Tag Archives: rhetorical analysis

Prospectus Success!

It has been over a month since I’ve written on this blog, and thanks to some higher power/luck, I BECAME A PhD CANDIDATE ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27TH!

But you might ask: What happened with your prospectus/dissertation proposal, that thing you spent so many weeks agonizing over? Well, to be honest, I got caught up in the day-to-day rush that always happens at the end of the semester and I took a break from my prospectus after submitting it to my committee for review.  Although the prospectus meeting is collaborative, it’s mainly a space for my committee to debate the viability of my project–and after I submitted my prospectus, I felt like I had no control over it. No ownership, even. Like all of my best work thus far, I knew it was going to be sort of co-authored! So I took a step back. My partner and I rejoined the YMCA. I watched Netflix and Hulu at night after work. I spent too many hours responding to those “I’m in a crisis”-end-of-semester emails. I hosted a huge Passover seder, ate dinner at my favorite restaurants, and planned some short vacations for the summer. I met with students, attended follow-up meetings for the interdisciplinary study I am working on, and went to trivia night with friends. I played with my cat, who is now more spoiled than ever and is demanding pets and trying to drink my tea as I type this. I didn’t return to my prospectus until the night before my prospectus defense…which was probably a bad idea, but I couldn’t bring myself to critique it again. I figured it would change a lot at the meeting, so it wouldn’t be helpful for me to overthink it instead of sleeping that night.

At the 1.5 hour meeting, my prospectus did change…but not as much as I expected. Going into the meeting, I was sure that my prospectus was a mess. Even though both of my advisers had read and commented on multiple drafts, I still felt unprepared. I was sure my committee would tear my revised prospectus apart and then stitch it back together. This happened with my first and second chapters, which I’m now going to combine…but my other chapters stayed somewhat the same. It turns out that my committee was not particularly compelled by my traditional rhetorical analysis chapter, in which I planned to examine scientific literature reviews to show how scientific knowledge about Lyme Disease (including naming) is constructed. At my oral exam/defense, my committee was worried that my project sounded too social science-y and not obviously rhetorical enough. However, at this meeting, the committee was excited by my use of innovative, interdisciplinary methods and encouraged me to keep them in the project. (Re: VISUAL ETHNOGRAPHY is here to stay!)

At the defense, one of the questions that my committee kept asking was, “What is this really about? Is this a dissertation about rhetoric? Lyme Disease? Illness identities? In what order do these things happen?” My one co-adviser has advocated that I make the book more about Lyme Disease, since the press that published her recent book about Autism told her that a text with a disease focus (vs. a rhetoric focus) would attract a larger audience. Her book is still about rhetoric, of course, but it forefronts Autism instead of rhetoric. After this meeting, it seems like my project is really about how health seekers construct illness identities, and that studying Lyme Disease communities is a case study of how that happens. I think.

There is still so much to panic about: How did I propose a dissertation with so many digital elements? What if the focus groups fail? How am I actually going to WRITE 200 pages that make sense? BUT, conveniently, I am giving myself a break for a week or two to focus on other tasks. Here’s the short list:

  1. Write and submit a seminar paper for my Communication class…which is due on Friday…and I haven’t written any words for it yet.
  2. Assist with WID training on 5/6.
  3. Assist with my TA class’s final exam conference on 5/6.
  4. Finish any final Writing Diabetes follow-up appointments (hopefully by 5/6).
  5. Help submit my group’s 4C17 proposal by 5/9.
  6. Write and submit a chapter (or something) for the RSA Embodied Rhetorics workshop I got into by 5/14. I was planning that this would be the same as my conference paper for COMM, but…???
  7. Finish revising, get feedback, and submit article accepted for the special issue of JMH to the editors by 6/1.

With that, I guess it’s time to start writing!

Advertisements
Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Organizing My Dissertation Project

There are so many possible ways to conceptualize my dissertation project. It’s exciting to feel like there are so many possibilities, but it’s also overwhelming. What direction(s) do I want to go in? What’s my justification for making this choice? How will this choice frame the project in a useful way for the field? The issue is that I just need to pick SOMETHING. It doesn’t have to be perfect–merely workable–so that I can finish the prospectus and submit it to my advisers…and I had planned to finish it yesterday. (Instead, I napped, played with my cat, and ate delicious pizza from the new pizza truck down the street. Relatively restful, but…yikes).

I’m a writer who likes to have a clear outline from the beginning, which is why I think I’m having so much trouble moving this forward. I know that I will likely change the outline and/or frameworks and quite possibly the chapters, too, but it’s practically impossible for me to start without some semblance of…something. (Also, my cat is high on catnip and making the weirdest sounds…. Not helpful). When my students find themselves in similar situations, I encourage them to “just pick SOMETHING” and get started, since the project is usually relative short in length and the timeframe for completing it is limited. My dissertation project is theoretically bounded, too, but it’s so much bigger and broader and feels like it means so much more. I’ll probably write about most of the same things regardless of the frame I choose, but…UGHHHHHH.

So here are some of my ideas for organizing things….

Idea #1: rhetorical research methods

Introduction: rhetoric of health and medicine –> LD is an interesting case study –> necessitates that we broaden archives and research methods

Chapter 1: “traditional” deep rhetorical analysis of alphabetic text – naming and constructing LD through peer-reviewed scientific journal articles; language = evidence

Chapter 2: visual rhetorical analysis – LD images; images = evidence

Chapter 3: rhetorical circulation studies – examining online social spaces where people with LD collaborate and strategize to  create community and get better care; moving beyond Gries’s circulation of one image to think about the construction/production/distribution of multiple (seemingly) static images; language and questions (?) = evidence

Note: Is this more of a virtual in situ study?

Chapter 4: semi-structured interviews – interview LD health seekers in the south (North Carolina) to learn about experience and possibility of disability identity; interview language and ideas = evidence

 

Idea #2: patient/activist vs. clinician-researcher/biomedical authority for learning about emergent illnesses

Introduction: rhetoric of health and medicine –> LD is an interesting case study –> construction of ethos –> evidence and authority (see ch. 7 of Segal’s Health and the Rhetoric of Medicine, 2005)

–> IDSA vs. ILADS discourse – the rhetorical problems with LD

Chapter 1: biomedical = what counts as evidence (maps, bull’s-eyes, ticks, spirochetes) vs. “subjective symptoms”

Chapter 2: biomedical = LLMDS – developing LD knowledge/authority through perceived “Lyme literacy”

(Note: not sure which archive I’m going to use here).

