Rhetorics of Disciplinarity (w. Ellen Cushman)

This reading list assembles work published in rhetoric, the social sciences, science and technology studies, critical university studies, and interdisciplinary studies, among other fields, that focuses on how communities and institutions discipline knowledge — that is, section it into named and categorized “areas” that are claimed and border-policed as epistemic territories. The list also includes key works in digital humanities, of what Derek N. Mueller calls “discipliniography” (a term he borrows from Maureen Daly Goggin’s work on the formation of writing studies): meta-academic writing that is explicitly definitional, even as other academic writing more implicitly authors a discipline (2017, p. 15). The list’s readings are intended to inform the dissertation’s treatment of this disciplining, and the analytics used to visualize its emergence, as rhetorical practices that are epistemic technologies: metaphorical “bounding boxes” for selecting, isolating, withdrawing, stripping down, de-contextualizing and re-contextualizing objects of knowledge. The readings here also provide material for courses that teach, in the same intellectual space, the boundaries drawn between objects of knowledge, communities, and genres.

Disciplinary Knowledgemaking

  • Bourdieu, Pierre. Homo Academicus. Translated by Peter Collier, 1 edition, Stanford University Press, 1988.
  • Bourdieu, Pierre. “Structures, Habitus, Practices.” The Logic of Practice, translated by Richard Nice, 1 edition, Stanford University Press, 1992.
  • Bowker, Geoffrey C., and Susan Leigh Star. Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. Edited by Wiebe E. Bijker et al., Revised edition, The MIT Press, 2000.
  • Canagarajah, A. Suresh. A Geopolitics of Academic Writing. 1 edition, University of Pittsburgh Press, 2002.
  • Crow, Michael M. and William B. Dabars. “Interdisciplinarity and the Institutional Context of Knowledge in the American Research University.” The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, edited by Robert Frodeman et al., 2 edition, Oxford University Press, 2017.
  • Davidson, Cathy N. The New Education: How to Revolutionize the University to Prepare Students for a World In Flux. 1 edition, Basic Books, 2017.
  • Certeau, Michel de. The Practice of Everyday Life. Translated by Steven F. Rendall, 3 edition, University of California Press, 2011.
  • Foucault, Michel. The Archaeology of Knowledge: And the Discourse on Language. Vintage, 1982.
  • Frodeman, Robert. “The Future of Interdisciplinarity.” The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, edited by Robert Frodeman et al., 2 edition, Oxford University Press, 2017.
  • Graff, Gerald. “Presidential Address 2008: Courseocentrism.” PMLA, vol. 124, no. 3, May 2009, pp. 727–43. doi:10.1632/pmla.2009.124.3.727.
  • Graff, Harvey J. Undisciplining Knowledge: Interdisciplinarity in the Twentieth Century. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2015.
  • Kerschbaum, Stephanie L. Toward a New Rhetoric of Difference. National Council of Teachers of English, 2014.
  • Klein, Julie Thompson. “The Rhetoric of Interdisciplinarity: Boundary Work in the Construction of New Knowledge.” The SAGE Handbook of Rhetorical Studies, SAGE Publications, Inc., 2009, pp. 265–84. doi:10.4135/9781412982795.n15.
  • —. “Typologies of Interdisciplinarity: The Boundary Work of Definition.” The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, edited by Robert Frodeman et al., 2 edition, Oxford University Press, 2017.
  • Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd edition, University of Chicago Press, 1996.
  • Olson, Hope A. “The Power to Name: Representation in Library Catalogs.” Signs, vol. 26, no. 3, 2001, pp. 639–68.
  • Post, Robert. “Debating Disciplinarity.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 35, no. 4, Jan. 2009, pp. 749–70. doi:10.1086/599580.
  • Prior, Paul. Writing/Disciplinarity: A Sociohistoric Account of Literate Activity in the Academy. 1 edition, Routledge, 1998.
  • Royster, Jacqueline Jones. “Disciplinary Landscaping, or Contemporary Challenges in the History of Rhetoric.” Philosophy & Rhetoric, vol. 36, no. 2, 2003, pp. 148–67.
  • Snow, C. P. The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. Martino Fine Books, 2013.
  • Williams, J. J. “Teach the University.” Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition, and Culture, vol. 8, no. 1, Jan. 2008, pp. 25–42. doi:10.1215/15314200-2007-023.
  • Wilson, Edward Osborne. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. Reprint edition, Vintage, 1999.
  • Turner, Stephen. “Knowledge Formations: An Analytic Framework.” The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, edited by Robert Frodeman et al., 2 edition, Oxford University Press, 2017.

