The Parlor: Recent Episodes
Digital Writing and Research Lab, UT Austin
General Summary: Wendi Sierra, an associate professor of game studies at TCU and a game designer, discusses her Oneida heritage while sharing insights about the production of her game “A Strong Fire,” designed to convey an Oneida worldview. Undergraduates Zeshan and Alex explore Sierra’s passion for pedagogy and game design, examining the thoughtful design choices of the game and its impact on the Oneida community.Detailed Summary: Sierra introduces herself and her academic background (01.47-04.35); Sierra discusses how she got interested in the combination of pedagogy and game design (04.37-07.45); Sierra’s interest in making an Oneida game (07.46-11.03); design choices for “A Strong Fire” (11.04-14.57); the role of technology in preserving Oneida culture (15.12-18.17); the distinction between “doing Indian” and “being Indian” (18.19-24.04); interest in digital rhetoric from Oneida youth (24.06-26.23); Sierra’s recent accomplishments (26.26-29.07).Scholarly Article Informing this Production: Sierra, Wendi (2022) Designing with and for Ka’nikuhli:yo: An exploration in Indigenously Determined Game Design. _Computers and Composition Online_. Available at http://cconlinejournal.org/fall2022/DesigningGoodMind/index.htmlCredits: This podcast was produced by Cassidy Swinson, Ava Hammon, Zeshan Rashid, Alex Sanchez, and with resources and assistance from the Digital Writing and Research Lab. It features the voices of Wendi Sierra, Zeshan Rashid, Alex Sanchez, Ava Hammon, and Cassidy Swinson. The music featured in this podcast, titled “commonGround” was composed by airtone and has been repurposed here under Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial license 3.0. Furthermore, the use of conversation.wav and music from “A Strong Fire” have been adapted and incorporated under the Creative Commons 1.0 license.
General Summary: Professor Jenny Rice talks about her research on digital rhetoric and the importance of using digital tools as mechanics to teach rhetoric and writing. Two undergraduate students at UT interview Dr. Rice about mechanics and its connection to rhetoric, the role of digital tools in rhetoric, and the state of digital mechanics in 2023.Detailed Summary: Introduction of interviewers and Jenny Rice (00.00-00.42); Rice’s summary of her article’s argument (00.42-0.2.57); Rice’s definition of mechanics (02.57-04.45); why Rice thinks Americans have been influenced to believe in this ideology of proper grammar (04.45-07.41); Rice gives examples of mechanics she believes to be creative rather than instrumental (07.41-10.13); Rice explains part of Robert Pirsig's book, and the issue of _Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance_ and how this can apply to rhetoricians and students (10:13-14:03); Rice explains how rhetoricians can teach students to be stronger writers by using mechanics and creativity, straying from cookie cutter mechanics (14:03-19:04); Rice explains how templates do not have to be limiting and the creative work that can come from them (19:04- 23:34); acknowledgements (23:34-24:18). Scholarly Article Informing this Production: Rice, Jenny Edbauer. “Rhetoric’sMechanics: Retooling the Equipment of Writing Production.” _College Composition and Communication_, vol. 60, no. 2, 2008, pp. 366–87.Credits: Under the guidance of Mark Longaker, this podcast was produced by Claire Baxter, Josh Franklin, Maria Piedra Castillo, and Ken Tarleton. The voices on this podcast feature Dr. Jenny Rice, Maria Piedra Castillo, and Ken Tarleton. This podcast was produced with resources and assistance provided by the Digital Writing and Research Lab at the University of Texas at Austin. Music featured in this podcast, titled “commonGround” was created by airtone and has been repurposed here under Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial license 3.0. Additionally, conversation.wav was adapted and incorporated under Creative Commons 1.0 license.
General Summary: Dr. Caddie Alford talks about her and co-author John Carter’s paper “Adoxastic Public,” which defines adoxastic publics and explores their direction toward more violent ends. Their paper also examines the ways in which social media platforms, primarily Facebook, enable and encourage the engagement of these radical private groups.Detailed Summary: Exposition and context of Dr. Alford and Jonathan Carter’s paper “Adoxastic Public” (00.00-00:40). How Dr. Alford got into rhetorical studies and doxa (00:40-02:23). Dr. Alford’s thoughts on doxa, endoxa, and adoxa and how they relate to her article—accompanied by a short discussion of her upcoming book (02:55-06:23). General synopsis on the article "Adoxastic Publics" in the words of Dr. Alford. Discussion of Facebook private groups, justification of violent means and publics. (06:42-09:30). How can we combat adoxastic public spaces and what are the steps required to promote conversations? (09:35-12:30). Adoxa in relation to US politics and the unification of White nationalism and right wing ideologies (13:27-18:05). Why was Facebook the main platform discussed in the article? (18:50-24:41). Discussion of what social media users should do to combat misconceptions (25:26-30:04). Conclusion (30:05-32:14).Scholarly Article Informing this Production: Carter, Jonathan S., and Caddie Alford. "Adoxastic publics: Facebook and the Loss of Civic Strangeness." _Quarterly Journal of Speech_ 109.2 (2023): 176-198.Credits: This podcast was produced by Briana Gonzalez, Duaa Zulfiqar, Sydney Young, Anna Allen, and Lily Gold., with resources and assistance provided by the Digital Writing and Research Lab at the University of Texas at Austin. It features the voices of Briana Gonzalez, Duaa Zulfiqar and Lily Gold. Music featured in this podcast, titled “commonGround,” was created by airtone and has been repurposed here under Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial license 3.0. Additionally, conversation.wav was adopted and incorporated under the Creative Commons 1.0 license.
General Summary: Professor Eric Detweiler expands on his argument that the ancient rhetorical progymnasmata exercises can be modified to benefit contemporary studies of digital media and sound. UT undergraduate student Ian Denning reflects on Detweiler’s practical suggestions of specific exercises that can be incorporated in podcasts, and exchanges ideas about the rhetorical and communicative nature of the popular sonic medium. Detailed Summary: 0:00-7:29 Eric Detweiler shares his path toward rhetorical theory and his definitions of progymnasmata, pedagogy, and rhetorical pedagogy to provide context about the article; 7:30-9:55 Detweiler explains the challenges to modifying ancient progymnasmata into social media, where arguments commonly take place; 9:56-13:18 Detweiler discusses certain elements found in the exercises presented in his article: 13:19-16:28 Detweiler explains his ability to maintain audience engagement while trying to instruct them about podcast projects and shares his opinions about how people should practice podcasting; 16:29-20:36 Detweiler shares his opinions on how people should approach podcasting as beginners; 20:37-23:58 Detweiler describes how the increased accessibility to podcasting through social media, such as TikTok, has affected his teaching style; 23:59-24:45 Detweiler explains that podcasting is a medium that offers creators opportunities to share their niche interests and gain unique audiences; 24:45-26:30 Denning’s reflection on the interview and credits. Scholarly Article Informing this Production: Detweiler, Eric. “Sounding out the Progymnasmata: Rhetoric Review: Vol 38, No 2.” Taylor and Francis Online, 2019, www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07350198.2019.1588567 Links to an external site.Credits: This podcast was produced by Jacob Johnson and Ashley Taylor. It features the voices of Ian Dennings, Eric Detweiler, and Jacob Johnson. The music in the podcast is called “common ground”Links to an external site. and is used under Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial license 3.0.Links to an external site.
General Summary: Professor Brandee Easter discusses her research on digital rhetoric and software studies, specifically focusing on Brainfck discussed in her article “Fully Human, Fully Machine.” Several undergraduate students at UT reflect on her research, the connection between literature/texts and technology, and the impact coding languages have on the programmer, specifically how it reinforce gender stereotypes.Detailed Summary: Easter’s interest and introduction to digital rhetoric and transition over from literary studies (00.00-2.53); Easter on the importance of talking about code and what Brainfck is (2:53-7:07); Easter discussing the relationship between coding and rhetoric, the vulgarity of B in the coding world, and the limited syntax and somatics of the programming language (7:07-11:37); Easter’s opinion on the “ideal programmer” becoming one with the machine and gender and coding, specifically, particular masculinity among coders (11:37-17:40); a brief word from our sponsors (17:40-18:10); Easter responding to how students -- both involved with coding or not -- can move away from the strict, traditional values often depicted (18:10-19:28); Easter on how her article “Fully Human, Fully Machine” fits into her upcoming book as well as how she envisions the future of this field (19:28-22:57); extra takeaways Easter wanted to emphasize (22:57-26:00).Scholarly Article Informing this Production: Easter, Brandee. “Fully Human, Fully Machine: Rhetorics of Digital Disembodiment in Programming.” _Rhetoric Review_, vol. 39, no. 2, 2020, pp. 202-215.Credits: This podcast was produced by Trinity Ngo, David Saenz, Khanh Nguyen, Mallory Wilcox, and Emily Wilschetz with resources and assistance provided by the Digital Writing and Research Lab and Professor Mark Longaker at the University of Texas at Austin. The engaging voices of David, Mallory, and Brandee Easter resonate throughout this podcast, adding depth and nuance to the discussion. Trinity Ngo, who not only co-produced but also made significant contributions to the editing process, ensuring a polished and cohesive final product. Khanh Nguyen played a pivotal role in shaping the narrative by assisting with the script and providing a detailed transcript, contributing to the seamless editing process. Emily Wilschetz's noteworthy contribution to the script further enriched the content. Music featured in this podcast, titled “commonGround” was created by airtone and has been repurposed here under Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial license 3.0 Additionally, conversation.wav was adapted and incorporated under Creative Commons 1.0 license. Setting the background music is the soulful composition "Unpacking" by SoulProdMusic, contributing a distinctive atmosphere to the listening experience. Adding further dimensions are the captivating glitch sound effects by Premswaroop Kasukurthi and the dynamic rock sounds titled "Rock It" by Coma-Media, both discovered on Pixabay.com.