Chapter 3: patient/health-seeker = uninterrogated history of LD as a patient’s disease via Connecticut moms who reported it to the CDC and studied their ill neighbors and children; newspaper articles and popular publications (i.e. books by LD patients/witnesses)

Chapter 4: patient/health-seeker = crowdsourcing knowledge via online social networks; examining online social spaces where people with LD collaborate and strategize to  create community and get better care

Note: Putting patient/health seeker and clinician/researcher/biomedicine in opposition feels a little bit arbitrary or simplistic. 

 

Idea #3: stages of illness

Introduction: rhetoric of health and medicine –> LD is an interesting case study –> tells us a lot about rhetoric and emergent illnesses following the HIV/AIDS crisis

Chapter 1: diagnosis = rhetorical analysis of changing diagnostic guidelines

Chapter 2: treatment =naming and constructing LD through peer-reviewed scientific journal articles

Chapter 3: recovery = examining online social spaces where people with LD collaborate and strategize to  create community and get better care

Chapter 4:

A) prevention = visual analysis of LD prevention ephemera, such as posters and brochures? IDSA vs. ILADS materials?

OR

B) disability = questioning the chronicity/permanence of the condition via interviews?

 

WHEW. So much to think about. Time for a cup of tea…or a nap….

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Questioning the Lyme Disease Dissertation Project

I’ve been working on finalizing my dissertation proposal for a few weeks now, and I keep having crises of ideas. Despite wonderful support from my friends, parents, #TeamRhetoric colleagues, and advisers, I remain tormented by the following questions:

Should I make Lyme Disease the focus of my study, or is that too limiting? My adviser is probably right when she says that a book about Lyme Disease, like Autism or another particular condition, may be attractive to presses because it will interest a specific population of people and thus might be more marketable. However, I can’t even think that far ahead right now. I’ve read so many articles on the ChronicleVita, and in other places about affirming that your dissertation is NOT a book and that it may not become a book, so even though my advisers think the project is promising in its current form, it’s still hard to imagine it transitioning into a book.

Is it rhetorical enough? WHAT IS RHETORIC? Why am I using rhetoric as a method and lens for analysis? Much of the research about chronic illness, gendered experiences with illness, the value of patient narratives, etc. is coming out of medical sociology and anthropology, social history, history of science and medicine, etc. I know that rhetoric, which studies how arguments are constructed and thus create ways of knowing and making meaning, is a useful way of looking at data. (By “data,” I mean any ideas, facts, or knowledge that can be investigated as a way of answering a question–which can range from narratives to images to lab tests). BUT STILL. I think what might be confusing me is that scholars and activists from these fields are trying to show how constructed–i.e. not natural–these illness things are, and that’s pretty much what rhetoricians do, so I don’t want to feel like I’m repeating work that’s already been done. I’d like to believe that rhetoricians’ perspectives bring something unique to the table, but thus far it has been difficult to parse.

What archives or primary materials am I going to investigate to make claims, and which methods will I use? When I first started investigating the health and medical humanities, I thought their methods were engaging and presented new and exciting opportunities for rhetorical scholarship. Now, however, I have to be careful that my project will be “read” as rhetorical to future job committees and tenure committees, which is forcing me to reconsider some of my (seemingly) radical methods. I spent a lot of time trying to justify why visual ethnography would make for a compelling rhetorical research method (building off of McNely et al.’s work), but I have long since moved away from the *justification* piece. If I’m going to include nontraditional research methods, I will have to spend time and space justifying it…which means that I need to figure out a) what methods I’m going to incorporate, and b) WHY they’re going to be useful and illuminate something new and exciting and different. Again, although I spent so much time toying with this visual ethnography thing, I haven’t figured out if or how it is going to work and what it might do that might be helpful.

It’s funny how these things work out. My undergraduate rhetorical education focused on feminist rhetorical history. I have since moved away from this focus during graduate school for a variety of reasons, but it’s easy to want to return to those methods because I already know how to do them. For example, I could study local and national newspaper articles to chart a revised history of the emergence of LD, which was “discovered” by researchers at Yale…who never really credited the two mothers from Lyme, CT who alerted them to the phenomena. These mothers, Polly Murray and Judith Mensch, are sometimes named in popular publications, but according to some quick researchers, never in peer-reviewed scientific ones (i.e. http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/10/nyregion/taking-a-new-tack-against-lyme-disease.html). This gets particularly interesting because there has been some research about the sexual and in utero transfer of LD (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mothers-may-pass-lyme-disease-to-children-in-the-womb/), which makes me think a lot about the rhetorical characters of LD and how they have informed the LD controversy as we know it. Some sources I’ve read have argued that because LD was discovered by patients and wasn’t easily figured out by researchers of clinicians, it is deeply grounded in community efforts and thus doesn’t easily become the authority of researchers, unlike in many other cases.

Relatedly, I’ve also come upon another conundrum: If chronically ill people with controversial/emergent illnesses are doing collective action work in certain places already, WHY THE F— AM I GOING TO DO MY OWN STUDY?!  Not accounting for and valuing the work people are already doing and doing my own study instead seems to contradict everything I believe about valuing patient narratives and experiences.My preliminary research/internet perusing suggests that ill individuals are hashtagging #LymeDisease, #spoonies, #chronicpain, #chronicillness, and other terms on Twitter and Instagram (and probably other places) to visually and textually document their experiences and get community support. I’m sure there’s more out there, but I’m hesitant to jump in with both feet. What worries me about using social media as a research archive is that it seems ephemeral and might not matter in a few years. (Truthfully, I’m concerned that it will be meaningless by the time I try to publish a book). However, other people (per this Slate article from the other day – http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/users/2016/03/how_spoonies_people_with_chronic_illnesses_use_memes_selfies_and_emojis.html) are taking it seriously, so perhaps I should, too. I guess what’s been hard is that my early searches have been hard to “code,” meaning that sometimes it seems like people are  using these hashtags to gain social capital to sell something or as spam versus using it to build or enter into an illness community. My adviser suggested an interesting solution: come up with a key term or concept to help me “read” (i.e. organize, generate meaning, analyzed) these materials. For example: disability. I could look at all of the Instagram posts with a #LymeDisease tag and try to answer the question, “How do LD patients construct (or not) a disability identity?” With inquiries by disability studies scholars like Alison Kafer about who “counts” as disabled, what terms individuals with disability should or should not take up, and more, I’d like to work on answering this question as part of my dissertation. However, I feel uneasy about using social media to answer it. I could certainly conduct some qualitative interviews with individuals with LD in North Carolina and study them for similar themes. There is very little qualitative research about Lyme Disease AND very little research about Lyme in the American south, so I would certainly be generating new knowledge, but that also doesn’t feel quite right to me.

