I had the pleasure of listening to Geoffrey Rockwell's lecture on all things data in the humanities (the bonus being an incredible history lesson) a few weeks ago.  

The idea that stuck with me the most is the lack of neutrality of all platforms, systems, technologies that we use. I've toted that idea around for so long, and I understood what it meant in a negative connotation.  But Hermanuetica (his recent book co-authored with Sinclair) really opened up a new perspective...data IS NOT neutral.  

I know.  

I just said that.  

But think about it again. It hit me like a revelation, it'll likely not hit you (my dear invisible, probably fed-up readers) like a brick but I hope to elicit at least a wide eyed moment.  

The humanities, although it may not seem like it, enjoys "play". Exploring new avenues, adventuring into the unknown, rearranging and "playing" with text until it works.  

Data and the sciences, are not like that. When data is provided/generated, it is normally interpreted in one way. Once it is interpreted, that's it. Reinterpretation is a whole other experiment, or it's simply not allowed. It's tampering, damaging or plain useless.  

But I don't think it's that way with the humanities. We have the opportunity to play! Adjust! Explore! And we should do the same with data (of course, within reason). Many of the corpuses we handle have a lot to do with language. If the words don't reveal what we expected, there's likely something we're not looking at or manipulating right!  

Accepting that as a strategy or methodology is okay. This was HUGE to me. I was so stuck in thinking, well, data isn't neutral so playing with it makes it worse. But there are so many ways that it can enhance and improve our processes and treasure hunts for answers.  

I'm Behind on these reading responses which is regrettable because I have so much to rant about. So strap in, it's going to be a busy post.  

If you're reading this, I can nearly guarantee that you're at least interested in this stuff or another nerd searching for brain nuggets.  On the menu for this ledger? Data collection and girls.  

Since my first Isaac Asimov novel, I've been consistently obsessed with the power that technology grants to people. It's a god-like gift being able to transcend the physical into manipulatable space.  

I quickly learned that technology isn't like a superpower at all unless you've been diving into a technique for decades. Even then, your power might not be accepted or valued due to the social/rhetorical situation.  

Bethany Nowviskie had a quick article about this issue in regards to women being generally forgotten in data mining conferences and panels. The offenders? Fairly amicable. They took Bethany's advice into account and I hope to see a follow-up Tweet thread about these improvements.  

But the turnaround isn't always that quick, nor does offense result in response as often. In my own time in IT-related jobs I've noticed this. In the academic world, It's rampant. There are so many areas that cause surprise to people when they notice a woman among its ranks. I keep hoping that the older I get, the fewer these instances would occur but it's quite the opposite. Many of my friends and I have been passed over when promotions arise simply because we are seen as lesser.  

My previous post had a lot to do with transparency and I believe gender complaints/issues/tensions might benefit from increased transparency in the discussion. I should be able to say to my employer that I believe they passed me over due to gender, and I should not have to expect relentless backlash for saying so.  I joke around with my coworkers that I'm just a tech princess and I'll never be the hero, they'll laugh and then some sober up and look at me with such sorry faces. They know it's true and I hope they'll change that. Many of my coworkers have moved onto high paying jobs at Microsoft, Google and Reliaquest. One day, when they hold the authority to hire, I hope they'll think of me. 

But, as disappointing as clichés are, this, is so, so normal. I wonder how this will change as access to technology and technological education increases.  

The more and more I dig into data visualization, data markup, data modeling etc. the deeper the rabbit hole seems to go. Data anything in the sciences seems a bit more straightforward, but practicing these methods in the humanities sort of introduces an issue. 

We play with our data a bit more and a lot of our explorations and research interests are hard to sum up as concrete, useful data for others. When thinking about pedagogy, language analysis is one of the only things we use to defend ourselves and our practices. In visualizing and studying the language improvement data from our students as reflected in grade increase or comprehension increase, we're able to see if they're actually improving and applying. 

And even then, when these findings are presented, they're challenging to understand and nearly mean nothing without deep explanation. I wonder how data visualization and our methods of collection will change as we continue to digitize our methods.

We discussed the issue of OCR (Optical Character Recognition) in class recently (which is that handwriting is so variable it's hard to really record automatically...though the machine in Mr. Penumbra's 24 hr Bookstore seems to do that). Without being able to swallow/organize/contextualize all kinds of written text, it poses an accessibility and volume problem. 

Verbal based software is a bit better, but there aren't too many instances of verbal comprehension (sort of like the Flesch–Kincaid readability tests) where we can test our students language/discussions against what we'd hope to teach them. 

We know from numerous studies that visualizing is really good for students, especially when it comes to really "seeing" their success. in writing, too often than not, they base their success and progress on the grade (partly our fault as well for having to grade on something so difficult to grade). Augmented reality has been offering a number of visualizations but few or none that I could find, help to visualize or interact with language as focus. 

Just a suggestion, but how cool would it be to have an augmented reality-based assessment in which 3 or 4 times throughout the semester, we host a discussion in which the language is visualized for the students in real time. Sentences and such floating around in space, grabbable, savable, manipulatable etc. 

The firs round would be a base discussion, perhaps talk about, "what is good writing?". By the 4th time, we would be able to really SEE how their language has improved. How their comprehension of discussion has improved, etc. 

Just being able to see these things I think would be helpful in morale, motivation and comprehension of the goals and themes we hope to invoke in class. 

Among the general academic venting, I've decided to take apart a meme every so once in a while. I really started to dig the FBI memes lately. There's of course the "Dad why is the FBI here meme" but this one is a bit different. 