General Summary: In this podcast, Dr. Wendy Anderson discusses her deep dive on the digital rhetoric of white, nationalist women within America. Undergraduates Bridget Barragy and Alexa Peña unpack the topics of contained agency, intersectionality, and the utilization of digital architecture and anonymity to grow the white nationalist movement. Our podcast sheds light on the chosen identity of white nationalist women and how it enables them to reconcile the inherent dissonance between their political views and societal position.Detailed Summary: Anderson’s scholarly career to her undergraduate degree in speech communication to her PhD in rhetoric and media, as well as addressing gap years (00.00-03.23); Anderson’s summary of the argument of “Classifying Whiteness: Unmasking White Nationalist Women’s Digital Design through an Intersectional Analysis of Contained Agency,” and the effects it was trying to achieve (03.23- 05:23); Anderson’s explanation of intersectionality and how it applies to white women (05.23-07.14); Anderson’s response to how the categories of mothers and warriors intersect and how they affect non-white women who do not fit within these classifications (07.14-9.34); Anderson responding to her comments that “contained agency” occurs when an individual's oppression is localized to their particular situation, rather than recognizing the larger, frameworks that contribute to oppression(9.34-14.10); Anderson explaining how white nationalists can choose between an oppressed identity and a non-oppressed identity (14.10-17:01); Anderson’s elaboration on white nationalist women globally embracing feminism (17.01-19.16); Anderson addressing comments on technology being past the point of no return when iit comes to gating people with others who share similar ideas (19.16-22.13); Anderson’s thoughts on User Interface and UX design (22.13-25.17); Anderson's thoughts on TikTok and the opportunity for anonymity in the webspace through cloaking (25.17-29.51).Scholarly Article Informing Production: Anderson, Wendy K. Z. “Classifying Whiteness: Unmasking White Nationalist Women’s Digital Design through an Intersectional Analysis of Contained Agency.” Communication, Culture and Critique, vol. 11, no. 1, Mar. 2018, pp. 116–32. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1093/ccc/tcy002.Credits: This podcast was produced by Esmeralda Hernandez, Dewayne Benson, and Noah Rivera. It features the voices of Bridget Barragy, Alexa Pena, Dr. Wendy Anderson, and Esmeralda Hernandez. This podcast was made possible by the use of resources from the Digital Writing and Research Lab at the University of Texas at Austin. Music featured in this podcast, titled “commonGround,” was created by airtone and has been repurposed here, utilized under the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License 3.0. Additionally, the sound effect titled “conversation.wav” was also incorporated into the final production under Creative Commons 1.0
General Summary: Professor Michael Lee discusses a chapter from his book We Are Not One People, co-authored by Professor Robert Atchison, entitled “Secession All the Way Down.” Professor Lee explores the relationship between libertarians and their relationship to America’s tradition of secession. A team of undergraduates explore this relationship and reflect on Professor Lee's findings. Detailed Summary: Lee’s interest in conservative politics and educational background (0:00-2:00); Lee explains the basic argument of Libertarians as well as a brief overview of their history of secession (2:00-6:25); Lee dissects the effect John C. Calhoun had on libertarian ideology as well as their interpretation of his arguments (6:25-9:13); Lee explains the specifics of the libertarian ideology in reference to secession and clarifies seeming contradictions found within (9:13-14:51); Lee translates what secession would look like and provides insight into where libertarian ideology draws a line (14:51-16:17); Lee reflects on the difference between libertarians and the Libertarian Party (16:17-19:06); Lee provides an in-depth analysis of the libertarian ideology and its relationship with race and racism (19:06-28:49); The hosts and Lee make their concluding statements and reflect on the interview (28:49-29:40). Scholarly Article Informing this Production: Atchison, Robert, and Michael Lee. “Secession All The Way Down.” We Are Not One People, 2022, pp. 47-74. Credits: This podcast was produced by Mark Longaker, with resources and assistance provided by the Digital Writing and Research Lab at the University of Texas at Austin. It features the voices of Gregory Flores, Andrew Valdez, and Michael Lee. The music featured in this podcast, titled “commonGround,” was created by airtone and has been repurposed here under Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial license 3.0. Additionally, conversation.wav to an external site. was adapted and incorporated under Creative Commons 1.0 license.
General Summary: Professor Casey Kelly from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln discusses his article, “White Pain,” which describes how Donald Trump’s electoral victory in 2016 reproduced historical-racial schema since the pain of the white voters in the Rust belt was considered especially worthy of sympathy, in comparison to the pain of the black working class. Two undergraduate students at the University of Texas at Austin enquired about the concept of racialized pain in politics as well as the rhetorical construction of pain.Detailed Summary: Podcast introduction & our personal introductions (00.00-01.43); Kelly’s summary of his article & main argument in “White Pain” (01.43-05.02); Kelly’s discussion of his audience- scholarly and general, and the impact he wanted his discussion to have (05.02-09.52); Kelly’s background, family, and upbringing and how this influenced his interest in conservative rhetoric and his perspective on this topic (09.52-12.37); Kelly’s discussion of his background in Women & Gender studies and how this influenced his interest and conclusions, specifically how masculinity is used in right wing politics to advance their agenda (12.37-15.52); Clip of Trump’s inaugural address that exemplifies Trumpism and white pain rhetoric (15.52-16.48); Kelly’s discussion of the white working class as a ‘signifier or figural placeholder’ and how this contributed to his arguments and findings (16.48-20.53); Kelly’s discussion of Franz Fanon’s historical racial schema as a ‘sliding scale’ and how we view humanness and what counts as a life (20.53-22.31); Kelly’s discussion of the ‘socializing of pain’ by Trump and how this played into right wing rhetoric surrounding the BLM movement and COVID (22.31-27.17); Kelly’s discussion of the upcoming (2024) election and trump’s indictment as a dilemma because of his appeal to victimhood vs. holding politicians accountable (27.17-29.24); Kelly discusses moving the discussion away from the ‘white’ working class, and how thinking of the working class as a whole will help Americans in this sector of the economy more than a racialized discussion would (29.24-31.51); Closing remarks, conclusion, and credits (31.51-33.27).Scholarly Article Informing this Production: Kelly, Casey Ryan. “White Pain.” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 15 Apr. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1080/00335630.2021.1903537.Credits: Under the guidance of Mark Longaker, this podcast was produced by Sydney Patterson, with the help of Hannah Garza, Nicholas Pao, Gracie Stark, and Arya Anagol. It features the voices of Casey Kelly, Sydney Patterson, and Hannah Garza. Additionally, music entitled “commonGround” by airtone and “conversation” by wolfrfe was adapted and incorporated into the podcast. It also features an audio clip from former President Trump’s inaugural address, which was pulled from a video posted by CNN in January of 2017 at: https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/20/politics/trump-inaugural-address/index.html
General Summary: Paul Johnson talks about his work, “Walter White(ness) lashes out: Breaking Bad and male victimage,” and his journey into uncovering ideas within conservative politics. Two undergraduate students at UT ask Johnson a series of questions about his work, allowing Johnson to expand on the ideas of white masculinity and neoliberalism.Detailed Summary: Johnson’s academic career and transition to his current job and research on ideas such as conservatism, populism, and race scholarly transition from American poetics to classical rhetoric (00.00-02.19); Johnson’s starting interest in conservative politics and how he uncovered more variables within capitalism (02.30-6.12); Johnson discusses the meaning of whiteness and its correlation to what challenges white masculinity (06.40-12.33); Johnson talks about neoliberalism in relation to the series, “Breaking Bad” (12.57-17.12); Johnson expands on neoliberalism in relation to capitalism and its so-called “dark side” (17.29-20.52); Johnson talks about his reference to Obama’s remark in relation to Walter White (21.28-26.36); Johnson processes what “Breaking Bad” would have looked like if Obama was not president (26.59-28.58); Johnson talks about the continuation of “Breaking Bad” popularity and the present circumstance in the United States that challenged American ideology (29.19-34.35); Johnson discusses the character of Walter White and whether or not he was praised as a hero (34.38-37.03).Scholarly Article Informing this Production: Johnson, Paul. “Walter White(ness)lashes out: Breaking Bad and male victimage.” Critical Studies in MediaCommunication, vol. 34, no. 1, 2017, pp. 14-28.Credits: This podcast was produced by Travis Fatjo and Brooke Falk, with resourcesand assistance provided by the Digital Writing and Research Lab at the University of Texas at Austin. It features the voices of Paul Johnson, Sophia Guild, and Lilly Anthony. Music featured in this podcast, titled “commonGround” was created by airtone and has been repurposed here under Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial license 3.0.