Formation of Digital Humanities

  • Busa, Fr. Roberto. “Guest Editorial: Why Can a Computer Do so Little?” Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing Bulletin, vol. 4, no. 1, 1976.
  • Carter, Shannon, et al. “Beyond Territorial Disputes: Toward a ‘Disciplined Interdisciplinarity’ in the Digital Humanities.” Rhetoric and the Digital Humanities, edited by Jim Ridolfo and William Hart-Davidson, University of Chicago Press, 2015, pp. 33–48.
  • Davidson, Cathy N. and Danica Savonick. “Digital Humanities: The Role of Interdisciplinary Humanities in the Information Age.” The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, edited by Robert Frodeman et al., 2 edition, Oxford University Press, 2017.
  • Fiormonte, Domenico. “Digital Humanities and the Geopolitics of Knowledge.” Digital Studies/Le Champ Numérique, vol. 7, no. 1, Oct. 2017. www.digitalstudies.org, doi:10.16995/dscn.274.
  • Hayles, Katherine editor, and Jessica Pressman. Comparative Textual Media : Transforming the Humanities in the Postprint Era. University of Minnesota Press, 2013.
  • Hockey, Susan. “The History of Humanities Computing.” Companion to Digital Humanities (Blackwell Companions to Literature and Culture), Hardcover, Blackwell Publishing Professional, 2004, http://www.digitalhumanities.org/companion/.
  • Igarashi, Yohei. “Statistical Analysis at the Birth of Close Reading.” New Literary History, vol. 46, no. 3, Nov. 2015, pp. 485–504. doi:10.1353/nlh.2015.0023.
  • Klein, Julie Thompson. Interdisciplining Digital Humanities: Boundary Work in an Emerging Field. U of M Digit Cult Books, 2015.
  • Kirschenbaum, Matthew G. “Digital Humanities As/Is a Tactical Term.” Debates in the Digital Humanities, edited by Matthew K. Gold, University Of Minnesota Press, 2012, pp. 415–28.
  • Liu, Alan. “The Meaning of the Digital Humanities.” PMLA, vol. 128, no. 2, Mar. 2013, pp. 409–23. CrossRef, doi:10.1632/pmla.2013.128.2.409.
  • —. “Digital Humanities Diversity as Technical Problem.” Alan Liu, 15 January 2018. doi:10.21972/G21T07.
  • McCarty, Willard. “Tree, Turf, Centre, Archipelago—or Wild Acre? Metaphors and Stories for Humanities Computing.” Literary and Linguistic Computing, vol. 21, no. 1, Apr. 2006, pp. 1–13. academic.oup.com, doi:10.1093/llc/fqi066.
  • McGann, Jerome. “Information Technology and the Troubled Humanities.” Text Technology, vol. 14, no. 2, 2005, p. 105.
  • Milic, Louis T. “The next Step.” Computers and the Humanities, vol. 1, no. 1, 1966, pp. 3–6.
  • Nowviskie, Bethany. “Eternal September of the Digital Humanities.” nowviskie.org, 15 Oct. 2010, http://nowviskie.org/2010/eternal-september-of-the-digital-humanities/.
  • Olsen, Mark. “Signs, Symbols and Discourses: A New Direction for Computer-Aided Literature Studies.” Computers and the Humanities, vol. 27, no. 5–6, 1993, pp. 309–314.
  • Potter, Rosanne G. “Literary Criticism and Literary Computing.”Computers and the Humanities, vol. 22, 1988, pp. 91–97.
  • Rockwell, Geoffrey. Is Humanities Computing an Academic Discipline? 1999, http://www.iath.virginia.edu/hcs/rockwell.html.
  • Spiro, Lisa. “‘This Is Why We Fight’: Defining the Values of the Digital Humanities.” Debates in the Digital Humanities, edited by Matthew K. Gold, University of Minnesota Press, 2012, pp. 16–35.
  • Svensson, Patrik. “Humanities Computing as Digital Humanities.” Digital Humanities Quarterly, Vol. 3, no. 3, 2009. http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/3/3/000065/000065.html.
  • Terras, Melissa. “Disciplined: Using Educational Studies to Analyse ‘Humanities Computing.’” Digital Scholarship in the Humanities vol. 21, no. 2, June 2006, pp. 229–46. doi:10.1093/llc/fql022.
  • Terras, Melissa M., et al., editors. Defining Digital Humanities: A Reader. Ashgate Publishing Limited ; Ashgate Publishing Company, 2013.
  • Underwood, Ted. “A Genealogy of Distant Reading.” Digital Humanities Quarterly, vol. 11, no. 2, 2017.
  • Unsworth, John. “A Master’s Degree in Digital Humanities: Part of the Media Studies Program at the University of Virginia.” 2001 Congress of the Social Sciences and Humanities. Université Laval, Québec, Canada. Lecture. 25 May 2001. http://www.people.virginia.edu/~jmu2m/laval.html.
  • –. “What Is Humanities Computing and What Is Not?” 8 Nov. 2002, http://computerphilologie.uni-muenchen.de/jg02/unsworth.html.

