6.12 Reading Response

Distributed Cognition & Activity Theory

Texts:
Hutchins, How a Cockpit Remembers Its Speeds

In his article, Hutchins attempts to illustrate distributed cognition by examining the cognitive operations of landing a plane, specifically how pilots coordinate activity, technologies, and media and how this process contributes to the cockpit system. Although his analysis is very long, detailed, and somewhat complicated, I will attempt to briefly summarize here Hutchins’ main points in order to illustrate how they display distributed cognition and ultimately relate to our work in this class.

Distributed CognitionBecause many of us are not familiar with cognitive theories, I decided to do a little research into cognition to provide some background to understand better what Hutchins was talking about. By definition, distributed cognition is “a branch of cognitive science that proposes cognition and knowledge are not confined to an individual; rather, it is distributed across objects, individuals, artefacts, and tools in the environment” (“Distributed Cognition”). This theory views human knowledge and cognition as not being confined to the individual, but rather strewn throughout a system, distributed by placing memories, facts, and/or knowledge on the objects, individuals, and tools in an environment ("Socially distributed cognition”).This system, then, is seen as a set of representations where an interchange of information takes place either in the mental space of participants or external representations in the environment ("Socially distributed cognition”).

This framework looks at the coordination between individuals, artifacts and the environment in order to express cognition as “the processing of information occurring from interaction with symbols in the world” ("Socially distributed cognition”). Its overall goal is to explain “how distributed units are coordinated by analyzing the interactions between individuals, the representational media used, and the environment within which the activity takes place” (“Distributed Cognition”). This ties into how Hutchins mentions that the article presents “a theoretical framework that takes a distributed socio-technical system rather than an individual mind as its primary unit of analysis” (Hutchins 265). Like he mentions, the unit of analysis in distributed cognition focuses on “systems that dynamically reconfigure their sub-systems to accomplish functions individuals, artifacts, their relations to each other” (“Distributed Cognition”).

Therefore, because it emphasizes the social aspects of cognition, the theory of distributed cognition can serve as a “useful descriptive framework that describes human work systems in informational and computational terms” (“Distributed Cognition”), explaining why Hutchins uses the cockpit example as an effective way to show his point.

Key PointsIn his article “How a Cockpit Remembers its Speeds,” Hutchins examines commercial airline cockpits as cognitive systems in an attempt to illustrate that the cognitive properties of systems are not due to the sum of individual processes. He points out that “systems that are larger than an individual may have cognitive properties in their own right that cannot be reduced to the cognitive properties of individual persons” (Hutchins 266). Hutchins further argues that “rather than trying to map the findings of cognitive psychological studies of individuals directly onto the individual pilots in the cockpit, we should map the conceptualization of the cognitive system onto a new unit of analysis: the cockpit as a whole" (267).

To then demonstrate this, Hutchins continues with his own analysis of the cockpit. He points out certain cockpit operations and interactions deal with how “information is represented and how representations are transformed and propagated through the system” (Hutchins 286-7). In a thoroughly abridged summary of his analysis, Hutchins explains that pilots must perform a variety of operations in order to land a plane safely, including decreasing speed, maintaining lift, and changing the shape of the wings. These operations involve a range of cognitive, perceptual and memory tasks. Thus, in order to do all of these, he describes that a variety of things take place in the cockpit: calculating proper speeds based on weight, handling and setting physical markers (speed cards and bugs), looking at dials and instruments, verbal communication, etc.

Let’s look at memory tasks as an example. While memory is normally thought to be an individual and internal psychological function, memory processes can actually be distributed among human agents or between them and external representational devices (Hutchins 284). In the case of the cockpit, while the memory process emerges from the activity of the pilots, so much of the memory function takes place outside of the individual (286). The “memory tasks in the cockpit may be accomplished by functional systems which transcend the boundaries of the individual actor” (Hutchins 284).  Instead of being primarily individual, remembering is a function of the system. It is achieved through interaction of the pilots and factors in their environment.

The pilots use both internal and external cognitive representations, the latter resulting from the system’s representations and media. There are a variety of devices that participate in this functional system to accomplish memory tasks. Hutchins explains that these things, such as the physical markers and verbal exchanges, are not simply memory aids, but devices that permit reconfigurations of functional systems. For example, adding speed bugs to systems doesn’t alter the participants’ memories, but instead permits “a different set of processes to be assembled into a functional system that achieves the same results” (Hutchins 283). The speed bugs don’t actually help the pilots remember speeds; they are part of the process for how the cockpit system remembers speeds (283).

Technological devices, interactions, and representations of different media affect the flow of information and give the cockpit system its unique properties (286, 287). All together, the way these various elements  interact and function within the cockpit system allow the operations necessary to land safely be distributed not individually, but across the system temporally, socially, spatially, and perceptually. By distributing these various operations between participants and objects, individuals are assigned less tasks and can more easily manage them. Hutchins says “a change in the nature of the representation of information results in a change in the nature of the cognitive task facing the pilot” (283). A distribution of cognitive labor between pilots and devices makes the demands made on the individuals are more easily managed.

In somewhat of a summary, Hutchins is arguing that cognitive activity is not exclusively internal so we cannot look at it individually. Rather it relies on the situational environment so we must look at it as a functional system, paying attention to all of the actors, representations, and media at play.

Connections to Activity Theory Hutchins’ point of transferring the focus from an individual to larger system ties in directly to our study of activity systems. He attempts to illustrate how factors in an environment can provide various necessary parts, and I recognized how many of the things he points out could be identified as part of an activity system. For example, the pilots could be seen as the subjects and the motivation or outcome would be landing the plane safely. Mediating tools would be the various devices they use, such as the speed bugs and cards and also their verbal communication. Rules would be some of their memory (or past experience) about how to land the plane, also the necessary speeds and weights, and aviation regulations. The division of labor would be how all of the necessary operations are distributed among the crew and their technologies/media. These are just a few of the things I notice, but obviously there are many more. Either way, how distributed cognition looks at the representation, transformation, and dissemination of information across a system is much like how we look at all of the elements in an activity system. It is how they all work together that we should focus on to understand it, not just one individual part. By looking at systems as a whole, through either perspective, we can better analyze and understand various parts of the system and how they interact and play a role in the larger situation.