General Summary: Ryan Neville-Shepard, an associate professor at the University of Arkansas, discusses his article on a speech given by Rand Paul at Howard University and the rhetoric of the new Southern Strategy. Several undergraduate students at UT reflect on Neville-Shepard’s research and the connection between rhetoric and the southern strategy.Detailed Summary: Neville-Shepard’s academic background and his interests that led to his work on examining conservative politics (00.42-02.19); Neville-Shepard provides context on the speech given by Rand Paul and discusses how the conservative movement and the Republican party has evolved over time (2.20 - 5.20); Neville-Shepard reviews the formation of the Southern Strategy and discusses differences between the old Southern Strategy and the modern Southern Strategy (5.33 - 10.32); Neville-Shepard analyzes the impact the Southern Strategy has on American politics and citizens (10.33- 11.34); Neville-Shepard highlights how the Republican Party shifts their messages in order to cater to conservative voters (11.35- 13.34); Neville-Shepard goes into depth on the three main rhetorical appeals that the new Southern Strategy relies on: post-racial society, neoliberalism, and selective amnesia (13.54 - 16:58); Neville- Shepard examines Rand Paul’s speech further along with how American legislature has created structural harm to people of color from the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse act (16.59 -18.54); Neville- Shepard discusses the coded language and selective amnesia utilized by Rand Paul in his speech (18.55 - 19.33); Neville-Shepard evaluates present-day conservatives, specifically Donald Trump, and how they incorporate appeals from the new Southern Strategy today (19.42 - 21.12); Neville-Shepard emphasizes the ways Republicans rely on the Southern Strategy for votes (21.13 - 22.32); Neville-Shepard’s intentions with analyzing Rand Paul’s speech in relation to the Southern Strategy (22.44 - 24.10); Neville-Shepard discusses an intervention towards helping citizens be able to identify the Southern Strategy being used in politics which involves educating voters on structural racism and its place in politics (24.12 - 26.12).Scholarly Article Informing this Production: Neville-Shepard, Ryan. “Rand Paul at Howard University and the Rhetoric of the New Southern Strategy.” Western Journal of Communication, vol. 82, no. 1, 2017, pp. 20–39., https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2017.1320809.Credits: This podcast was produced by Matthew Bale, Patrick Domingo, Kamille Serrano, and Jasrit Mondair, with resources and assistance provided by the Digital Writing and Research Lab at the University of Texas at Austin. It features the voices of Ryan Neville-Shepard, Jasrit Mondair, and Patrick Domingo. Music featured in this podcast, titled “commonGround,” was created by airtone and has been repurposed here under Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial license 3.0. Additionally, conversation.wav was adapted and incorporated under the Creative Commons 1.0 license.
General Summary: Professor Timothy Oleksiak talks about queer theory and his beliefs about queer rhetoric should guide peer review. Several undergraduate students from the University of Texas at Austin reflect on Oleksiak’s research, receive clarification of his overall message and call to action, and discuss the positive impact queer rhetoric could have on students' experiences with, as well as the improvement of, peer review all together.
Detailed Summary: Oleksiak’s introduction to queer theory and explanation of sources that influenced his research processes (00.47-02.27); Oleksiak’s opinion on how early children should be introduced to queer theory (02.27-05.40); Oleksiak’s summary of his own article in three sentences (05.40-07.20); Oleksiak detailing the term “worldmaking” and clarifying what an example of that would be (07.20-09.40); Oleksiak detailing how to create queerness as a possible subject in terms of worldmaking, and how slow peer review does this efficiently(09.40-13.20); Clarification of the term rhetorical listening, and how it relates to slow peer review (13.20-16.30); How to overcome fast learning, and efficiency based learning objectives(16.30-20.15); The practical application of the slow peer review process, and how to get away from only making subjective-based commentary on feedback (20.15-26.30).
Scholarly Article Informing this Production: Oleksiak, Timothy. “A Queer Praxis for Peer Review.” College Composition and Communication 72.2 (2020): 306-32. Print.
Credits: This podcast was created by Caroline Henderson, Sarah Handley, Jack Leist, and Michael DiCecco with resources and assistance provided by the Digital Writing and Research Lab at the University of Texas at Austin. It features the voices of Caroline Henderson, Jack Leist, and guest Professor Timothy Oleksiak. The music featured in this podcast is titled “commonGround,” and was created by airtone and has been repurposed here under Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial license 3.0. Additionally, conversation.wav was adapted and incorporated under the Creative Commons 1.0 license.
General Summary:
Dr. Jo Hsu talks about their 2018 article (Trans)Forming #MeToo: Toward a Networked Response to Gender Violence" with two students from UT Austin. They discuss how trans folk have largely been left out of the #MeToo movement, what this means for the queer and trans community, and what practices can be implemented to curb this exclusion.
Detailed Summary:
Hsu discusses the start of their rhetorical education and their motivation to start the research for this paper. (0-3:50). Hsu discusses how the #MeToo movement has impacted the trans community and the “perfect victim” (3:50-8:27). Hsu discusses victim blaming (8:27-10:00). Hsu discusses a new framework of classifying gender identity called the vertical view (10:00-13:50). Hsu details how various communities are related and can support each other (13:50-16:00). Hsu discussing “token minorities” and the missing resources necessary for change to happen (18:30-19:01). Hsu on what top-down processing does with someone’s story (21:36-22:12). Hsu’s thoughts on coming to a different vision of justice in a way that is about healing and considers the future (25:00-25:45). Hsu talking about needing a better social vocabulary as a society to be able to have these important conversations (30:10-31:00).
Scholarly Article Informing this Production:
Hsu, V. Jo. “(Trans)forming #MeToo: Toward a Networked Response to Gender Violence.” Women's Studies in Communication 42 (2019): 269 - 286.
Credits:
This podcast was produced by Mimi Calzada, Neerul Gupta, Anje Potgieter, Madison Winstrand, and Chantelle Cancel with resources and assistance provided by the Digital Writing and Research Lab at The University of Texas at Austin. It features the voices of Jo Hsu, Mimi Calzada, and Neerul Gupta. Music featured in this podcast, titled “commonGround” was created by airtone and has been repurposed here under Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial license 3.0. Additionally, conversation.wav was adapted and incorporated under Creative Commons 1.0 license.
General Summary: Professor Stacey Waite talks about a recemt chapter on “How and Why to Write Queer” with undergraduate students UT students. These students reflect on Waite’s chapter and the connection between rhetoric and queerness along with the impact the chapter has on the audience’s understanding of the title’s statement.
Detailed Summary: (2:25,5:25) Waite on writing which enacts itself and the importance of play in writing; (5:26,9:52) Waite on the precarious nature of queer pedagogy, and queerness in general, within institutional contexts; (9:53, 15:43) Waite on their rules for queer writing, and on queer writing as a means of challenging established norms; (15:44, -23:08) Waite on the diminishment of the affective in scholarship and society as a whole; (23:10, 25,44) Waite on the important of the audience in writing.
Scholarly Article Informing this Production: Waite, Stacey. “HOW (AND WHY) TO WRITE QUEER: A Failing, Impossible, Contradictory Instruction Manual for Scholars of Writing Studies”, Re/Orienting Writing Studies: Queer Methods, Queer Projects, University Press of Colorado, 2019, pp. 42-53.