This has prompted me to consider if I should incorporate digital humanities research tools and methods into the project. LD is very much geographically bound–socially and environmentally–but should I go there?

What ideas might I use for peer-reviewed journal articles vs. THE DISSERTATION? This might seem insignificant, but I think that some of my inner chaos come from trying to narrow my focus for the dissertation but finding perfectly useful, bounded projects that might be interesting to pursue but that don’t fit in the realm of my current project outline. For instance, there are various health poster collections that are perfectly suited for rhetorical and visual analysis, but if they’re not about LD, they probably aren’t a great fit for my dissertation unless I’m directly connecting them back or comparing them with LD ephemera.

***

To begin answering some of these questions, I started playing around (i.e. “researching). I made the following list:

Possibilities for Archives/Materials:

  • Peer-reviewed scientific journal articles about Chronic Lyme Disease/Post-Treatment LD à learn about the emergence of LLMDs and the rhetorical problem of “Chronic Lyme”
  • Interviews?
  • Arts-based therapy ephemera?
  • Hash tag activism on Tumblr, Instagram, and/or Twitter à and/or ChronicBabe.com
    • Leveraging gender and chronic illness – pushing back against traditional patriarchal authorities
    • Femininity as radical, rhetorical reclaiming of authority and identity à paper I wrote for Jane’s seminar

This led me to think about Judith Lorber’s Gender and the Social Construction of Illness, so I used Google Scholar to figure out who had cited her (almost 500 people) and then, with that sect, who had also used the term”rhetoric” in their publication. Here’s a few I came up with:

  • Werner, Anne, and Kirsti Malterud. “It is hard work behaving as a credible patient: encounters between women with chronic pain and their doctors.” Social science & medicine 57.8 (2003): 1409-1419.
  • Sim, Julius, and Sue Madden. “Illness experience in fibromyalgia syndrome: A metasynthesis of qualitative studies.” Social science & medicine 67.1 (2008): 57-67.
  • Willard, Barbara E. “Feminist interventions in biomedical discourse: An analysis of the rhetoric of integrative medicine.” Women’s Studies in Communication 28.1 (2005): 115-148.
  • Bell, Mebbie. “Re/forming the anorexic “prisoner”: Inpatient medical treatment as the return to panoptic femininity.” Cultural Studies↔ Critical Methodologies 6.2 (2006): 282-307.
  • Clarke, Adele E., and Janet Shim. “Medicalization and biomedicalization revisited: Technoscience and transformations of health, illness and American medicine.” Handbook of the sociology of health, illness, and healing. Springer New York, 2011. 173-199.

Note: I got up and got a snack, but I still managed to bite off all my nails. :-/

I’m not sure where it will go from here, but I told my advisers that I’d figure it out by Sunday night…. AHHH!

 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Revising Lyme Research Questions

One of my wise advisers from my days as an undergraduate at University of Maryland recently gave me some important advice. As usual, I was complaining about my various projects, particularly about my inability to select useful and appropriate research methods. My adviser said something to this effect: “Why don’t you figure out your research questions before you select your research methods? You can’t figure out how to answer the questions until you’ve chosen them.” SO SIMPLE, YET SO BRILLIANT. (I guess this is why we have advisers). In turn: I’m writing this post because the time has come for me to really nail down my research questions (at least for my dissertation proposal. I know that they will change along the way, but I can’t get the proposal approved without a version of these questions, so here goes…).

I have been working on these questions for some time. Almost a year, in fact. When I teach my students about the research process, they are always frustrated by my assertion that research IS a process–one that is recursive, reflexive, and constantly evolving. (I mean, it’s called “re-search” for a reason!) However, none of that means that the research process isn’t frustrating. It’s hard to keep coming up with versions of the same questions (and some new ones), but hopefully my questions get better and better as I continue to revise them. Here are a few versions:

April 2015:

  • What does it mean to receive a Lyme disease diagnosis?
  • What does that diagnosis allow/not allow? Legitimize/not legitimize?
  • Who is able to receive a diagnosis, and who is not?
  • What do you have to know about lyme in order to self-advocate or receive appropriate treatments?
    • If diagnosis matters so much, what are we to do if we feel that our healthcare providers have misdiagnosed us?
  • In general, what does it mean to have a chronic condition or to live as a chronically ill person? What kinds of evidence are required for women’s chronic illness symptoms to be believed or taken seriously?
  • How do women’s stories complicate our understanding of how they navigate the world while living with disease?
  • When disease names and language change, what happens?
  • How is illness language being turned and nuanced?
  • When ill women are given access to communicate (i.e. online?), what happens?
  • What kinds of rhetorical strategies do chronically ill women adopt to navigate their illness experiences? What kinds of illness language do ill people, scientific, and public communities create, and how does it influence the ways patients are cared for and treated?

July 2015:

  • KEY QUESTION: What is the (if any?) rhetoricity of being “chronic,” and how can chronically ill people (specifically women) leverage their diagnoses, treatments, and long-term care to their advantage (i.e. to get the least harmful, most effective treatments and experiences)?
  • How does a diagnosis change the ways in which an ill person lives, perceives, acts out, and discusses publicly their symptoms/condition?
  • For whom is a diagnosis important, and what does it do? (Patients vs. doctors vs. insurance companies vs. big pharma, etc.).
  • How do patients weigh the risks of particular treatments? (Meaning, when the list of side effects is longer than the list of benefits on FDA-approved medication, why might patients choose to take/not take them?)
  • How are treatments framed differently for individuals with chronic conditions? What does it mean for patients to be treated for psychiatric conditions that occur as a result of chronic illness (forever marking them as individuals with mental disorders)?
  • How do chronically ill people sustain themselves even when there is no hope for recovery? How are traditional conceptions of “cure” and “recovery” reframed for the chronic patient?

October 2015:

  • What does Lyme Disease look like? (And how does this affect who is diagnosed with it–and appropriately treated–and when?)
  • Who circulates images of Lyme Disease? What does the circulation network look like?
  • How do Lyme Disease diagnosis health-seekers/patients envision their connection to Lyme? How do they document their experiences of Lyme, if at all? (Or other ambiguous chronic illness/condition).
  • How do clinicians who diagnose Lyme Disease and researchers who do experiments to learn more about Lyme Disease *see* it–in the lab, in the treatment center, in the exam room? How do these images circulate?
  • What is the history of images of Lyme Disease and their connection to diagnosis?
  • And of course…How do Lyme Disease visuals function rhetorically, particularly in diagnosis situations? How might images/visuals be effective argumentative tools for presenting new ideas/shifting the focusing/reevaluating the stakes of Lyme Disease diagnosis?