Works Cited
“Distributed Cognition (DCog).” Learning-Theories.com Knowledge Base and Webliography. Learning Theories, n.d. Web. 11 June 2012. <http://www.learning-theories.com/distributed-cognition-dcog.html>.

Hutchins, Edwin. “How a Cockpit Remembers Its Speeds.” Cognitive Science 19 (1995): 265-288. Print.

"Socially distributed cognition." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 24 March 2012. Web. 11 June 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socially_distributed_cognition>.

5.31 Reading Response

Texts:
Bawarshi & Rieff: Chap 9: Public and New Media Contexts
Miller & Shepherd: Blogosphere

Bawarshi and Rieff open chapter 9 by mentioning that “genres function as sites of ideological action” (151), immediately leading me to think again about the discussion we had on ideology and genre in class. When discussing the shifting and complex relationship of participants in a public genre system, Bawarshi and Rieff point out that while “generic encompassment preserves the community and goals of the participants, it also regenerates the genre, thus regenerating the community and mediating between ‘outlanders’ and ‘inlanders’” (157). I think that this is important because we can see how the ideologies encompassed in these public genres plays a role in contributing to a sort of social hierarchy; this connects to our discussion of the constraints that genres can impose. By mediating between insiders and outsiders, genres allow their users to establish kind of a dominance or display a sort of power relationship.

Another point I found interesting was that while genres can constrain action or change, they can also bring about changes in behavior or public policy (158). This shows the contradiction that they can be both limiting and enabling at the same time. Bawarshi and Rieff explain that the social function of public genres is to bring about action and/or change (159). Genres both enable participation in public processes and limit intervention and social action (159).

I found chapter 9 particularly interesting in its discussion on genres and new media because this ties into what I am focusing my genre analysis on. I’m looking at online news articles and I am particularly interested in how this context differs compared to that of the print articles. In my analysis I’ve already noticed a variety of elements that have changed in the news article genre just because of the medium shift. Bawarshi and Rieff mention various studies that explore how print genres are imported into new mediums and how genres may develop or emerge in electronic environments (160). New electronic technologies have increased demand for more efficient and effective forms of interaction (166), changing our previous expectations of genre. They mention “genre re-mediation,” which is “how familiar genres are imported into new mediums,” and how new ways of communicating through new media have changed the “generic landscape” (160). Bawarshi and Rieff point out that not only is this remediation important, but its also interesting how these new digital contexts change access to genres, reconfigure constraints, and create new forms of collaboration (161).  The changes brought about by technology and new media literacies have prompted multimedia and multimodal works, in turn leading to hybrid genres (160-1). Problems and opportunities are brought up by this “recontexctualization” as multimedia and multimodal texts “interact within new genre ecologies and systems and genres media discourse activities across contexts and medium (170). To look at this issue, Bawarshi and Rieff argue that we must look at how existing genres and genre systems are imported, how they are improvised, and learn about new and emerging genres (170). I think that my genre analysis will tie into exactly what Bawarshi and Reiff are talking about and I am interested to see how my work compares to what others have found in similar situations.

5.30 Reading Response

Texts:
Shryer & Spoel: Genre Theory Health Care

Two concepts that I found very interesting in this reading were how power and hierarchy and also unpredictability tied into identity formation. Issues of identity seem important to look at, particularly in this field, because of the hierarchies and power relationships that are inevitable and inherent in the workplace. Genres can serve as “mediating tools that simultaneously structure and constrain the possibilities for rhetorical action and afford opportunities for the strategic improvisation for agency in the process of identity formation” (271). Also, the tensions and improvisations of each genre’s performance makes the rhetorical shaping of identity unpredictable (271).

Schryer and Spoel explain that “some genres exist in a relationship of power with other genres” because they also regulate and control them in addition to contributing to internal regulated and regularized resources (250). In connection to activity theory, the tools that we use in an attempt to pursue our objectives helps to internalize the values, practices, and beliefs we associated with our social situations (254). This encasing of ideology contributes to enforcing those power relationships. Already established genres are social structures that provide both resources and constraints that shape the behavior of people in the workplace (253). The workplace seems like an obvious place for power relationships and hierarchy just because of management and different positions – just the way it is set up – but it is also interesting to think about how these genres also can contribute to this by imposing certain constraints.

The discussion of how health-care communities continually work on professional identity formation as they participate in the field’s discursive practices seems like it would also be applicable to a variety of other fields as well. I feel like all workplaces have their workers kind of work out their place as they participate – nothing ever really seems stable. Schryer and Spoel even say that “individual and group identities are not static constructs but are improvised” (258). Furthermore, not only do present situations and practices influence identity formation, but also past experiences and orientations. This past socialization and practice are embedded in genres that affect present situations but never in predictable ways (258). As symbolic structures, genres overlap and contribute to changing fields, prompting shift and change and “the actions of agents using genres are never entirely predictable (259). It seems that in the workplace, with these unspoken rules and restraints and the variety of contextual factors, identity formation could always be changing and there should exist a shifting power balance. Something would always contribute to the context and situation at hand, but how can you ever really tell or predict what that is? I have blogged about this previously – there is just so much to every situation and context, it seems impossible for us to recognize or identify anything or everything that could be influential.

5.29 Reading Response

Texts:
Bawarshi & Rieff, Chapter 6: “Rhetorical Genre Studies”

One of the points that Bawarshi and Rieff make in this chapter is that rhetorical genre studies have claimed that genres are “dynamic rhetorical forms that develop from responses to recurrent situations and serve to stabilize experience and give it coherence and meaning” (79). So at the same time genres are dynamic but also help to stabilize. Although these seem to be complete opposites and may seem impossible, Bawarshi and Rieff comment that genres must accommodate both stability and change because variation is an inevitable part of recurrence and then cannot become obsolete (79). This makes me wonder what counts as change in this case because genres already seem so dynamic. Couldn’t change mean almost anything and wouldn’t that rule out the stability? How big does something have to be to change a genre? Can something small be influential? Can small changes prompt a change in genre or does it have to be big? Can it be just one even or does it have to be a variety of events or at least something consistent? Who decides or says that the genre has changed – who has the authority in this case? Or is the change just accepted by the community or does it even go barely recognized? Or can all of this happen and genre change is really just situational? Are there any rules for what changes genres or is it just a free for all? These questions just lead me to wonder how we identify a change in genre – what prompts it and what counts as a change and how is that recognized.

