30 thoughts on “Information Paradigm”

1. 
   » Quotes from Day Chp. 2

   Reply

2. 
   » W 02-Mar Dis­cus­sion Prompts

   
   A. Post Com­ment (by 1230pm):

   1. Us­ing a quote from the chap­ter,
   briefly note (~2 sen­tences?) any ideas, ob­ser­va­tions, in­sights on this topic per­tain­ing to your discipline/field —
   es­pe­cially con­cern­ing in­for­ma­tion, evidence/proof, “doc­u­men­ta­tion” meth­ods or ma­te­ri­als; pub­li­ca­tion types; in­sti­tu­tions, cir­cu­la­tion, and the dis­ci­pline as “ecol­ogy” (re­call Monday’s dis­cus­sion).

   2. Give a brief (1−2 sen­tence) “sta­tus re­port” on your project de­vel­op­ment, since the Rhetor­i­cal Analy­sis:
   top­ics that now seem to be most sig­nif­i­cant or re­quire more dis­cus­sion; new sources (as “rep­re­sen­ta­tive ex­am­ples”); and/or any ar­eas you still need to work on by con­sid­er­ing fur­ther —
   Infor­ma­tion, Knowl­edge, Exper­tise, Re­search, Argu­ment, Evidence/Proof,
   Dis­course com­mu­ni­ties, and com­mu­ni­ca­tion con­ven­tions (rhetorical/written)
    
    

   B. Class­mate Re­ply (by 1pm)

   In brief re­sponse (1−2 sen­tences), ob­serve or spec­u­late the distinction/difference of dis­ci­pline con­ven­tions, as noted by your class­mate in re­la­tion to your discipline/field on this topic. Per­haps con­nect to the quote or topic you men­tioned, or use an­other pas­sage; in any case, try ex­tend­ing the dis­cus­sion by not­ing new in­sights or ob­ser­va­tions —
   par­tic­u­larly about in­for­ma­tion (types, uses), con­ven­tions (of meth­ods or rhetor­i­cal tropes), in­sti­tu­tions, or values/priorities of dis­ci­pline.

   
   *re­minder: bonus par­tic­i­pa­tion credit for re­ply­ing to mul­ti­ple class­mates
    

   Reply

   1. “In “Qu’est-ce que la doc­u­men­ta­tion?”, Breit ar­gues that in­dus­trial progress de­mands not only bet­ter ac­cess to sci­en­tific doc­u­ments but also cul­tural de­vel­op­ments that pre­pare for and sup­port such progress. Doc­u­men­ta­tion per­forms both these roles as a sci­ence in the ser­vice of sci­ence” (p 29). 

      The dom­i­nant dri­ving force for so­cial change through­out all of ho­minid his­tory has been the on­go­ing de­vel­op­ment of bet­ter tech­nol­ogy. Tech­nol­ogy is an ex­ten­sion of hu­man at­trib­utes and has been key in el­e­vat­ing hu­mankind to the sta­tus of “rulers the world”. Through the use of that tech­nol­ogy, we have learned much about the uni­verse of which we are a part. And all that we have learned thus far, we have writ­ten down; for, the very na­ture of sci­ence is cu­mu­la­tive and or­ga­ni­za­tion is cru­cial in or­der for that in­for­ma­tion to be passed on to pos­ter­ity.

      Reply

   2. “Anal­o­gous to an or­gan­ism be­ing an­a­lyzed in terms of its agency within an eco­log­i­cal sys­tem, the book-machine is con­nected to other books and other or­ganic “ma­chines,” form­ing sys­temic as­sem­blages in the con­ser­va­tion and trans­for­ma­tion of men­tal en­ergy through­out his­tory.”