November 2015:

  • What is the origin of the standard Lyme Disease images, and how have they molded and circulated between professional and patient communities?
  • In the midst of complex arguments about how long the Lyme infection remains active and if intravenous antibiotics cause more side-effects than healing, four standard images accompany discussions from all ideological perspectives: one or more ticks, EM rashes, Lyme spirochetes, and maps that chart Lyme diagnoses across the United States. Why d0 these images continue to be taken up and recirculated?  How have they have played a covert but significant role in making paradoxical claims about Lyme persuasive?
  • How might visual ethnography reveal new complexities in the diagnosis, treatment, and recovery from Lyme Disease? What happens when we ask integral but invisible stakeholders (i.e. Lyme patients) to become producers of visual discourse about Lyme?
  • How might visual ethnography create new images that provide an alternative, patient-centered perspective on the condition?
  • How might  language, objects, and social actions (including scientific “facts”) function as persuasive tools (which are inherently impartial)?
  • How might a rhetorical analysis of the visual rhetoric of Lyme Disease offer new ways to understand a condition that science of medicine have not yet figured out?
  • How have (and how do) images of Lyme Disease shape(d) popular, medical, and scientific discourses and the practices of Lyme diagnosis, treatment, and recovery?

As you can see, this project has already gone through many shifts…and I haven’t officially started it yet. I guess I should also think about my intended interventions:

  1. Lyme Disease–like many other (particularly controversial conditions and diseases)–is rhetorically constructed. This impacts health seekers’ diagnosis, treatment, and recovery, as well as the ways that knowledge about the disease is constructed, circulated, and contested.
  2. Analyzing visuals (i.e. through visual rhetorical analysis) can help us understand Lyme (and other conditions and diseases) as rhetorical phenomenons. As Jeanne Fahnestock argued in her groundbreaking book, Rhetorical Figures in Science, linguistic figures of speech translate to visual figures in scientific writing.
  3. Guiding Lyme health seekers through the creation of their own images through participant-solicited visual ethnography and digital storytelling (?????) allows them to intervene and perhaps make a difference in Lyme Disease knowledge production. (TBD if I do some kind of study. We shall see?)

I guess I need to go back through and narrow down/select which questions will work for me…but since it’s almost 4:00pm, I guess I should shower or exercise… To be continued!

 

 

 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

To do a study or not to do a study?

I had a very productive meeting with some Lyme Disease researchers during winter “break.”Although I found the travel and rushing around to be exhausting, I was thrilled to learn a few game-changing things:

  1. No one has published a peer-reviewed journal article about the rhetoric of Lyme Disease, probably because it is too political.
  2. Very little is known* about Lyme Disease in communities that are impoverished, rural, and/or predominantly made up of people of color. Umm…WHAT?! I guess this shouldn’t surprise me, since the clinics that specifically treat Lyme tend to be located in wealthy, white-majority (sub)urban areas that are not easily accessible by public transportation. (Or at least they are based on my initial observations). Moreover, according to these researchers, Lyme study participants are often recruited from these same communities and thus tend to be white, upper-middle class or wealthy, possibly Jewish, and well connected. (Or at least that’s how I interpreted it. They are people with many social and economic privileges. Much like me).
  3. At this point, there is very little qualitative research about Lyme Disease and/or the human experience of being diagnosed with, treated for, and/or suffering from Lyme Disease.
  4. Visual ethnography workshops could be a promising intervention to improve the quality of life of Post-Treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome (PTLDS) patients, particularly if they are inexpensive and could be facilitated digitally.

Based on this meeting, the most important intervention I could make is writing a clear, well-researched, judiciously worded article about the rhetoric of Lyme Disease and publishing it in Health Affairs or anther similar journal. The visual ethnography thing is an interesting possibility, but it is not as interesting nor as urgent as writing about the rhetoric of Lyme Disease.

This puts me in a challenging position. Where should I begin? How should I spend my time? What is most important and for whom? 

Originally, I imagined that I would run a pilot study to test my (still developing) hypothesis: Participating in a participant-solicited photography/digital storytelling workshop will improve the quality of life of PTLDS participants–at least according to some clinical self-assessments. (I need to work on my phrasing. Yikes). However, this might  be too ambitious for me to attempt at this moment in my career. Aside from studying for my exams and watching Netflix, I’ve been helping Jen get the HHIVE Lab Writing Diabetes Study running… There is so much to do. I have no idea how so many emails would get sent, binders would be ordered, posters would be proofread, IRB revisions would be completed, etc. without our fellow team members, each of whom brings ideas, talents, and key social connections to the project. We are being funded by a UNC FIRE Grant. If I attempt this visual ethnography project on my own–without human resources, without funding, without space, without an enormous amount of time–will I be able to get it off the ground? Just thinking about the little things, such as how will I acquire a phone number/line for recruiting patients (?) and where will I hold the consenting sessions (?), is overwhelming. A few short weeks ago, I was planning to leave campus for the fall semester (or something?) and conduct the workshops in Maryland, since Lyme is much more common there…and make it all happen. Magically. Now, I still believe that visual ethnography is a useful line of inquiry to pursue, but I need to rethink whether or  not I am going to hold an in-person workshop, how I am going to afford it, where I might hold it, etc.

SO MUCH TO CONSIDER. TWO MONTHS TO DECIDE. (Or at least make preliminary decisions so that I can pass my dissertation prospectus defense). To be continued…


*What I mean by this is that very little is known about Lyme Disease in these communities in the peer-reviewed research world. Knowledge about Lyme Disease–truths, stories, lived experiences, ideas, connections–circulates in internet forums, magazine and newspaper articles, youtube videos, art, and more. However, in the medical and scientific communities, the most important (and arguably trustworthy) knowledge comes out of clinical studies, the results of which are published in field-specific journals that are evaluated for accuracy by fellow medical and scientific professionals (i.e. they are “peer-reviewed”). In my opinion (as a budding researcher), the only way to combine these branches of knowledge is to study diverse sources of knowledge-making (such as blogs, Instagram posts, newspaper articles, interviews, etc.) in a scientific way and publish the results in medical and scientific journals. It would also help if all peer-reviewed journals were freely accessible and if the journal articles were written with less jargon so that non-specialists could both access and make sense of them.

