League for Innovation STEM Conference paper on "compositionism"

1. 1
Whaddaya know? Four steps to humanities-STEM ebb and flow
Katherine Watson, Coastline Distance Learning, CA 92708 Bizarrissime@gmail.com
Compositionism, as presented by Pound and Liu (2015), proposes a dissolution of the dichotomy that
all too often places STEM fields (those of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) in
opposition against those of the arts and humanities. Rather than contrasting these areas of interest
against one another, compositionism uses them as co-composite members of an outlook that has come
to mark a modern, amalgamated worldview. Compositionism calls for continuous and constructive
intellectual interaction to engage humanities/arts-typical and STEM-typical mindsets, simultaneously.
Interestingly, and in a parallel fashion, compositionism can be seen to bridge what is often seen to be a
generation gap splitting the attitudinal outlooks of baby-boomers, born during the last half of the
twentieth century, v. millennials, who have attained consciousness during the twenty-first century.
This paper will comprise three principal parts. First, in the course of introducing the notion as theory
and as it is typically practiced, a “compositionist characterization exercise” will be proposed, in which
various and varying definitions of terms will be laid out for thought and debate. Second, the four stages,
or tenets, of the practice that has just been discoursed will be set forth, as they have been implemented
in France, Canada, and the Usa, including: Identifying core values of a domain through self-study;
“framing” the values in effective narratives using metaphors as well as evidence; placing academic
values and frames before the public via old and new media; generating, building, and re-building
iteratively so as to embed public engagement in a digital way. And third and inter-digitated with the
preceding, these four tenets of compositionism will be seen as applicable across the board to confront
and solve in a constructive and positive way various college conundrums, from administration through
curriculum design to technology and transportation.
As each part of the presentation proceeds, participants will be invited to consider things through a grid-
like lens, with humanities/arts and STEM on one axis and baby-boomers and Millennials on the other.
Compositionism: Characterizing the theory
University of California, Santa Barbara English and Humanities Professor Alan Liu (2014) has stated
that, as thought-provoked human beings, “we want a rich ecology of knowledge,” where this “ecology”
comprises a composition, “putting the engineer in touch with the humanist.” And as Benzon (2014) has
written, we live in an era of diversely thought out, composite “new public knowledge”, exemplified by
Wikipedia or the blogosphere, as well as by Twitter feeds and the immediacy of unedited “news”
proffered by the hoi polloi. To Benzon, “effective thinking” exploits the resultant miscellany of
knowledge; it has a “compositionist” effect, a result. Effective thinking composes and constructs; it
builds. And according to Benzon, educators and humanists, professional social scientists and amateur
students, all use and take advantage of what he has called a necessary, “increasingly bidirectional or
multidirectional flow” of ideas. The flow in question intertwines humanities/arts-typical and STEM-typical
mindsets alike, dissolving boundaries as it co-engages. Further, Canadian philosopher Scott Pound
and Liu (2015) have argued together for this ebbing-flowing, “effective” co-engagement to be given the
name compositionism, expanding upon Benzon’s thought model and upon a notion “manifested” by
French philosopher Bruno Latour (2010). As Pound and Liu have written, compositionism occurs quite
without our realizing it; it is a “natural human practice.” It “constructs from heterogeneous elements,” as
Frenchman Latour put it, “searching for universality without believing that it is already there.”
Compositionism in this last sense comprises both aspects of the French verb découvrir: It
simultaneously discovers a universality and uncovers it from beneath the detritus of specialization that
forces academics to learn more about less.

2. 2
Characteristic compositionist practices in the sciences and humanities: A brief résumé
As Chang (2012) has written, STEM-style compositionists in mineralogy and metallurgy would “focus
on extracting materials from ores and separating different metals from each other, rather than
transforming one metallic substance into another.” Chang goes on to contrast the notion of
compositionism as it is exploited throughout the sciences against what he calls scientific “principlism”.
As the latter is practiced, Chang states, it shows “a belief” that there are certain “principles, namely
fundamental substances, that impart characteristic properties to other substances…there is an
asymmetry between principles and the other substances that are transformed by them, principles being
active and the others passive.” Principlist thinking, Chang continues, “was (historically) linked with the
laboratory practice of transformation,” in which experimental processes shape one another,
transforming. Compositionist thinking, by contrast, “was linked with laboratory practices of
decomposition and recomposition.” Chang uses pharmacy and chemistry as alternative exemplary
areas of contrast between compositionist thought and principlism: “So, for instance, compositionist
pharmacy concentrated on extracting the medicinally valuable components from naturally occurring
materials.” And in chemistry, eighteenth century French chemical revolutionary Antoine Lavoisier had “a
compositionist preoccupation with weight and a conception of weight as a conserved quantity.”
