L597: Topics in Library and Information Science:
Semester: Fall
2002 Instructor: Dr. Susan Herring
Time: Fridays
1:00-3:45 p.m. Office: Library
005 B
Place: LI031 Phone: (812)
856-4919 (voice mail)
Section: 9674 Email: herring @ indiana.edu
Instructor's
Office Hours: Tuesday and Friday 4-5 p.m. and by appointment
Class
majordomo list: herring_cmda @ indiana.edu
Required reading:
Photocopied articles to be put on reserve in the SLIS library.
1. Course
description
This course presents content analysis methods for analyzing Internet and other contexts of computer-mediated communication (CMC). The approach, computer-mediated discourse analysis (CMDA), is theoretically grounded in linguistic discourse analysis, pragmatics, ethnomethodology, and semiotics, and makes use of methods from those disciplines adapted for text-based and multimodal CMC. The primary object of analysis is discourse – language and language use – although the methods can be employed to help answer a wide range of social, cultural, and cognitive questions involving human communication mediated by computer networks.
2. Course objectives
The short-term goal of the course is to provide practical, hands-on experience in applying empirical analytical methods to computer-mediated discourse, and in interpreting the results. The long-range goal, which may be achieved through continued practice of the methods, is to enable students to modify the methods or devise their own as appropriate to address a range of research questions and data types.
3. Student requirements
All students are expected to do the assigned readings before class each week.
There will be five oral and written reports during the semester in which students apply methods of discourse analysis to a computer-mediated data sample of their choice. The oral reports will be 5-10 minutes in length, depending on the number of students enrolled in the course. The written reports (intended to capture in writing the content of the oral reports, plus any feedback or reflections occurring after the oral reports) should be 2-4 typed pages long, and may include appendices with examples or tables of analytical results.
The major requirement for the course is a research paper, due at the end of the semester, exploring in greater depth some feature or features of computer-mediated discourse in data of the student’s choice. The paper should be in the range of 4500-7500 words long, not counting references and appendices, and should follow the formal conventions for a publishable-quality research article, including footnotes and citations of scholarly work in APA (American Psychological Association) style.
The final week of the course will be devoted to conference-style oral presentations (10-15 minutes, depending on the number of students enrolled) of students’ term paper research to the rest of the class.
4. Student evaluation
The final grade for students enrolled in the course will be calculated as follows:
Attendance and participation: 20%
Oral & written reports 40%
Oral presentation of term paper 10%
Term
paper 30%
Total: 100%
Grading Policy
• Late reports will be accepted only with advance permission from the instructor. I reserve the right to lower your grade by one-third of a letter grade (from A to A-, A- to B+, etc.) for each day a report is late.
• Class participation means being willing and able to speak intelligently in class about the topics under discussion. (Note: this does NOT necessarily mean speaking a lot—you may be penalized if you habitually dominate class discussions.) In order to be able to speak intelligently about a topic, you will need to have done the readings for that topic before class. You will also need to be physically present and alert. Participation cannot be made up if you miss a class.
• Oral reports will be graded with a check mark to indicate a satisfactory presentation.
• Written reports, the oral presentation of your term paper research, and the written term paper will be assigned letter grades (A+, A, A-, B+, B, B-, C+, C, etc.).
• Written reports should be concise (2-4 typed pages) and written in continuous prose (NOT outline style). Long introductory and concluding paragraphs are unnecessary, but each report should begin with a concise statement of the topic that the report will address, and insure that all questions asked in the guidelines for the report have been explicitly answered by the end. DO include examples from your data and/or summary tables and graphs of your analytical results in your report, to support your claims. If these supporting materials are lengthy, they may be appended to the report as an appendix. An 'A' quality written report is written clearly, answers all the questions asked, applies the methods correctly, and interprets the results plausibly. (Extra credit will be given for insightful interpretations.)
• The oral presentation of your term paper research will be graded primarily on form: how well it is organized, how informative it is, and how clearly and professionally it communicates to your audience (i.e., the rest of the class). An 'A' quality oral report conveys an appropriate amount of information given the time allotted for the presentation, is presented in a straightforward and concise manner, and is logically organized (usually following the schema: identification and motivation of your research question, brief background, data studied and methods of analysis, your findings, and some interpretation of the findings).