After discussing the different genre claims in RGS, Bawarshi and Rieff summarize by saying that genre is complex and dynamic, marked by both stability and change, serves as situated cognition, is connected to ideology, power and social actions and relations, and recursively enacts and reproduces community (82). What I find interesting is because genre can do all of these things; it seems very influential since it permeates so much and so many areas. Bawarshi and Rieff state that genres “do not function in isolation” but they also interact with a variety of things and other genres. So then I continue back to my questioning of genre change. If genres are interconnected to other genres and other elements/factors, how is it possible for them to change? Wouldn’t any change prompt a series of other changes? If it is so complex, does everything else have to change as well? Which has to change first? Or can they change in isolation with no other effects? Can one thing prompt change or is it something reciprocal? Because of all the elements involved, I think that the latter is more likely. However, then it seems like things would constantly be changing and that goes against the factor of stability that Bawarshi and Rieff discussed. It is a little confusing and although I know genres are “stabilized for now” how fine is that line between stable and changing?

Continuing on with my discussion of whether or not genre can be taught from yesterday’s post, Bawarshi and Rieff made a few additional points in this chapter. They say that because genre knowledge is a form of situated cognition, it can only be acquired over time (82). Furthermore, genres can’t be defined or taught just through their formal features because how we understand parts of the situation (object, outcomes, meditational means) and how we use them determines how we see them (103). Bawarshi and Rieff comment “genre knowledge is not fully activated or learned until the object/motives are acquired and become real for their users” (103). So unless the situation and its results are real, we won’t fully understand – formal knowledge is not enough (103). We need to be immersed in the genre and experience it for ourselves to really learn. I also thought their point on students feeling the authority being important in learning.

Just to touch on a few more points that I found interesting, I liked how Bawarshi and Rieff commented that subjectivity and identity were intertwined in genre knowledge and performance (104). I though this is very important because everybody brings something different to a situation – background knowledge, experience, perspective, etc. – so it seems that nothing can every really stay constant in terms of this subjectivity and identity. What we have individually definitely would influence what we know about genres and how we use them. I also like how meta-genres can help to smooth tensions between activity systems (101). This seems key since so many activity systems and genres overlap, there is bound to be a variety of contradictions. I also found the concept of uptake interesting to describe the complex ways genres relate to and take up other genres in activity systems (83).

5.28 Reading Response

Texts:
Bawarshi & Rieff, Chapter 1: Introduction &
Chapter 5: Genre in Rhetorical & Sociological Traditions

Bawarshi and Rieff start off the introduction to this book by discussing the debate on the definition of genre between those who view genres as containers of meaning versus those who see them as meaning-making. They state this confusion has to do with whether genres “merely sort and classify the experiences, events, and actions they represent” or whether they “reflect, help shape, and even generate what they represent in culturally defined ways” (3). This is not a new concept for us. All of the reading we have done in class thus for has already introduced us to this debate and also informed us that over the years genre scholarship has turned to take a point of view more similar to the latter. However, what I find still interesting about this is how people only ever saw genres as “containers for meaning” in the first place. Can anything really ever be just a container? Isn’t there always just sort of influence by just being there in presence? Take for example an actual container. Say that I have a liquid. If I put it in a bowl, I see it completely differently than if I put it in a cup or a jar. Soup that’s in a mug is drinkable but soup that’s in a bowl needs a spoon – either way it’s still soup but the container changes they way I not only see, but use, what it contains. I don’t see how genres could have only been perceived simply as labels or containers. By just existing and being associated with things they have influence. Maybe this is just my perspective as I have always been someone who things that things always interact and are socially constructed.

Another point I liked in the introduction is when Bawarshi and Rieff point out why studying genre is more important than just for scholarship. They say that it “helps us understand and prepare students for the increasingly specialized communicative needs of disciplines, profession, and everyday life” (5). I find this interesting and helpful because of our perspective that we took from our Workplace Communication class when we briefly studied genre. Genre isn’t just for theorizing and pondering – we can actually put it into action by using what we know in practice.

In chapter 5, Bawarshi and Rieff comment that a perspective of genre as rhetorically and socially dynamic, ideological, performative, intertextual, socio-cognitive, and responsive (basically all the things we have heard mentioned before in our readings) suggests that it can’t really be taught (60-1). They say that this kind of understanding implies that genres “cannot be explicated, explained, or acquired only through textual or linguistic means; they also cannot be abstracted from the contexts of their use for pedagogical purposes” (61). They even mention that some scholars have questioned the value of teaching genre explicitly (61). So then what are we doing in this class? Can genre really be taught? Can we even learn it? If genre is so complex and dynamic, how can you really teach it so someone can learn it? Instead of teaching, can we only describe genres and show them to others in an attempt to make them aware of genre and hoping they get the hang of it? Bawarshi and Rieff mention some solutions to this dilemma. It’s more about learning to recognize situations and relationships and to orient oneself properly. Some pedagogical approaches look more at genre awareness, ethnography, and situated apprenticeship (61). I found this really interesting because I feel that we are learning a lot less traditionally in this class. We are more being submerged into these readings and areas and kind of exploring for ourselves and toying with our own notions of genre. I think that’s kind of what was implied in this part of the reading.

5.25 Reading Response

Texts:
Gladwell, Small Change New Yorker (Oct 2010)

To start off with, I was immediately interested in this article because it is something familiar to me. I went to school in High Point, North Carolina – right in the Piedmont Triad of Greensboro, Winston-Salem, and High Point. This particular event is a big part of the history of the area. I have been to a museum that remembers the event, there have been events commemorating it, even a play written about it (which I have done a press release on). Gladwell has even come to my school to speak. So it was really interesting to me that Gladwell connected his point regarding social media specifically to this – it really made it more relevant to me.

At the same time, while I did agree with some of Gladwell’s points, I did not agree with his overall attitude or position regarding social media and social change. Gladwell says that social media doesn’t really stand a change in helping with social change. He starts by describing the events of the civil rights movement and pointing out that they all happened without the use of e-mail, texting, Facebook, or Twitter (2). But haven’t the ways we worked changed? I feel that social media and social networks give us a certain advantage. We have increased independence, the ability to influence a wider audience, and the change to work together in new ways with new tools to meet our objectives. Our network – or you could say system – is broader with more subjects. Let me explain.