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Scholarly Interventions

I’m so lucky to have such brilliant advisers! I submitted a draft of the literature review section of my prospectus to get some preliminary ideas, and she provided this feedback:

My overall question is whether you want to make the method (visual ethnography) your primary scholarly intervention, or whether it is just one of your interventions. I guess I am thinking ahead to a potential book project, in which case the main topic would likely be Lyme and the method (visual rhetoric and visual ethnography) the tool you use to help us understand Lyme disease better as a rhetorical phenomenon, specifically with relation to the issue of diagnosis and definition of the condition itself. How are diagnoses shaped rhetorically, especially in our current context, where health is increasingly digitized, public, popular–not just narrowly medical or scientific. In other words, diagnoses and definitions of conditions like Lyme are shaped by these various networks, not just by what scientists write in a medical journal. More specifically, images and other kinds of visual rhetoric play a key role, and these circulate through that network in different ways. Thus the question becomes how a visual analysis (using traditional rhetoric but also elements of visual ethnography) can help to elucidate that network.

***

The second question (and one to think about as you go forward) is whether you’d want to confine the ethnography part to auto-ethnography (and maybe also analysis of other “auto-ethnographic” images people post to blogs or forums), or if you want to do a full-scale study with IRB, recruitment, etc. I think both would be possible but the latter would be a bigger undertaking and might also require more time. Something to ask the committee!

I had a very difficult time putting together the partial prospectus draft because I thought that I could only make one major intervention and I wasn’t sure what I wanted that to be. Thankfully, it sounds like I can make multiple interventions! (Though perhaps this is one of those cases where it is better to do one thing well than half-ass three or four things?) I am trying to think about the prospectus and dissertation as a prospectus and dissertation,–i.e. NOT a book–because I think that the stress of of writing a “book” vs. a “dissertation” will become overwhelming. We’ll see how it goes?

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Joining the Conversation

What’s exciting about doing interdisciplinary research is that there are many conversations to join, as Graff and Birkenstein would say. (Note: this comes from my favorite writing “textbook,” They Say, I Say – http://books.wwnorton.com/books/webad.aspx?id=4294982902). As I pull my ideas together, it’s difficult to figure out how to arrange them. I talk to my students all the time about how your arrangement should be a writing decision that is inspired by your specific audience. In the case of my dissertation prospectus (which Nick says is merely a snobby word for “proposal”), my audience is my 5-person dissertation committee. However, my project will hopefully appeal to multiple audiences–both scholarly and popular (?)–so I’m trying to think expansively from the beginning.

Here is a brief attempt at physically mapping out who I am talking to and which existing conversations I hope to touch upon:

Rhetoric

**Where does disability studies go?!

  • Rhetoric of Health, Science, Medicine: A rapidly expanding discipline within rhetorical studies. Importantly, many recent rhetoric of HSM studies incorporate multiple, multi-genre, mixed, and/or interdisciplinary research methods to fully account for the HSM portions of the projects. This means that rhetoricians are reading peer-reviewed science and medical journals, visiting gross anatomy labs, participating in online chat rooms in illness communities, and so on. These new topics, virtual and physical spaces, temporalities (ha! academic word!) prompt us to consider new research methods, engage with literatures across disciplines, etc.
  • Visual Rhetoric: Historically, conversations in visual rhetoric have revolved around analyzing images similar to how we analyze texts (as “objects”). I am trying to move this work forward by thinking about how creating and circulating images (the “rhetorical construction,” so to speak) is important to understanding how knowledge is networked and reflexive and other rhetoric words. I don’t know much about this, so I need to go back and engage with this literature. Notably, most studies have been about student writing–ranging from videotaping and photographing student writers to looking at handwriting–and don’t talk much about the making portion or about other kinds of rhetorical studies/topics/objects.
  • Feminist Rhetoric:
    • Historiography: In my opinion, there is/should be a turn towards studying gendered practices instead of recovering individual women for the sake of recovering women in feminist rhetorical studies. Recent feminist historiographies tend to situate HSM issues from the past in the present (re: Robin Jensen’s book, Heather Adams’s dissertation project, etc.). I think that my project responds to a recent concern about how current women (?) rhetors will soon be lost, too, and thus need to be studied as well.
    • Multiple Methods: New topics and time periods call for multiple/new/combined methods!

Visual Ethnography

  • Visual Ethnography: Sarah Pink says that visual ethnography is specifically about learning about people’s ways of knowing vs. learning about people themselves. She argues that visual ethnographic work should be inherently reflexive, making the work more nuanced and preventing some of the previous ethical issues. Visual ethnography can include studying photographs taken by people in their communities, participant-solicited photography, digital imagery, and more. Visual ethnography specifically prioritizes images as main modes of analysis as well as objects of analysis vs. representative of something or having only one meaning. What’s interesting is that what researchers might find to be fruitful/productive/interesting might be different from what participants find to be fruitful/productive/interesting, so I’ll need to account for that in my project.
  • Visual Studies: Long history of incorporating visual work into multiple fields, including anthropology, sociology, and more recently, public health, but visuals were most supplementary and rarely the main means of analysis (vs. the object of analysis)
  • Ethnography: Long history of doing in situ work to learn about people, but in the 1980s and the 1990s, feminists and others argued against the previously lauded “objective” approaches to these studies, which sometimes included observing and writing about people without their knowledge. Recent work aims to limit these kinds of encounters…or at least be honest and reflexive about them.