      In­for­ma­tion in chem­istry is twofold; the prac­ti­cal pur­pose of chem­i­cal dis­cov­ery is to al­low for repli­ca­tion of an ex­per­i­ment in or­der to mass pro­duce a fi­nal prod­uct. The in­tel­lec­tual pur­pose of a dis­cov­ery is to out­line the un­der­ly­ing rea­sons that a given re­ac­tion pro­ceeds, which al­lows for fur­ther pre­dic­tion of re­ac­tions and new ex­per­i­ments. Gen­er­ally both of these goals are tied into one jour­nal doc­u­ment, and al­low for both repli­ca­tion of an ex­per­i­ment and un­der­stand­ing of why it works, con­nect­ing it to all the data that has come be­fore and lead­ing it out to a fi­nal economic/medical use.

      So far I have been gen­er­ally on pace with my project, hav­ing grouped my top­ics of my Rhetor­i­cal Analy­sis into ev­i­dence and knowl­edge, and ex­per­tise and in­for­ma­tion, with both groups over­shad­owed by re­search en­com­pass­ing them all, that is con­veyed in a cer­tain man­ner within dis­course com­mu­ni­ties through well-designated con­ven­tions of com­mu­ni­ca­tion. What this all means is that due to the rather fact-based na­ture of my jour­nals and the na­ture of chem­i­cal re­search be­ing in or­der to repli­cate dis­cov­er­ies on a com­mer­cial level, there is lit­tle ar­gu­ment save the state­ment of one ob­ject be­ing su­pe­rior to an­other for a given rea­son, which is less ar­gu­ment and more dis­cov­ery.

      Reply

3. 1. Quote: “Otlet’s con­cep­tion of the so­cial and his­tor­i­cal at­trib­utes of texts thus de­mands that texts be un­der­stood in terms of their net­worked and evo­lu­tion­ary re­la­tions to one an­other and, sub­se­quently, that knowl­edge be un­der­stood in terms of these re­la­tions. For Ot­let, texts are net­worked to one an­other in terms of his­tor­i­cal in­flu­ence and in­ter­pre­ta­tion, and ex­ter­nal or­ga­ni­za­tional de­vices, such as the Uni­ver­sal Dec­i­mal Clas­si­fi­ca­tion sys­tem, are ex­plicit ac­knowl­edg­ments of shared ge­nealo­gies and his­tor­i­cal al­liances”

   It seems that the au­thor sug­gests that texts are — and al­most must be — tied through his­tor­i­cal evo­lu­tion; that is, texts build from each other and in­flu­ence each other. This is very rel­e­vant to po­lit­i­cal sci­ence be­cause po­lit­i­cal sci­en­tists use older texts to build on new ones. Once one the­ory is con­ceived and in­tro­duced, it will most likely be ex­panded on and evolved, so to speak, and other the­o­ries will branch out of it. This helps build the field of in­for­ma­tion and ev­i­dence of cer­tain be­hav­iors and the­o­ries.

   2. Sta­tus up­date: al­though I’ve found some good sources, I am still comb­ing through them to find the sources that best ex­em­plify my field and that will work well for this project.

   Reply

   1. As I stated in my post, the very na­ture of sci­ence is cu­mu­la­tive. Texts ex­pand and evolve or­gan­i­cally as new in­for­ma­tion be­comes ap­par­ent. And that’s why I’m such a huge fan of sci­ence: Every­thing is up­dat­a­ble, re­peat­able, and fal­si­fi­able.

      Reply

      1. I like your ob­ser­va­tion on text and in­for­ma­tion re­lat­ing to the ever chang­ing world in each in­stant

         Reply

   2. I used a quote say­ing es­sen­tially the same thing: “Ot­let con­ceives of the ex­pan­sion of the book’s in­tel­lec­tual to­tal­ity in terms of his­tor­i­cally de­ter­mined so­cial sys­tems of in­put, pro­duc­tion, and out­put. For Ot­let, books are part of an evo­lu­tion­ary process of thought, and as such, books con­tain what came be­fore them in other books.” The idea that books and knowl­edge evolve is im­por­tant to un­der­stand and helps to give us con­text to what we study to­day.