Citation and Citation Analysis (w. Neal Lerner)

This reading list represents a field of research interested in citation that has emerged in three related scholarly traditions: one that makes use of bibliometric methods from information science to measure the aggregate impact and evolution of scholarly fields; one that uses techniques from applied linguistics to identify, describe, and sort the citation practices of academic authors according to genres and disciplines; and a nascent one that uses citation to trace the historiography of writing studies. While citation analysis is used broadly for academic productivity assessment and information retrieval, these readings focus on work that analyzes citations to trace the networked development of scholarly fields or considers rhetorically authors’ purposes for citing, which include epistemic boundary-work as well as responsible attribution. These readings lend context and purpose to potential methodologies for the dissertation, while also providing material for courses that foreground source literacy and discipline-specific writing practices.

Bibliometric/Scientometric Tradition

  • Bornmann, L., et al. “Citation Counts for Research Evaluation: Standards of Good Practice for Analyzing Bibliometric Data and Presenting and Interpreting Results.” Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, vol. 8, June 2008, pp. 93–102. doi:10.3354/esep00084.
  • Börner, Katy, et al. “Visualizing Knowledge Domains.” Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, vol. 37, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 179–255. doi:10.1002/aris.1440370106.
  • Chubin, Daryl E., and Soumyo D. Moitra. “Content Analysis of References: Adjunct or Alternative to Citation Counting?” Social Studies of Science, vol. 5, no. 4, Nov. 1975, pp. 423–41. doi:10.1177/030631277500500403.
  • Cronin, Blaise, and Cassidy R. Sugimoto, editors. Beyond Bibliometrics: Harnessing Multidimensional Indicators of Scholarly Impact. 1 edition, The MIT Press, 2014.
  • Garfield, Eugene. “Citation Analysis as a Tool in Journal Evaluation”. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1972.
  • –. “Citation Indexing, Historio-Bibliography, and the Sociology of Science,” Proceedings of the Third International Congress of Medical Librarianship, Amsterdam, 5-9 May 1969, (Excerpla Medica 1970) pp. 187-204.
  • —. “From Bibliographic Coupling to Co-Citation Analysis via Algorithmic Historio-Bibliography.” Drexel University, 2001.
  • Garfield, Eugene, et al. “Citation Data as Science Indicators.” Toward a Metric of Science: The Advent of Science Indicators, edited by Yehuda Elkana et al., John Wiley & Sons, 1978, pp. 179-207.
  • Guo, Hanning, et al. “Mixed-Indicators Model for Identifying Emerging Research Areas.” Scientometrics, vol. 89, no. 1, Oct. 2011, pp. 421–35. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0433-7.
  • Kessler, M. M. “Bibliographic Coupling Between Scientific Papers.” American Documentation, vol. 14, no. 1, Jan. 1963, pp. 10–25.
  • Kostoff, R. N. “The Use and Misuse of Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation.” Scientometrics, vol. 43, no. 1, Sept. 1998, pp. 27–43. doi:10.1007/BF02458392.
  • Liu, Alan, et al. “Friending the Humanities Knowledge Base: Exploring Bibliography as Social Network in RoSE.” 2012 2011.
  • Moravcsik, Michael J., and Poovanalingam Murugesan. “Some Results on the Function and Quality of Citations.” Social Studies of Science, vol. 5, no. 1, 1975, pp. 86–92.
