We did engagement with Eileen

Part 1

Proposal:

I am interested in exploring the ways writing is used in the teaching profession. In particular, I am interested in learning how much autonomy teachers feel they have in their writing tasks, and whether these writing tasks are a rewarding part of their work, or if they feel more like a burden. I want to know whether they feel pressure from administrators to write in certain ways, and if these pressures impact the teacher’s autonomy, and his/her success in conveying information to students. I will narrow this down to a more specific research question once I have asked some interview questions, and can gauge what kinds of questions might be applicable to my interviewees. However, as of right now, my research question is: How do administrative pressures and guidelines influence the flexibility and autonomy of the daily writing tasks of high school science teachers? One of the main concepts from this course that has influenced my thoughts regarding writing and economics, and the kinds of questions I want to explore in my research, is Deborah Brandt’s idea of the knowledge economy, and how people in writing professions function within it. In Writing for a Living: Literacy and the Knowledge Economy, Brandt interviews people in an array of writing-heavy fields about the ways in which they use their writing, how they navigate the writing process in their field, and what it looks like to write for money. Like Brandt, I am also interested in learning about what writing for money looks like in the knowledge economy, but I am particularly interested in what writing looks like in the teaching profession. I am planning to interview two high school science teachers who teach at the same school (mainly for convenience purposes and out of lack of options, but maybe this will eliminate some confounding variables). I think the best way to answer my research question will be to conduct interviews. I will get a firsthand account of how these teachers experience writing in their everyday work. I could potentially do a classroom observation. However, I’m not sure if this would be too helpful, because I have a hunch that some of the writing related parts of their work occur outside of class, during preparation. Some documents that I could potentially collect are rubrics, standards and curriculum. 

Part 2

Interview Protocol:

• Describe what a typical work day looks like.

• What do you teach?

• When did you begin teaching?

• Describe what a typical work day looks like.

• What kinds of writing do engage in on a daily basis?

• Are there some forms of writing that you find particularly rewarding?

• Are there certain types of writing/writing tasks that you dread?

• Do you feel like you have autonomy in the way you carry out writing tasks?

• Is there a “peer review” process for the kinds of writing you do? What does the approval/revision process look like?

• Do you feel any pressures of constraints from administrators in regards to how you’re able to craft your writing? 

• Do you feel that you have flexibility and autonomy in the way you are allowed to write, particularly when it comes to things like structuring your curriculum?

Recruitment Script:

I am conducting a research project for my English Seminar on Writing and Money. I am interested in exploring writing related professions, particularly how writing is used by high school science teachers. Is it okay if I record this interview? You will remain anonymous, and this project will not be published anywhere, aside from being turned in as a class assignment. 

Interview questions for the TV writer:

Describe what a typical day’s work looks like. What are some different kinds of writing that you engage in?

Do you enjoy some types of writing more than others? What kinds of writing do you find most rewarding?

Lisa Nakamura’s paper, “The Unwanted Labour of Social Media: Women of Colour Call out Culture As Venture Community Management,” calls attention to an important group of unpaid laborers whose work often goes unnoticed and unappreciated: women of color and other marginalized groups who call out racism, homophobia and misogyny on internet platforms. This form of unpaid labor does a service to the general social media community, as well as to the platform itself—which makes these workers particularly susceptible to exploitation. The only currency they’re gaining comes in the form of likes, followers, and general praise, but these workers also face backlash, threats, and harassment. Their work is necessary and important because it helps to make the internet a safer, more inclusive place, and it keeps racists/homophobes/misogynists in check. Nakamura argues that people who do this labor of responding to problematic posts are venture community managers who are essentially unpaid, reproductive laborers. They’re gendered and racialized which makes them subject to exploitation by social media platforms, as well as internet users. Nakamura acknowledges that this kind of work, although necessary, is not sustainable. I’m wondering if there are steps social media platforms could take to help protect these workers, although, it’s probably a naive thought to think that the platforms that benefit from this unpaid labor would care about the protection of these workers. I just wonder if there are ways that these workers could be better acknowledged and protected from harassment. This paper also reminded me of Deborah Brandt’s paper: “Writing for a Living: Literacy and the Knowledge Economy.” This social media labor seems like an offshoot of our knowledge economy, but a type of labor that is not getting proper compensation because it’s volunteer. Maybe it’s being compensated in the form of attention, like Richard Lanham’s theories on the attention economy. However, since the attention social media laborers are gaining is both positive and negative, the latter sometimes life-threatening, I’m not sure if we can really count it as compensation. Nakamura’s paper is really eye-opening because it sheds light on the important work that women of color do to protect our safety in social media platforms, that we often don’t notice or acknowledge. 