Credits: This podcast was produced by Abbigail Joy, Jordan Grant, Kaitlin Sime, Kevin Lips, and Liv Dartu with resources and assistance provided by the Digital Writing and Research Lab (Links to an external site.) at the University of Texas at Austin. It features the voices of Stacey Waite, Kaitlin Sime, Liv Dartu, and Jordan Grant. Editing performed by Abby Joy and Kevin Lips. Music featured in this podcast, titled “commonGround,” was created by airtone and has been repurposed here under Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial license 3.0. Additionally, conversation.wav was adapted and appropriated under Creative Commons 1.0 license.
General Summary: Rhetoricians Johnathan Alexander and Jackie Rhodes are asked about their research on rhetoric and queer theory. Students at the University of Texas at Austin, Cambridge Bender and Marshall Ballard reflect on works by Alexander and Rhodes and the implications of rhetoric in modern day society in regards to gender, and queer theory.
Detailed Summary: Rhodes and Alexander discuss current queer theory in the academic field of rhetoric and composition (1:29-3:01); Alexander questions the composure of queer theory, if queer theory in nature, works against the norm--Does it really have a place in the classroom? Rhetoricians discuss Annie Lennox(3:38); Ballard asks Rhodes about “material” and “embodiment. She transitions into how queer theory relates to desire and embodiment. Alexander transitions to the idea of vulnerability and the powerful ethics of being interconnected (8:15). Alexander continues with a queer adjacent anecdote about minority students being inadequately served, relating to topics of racism (10:08). Rhodes and Alexander begin to talk about theorists, relating topics to historical accounts of queer theory in society (15:29). Bender asks specifics about seeing the difference between checking the diversity box or truly immersing oneself in queer theory which opens the door for calculated accounts of people attempting to include queer scholar with including more than just fact, but rather perspective (22:02). Alexander responds by shedding light on people's go-to resources, looking deeper into how the resources chosen to write about queer theory affect the composition of queer theory works (23:43). Rhodes and Alexander wrap up by evaluating how looking at things through a queer perspective lens.
Scholarly Article Informing this Production: Alexander, Jonathan. Rhodes, Jacqueline. “Queer: An Impossible Subject for Composition”JAC, 2011. Vol. 31, No. ½ (2011), pp. 177-206
Credits: This podcast was produced by Cambridge Bender, Chris Lam, Rachel Stewart and Marshall Ballard with resources and assistance provided by Dr. Mark Longaker and the Digital Writing and Research Lab at the University of Texas at Austin. It features the voices of Cambridge Bender, Marshall Ballard, Rachel Stewart, Jackie Rhodes and Johnathan Alexander. The music featured in this podcast is titled “commonGround,” and was created by airtone and has been repurposed here under Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial license 3.0 . Additionally, conversation.wav was adapted and incorporated under Creative Commons 1.0 license .
General Summary: Professor Lore Lemaster talks about her scholarship on queer and trans of color communication and performance, specifically her article with Michael Tristano Jr. “Performing (Asian American trans) femme on RuPaul’s Drag Race.” Two undergraduate students at UT reflect on Lemaster’s article, trans femme performance, and the impact of the media and representation on the queer experience.
Detailed Summary: Introductions to LeMaster’s background in queer and trans of color communication and performance (00.00-03.51); Lemaster’s inspiration for this piece (03.52-6.37); Lemaster’s summary of the main argument of the piece (6.38-7.57); Lemaster defines the terms “ambiguity” and “intelligibility” in the context of the work (7.58-13.16); LeMaster discussing Gia’s ambiguity as a “bad trans subject” (13.17-14.55); LeMaster discussing media makers’ use of orientalist tropes to mediate Gia’s performance (14.56-21.00); Lemaster describes “dis/orientation” as a concept and how it applies to Gia’s performance (21.00-25.30); Lemaster offers critiques about the drag empire and questions its future, specifically in the context of representation (25.30-28.52); Lemaster responds to questions about accessibility in scholarship (28.52-33.03); Closing statements (33.03-33.47).
Scholarly Article Informing this Production: Lemaster, Lore/tta and Michael Tristano Jr. “Performing (Asian American trans) femme on Rupaul’s Drag Race: dis/orienting racialized gender, or, performing trans femme of color, regardless.” Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 2021.
Credits: This podcast was produced by Rachel Kunzi, Avery Stewart, Waverli Almand and Aaron Lamoreaux, with resources and assistance provided by Mark Longaker and the Digital Writing and Research Lab at the University of Texas at Austin. It features the voices of Lore Lemaster, Rachel Kunzi, Avery Stewart, and Waverli Almand. Music featured in this podcast, titled “commonGround,” was created by airtone and has been repurposed here under Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial license 3.0. Additionally, conversation.wav was adapted and incorporated under Creative Commons 1.0 license.
General Summary: In this podcast, David Cisneros talks about his research on immigration and about his chapter on affect, emotion, and immigration rhetoric. He is asked questions by two of our team members on the background of his interest in the topic, details about the chapter, and how he thinks the rhetoric towards immigration can change.
Detailed summary:(1:10-3:32) Cisneros discusses what drove him to write about politics and immigration. (3:36-7:14) Cisneros talks about the show _30 Days_ and if the emotion it evoked was just the show or an actual care for immigration. (8:07-11:03) Cisneros talks about emotional habitus and clarifies his point in the paper. (11:58-16:39) Cisneros iscusses what he thinks about differences in discourse surrounding undocumented immigrants. (17:11-24:10) Cisneros talks about where he thinks rhetoric most influences what we think about immigration. (25:00-30:40) Cisneros says what he thinks is required for this rhetoric to change and how long it could take. Scholarly
Article Informing this Production: Cisneros, David. "Affect, Emotion, and Immigration Rhetoric" Affect and Media Imagery. pp. 247-268.
Credits: This podcast was attributed by Blake Avery Thomason, Andrew Harmon, and Sloane Grevelle. Voices are provided by Cristina Navarro, Pablo Morales Mendez, and David Cisneros. It was produced by Justin Brownlow Lund with resources and assistance by the department of rhetoric and writing lab.
General Summary: Dr. José Izaguirre, a professor in the Department of Rhetoric and Writing at the University of Texas at Austin, walks through his analysis of César Chávez’s rhetoric in reigniting the Chican@ movement through the United Farm Workers. The context of the movement is reflected upon and compared to today’s world. There is also thoughtful discussion on social justice and how people perceive it. Dr. Izaguirre also lets students know about some of his own inspirations for pursuing this path and studying Chávez specifically.
Detailed Summary: Introduction and discussion of Izaguirre’s background and how he came to study nonviolent communication (00.00-07.25); Discussion of Chican@ social movements and how they portrayed their message (07.25-10.00); How the use of deferral can be used today (10.00-11.55); Study of criticism which Izaguirre relates into his work through parallelisms and the concept of machismo (11.55-14.45); Izaguirre discusses how identity tied into Chávez’s speech and how he brought different audiences together (14.45-18.55); Izaguirre goes into how people perceive things differently and how this has opened him up into his new work about a scientist who studied cybernetics and nationalism (18.55-22.30); Comparison to other works of rhetoric, specifically Josué David Cisneros's article about immigration which Izaguirre puts into context with Chávez’s work (22.30-26.10); Closing remarks and brief remarks about Illinois (26.10-29.54).
Scholarly Article Informing this Production: Izaguirre, Jose. “Nonviolence in Context: César Chávez, the Chican@ Movement, and a Poetics of Deferral.” https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15362426.2019.1685415?journalCode=uahr21Journal for the History of Rhetoric, Vol. 23, no. 1, 2020, pp. 54-83
Credits:This podcast was produced by Adeline Gordon, with resources and assistance provided by the Digital Writing and Research Lab at the University of Texas at Austin. It features the voices of Dr. José Izaguirre, Peter Dunlap, and River Tomlinson. Music featured in the podcast has been repurposed here under Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License 3.0. Additionally, an audio clip of talking ambience was adapted and incorporated under Creative Commons 1.0 license.
General Summary: In this episode of The Parlor, the team discusses LatinX rhetoric and its relation to Eurocentrism as described by renowned scholar of rhetoric Professor José Cortez of the Oregon State University. Cortez reflects on his desire to find the separation between Western rhetorics and Latin-American based ideologies, the concept of subalternity, and offers reason as to why the fissure is critical to identities of past, present and future LatinX generations.
