The Editor's Safety Net [Group D]
This blog entry is part of a Fall 2008 blogging exchange between University of Sydney and Stanford University. To read all the entries, follow this thread; be sure read the earliest entries first.
We are Carlos Shimizu, Yong Liang Tan, and Nathaniel Shar, and we're studying the "rhetoric of research" -- analyzing the ways people talk to each other about academic topics. Carlos' current research project aims to illustrate how various genres of music utilize rhetoric for a specific agenda, and to show how their use of rhetoric may or may not differ with the 5 traditional canons of rhetoric. Yong's project compares the rhetoric of Western and Chinese perspectives of female infanticide in China in the late 20th century. Nathaniel's research investigates the relationship between the rhetoric of mathematics teaching and the prevalence of innumeracy in American society.
Despite our diverse interests, all our papers will have one thing in common: they will all be revised, perhaps multiple times. Peer editing is an integral part of this process. This year, we will be conducting our peer edits online rather than in person.
We expect there will be several differences between electronic peer editing and the real-life version. First of all, electronic editing gives us the opportunity to write a larger volume of comments. Writing in the margins with pencil puts a severe limit on the amount one can say, but in an electronic format one can write an unlimited amount. This means that a peer editor must choose carefully on what to comment, and to what length; some will include the most important points, but others will take the shortcut of just writing the comments that come to mind first.
The impersonality of the computer screen can embolden editors so that they feel more secure about giving frank comments. In the traditional system, the editor and author must convene at some point to discuss the comments. Writing online delays this meeting, so the ensuing discussion can be about already-revised work rather than the same raw draft. This is a positive aspect because it allows the writing process to move faster without sacrificing quality. Even in the worst case, the process will move at the same speed, in the case that the meeting serves only to clarify the online comments as opposed to discussion of new points. The picture shows Yong discussing his essay with his peer editors in a series of letters before they convene in real life.
This is still speculation, and there may be other benefits and/or drawbacks whose impacts remain to be seen. For example, if the computer system crashes, the process could be delayed, as no one could access the essays or comments. And some editors may not be comfortable using the editing tools of Microsoft Word (or another word-processing program). But, on the whole, we feel that electronic peer-editing will be an improvement over the traditional process.
By: Nathaniel Shar, Yong Liang Tan, and Carlos Shimizu
Image credits: Top image by "Zeptomoon" on Wikiversity (CC-A); bottom image by the authors.
Comments
Hi Carlos, Yong and Nathaniel!
I'm Victoria and I'm writing to you from the University of Sydney, Australia. Although summer should be on its way, the last few days have been uncharacteristically freezing - I hope you are getting a bit of sun in your corner of the world!
Your exploration of online editing looks extremely interesting and a very practical way to approach texts within our technological, 'on-the-go' lifestyles. In our class, 'Page to Screen', we have been looking at a different kind of electronic textuality - the hypertext. We too have been discussing and arguing over the potential benefits and drawbacks of online literature, as to whether it is an improvement over traditional print-based texts, or simply a fad which will pass...
We would all love to hear your thoughts - a great hypertext is Shelley Jackson's "My Body" which you can look at at http://www.altx.com/thebody/
Speak to you soon!
Victoria
Posted by: Victoria | October 22, 2008 05:10 PM
Hi Victoria,
Thanks for your comment.
I remember Sydney during the "fall seasons" and in fact remember one, as you so put it, uncharacteristically freezing night, but being excited to be in the city, we weren't deterred from exploring and wandering about! I miss it!
Anyway, as per your comment. My exploration of hypertext as an explicit topic is quite limited so far, but I do know that I've encountered it several times (wikis!). As perhaps is evident through looking at the evolution of hypertext, I think it would be safe to say that we are indeed going in a direction of evermore reliance and use of digital, online, and technology-based literature. Be that as it may, there will be drawbacks to reliance on technology as a means of communication of literature (e.g. online peer-editing), and in our blog, we posted a few potential consequences that may be unwanted, perhaps you could enlighten us about hypertext-use drawbacks, as well?
Thanks again, and look forward to speaking with you soon.
All the best,
Carlos
Posted by: Carlos Shimizu | October 27, 2008 10:49 PM
Hi Victoria,
Like Carlos, I am really glad to hear your comments as well.
Though I haven't been to Sydney in particular, my adventures in Adelaide, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth were wonderful experiences for me. The stacks and stumps that dotted the beaches along the Great Ocean Road were spectacular and awe-inspiring. I wished I could visit your great country in the near future!
With regard to your comments, I must say my experiences with hypertext is mediocre. Indubitably, it gives readers quick access to related articles and explanations about key words and technical jargons conveniently. One important advantage of hypertext is that it intuitively diverges the mental framework of readers. They might suddenly be enlightened about one aspect of their research that they were previously unaware of, or discover treasure chests of sources they never knew existed. This way, readers can expand the scope of their research without rummaging through mountains of printed or unlinked online texts.
But if we consider hypertext holistically, hypertext can also be a grave hindrance to research by continually distracting the reader. A reader who is conducting a well-focused research into a topic might find himself venturing into unchartered territories that might arouse his/her interest but does not contribute constructively to this project. The same reader might not find the path back to useful pages which he had previously found as he ventures from one link to the next. This problem is prevalent when he/she loses track of the intermediate webpages he/she had visited. Until these flaws are corrected with advanced programming algorithms, I am not so confident that hypertext will be adopted by many mainstream news media or govenrnment websites.
Have a great day!
Posted by: Yong | October 28, 2008 10:57 PM