The Specifics: My Article

What I read: linked here

“If A Woman Came In … She Would Have Been Eaten Up Alive”: Analyzing Gendered Political Processes in the Search for an Athletic Director  

Why I read it: Because I had research our first women’s athletics director ( at Santa Clara University) and we are finding articles now for our final paper, due in a few weeks

What it was: A case study to research and determine the role of gendered politics in the process of hiring an athletic director when female and male intercollegiate athletic departments merge. The authors explore a specific merger and the actions taken by the female booster group in support of women’s athletics and the equivalent male group.

What I hoped for: A more comprehensive view of the subject and statistics related to the politics in hiring athletic directors

What was helpful : Just the process of researching made me aware that there is actually a lot of academic conversation about sports management so I could analyze that specifically in my research if that is the specific direction I want to go.

The General: Databases

Source: Flickr.com

It was fascinating to learn that in this context a single case study was considered sufficient evidence to write about. It was a sort of anthropological approach to the subject through ethnographic study of individuals. However, these authors  do not have any anthropological background as indicated by their miniature bios at the end of the article. Additionally, they have not been involved in women and gender studies, but they still were able to take on gender discrimination  through their discipline. Suffice it to say this article was eye-opening in that you never now what people have written about. Any interdisciplinary connections can draw minds from one field to explore another through a different lens. This isa part of why databases are so chalked full of articles. You never know who will comment and bring something new to the conversation next. You never know what is out there in the vast land of a database.

This does not surprise me but rather reminds me that when I research, there is always another way of looking at the topic that I have not yet discovered. I encourage you to look up a few keywords with a topic in mind and see how many disciplines have published articles on the topic.

Get Searching!   Source: Wikimedia Commons

Need a database to search? Visit Omnifile or Ebscohost through the SCU library site

When you are taught to write essays, the five-paragraph essay is put on a pedestal as the prime example of a great essay.

And it looks a little like this, for those who don’t remember…

Intro

Body Paragraph 1

Body Paragraph 2

Body Paragraph 3

Conclusion

     The intro has a hook and spells out what the three body paragraphs are going to be. Each body paragraph has a topic sentence  at the beginning and supporting evidence afterwards. The conclusion summarizes and might ask a broader question about the subject.

“The Fiver” to Teach

It teaches young writers good habits like using a hook or having sentences which relate to each other in a paragraph or using the conclusion to gesture to outside questions.

Source: Pexels.com

But why don’t teachers tell us that it is a tool to teach us good habits? You gradually learn that breaking the five-paragraph format is  a better rule to abide by than following the five-paragraph essay format.

You keep the intentions that the format is taught with, but apply them differently. For example the “having sentences which relate to each other in the same paragraph” translates into a writing style with a logical flow of ideas and readability. Similarly, the gesturing the outside questions in your conclusion becomes a part of establishing the exigence of your piece.

The Negatives of “The Fiver”

What sticking to an exact format does not help with is establishing any sort of voice, or style within your piece. That’s why we end up breaking it all the time. So not everything looks and sounds similar. Everyone can convey there ideas freely, in a way that suites their audience, voice, and subject precisely.

Let’s Get Scientific

In contrast, the scientific community uses a report format that forces you to color within the lines a bit more. This is not necessarily a bad thing though. The point of their similarity in style is to be able to convey information accurately and efficiently. Scientific reports are constructed in a way that allows the scientific community to determine the validity and results of a study quickly. They like to cut off the fat.

So, no I am not saying “a rigid format is a negative influence on writing”. In fact, in some disciplines it is certainly beneficial. I intend, rather, to remind myself, and any fellow students, that though we bash the five-paragraph essay now, it has it’s uses.

Maybe, you heard the exciting (old) news. MLA 7th edition became MLA 8th edition in 2016. Yes, I know you are excited.

Do I Look Excited? Source: Flickr.com

Well, what exactly changed?

A bunch of things have changed including the use of “containers”, no city of publication, no medium stated, and page numbers now have a p. or pp. in front of them. There is no point listing all the little details, because you get the idea; things have changed. Don’t be to alarmed though, these are easy fixes to make. So, your these changes should not lead to an abrupt grade change.

