Mirabelli
begins his article “Learning to Serve:
The Language and Literacy of Food Service Workers” by describing a
website, and testimonials therein, that involve waitresses and their treatment
in the workforce. He includes
excerpts from this website: a bit
of hate mail, and the rebuttals of two waitresses. This opening varies considerably from those of the other
authors we have recently read.
Mirabelli’s article looks much more informal in contrast. However, his article does still seem
academic in its overall construction, citing previous work on the subject, then
narrowing the focus down to explain what his study adds. From this introduction, we can infer
that he has two intended audiences:
academics and the general public.
I think that Mirabelli is trying to appeal to a wider audience with the
use of excerpts from the website bitterwaitress.com. They seem less formal and more focused on telling a story
than making a dense academic argument.
However, these excerpts relate back to statistics and theories that have
been previously established. These
more concrete details appeal to a more academic audience by providing a sense
of authenticity and quantifiable data.
Mirabelli’s purpose in “Learning to Serve” is to establish that
waitresses and more broadly, those who are involved in face to face service
positions, have a highly advanced literacy. Their literacy is based on presentation and identity; the
ability to manipulate themselves and others in order to achieve success in the
field. This message can be
interpreted as another view of literacy, but also as a statement to those who
may be the ones discriminating.
Mirabelli points out that there is a stigma related to these “in person”
service occupations. Many of the
people who subscribe to this idea are probably in academic field (like those
who would read this article). Not
only does this article explore a discourse community, it also demonstrates a
valuable lesson for a group of people who are often disrespected for their
work.
Lyndsey
Monday, May 21, 2012
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Discourse Community Ethnography Proposal
For the Discourse Community Ethnography project, I intend to
examine the co-ed service fraternity Alpha Phi Omega (APhiO). This
community has around four hundred members on campus, but is also divided into
families and committees which each form a genre of the group. I will
assess this group according to Swales' six characteristics of a discourse
community, and have outlined the application of each.
Swales tells us that, "a discourse community
has a broadly agreed set of common public goals." APhiO aims to
provide community service for the benefit of those in need and its members.
Participants should increase leadership and service skills. The
second quality of a community dictates that it contains, "mechanisms
of intercommunication among its members." APhiO uses emails through
listserv and website sign-ins that correspond to personal sign-ins at service
events. Members are aware of these mechanisms and are expected to make use
of them. Furthermore, sign-ins at chapter meetings ensure members are in
attendance. Powerpoints are used to convey information to a large number
of members during chapter. Swales' third requirement of a discourse community
requires, "participatory mechanisms primarily to provide information
and feedback." Members who participate in service are expected to
uphold the values and behavior that are discussed in chapter and in out of
chapter communication. Voting occurs regularly on issues that impact
members. Ombudsmen request information on various issues regarding membership
issues. Suggestions are requested during chapter. Furthermore,
"a discourse community utilizes and hence possesses one or more genres in
the communicative furtherance of its aims." To this end, during
chapter, each executive member is expected to have a slide on a powerpoint,
highlighting their announcements. These announcements go in a specific
order and are expected to last a certain amount of time. Similarly, each
committee within the fraternity has a set of language specific to their needs. Swales
also requires that a, "discourse community has acquired some specific
lexis." Language used to describe service events allows for shorter
meetings. Listerv allows for faster communication between members.
Website information is compressed into shorter terms that allow members
to navigate it quickly and efficiently. Like other fraternities and
sororities, some Greek jargon applies. Bids are used to inform hopefuls
of acceptance into the pledge process.
Pledges fulfill requirements to become actives, or in APhiO
brothers. Finally, "a discourse community has a threshold level of
members with a suitable degree of relevant content and discoursal
expertise." Membership size is limited by space for meetings.
Interviews are held to pare down the number of applicants. In order to
have a large number of members that is also efficient, the pledge process
teaches members the language they will require as actives.