Gladwell points out that today, “the traditional relationship between political authority and popular will has been upended, making it easier for the powerless to collaborate, coordinate, and give voice to their concerns” (2). Furthermore, “where activists were once defined by their causes, they are now defined by their tools” (2). But at the same time, he says that with our “outsized enthusiasm for social media” we have forgotten what activism is (3).  Wile high-risk activism deals with strong ties between people, Gladwell comments that social media platforms are built around weak ties (5). But where’s the proof for this? Isn’t this an awfully broad generalization? Personally, most of my accounts are friends – particularly my Twitter where I have a smaller amount of followers who are only people I know and talk to. If they are really only built around weak ties anyway, can’t this change? And why is this necessarily a bad thing? Gladwell says that there is strength in weak ties and that “our acquaintances – not our friends – are our greatest source of new ideas and information” (5). So couldn’t they insure us to do something effective in real life? He also points out that although the Internet lets us exploit these distant connections, it doesn’t often lead to high-risk activism (5). But does our society today even need high-risk activism. At least in the United States, I feel that we seem less willing to do anything high-risk for a cause anyway. The majority of people are comfortable in their lives and do not feel compelled to do anything that drastic. Times have changed and nothing enormous is motivating the majority of us to participate in anything high-risk.

Another point that Gladwell makes is that social media only brings things that provide easy commitments, the kind that don’t bring change but instead social acknowledgement and praise (5). I ask again, why is this a bad thing? He says that “social networks are effective at increasing participation – by lessening the level of motivation that participation requires” (5-6). But isn’t this more what our society needs, or at least calls for, today? Informing others, attending events, volunteering – these are all things that Gladwell mentions. Since when are these things not worthwhile? He says this kind of activism doesn’t motivate us to make real sacrifices (6). While this may be true, I think that it’s all we have. People have changed. Most of them aren’t going to be willing to make big sacrifices today anyways. At least we can get them involved more efficiently in this way – it’s better than nothing.

While I found it interesting, I don’t think Gladwell’s comparison of social media activism to the civil-rights movement is effective or appropriate. He is comparing it too much to the past. Times and society have both changed greatly – too much to compare. People think and act very differently. We have different ways of organizing ourselves and communicating, and we have different priorities and passions. As Gladwell says, the civil-rights movement was high-risk activism and was a “challenge to the establishment mounted with precision and discipline” (6). I don’t think anything has hit home hard enough for the majority of us to really see if social media could be put into action for high-risk activism. This isn’t comparable to anything happening close to home in our society today, so how can we judge how people are acting now compared to then? Gladwell says that the bad thing about networks is that they aren’t interested in systemic change (7). But what if something happened to get them interested – an event could prompt a change. Maybe if we were presented with something similar, we’d apply our situation to use social media in high-risk ways –we don’t know. Gladwell says that social media isn’t about the kind of hierarchical organizations used for the civil-rights movement, but for using tools for building networks (6). I think that this could, in fact, be more effective in the kind of society we are living in today – we all work together now as more of a network rather than a hierarchy thanks to these new tools. Galdwell says that decisions made this way – through consensus – are only loosely binding (7). But says who? Where’s the proof in that? If we make decisions together, we put more effort into them and have a personal connection to them. When we decide together, aren’t we more likely to be willing to stick together? Isn’t that part of the idea of Democracy?

Gladwell agrees that networks are resilient and adaptable in low-risk situations, but argues that the lack of centralized leadership and authority makes it hard to reach consensus and set goals (7). This kind of goes against what we have learned about an activity system. In a system, subjects all work together using tools to meet their objectives – so why wouldn’t this be possible in the activity system of a social network? Networks are messy (8) but so is real life today. The discipline and strategy used in the civil-rights movement may not even be possible today. So why shouldn’t we try to embrace the organizing power of the Internet at least? Instead of shooting it down for all of the things it can’t do, appreciate it for what it can do and be open for ways it might change. Nothing is static or stable in our society today, but constantly changing.

The Internet increases the ease and speed with which a group can be mobilized for the right kind of cause (9). This organization and weak-ties connection gives us access to information more easily and promotes resilience and adaptability (9). They may not have the qualities of discipline and strategy or any of the other characteristics that have been successful for social change in the past, but who is to say that these can’t work today? I think this is more applicable to how our society works today. We have larger communities that are harder to organize and less likely to have strong ties between people. It is not social media that has prompted this change, it is just our growth and interactions as a society that has changed the way we act and communicate. Gladwell even says that the “instruments of social media are well suited to making the existing social order more efficient” (9). So if they can do this, why not more? Gladwell says that there isn’t a future in digital protesters – but how does he know? 50 years ago I’m sure few people had any inkling of the changes that were to come of their small actions in the civil-rights movement. Their actions didn’t seem to start off very big either, but they eventually grew. Change takes time and you never know what we are capable of with these new – and I think, powerful – tools.

5.24 Reading Response

Texts:
Winsor, Genre Activity Systems Engr
Panke & Gaiser, Head Clouds Social Tag  

Winsor brings up activity theory as a way to address the issue of the simultaneous existence of pattern and contingency, saying that it offers us the ability to see how text and context are mutually influential and that it allows is to see that lack of unity is normal in an activity system (200). What I found interesting about this article was not this point, but the part where she outlined some of the similarities and definitions between genre theory and activity theory. I had previously been a little hazy on this delineation, but I feel that Winsor helped make this a little clearer.

Genre theory sees genre as a “typified rhetorical response to a typified social situation” (201). Similarly, activity theory sees generic texts as tools that “hold activity systems together by giving them a regular form and a sense of permanence” (201). However, while similar in this manner, there are ways that activity theory breaks off from genre theory. While genre theory sees that shaping influences are one-directional, from only social context to the text, activity theory reconceptualizes the relationship between text and context and doesn’t see context as a container for in which text is produced (201). Instead, all of the elements in an activity system (subjects, tools, objects, etc.) are mutually constitutive and always changing. While genre theory focuses on repetition and continuity, activity theory sees that tensions and discontinuities are normal in a system (201). This is because “complex organizations almost always encompass several subsidiary activity systems with different interests” (201). Looking at it this way, Winsor argues, makes it easier to see that pattern and contingency clearly can coexist (201).

