Haas, C. (1996). Writing technology: Studies on the materiality of literacy. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Haas focuses on what she calls the “technology question,” in writing, namely, “what does it mean for language to be material?” (p.3 ). Haas looks first at philosophical investigations of the materiality of writing, first examining Plato and his distrust of writing as opposed to speech because of its materiality. This fits into Plato’s mind/body dichotomy. Then she looks at Derrida, who does not look at writing as degraded speech, but instead suggests its importance to the development of the West. Haas then surveys historical approaches to writing and materiality such as those by Ong and Havelock and Goody and Watt, who suggest writing changes the “space and time of dimensions of language use” (p. 11) and examine the differences between literate and non-literate cultures. The third scholarly group Haas examines are those in socio-psychological theory. These scholars are generally investigating the  question, how do “culture and cognition mutually construct one another” (p. 13). Vygotsky was interested in technological mediation. For him, writing is analogous to a material tool, like a hoe. For him, it is through language and writing that higher cognition is able to develop. Scribner and Cole problematize the dichotomy between speech and writing and see writing as being highly contextualized within culture. Haas claims that these three bodies of scholarship show that the issues related to writing technologies are far from settled, but that many of these scholars do not explicitly deal with the technology question, opening up a need for technology studies.

Haas argues that technology studies is needed to overcome two powerful cultural myths related to technology and writing. The first myth is that technology is transparent, meaning it doesn't affect the way we write or our writing processes. I can attest to the fallacy of this myth when I remember getting the chance to write with a pen in school as opposed to with a pencil. When I first was allowed to write with a pen, I went more slowly and was far more deliberate in choosing my words and spelling them out. Losing the ability to erase definitely changed the way I write. If moving from a pencil to pen--technologies that don’t differ that greatly-- could impact how I write, it makes sense that the use of computers could also affect they way I write. Haas wants more critical analysis of what precisely the changes and effects are of writing with a computer.

The second cultural myth is that technology is all powerful. This eliminates the agency of writers to make decisions about they use various technologies. It also allows scholars to theorize from scratch and ignore previous scholarship. Haas argues that technology studies will critically examine the use of technology in writing without being blinded by these myths and by building on theoretical foundations of cognitive process theory (Flower & Hayes), Classical Rhetorical Theory, and Postmodern Theory.

Selfe, C.L & Selfe, R. J. The politics of the interface: Power and its exercises in electronic contact zones. College Composition and Communication, 45 (4), 480-505.

Selfe and Selfe look at the assumptions of the computer interface and how it privileges certain race, gender, ethnicity, and language assumptions. They start with a comparison to maps as documents that seem innocent and factual but in fact are political. 

Thus, the elements of a computer interface, though seemingly innocuous, actually carry cultural assumptions. For instance they unpack the notion of the desktop and its items including folders--computers are not organized as counter tops or work benches, thus they privilege the work of white-collar office jobs. This discussion reminded me of a discussion of outdated computer icons, most specifically the floppy disk for save. In this way, one could also say that there are also generational assumptions made within computer interfaces. These types of assumptions cannot only marginalize some users, but may also impact the ease of use for some.

The authors also argue that the hierarchical organization that computers demand privilege a particular kind of logic as well, and suggest that other organizational systems, including bricolage, might make sense for other users. Finally, the use of the English language is deeply ingrained in computer interfaces and systems. Selfe and Selfe note that while other options are available, many are expensive or are still organized with English as a foundation principle--the example of the shortcut “Ctrl D” for delete for the word “delete” even within a Spanish translated software system.

Selfe and Selfe urge teachers to be more critical and work with others including computer scientists  to push for changes that decrease marginalization. I particularly liked their suggestion to include students in the brainstorming of how these interfaces could look because it would not only make them more critical of what they take for granted, but they could provide valuable insights into how systems could be configured to account for how they would like to use them.

Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. New York, NY: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching

In chapters 4-7, Boyer continues to unpack the implications and necessities of expanding the definition of scholarship. Chapter 4 proposes the notion of a creativity contract. This would allow faculty the flexibility to pursue different types of scholarships at different times in their careers. Chapter 5 urges more attention to the diversity of institutions and suggests that colleges should cultivate their own identity and that the scholarship that is valued should match that identity. Boyer also talks about how faculty members are increasingly becoming more connected to their campus community and not just their field at large. In chapter 6, Boyer examines whether graduate programs are sufficiently preparing a new generation of scholars. He particularly bemoans the lack of attention to preparation for teaching in many graduate program and suggests that all graduate students should be required to take at least one pedagogy seminar. The final chapter looks at the connections between scholarship and the community, suggesting that there needs to be more connection between what scholars do and the issues facing local, regional, and national communities. Boyer suggests that college presidents are in the best position to cultivate this relationship.