  • Osareh, Farideh. “Bibliometrics, Citation Analysis and Co-Citation Analysis: A Review of Literature I.” Libri, vol. 46, no. 3, 1996, pp. 149–158.
  • —. “Bibliometrics, Citation Analysis and Co-Citation Analysis: A Review of Literature II.” Libri, vol. 46, 1996, pp. 217–25.
  • Price, Derek J. De Solla. “Networks of Scientific Papers.” Science, vol. 149, no. 3683, 1965, pp. 510–15.
  • Small, Henry. “Co-Citation in the Scientific Literature: A New Measure of the Relationship Between Two Documents.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science, vol. 24, no. 4, Aug. 1973, pp. 265–69.
  • —. “Cited Documents as Concept Symbols.” Social Studies of Science, vol. 8, no. 3, 1978, pp. 327–40.
  • —. “Interpreting Maps of Science Using Citation Context Sentiments: A Preliminary Investigation.” Scientometrics, vol. 87, no. 2, May 2011, pp. 373–88. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0349-2.
  • Weingart, Scott. “Networks Demystified 4: Co-Citation Analysis.” The Scottbot Irregular, 30 June 2013, http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/?p=38272.
  • White, Howard D. “Authors as Citers over Time.” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, vol. 52, no. 2, 2001, pp. 87–108.

Applied Linguistics Tradition

  • Ávila-Reyes, Natalia. “Postsecondary Writing Studies in Hispanic Latin America: Intertextual Dynamics and Intellectual Influence.” London Review of Education, vol. 15, no. 1, Mar. 2017, pp. 21–37. doi:10.18546/LRE.15.1.03.
  • Allen, Bryce, et al. “Persuasive Communities: A Longitudinal Analysis of References in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 1665-1990.” Social Studies of Science, vol. 24, no. 2, 1994, pp. 279–310.
  • Bazerman, Charles. Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. WAC Clearinghouse Landmark Publications in Writing Studies: http://wac.colostate.edu/books/ bazerman_shaping/ Originally Published in Print, 1988, by University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin.
  • Cronin, Blaise. The Hand of Science: Academic Writing and Its Rewards. Scarecrow Press, 2005.
  • Gilbert, G. Nigel. “Referencing as Persuasion.” Social Studies of Science, vol. 7, no. 1, Feb. 1977, pp. 113–22. doi:10.1177/030631277700700112.
  • Harwood, Nigel. “An Interview-Based Study of the Functions of Citations in Academic Writing across Two Disciplines.” Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 41, no. 3, Mar. 2009, pp. 497–518. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2008.06.001.
  • Hyland, Ken. Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Longman, 2000.
  • Kaplan, Norman. “The Norms of Citation Behavior: Prolegomena to the Footnote.” American Documentation, vol. 16, no. 3, July 1965, pp. 179–84.
  • Knorr-Cetina, Karin. Epistemic Cultures : How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Harvard University Press, 1999.
  • Swales, John. “Citation Analysis and Discourse Analysis.” Applied Linguistics, vol. 7, no. 1, 1986, pp. 39–56. doi:10.1093/applin/7.1.39.
  • White, Howard D. “Citation Analysis and Discourse Analysis Revisited.” Applied Linguistics, vol. 25, no. 1, Mar. 2004, pp. 89–116. doi:10.1093/applin/25.1.89.
  • Zhang, Guo, et al. “Citation Content Analysis (CCA): A Framework for Syntactic and Semantic Analysis of Citation Content.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 64, no. 7, July 2013, pp. 1490–503. doi:10.1002/asi.22850.