This helps illustrate to me that activity theory is much more malleable of an idea and able to encompass and explain more. Our systems and networks that we participate in can become so complex; we need something this flexible to look at them through in any hopes of understanding them.

In their article on social tagging, Panke and Gaiser describe it as a tool for organizing personal and shared knowledge (318). Their study found that people have highly individualized ways of tagging and also pursued it for very different goals (342). Panke and Gaiser identify several different kinds of taggers: ego taggers, everyday archivers, broadcasters, and team players (342). This kind of applies to how Winsor looks at systems as bring very complex and in flux – which is why it applies to activity theory. It also applies to genre theory, as stated directly by the authors – but I will get to this in a minute.

First, there are two sides to the debate on social tagging though. Critics argue that the quality of keywords is doubtful and user-generated keywords will only add to the already vast amount of data on the Internet (320). However, supporters point out that sorting patterns generated by users demonstrate that classification is a construction, emphasizing that ordering information is a form of social practice (320). So then, tagging may serve as a solution to exemplify the breadth of our knowledge and the variety of elements it contains (321).

So then, what I really found interesting in this article that connects it directly to class is how Panke and Gaiser connect social tagging to genre theory. According to them, “genre theory can provide a fruitful framework for understanding the emergence of free-indexing terms” in regards to social tagging (324). They see genres as “dynamic forms that mediate between the unique features of individual contexts and the features that recur across contexts” and thus are embedded in our communicative activities (324). They see using genres as ‘‘situated cognition’’ - embracing form and content, addressing rhetorical appropriateness; simultaneously constituting and reproducing social structures; and signaling norms, epistemology, ideology, and social ontology (324). How this relates to social tagging is that tagging activities could help us understand how we build tagging vocabularies and how tagging may serve as a “genre aggregator” that may “bind artifacts belonging to different types of genres or multiple genres together”(325). Furthermore, because differentiating between genres and technologies can be difficult, “tagging vocabulary can provide interesting material to investigate which traits and qualities of a given artifact constitute the genre”(346).  Another connection they make between social tagging and genre theory is the interplay of different genres. Looking at genres allows us to see how they interconnect to mediate specific activities (346). Panke and Gaiser argue that “tagging can be a way for us to visualize these interconnections, handle them in a self-organized manner, and thus create a productive information environment for ourselves and potentially for others” (346).

I think that it is interesting to look at social tagging in this way – as a way to illustrate genre theory. We had originally read this article last semester in Dr. Ding’s ENGL 856 class and had connected it to workplace communication. When reading it at that time, I saw social tagging as more of a strategic communication tool that was really beneficial for drawing in people and connecting them. This is probably thanks to my interest and background in PR. Reading it now in this class, I find it interesting to take a different perspective on it and see it in regards to genre theory as Panke and Gaiser illustrate briefly.

5.23 Reading Response

Texts:
Sherlock, WOW genre activity
Spinuzzi & Zachry, Genre Ecologies

Sherlock and Spinuzzi and Zachry both advocate for an open-systems approach. Spinuzzi and Zachry argue that this kind of approach would be better able to account for the contingent, decentralized, and relative stable characteristics of genre ecologies that are not considered in other approaches (171, 180). The genre ecology looks at how a group of genres is used together to mediate the activities that people use to accomplish objectives. It looks at how genres and subtasks work jointly as people deal with new technologies. For example, Sherlock mentions that WoW players have created a genre ecology to get ahead in-game through their complex system of genres that transforms the activity of grouping to make it more integrated, efficient, and thus enjoyable (264).

When first hearing about this idea back in ENGL 856, I wondered if there is any way that any kind of system can be closed. Even if there isn’t any other tangible resources or documentation available, don’t the subjects still at least talk to each other or bring their own prior knowledge into the situation? Spinuzzi and Zachry say that closed sets of texts “oversimplify the ways in which people come to understand and interact with technology” (170). I agree because how can we ever really tell if a system is closed – it’s not that simple. I think it also applies even further to than just interacting with technology, but in any situation. Documentation systems are rarely closed; Spinuzzi and Zachry point out that people turn not only to official documents but also third party help (170). They further support my idea of the impossibility of a completely closed system by saying that “all documentation systems are open-ended because users inevitably import ad hoc, unofficial genres into the genre ecology to help them mediate their work” (180). While it is harder to kind of look at systems in this way, I think it’s good to recognize that we may never really know all of what subjects bring into a situation.

I found the readings for today particularly interesting for several readings. I found Sherlock’s piece very interesting because it is something I actually studied in a way in Dr. Holmevik’s ENGL 809 class. In class we read an ethnography on WoW by Nardi and even played the game ourselves. We discussed a lot about how players interact through the social network of the game, particularly to serve their goals. While I thought this was very intriguing before, having the genre and activity theory perspective on it now even makes it more so. There are so many levels available in the online world – it is impossible to really recognize all that is in play in a system. There are so many subjects (who may even be playing various roles) and so many resources that they can turn to. I also found Spinuzzi and Zachry very interesting because I have read it before in Dr. Ding’s ENGL 856 class. I thought it posed some very interesting points by suggesting the open-systems approach then, but much better understand it now with some of the background in genre and activity theory that we have gotten from this class.

5.22 Reading Response

Texts:
Russell, “Looking Beyond the Interface”
Ding, NIH

Activity Systems & Theory
I feel that both of these articles helped me to better understand activity systems and activity theory. We were able to get a better explanation of what these are and to see them illustrated.

We are always engaging in collective activity because human behavior is social in origin and thus human activity is collective (Russell 66). No written product exists in isolation (Ding 43). However, activity can be widely distributed in time and space and is mediated by complex networks of tools (Russell 66). To look at this we can use an activity system, or a “functional system of social/cultural interactions that constitutes behavior and produces that kind of change called learning” (Russell 68). In an activity system, a subject “interacts with tools over time on some object with some shared motive to achieve some outcome” (Russell 67). Because it views context as a functional system rather than a container, it sees learning as expanding involvement (Russell 68).