Detailed Summary: Introduction to the Parlor and Cortez’s background and scholarly works (0.00-1.20)Cortez relates his life experience to his studies in LatinX identities(1.21-04.43); Identifying the thesis of Cortez’s work and its relation to similar avenues of subalternity of LatinX rhetoric (04.43-06.49); Cortez dives into the classical identification of LatinX subgroups, their separate identifications, and the impression this categorization has on the community(06.49-08.40); The interview then incorporates the classical LatinX rhetoric and its relation to Western norms(08.41-11.45); Cortez discusses what Eurocentrism means to identification of rhetorics and why a separation is hard to identify(11.46-17.55); Cortez explains how Western narratives controlled the conversation about indigenous people, and how this conversation has formed some LatinX traditions(17.55-20.05); Cortez further details an idea found in his work which is critical of rhetoric being a political compass, or a policing authority, for the LatinX community JacqueRanciere)(20.08-26.20); The interview shifts to cover topics discussed relating to Christina Ramirez’s coverage of the concept of mestizaje (26.20-29.03); Cortez further explains the concept of subalternity (subtopic Spivak) (29.03-32.54); Cortez now transitions to specific subaltern spaces in LatinX rhetoric (includes citations of Sonia Arellano and Dr. Karma Chavez)(32.54-33.30); Cortez answers, what is the most important thing your readers can take away from your work?(33.30-35.08); Thank you and credits from the team(35.08-35.50).
Scholarly Article Informing this Production: Cortez, Jose. “Of Exterior and Exception: Latin American Rhetoric, Subalternity, and the Politics of Cultural Difference.” Philosophy & Rhetoric,Vol. 51, No. 2 (2018), pp. 124-150.
Credits: This podcast was produced by Kamil Riaz, with resources and assistance provided by the Digital Writing and Research Lab at the University of Texas at Austin. It features the voices of Jose Cortez, Matthew Heideman, and Awab Ahmed. Music featured in this podcast, titled “commonGround,” was created by airtone and has been repurposed here under Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial license 3.0.Additionally, conversation.wav was adapted and incorporated under CreativeCommons 1.0 license.
Trigger Warning: Rape is discussed beginning at 24:00 in this podcast. This discussion is overat 25:30.
General Summary: Professor Sonia Arellano talks about her research on qualitative research methods, specifically her work for the Migrant Quilt Project. Several students at UT Austin discuss this project with Arellano, delving into her thoughts about using art as research, inclusive feminism, and immigration through the Sonoran desert.
Detailed Summary: Arellano begins (1:31) with a discussion of grief, her background, and her entry into the quilting project; Arellano discusses how quantitative and qualitative approaches fit together by discussing the juxtaposition of having both university-based knowledge and self-taught quilting skills (4:30); Arellano’s emotional aspect of the creation of this quilt (9:00);Arellano’s discussing of the process as research (13:40); Arellano’s choices in creating the quilt(15:40) and their impact (19:20); Arellano’s discussion of feminism’s many different definitions(21:45); Other projects that qualitative methods could be useful for (23:12).
Scholarly Article Informing this Production: Arellano, Sonja. “Quilting as a Qualitative, FeministResearch Method: Expanding Understandings of Migrant Deaths.”University of Arizona.2017.
Credits: This podcast was produced by Nick Knowles at the University of Texas at Austin. It features the voices of Sonia Arellano, Nick Knowles, Ali Voss, and Elen Daly. Script and liner notes were written by Amy Shreeve. Huge thanks to Dr. Longaker, without whom this episode would have been impossible to create. Music featured in this podcast, titled “commonGround,” was created by airtone and has been repurposed here underCreative Commons Attribution Noncommercial license 3.0. Additionally ,conversation.wav was adapted and incorporated under Creative Commons 1.0 license.
General Summary: Professor Karma Chávez speaks on her research regarding rhetorical and sociopolitical challenges related to queer migration and feminism during the Obama administration. Students Gricelda Torres and Peyton Liang discuss the historical context, present takeaways, and future implications of Chávez’s studies on American society.
Detailed Summary: Introduction of Karma Chávez (00.00-01.00); Historical and personal background regarding Chávez‘s decision to study immigration-related rhetoric and activist rhetoric (01.01-06.22); Discussion of how modern perceptions of American values affect minority groups and the immigrant community (06.23-9.10); The implications of current immigration rhetoric and legislation for all migrant populations (9.11-14.55); How race, gender, and sexuality factor into immigration politics and related academia (14.56-21.12); The ways in which current legislation marginalizes different populations (21.13-23.57); Chávez’s solutions to avoid discriminatory practices (23.58-28.15); Concluding statements by the speakers(28.16-29.42).
Scholarly Article: Chávez, Karma R. and Hana Masri. “The Rhetoric of Family in the U.S. Immigration Movement: A Queer Migration Analysis of the 2014 Central American Child Migrant 'Crisis'”. _Queer and Trans Migrations: Dynamics of Illegalization, Detention, and Deportation_, pp. 209-225.
Credits: This podcast was produced by Masha Larina, with resources and assistance provided by the Digital Writing and Research Lab at the University of Texas at Austin. It features the voices of Karma Chávez, Gricelda Torres and Peyton Liang. Music featured in this podcast, titled “commonGround,” was created by airtone and has been repurposed here under CreativeCommons Attribution Noncommercial license 3.0. Additionally, conversation.wav was adapted and incorporated under Creative Commons 1.0 license.
General Summary: Doctor Ryan Skinnell shares his opinions about the rhetoric of Donald Trump and the political environment we live in since his 2016 election. He talks about how Donald Trump lies and how the Republican and Democratic parties construct their interpretation of Trump’s strategies of persuasion. He also answers questions about how emotion is being used in politics today and what challenges this poses for Trump.
Detailed Summary: Introduction (0.00-01.10); How Professor Skinnell got into political and public rhetoric through Donald Trump (01.11-03.10); Yasemin asks Professor Skinnell, “What makes Trump’s lies different from other politicians and why are they so convincing?” (03.11-05.15); How Trump deals with his lies being countered during interviews (05.16-08.39); How Parrhēsia is used by Trump and Trump’s rhetoric, compared to the rhetoric of Hillary Clinton (08.40-14.28); Is there a way to draw a line between Parrhēsia and demagoguery with Trump? How Trump becomes “trustworthy” by being dependably untrustworthy (14.29-17.35); Can we understand Trump’s rhetoric more by analyzing it from his followers' point of view? How are Trump’s policies affecting the political climate of our country? (17.36-21.20); How the left is going further left and right is going further right, how emotional rhetoric is challenged by American politics, how can we solve these issues? (21.21-27.10); Conclusion (27.11-27.50).
Scholarly Article Informing this Production: Skinnell, Ryan. “What Passes for Truth in the Trump Era: Telling It Like It Isn’t. “ Faking the News: What Rhetoric Can Teach Us About Donald J. Trump (2018): 76-94. Researchgate. Web. 16 Aug. 2020. Credits: This podcast was produced by Benjamin Pomerantz, with resources and assistance provided by the Digital Writing and Research Lab at the University of Texas at Austin. It features the voices of Ryan Skinnell, Benjamin Pomerantz, Brett Glasscock, and Yasemin Elrabaa. Music featured in this podcast, titled “commonGround,” was created by airtone and has been repurposed here under Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial license 3.0 . Additionally, conversation.wav was adapted and incorporated under Creative Commons 1.0 license .
General Summary: Dr. Roderick P. Hart talks about his research on Donald Trump's rhetoric: what he says and why viewers listen to his words and speeches. Several undergraduate students at UT reflect on Hart’s research by examining Professor Hart’s book “Trump and Us”.
Detailed Summary: Ryan Chandler’s introduction regarding the rhetorical analysis of Trump’s rhetoric and the work of Professor Hart in evaluating Trump’s speech. Hart introduced his book and why Trump drew him in and how many people were made to understand Trump as a bizarre creature rather than a normal person. (00.00-03.50); Ryan discusses the character of Donald Trump (03.50-05.14); Trump’s 2016 rhetorical style is further discussed (05.20-7.35); Ryan further asks questions regarding Trump and how he came across to the public in regards to the two party system and where he fit in it (7.39- 10.53); Hart discusses Trump’s less attractive qualities and how they appear to the American people especially in recent times with a pandemic (10.54-14.50); Hart further discusses Trump's rhetoric and his utilization of rhetorical tools such as parrhesia. (14.50-16.38); Hart states how people see what they want in Trump depending on their personal beliefs. Hart closes up explaining that the people can easily tell what Trump is against due to his simple speech (16.38-23.10).
Scholarly Article Informing this Production: Hart, Roderick P. Trump and us: What he Says and why People Listen. Cambridge University Press, 2020.
Credits: This podcast was produced by Nicholas Ronk, Xiangrui Pan, Juo-Lin Tsai, Jordan Ta, Raul Soldevilla and Ryan Chandler, with resources and assistance provided by the Digital Writing and Research Lab (Links to an external site.) at the University of Texas at Austin. It features the voices of Ryan and Professor Hart. Music featured in this podcast, titled “commonGround was created by airtone and has been repurposed here under Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial license 3.0. Additionally, conversation.wav was adapted and incorporated under Creative Commons 1.0 license .