Don’t let these MLA changes lead to an abrupt grade change in your English class. Source: Flickr

Why We Don’t have to Memorize MLA Style 

My professor for my Cultures and Ideas course (a part of the core curriculum at SCU) is in the english department, but she maintains that she does not want us to memorize the MLA format, but rather understand the reasons behind it. For example, we don’t need to know where to put the nit picky commas and punctuation in MLA style for an article in a magazine. But, we should recognize that in MLA the author of the magazine is the first thing listed, then the title of the article, and then the title of the magazine. Because, and this is the kicker, those are the things we care about in MLA style. That’s why it is prevalent in the liberal arts and humanities.

On the other hand, in APA style you add the element of last edited up near the front of the citation. This is because Chicago is used by disciplines in the social sciences who need to know how recent the published item is.

What I am trying to say is that citations are all about function. We want to get the reader the exact information they need in a effective way.

The Changes as Effective

Though these changes may seem tedious at first, a few of them have clear connections to making citations more effective. Firstly, let’s look at the fact that we no longer have to include the type of media. The reason we don’t need it anymore is because the same book can be an e-book, in print, or online without changing in any significant way. So, why are we wasting time telling our readers that we read it as an e-book when they don’t need to know that to find the source? Basically, the changes in MLA are to help the reader find the source, not to mess-up the writer. So, don’t hate MLA for changing because you have to change things around. Instead, embrace it as a reader and see how easy it is to find the source an author is referring to.

NOTE: Here are my sources in case you wanna check them out or use them to guide you when you make a citation. *Hint: If you use Easy Bib to make a citation make sure to click MLA 8 above the search bar before you search. Also double-check that everything auto-entered by EasyBib in the fields is accurate.

The MLA, EasyBib, Purdue Owl

Here is a poster I found posted above the community trash bins in a Graham lounge.

Source: Me

First things first, please look at the image to the right and read the caption above it. What is your initial, gut reaction to this poster? Notice it was made by Santa Clara’s Housing Office.

Personally, I was shocked by it at first. It is extremely sassy and passive-aggressive. Not that it is bad to be sassy or passive-aggressive but I don’t expect those adjectives in association with the Housing Office. Yes, that’s right, this is a gif posted by an authority on campus. You didn’t expect that did you?

They clearly are trying to appeal to students by using  our “language” of gifs. They use their knowledge of their  target audience (students at SCU)  to craft a rhetorically effective message. They know that images are a way to catch people’s eyes, especially our generation’s eyes. After all, we do spend a lot of time engaging with images ( e.g. Snapchat, Facebook and Instagram).

Perhaps, you enjoy this employment of gifs and applaud their success. But my opinion differs. Though I believe that this was a great example of the use of rhetorical context, it just didn’t click with me. I think my issue was that it is very passive-aggressive. I would rather just be told “please, don’t put you trash in the community trash”. If that can be crafted into a slightly less annoying gif, that would be optimal. Don’t get me wrong, I love sass and a little passive-aggressive behavior can be funny, but it just hit me in the wrong way.

Why didn’t their attempt to connect with their student audience not work on me? They used their rhetorical knowledge to grab my attention, but I knew exactly what they were doing. If they hadn’t had the banner that labeled it a product of the Housing Office would I have reacted differently?

Other then my negative reaction to the poster as a whole I also reacted by wondering “Why would this be posted now?” Had the dorms been having problems with this recently? Is trash mistreatment plaguing our school? Somehow, I doubt that. But there must be a problem if the Housing Office is deciding to put up posters in lounges. Have your community trash bins been filled with personal trash recently? Mine haven’t, but maybe I don’t look at them closely enough.

Well, if this is a problem in Graham, is it a problem in other dorms? And, if so, are these posted in dorms other than Graham? If you have seen this or similar poster by the Housing Office feel free to comment. Or just comment how you responded to this poster initially.

