efforts of "new" media scholarship. Doesn't sound so bad. It appears they fully explain their intent behind this new endeavor.
Moving on...I scrolled through Joyce Walker's "hyper.activity" in which she discusses considering writing in a digital environment and how the world is moving very slow in accepting this new part of how we can write.
Sections include praxis, Inventio, interviews, reviews (this was interesting), and news where a weblog is provided for discussion any issue regarding rhetoric, technology, and pedagogy. The language is inviting (I thought) and I look forward to viewing future issues.
Lastly, as far as the pursuit of publishing, anything's possible. Thanks for reading.
Dylan,
You can see by your own reaction why people positioned as innovators in new media are worried about their work counting in the context of job hunt and tenure and promotion. Their position is that they are on the frontlines of the new reading/writing landscape and such work is not easy and will not look like conventional publication. For example, how does a complex website work as an argument? Or does it, especially when its purpose may be to sustain opposing views rather than make its' own argument?
Most of us begin adding onto our traditional literacies little by little. For example all of my 102 reading assignments this term are taken from the web. I convert these to print documents for those few people who don't have access--about half the class prefers reading a print handout to reading on line. So together, I think we're entering a new literacy territory that Kairos supports.
Not to make this too long--but I also noted that here people do tend to collaborate, with one doing the content and the other the web design, which makes the prospect of publishing there a little less intimidating.
I too agree with Dylan. It is a bit daunting to think of publishing an article in such a tech-saavy publication. But that being said, most of us are TAs or have teaching experience. I find it compelling that we can hear about other's experiences about incorporating the internet/other technology into the classroom. I feel like the use of this blog in this class could be turned into an article (using an online tool to evaluate an online journal).
I found myself curious and impressed with the number of online resources: the book reviews of using technology/internet in the classroom. I had not realized there was so much out there to support these new methods of teachings.
The web authoring article was the most impressive. It seems that the articles show off a bit of technology (use of color, different page styles, etc.) that we wouldn't find in a printed periodical. It also seems that Kairos is interested in following up articles like the one on self-published text on a CV (version 2.0). The same level of scholarship appears in the articles that might appear in a printed counterpart, but because of the handy hyperlinks and such, it is much more userfriendly.
I personally think I would read this newsletter periodically to get ideas of incorporating technology into the classroom. Maybe after trying some of these things, I would be brave enough to submit an article.
I have a slightly different reaction regarding the layout and design of the Kairos submissions than the last few posters. No one was talking disparagingly about the submissions (cleanly cluttered) but I was (for lack of a less cliche simile) like a kid in a candy shop. The layouts weren't flawless, and each demanded that the reader adapt to a different format for each article, but I enjoyed Kairos so much because it offered possibilities beyond words on a page or plain black text on a white screen. This is especially interesting to me because this semester, through a GAship, I am working with Valerie Thomas to envision what an hybrid 101 class interface may look like, and what a fully online 101 class may look like. I may not have found some of the articles to be the easiest to read, but I appreciated the playful manner in which the articles appeared. Kairos seems like a place where inquiry, improvisation, and experimentation can take place. I also loved the collaborative spirit that seems evident throughout--the SFU website in particular offered a rich resource of materials that I was surprised to see and eager to explore.
After having a more thorough look at the articles and having read the submission guidelines, I would like to amend my early comment regarding the visual rhetoric aspect of the site. I was initially confused by the lack of consistency throughout the site, and although I now understand better why it's structured this way, I think that the inconsistency is still off-putting to many, especially those who are interested in rhetoric but not as involved in the technology aspect. I think this issue could potentially contribute to the point that Susan made about some scholars not viewing this as a legitimate source for academic publication.
It would appear that in order to participate in this journal, you have to not only be a rhetoric scholar who is interested in technology (which I am), but you also have to be well-versed in web design software(which I am not). I guess the good news about those requirements is that it narrows the competition for publication significantly.
In a book we are reading in Contemporary Rhetoric, Appeals in Modern Rhetoric, Killingsworth talks about kairos meaning "something like timeliness, an awareness of the present situation of the audience and the need to act for change (26)." I think Kairos, the online journal, lives up to that definition.
Post a Comment