Health Humanities/Arts-Based Qualitative Research*

  • Health Humanities: Area of study that has been developing since the 1980s. Contention as to whether or not it originated in the medical sphere or in the humanities. Until this point, most studies have prioritized the doctor-patient relationship and have specifically aimed to improve clinical practice. Recently, some scholars have been pushing the “health humanities” name and claiming that it implies an expanded research agenda (i.e. beyond the traditional doctor’s office related hospital spaces), but very few groups have published on it yet. There are some current publications that might fall under health humanities, but they do not necessarily identify as “medical” or “health” humanities even though they incorporate those perspectives.
  • Arts-Based Research: Nurses, occupational therapists, physical therapists, social workers, and public health experts, among others, increasingly turn to mixed and/or humanistic research methods to account for experiences of illness, biomedical encounters, and disability. Recent examples include asking female chemotherapy patients to document their experiences with illness using cameras, using photovoice, art therapy, narrative writing (Pennebaker et al. and more), etc. From what I’ve read, these methods supplement or respond to other methods, but major projects aren’t initiated based off of them. That might be changing, as I just read about an NIH-funded project at Vanderbilt that teaches teens with diabetes to create digital narratives about their illness experiences (or something–I’ll have to re-look it up), but at this point, there isn’t much beyond that.
  • Digital Storytelling: This is probably the biggest unknown at this moment. Digital stories are one of many potential “products” to come from visual ethnographies. What’s significant about products is that it can be hard to figure out which products will serve researchers and participants, honor the participants for their time and effort, and not harm anyone, even inadvertently. I think that I can use my rhetorical/teacher/ish skills to help people make visual and other rhetorical choices about how to arrange, display, and circulate their images and stories. Per the failed NIH grant, some might consider that to be “salting the mine” (i.e. prompting my participants to do something that they think I will like vs. doing something “authentic”), but Sarah Pink pretty much says that everything we do can be authentic if we honestly account for it in our own documentation and write-ups. Digital storytelling might also allow me to engage with my participants in a different way–I might create a digital story, too, and include images that they take of me. Or something. I clearly need to read more about this.

Lyme Disease: A Case Study

  • Multi/cross/inter-disciplinary: Lyme has been consistently studied in biomedical circles (including but not limited to  tick-borne disease groups, rheumatologists, infectious disease specialists, ecologists, animal scientists/biologists, neurologists, cardiologists, mental health experts, and more). This study has created a lot of contradictory data about the diagnosis, treatment, and recovery from Lyme. Also, most of these biomedical-oriented studies miss a lot about the human experience of having Lyme Disease, particularly the experience of being misdiagnosed, inappropriately treated, the expense (psychological, economic, and more) of seeking care, etc.
  • Visual: The main “non-subjective” symptom of Lyme is the erythema migrans rash (i.e. the “bull’s-eye), which is only present in about 20% of infected individuals and only present during the early stages of the disease. Compared to CFS, Fibromyalgia, and other chronic, not-completely-understood conditions with ambiguous symptoms, because Lyme has a clear, uncontested visual symptom, it makes it all the more confusing to treat with the visual symptom is not present. Perhaps accordingly, there are four standard-ish Lyme visuals that have nothing to do with ill, suffering, and/or recovering people and thus continue to shift the focus of Lyme from the human experience to the disease ecology (or whatever they’d call it). Images of ticks, Lyme spirochetes, bull’s-eye rashes, and Lyme endemic maps are seemingly unreflexively taken up by the CDC, activist groups, scientists, and more (beginning with the “discovery”/coining of Lyme by Burgdorfer et al. in 1982, as the article included photographs of spirochetes and a map of probable Lyme diagnoses in Connecticut). In turn, allowing Lyme patients to be makers of images will a) perhaps infiltrate the circuit of standard Lyme images, which definitely don’t help anyone with anything (particularly patients seeking care and treatment), and b) allow ill individuals to become authorities in their own health situations, since Lyme patients are often mis/disbelieved for a variety of reasons. Maybe these images will help Lyme patients leverage something–better care? More understanding from confused or skeptical family members? A way to communicate with other suffers and/or the general public?
  • Rhetorical: The contradictory guidelines for diagnosing and treating Lyme Disease are completely rhetorical. Not much has been discovered about Lyme Disease (in terms of scientific studies), but the statistics and “knowledge” about it changes constantly. For instance, the CDC “updated” the number of suspected Lyme cases in the U.S. from 30,000 to 300,000 in May 2015, which is a pretty huge discrepancy. Since no one can even agree on a name for Lyme/its stages (i.e. “Chronic” vs. post-treatment Lyme, etc.), it continues to be a public health concern that can no longer be investigated only via biomedical research methods.
  • Feminist: I’d like to believe that studying historically underrepresented individuals and groups is inherently feminist.
  • Embodied/in situ: I don’t believe that Lyme can only be studied by looking at the discourse. Much like how Latour and Woolgar went to the lab to learn about how research was done, I think that Lyme (and perhaps other health, science, and medical issues and topics) calls for, if nothing else, a multi-method approach. I can learn a lot about Lyme by reading peer-reviewed articles in scientific and medical journals, but I can situate this knowledge in a specific context by studying Lyme activist group websites, visiting support groups, journeying to Lyme, CT to learn about the environment that continues to breed high rates of Lyme, going to Lyme clinics like Hopkins, etc.
  • Reflexive: As a former/current/who knows Lyme patient, I want to account for my research angle and want to make sure that it doesn’t get in the way of my project or answering my research questions.

Now that I’m thinking about it, maybe this digital stuff should go in its own section?

*These are probably separate things, but I’ll parse them out later.

 

 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Mulling Over Methods: Grant Proposal, Part II

For the SSRC Dissertation Proposal Grant, I need to think about what new method(s) I want to experiment with for my dissertation. This is the really hard part. YIKES. Instead of freaking out about what I might write and not sleeping for a few days, I’m going to try to draft some ideas below…. If nothing else, doing so permits me to wait until tomorrow to grade my students’ unit projects….

And I’m going to limit my time so that I don’t mess around on Facebook while I’m supposed to be “working.” 9:00pm-9:30pm. GO!

What techniques of investigation might you employ to carry out your research, and how do you expect they will enable you to collect, identify, interpret, and analyze the sources of information (interviews, texts, images, surveys, etc.), for your dissertation research? (up to 400 words)

I guess I should break this down into two parts:

a) “Techniques of investigation”:

Right now, I’m thinking about visual ethnography and interviews as techniques of investigation. I guess it would be good if I picked up all those books I reserved from the library about these things. I think that many rhetorics of health and medicine texts are missing visuals for a good reason: they are expensive to print in  monographs. However, scholars from related fields (like communication design) are thinking about the importance of visuals as part of designing useful texts for patients, displaying disease information, etc. I think it would be helpful to look at Lyme visuals. Notably, there are pretty much no notable Lyme visuals circulating on the internet. Most of the pop science articles about it use stock-like photos of ticks and/or the Lyme rash…which, in my opinion, are not very rhetorically effective. I’ve been inspired by looking at Instagram photos of illness selfies (particularly the very gendered ones of women with chronic conditions in bathing suits), but they aren’t that specific to Lyme. Recently, Avril Lavigne and Yolanda Foster (the woman from Real Housewives who has Lyme) have posted pictures of themselves sitting on exam tables and hooked up to electro-node-things, but I don’t think that they’ve been very rhetorically effective either. This presents a few issues.