Do you hunt or gather when you research? Michael Klein defines hunting as searching for what  information you are looking for and gathering as coming across information that might be useful.

The researchers he interviewed and he himself switch between both modes of researching. Then he split those two ideas into four stages. He created a diagram to represent this complex breakdown of the research process ( a similar one is depicted below).

                                                          Collecting    Rhetorical      Pattern      Translating                                                                                          Sifting             Seeking    

       Hunting

        Gathering

Klein would put numbers in the appropriate boxes as he was interviewing fellow academics about their research process. A number signified when the researcher had utilized the method of a certain column and row.

The stages are defined as follows…

• Collecting: compiling information and sources
• Rhetorical Sifting : narrowing the information to that relevant to the question you are asking
• Pattern Seeking: identify patterns in data to confirm or reject arguments
• Translating : writing facts into a coherent message (most would  not consider this research)

Now that we know the gist of the article and vocabulary of Klein, we can apply it to ourselves as students.

I think that if I were to be interviewed about my research process there would be more data in the gathering row and the translating column.  So, my style is to spend more of my time encountering exactly what information I want and translating raw information into an argument through writing. That is not to say that I would  not have something in each box, but rather that the concentration would be skewed towards those areas.

Research is not linear! Source: Wikimedia Commons

Klein mentions that perhaps there not exactly a direct or linear route and I definitely agree that in my experience research is messy and complex. It is logical that there are too many variables to be able to crunch research down into some prescribed process. However, these categories do help guide students.

What boxes do you tend to spend the most time in during your research process and which do you neglect?

So, I was looking at some puns the other day…

And, guess what? I found some about writing, punctuation, and English in general! And that gave me the idea to write this blog. I realize it is slightly less formal then the majority of my blogposts but I feel that there is always a place for humor.

This is how some people feel when they hear mention of puns Source: Public Dominan Pictures

And that means I can talk about them on this blog for my English class!

But, this is how I feel when I hear mention of puns  Source: Greatist.com

Usually, I would have to work puns into my  blogs but this is a great shortcut I had not imagined. So, without further ado here are the puns I found on Buzzfeed. You may dismiss these as useless jokes. But young kids could learn things from these puns

Take for example this one about punctuation that asks …

Why don’t you want to date apostrophes?

They are possessive

I understand that as a college student you already know this, but if I were a grade school teacher I could use this pun to teach my kids to remember when to use apostrophes.

This is approximately the face I made when I saw all of the puns  Source: Wikimedia Comons

“But it’s so dumb” -Pun-hater

Okay, okay you didn’t like the first one. Fine. I won’t take it personally.

But at least try this one. It is my favorite one:

What happened when Past, Present, and Future walked into a bar

It was tense

Not even a chuckle? Come on, this is a tough crowd!

Now, I know that puns aren’t for everyone, but you should at least try to enjoy these ones. Maybe, the grammar puns aren’t quite your level. Well, how about a more historical pun then?

What makes “Civil Disobedience” such a great essay?

Thoreau editing

Yes, that is a reference to the fact the Henry David Thoreau wrote an essay titled Civil Disobedience. You guessed it!

But, fine. Since you aren’t enjoying these puns I will stop.

P.S. If you are actually enjoying these puns here is the link again.

P.P.S. Pun-haters, I see you clicking the link. You can’t resist the puns!

While writing my archival research paper on Marygrace Colby’s illustrations in a scrapbook  she made to detail Women’s Athletics I encountered this article. It is a mini overview of the beginning of  the Santa Clara Women’s Athletics Program which was published in Santa Clara Magazine in 2012. The surprising thing was that I did not find that much else about Marygrace Colby and her role in shaping Women’s Athletics a SCU.

One of the next links opens a WordPress site with this information…

______________________________________________________________

Mary Grace Colby, Santa Clara University Athletics Department

Mary Grace spoke on “Life in a Coed Men’s College”. Colby advanced women’s athletics from “tea and crumpets” to serious sports with year-round seasons and national championship teams.