My interest in this discourse community stems from my own
participation. I think that it will be interesting to view this group in
a new light after participating for a year. The jargon that we use has become
so familiar to me that it would be interesting to see how much of it is
actually exclusive to this group.
With regards to interviews, I believe it would be
beneficial to talk to the head of a committee, since they represent their own
genre within the group. Furthermore, I think that the average, highly
involved member would be a good source of information. In addition, there is
almost no end to the set of texts that are available to members. I would
draw from the powerpoints used during chapters, emails sent via listserv and
the website for the fraternity.
Post 10
Swales tells us that, "a discourse community has a broadly
agreed set of common public goals." APhiO aims to provide community
service for the benefit of those in need and its members. Participants
should increase leadership and service skills. The second quality of a
community dictates that it contains, "mechanisms of intercommunication
among its members." APhiO uses emails through listserv and website
sign-ins that correspond to personal sign-ins at service events. Members
are aware of these mechanisms and are expected to make use of them.
Furthermore, sign-ins at chapter meetings ensure members are in
attendance. Powerpoints are used to convey information to a large number
of members during chapter. Swales' third requirement of a discourse community
requires, "participatory mechanisms primarily to provide information
and feedback." Members who participate in service are expected to
uphold the values and behavior that are discussed in chapter and in out of
chapter communication. Voting occurs regularly on issues that impact
members. Ombudsmen request information on various issues regarding membership
issues. Suggestions are requested during chapter. Furthermore,
"a discourse community utilizes and hence possesses one or more genres in
the communicative furtherance of its aims." To this end, during
chapter, each executive member is expected to have a slide on a powerpoint,
highlighting their announcements. These announcements go in a specific
order and are expected to last a certain amount of time. Similarly, each
committee within the fraternity has a set of language specific to their needs. Swales
also requires that a, "discourse community has acquired some specific
lexis." Language used to describe service events allows for shorter
meetings. Listerv allows for faster communication between members.
Website information is compressed into shorter terms that allow members
to navigate it quickly and efficiently. Like other fraternities and
sororities, some Greek jargon applies. Bids are used to inform hopefuls
of acceptance into the pledge process.
Pledges fulfill requirements to become actives, or in APhiO
brothers. Finally, "a discourse community has a threshold level of
members with a suitable degree of relevant content and discoursal
expertise." Membership size is limited by space for meetings.
Interviews are held to pare down the number of applicants. In order to
have a large number of members that is also efficient, the pledge process
teaches members the language they will require as actives.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Post 9
In “From Pencils to Pixels” Dennis
Baron Argues that although technology has advanced dramatically in recent
decades, this increase in innovation does not necessarily indicate that there
will be an equally dramatic change in literacy. In the previous articles that we have read regarding
literacy, authors suggest that advances in technology have made an equally big
impression on (especially children’s) ability to learn various types of
literacy. I agree that Baron
shrugs a bit at technology in this article. One way that he does this is by looking at past examples of
revolutionary steps in literacy.