1. I think that Lyme discourse is missing pictures of ill people–people’s ill bodies–and that these photographs are rhetorically powerful and thus would help effect change.

2. I’m saying that the photos I have seen of people’s bodies haven’t been very rhetorically effective/useful. A paradox?

I’ve been thinking about this other thread–Lyme and the environment–and I’m wondering if this is a place where visuals can illuminate untapped arguments about Lyme. I’ve read some research in environmental studies journals about how Lyme is spread. Apparently, Lyme is not only passed through deer ticks, and is in fact present in many other small animals who come into contact with humans in areas with a lot of building/development. One article, I think it was the NYT, suggested that it’s unclear if your geographic location or socio-economic status is a better determination of whether or not you might get Lyme. The author didn’t back this up with any supporting research, but the correlation is striking. In any case, I think we’re left to wonder about what Lyme LOOKS like as well as what people who have it LOOK like. If that makes any sense. A bullseye rash is not a person. In fact, it’s completely disembodied (since the photos usually only show an ambiguous body part with the bite/rash on it). Maybe what I’m missing is that the recent photos of Avril and Yolanda are seemingly average/unexceptional–what that’s what Lyme patients look like?

b) How will these techniques help me collect/identify/interpret/analyze these sources of information?:

Right now, I’m trying to have a lot of different source of information:

  • Photos/visuals: A visual ethnographic research method would allow me to create an archive that I could study through rhetorical analysis. I’m not sure if this is what they’re asking.
  • Interviews: MAYBE? I’m going to read Allie Cashel’s (sp?) recent book about Chronic Lyme. In it, she interviews many fellow Chronic Lyme sufferers…I can’t say much more because I haven’t read it. Maybe she’s got that part of it under control. It seems like interviews might be helpful, but I’m not sure what for yet. It would be exciting to talk to clinicians/field experts like Amy Koerber does in her book, but I’m not sure that I have enough ethos to get on their radar. There are also first-person testimonies via Kathleen Hanna’s film, The Punk SingerUnder Our Skin, etc…so maybe this wouldn’t be a fruitful direction?
  • Texts, texts, and more texts: I imagine that I will spend most of my time doing rhetorical analysis of texts about Lyme. Specifically, naming/definitions of Lyme from major interest groups,

Summarize as best you can where you feel most confident in the progress you have made thus far in developing your dissertation research project and what issues or questions you must still resolve in order to prepare a dissertation research proposal. Explain how you hope participating in the DPDF Program might help you to resolve these issues. (up to 250 words)

I am confident that I am going to do a rhetorical analysis/use a rhetorical lens to study Lyme Disease. YAY! Most of all, I want to shift my focus on Lyme and ill women to Lyme and gender and how it plays out. In the same vein, I want to study the everyday practices/rhetorics of people with Lyme in order to honor their experiences and perhaps make more capacious claims about the state of chronic illness in the U.S. I want my project to be explicitly feminist. And I know it’s a good project–there’s a lot of under-analyzed stuff out there (both professional discourse, online forums, etc.)–so I’m joining a conversation, so to speak. Questions that I’m still thinking about that maybe this project could help with:

  • How is Lyme Disease overly/covertly gendered? How? I know that Lyme isn’t gendered in ways that we expect because the largest population of people in the U.S. diagnosed with Lyme are young boys (ages 5-11 maybe?), yet we hear the most about chronically ill women who think they have Chronic Lyme or Post-Treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome and have been misdiagnosed repeatedly and area suffering greatly.
    • I think Lyme Disease is also a race and class issue, and I’d like to explore it using an intersectional approach. I’m not sure how I want to do this. I want my work to be explicitly (and deeply) intersectional, but is this a fruitful direction? 
  • How do ill people with Lyme Disease experience their condition as part of their everyday life/practices? We can easily read snippets of people’s experiences in newspaper articles, magazine features, etc. about their experiences with Lyme Disease, but I want to know more about what it means in their everyday lives. What are we not seeing through our currently available means? 

What preliminary research do you propose to conduct this summer with a DPDF fellowship, and how do you anticipate this research can contribute to the development of your dissertation project? If you have already conducted preliminary research for this project, what further do you hope to learn from additional research this summer? (up to 400 words)

Oops. Time’s up! More tomorrow.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Research Challenge #1: Summarizing My Project

I’m applying for the SSRC Dissertation Proposal Development Fellowship, which requires that I answer a number of questions about my research. (YIKES). I’m going to try begin brainstorming responses to the first three questions on this blog…

Summarize the current topic, central problem or question, relation to relevant research literatures, methods or approaches, and broader theoretical contributions of your dissertation research project. (Please keep in mind that, if you are selected as a DPDF fellow, your abstract will be placed on the SSRC’s DPDF Program website. Use language appropriate for an interdisciplinary audience and avoid or explain disciplinary-specific concepts or jargon.) * –> (up to 150 words)

My topic is the rhetoric of Lyme Disease. I want to study what kinds of arguments are being made and by whom regarding Lyme Disease diagnosis, treatment, and recovery. In general, Lyme Disease is approached biologically–as an infectious disease–and current studies are being conducted by scientists to learn more about how/when the infection is active, how people respond to different treatments, what treatments might be most effective, how to diagnose it, etc. However, Lyme Disease can (and should!) also be approach rhetorically; that is, attending to the socio-cultural factors that have influenced the ways in which it is discussed in nonspecialist/popular and scientific communities. Science journalists in the New York Times, Washington Post, and other popular sources have begun to investigate the Lyme controversy rhetorically, and I want to follow up on these analyses by studying Lyme discourse in scientific and medical peer-reviewed journals, Lyme and infectious disease research centers, nonprofit organizations that support people with Lyme, online communities where people talk and share resources for dealing with Lyme, and more. Lisa Keranen, Judy Segal, and others are much better at explaining why a rhetorical framework is helpful for studying health, science, and medicine, so I’ll have to rely on them for some support. More broadly, I think that my project is valuable because it will a) verify that much of what we know about Lyme is completely constructed and  does not rely on the results of scientific practice, and b) how ill people can use rhetorical techniques to leverage their Lyme Diagnosis as a means of acquiring better health care.