______________________________________________________________

This useless information. Why can’t I seem to find substantial information other than this article?Why isn’t there a bio on Marygrace Colby somewhere in the SCU athletics website?

Source: Wikimedia Commons

It seems unfair that they don’t mention Colby when she had such an impact on our athletics program. It makes me start to wonder how much the students (and athletes in particular) know about Marygrace or if they even know of her at all. Personally, I did not know who she was until I started digging around in the archives.

Brandi Chastain Source: Flickr

I can easily find an entire page of bio on Brandi Chastain  on the SCU athletics page so shouldn’t I be able to find a little more on  Marygrace Colby? Are the priorities of the university skewed towards present-day history or is the lack of information due to the difficulty  of finding information in the archives?

Look at those seasonings!       Source: Pixabay

So, we are going to the Santa Clara University Archives and I need to pick a topic. There are a lot of different topics I could pick from. I could go into the garlic and explore the history of the Santa Clara Mission. I could go into the lavender and explore the sports at Santa Clara. I could go into chiles and explore the development of the languages department.  Or I can go into the chives and explore the role and treatment of women at SCU.  I am overwhelmed by how many things I could research but because I am me…I want to explore something that deals with gender equality.

What a surprise. Source: Public Domain Pictures

Obviously this has to be in the context of SCU (just look at Tirabassi’s article which mention the principle of selectivity which is defined as ” the researcher’s understanding of how archivists select and omit artifacts for a given collection”). Clearly, I need to find a source in the archive and as an archive they pretty much have sources that are directly related to SCU.

Back to the Strange Metaphor

I have found my frame- gender- but in order to find my source I could dive into the garlic, chiles, and lavender again.

In the Garlic:

I could look at the role of women in the church.

I could look at the nuns when the mission was active.

In the Lavender:

I could look at how women were integrated into sports after they began to be admitted.

I could look at the feeling of the student body as women began to participate in sports.

In the Chiles:

I could look at the role or treatment of women professors or students within the department.

What I am trying to say is that I could get even more focused if I were to look at specific department or segments of the community.

Who Knows What I Will Find

Any of these topics would be fascinating to me so whatever I might find in the archive ( a journal, newspaper, yearbook, or letter) I am hopeful that this paper will be interesting to write.

Works Cited

Alexis, Ramsey E., and Katherine Tirabassi. “Ramsey, Alexis E. “Journeying into the                        Archives: Exploring the Pragmatics of Archival Research.” Working in the Archives:              Practical Research Methods for Rhetoric and Composition. Carbondale: Southern                Illinois UP, 2010. 169-79. Print.” Working in the Archives: Practical Research                      Methods for Rhetoric and Composition. N.p.: n.p., n.d. 169-79. Print.

Source: Public Domain Pictures

I have come to realize that in that in writing we make a lot rules but those rules have many exceptions. So, my working theory is that in writing there are no concrete rules. No rules without exceptions.

Grammar

So, it might spring to mind that grammar rules should always be followed. However, take for example if the author is writing dialogue that shows an accent or dialogue they might intentionally spell something wrong.

Source: Wikimedia Commons

Correct by grammar rules:

“Whom do you think ate the last snickerdoodle?”

Exception:

“Who do you think ate the last snickerdoodle?”

When quoting a character in a book you would probably use the latter phrase because this is how most people would say the sentence. The grammatically correct version would stick out as an unrealistic unless the character you are quoting has an affinity for correct grammar.

Spelling

You might immediately reply “what about spelling?” Well, in the English language it seems that there are sometimes more exceptions than rules. Take for example  the rule i before e except after c. Well, not only is there an exception within the rule but there also exceptions to that rule. Take for example the incomplete list below. All of those words break that rule (here is the complete list if you are interested)

Additionally, there is disagreement between English-speaking countries on spelling.Take for example the British spelling of colour versus the American spelling of color.

Source: Wikimedia Commons

Or cancelation versus cancelation. In different parts of the English speaking world things are spelled differently so clearly spellings have exceptions depending on your location. Here is a very long list of words we spell differently from the Brits if you want to see just how many differences there are.