For example, Baron discusses the church and its role in allowing or
prohibiting the ability of the people to read and write. However, I think that he reaffirms his
point in another way. Baron
discusses the pencil as a technology in one section of his article. He explains here that when people began
to write things with the pencil, the gap between spoken language and written
language widened. Even in classes
today, the notes or essays we write contain completely different language and
structure than our spoken words. He
writes that “human witnesses are interactive” in contrast to written language,
which is not. By pointing out
these basic facts about written language, Baron establishes that even if
technology provides a new way to record literacy, it will have the same pitfalls
as previous methods of writing.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Post 8
Reading “The Future of Literacy” has confirmed for me a few
trends in technology that I have seen increasingly in schools recently. For me personally, in school technology always
outweighed my computer usage at home. My
family only recently upgraded to high speed internet from dial up so I didn’t
have much access to the internet unless I was at a friend’s house or at
school. However, my elementary school
involved us heavily in technology from kindergarten. I remember learning to type as before I learned
how to write in cursive. In fact, my
school system taught typing throughout elementary, middle and high school as a
required class. In addition to general
computer information, in elementary school, we were also taught computer
literacy through programming a type of robot that required coding. While I feel that I learned most of my
technical literacy at school, I believe that the most important factor that
contributed to my visual literacy was the environment at home. My parents stressed reading at a very young age. I read every day with my parents until I was
able to read on my own. My parents also expanded
my visual literacy by including it outside of our home as well. On vacations when I was younger we would
generally go to the beach or an amusement park, but no matter where we went
there would be a trip to a museum or historical landmark at some point. I consider myself very lucky to have had the
advantage of learning literacy both at school and at home.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Post 7
In “Sponsors of Literacy” Deborah
Brandt describes those who teach others how to become literate are more like
sponsors than teachers. Brandt claims
that like the sponsors on TV or in magazines, those who teach literacy always
stand to gain something from sharing their expertise. Similarly, Brandt also states that many
times, this relationship can be mutually beneficial for both sponsor and
student. To support these claims, Brandt
uses teachers as one example of a sponsor.
Although a teacher may sponsor a student’s literacy to help the student,
the teacher is also benefiting from the student’s knowledge through
employment. Another example Brandt gives
in the school system involves a school’s sponsorship of literacy. Schools often promote literacy because it
generally translates to higher standardized test scores, which earn a school
more money. While in both of these
examples the sponsor profits financially, Brandt does note that sponsors can be
motivated by a desire to see others succeed as well.
Just as sponsors provide literacy
for their own benefit, Brandt also discusses how some people in positions of
power in churches or governments can benefit from preventing literacy. For example, a government may prevent its
citizens from learning to read and write in order to keep them from being able
to read about the freedoms that other nations enjoy.
In my experience some sponsors of
literacy profit more than others. For
example, my parents may have taught me to read so that I could become
independent, while teachers may have been more interested in monetary
gain. I think the most obvious sign of
the educational system’s benefit in sponsoring literacy is through standardized
tests. I certainly did not receive as much support from the school in high
school as those who struggled to read because I would be able to achieve on
standardized tests.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
The Effects of Error in Wikipedia
In
academia, Wikipedia has often been criticized for being too changeable,
inaccurate or shallow with respect to its articles (Purdy). However, the academic practice of peer
reviewing plays a large part in the processes required to edit or add an
article in Wikipedia. Furthermore,
we can see that changeability often keeps information up to date, inaccuracies
are thoroughly explored by experts, and articles are constantly being expanded
to give readers a deeper understanding of a topic. With this in mind, we can see that Wikipedia gives us the
chance to reassess the meaning and impact of error by becoming actively
involved in a different kind of academic community.
Wikipedia,
the online encyclopedia, provides users with a chance to explore and actively
share information on nearly any topic.
Everyday, more articles are being added, while existing articles are
being corrected. By looking beyond
the default “read page” the processes that allow for this constant change are visible
and accessible to everyone.
Editing is the most common way to add to the compendium of
knowledge. In order to provide
editors contact with one another, Wikipedia provides a “talk page” which is
more or less a forum for people who are interested and knowledgeable in the
topic of the article. In this “talk
page”, editors and interested parties can discuss what needs to be added to an
article, why something was deleted, why sources are relevant and more. This type of public acknowledgement of
changes lends authority to people who are truly interested in a subject. Furthermore this “talk page” often
leads to editing that improves an article. All edits can be seen on the “edit page” of an article. This page shows every change that has
occurred on a topic, who made the change and when it was changed. The “edit” and “talk” pages of an
article serve as a sort of peer review which strengthen the credibility of the
information on a specific topic.
In addition to this peer reviewing, Wikipedia requires articles to have
appropriate and reliable sourcing.
If an article is not sourced or sourced reliably, then it may be removed
from Wikipedia entirely. Although
most of us use Wikipedia regularly, these editing processes usually go
unnoticed, despite the fact that they are responsible for providing the
credible information on which we rely.