      Reply

   3. I am re­quired to take po­lit­i­cal sci­ence classes for my ma­jor. I agree with your state­ment about old in­for­ma­tion and ev­i­dence is used to cre­ate new the­o­ries and ob­ser­va­tions. The things that I have been look­ing for in ar­ti­cles is how the in­for­ma­tion is pre­sented, I’ve taken a step back from jour­nal ar­ti­cles, and have looked at how in­for­ma­tion is pre­sented to dif­fer­ent dis­course com­mu­ni­ties. As an ex­am­ple you could look at how schol­ars present in­for­ma­tion to one an­other, and how the in­for­ma­tion is pre­sented to us through a cred­i­ble source i.e. the pres­i­dent.

      Reply

   4. It’s weird and cool that we both sim­i­larly ex­plained how in­for­ma­tion must evolve and de­velop from your quote and mine. It is not af­ter I posted my view­point, that I read what you had writ­ten down.

      Reply

4. 1. “As an or­ga­nized sys­tem of tech­niques and tech­nolo­gies, doc­u­men­ta­tion was un­der­stood as a player in the his­tor­i­cal de­vel­op­ment of global or­ga­ni­za­tion in modernity—indeed, a ma­jor player inas­much as that or­ga­ni­za­tion
   was de­pen­dent on the or­ga­ni­za­tion and trans­mis­sion of in­for­ma­tion.”

   Al­though this read­ing doesn’t per­tain di­rectly to the field of cre­ative writ­ing, it can be said that cre­ative writ­ing still in­volves the trans­mis­sion of in­for­ma­tion (some­times fic­tional), and aids in his­tor­i­cal de­vel­op­ment of a dif­fer­ent type of global or­ga­ni­za­tion.

   2. Like some of my class­mates, I am still ex­plor­ing sources that could work for the project, how­ever find­ing ap­plic­a­ble sources in the field of cre­ative writ­ing has been rather chal­leng­ing.

   Reply

   1. I would ar­gue that your pas­sage per­tains ab­solutely di­rectly to cre­ative writ­ing, be­cause cre­ative writ­ing through his­tory has been used to re­in­force, cri­tique, lam­poon, and sat­i­rize or­ga­ni­za­tions, gov­ern­ments, in­di­vid­u­als, and ideas and the use of even cre­ative fic­tion to un­der­line a point (think Voltaire or Or­well) has largely in­flu­enced how ed­u­cated in­di­vid­u­als view cer­tain or­ga­ni­za­tions and thoughts, mas­sively shap­ing the present or­ga­ni­za­tion of the world.

      Reply

   2. I can see how rhetor­i­cal analy­sis could be dif­fi­cult in this field. To get some thoughts flow­ing, it might be use­ful to jot down the names of some of the au­thors in­volved in cre­ative writ­ing, like Michael Chabon, Kazuo Ishig­uro, Kevin Brock­meier, Ian McE­wan, and Karl Kirch­wey, and go on to see if you can iden­tify any com­mon themes or gen­eral con­ven­tions of cre­ative writ­ing in their work. I’m aware that cre­ative writ­ing tends to be dif­fer­ent from typ­i­cal aca­d­e­mic writ­ing in that one at­tempts to cre­ate new styles, orig­i­nal char­ac­ters and themes, and even orig­i­nal gen­res. Per­haps you could ben­e­fit by find­ing ex­am­ples to ex­ploit this dif­fer­ence (or con­ven­tion), from both aca­d­e­mic writ­ing and cre­ative writ­ing.

      Ev­i­dently, there are some ma­jor dif­fer­ences in terms of cir­cu­la­tion and “ecol­ogy” be­tween physics dis­course and cre­ative writ­ing. I think even non-physicists could prob­a­bly name a sci­en­tific jour­nal or two, but I had to look on Wikipedia to find the names of those cre­ative writ­ers I men­tioned. In­for­ma­tion cir­cu­lates through these me­dia, whether they be books, po­ems, or sci­en­tific jour­nals. In physics, how­ever, the goal is of­ten to build on the work of oth­ers and ex­tend knowl­edge in some sub­field, mak­ing use of the in­for­ma­tion in these jour­nals. In cre­ative writ­ing, while I am ad­mit­tedly un­in­formed in this area, it seems that writ­ers don’t nec­es­sar­ily build off of one an­other all the time. Per­haps they in­vent a new style al­to­gether that wasn’t de­rived from the work of oth­ers, like comics, hor­ror video games, or blog­ging.