Writing Studies Tradition

  • Connors, Robert J. “The Rhetoric of Citation Systems—Part II: Competing Epistemic Values in Citation.” Rhetoric Review, vol. 17, no. 2, Mar. 1999, pp. 219–45. doi:10.1080/07350199909359242.
  • Eyman, Doug. “Digital Rhetoric: Ecologies and Economies of Digital Circulation.” Diss. Michigan State U, 2007. Print.
  • Jamieson, Sandra. “The Evolution of the Citation Project: Developing a Pilot Study from Local to Translocal.” Points of Departure: Rethinking Student Source Use and Writing Studies Research Methods, edited by Tricia Serviss and Sandra Jamieson, 1 edition, Utah State University Press, 2018.
  • Karatsolis, Andreas. “Rhetorical Patterns in Citations across Disciplines and Levels of Participation.” Journal of Writing Research, vol. 7, no. 3, Feb. 2016, pp. 425–52. doi:10.17239/jowr-2016.07.03.06.
  • Lerner, Neal. “The Unpromising Present of Writing Center Studies: Author and Citation Patterns in ‘The Writing Center Journal’, 1980 to 2009.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 34, no. 1, 2014, pp. 67–102.
  • Lerner, Neal, and Kyle Oddis. “The Social Lives of Citations: How and Why Writing Center Journal Authors Cite Sources.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 36, no. 1, 2017, pp. 235-262.
  • Miller, Benjamin. “Mapping the Methods of Composition/Rhetoric Dissertations:A ‘Landscape Plotted and Pieced.’” College Composition and Communication, vol. 66, no. 1, Sept. 2014, pp. 145–76.
  • Mueller, Derek. “Grasping Rhetoric and Composition by Its Long Tail: What Graphs Can Tell Us about the Field’s Changing Shape.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 64, no. 1, 2012, pp. 195–223.
  • —. Network Sense: Methods for Visualizing a Discipline. The WAC Clearinghouse and University Press of Colorado, 2017, https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/books/network/sense.pdf.
  • Omizo, Ryan, and William Hart-Davidson. “Finding Genre Signals in Academic Writing.” Journal of Writing Research, vol. 7, no. 3, Feb. 2016, pp. 485–509. doi:10.17239/jowr-2016.07.03.08.
  • Robillard, Amy E. “‘Young Scholars’ Affecting Composition: A Challenge to Disciplinary Citation Practices.” College English, vol. 68, no. 3, Jan. 2006, p. 253-270. doi:10.2307/25472151.
  • Rose, Shirley K. “What’s Love Got to Do with It? Scholarly Citation Practices as Courtship Rituals.” Language and Learning across the Disciplines, vol. 1, no. 3, Aug. 1996.

Algorithmic Rhetoric and Interventional Data Analytics (w. Mya Poe)

This reading list focuses on work in the field of digital rhetoric on what it calls digital ecologies, a “systems-based view of both the environments and relationships that take place through digital circulation mechanisms” (Eyman 85). The list focuses on a recent thread of algorithmic rhetoric, which has taken up the concerns of critical algorithm studies in order to articulate the authority and agency that algorithms command within these ecologies. A second section of readings is intended to fill a gap in the application of this recent theoretical understanding of algorithms to the field’s digital and empirical research. These readings are concerned with the methods for best and most responsibly curating, accessing, and manipulating data for the purposes of transformation and disruption. Of particular interest is research that uses speculative techniques to transform the patterns that they coalesce in communication ecologies, rather than settling on describing them as they are.