Lavoisier famously determined, among other things, that water is made up of an 85:15 proportion of
hydrogen to oxygen.
As Lynch and Rivers (2015) emphasize, “’composition’ as a writing activity and ‘compositionism’ as a
human political project (are) different but not separate practices of putting things together.” Indeed,
these writers continue, compositionist activities comprise what they conceive as a very human-oriented
“mode of learning” that “aligns writing and all other forms of composing, such as composing a painting,
a symphony, a dance, a film, a building.”
No matter the area of interest or the academic perspective, then, compositionism can be seen to be an
ontological practice, a way in which people seek meaning for what they know and about what
surrounds them.
Compositionism four ways: Elements of theory and practice across domains
Compositionist practice is said to comprise four steps or stages of thought, whether the thinker of that
thought be scientist or humanist, STEM-oriented, artistic, or a dabbler in multiple mentalities. Further,
compositionism explains mindsets of the old and the young; it is an often unnoticed but natural human
tendency to find things out.
The four intersecting aspects of compositionism are: Identifying core values, framing values, placing
values before the public, and generating, building, and re-building.
Identifying core values
Core values define the perspective, the worldview, about what is important, what lies in the purposeful
heart of an evaluation process. Typically, in STEM fields, much value—or significance-- is placed upon
the final letter of the acronym, the M that stands for mathematics, and upon its day-to-day impact or
influence in everyone’s lives. As an Edutopia infographic has shown, the Program for International
Assessment (PISA), published triennially by the France-based Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD), shows, American students rank far below those of numerous other
countries, including Korea, Finland, and Switzerland, for example, in their attainment of mathematical
skills. Furthermore, Edutopia points out, even American teachers of math are often lacking: “I teach

3. 3
remedial high school and night trade school,” an Edutopia commenter has written, “and 85% of our
teachers are women with low proficiency in math and numbers theory. That’s just a simple fact. They
are wonderful teachers, but they can only ‘teach to the text’ in math, which is colossally boring…”.
As international PISA summary reports state, a core value that is apparent in its assessment across
disciplines is “(good) preparation for the challenges of life as young adults.” And since a PISA-stated
“mathematical mindset” necessarily underlies valuable “good problem-solving skills”, entailing the
rendering into digits and percentages, statistics and properly calculated graphs, it is the evaluation of
this mathematical mindset that typically comes first in PISA reports, or others of like kind. In fact, “when
assessing mathematics, PISA examines how well students can understand, use, and reflect on
mathematics for a variety of real-life problems and settings that they may not encounter in the
classroom.” Thus, it is the beyond-the-text utility of math in action that comprises the principal core
value in the field.
In a publication made available through the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
(ASCD), in the USA, Shumow and Schmidt (2014-2015) suggest that a core value often shared among
instructors of mathematics and the sciences throughout the world is an “excitement” or “a passion” for
the material being taught. By contrast, the students taking math and science courses in the twenty-first
century, particularly those students called “digital natives” or Millennials, seek “current utility” as a
primary, or core, value. Indeed, value to the student may imply remunerative possibility, money-gaining,
currency in two senses (meaning “now” and meaning “medium of (monetary) exchange”), rather than
simply a vague or emotion-based “passion”.
Further, the ASCD points to more imprecisely definable, inexact, and hard-to-measure core values that
may in fact explain at least a part of what is often considered to be a “generation gap” dividing baby
boomer and older instructors from Millennial or generation Y digital native students. That is, whereas
educators go on about timeless “motivation”, “engagement”, and the like, and science teachers in
particular argue over “methodology”, “problem-solving”, and other similar words or phrases, many
modern students are time-sensitive, urgent, desirous of more than “what we have to memorize for
science” or “why we have to learn to count syllables in poetry.” Applicability and practicality are prime.
Indeed, the seemingly impractical, vague, and inexact might be part of what keeps arts and humanities
core values at once ineffable and frustrating to teachers who would laud them and to students who
would learn them well enough to get those practically applicable good grades. As the University of
Southern California “Visions and Voices Arts and Humanities Initiative” (2006) states, these values
include” “Free inquiry…the search for truth…caring and respect for one another as
individuals…prepar(ing) for an uncertain future...and ethical conduct.” The core values in question are
said to “define our community”, but they themselves remain difficult to define in an objective way.