      Reply

   3. I think it de­pends on what you call in­for­ma­tion. In­for­ma­tion could be things like spe­cific lan­guage and jar­gon or some­thing. Ideas that some­one writes down can be a form of in­for­ma­tion be­cause these ideas are based on one’s knowl­edge and ex­pe­ri­ences, and this is es­sen­tially in­for­ma­tion, just not in the tra­di­tional sense. So cre­ative writ­ing is def­i­nitely a way to trans­mit in­for­ma­tion!

      Reply

5. “…books can only be cat­a­loged and there­fore come into bib­li­o­graph­i­cal ex­is­tence within the con­text of pre­vi­ously ap­proved vo­cab­u­lar­ies, such as sub­ject head­ings, au­thor­ity records for au­thors’ names, and ap­proved syn­tac­ti­cal struc­tures for sub­ject, name, and even ti­tle en­tries.”

   In my ob­ser­va­tions thus far I am able to draw a lot from the read­ing we were dis­cussing in class on Mon­day. One key as­pect that has stuck out to me that I would like to share is the sec­tion about the prob­lem of ev­i­dence. It dis­cusses how we do and do not doc­u­ment cer­tain things, and rather pho­tos, au­dio notes, or video record­ings. In in­ter­na­tional re­la­tions lec­tures in school in­clude a minute be­tween the “book” that is dis­cussed in the ar­ti­cle but when con­sid­er­ing schol­arly, their re­search does not in­clude this type of ev­i­dence. But when the same topic is dis­cussed for the pub­lic au­di­ence, videos and pho­tos are used, some times to sen­sa­tion­al­ize an is­sue, but also raise aware­ness. It is in­ter­est­ing to see how one piece of ev­i­dence to in­for­ma­tion can be por­trayed in dif­fer­ent con­texts for dif­fer­ent dis­course com­mu­ni­ties.

   With this, I will also look at other forms of doc­u­men­ta­tion such as pod casts and videos as this is an in­for­mal way to com­mu­ni­cate in­for­ma­tion for my dis­ci­pline used by both schol­ars and the pub­lic.

   Reply

   1. I think your point on ev­i­dence can re­lated to an­other quote from the read­ing:

      “The tropic qual­ity of what we might call “in­for­ma­tional ob­jects,” such as the book, is note­wor­thy in Otlet’s work, be­cause it is a qual­ity that runs through­out “vi­sion­ary” texts about in­for­ma­tion”

      It’s in­ter­est­ing how in your field, ev­i­dence can be ma­nip­u­lated in or­der to ben­e­fit the viewer. In this spe­cific sce­nario, I feel as if ev­i­dence can be the equiv­a­lent of “in­for­ma­tion ob­jects”, mean­ing that with ev­i­dence, a pa­per can be note­wor­thy. The con­cept of the use of ev­i­dence and the lack of ev­i­dence even be­ing some sort of ev­i­dence is very in­ter­est­ing to me.

      Reply

6. “…it is im­por­tant to ex­am­ine these texts not only for their his­tor­i­cal in­flu­ence on later de­vel­op­ments in in­for­ma­tion tech­nol­ogy and in­for­ma­tion sci­ence but also as symp­toms of the birth of a cul­ture of in­for­ma­tion”

   I be­lieve this is prin­ci­ple to my field of pub­lic health, as writ­ings done in this field are usu­ally based of prior knowl­edge of a par­tic­u­lar ill­ness and so forth. In this dis­ci­pline, it is very im­por­tant to take his­tory as an in­flu­ence and slowly build off what has al­ready been dis­cov­ered. In ad­di­tion to build­ing off from the past, this dis­ci­pline must cre­ate a sub­stan­tial base for fu­ture re­search and dis­cov­ery. For ex­am­ple, if an ill­ness in re­search has been de­vel­oped more thor­oughly in the past, we must be able to con­tinue to build off if it–learning new dis­cov­er­ies that ac­com­pany it every day. This use of in­for­ma­tion and knowl­edge used by ex­perts must be able to be changed, ma­nip­u­lated, and for­mu­lated fur­ther.