Digital Ecologies and Algorithmic Rhetoric

  • Alexander, Jonathan, and Jacqueline Rhodes, editors. The Routledge Handbook of Digital Writing and Rhetoric. 1 edition, Routledge, 2018.
  • Brooke, Collin Gifford. “Discipline and Publish: Reading and Writing the Scholarly Network.” Ecology, Writing Theory, and New Media: Writing Ecology, ed. by Sidney I. Dobrin, New York: Routledge, 2012.
  • —. Lingua fracta: Toward a rhetoric of new media. Hampton Press, 2009.
  • Bucher, Taina. If… Then: Algorithmic Power and Politics. Oxford University Press, 2018.
  • Cooper, Marilyn M. “The Ecology of Writing.” College English, vol. 48, no. 4, 1986, pp. 364–75. JSTOR, JSTOR, doi:10.2307/377264.
  • Dobrin, Sidney I., editor. “Introduction: Ecology and the Future of Writing Studies.” In Ecology, Writing Theory, and New Media: Writing Ecology. Reprint edition, Routledge, 2015.
  • Edbauer, Jenny. “Unframing Models of Public Distribution: From Rhetorical Situation to Rhetorical Ecologies.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly, vol. 35, no. 4, Sept. 2005, pp. 5–24. doi:10.1080/02773940509391320.
  • Edwards, Dustin W. “Circulation Gatekeepers: Unbundling the Platform Politics of YouTube’s Content ID.” Computers and Composition 47, 2018, pp. 61-74.
  • Eubanks, Virginia. Automating Inequality: How High-tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor. St. Martin’s Press, 2018.
  • Eyman, Douglas. Digital Rhetoric: Theory, Method, Practice. 2015, http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.13030181.0001.001.
  • Gonzales, Laura, and Dànielle Nicole DeVoss. “Digging into Data: Professional Writers as Data Users.” In Beck, Estee N., et al. “Writing in an Age of Surveillance, Privacy, and Net Neutrality.” Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy, vol. 20, no. 2, Jan. 2016, http://technorhetoric.net/20.2/topoi/beck-et-al/gon_devo.html.
  • Gries, Laurie. Still Life with Rhetoric: A New Materialist Approach for Visual Rhetorics. Utah State University Press, 2015.
  • Gries, Laurie, and Collin Gifford Brooke, editors. Circulation, Writing, and Rhetoric. 1 edition, Utah State University Press, 2018.
  • Hess, Aaron. “Introduction: Theorizing Digital Rhetoric.” Theorizing Digital Rhetoric, edited by Aaron Hess and Amber Davisson, 1 edition, Routledge, 2017, pp. 1–15.
  • Ingraham, Chris. “Toward an Algorithmic Rhetoric.” Digital Rhetoric and Global Literacies: Communication Modes and Digital Practices in the Networked World, edited by Gustav Verhulsdonck and Marohang Limbu, Information Science Reference, An Imprint of IGI Global, 2014, pp. 62–79.
  • Johnson, Jeremy David. “Ethics, Agency, and Power: Toward an Algorithmic Rhetoric.” Theorizing Digital Rhetoric, edited by Aaron Hess and Amber Davisson, 1 edition, Routledge, 2017.
  • Lanius, Candice, and Gaines S. Hubbell. “The New Data: Argumentation admist, on, with, and in Data.” Theorizing Digital Rhetoric, edited by Aaron Hess and Amber Davisson, 1 edition, Routledge, 2017.
  • Morey, Sean. “Digital Ecologies.” Ecology, Writing Theory, and New Media: Writing Ecology, ed. by Sidney I. Dobrin, New York: Routledge, 2012.
  • Noble, Safiya Umoja. Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. 1 edition, NYU Press, 2018.
  • O’Neil, Cathy. Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy. 1 edition, Crown, 2016.
  • Reyman, Jessica. “The Rhetorical Agency of Algorithms.” Theorizing Digital Rhetoric, edited by Aaron Hess and Amber Davisson, 1 edition, Routledge, 2017.
  • Ridolfo, Jim, and Dànielle Nicole DeVoss. “Composing for Recomposition: Rhetorical Velocity and Delivery.” Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy, vol. 13, no. 2, 2009.
  • Ridolfo, Jim, and William Hart-Davidson, eds. Rhetoric and the Digital Humanities. University of Chicago Press, 2015.
  • Rice, Jeff. “Networks and New Media.” College English, vol. 69, no. 2, Nov. 2006, p. 127. Crossref, doi:10.2307/25472197.
  • Roberts, Sarah T. Behind the Screen: Content Moderation in the Shadows of Social Media. Yale University Press, 2019.
  • —. “Occupying the Digital Humanities.” College English, vol. 75, no. 4, Mar. 2013, pp. 360–78.
  • Vaidhyanathan, Siva. Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects US and Undermines Democracy. Oxford University Press, 2018.
  • Vee, Annette. Coding Literacy: How Computer Programming Is Changing Writing. The MIT Press, 2017.
  • Wernimont, Jacqueline. Numbered Lives: Life and Death in Quantum Media. MIT Press, 2019.
  • Zappen, James P. “Digital Rhetoric: Toward an Integrated Theory.” Technical Communication Quarterly, vol. 14, no. 3, July 2005, pp. 319–25. doi:10.1207/s15427625tcq1403_10.