In a report prepared for their national government, self-proclaimed Canadian Millennials Coletto and
Morrison (2012) note that while it may appear to their older teachers that young, Millennial students
around the world are nothing more than an antsy, irritable, now-oriented, what’s-in-it-for-me group,
there are in fact shared, humanistic “motivations that connect this generation globally, (including) the
need for justice, authenticity, connections, and community.” Coletto and Morrison cite “taking action” as
a core value, for instance, and they go on to cite exemplary ways in which this value is realized: Joining
online communities, viewing and recommending videos or news stories, finding and sharing answers to
questions.
Core values, then, would seem to lie within the frame of an area of interest, a discipline, an expertise
for those of older generations, as Coletto and Morrison imply. By contrast, core values to the Millennial

4. 4
often reach beyond that sort of frame; they have to do with how the information within a discipline is to
be shared, transmitted, communicated for use. Core values for the former group may have much to do
with what and where a frame is set forth; for the latter group, those values may have more to do with
how or why the frame can be exploited.
“Framing” values
Framing comprises a setting of the mind, a process by which people make decisions, a bias that falls
out of the underlying meanings, usually culturally based, that those people have assigned to words or
expressions. In economics, the “framing theory” holds that decisions are made “behaviorally”; they are
quite often “biased” by the terms used by those who would like for a decision to go one way or another.
Thus, in Tversky and Kahneman’s 1981 study, for instance, people decided to spend time, energy,
effort, and money to determine the fate of others in varying ways, depending upon whether that fate
was called survival or death, life-saving or killing. The frames in question, the claim went, had to do with
decision-makers’ definitions of terms and with their perspectives upon those definitions. Actions would
be taken based upon how frames were defined and structured.
In linguistics, a field dependent simultaneously upon the science of psychology and the humanism of
culture, framing is said to fall naturally out of semantics, the study of meaning. All communication
entails framing, it is said, and that framing includes: A message, a messenger, an audience, a medium,
images, context, and higher-level morals and concepts. All language “evokes” frames, as Sudeva R
(2009) has written, because it carries messages that are perceived within a context by an audience.
Indeed, as Lakoff (2014) points out, “we think, largely unconsciously, in terms of conceptual frames—
mental structures that organize our thought…(and) every word is mentally defined in terms of frame
structure.” Again, actions occur based upon how people frame the words used to incite them. These
words are abundant in semantic value.
As Chang (2012) has written, for instance, eighteenth-century British thinker Joseph Priestley, working
not only in religion but in science, “reported…air infected with animal respiration or putrefaction” and
“air infected with fumes”. Priestley did not discuss simply combining anything with air, Chang continues,
and the word choice reveals Priestley’s frame, his values-rich perspective.
Framing leads to a design of strategies, tactics, to be exploited in the handling of a problem, the
transmission of values. Indeed, as Buehl (2011) has written, in schools, “Framing…is instruction that
eases students into a mind-set.” It is “pre-thinking”, Buehl claims, and it can “forestall frustration…by
focusing thinking on universal conditions.” Of course, as teachers know, if they are to impart a
discipline-centric frame to their students, they must acquaint those students with the terms, their
definitions, and the values that they signify through those frames. Reading the works of others,
researching and even mimicking the practices of experts in a discipline as it has been practiced
throughout time and space, will give learners confidence that they can construct their own frames.
It thus clearly follows that various academic domains imply their own varying values-heavy frames. As
Fahlenbrach et al. (2014) put it, the aforementioned linguistic framing is typically meta-communicative:
“Any message, which either explicitly or implicitly defines a frame, ipso facto gives the receiver
instructions or aids in his attempt to understand the message,” allowing people to categorize
messages, to evaluate them. Frames are “organizing principles, patterns of cognition, interpretation,
and presentation”, as Fahlenbrach states, and they define the values as they typify the practices of
people pursuing various disciplines. The Scientific Method constitutes an obvious frame and set of
values for researchers; rhetorical argumentation offers a frame of values for humanists; harmony,
melody, notation, color, and line are some of the evaluative frames exploited in the arts.

5. 5
To the compositionist, “society is stronger for having multiple different institutional, organization, and
professional domains,” as Pound and Liu (2015) state. The compositionist recognizes that scientific
frames, values, mindsets are expressed and evaluated in ways different from the ways in which
humanistic and artistic frames are judged. “We want…not a monospecies domain, like .com,” states Liu
(2014). “We have a common stake in the work of knowledge,” he continues, and we have “a common
world to be built from utterly heterogeneous parts.” Our values are diverse, our frames are divergent,
and the twenty-first century, as Coletto and Morrison state in their Millennials Study (2012) offers
previously unheard-of platforms for sharing those values and frames publicly.