Parts of an activity system include: the subject, an individual or group engaged in an activity, the object, the material or space on which the subject acts, the motive, the object or focus of activity, the outcome, and the tools, anything that mediates subjects’ actions on objects (Russell 69-70). Also, we may include the community, the conditions of all the other elements of the system, the division of labor, and rules into our recognition of the activity system (Russell 70-71). Clearly, though, not every situation can be clearly defined as an activity system and there can be various contradictions. Russell mentions that contradictions can occur between and among any of the elements in a system (71).

I also really enjoyed Ding’s illustration of an activity system when applied to NIH Grant Writing. It really helped me to identify the different parts of one by using a real and tangible example. It makes such a tough idea much easier to grasp.

Learning & the Activity System
Learning is not a neat transfer of information, but a complex network of tool-mediated human relationships that we must look at according to shared social and cultural practices (Russell 73). It takes place in both formal educational settings and informal settings (Ding 4).Russell introduces zones of proximal development to describe the difference between what one can do alone and with assistance (73). This helps illustrate that learning is social and takes place as people use tools and mutual change themselves and those tools (73).

Russell argues that activity theory “can have heuristic value for planning and ‘trouble-shooting’ redesigns of distributed learning” (80). He comments that activity theory is helpful for learning because it sees it as expanding involvement over time, both social and intellectual, with the people and tools in culture (65). It is useful because it “looks beyond the individual learner, the interface and the ‘material’ to understand the social and material relations that affect complex human learning, people’s interactions with others as mediated by tools, including symbols” (65). Activity theory offers three new perspectives: multilevelness, or the ability to look at issues on different levels in a framework, interaction and social contexts, and development and changes in human practices (Ding 9).

Furthermore, effective learning can occur through teaching the genre system instead of specific genres (Ding 43). While this requires a lot from the teacher and is highly demanding and time consuming, it can be more affective than traditional practices looking at target genres (Ding 43). To further illustrate how activity theory can be helpful in learning, Ding adds that the integration of cognitive and social apprenticeships enable systematic and consistent incorporation of learning resources (4). Cognitive apprenticeship emphasizes context and situation (Ding 7). Social apprenticeship stresses learning in informal settings (8).

Questions & Comments:
One thing that struck my attention is that Ding points out that teaching actual genre systems rather than specific target genres is very demanding. It requires understanding, familiarity, collaboration, careful planning, and constant revision in pedagogical practices (Ding 43). However, is this really realistic? Today’s types of education seem to focus on being more holistic and at the same time teachers have to cover a broad range of information in most classes. They cannot always teach this specific. So, is this view then only helpful in some cases? I think that it may take too long and too much effort. While it may be worth it, it does not seem easy to do or realistic in the current situation; it may be something teachers need to develop and ease into over time.

With a clearer view of what activity systems are, I can definitely see how it could be useful to instructional designers and teachers in helping facilitate learning. There are obviously a variety of complex elements associated in learning environments today, particularly with all the added technologies. This seems like a helpful way to delineate the factors in play and assess how they may affect, influence, be advantageous, or interfere in certain situations.

5.21 Reading Response

Texts:
Berkenkotter, “Genre Systems at Work”
Killoran, “Self-Published Web Resumes”

Genre Systems and Context/Text:
Berkenkotter comments thatgenre systems enable us “to characterize actors’ specific discursive practices in the context of chains of interrelated genres” (327). Thus using genre systems to examine contextual influences affecting genres in the workplace or the professions can be very helpful.

Professions/Workplace
Institutional genres are the genres of the professions (Berkenkotter 327).  Professions directly connect to genre systems – they can be organized by genre systems and their work is carried out through genre systems (327). It is these genre systems that “play an intermediate role between institutional structural properties and individual communicative action” (329).

Genre Change & Medium Migration
Because of new changes in technology and media, how we look at genre is changing. These changes help shape genres and motivate genre change (Killoran 427). Killoran points out that “scholars have turned from defining genres by their textual characteristics to defining them by contextual characteristics” (426). We no longer look at text and form, but also context and purpose. We need to do this because the expectations and other factors of genre systems change when mediums change.  It is the genre system that provides participants with expectations of communicative interaction (449). When genres change, communication and expectations change and completely change the context. For example, Killoran examines the resume on the web versus its traditional place. He finds that the viability of a genre system influences a genre’s success in its migration to the Web (450); when transplanted it needs to situate itself into a genre system that is viable and corresponds to the expectations of its participants (449).

Research Methodology
Using both genre systems and activity systems in research and exploration of new mediums and new media and even the workplace and professions seems very promising. Killoran points out that “the Web and other new media may also be laboratories for researchers exploring the extremes of genres’ dynamism” (453). Genre and activity theories may be a useful for examining influences in the workplace, even addressing the micro-macro level shift in perspective (Berkenkotter 342). Berkenkotter argues that “concepts such as genre systems, intertextuality, and interdiscursivity are useful tools for understanding complex, historically mediated text/context relationships” (343). Seeing context as an activity system makes it multidimensional, and more open to variety of interdisciplinary approaches and methods (343). Additionally, using genre systems “enables the analyst to foreground the discursively salient component of human activity systems” (330). In terms of the workplace, Berkenkotter states that we should conceptualize institutional speech genres as “one cluster of interrelated core concept, including generic intertextuality and interdiscursivity, recontextualization, genre systems, and activity systems” (329). 

Questions & Comments:
1. Berkenkotter comments that classification is one of the most basic of human cognitive activities (328). I’ve heard this before and although I feel that it is true, we do have this kind of innate need to categorize and organize everything, I wonder why that is? I think this is something we might have explored a few semesters ago in rhetoric. Do we need to classify the things around us to make sense of the world? Without this organization can we understand and recognize everything or would it be just too chaotic? Would it be even possible for us not to classify things?

2. Killoran talks about how people tend to rely on familiar norms and established communication habits and that also, employer’s expectations of the resume have not really changed as far as in its genre system (427, 450). Like, for example, they might not be willing to make the effort to connect the web resume to traditional systems. However, the web is a fairly recent development in comparison to how long society has been looking for employment. The web is still developing and could potentially have a greater impact in the future. So will this change as technology progresses? Will employers begin to alter their expectations to include the web resume into their traditional system? Will the web resume, or even other items in the web medium, become more commonplace and serve as norms and habits?

3. While this is more of something I noticed than a question or critique, I found it interesting as well. Killoran talks about genre dumping and how people will transfer print documents to the computer or web without making changes to accommodate the medium (425, 448). This sounds a lot like what we called “shovelware” in my journalism experience. Shovelware is a big no-no. It’s where you dump a print story directly onto the web without changing anything. And web and print articles are very, very different! So I totally understand this genre dumping idea he brings up, it’s very interesting!

5.18 Reading Response

Texts:
Devitt, “A Theory of Genre” (p. 54-65)
Bazerman, "Speech Acts, Genres, and Activity Systems"
Yates & Orlikowski, "Genre Systems: Structuring Interaction through Communicative Norms"

One thing that really interested me in today’s readings was continuing the definition of what is associated with genre. However, this time it was not about what genre is, but rather about what a “genre system” is and whether genre sets constitute these genre systems or “genre repertoires” instead. Devitt defines a genre set as “the set of all existing genres in a society or culture” (54). However, at the same time, intertextuality is very important because “the development of a genre always requires at least two actions for recurrence and typification to be perceived” (55). Thus, there are two different kinds of sets of genres. First is the “genre system.” Devitt calls his a “set of genres interacting to achieve an overarching function within an activity system” (56). The second is the “genre repertoires” or in other words the “set of genres that a group owns, acting through which a group achieves all of its purposes, not just those connected to particular activity” (57). 

Furthermore, the piece by Yates and Orlikowski talks about defining genre in a similar way to all of the other readings we have read thus far. It discusses genre as a social action, influencing, and as an organizational structure. However, it also mentions genre as a system that is linked and able to promote communication. The authors illustrate this through some case examples. The define genre systems as “sequences of interrelated communicative actions deliberately or habitually” to structure collaboration or as “series of genres comprising a social activity and enacted by all the parties involved” (13, 16). They relate this directly to six areas connected to communication: “purpose (why), content (what), participants (who/m), form (how), time (when), and place (where)” (13). Because “genres are linked or networked together in a way that constitutes a more coordinated communicative process” they are associated with communication; thus, in the workplace genre systems can serve as “important means of structuring collaborative work both tacitly as habitual mechanisms and explicitly as deliberate devices” (14, 15). Thus, in the workplace, “enacting genre systems… habitually is an efficient and easy way for team members to coordinate their actions…” (32). Furthermore, the six dimensions around which genre systems carry expectations are able to “provide a helpful way of understanding changes in communicative interaction associated with adoption and use of new electronic media” (33).

Again, I feel like the definition of genre is further confused. This time, although, it is not genre we are contesting about, but instead our discussion of the sets that genres can take. Are genres only able to act in sets or do they constitute systems or repertoires? Is this more effective than describing them in the context of working with activity systems? If so, is this only in the workplace or does it work in other areas? How many ways can we use genre to explain our daily lives? Is it this that actually makes us more effective in certain areas or are we just using it as a method to explain what we think is happening? I think that the debate surrounding the definition of genres and the way they work is very interesting. How we define genres and their abilities affect how we perceive their influences and ability to permeate our societies, actions and lives.

5.17 Reading Response

Texts:
Devitt, “A Theory of Genre” (p. 12-32)
Bawarshi, “The Genre Function” and “Greeting Cards and the Articulation of Desire”

Reciprocal Relationship:
Devitt comments that “genre and situation are reciprocal, mutually constructed, and integrally interrelated” (25). Their relationship must be reciprocal and dynamic “because people construct genre through situation and situation through genre” (Devitt 21). In this reciprocal relationship, “situations and their participants are always in the process of reproducing each other within genre” (Bawarshi, “Genre Function” 354). As “typified sociorhetorical actions,” genres are essential for reproducing the situations to which they in turn respond; they shape social realities and people, while people also shape them (Bawarshi, “Genre Function” 353). Furthermore, “genres are both functional and epistemological” – they help us function in situations while also helping shape our recognition of situations (Bawarshi, “Genre Function” 340).

I find it very interesting that there are so many factors affecting the relationship that the situation and we have with genre. This makes sense through because when you think about the complexity of each situation and all of its actors, there is nothing that does not add to defining it. Each situation can vary so greatly. Thus, it makes sense that not only should the genre influence the situation, but also all of the situational factors working to determine the genre. Is there anything that does not contribute to this reciprocal relationship? I feel like all of this makes it very hard for situations to replicate themselves, thus adding to the point I read today that situations aren’t really recurring but instead only seem to happen in the same kind of way because of similar contexts.

Identity Construction, Social Action, & Resistance:
Genre can shape and enable social actions by rhetorically constituting the recognition of situations in which we function, and we all function “within genre-constituted realities within which we assume genre-constituted identities” (Bawarshi, “Genre Function” 340, 354). Thus, genre is constitutive of identities within and related to discourse and social action and identity construction are genre-mediated and genre-constituted (Bawarshi, “Genre Function” 343). Even “humble genres” can organize and create a variety of desires that regulate and help people perform situated activities and subjectivities (Bawarshi, “Greeting Cards” 106). We confront representations of identity and how we should behave when writing within a genre (Bawarshi, “Greeting Cards” 110). Take for example greeting cards. Their display is “organized by subjectivities and relations” that “are largely indicative of what our culture sanctions as the potential social relations and identities we can assume on a given occasion” (Bawarshi, “Greeting Cards” 108).

I find it intriguing that genre helps to shape our identities and actions. It makes complete sense even though I never really thought about it. Although we may feel like free actors, we are constrained by the limits of the situations and genres in which we are working. Also,because “genres situate writers within positions of articulation,” we must make a choice to appoint that articulation (Bawarshi, “Greeting Cards” 111). Bawarshi points out that, within a situation, “what we choose is always going to situate us within a discursive and ideological formation that frames who we are and how we relate to the receiver” (“Greeting Cards” 108). So furthermore, the choices we make help to define the situation, but at the same time the context of the situation constrains us. Then, are we ever really free to choose our own identities or courses of action? Is or was there ever a time when we are not influenced by situations, contexts, and genres? Also, the choices we make seem to help shape these genres, making them alter and shift slightly over time to fit how our society is changing. Thus, genre constrains our choices, identities, and actions, but also allows us a little freedom to shape it in exchange.

Context, Culture, & Other Genres:
The context of situation is not only a physical fact but also constructed by people and their actions around that discourse; this in combination decides what is relevant and constitutes the situation (Devitt 19). In genres, an “individuals’ actions construct and are constructed by recurring context of situation, context of culture, and context of genres” (Devitt 31). Existing ideological and material contacts help to construct genres but are also constructed by those performing genre actions (Devitt 26-7). This is where culture plays into context. Culture “influences how situation is constructed and how it is seen as recurring in genres” and is “more than an interpretive context for genre but as an element in the dynamic construction of genre” (Devitt 25-6). Furthermore, “genre enables us to assume certain situational roles, roles established by our culture and rhetorically enacted and reproduced by genre” (Bawarshi, “Genre Function” 354).

Also tying into the context of situation is the role of other genres. There are “always already existing genres that are also a significant part of context” and these emphasize the past in the present (Devitt 25, 28). It is these antecedent genres that “play a role in constituting subsequent action, even acts of resistance” (Bawarshi, “Genre Function” 341). Devitt comments that these “preexisting genres are part of what enable individuals to move from their unique experiences and perceptions to a shared construction of recurring situation and genre” (Devitt 20).

This continues on with a comment I had for yesterday’s post about history and other actors being able to influence our own situations and actions. We build on the past and come to address situations based on how society and our predecessors have done before us. Like I said before, we don’t have to reinvent the wheel every time we come across a situation with exigence. Bawarshi comments that genre and exigence are recursively and inseparably linked (“Genre Function” 354, 356). Genres are both “rhetorical actions andrecurrent situations” because they help people construct and rhetorically respond to recurrent situations; so exigence is both a form of social knowledge and genre knowledge (Bawarshi, “Genre Function” 357). The contexts provided by our culture and already established genres help us to know how to perceive and act in the particular situation and address these exigencies. Although every situation cannot be the same, previous ones still give us a hint of what to do in similar ones. So although genres can be constraining as I mentioned above, they also help guide us and save us a lot of time and effort in determining how to handle certain situations.

The “Genre Function:”
One thing that I found very different and intriguing was the “genre function.” Barwarshi introduces the idea of the “genre function” much like the author function. The genre function “constitutes all discourses’ and all writers’ modes of existence, circulation, and functioning within a society” (Bawarshi, “Genre Function” 338). It constitutes responses, reactions, and assumed subject roles in relation to situations (Bawarshi, “Genre Function” 341). Thus it “rhetorically constitutes our social realities” as it is “the social and rhetorical scene within which we enact various social practices, relations, and identities” (Bawarshi, “Genre Function” 357). I vaguely understand what this means. It seems, though, as if the genre function would pretty much permeate all of society and its situations. Is there anything that would not be touched by this genre function? If so, what? I’d really like to learn more about this. 

The Place/Role of Genre:
Because genres “function on an ideological level, constituting discursive reality,” their role, then, is to provide “the ideological context in which a text and its participants function and attain cultural value” (Bawarshi, “Genre Function” 349). Genre acts as a social semiotic, representing “the vehicle through which communicants interact with a situation type” and creating the conditions in which texts, writers, and readers function (Bawarshi, “Genre Function” 351). Furthermore, Devitt situates genre’s place “between the textual and the contextual, the individual action and the social system” and “between an individual’s actions and a socially defined context” (29, 31).

Genres seem to be placed in so many different locations and play a variety of roles. So then, if they can be this diverse, is it not hard to place a definition on them? This is actually something that I have seen throughout all of the pieces we have read so far. All of the authors seem to comment that scholars debate on how genres should be defined and many contest what variables these definitions should include. They stand on different sides about what genre can do. I think that defining genres, though, kind of constrains our view of what they encompass and what they can do. If we constrain the definition of genres, I think we too narrowly perceive what they entail. However, I see why a definition is necessary – people like to agree on things so they can move forward in exploring them along the same lines. If we are all over the place in deciding what genre is, how do we move forward in our investigation of it? 

5.16 Reading Response

Devitt, “A Theory of Genre”

When trying to clarify how genres arise, Devitt mentions that “genres are named as people use them, and texts are classified as they are being used” (8). Also more than only being a classification system or template for creating texts/works, “genres make meaning; they are not simply a set of formal structures into which meanings are poured” (10). This kind of seems like the chicken and the egg – which came first scenario to me. We create the genres and classify the texts as they are being used – so aren’t we assigning meaning to them? But at the same time, the genres make meaning as well, like a kind of reciprocal shaping. I think this is really interesting because you can think of all of the variables involved. Every situation can have different influences, so meaning just seems like it can vary so much! Which leads me to my second point…

Another thing that interested me was although the reading seems fairly clear about genres and what they are, I think it would actually be really hard to try to identify genres or figure them out in real life scenarios. To go along with this concern, Devitt says “identifying reliable formal features of some genres have proven troublesome” (10). And continues by mentioning that “formal characteristics of genres chance over time but the user’s labels of the genres do not necessarily change” (11). So this makes me ask, does today’s convergent society complicate this even more? Especially with the use of the web, so many of the texts and works we create are made up of a variety of elements with different features. Each thing could belong to so many different genres – how do we decide? Is there a limit to what you can consider something?

Russell, “Genre first look”

I really like how Russell used the family/groceries/list scenario as an example to illustrate genre and activity theory. Something so simple as an example to base it on makes it a lot easier to understand. After setting up his illustration, Russell explains that “the first time one or more persons in an activity system (or between activity systems) are confronted with a need to carry out a specific action, to achieve a specific goal, the person(s) must choose some means of action, using some tool(s)” (1). It makes me think about how much history goes into creating genres and the way we choose to act/react to things. Almost every scenario we encounter has been come across by someone before us, if not by us ourselves. We don’t have to reinvent the wheel every time to solve our problems. In using his example, Russell explains that the list too “has a history.” He learned it from his mother and he has passed it on to his daughter. Also, it is influenced by a variety of changing conditions. Thus, “its cultural history stretches far and wide” (1). This makes me look closer at all of the things I normally take for granted in everyday life, like a simple grocery list, and see how it actually has a lot more to do with than just buying groceries. That may be its original purpose, but that’s not the only resulting element of it.