   In this re­search, I feel like the most dif­fi­cult part is find­ing schol­arly ar­ti­cles that are up to date„ be­cause the con­stant pro­gres­sion in this field. I am still search­ing into other ar­ti­cles that I may use for this up­com­ing project.

   Reply

   1. I think that is in­ter­est­ing to men­tion, we were dis­cussing the rel­e­vance of in­for­ma­tion in one of my me­dia stud­ies classes specif­i­cally talk­ing about he Zika virus and how no one re­ally knows specifics of how it is spread or con­tracted. As there are new health epi­demics it is in­ter­est­ing how the lack of cred­i­ble in­for­ma­tion cre­ates more of a pub­lic scare. Maybe you can look at it from that an­gle…

      Reply

   2. Er­ica, this is a re­ally good ap­pli­ca­tion of how and why health pro­fes­sion­als share in­for­ma­tion. I think it could be help­ful if you look at how ar­ti­cles as­sume read­ers have a prior un­der­stand­ing of past oc­cur­rences and how this new in­for­ma­tion builds on that past knowl­edge. some top­ics to look at might be struc­ture of ar­ti­cle, and ci­ta­tions of other studies/cases.

      Reply

7. “While North Amer­i­cans tend to seg­re­gate so­cial
   com­mu­ni­ca­tion from busi­ness com­mu­ni­ca­tion, East Asians were
   found to value a merger of the two. In other words,
   in­ter­per­sonal re­la­tion­ships in un­of­fi­cial set­tings have a
   di­rect im­pact on for­mal decision-making. For ex­am­ple, Gold­man
   (1994) states:
   Japan­ese pre­fer to blur the line be­tween per­sonal and
   pub­lic re­la­tion­ship build­ing by en­cour­ag­ing an in­for­mal
   con­tin­u­a­tion of nin­gen­sei [hu­man be­ing­ness] out­side of
   the ne­go­ti­at­ing ta­ble and within so­cial are­nas of
   cabarets, restau­rants, bars, golf courses, hot springs,
   and coun­try clubs. (p. 37)”

   While this quote is out of con­text it sets up pro­vid­ing pre­vi­ous re­search on this topic. While fo­cus­ing on East Asia this text pro­vides miss­ing in­for­ma­tion, fill­ing in the reader, us­ing pre­vi­ous stud­ies what has been learned and con­firmed by the com­mu­ni­ca­tion com­mu­nity. Learn­ing this in­for­ma­tion is cru­cial for un­der­stand­ing what the re­search topic of the ar­ti­cle will be. The more re­search i have done the more this ar­che­type reemerges. Why the writ­ing is al­ways fairly ca­sual it re­mains aca­d­e­mic, an­other theme that re­mains con­sis­tent with these com­mu­ni­ca­tion texts.

   Reply

   1. I find it very fas­ci­nat­ing and true theta North Amer­i­cans do in fact seg­re­gate the two types of com­mu­ni­ca­tions. In many ad books I have read how­ever, the au­thor talks in a very plane and laid back voice so that all read­ers can un­der­stand where she is com­ing from.

      Reply

8. “When Ot­let at­tempts to il­lus­trate the flow of men­tal en­ergy in bib­li­o­graph­i­cal sys­tems, he of­ten uses ex­am­ples from nat­ural ecol­ogy such as the cir­cu­la­tion of wa­ter through rivers, seas, and clouds in the process of rain evap­o­ra­tion and con­den­sa­tion.”