I’m interested in learning more about how people using writing as mediation in their professions, similar to Brandt, but I am particularly interested in learning about how they feel limited by their institutions. It might be interesting to interview teachers, and to see what kinds of writing they enjoy the most in their jobs, and what kinds of writing feel chores. Do they feel like they have the flexibility they need to craft a good curriculum and create fair tests for their students? Do they find themselves having to put more time and energy into some kinds of writing more than others (Ex: feeling like you have to respond to emails before working on curriculum)? A potential research question could be something along the lines of: I want to investigate how high school teachers use mediational writing in their everyday lives, and whether they feel institutional constraints limit their mediational ability. This question is still a bit broad, but I think I will be able to narrow it down more as I think more about what I really want to learn through the interview process. I think I would primarily use interviews, because I want to know how these teachers feel, personally. That’s something that’s difficult to judge through observation, but I could potentially sit in on a class. Textual analysis could be beneficial. I could look at emails, rubrics, or curriculum plans.

In high school I was part of a club called Amnesty International, which is a worldwide organization that is committed to holding people accountable for human rights violations around the world, mainly through the process of letter writing. I think this is a great example of how writing mediates, because I think social advocacy is a form of mediation. The simple act of writing a letter can create social change. I don’t remember much specifics of the kinds of letters I wrote, but usually they were addressed to politicians to free people who were being wrongfully imprisoned. I remember one letter was urging a governor in one of the southern states where the death penalty is still allowed to halt the execution of a man who was clearly not mentally present when he allegedly committed a crime. Some of the challenges of mediation include organizing ideas in a way that is coherent and argumentative.

I think one of the central points I’m trying to make in my analysis is about how rhetorical techniques in podcasts can be used to make the complicated issues of economics more accessible to a broader audience.

I think the problem my analysis is trying to mediate is the difficulty of conveying complex issues (particularly regarding economics) in a way that is both engaging and easy to understand. The solution I propose is the rhetorical techniques Green uses through the medium of the podcast.

Jia Tolentino’s article about the #MeToo movement addresses how despite the rise of this movement that gives a voice to victims of assault, women’s voices are still being drowned out. This movement is only the beginning; it does not mean that the fight is over. I think the exigency this article addresses is the need for women’s voices to be heard, particularly when they speak out about their experiences with assault. There is an urgency for belief and support of victims, rather than victim blaming. However, Tolentino discusses how the #Metoo movement has led to political backlash, where accusers have been portrayed as villains, and the accused as heroes. Women are still collectively struggling to be heard, believed, and taken seriously. Her use of rhetoric calls attention to the urgency of this issue. She uses a little bit of pathos, with Christine Blasey Ford’s story, but she mainly uses facts that increase logos and ethos.

I recently spotted a passive aggressive note written on a Post-It and placed outside of a bathroom stall. I live in the dorms, and over the weekend, there was a suspicious looking spill in one of the bathroom stalls that looked like someone had peed on the floor. Someone attached a post-it note to the stall that seemed like it was directed towards the custodian, but it was also an indirect message to whoever it was that left the mess. It said something along the lines of “I am so sorry you have to clean this up because someone peed on the floor.” The handwriting was large and written in a bright colored marker. It wasn’t in all caps, so I would say this was a more subtle passive aggressive note. But the reason I think that it comes across as passive aggressive is because we all know that this note is not really meant for the custodian; It’s a warning to whoever it was that made the mess that we’re all angry and that this is unacceptable. You can hear the sass the writing. It translates to: “Wow, it is so ridiculous that someone peed on the floor and I can’t believe you have to clean this up. We’re all bitter about this.”

Melissa Gregg’s chapter, “On Friday Night Drinks: Workplace Affects in the Age of the Cubicle” details the complicated dynamics of workplace relationships, and how they have evolved over time. The chapter specifically uses the TV show Six Feet Under, as an example. Gregg says that social theory seems to suggest the workplace is beginning to adapt to more creative employees, but Claire’s scenario in Six Feet Under seems to show the opposite. In general, it seems that the workplace is becoming increasingly less secure, and employers aren’t looking for the same sets of skills-based traits anymore. They’re more likely to look for people with flexibility, and they may give on the job training. One of the main themes of this chapter is isolation in the workplace, and how the workplace environment shapes and is shaped by communication. Gregg thinks that online platforms are increasingly becoming an escape for office alienation. Historically, mastery of language has been seen as a way of ensuring status, and language is a tool for production. Gregg says that this explains the rise of email in the office setting, because it levels out the power dynamic between participants. Forms of writing, specifically the email, can provide an outlet for workers to avoid personal confrontation. This chapter talked about a lot of different things relating to workplace dynamics, so it’s difficult for me to summarize it. Overall, I would say that the chapter calls for the need to have honest communication and to fight isolation in the workplace. Gregg seemed to talk about social media in a positive light, particularly how platforms can help people escape isolation. But aren’t they further increasing isolation by providing a way for colleagues to avoid interpersonal confrontations? Can social media interactions really be as fulfilling as personal ones? Or is the office just not the place to have meaningful interactions? I wonder what Gregg would propose as potential solutions for office isolation, and where she predicts this trend will go in the next few decades, as technology continues to expand. Also, would workplace relationships be more positive if jobs had less precarity? Perhaps increased stability would lead to less competition, and less strain on relationships as a result.