An Introductory Note
This project proposal is at the very start of my MLA program. As I am pursuing this program running through one class per semester, the program timeline for me is the maximum five years permitted.
‘The Epistemological Crisis’ is a somewhat ephemeral concept, as such, the project will be rooted in an exploratory perspective. A further framework for this is the concept of “thin description” and “distant reading” introduced to me earlier in the semester. This is possibly to Dr. Hocutt’s contradictory advice that the project may benefit from a narrow and thick description instead.
An Autoethnographic Meta-Method
MLA 500 is the first time I have worked with the UR WordPress Blogs. My brief experience working with it this semester leads me to believe that it may be both flexible and robust enough to serve as a platform of an autoethnographic method.
I’ll try and explain the rationale more thoroughly in the research proposal, but the short version is that because I am within and believe the E-crisis is real, an autoethnographic method is way to be ‘radically transparent’ and honest with the research.
Historical Rhetorical Methods
There are two main methods under the rubric of historical / rhetorical research and analysis I am looking at for this project.
I. Narrative Criticism
I believe the power of story making / telling (narrative) is an often underappreciated feature in the formation of beliefs / knowledge. At much of the core of the E-crisis (or at least what I assume I will be able to demonstrate) is the ‘culture war’ or, more basically, a differentiated aesthetic between and among groups.
More than content (facts and reason), narrative is an important framing characteristic which both effects and is effected by author / audience epistemological factors.
II. Ideological Criticism
This is the method which will be (I speculate) the dominant mode.
As such, it provide the insight for the unit of analysis I have been struggling with – namely that of the ideograph. Not a single specific ideograph, but ideographs across several (‘thin and distant’) topics.
It appears to me (and is a feature of what I call the Epistemological Crisis) that it is ideograph opposition that is a defining feature. It is opposition to an ideograph (or more accurately – a group representing an ideograph) that is the defining feature. For example, as a member of UR’s ‘White Anti-Racism’ group, right within the name is the feature at the fore – being opposed to (what could be considered an ideograph). On the ‘other side’ are people who don’t necessarily consider themselves exhibiting racism, but define their opposition to such ‘anti-racism’ as an almost anti-anti-racism.
I believe the combination of these two ‘Methods’ – Narrative and Ideological Criticism – can serve as a functional framework for research and analysis of the Epistemological Crisis.
… Kenny
There’s a lot going on in this post, but I like the way you’re beginning to chunk your approaches and methods in practical, executable categories. See if I’m following your approach.
1. You’ll use the EE Crisis blog as a metacognitive tool toward autoethnographic transparency of your approach and decisions. Basically, you’ll use the blog as a locus of text-based reflections that you’ll maintain throughout the process of conducting narrative and ideological criticism.
2. You’ll conduct narrative criticism of “stories” — my question, of course, is what kind of narratives or stories you’ll collect for critical attention. While your ideological criticism approach identifies ideographs as a unit of analysis, it’s unclear whether this unit will work for narrative criticism, largely because of an ideograph’s lack of narrative or use in narrative
3. You’ll conduct ideological criticism of a selection of ideographs, probably engaged in culture wars (taken from your narrative criticism section) — as above, my question is what methods you’ll use to identify and select specific ideographs for ideological criticism.
What’s not entirely clear to me is the product or result of these approaches. That is, what will you produce? The blog? A paper? A research report? Your proposal will need to provide a step-by-step approach to narrative selection, ideograph selection, critical analysis, and blog posting that represents a systematic approach to addressing your research question. Your goal in the proposal is to convince me (as a placeholder for “scholars”) that your approach — literature review, methodology, methods, and results — has a better than average chance of answering your research question as thoroughly as possible.
As a reminder, your first goal is to demonstrate the reality of the e-crisis. That’s the unspoken warrant in your logic, that the e-crisis is real and a serious crisis in need of solution. So before anything else, your proposal will need to provide a research-driven working definition of the e-crisis as a starting point. And while I recognize this may feel like a step backward, I believe a well-researched paper that proposes a working definition of the e-crisis as requiring a solution would be a useful and adequate fulfillment of this assignment. In other words, it appears to me that you’re using the term “e-crisis” itself as an ideograph, and the methods you propose for unpacking the ideograph’s meaning and significance might well be exactly what you need to deploy as your proposal. The methods and project you propose are worthy of a five-year study and analysis, culminating perhaps in the completed blog as your end result — but for this assignment, it’s enough to propose a working definition using historical research and rhetorical analysis as you methods.
That said. don’t consider this a rebuke of the project and methods you’ve provided. They are good methods for a solid study, but they build upon an assumption that may first need to be explicitly defined — that we are experiencing an epistemological crisis and that it’s a significant rhetorical (meaning political, social, cultural, economic, and the like) problem deserving, if not requiring, analysis and resolution. In and of itself, that’s a big project.
P.S. Here’s something I came across when seeking a useable working definition of ideograph from a rhetorical perspective: http://webservices.itcs.umich.edu/mediawiki/DigitalRhetoricCollaborative/index.php/Ideograph
The Digital Rhetoric Collaborative is a functioning group that’s engaged in ongoing research into digital rhetoric. While not directly connected to ideographs, there are some interesting intersections of ideographs and visual digital rhetorics.
I don’t at all take your feedback in any way as a ‘rebuke’.
As you (surely) have noticed – It is a topic I have been struggling with – and yes, the defining’ the “e-crisis” is a fundamental part of that.
I think the ‘simplest’ approach here (for my purpose for this class here) is that the research proposal address that very question:
What is the E-crisis (and its impact on society)?
Assuming the E-crisis is (in fact) an ideograph, then moving it away from the ephemera (and intentional ambiguity) of ideograph status into something more tangible and meaningful is (hopefully!) a satisfactory bargain here!
… Kenny