Placing values before the public
Values underlie everyone’s thought processes; they are unique to each person, even though parts of
them may be shared in a community, within a discipline, or in a culture. Values are therefore subjective,
but, as the Canadian Millennials Study has reported, they are now ever more often shared (Coletto and
Morrison, 2012). Thus, Coletto and Morrison write, decision-making in the modern day often occurs
after the decision point has been presented “publicly”, so that the values of others may be used to help
influence action.
As Liu (2014) has stated, “The wisdom of the crowd challenges the very notion of an epistemology, or
philosophy, of knowledge” in an era when “the terms ‘digital commons’ and ‘open knowledge’ represent
the resurgence of…crowd knowledge challenging scholars.” Liu goes on to point out that this sort of
resurgence, in which everything is made so public that perspective is hard to find, “puts in question the
knowledge-standards of scholarly inquiry itself.”
In all areas of academe, properly acceptable research proceeds only after a “review of the literature”
has taken place; books, papers, magazines, and specialized journals are consulted and cited in lists of
references. Further, in all of the sciences, a final step of the Scientific Method calls for researchers to
publish, to make public, their findings; replicability of research is esteemed. And in the humanities-
sciences field of linguistics, a theory is not considered worthwhile until it has been published, argued
about, exemplified, and given counter-examples that might hone its hypotheses. In the arts, criticism
makes a work known; critics follow certain practices, and it is often their work that helps the criticized
work to gain public view.
Twenty-first century “public viewing” entails, as Coletto and Morrison (2012) have written, something
beyond books and papers; it gives “the community” free and open access to one’s research and its
results. As a Tech&Net report stated in France’s Le Point magazine in September, 2015, a new United
Nations initiative calls for the Internet and the sharing and community building that it allows to be made
accessible to all the world’s people before the year 2030. Sustainable development of any and all kinds,
the theory goes, needs “plurality”. The aforementioned Canadian researcher Scott Pound and
American humanist Alan Liu (2015) note that the twenty-first century has rendered faster and easier
“self-criticism as much as criticism”, in which “learning from other experts and other social sectors” can
happen without fear and with good academic perspective. Ideas, research, data, and results are
currently presented openly, quickly, and publicly to build, to generate productive discussion.
Generating, building, and re-building
As Boyle (2015) states, the process of compositionism leads quite often to an observation that, often
during the presentation of an idea or during its discussion, “things get complex.” Thus, “those things
that we may have relied on in the past to explain certain social phenomena—such as a physical
building or an academic discipline—now become themselves in need of explanation.” Hence, Boyle

6. 6
continues, “practice” becomes important, where this refers to a process of “familiarizing” the mind to
certain practices, to the execution of the aforementioned values as they are placed in frames. Boyle
holds that Latour’s notion of compositionism lays this out “as a space for exercising the messy relations
within which we find ourselves composed.”
Boyle argues that architecture—and indeed the products produced during the practice of most of the
arts—exemplify perfectly Latour-style compositionism: That is, in this theory, a building is unfixed; it is
in motion, “a particular cluster of action, affectivity, and matter…compos(ing) the practices of building.”
Indeed, as Zorich (2015) has written, architecture just might be an ideal example of the side-by-side
nature of how Liu’s hoped-for organization of STEM and humanities/arts frames can and do lie best
within the most productive human minds. Zorich states that the pyramids of Giza, in Egypt, for example,
in fact demonstrate “a social organization” that “set the stage for centuries of Egyptian prosperity,
alter(ing) the course of later civilizations.” Although the engineering details of the Giza monuments are
so impressive as to have made them part of the world’s patrimony, it is their social aspects that really
are most remarkable. And as Latour (2012) has claimed, this remarkability is pertinent in part because
“simple descriptions often fail to account for the multiplicity of relations that compose a building.” For
instance, each building is the result of “many successive models that had to be modified so as to
absorb the continuous demands of so many conflicting stockholders—users, communities of
neighbors, preservationists, clients, representatives of government and authorities of various kinds.”
Thus, an architectural creation both includes and reveals infrastructure of the artistic mind,
infrastructure of the social mindset, and infrastructure as it is typically conceived; the building is artistic
as may be any sculpture, but it is also to be used by members of society and it is to lie upon a piece of
earth with access routes and the like.