• The written term paper will be evaluated on content—originality of the research question, appropriateness of the data and methods used to investigate the question, plausibility of your interpretations—and form—organization (similar to that for oral presentations), clarity and quality of written expression, and appropriate use of scholarly conventions such as citations and footnotes. An 'A' quality term paper addresses an interesting research question, makes use of an appropriate empirical method to analyze real CMC data, and interprets the findings thoughtfully, in addition to being well-organized and clearly and professionally written.
Academic honesty: Most of your activity in this course will involve producing original research. However, in writing about your research, it will sometimes be necessary to contextualize it with respect to previous work. In accordance with the policies of Indiana University, plagiarism, copyright infringement, and other types of academic dishonesty will NOT be tolerated. As a rule of thumb, when in doubt, cite the source!
5. Course schedule
----------
Week 1 (9/6): Definitions, goals and history of CMDA. Classifying computer-mediated data. Selecting data for analysis for the course. Getting Human Subjects approval.
Read: 1. Herring, S. (In press). “Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior.” In Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning, S. A. Barab, R. Kling, and J. H. Gray (Eds.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
2. Herring, S. (n.d.). “A classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse.”
Recommended background reading for an overview of a range of CMC technologies:
Herring, S. (2002). “Computer-mediated communication and the Internet.” Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, ed. by B. Cronin, (pp. 109-132).
----------
Week 2 (9/13): Methodology: Sampling. Content analysis: coding and counting. Using qualitative data analysis software. Using a concordancing program.
[Dr. Herring in Cardiff, Wales presenting a colloquium on 'Language and the New Media' for the British Association of Applied Linguistics annual conference. Dr. John Paolillo will guest teach.]
In
class: Describe orally the type
of interactive, text-based CMC you will analyze.
Read: 1. Bauer, M. (2000)."Classical content analysis: A review." In Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sound, ed. by M. Bauer & G. Gaskell (pp. 131-151). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2. Association of Internet Researchers' ethical guidelines (2002).
----------
Week 3 (9/20): Basic descriptive statistics: participation patterns.
Finalize your data sample. Submit request for Human Subjects approval if you intend to present or publish the results of any analysis you do in this course.
Read: 1. Herring, S. et al. (1998). "Participation in electronic discourse in a 'feminist' field." In Language and Gender: A Reader, ed. by J. Coates. Oxford: Blackwell.
2. Sierpe, E. (2000). "Gender and technological practice in electronic discussion lists: an examination of JESSE, the library information science education forum." Library & information science research 22 (3), 273-290.
3. Hert, P. (1997). "Social
dynamics of an on-line scholarly debate." The
Information Society 13, 329-360.
----------
Week 4 (9/27): Structural analysis. Linguistic complexity: word length, sentence length. Recurrent terms.
1st Oral and Written Report: Basic descriptive statistics about your data. What do they reveal about participation and activity level?
Read: 1. Yates, S. (1996). "Oral and written linguistic aspects of computer conferencing." In S. Herring (ed.), Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social and Cross-Cultural Perspectives (pp. 9-46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
2. Ko, K-K. (1996). "Structural characteristics of computer-mediated language: A comparative analysis of InterChange discourse." Electronic Journal of Communication/Revue électronique de communication 6(3). http://www.cios.org/www/ejc/v6n396.htm
----------
Week 5 (10/4): Structural analysis (cont.): Formality.
[Dr. Herring in Springfield, MO giving lecture on Computer-Mediated Discourse Analysis to the Association of Interdisciplinary Studies. Dr. John Paolillo will guest teach.]
2nd Oral Report: Structural analysis of your data sample. How complex is the language used (in terms of word length, sentence length, word frequency)?
Read: 1. Cho, N. (In press). "Linguistic features of electronic mail: A comparison with memoranda." In S. Herring (ed.), Computer-Mediated Conversation. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
2. Werry, C. (1996). "Linguistic and interactional features of Internet Relay Chat." In S. Herring (ed.), Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social and Cross-Cultural Perspectives (pp. 47-63). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
----------
Week 6 (10/11): Semantic/pragmatic analysis: Functional moves (speech acts).
2nd Written Report due: Structural analyses of your data. What do they reveal about the level of complexity and formality of the sample?
Read: 1. McLaughlin, M. (1984). Ch. 4. Conversation: How Talk Is Organized. Sage.
2. Herring, S. & Nix, C. (1997). "Is "serious chat" an oxymoron? Pedagogical vs. social uses of Internet Relay Chat." Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Orlando, FL, March 11.