General Summary: Professor Jen Mercieca talks about her book, Demagogue for President, and the way that President Trump may be considered a demagogue while looking back at his 2016 election strategies. A UT undergraduate student conducts an interview with Professor Mercieca, asking questions about her thoughts about Trump’s presidency and her opinions on whether the demagogic tendencies have changed or remained constant throughout the past four years.
Detailed Summary: Introduction to Professor Mercieca, her book, and her research(00.00-03.30); Mercieca discusses her thoughts on the two sides of Trump’s appeals, one being the unification of Americans through exceptionalism and the other being the demonization of a common enemy (03.31-06.30); argumentum ad baculum in Trump’s rhetoric (06.31-10.48); the definition of a demagogue (10.49-12.00); Trump’s untruthfulness in regards to his supporters and in regards to political correctness (12.01-17.23); Trump’s ad hominem responses to criticism and his outrage causing appeals, and how to hold him accountable for those appeals (17.24-23.16); Mercieca discusses the consequences of Trump’s rhetoric and how it plays a part in political discourse (23.17-25.50); conclusion (25.51-28.03).
Scholarly Articles Informing this Production: Mercieca, Jen. Demagogue for President: The Rhetorical Genius of Donald Trump. College Station, Texas A&M University Press, 2020.
Credits: This podcast was produced by Mark Longaker, Ali Shirazi, and Ryan Keniston. It features the voices of Ali Shirazi and Professor Jen Mercieca. Music featured in this podcast, titled “commonGround”, was created by airtone and has been repurposed here under CreativeCommons Attribution Noncommercial license 3.0. Additionally, conversation.wav was adapted and incorporated under a Creative Commons 1.0 license.
General Summary: An interview with Brian Ott covers the interaction between Donald Trump’s rhetoric and the format of the social media platform Twitter as discussed in his book, The Twitter Presidency. A few undergraduate students conduct the interview and provide commentary in response to Professor Ott’s insight on Trump’s use of rhetorical devices, the effect of twitter’s format on its users and how Trump’s style has grown on this platform.
Detailed Summary: The podcast begins with Megan Price inquiring about Brian Ott’s scholarly career and his book that was recently published (0:00-4:45) Then, they go on to talk about the actual tweets of Donald Trump, and Rachel goes onto ask Brian Ott about the popularity of Trump’s tweets (4:45-8:01). Megan then asks about doubling the character allowance on Twitter and its effect on Trump’s tweets, and Ott explains his thoughts on the subject (8:01-11:22). Then, Rachel, Megan, and Ott discuss the rhetorical strategy of Trump’s tweets and how he influences people to think a certain way. Ott states that impulsivity is central to our national ethos, and questions why (11:22-15:44). He goes on to speak to the use of communication technology, and the filtering of our political discourse through these technologies (printing press, television, twitter) (15:44-18:47). Megan asks about the differences between Trump’s speech and his tweets throughout the presidential campaign, and Ott talks about how simple (4th grade level) Trump’s speech is and how well that translates to tweets. (18:47-21:48). Rachel then asks about how Twitter plays a role in the upcoming election, and Ott explains the difference between Trump voters and Trump followers and how they view his tweets in regards to the upcoming election. (21:48-23:47). The last segment of the podcast is a discussion about if/how Trump’s tweets have changed between his candidacy and presidency, and Ott discusses how Trump himself changes the presidential norms in our country. (23:47-26:10).
Scholarly Book Informing this Production: Ott, Brian and Greg Dickenson. “ The Twitter Presidency: Donald J Trump and the Politics of White Rage. Routledge, 2019.
Credits: This podcast was produced by Stefi Hsia, Evelyn Voelter, Megan Price, Rachel Chan, Srivalli Karri, Phoebe Loya, with resources and assistance provided by Mark Longaker. It features the voices of Brian Ott, Megan Price, and Rachel Chan. Music featured in this podcast, titled “commonGround " was created by airtone and has been repurposed here under Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial license 3.0. Additionally, conversation.wav was adapted and incorporated under Creative Commons 1.0 license.
General Summary: Professor Catherine Chaput talks about her studies in neoliberalism and branding affects, particularly the Trump brand in the presidential campaign. Several undergraduate students from the University of Texas at Austin come up with questions about Trump's branding strategy, its rhetorical meaning and the impact of his strategy on politics and economics.
Detailed Summary: Brief introduction of Professor Catherine Chaput and her article (00:00-00:37); Summary of the main claim (00:37-03:06); Professor Chaput giving her definition of "affect," and how that definition differs from Brian Ott and Greg Dickinson's use of the term (03:06-07:41); Professor Chaput's definition of "branding" and its rhetorical meaning in a culture (07:41-10:30); Professor Chaput’s opinion “Make America great again” (10:30-14:19); Professor Chaput's thoughts on affective micro shocks and its relation to Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine (14:19-17:03); Professor Chaput responding to how capitalism affects affective circulation (17:03-19:37); Professor Chaput's discussion on why Trump’s brand will not fail even though it contains falsities and why Trump’s brand is successful and working continuously for Trump (19:37-26:01); Professor Chaput pressing the point of the article and providing references of related topics (26:01-27:10); Conclusion of the podcast and giving credits (27:10-28:12).
Scholarly Article Informing this Production: Chaput, Catherine. “Trumponomics, Neoliberal Branding, and the Rhetorical Circulation of Affect”. Advances in the History of Rhetoric, vol. 21, no. 2, 2018, pp. 194-209.
Credits: This podcast was facilitated by Professor Mark Longaker and produced by Chia-Ying Ni and Yuyi Liu. It features the voices of David Minton, Tucker Britt, Zhihao Chen, and Professor Catherine Chaput. Music featured in this podcast, titled “commonGround”, was created by airtone and has been repurposed here under Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial license 3.0. Additionally, conversation.wav was adapted and incorporated under Creative Commons 1.0 license.
General Summary: Professor Donnie Sackey talks about his work on dynamics of environmental public policy deliberation, environmental justice and environmental cultural history.
Detailed Summary: Reason of interests in PAMs and PAM’s effects in life.( 00.55-4:52) That affordability and potential profits are mutually supportive with pathetic to environmental justice and participants’ needs by using apple watch as an example.(4.52-8.55)All can participate in bringing the principle of environmental justice into the design process(8.55-12.55)Collecting historical data helps people know more but we can not know how these results will act.(12.55-17.08) All people can make a change to environmental justice.(17.08-21.42)Impacts can help us about COVID-19(21.42-25.57)Teaching style influenced by principles of participatory design.(25.57-27.20)
Scholarly Article Informing this Production:Sackey, Donnie. (2019). One-Size-Fits-None: A Heuristic for Proactive Value Sensitive Environmental Design. Technical Communication Quarterly. 10.1080/10572252.2019.1634767.
Credits: This podcast was produced by Mark Longaker, with resources and assistance provided by the Digital Writing and Research Lab at the University of Texas at Austin. It features the voices of Donnie Sackey and Andrew Hart. Music featured in this podcast, titled “commonGround,” was created by airtone and has been repurposed here under Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial license 3.0. Additionally, conversation.wav was adapted and incorporated under Creative Commons 1.0 license.
General Summary: Professor Linda Ferreira-Buckley discusses the importance of a rhetorical education and how this concept applies to Barbara Jordan’s life. Ferreira-Buckley talks with two undergraduate students about the process of learning rhetoric throughout one’s life and her experience at The University of Texas at Austin’s Rhetoric and Writing Department.
Detailed Summary: Introduction providing context regarding Linda Ferreira-Buckley and Barbara Jordan’s lives (00.00-02.29); Ferreira-Buckley’s ethical connection between Barbara Jordan and Quintilian’s book Institutio Oratoria (02.30-04.06); Ferreira-Buckley’s educational background and her interest in eighteenth and nineteenth century rhetoric (04.07-06.51); Ferreira-Buckley’s emerging interest in Barbara Jordan (06.52-11.16); In-depth description as to what a rhetorical education is and how it shaped Jordan’s life (11.17-17.53); Ferreira-Buckley’s understanding as to why an individual's rhetorical education cannot be separated into categories, as each aspect is interconnected and equally influential (17.54-20.49); How Jordan’s political career would be different without her rhetorical education and life experiences (20.50-22.41); Students’ experiences outside of formal education are imperative to forming their ability to become great rhetors (22.42-26.21); Ferreira-Buckley’s honors program course taught in Fall 2020 and its importance (26.22-29.24). Scholarly Article Informing this Production: Ferreira-Buckley, L.. (2013). "Remember the world is not a playground but a schoolroom": Barbara Jordan's early rhetorical education. Rhetoric, History, and Women's Oratorical Education: American Women Learn to Speak. 196-216. 10.4324/9780203073773.