Format

Well, format then perhaps? Different genres have different punctuation expectations, different spacing expectations, and different vocabulary expectations. Poetry often lacks punctuation and uses as much of or as little of the space as it desires. In contrast prose uses extensive punctuation and has many rules about the spacing. Take for example an academic essay in comparison with a shape poem (see image to right). I can’t distinguish any clear rules that those have in common.

Look to Poetry for an Example

Often to find the exception to a rule just look to poetry. You can CAPITALIZE words, italicize words , and bold words. And it is all within your artistic liberty to do so. You can use no punctuation or a ton of it. E.E. Cummings is the classic example of a poet that experimented with capitalization and punctuation (here are some of his poems).

Context

Whether the exception is used well or not depends on the context of the writing. If I use all capitals in an email to my professor, she will regard it as rude. So, yeah the rules in writing are there for a reason, but it does not mean that they are to be worshipped as the one and only way to write.

While much of the time these writing rules serve to make our communication more standard, efficient, functional, and appropriate to context, that doesn’t mean they should be followed without regard for the context of the situation.

Source: Flickr

ackground

Source: Flickr

xhibit

Source: Wikimedia Commons

rgument

Source: Flickr

ethod

When I was introduced to research as a young student  I was told many rules of the right s and wrongs. It suddenly seemed there were a lot of good and bad moves I could make in my research. Rules regarding all sorts of concepts like primary vs. secondary vs. tertiary sources, internet sources vs. print sources were tossed in my direction.

And with each of these came a whole set of stereotypes which insist a certain type of source is better than another. However, as associate professor of English at Boston University, Joseph Bizup, points out in his article there are flaws in all of these naming systems. He states that “If we want students to adopt a rhetorical perspective toward research-based writing, then we should use language that focuses their attention not on what their sources and other materials are…but on what they as writers might do with them”. So he is indicating that rather than organizing sources by what they are it is easier to sort by what a writer can do with them. His solution is a new system using the acronym BEAM, but we will get to that later.

Personally, I never saw much wrong this the initial naming systems. But that’s probably because I have always taken the stereotypes and treated them as vague guidelines for my work rather than strict rules. For example, I would use mainly online resources even though that is often looked down upon. When I research, I go to Wikipedia and look at the background knowledge even though Wikipedia is not considered a decent source of information in academia. I am not saying I would cite it, but is still a useful tool if you need a starting point as long as you double check the information and read it critically.

Mainly, my approach to research is a simple two step process. First, I always try to skim as many things as I can before deciding what sources to use. To be honest, that involves a lot of Googling. The second step is narrowing down to as few sources as are optimal (to simplify the writing process itself). The second step is mainly a personal preference (and perhaps a bad habit to get into) but I resort to it because I get overwhelmed by sources unless I just choose a few and dig deeply into them.

BEAM in my Terms

B is for background sources. For me, it is the information you already know or might get off of wikipedia.

E is for exhibit sources. For me, these are the sources that provide the frame work for my argument to launch off of. They are the raw data. They also provide reason my argument must be made. These will give me examples or applications for me to use within my paper.

A is for argument sources. For me, these are the sources that take a stance (whether they disagree or agree with me). I find those opposing and supporting views in these sources. Supporting views will be incorporated through well-said quotes and opposing views are argued against by appealing to logic, or emotion.

M is for method sources. For me, these are the sources that influence my writing. For example, if I see an organization or style being used by all of the authors within a certain discipline or topic, I follow that general organization or style because it is the norm.

When Bizup brought up the acronym BEAM it made me realize that I hadn’t really been choosing sources based on whether they were print or primary but rather how I could use them in my writing. If I saw a catchy quote I would mark that as something I could use as a hook. If I saw something I disagreed with I marked that as an opposing view I could argue against. From there writing the paper is about outlining and embedding sources within that outline.

Works Cited

Joseph Bizup (2008) BEAM: A Rhetorical Vocabulary for Teaching ResearchBased                            Writing, Rhetoric Review, 27:1, 72-86, DOI: 10.1080/07350190701738858