With
the processes and abilities of a Wikipedia page in mind, we can begin to see
that the misconceptions held by many academics are not always rooted in reality. In Joseph M. Williams’ “The
Phenomenology of Error” we can see that in all forms of academic writing, error
is simply a construct built over many years but based on arbitrary rules. According to Williams, “we are all
locating error in very different places.” This, he asserts, is the source of
our problems with error. For
example, an error in grammar does not always reflect an error in content. In fact, “when we read for typos,”
Williams claims, “…content becomes virtually inaccessible” (Williams). With this in mind, we must decide what
we consider to be an error before approaching a piece of writing. Furthermore, if an error goes unnoticed
we can assume that it is not an error at all. Certainly, a paper with a typo can be equally as informative
as one without as long as the misspelling doesn’t hinder the intended
meaning. Williams uses his article
itself as an example by including deliberate grammatical errors (Williams). His meaning and purpose come across
clearly despite the errors—which go largely unnoticed.
As a result of the ideas presented
in this reading we should consider that not all errors indicate that a piece of
writing is unreliable, including writing on Wikipedia. “The Phenomenology of Error” can provide
us with a larger understanding of the meaning of error. For example, as I previously described,
academia frequently points out that, “articles [on Wikipedia] can display
incorrect information” (Purdy).
However, Williams reminds us that if we look for error we will find it
(Williams). Thus, by excluding
Wikipedia as a source altogether, we can lose a valuable source of correct
information. Rather, we should
recognize that Wikipedia could help us understand error by actively allowing us
to correct it. By taking advantage
of the “edit” and “talk” pages we can create a massive peer review community
that can improve everyone’s knowledge of a topic. Finding an error in an article does not mark it as
unreliable, it simply provides room for improvement and growth.
Another
criticism of Wikipedia that I touched on earlier was its changeable
nature. However, in my experience
with Wikipedia, I feel that changeability contributed to making articles more
reliable. For example, it is
obvious that our world is constantly changing. When changes occur, editors on Wikipedia can alter articles
instantly to reflect current events.
I noticed this in my article selection for our own Wikipedia edits. In my case, the number of children who
were affected by a Canadian Bill was brought into question. The editors of the article
discussed on the talk page how the number was inaccurate and determined that a
source was outdated. This type of continuous
interaction with other editors and public sources is not possible in academic
journals or standard encyclopedias.
In this case (and I suspect many others) Wikipedia’s changeability is a
positive rather than a negative.
Additionally, I discussed previously that many people feel that
Wikipedia’s articles are too shallow and provide only a simple overview of a
topic (Purdy). While many
articles are very brief, others go into incredible detail. Furthermore, the sourcing on Wikipedia
is generally closely patrolled and can provide readers with sources beyond the
article page. The talk page can
also provide additional sources for information from experts. Thus, although Wikipedia is like all
other encyclopedias in respect to the general overview of its content, our
search for information does not need to end with the article itself (Purdy). Wikipedia is, in this respect, superior
to other sources and encyclopedias because of its ability to provide
information beyond the superficial “read” page.
Wikipedia
has certainly suffered its fair share of criticism since becoming a popular
source for information online.
However, after becoming a part of the editing community, I feel that
Wikipedia can contribute largely to our understanding of error. Furthermore, I now see that an
article’s “read” page is only the beginning when I am looking for information.
Rather than relying on a completely independent search for information, I
believe that we can count on Wikipedia for both sourcing and large supporting community.
Bibliography
Purdy, James P.
"Wikipedia Is Good for You!?" Writing Spaces. Vol. 1. Parlor. 205-24.Writing Spaces. Web. 27 Mar. 2012.
Wiliams, Joseph
M. "The Phenomenology of Error." College Composition and Communication 32.2 (1981):
152-68. JSTOR. National Council
of Teachers of English. Web. 29 Mar. 2012.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)