• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >Digital Writing in the Disciplines: Imagining Possibilities for Scholarship in the Context of Digital Media
【24h】

Digital Writing in the Disciplines: Imagining Possibilities for Scholarship in the Context of Digital Media

机译：学科中的数字写作：在数字媒体背景下想象奖学金的可能性

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

In the quarter century since the establishment of the graphically browsable World Wide Web, academic composers and publishers have experimented with the range of affordances presented by networked digital media---affordances such as modularity, interactivity, multimodality, dynamism, associativity, etc. This experimentation, along with the increasingly widespread use of information and communication technologies and digital media across social contexts, has transformed academic rhetorical environments, presenting scholars with new possibilities and constraints. This transformation has substantially complicated the rhetorical knowledge and literacies necessary for scholarly communicators to operate effectively. This transformation, however, is still an emerging phenomenon, with ongoing experiments that continue to alter the genres and sociotechnical relationships that comprise scholarly work. In the last decade, for example, publisher Elsevier launched digital "Article of the Future" prototypes in several of its journals, while several publishers, universities, and organizations have worked to produce platforms for academic publishers and academics to more easily publish born-digital scholarship. The emerging nature of this changing scholarly landscape provides an exigence and opportunity for understanding scholars' lived experiences of composing during a moment of transition, and specifically for understanding the forces that shape how and why they take up the multiple affordances presented by digital media.;This dissertation takes up that exigence, focusing on disciplinarity as a force unique to and particularly influential in academic contexts and asking how scholars' digital and multimodal composing shapes and is shaped by disciplinarity. This question is addressed through two case studies of research teams developing work for digital journal publication, one in the field of rhetoric and composition and the other in evolutionary biology. These cases were developed using a naturalistic, qualitative methodology, combining an ethnographic framework with textual analysis of writers' process-related documents and artifacts. Data were collected over a period of twenty-four months and analyzed inductively using techniques from grounded theory, specifically constant comparison, combined with content and rhetorical analysis of documents. Each case was examined through the three compositional lenses of mode, medium, and genre, three interrelated dimensions of communication relevant to understanding digital writing, with categories developed inductively for each lens.;Results for the compositional lens of mode revealed three distinct strategies for multimodal composing---meaning compression, meaning expansion, and meaning attention---which writers used according to their epistemological orientations and goals. For example, all three of these strategies were present for the rhetoric and composition case, an epistemologically pluralistic disciplinary area, while the evolutionary biology team primarily employed a meaning compression logic, reserving meaning expansion and meaning attention for public audiences. Results for the compositional lens of medium revealed that some disciplinary digital composing is characterized by hypermediacy (Bolter & Grusin, 1999), drawing attention to media, with others characterized by immediacy (Bolter & Grusin, 1999), rendering media transparent and invisible. Both hypermediacy and immediacy were evident in the rhetoric and composition team's composing, though choices characterized by hypermediacy came primarily from the member of the team with the most hermeneutic, rather than empirical, approach. The evolutionary biology team's composing was marked by immediacy, maintaining