The physicality of the pyramids is, of course, at least as admirable as their social and artistic nature.
And the notion of compositionism implies that there exists “a broad and heterogeneous knowledge”
underlying most areas of human understanding, although we often do not realize it, as Wharton (2013)
writes. A medievalist, Wharton points out that the physical---books, in her case—can comprise a set of
“nodes in a productive scholarly assemblage.” And as “nodes”, books or buildings can be the bases of
discussion, analysis, ideational connection. Wharton observes that educational institutions in the
twenty-first century would do well to open up single-minded disciplinary studies to a new “discursive
potential (of the kind that) Latour unearths in his exploration of compositionism,” leading to “new-form
scholarship that is both ludic and serious, and formally as well as methodologically innovative.”
Compositionism and college conundrums: Some examples
Wharton (2013) holds that “subjectivity is in fact the condition of all understanding.” No observer can
escape himself. Thus, it might be concluded, the conundrum of how curricula should be designed and
the question of how academic departments should be run might be answered simply: In concert. That
is, as Wharton has suggested, library scientists and computer scientists, historians and literature
experts can join from within each of their fields to create a course taking medievalist practices into
modern times: Wharton has engaged her medieval studies students, for example, in a several-phase
project that shows how compositionism can work, training students first in medieval paleography and
codicology and ultimately ending up with a digitized, online edition of a manuscript written in the style of
Geoffrey Chaucer. Wharton invited her school’s librarian and computer science instructors to join in the
conception and execution of a “cross-disciplinary” compositionist course.
Further, Katina Rogers (2015), of The City University of New York, notes that uniting business and
administration experts with curriculum designers across disciplines will necessarily lead to something

7. 7
productive for students; when management works together rather than arguing over domain ownership,
good and useful courses might be created: “Structuring courses and projects in a way that emphasizes
the acquisition of skills such as project management, collaboration, and communication, not only
contributes to the success of students who seek employment…but also to vibrant research.” In
community colleges, where more than two thirds of students are typically self-directed “non-traditional”
learners with a job-related goal in mind, such curriculum would surely invite increased enrollment.
Moreover, as has been suggested in Wharton and Rogers, among others, the non-traditional can profit
ever better in the twenty-first century from the timeless, unbounded nature of online learning. The
logistical difficulties of signing up for and transporting oneself to classes in person can be obviated by
technology, and administrators who realize this will be doing their students a service, particularly as
those students become ever more “connected.” Spending on good digital infrastructure, as well as on
the technicians who can keep it up and running and on the instructors who will exploit it through proper
training is becoming ever more important to busy learners whose lives need a bit of composure, if not
compositionism. Over-committed millennials, as well as older adults, seek something useful to enrich
the mind and the pocketbook, simultaneously. But this spending, running, training, and exploiting must
be done, Liu (2012) warns, without simply “measur(ing) the numbers of patents or the results in the
nearest economic quarter…Society is stronger for having multiple, different institutional, organization,
and professional domains.” Liu continues: Today there are many partners in the process of preparing
people for and employing them in knowledge work, and society gains from having not just business
paradigms but educational paradigms that are strategically different…”. These alternatives, claims Liu,
comprise an active immanence.
Compositionism across generations
Action and affectivity comprise cross-generational “building blocks”, Coletto and Morrison report in their
study of the millennial mindset. “When it comes to a job,” they write, “Millennials value money first and
foremost…(they) want to be paid well for the work they do and be able to lead the kind of life they want
outside the workplace. (They) are much more likely to change jobs, or even industries multiple times
through their careers, and so they look to salary and the team environment as drivers for satisfaction.”
Furthermore, as Coletto and Morrison continue, “what we like is authentic, aspirational, align(ing) with
our values, connect(ing) with us online.” As the compositionist would point out, products and brands
that have been able to do this with millennials have been able to compose a community of shared
values; they have been able to frame their public within their product ideals. Teachers who have been
used to what Liu calls “the tactical, micropolitical, bricolage, différence” and who have not grown up as
bloggers or Wiki users, social networkers or community creators, must now face a continuously
interacting set of fields, some of which did not exist when they were learning to teach. And these fields
are “always settling and never settled,” as Liu puts it; they are organic and aggregative. Educators who
would attract and retain the millennial mindset have to embrace the new communities of the twenty-first
century. As Rogers (2015) has pointed out, communication leads to collaboration leads to a stronger
joint stakeholding that results from dynamic interaction.
Modern compositionism comprises a kind of digital stream of interacting ideas, a continuous cycle of
thought integrating the “ways of knowing” typifying the research and writing of experts in the
humanities, as well as in STEM. Latour (2012) cites newspapers as being good examples of modest
compositionist exercises: “In this simple practice (of reading the newspaper), one reduces a world into
tiny sections: National news. Politics. Life and arts. Business. Sports.” But, he continues “….(new)
activism blends these formal divisions and public engagement.” To be successful, compositionists must

8. 8
find their core and define it, give it value, place that value out in the open publicly, and allow it to build
upon itself to generate, to create, to make composites that will re-generate.
REFERENCES
Boyle, C. (2015). An attempt at a practitioner’s manifesto. In Thinking with Bruno Latour in Rhetoric and
Composition (ed. Lynch and Rivers), Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Buehl, D. (2011). Developing Readers in the Academic Disciplines. Delaware: International Reading
Association.
Chang, H. (2012). Incommensurability. In Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Revisited. (ed.
Kindi and Arabatzis), London: Routledge.
Coletto, D. and Morrison, J. (2012). RU ready 4 us? An introduction to Canadian millennials. Retrieved
http://canadianmillennials.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/R-U-Ready-for-Us-An-Introduction-to-
Canadian-Millennials.pdf
Edutopia. (2012). Infographic: The value of STEM. Retrieved http://www.edutopia.org/stw-college-
career-stem-infographic
Fahlenbrach, K., Sivertsen, E., and Verenskjold, R. (2014). Media and Revolt. New York: Berghahn
Books.
Kersulov, M. (2015). The compositionist manifesto and education. Object-Oriented Rhetoric. Retrieved
http://www.rsbarnett.com/english646/?p=142
Lakoff, G. (2014). Charles Fillmore. Retrieved http://georgelakoff.com/2014/02/18/charles-fillmore-
discoverer-of-frame-semantics-dies-in-sf-at-84-he-figured-out-how-framing-works/
Latour, B. (2010). An attempt at a “compositionist manifesto”. Johns Hopkins University Project Muse.
Retrieved
https://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/new_literary_history/v041/41.3.latour.
pdf
Liu, A. (2012). The amoderns. Retrieved http://amodern.net/article/the-amoderns-reengaging-the-
humanities/
Liu, A. (2014). Theses on the epistemology of the digital. Retrieved http://liu.english.ucsb.edu/theses-
on-the-epistemology-of-the-digital-page/
Lynch, P. and Rivers, N. (2015). Thinking with Bruno Latour in Rhetoric and Composition. Carbondale:
Southern Illinois University Press.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2012). PISA 2012 Results—Introduction. Retrieved
https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/pisa2012/pisa2012highlights_2.asp
Nikias, M. (2006). Visions and voices the arts and humanities initiative. University of Southern
California. Retrieved https://www.usc.edu/dept/pubrel/visionsandvoices/coreValues.php
Pound, S. and Liu, A. (2015). Re-engaging the humanities: A feature interview with Alan Liu. Academia.
Retrieved
https://www.academia.edu/15170602/REENGAGING_THE_HUMANITIES_A_Conversation_with_Alan
_Liu

9. 9
Rogers, K. (2015). Humanities unbound: Supporting careers and scholarship beyond the tenure-track.
Digital Humanities Quarterly, vol. 9, no. 1. Retrieved
http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/9/1/000198/000198.html
Shumow, L. and Schmidt, J. (2014-2015). Teaching the value of science. Educational Leadership, vol.
72, no. 4. Retrieved http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-
leadership/dec14/vol72/num04/Teaching-the-Value-of-Science.aspx
Sudeva R. (2009). Framing theory, framing, and interpreting. Mengenai Saya. Retrieved
http://linguistics1.blogspot.com/2009/01/framing-theory-framing-and-interpreting.html
Tech&Net. (2015). Un accès universel au Net? Mark Zuckerberg et Bill Gates s’y engagent. LePoint.fr.
Retrieved http://www.lepoint.fr/high-tech-internet/un-acces-universel-au-net-mark-zuckerberg-et-bill-
gates-s-y-engagent-26-09-2015-1968365_47.php
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science,
211, pp. 453-458.
Wharton, R. (2013). Analogy, textuality, and materiality in the medieval classroom. Presented at ICMS,
Kalamazoo, MI. Retrieved http://www.robinwharton.com/analogy-textuality-and-materiality/
Zorich, Z. (2015). The pyramid effect. Scientific American, vol. 313, no. 5, pp.33-39.