Introduce your dissertation project for an academic reader who is unfamiliar with your particular topic, region of study, and disciplinary approach. What is the central research question, problem, or puzzle that you want to investigate? Why is your project important and timely? * –> (up to 400 words)

Lyme Disease poses a plethora of rhetorical problems for medical practitioners, insurance companies, policy makers, and most notably, for patients. Lyme Disease is caused by the Borrelia burgdorferi bacterium and transmitted through infected ticks; approximately 300,000 probable cases are reported to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) each year, most commonly in boys ages 5-9. Theoretically, Lyme Disease is simple to diagnose and treat, and recovery should begin as soon as it is treated. A diagnosis is made when a medical provider identifies an erythema migrans (EM) (also known as a bulls eye) rash on a patient’s body and/or when laboratory blood tests indicate a positive Lyme Disease result. Infected individuals who are treated with doxycycline or amoxicillin for 14-21 days should recover completely, according to the 2006 guidelines adopted by the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Yet the diagnosis, treatment, recovery, and even the names of conditions associated with Lyme Disease are sources of fierce contention in U.S. patient and medical communities. Since the EM rash is not always present, many patients receive multiple inaccurate diagnoses based on Lyme’s ambiguous symptoms–extreme fatigue, joint pain, stiff neck, swollen lymph nodes, headaches, and more–and thus do not respond to traditional treatments. Importantly, 10-20% of Lyme patients continue to suffer from these symptoms after their initial infections are treated. This phenomena called “Post-Treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome,” or in some circles, “Chronic Lyme,” has shifted in recent years from a concept circulated in alternative online patient communities to an accepted concern for mainstream patients, media sources, and researchers alike. Some doctors are even calling themselves “Lyme Literate Medical Doctors” (LLMDs) as a way to indicate their expertise with experimental Lyme Disease diagnostic techniques and treatments.

My dissertation takes up Lyme Disease as a case study to reveal the rhetorical complexities inherent in diagnosis, treatment, and recovery from illness. I aim to examine the rhetoricity of Lyme Disease and investigate how people in various Lyme Disease communities leverage aspects of the condition to achieve particular goals. Lyme Disease is one of many conditions that prompt us to consider how diagnosis, treatment, and recovery are constructed rhetorically and for different means. However, the paradoxes inherent in Lyme’s disease lifecycle uniquely illuminate the complex points of encounter between medical practitioners and patients as they–together and separately–confront illness.

My project is important and timely because there is a  steadily increasing number of ill people in need of care and treatment.

  • Public discourse about Lyme is quickly evolving–the transition from Chronic Lyme to Post-Treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome is just one example–and researchers, medical providers, patients, and advocates need to figure out how to respond to the increasingly controversial arguments about diagnosis, treatment, and recovery.
  • A new research center at Johns Hopkins University opened in April 2015 to specifically answer questions and solve problems related to Lyme Disease.
  • Hmmm…

How do you expect your dissertation project can draw from and contribute to existing literature about the topic in a novel or interesting way? * –> (up to 400 words)

My dissertation project is innovative because it will draw from existing peer-reviewed science and medical journals, as well as existing narratives from patients with Lyme Disease, and put them in conversation. Research in the medical and health humanities suggests that medical providers do not read (and thus do not respond to) publications in humanities journals about medicine. (I need to do some research about if and how providers read and respond to patients’ illness narratives?).

  • We can get to the root, so to speak, of some of the rhetorical problems with Lyme by historicizing it. I aim to conduct a rhetorical archeology of Lyme to identify the shifts in its naming and diagnosis.
  • I hope to get at rhetorical analysis via a number of vehicles beyond traditional textual analysis. Like T. Kenny Fountain, I might take an ethnographic approach to some of this work. Hmmmm…
Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Research Questions/Questioning My Research

It’s funny how the process of creating research questions can prompt you to question your research (and your sanity) entirely! I met with Dan to talk about my Lyme selfies project the other day, and I came away with many insights. Here are a few of them:

  • Most academic monographs don’t have any pictures (or just a few in black and white) because they are incredibly expensive to print. We could say that this is one limit of the genre. My approach could be more of a genre-based approach that argues for the limits of alphabetic text; this would be something I’m very familiar with and would be a relatively easy argument to make.
  • My interest in this might fit into a number of existing academic conversations: visual rhetoric, visual literacy, digital humanities, etc.
  • It might be helpful to look for patterns to see how visual documentation of ill people/their bodies is happening in the vast social networks of the internet. (He highlighted Tumblr, Twitter, and Flickr). This means that I might start my analysis elsewhere–outside of my selfies–so better assess which conversation(s) I want to be part of.
  • Whatever happens, it might be helpful to take time to identify good archives, or strong pools of visuals that I could pull on now or later as part of my dissertation work.

This has led me to some other possibly more fruitful questions, many of which Jason, Jen, and Tiffany pitched at writing group this week:

  • How does a person license photos of their own body for public use? (Or do you?) Is there a kind of “best practices”? What choices do people make?
  • What is it possible for an archive of photos to do? What do I hope/expect that people will do with them, if anything? How do I think they will be circulated?
    • There’s an interesting rhetorical question here about public(s).
  • Can visuals create a space for unheard voices/identities to be recognized?
    • How are visuals a different way of knowing than alphabetic text?
    • Do visuals tell an alternative story?
  • How are visuals being use argumentatively? How could visuals be used argumentatively?
  • What are the networks in which these visual artifacts circulate?
  • How might digital methods/expectations interference/challenge disability studies methods/expectations? What are some effective digital approaches to making sense of things that aren’t alphabetic text?
    • For instance: metadata. Dan suggested that I try not to give text descriptions of my photos because then I’ll be analyzing–and in effect permanently marking–my images and the way the will be used. However, in order to make my photos more accessible to individuals who use screen readers, for instance, I need to embed text into my photos so that screen readers have something to process.
  • How will I catalogue and make sense of these images–my own and other freely available ones?

To prepare myself for a visual project (if that’s possible), I’ve been reading and rereading some scholarship about visual rhetoric, particularly ethnographic methods. This article my McNely et al. has been one of my main sources of inspiration. I thought that their justification for using photographs was compelling, so I’ve included it here:

We have made a concerted effort to use photography rather than videography for two primary reasons: first, as a practical constraint on our field research, we collectively had more experience working with the production and analysis of still images than video; second, and more importantly, we viewed photographs as affording both a medium through which we might better understand and analyze participant knowledge (in granular moments and as a collective whole), and as a mode of representing the complexity of our participants’ work. Our visual methods, therefore, helped us better understand the many genres of writing and rhetorical action that comprised participants’ eventual, public work.

–Brian J. McNely, Paul Gestwicki, Bridget Gelms, and Ann Burke, “Spaces and Surfaces of Invention: A Visual Ethnography of Game Development.” Enculturation (2013).

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,
%d bloggers like this: