Old questions, new media: Theorizing writing in a digital age

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

For those who have followed the evolution of the postprocess conversation in rhetoric and composition studies, this collection's call to move beyond postprocess will strike a curiously familiar chord. In 2003, Theresa Enos and Keith Miller coedited the book Beyond Postprocess and Postmodernism in which contributors reconsidered the work of the late Jim Corder in order to expand the field's research beyond (meaning, away from) postprocess theories and pedagogies. This collection's aim is different insofar as it extends the insights developed by postprocess scholars such as Thomas Kent nearly two decades ago. Nevertheless, this intriguing repetition in titles should initiate some critical reflection. Is this an instance of historical repetition where "only through repetition is this event recognized in its symbolic necessity" (Žižek 1989, 61)? Or, has this collection simply devised another way to stay au courant?1 Perhaps the more pressing concern is what this collection proposes to move beyond, particularly when a host of "postprocess" scholars claim to have already moved process research and teaching beyond its more static instantiations.2 Is this collection therefore meant to distinguish itself from those who identify as postprocess scholars, yet remain committed to the core aims of process theory and instruction? Does the term beyond postprocess signal that "change is in the air" (once?) again (Kent 1999, 5)?

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationBeyond Postprocess
PublisherUtah State University Press
Pages132-144
Number of pages13
ISBN (Print)0874218312, 9780874218312
StatePublished - Dec 1 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

new media
postmodernism
research process
field research
rhetoric
conversation
air
instruction
event
Teaching
Digital Age
New Media
Post-process

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Sciences(all)
  • Arts and Humanities(all)

Cite this

Jensen, K. (2011). Old questions, new media: Theorizing writing in a digital age. In Beyond Postprocess (pp. 132-144). Utah State University Press.

Old questions, new media : Theorizing writing in a digital age. / Jensen, Kyle.

Beyond Postprocess. Utah State University Press, 2011. p. 132-144.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Jensen, K 2011, Old questions, new media: Theorizing writing in a digital age. in Beyond Postprocess. Utah State University Press, pp. 132-144.
Jensen K. Old questions, new media: Theorizing writing in a digital age. In Beyond Postprocess. Utah State University Press. 2011. p. 132-144
Jensen, Kyle. / Old questions, new media : Theorizing writing in a digital age. Beyond Postprocess. Utah State University Press, 2011. pp. 132-144
@inbook{53d2a60139534fb9aeb2e6fc8aac0e0e,
title = "Old questions, new media: Theorizing writing in a digital age",
abstract = "For those who have followed the evolution of the postprocess conversation in rhetoric and composition studies, this collection's call to move beyond postprocess will strike a curiously familiar chord. In 2003, Theresa Enos and Keith Miller coedited the book Beyond Postprocess and Postmodernism in which contributors reconsidered the work of the late Jim Corder in order to expand the field's research beyond (meaning, away from) postprocess theories and pedagogies. This collection's aim is different insofar as it extends the insights developed by postprocess scholars such as Thomas Kent nearly two decades ago. Nevertheless, this intriguing repetition in titles should initiate some critical reflection. Is this an instance of historical repetition where {"}only through repetition is this event recognized in its symbolic necessity{"} (Žižek 1989, 61)? Or, has this collection simply devised another way to stay au courant?1 Perhaps the more pressing concern is what this collection proposes to move beyond, particularly when a host of {"}postprocess{"} scholars claim to have already moved process research and teaching beyond its more static instantiations.2 Is this collection therefore meant to distinguish itself from those who identify as postprocess scholars, yet remain committed to the core aims of process theory and instruction? Does the term beyond postprocess signal that {"}change is in the air{"} (once?) again (Kent 1999, 5)?",
author = "Kyle Jensen",
year = "2011",
month = "12",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "0874218312",
pages = "132--144",
booktitle = "Beyond Postprocess",
publisher = "Utah State University Press",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Old questions, new media

T2 - Theorizing writing in a digital age

AU - Jensen, Kyle

PY - 2011/12/1

Y1 - 2011/12/1

N2 - For those who have followed the evolution of the postprocess conversation in rhetoric and composition studies, this collection's call to move beyond postprocess will strike a curiously familiar chord. In 2003, Theresa Enos and Keith Miller coedited the book Beyond Postprocess and Postmodernism in which contributors reconsidered the work of the late Jim Corder in order to expand the field's research beyond (meaning, away from) postprocess theories and pedagogies. This collection's aim is different insofar as it extends the insights developed by postprocess scholars such as Thomas Kent nearly two decades ago. Nevertheless, this intriguing repetition in titles should initiate some critical reflection. Is this an instance of historical repetition where "only through repetition is this event recognized in its symbolic necessity" (Žižek 1989, 61)? Or, has this collection simply devised another way to stay au courant?1 Perhaps the more pressing concern is what this collection proposes to move beyond, particularly when a host of "postprocess" scholars claim to have already moved process research and teaching beyond its more static instantiations.2 Is this collection therefore meant to distinguish itself from those who identify as postprocess scholars, yet remain committed to the core aims of process theory and instruction? Does the term beyond postprocess signal that "change is in the air" (once?) again (Kent 1999, 5)?

AB - For those who have followed the evolution of the postprocess conversation in rhetoric and composition studies, this collection's call to move beyond postprocess will strike a curiously familiar chord. In 2003, Theresa Enos and Keith Miller coedited the book Beyond Postprocess and Postmodernism in which contributors reconsidered the work of the late Jim Corder in order to expand the field's research beyond (meaning, away from) postprocess theories and pedagogies. This collection's aim is different insofar as it extends the insights developed by postprocess scholars such as Thomas Kent nearly two decades ago. Nevertheless, this intriguing repetition in titles should initiate some critical reflection. Is this an instance of historical repetition where "only through repetition is this event recognized in its symbolic necessity" (Žižek 1989, 61)? Or, has this collection simply devised another way to stay au courant?1 Perhaps the more pressing concern is what this collection proposes to move beyond, particularly when a host of "postprocess" scholars claim to have already moved process research and teaching beyond its more static instantiations.2 Is this collection therefore meant to distinguish itself from those who identify as postprocess scholars, yet remain committed to the core aims of process theory and instruction? Does the term beyond postprocess signal that "change is in the air" (once?) again (Kent 1999, 5)?

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84897330168&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84897330168&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Chapter

AN - SCOPUS:84897330168

SN - 0874218312

SN - 9780874218312

SP - 132

EP - 144

BT - Beyond Postprocess

PB - Utah State University Press

ER -