Authorship: Rhet/Comp Perspectives

334 views

Published on

CCR 747, Spring 2013

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
334
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Authorship: Rhet/Comp Perspectives

  1. 1. Disciplinary Perspectives CCR 747: S13Sunday, February 24, 13
  2. 2. Sunday, February 24, 13
  3. 3. Authors of work published in the journal are attentive to the legal and economic landscape in which their professional lives happen. This may seem a relatively mundane and obvious claim, but it’s an important one. We are not, nor have we ever been, naive about the ways in which we are surrounded by and implicated by issues of Intellectual Property--in terms of our work (Corbin; Francis; Nagourney; Nagourney and Steiner), the porous boundary of academia and the world beyond (Bourque; Corbin, Hastings, Robinson; Wheeler) and the impact of the decisions we make on our students and our classrooms (Cargill; Corbin, Frederick; Kolich; Nilsen; Nydahl; Poulin; Turner.) (540)Sunday, February 24, 13
  4. 4. When did all this start?Sunday, February 24, 13
  5. 5. DeVoss: 1943Sunday, February 24, 13
  6. 6. Corbin, 1965 As a profession, we must educate ourselves about the whole business of copyright. As users of books, it is very much our business, in fact. Under the present law we have been guaranteed by the courts certain fair and necessary uses of copyrighted materials in our classrooms and scholarly pursuits ... Our first responsibility, therefore, is to inform ourselves about the issues involved in the proposed revision of the law.Sunday, February 24, 13
  7. 7. Borque,“The Humanist as Computer Specialist” (1983)Sunday, February 24, 13
  8. 8. 1994: CCCC IP CaucusSunday, February 24, 13
  9. 9. 6 threads (1994-2012) • Romantic notions of authorship anchor us in dangerous ways and align to the ways in which copyright restricts texts. • IP is problematic in the way that authorship and/or property is situated along race, class, and gendered divisions. • Digital networks and changing technologies are transforming the textual landscape. • Writing is a commodity that can be owned and sold; authorship is murky and complex, and authrorship is held by companies more than by individuals. • Visual rhetoric and visual studies demands more focused attention ... to issues of copyright and IP. • English studies scholars have a significant stake in copyright issues. (544).Sunday, February 24, 13
  10. 10. Lunsford & West, 1996Sunday, February 24, 13
  11. 11. chilling effectsSunday, February 24, 13
  12. 12. Specifically, this document would make browsing among electronic databases (simply viewing documents on a computer screen) tantamount to copying and thus subject to a fee ... Those corporations would be encouraged, in other words, to keep records on who reads what on whose network... Even more important, such a reading regime would exert largely silent but powerful controls over what gets read and how, and, eventually, over what gets written. According to the WSJ, the president of the Software Publishers Association called the document’s proposals “great news. Our greatest fear is that the Internet will become a vehicle of free distribution of information” (Cooper) (386-87)Sunday, February 24, 13
  13. 13. is that just then? a concern of nearly 20 years ago?Sunday, February 24, 13
  14. 14. Composition’s position in this debate is all the more problematic, we will argue, because of the field’s silent complicity in shrinking the intellectual commons. After all, the teaching of writing has traditionally been invested in a model of composing that makes solitary reflection central to the production of “original” texts absolutely “owned’ by their creators, a model of singular authorship and ownership perpetuated effectively by teachers of writing (and educational systems in general). (387)Sunday, February 24, 13
  15. 15. Such an argument focuses attention once again on the Western privileging of the Romantic conception of “creation”: in this case, a corporate inventor/author may claim property rights that are denied to those whose discoveries are the results of collective action or a process of cultural transmission. (393)Sunday, February 24, 13
  16. 16. international information economy (Boyle)Sunday, February 24, 13
  17. 17. cultural commonsSunday, February 24, 13
  18. 18. What might a reimagined system look like from the perspective of Rhet/Comp?Sunday, February 24, 13
  19. 19. Lindsey: First I wanted to discuss if the trade off of "new ideas and expressions" instead of monetary gain is realistic in terms of "where the values lies in terms of our discipline." I realize teachers do not necessary make a lot of money from teaching or academic publications, but our students are not indoctrinated that way. As they point out, the battle cry seems to be "mine." In a digital age Im wondering if this will be a trickle down effect or a trickle up effect. Will we teach our students to move away from "mine" and value new ideas, or will we be forced to move into a position where "mine" because our go to response.Sunday, February 24, 13
  20. 20. Jess: –What does collaborative authorship look like in a classroom? What is the role of the teacher? –How does the concept of community engagement help us re- imagine teaching in this newly constructed space L & W describe? [See also: “extracurriculum.”]Sunday, February 24, 13
  21. 21. Lindsey: Finally, in regards to "added to information" and "added value" I couldnt help but think of how academics write their articles. Articles and dissertations operate under the idea that new work is being produced. But often times when an author introduces their project at the beginning of an article they make a move that states they are "extending, building, complicating, etc" so-and-sos work. They establish a "gap," and new place, but they also (like we teach our students) strongly establish their ethos and their right to be occupying that space by hitching their work to someone elses wagon. Thus, their new work isnt wholly original but "exists in the connections the rhetor poses between certain taken-for-granted bits of knowledge" (402). Again this relates back to my question of what are we actually valuing.(esp considering this article was written in 1996 and its 2013). Sunday, February 24, 13
  22. 22. pedagogical responsibilities (397+)Sunday, February 24, 13

×