Credits: This podcast was produced by Madeline Simpkins, Brianna Margo, Rose Torres, Brett Coulston and Gabby Ponds, with resources and assistance provided by the Digital Writing and Research Lab at the University of Texas at Austin. It features the voices of Linda Ferreira-Bickley, Gabby Ponds and Rose Torres. Music featured in this podcast, titled “commonGround,” was created by airtone and has been repurposed here under Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial license 3.0. Additionally, conversation.wav was adapted and incorporated under Creative Commons 1.0 license.
General Summary: Professor Casey Boyle talks about the concepts of posthumanism, humanism, and dystopia as described in his work “A Sustainable Dystopia.” Several UT Austin students reflect on Boyle’s work by asking how he first got into philosophical topics, what the thesis of his work is, and how today’s world would be viewed through a posthuman perspective.
Detailed Summary: Introduction and Boyle’s background in philosophical concepts (00:00-4:37). Defining humanism and posthumanism (4:37-10:20). General thesis of the paper (10:27-14:30) Technology through a posthumanist lens (14:30-17:04). Three types of dystopi and dystopian writing technologies (17:04-23:27). Today’s world through a posthumanist perspective (23:32-26:08). Online learning impact on Boyle’s classes and accessibility (26:08-30:25). Conclusion and credits (30:25-31:53).
Scholarly Article Informing this Production: Boyle, Casey and LeMieux, Steven. “A Sustainable Dystopia.” Kenneth Burke + The Posthuman, 2017, pp. 203-205.
Credits: This podcast was produced by Ainsley McClain, Brandon Jenkins, Hannah Ortega, Jake Faust, and Lindsey Holubec with the assistance provided by Professor Mark Longaker at the University of Texas at Austin. It features the voices of Professor Casey Boyle, Brandon Jenkins, Jake Faust, Hannah Ortega, and Lindsey Holubec. Music featured in this podcast, titled “commonGround,” was created by airtone and has been repurposed here under Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial license 3.0. Additionally, conversation.wav was adapted and incorporated under Creative Commons 1.0 license.
General Summary: Dr. Scott Graham talks about his article written in collaboration with Dr. Linda Walsh, “There’s No Such Thing as Scientific Controversy.” Two students from Dr. Mark Longaker’s Principles of Rhetoric course at The University of Texas at Austin ask Dr. Graham questions about the article, attempting to gain a better understanding of the intricacies of scientific controversy.
Detailed Summary: Episode introduction (00.00-0.25) Dr. Graham's work at the University of Texas at Austin with computational rhetoric (01.16-04.31); Other courses taught by Dr. Graham at UT (04.32-05.50); Overview of "There’s No Such Thing As Scientific Controversy” (06.04-07.31); Why there is so much scholarly controversy about scientific controversies? (08.02-9:50); Defining what kind of scientific controversy COVID-19 is (0.9.54-12.09); Discussing whether or not scientific controversies exist (12.55-15.50); Defining "praxiography" and how it differs from other forms of analysis of scholarly work (16.31-17.37); Conclusion and credits (18.53-19.25).
Scholarly Article Informing this Production: Graham Scott and Lynda Walsh. "There's No Such Thing as a Scientific Controversy." _Technical Communication Quarterly_ (2019): https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2019.1571243
Credits: This podcast was produced by Zoe Howard, with resources and assistance provided by the Digital Writing and Research Lab at The University of Texas at Austin. It features the voices of Cassie Williams, Will Hunter, Dr. Scott Graham, and questions from Brandon Jenkins, Ainsley McClain, and Savannah Smart. Music featured in this podcast, titled “commonGround,” was created by airtone and has been repurposed here under Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial license 3.0. Additionally, conversation.wav was adapted and incorporated under Creative Commons 1.0 license.
General Summary: In this podcast, we talk with Professor and Director of the University Writing Center, Patricia Roberts-Miller. Interviewing is University of Texas student, Jacob Miller. The two go on to discuss over her article, Demagoguery, Charismatic Leadership, and the Force of Habit and other topics related to her work and studies. The podcast includes a narrator, Cole Burke, and occasional comments made by students of the RHE 321 class in connection to discussion points that talked about throughout the podcast.
Detailed Summary: The podcast begins by Professor Roberts-Miller introducing her background, where she studied and taught in the past, before she came to the University of Texas(01:07-01:54). She jokes about her previous works as “trainwrecks in public deliberation” and other topics that she tended to study (02:05-05:24). She then goes on to talk about previous courses she has taught, and currently teaching at the University of Texas (05:25 -07:02). Jacob then goes on to ask the Professor the hard-hitting question of “What is a Demagogue?” (07:04-07:34). What follows next focuses on the in-class discussion over the article, raising questions from students and having Professor Roberts-Miller respond to them and give insights (08:12-25:04). Within this discussion, Jacob asks about engaging in demagoguery (08:12-09:36), a clip of a discussion point by classmate, Dabaya Alrefaei and Professor Roberts-Miller’s thoughts on the topic (10:20- 14:22). We then get to hear some insight by fellow classmate, Cason Hunwick and his discussion over the media related to her article (14:55-15:55)as well as Professor Roberts-Miller and her response (16:04-17:50). Then we hear a deep conversation over the followers of demagogues and follow up questions by Jacob to finish the interview (17:59-25:04). The podcast then goes to the final statements, conducted by Cole Burke, and the music fades into the ultimate ending of the podcast (25:05-26:41).
Scholarly Article Informing this Production: Patricia Roberts-Miller, “Demagoguery, Charismatic Leadership, and the Force of Habit.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 49:3 (2019): 233-247.
Credits: This podcast was produced by Cole Burke, Jacob Miller, Jose Morales Mendez, and Parker Neri , with resources and assistance provided by the Digital Writing and Research Lab at the University of Texas at Austin. The production of this podcast was in part due to the teachings of Professor Mark G. Longaker of the University of Texas at Austin. It features the voices of Cole Burke, Jacob Miller, Particia Roberts-Miller, Cason Hunwick, and Dabaya Alrefaei. Music featured in this podcast, were given to the students of RHE 321 by Professor Mark G. Longaker for intended use in this podcast. Additionally, conversation.wav was adapted and incorporated under Creative Commons 1.0 license . Finally, the full class conversations were recorded by the Digital Writing and Research Lab.
General Summary: Professor Rasha Diab discusses her research on peacemaking rhetoric in the Arab-Islamic tradition and her academic journey within the discipline. Undergraduate students in Dr. Longaker’s Fall 2019 RHE321 Principles of Rhetoric class share their impressions of Dr. Diab’s work, and their feelings toward the unfamiliar modes of peacemaking and conflict resolution that Diab’s work reveals.
Detailed Summary & Timestamps: Dr. Diab’s experience and work in peacemaking, the Arab-Islamic tradition in cultural rhetoric studies, and understanding violence (00:00-04:15); “Sulh” practices as modern peacemaking rhetoric and the Chancery in Al-Qalqashandi’s Encyclopedia (04:16-13:18); Punitive versus non-punitive justice and the tradition of “Dafn,” as well as classroom discussion featuring Dr. Mark Longaker and Rebecca Atwood (13:19-18:06); The asymmetry of power inherent in peacemaking and the example of “Ubuntu,” as well as classroom discussion featuring Dabya Alrafaei and Cason Hunwick (18:07-21:16); The Arabic vocabulary for peace and the art of apology (21:17-25:37); “Eye for an eye”: a tradition in justice (25:36-27:35); The challenges of learning and teaching peacemaking rhetoric (27:36-32:05); Scholarly Article informing this Production: Diab, Rasha. "Peacemaking and the Chancery in Medieval Cairo: Revisiting Medieval Arabic Rhetoric." Rhetoric Across Borders, Parlor Press, 2003, pp. 121-31.
Credits: This podcast was produced by Lillie Munoz, Dabya Alrafaei, and Rebecca Atwood, with resources and assistance provided by the Digital Writing and Research Lab at the University of Texas at Austin. It features the voices of Rasha Diab, Mark Longaker, Dabya Alrafaei, Rebecca Atwood, and Cason Hunwick. Music featured in this podcast, titled “commonGround,” was created by airtone and has been repurposed here under Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial license 3.0. Additionally, conversation.wav was adapted and incorporated under Creative Commons 1.0 license.
General Summary: Professor Clay Spinuzzi discusses his research on the role of rhetoric in early stage entrepreneurship and organizational communication. Undergraduate rhetoric students discuss the role of persuasion in entrepreneurship, the importance of knowing your audience, and the role of mentorship in learning rhetorical techniques.
Detailed Summary: Introduction of Spinuzzi and his work (00.00-02.15); Spinuzzi on organizational communication (02.15-03.58); Spinuzzi describes the changing nature of work and the evolution of his research (03.58-06.24); Spinuzzi discusses his book and the concept of “all edge” (03.58-9.12); Spinuzzi discusses recent research on SEAL, an entrepreneurship program at UT Austin (9.12-12.35); Spinuzzi explains the importance of persuasion in product pitching (12.35-14.25); Spinuzzi describes ideal mentorship (14.25-18.54); Spinuzzi responds to a comment on the role of rhetoric in product creation from Sydney Jones (18.54-23.04); Spinuzzi responds to a question on mentorship in the SEAL program from Kendall Haase (23.04-27.53); Spinuzzi describes implicit versus explicit rhetorical instruction (27.53-30:21); Conclusion, description of program, and credits (30.21-33.47).
Scholarly Article Informing this Production: Spinuzzi, Clay et al. “Go or No Go: Learning to Persuade in an Early-Stage Student Entrepreneurship Program.” 2019, pp. 112-120. 10.1109/ProComm.2019.00026.
Credits: This podcast was produced by Aaron Anaya, Cason Hunwick, Nick Ramirez and Olivia Speed with resources and assistance provided by the Digital Writing and Research Lab at the University of Texas at Austin. It features the voices of Nick Ramirez, Cason Hunwick, Clay Spinuzzi, Kendall Haase, Sydney Jones and Olivia Speed. Music featured in this podcast, titled “commonGround,” was created by airtone and has been repurposed here under Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial license 3.0. Additionally, conversation.wav was adapted and incorporated under Creative Commons 1.0 license.
General Summary: Professor Davida Charney talks about her scholarly background and how she was drawn toward studying biblical rhetoric. For the majority of the podcast, she analyzes and reflects upon her article Taking a Stance toward God: Rhetoric in the Book of Psalms. In response to several questions about the article from undergraduate students in Mark Longaker’s RHE 321 class, she discusses several aspects of the rhetoric of the psalms, including why an omniscient God should be attempted to be persuaded, who the true audience of the psalms was, rhetorical strategies of the psalmists, and the covenantal relationship between God and the Jewish people.
Detailed Summary: Introduction of the podcast and background on Professor Charney (00.00- 01.23); How Charney moved from Penn State to UT Austin and why she moved away from technical writing (01.23-02.16); Charney’s scholarly plans for the future (02.16-03.17); How Charney started doing research and writing about biblical rhetoric (03.17-04.03); Beginning of the discussion about Charney’s article. Charney responding to a question from an undergraduate student (Olivia Speed) about why God should be open to persuasion if he is omniscient (04.03- 07.40); Charney discussing the relationship between the Jewish religion and discourse with God in comparison with other religions (07.40-09.10); Charney discussing how a psalmist may want to try to persuade God in order to make himself more credible in the eyes of the community, in response to a question from an undergraduate student (Cason Hudwick) (09.10-11.22); Charney discussing what the true purpose of trying to persuade God is and who the true audience of the Psalms is, God or the community (11.22-13.23); Charney discussing some rhetorical strategies that the psalmists used and why ethos is one of the most important strategies, in response to a question from an undergraduate student (Jacob Miller) (13.23-16.06); Charney discussing why the psalmists use an “innocent sufferer” archetype and comparing them to other ancient near-Eastern religions (16.06-17.20); Charney discussing an analogy from an undergraduate student (Rebecca Atwood) comparing the relationship between God and the Jewish people to that of a politician and his constituents, emphasizing the covenantal relationship (17.20-19.39); Charney discussing an analogy from an undergraduate student (Cason Hudwick) comparing the relationship between God and the Jewish people to that of a judge and the accused (19.39-22.19); Charney discussing whether or not personal beliefs affect how receptive people are to learning about the psalms from a rhetorical perspective (22.19-24.09); Charney discussing what students walk away with after they complete her upper-division history of rhetoric course about rhetoric in the Old Testament (24.09-25.50); Charney discussing what her favorite psalm is and why (25.50-27.53)
Scholarly Article Informing this Production: Charney, Davida. “Taking a Stance toward God: Rhetoric in the Book of Psalms.” Jewish Rhetorics, eds. Michael Bernard-Donals and Jan Fernheimer. Brandeis University Press, 2015. 1-15.
Credits: This podcast was produced by Kendall Haase, Sydney Jones, LaRayne Garza, and Adam Trevino, with resources and assistance provided by Will Burdette and the Digital Writing and Research Lab at the University of Texas at Austin. It features the voices of Davida Charney, Adam Trevino, Kendall Haase, LaRayne Garza, Olivia Speed, Cason Hudwick, Jacob Miller, Rebecca Atwood, and Sydney Jones. Music featured in this podcast, titled “commonGround,” was created by airtone and has been repurposed here under Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License 3.0. Additionally, conversation.wav was adapted and incorporated under Creative Commons 1.0 License.
General Summary: Professor Diane Davis talks about her article entitled “Creaturely Rhetoric,” which details animal rhetoric and her efforts to bridge the gap between human and animal, as well as afterthoughts she had after the article had been published. Two students pick her brain on it and her research as a whole, delving further into the mind of an experienced rhetorician that manages several important departments at the University of Texas at Austin while still making time to love and understand her dogs.
Detailed Summary: Davis' study of creaturely rhetoric and her answer to whether or not it's harmful to define it (1:10 to 6:55). Davis' response to anthropomorphism and whether we should use it as a lens for studying rhetoric (8:00 to 14:00). Davis gets philosophical as she talks about the "Great Chain of Being," of it existing vertically, and of our (humanity's) place in it (14:30 to 18:40). Davis defines human exceptionalism and what it means in the hierarchical structure of the animal kingdom (18:50 to 20:40). To save animals from humanity's need to understand everything, Davis explains why we shouldn't give them a voice and how ethics/morals tie in to that notion (21:40 to 26:10). Davis defends dogs everywhere and clarifies if an emotional support animal can be a rhetor (27:30 to 33:10). Lastly, Davis considers if all animals can be emotionally supportive or not (33:25 to 35:05). Closing remarks (35:10 to 36:20). Credits (36:25 to End).
Scholarly Article Informing this Production: Davis, Diane. “Creaturely Rhetorics.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 44.1 (2011): 88-94.
Credits: This podcast was produced by Brandy Corona, with resources and assistance provided by the Digital Writing and Research Lab at the University of Texas at Austin. It features the voices of Diane Davis, John García, and Christine Carranza. Music featured in this podcast, titled “commonGround,” was created by airtone and has been repurposed here under the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License 3.0. Additionally, conversation.wav was adapted and incorporated under the Creative Commons 1.0 License.
General Summary: Professor Jeffrey Walker talks about his research on ancient rhetoric and his efforts to bring ancient methods of teaching argumentation into twenty-first century classes at the University of Texas at Austin. Several graduate students at UT reflect on Walker’s research, the connection between rhetoric and democracy, and the impact of classical pedagogy on their own first-year writing pedagogy.
Detailed Summary: Walker’s scholarly transition from American poetics to classical rhetoric (00.00-03.53); Walker’s recent scholarly work on ancient methods of teaching argumentation (03.53-06.11); Walker’s incorporation of ancient declamation exercises in his classes and his thoughts on UT graduate instructors, Mac Scott and Tristin Hooker , who have similarly incorporated performance in their writing classes (06.12-13.31); Walker’s research on Byzantine rhetoric (13.32-17.26); Walker responding to comments about his work on democracy, rhetoric, and ethics by graduate students (Stephen Dadugblor, Andy Heerman, and Cindy Holland) (17.27-22.11); Walker discussing his style of writing in response to comments by Tristan Hanson, K.J. Shaffner, and Hannah Folz (22.12-25.53).
Scholarly Article Informing this Production: Walker, Jeffrey. “Mime, Comedy, Sophistry: Speculations on the Origins of Rhetoric.” Advances in the History of Rhetoric, vol. 8, no. 1, 2005, pp. 199-209.
Credits: This podcast was produced by Mark Longaker, with resources and assistance provided by the Digital Writing and Research Lab (Links to an external site.) at the University of Texas at Austin. It features the voices of Jeffrey Walker, Mark Longaker, Hannah Folz, Tristan Hanson, Mac Scott, Tristin Hooker, Cindy Holland, K.J. Shaffner, Andy Heerman, and Stephen Dadugblor. Music featured in this podcast, titled “commonGround,” was created by airtone and has been repurposed here under Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial license 3.0. Additionally, conversation.wav was adapted and incorporated under Creative Commons 1.0 license.