Interventional Data Analysis and Visualization

  • Berry, David M., and Anders Fagerjord. Digital Humanities: Knowledge and Critique in a Digital Age. 1 edition, Polity, 2017.
  • Boyles, Christina L., et al. “Rapid Response Research.” The Nimble Tents Toolkit, 2018, http://nimbletents.github.io/rapidresponse/.
  • Coleman, Beth. “Domestic Disturbances: Precarity, Agency, Data.” Bodies of Information: Intersectional Feminism and Digital Humanities., edited by Elizabeth Losh and Jacqueline Werrnimont, University of Minnesota Press, 2018.
  • Danner, Patrick. “Becoming Data.” Making Future Matters, edited by Rick Wysocki and Mary P. Sheridan. Computers and Composition Digital Press, 2018. https://ccdigitalpress.org/book/makingfuturematters/danner-response-essay.html
  • D’Ignazio, Catherine, and Lauren F. Klein. Data Feminism. MIT Press Open. Forthcoming 2019. https://bookbook.pubpub.org/pub/dgv16l22
  • Drucker, Johanna. “Humanities Approaches to Graphical Display.” Vol. 5, no. 1, 2011. Digital Humanities Quarterly, http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/5/1/000091/000091.html.
  • —. “Non-Representational Approaches to Modeling Interpretation in a Graphical Environment.” Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, vol. 33, no. 2, June 2018, pp. 248–63. doi:10.1093/llc/fqx034.
  • Jackson, Sarah J., et al. “Women Tweet on Violence: From #YesAllWomen to #MeToo.” Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology, no. 15, Feb. 2019, https://adanewmedia.org/2019/02/issue15-bailey-jackson-welles/.
  • Kim, Dorothy and Jesse Stommel, eds. Disrupting the Digital Humanities. Punctum Books, 2018.
  • Losh, Elizabeth, and Jacqueline Wernimont, editors. Bodies of Information: Intersectional Feminism and the Digital Humanities. University of Minnesota Press, 2018.
  • Lupi, Giorgia. “Data Humanism, the Revolution Will Be Visualized.” Giorgia Lupi, 1 Feb. 2017, https://medium.com/@giorgialupi/data-humanism-the-revolution-will-be-visualized-31486a30dbfb.
  • Mayer, Vicki, et al. “How Do We Intervene in the Stubborn Persistence of Patriarchy in Communication Scholarship?” Interventions: Communication Theory and Practice, edited by D. Travers Scott and Adrienne Shaw, Peter Lang, 2017.
  • Morrison, Aimee. “Of, By, and For the Internet: New Media Studies and Public Scholarship.” 2018, http://hdl.handle.net/10012/13374.
  • Risam, Roopika. New Digital Worlds: Postcolonial Digital Humanities in Theory, Praxis, and Pedagogy. Northwestern University Press, 2019.
  • Verhoeven, Deb. “The ‘Gender Offender’ Analysis: How and Why We Did It (Part Two).” Kinomatics, 17 Feb. 2017, https://kinomatics.com/the-gender-offender-analysis-how-and-why-we-did-it-part-two/.