We're all familiar with the notion of the government spying on us. Some people feel so strongly about this that they tape up their webcams on their laptops. It's a really funny mini culture because although it's severe paranoia, its been transformed into this friendly (honestly hilarious joke).

Here's a few examples of the meme so you can get a handle on it. Basically, instead of the FBI watching you maliciously, they're invested in your life. Some people have even named their agents lovingly, and even gone as far to blame them when things go wrong in their life. One of the first iterations of this meme was a girl who tweeted, "Thanks FBI for watching me all the time and not telling me that 3 of my exes were in tropical smoothie at the same time" (I was unable to locate this tweet, I'll update this if I find it).

I find this so interesting because it's shifting the narrative about malicious supervision towards a more "chaperone" type feeling. It's of course far from the truth, but the question remains, those who track our content consumption/views/general activity, as humans, do they accidentally attach themselves to certain individuals?

I'm starting this ledger with a statement of extreme resentment: 

I was not taught how to write academically in undergrad. I was not taught how to research in undergrad. I was not prepared to meet many of the expectations in graduate school and it really makes me sad. 

I applied myself as much as I possibly could, I always had a full course load, I explore interdisciplinary intersections in the sciences and even computer engineering to expand my experience but oh my freaking god, I was not prepared for this. It really, if anything makes me feel guilty. 

I was, however, super prepared for technology integration. I never feel nervous when projects or assignments have a digital component because at least I'm confident in the power of Google and my common sense. This semester is really driving me towards better research methods and it's going to be hard as fuck, but also, really like a tough boot camp. 

I might totally fail, but whatever. Lately, my mental health has been a serious asshole but since there's not much I can do about that, I'll just stick to my usual trudge. Since so many of my classes handle the intersection of the humanities/rhetoric and the digital, I've been really having to wrap my head around what I want to look into. 

Because I hope to go on to sculpture and other art studies, I figure sticking with spatiality is the best way to go. Thus, I've started sinking myself into a lot of Augmented Reality research. Check out this reading list if you've just caught up with this weird academic rambling. 

Tune in next week to see where the next few readings on augmented reality and architecture have taken me. Likely, not that far. 

(Reader, be fully warned, this ledger is even farther distanced from regular academia than normal. So if you're not into it, don't read on. It's been a less than great day and at this point, I'm professional in so many aspects of my life, I'd like to take a brief break) 

When my classes overlap in concepts or certain themes, I use those opportunities to solidify the information. In my technical/professional communication practicum (instructs on how to teach service courses) and a digital humanities course, the "dark" side of technology was discussed. 

I'm sure you're aware of the usual schpeal, it's great, but the digital isn't a utopia, it comes with its checks and balances. I've been thinking about how to fix that (in an ideal situation of course, nothing could effectively "bandaid" the messy rhetorical situation worm can that digital integration is). 

I come back to the idea of "transparency" often.  I wonder, with all these windows looking in, all these platforms seeking, collecting and archiving, why we haven't moved towards a more transparent culture. 

We cling to privacy to such an extent that anytime a technology threatens it, it's a breach of conduct and a reason to identify the technology as an evil potential. It has a "dark side" like Star Wars. 

I wonder how beneficial a contract of transparency would be. Everyone shits, everyone has sex, everyone has a lick (or more) of depression or a tilt in neurotypical functions, so why do we gravitate towards such effective facades? 

I can't answer that question effectively. I can't even explore what I'm trying to get at effectively. But hopefully soon! 

Reader: be warned. If you couldn't tell from the first ledger, my tone may a bit more candid than usual. I figure I work on my academic tones in all other facets of my life, but I don't get to work on my own voice often. So this voice will be inspired by academic themes, but my aim is to make the concepts more accessible to those who just want a fun afternoon read. 

My biggest challenge this week was an issue of intersection. It's a word used a lot more often now and I love it. Everything is blending and each discipline that used to be quite stiff in definition, have shifted into accepting multiple variations into the whole. Rhetoric is no stranger to this phenomenon. 

Rhetoric is sort of a catch-all vehicle for different movements. Each era has found its use for rhetoric and not since the ancient days did it stand alone. Even then, Rhetoric uses intersections, crossovers, and mixed bags to gain a better understanding of the whole picture. 

My personal issue of intersection is finding where I can mix my own interests in with the field. I'm still a vague stranger to it, so there's hope of progress, but it's slow going. Last week I presented a PechaKucha about the intersections that opened up with the birth of VR and artistic opportunities. 

I pitched the possibility of a VR photoshop of kinds that allows one to embed code within the objects the artist creates so that they could further the interaction. There are now technologies like Tilt Brush by Google  that allow the user to paint in 3D space, but it's still missing that extra "oomph" I was looking for. 

The intersection where technology enables a different creation process is an interesting space. Prior to a medium being introduced, theoretically, there is populous of talent that lays undiscovered until the medium provides agency.

Currently, I'm faced with another research opportunity for a class that explores the intersections (and differences) between the field of rhetoric and general technology. If I can successfully locate an intersection with digital humanities, rhet/tech and creativity, I could say I've found my ultimate intersection. Check in next week to see if I've figured it out. 

Here is an unofficial, official mission statement: 

I am a slacker academic. I love school, but I have not been so eager to apply myself beyond the minimum. I challenge myself this year to write something (loosely) related to rhetorical scholarship each week. This link is a live reading list. If you happen upon this project and have any readings you'd like to share, feel free to add to it.