Recommended:
Francis, G. & S. Hunston (1992). Analysing everyday conversation. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis (pp. 1-34). London: Routledge.
----------
Week 7 (10/18): Semantic/pragmatic analysis (cont.): Functional moves (sequences).
3rd Oral Report: Acts and sequences in your data sample. What kinds of communicative activities are the participants engaged in?
Read: 1. Herring, S. (1996). “Two variants of an electronic message schema.” In S. Herring (ed.), Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social and Cross-Cultural Perspectives (pp. 81-106). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
2. Condon, S. & Cech, C. (1996). "Discourse management strategies in face-to-face and computer-mediated decision making interactions.” Electronic Journal of Communication/La revue électronique de communication 6(3). http://www.cios.org/www/ejc/v6n396.htm
----------
Week 8 (10/25): Interaction management: Topic development and coherence.
3rd Written Report due: Acts and sequences in your data sample. What kinds of communicative activities are the participants engaged in?
Read: 1.
Herring, S. (1999). “Interactional coherence in CMC.” Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 4 (4).
http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol4/issue4/
2. Severinson Eklundh, K. (In press). "To quote or not to quote: Setting the context for computer-mediated dialogues." In: Computer-Mediated Conversation, ed. by S. Herring. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
----------
Week 9 (11/1): Interaction management (cont.): Topic development and coherence.
4th Oral Report: Topic development and coherence in your sample.
Be prepared to discuss
preliminary term paper research ideas in class.
----------
Week 10 (11/15): Social behavior: Politeness and conflict. Face-threatening acts. Mitigation.
4th
Written Report due: Topic development and
coherence in your sample.
Read: 1.
Brown, G. & Levinson, S. (1987).
Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage (pp. 59-84). Cambridge University Press.
2. Herring, S. (1994). “Politeness in computer culture: Why women thank and men flame.” In M. Bucholtz, A. Liang, L. Sutton, & C. Hines (Eds.), Cultural Performances: Proceedings of the Third Berkeley Women and Language Conference (pp. 278-94). Berkeley: Berkeley Women and Language Group.
----------
Week 11 (11/22): Social behavior (cont.): Politeness and conflict. Norms and censure.
Turn in 1-2 page proposal for term paper research, describing your topic, research question, data, methods, preliminary observations, and including a minimum of five references.
5th Oral Report: Politeness and conflict in your sample.
Read: 1.
Smith, C. et al. (1997). "Conduct controls on Usenet." Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication 2(4).
2.
Spertus, E. (1997). "Smokey: Automatic recognition of hostile
messages." Innovative
Applications of Artificial Intelligence
(IAAI) '97. http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/ellens/smokey.ps
----------
THANKSGIVING
BREAK (work on term papers)
----------
Week 12 (12/6): Qualitative CMDA. How to make a compelling argument without numbers.
5th Written Report due: Politeness, conflict and norm enforcement in your sample.
Read: [Select any two]
1. Baym, N. (In press). "Laughing together: Solidarity and identity in online humor." In: Computer-Mediated Conversation, ed. by S. Herring. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
2. Danet, B., Ruedenberg-Wright, L., & Rosenbaum-Tamari, Y. (1997). "Hmmm … where’s that smoke coming from? Writing, play and performance on Internet Relay Chat." In S. Rafaeli, F. Sudweeks, & M. McLaughlin (Eds.), Network and netplay: Virtual groups on the Internet (pp. 41-76). Cambridge, MA: AAAI/MIT Press.
3. Herring, S. (1999). "The rhetorical dynamics of gender harassment on-line." The Information Society 15(3), 151-167.
4. Livia, A. (In press). "BSR ES TU F? : Brevity and expressivity on the French Minitel." In: Computer-Mediated Conversation, ed. by S. Herring. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
5. Weber, H.L. (In press). "Missed cues: How disputes can socialize virtual newcomers." In: Computer-Mediated Conversation, ed. by S. Herring. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
----------
Week 13 (TBA): Synthesis and review. What have we learned? Future directions for CMDA.
[Meet at Professor Herring's home.]
Reread: 1. Herring, S. (In press). “Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior.” In Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning, S. A. Barab, R. Kling, and J. H. Gray (Eds.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
----------
Week 14 (12/13): Oral presentations
----------
Week 15 (12/19): Term papers due by 5:00 p.m. *Thursday*
----------