   I can eas­ily see this eco­log­i­cal process tak­ing place in physics dis­course. For ex­am­ple, the great philoso­pher and his­to­rian of sci­ence Thomas Kuhn pointed out that sci­en­tists work in small “re­search groups” within a larger web of acad­e­mia. At CU, for in­stance, we have sev­eral labs de­voted to study­ing liq­uid crys­tals. This pur­suit is one of many re­search groups in­volved in the field of solid-state physics. The find­ings from these in­di­vid­ual re­search groups are pub­lished in aca­d­e­mic jour­nals like Solid State Sci­ences. If you look at this link:
   http://​www​.sci​encedi​rect​.com/​s​c​i​e​n​c​e​/​j​o​u​r​n​a​l​/​1​2​9​3​2​558
   you can see that re­search groups from sev­eral dif­fer­ent in­sti­tu­tions all around the world are in­volved in this “re­search pro­gram” of solid-state physics. As I’ve pointed out in my pre­vi­ous com­ments in this class, physics doc­u­men­ta­tion is as cut and dry as it can be. Every jour­nal ar­ti­cle I’ve looked at has the same or­ga­ni­za­tion, in­tended au­di­ence, math­e­mat­i­cal ar­gu­ments, and pic­to­r­ial rep­re­sen­ta­tions of in­for­ma­tion. Al­though some sub-fields have dif­fer­ent cri­te­ria for what con­sti­tutes proof, there is a gen­eral con­sen­sus that “5-sigma”, or 5 times the stan­dard de­vi­a­tion of a set of data, is the max­i­mum un­cer­tainty with which one can con­firm a the­ory. We can see this in the ar­ti­cle I’ve men­tioned be­fore:
   https://​jour​nals​.aps​.org/​p​r​l​/​a​b​s​t​r​a​c​t​/​1​0​.​1​1​0​3​/​P​h​y​s​R​e​v​L​e​t​t​.​1​1​6​.​0​6​1​102.

   I’ve sort of amal­ga­mated my (1.) and (2.) here since they tie to­gether nicely.

   Reply

9. 1. “Ot­let con­ceives of the ex­pan­sion of the book’s in­tel­lec­tual to­tal­ity in terms of his­tor­i­cally de­ter­mined so­cial sys­tems of in­put, pro­duc­tion, and out­put. For Ot­let, books are part of an evo­lu­tion­ary process of thought, and as such, books con­tain what came be­fore them in other books.”

   In eco­nom­ics, pre­ex­ist­ing mod­els and con­cepts are al­ways be­ing ex­panded with new in­sights. The ideas first pre­sented by Adam Smith in his book: The Wealth of Na­tions were built upon by John Keynes and so on up un­til our cur­rent knowl­edge of eco­nom­ics. In the spe­cific field of eco­nomic growth, it is im­por­tant to un­der­stand what has hap­pened be­fore to bet­ter pre­dict what will hap­pen.

   2. Sta­tus up­date: I am find­ing that how (and if) the au­thor of a jour­nal choses his side for an ar­gu­ment is im­por­tant in my dis­course. As I find more sources I no­ticed that more of­ten than not both sides are ar­gued for the sake of stay­ing neu­tral and out of the po­lit­i­cal as­pects of eco­nom­ics.

   Reply

10. “25) La­tour ar­gues that in­for­ma­tion should not be char­ac­ter­ized in terms of a rep­re­sen­ta­tional fact; rather, it is a re­la­tion be­tween two places, a pe­riph­ery and a cen­ter (24). This re­la­tion­ship is a prac­ti­cal re­la­tion­ship be­tween what La­tour terms a “cen­ter of cal­cu­la­tion” or “cen­ter of mea­sure” (“cen­tre de cal­cul”) and the ob­jects which that cen­ter or­ga­nizes.” (Sci­ence and In­sti­tu­tions Sec­tion)

    This quote talks about how, as a field, the pro­fes­sion­als share and an­a­lyze the in­for­ma­tion they find and how they ap­ply the find­ings to their work to solve the prob­lem they are fac­ing. This re­lates to how when mar­keters are cre­at­ing a brand im­age they are con­stantly con­sid­er­ing the ques­tion “what problem/desire are we try­ing to solve/satisfy?”. Any find­ings in both in­dus­tries fo­cus their shared in­for­ma­tion on how the quan­ti­ta­tive and qual­i­ta­tive facts re­late to how those facts could help ac­com­plish a team’s goals.

    2. I have done some re­search into what in­sti­tu­tion my ar­ti­cle from last week was pub­lished through, which points to the rea­son the au­thors pub­lished the ar­ti­cle and who they were try­ing to reach. The pub­lisher is Ad­vance OHIO which is part of a larger group Ad­vance Lo­cal, who over­see 12 smaller branches to keep their post­ings to re­gional in­for­ma­tion (ex. Ad­vance OHIO). I am find­ing other ar­ti­cles that share na­tional data as well as ar­ti­cles that share in­for­ma­tion within a spe­cific com­pany to see what cor­re­la­tions I find in the top­ics dis­cussed in class.

    Reply

11. “La­tour ar­gues that in­for­ma­tion should not be char­ac­ter­ized in terms of a rep­re­sen­ta­tional fact; rather, it is a re­la­tion be­tween two places, a pe­riph­ery and a cen­ter” (24). This state­ment of in­for­ma­tion be­ing a re­la­tion­ship rather than fact runs well with my field of study. Un­der po­lit­i­cal eco­nom­ics, peo­ple look to re­la­tion­ships to bet­ter un­der­stand ef­fec­tive­ness of pol­icy and po­lit­i­cal in­ter­ac­tion.

    Sta­tus up­date: I have my ar­ti­cles grouped to­gether. The use of Chi­nook and Google Scholar was in­stru­men­tal in find­ing solid ar­ti­cles.

    Reply

    1. I like this in­ter­pre­ta­tion of fact, very in­ter­est­ing topic. I too used Chi­nook and Google Scholar, it made find­ing sources for this as­sign­ment much eas­ier.

       Reply

12. 1. “… they con­sti­tute a man­ner of es­tab­lish­ing proof, and the cri­te­ria for proof.”
    This quote stood out to me im­mensely be­cause it talks about the li­brary col­lect­ing books and how they go about de­cid­ing what counts as good proof and what does not. This is very sim­i­lar to my field of study where qual­i­ta­tive data counts as proof just as much and quan­ti­ta­tive, and dif­fer­ent pro­fes­sors and au­thors go about dif­fer­ent ways to state their proof and rea­son­ing be­hind it.

    Reply

13. 2. I have found more ar­ti­cles that ex­pand my field or re­search and al­lowed me to rhetor­i­cally an­a­lyze them and fur­ther find more in­for­ma­tion that could help me with project two. I have found that us­ing Chi­nook has been very suc­cess­fully for me and plan to fin­ish up my re­search.

    Reply

14. 1. “Rhetor­i­cal dif­fu­sion leads to tech­no­log­i­cal de­sign, de­vel­op­ment, and ac­cep­tance as well as to the shap­ing of cul­ture ac­cord­ing to tech­no­log­i­cal mod­els. Tropes of tech­nol­ogy, and es­pe­cially of in­for­ma­tion, not only metaphor­i­cally re­peat them­selves through dif­fer­ent do­mains of cul­ture but also metonymi­cally lever­age his­tory, forc­ing so­ci­eties to de­velop ac­cord­ing to “in­evitable” tech­no­log­i­cal mod­els.”

    I think that this quote per­tains to my dis­ci­pline, be­cause it ex­plains how in­for­ma­tion, knowl­edge, exper­tise, re­search, dis­course com­mu­ni­ties, and com­mu­ni­ca­tion con­ven­tions must de­velop in my dis­ci­pline of com­mu­ni­ca­tion as in­for­ma­tion within com­mu­ni­ca­tion con­stantly evolves and de­velop within our so­ci­ety.

    2. Sta­tus Up­date: I still need to re­search schol­arly ar­ti­cles and look into how re­search and ex­per­tise is used within my dis­ci­pline.

    Reply

    1. Sim­i­lar to your dis­course, the way in­for­ma­tion is com­mu­ni­cated in just about any field I find ex­tremely in­ter­est­ing. Es­pe­cially with the ever chang­ing pop­u­lar cul­ture, new com­mu­ni­ca­tion plat­forms are cre­ated and there­fore, new ways of com­mu­ni­cat­ing are brought into the ad­ver­tis­ing field while oth­ers are left out or sim­ply used less fre­quently.

       Reply