Mapping Public Rhetorics Discussion: Axes, Changes, and Technology Observations

1. on mapping___________________ patricia sullivan and participants of public rhetorics graduate class purdue university january, 2009

2. situation___________________ • Public Rhetorics class discussion held online in Adobe Connect Pro on 1/28/09 • Goals: • “try out” whiteboard function [with everyone enabled to make changes on it] • demonstrate concept mapping • organize discussion of disparate readings

3. starting picture______________ • Axes • inside to outside • tool to performance • Author names mapped • Activity: • discuss what the axes mean and why articles placed • Consider renaming and moving

4. change # 1__________________ • Addition:“testing” to open space in lower right • not discussed much • postmortem comment: pay attention to open spaces in mapping activity • Is you category unhelpful? • Is there little work in this area? • Have you not included work in this area?

5. change # 2_________________ • Addition: “public” in lower left and “PUBLIC” in upper right • Discussion: trying to show a move from tiny to large, analytic parts to synthetic wholes, more atomistic view to a more comprehensive view • postmortem comment: shows desire for 3rd dimension

6. change # 3_________________ • Change Axes Names:y=inner to outerx=use to show • Discussion: tried to “get at” what I had meant and clarify it • postmortem comment: this is it. Mapping should push to clarify terms and this is easier to do in a discussion if it is “busted out of” the readings (which we sometimes do by bringing in writers not read)

7. change # 4_________________ • Reposition readings: this snapshot shows one move M/R, but there were some others not included in this demonstration • Discussion: there was more contested discussion of axes and people tended to suggest moves for readings that were almost always accepted • postmortem comment: the [relatively short] time given to this activity & the difficulty in writing precisely on the whiteboard limited repositioning

8. change # 5_________________ • Change Y-Axis Name: reality to virtual • Discussion: firestorm ensues. . • reality is such a loaded term and virtual is in different ways elusive • recognize that much more time needed on this • postmortem comment: • need another map that deals with this axis • may also need different readings

9. change # 6_________________ • Reposition Readings: this snapshot shows a move of the community literacy people down to near the 0-level of the y-axis • Discussion: quick agreement of move • postmortem comment: • More moves needed, but not enough time • The move uncovers something that needs to be thought through about the assumptions of community literacy

10. change # 7_________________ • Change Y-Axis Name:now grounded to virtual • Discussion: still talking about meaning of real and virtual; I threw up “grounded” and we would have gone there next • postmortem comment: we had trouble getting past the real-virtual discussion

11. other moves needed?____________________ • Axes:consider other axes [names, dimensions] • Mapping: consider positioning more carefully • Multiple Maps:build competing maps • Data: use mappings to add and subtract readings • Gaps: use mappings to identify gaps: holes and overlaps and contradictions [both in readings used and more generally]

12. technology observations________________ • Whiteboard: • worked better than the class blackboard because people won’t jump up and write on the board; they did add to pix (seemed to want me to subtract) • would be better to have competing whiteboards intellectually (though it may confuse) • Pointer and Color options: • problem: I should have used pointer and color to keep everyone’s attention focused • Video/Audio: • we were using the chat function; had we been able to use video/audio, could have managed to highlight more because we would not have to type our justifications