transparency for their use of media. Based on these two cases, the distinction seems to correspond to disciplines for whom digital media are both subject of and tool for inquiry and those for whom digital media are solely a tool for inquiry. Finally, the compositional lens of genre brought both mode and medium together and tied them to the teams' social contexts, specifically their disciplinary contexts. This lens revealed that the rhetoric and composition team was writing a generically hybrid text, blending two disciplinary genres, the empirical research report and the hermeneutic scholarly webtext, highlighting the epistemological plurality of this disciplinary context and the challenges and generative potential of collaboration across epistemological traditions. The evolutionary biology case, however, also innovated at the level of text, composing textual elements for anticipated recomposition, but with the express purpose of creating intergeneric and interdiscursive change. Many of their innovative digital composing decisions, including those related to citizen science, were motivated by perceived disciplinary exigences for reaching across discourses, whether toward public audiences or interdisciplinary audiences, suggesting that the way disciplinary writers perceive and take up the affordances of digital media for their composing is affected by a combination of the discipline's explanatory goals and approaches and the social dimension of this disciplinary work.;Together, these two cases suggest that disciplinarity influences how the affordances of media and modes are seen and taken up. They also suggest that the rhetorical possibilities presented by digital media, when taken up by scholars, amount to changed ways of participating in disciplines, and therefore can affect the constitution of those disciplines. The results have implications for academic publishing, suggesting that publishers need to pay attention to disciplinarity when developing platforms and formats for digital journals since the ways digital affordances are taken up vary widely. The results also provide evidence for attention to mode and media in academic writing curricula, including the epistemic uses of each for disciplinary inquiry.
机译：自从可浏览图形的万维网建立以来的四分之一世纪，学术作曲家和出版商已经尝试了网络数字媒体所提供的各种服务，例如模块化，交互性，多模式，动态性，关联性等功能。随着社会环境中信息通信技术和数字媒体的日益广泛使用，实验已经改变了学术修辞环境，为学者提供了新的可能性和局限性。这种转变极大地复杂了学术传播者有效运作所必需的修辞知识和素养。然而，这种转变仍然是一种新兴现象，正在进行的实验不断改变着构成学术工作的体裁和社会技术关系。例如，在过去十年中，出版商爱思唯尔（Elsevier）在其数种期刊中推出了数字化的“未来文章”原型，而数家出版商，大学和组织都在努力为学术出版商和学者提供平台，以更轻松地发布出生的数字化图书。奖学金。这种不断变化的学术格局的新兴性质为理解学者在过渡时期的作文经验提供了一种方便和机会，并且特别是有助于理解影响他们如何以及为什么承担数字媒体所提供的多种能力的力量。本文主要研究纪律性，将纪律性作为一种独特的力量，特别是在学术背景中具有影响力，并询问学者的数字和多峰形式如何构成并受到纪律性的影响。这个问题通过研究团队为数字期刊出版工作开展的两个案例研究得到解决，一个是修辞学和作文领域，另一个是进化生物学领域。这些案例是使用自然主义，定性方法开发的，结合了人种学框架和对与作者相关的文档和人工制品的文本分析。在二十四个月的时间里收集了数据，并使用扎根理论的技术（尤其是不断比较），结合文档的内容和修辞分析，进行了归纳分析。通过模式，媒介和体裁的三个构成镜头，与理解数字写作相关的三个相互联系的交流维度来检验每个案例，并为每个镜头归纳地开发类别。模式的构成镜头的结果揭示了三种不同的多模式策略组成-表示压缩，表示扩展和表示关注-作家根据认识论的取向和目标使用它们。例如，所有这三种策略都是针对修辞学和作文案例，这是一个认识论上的多元化学科领域，而进化生物学团队则主要采用了意义压缩逻辑，保留了意义扩展和对公众受众的意义关注。媒体构成镜头的结果表明，某些学科数字写作的特征是超媒体性（Bolter＆Grusin，1999），引起了人们对媒体的关注，而其他学科的特征是即时性（Bolter＆Grusin，1999），使媒体透明且不可见。修辞学和作文团队的写作中明显体现出了超媒体性和即时性，尽管以超媒体性为特征的选择主要来自于具有解释性而非经验性最高的团队成员。进化生物学小组的作曲具有即时性，保持了其媒体使用的透明度。基于这两种情况，这种区别似乎对应于数字媒体既是研究对象又是研究工具的学科，而数字媒体仅是研究工具。最后，体裁的组成镜头将模式和媒介结合在一起，并将它们与团队的社会环境，特别是其学科环境联系在一起。该镜头表明，修辞和作文团队正在编写通用的混合文本，将两种学科类型，实证研究报告和诠释性学术网络文本融合在一起，强调了这一学科背景的认识论多元性以及跨认识论传统的合作所面临的挑战和产生潜力。然而，进化生物学案例也在文本层面上进行了创新，包括用于预期重组的文本元素，但其明确目的是创造跨类和跨学科的变化。他们的许多创新性数字创作决策，包括与公民科学有关的决策，都是受到跨学科交流的认知纪律要求的激励，无论是面向公众受众还是跨学科受众，都表明，纪律作者对数字媒体创作的理解和接受方式受该学科的解释性目标和方法以及此学科工作的社会影响的共同影响。 ，这两个案例表明纪律性会影响如何看待和接受媒体和模式的能力。他们还建议，当数字媒体被学者接受时，其表达的修辞可能性等于改变了参与学科的方式，因此会影响这些学科的构成。研究结果对学术出版业产生了影响，表明出版商在开发数字期刊的平台和格式时需要注意纪律性，因为采用数字收费的方式差异很大。研究结果还为关注学术写作课程中的模式和媒体提供了证据，包括每种学科在学科研究中的认知用途。

著录项

  • 作者

    Reid, Gwendolynne Collins.;

  • 作者单位

    North Carolina State University.;

  • 授予单位 North Carolina State University.;
  • 学科 Communication.;Rhetoric.;Language.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2017
  • 页码 349 p.
  • 总页数 349
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号