Open Access Week at the University of Illinois Library

It’s that time of year again! Open Access Week is October 23-27, and the University of Illinois Library is excited to participate. Open Access Week is an international event where the academic and research community come together to learn about Open Access and to share that knowledge with others. In its eighth year, the U of I Library has a great week of events planned!

  • Monday: Workshop: “A Crash Course in Open Access”, 12-1 PM, 314 Main Library
  • Tuesday: Workshop: Open Access Publishing and You, 12-1 PM, 314 Main Library
  • Wednesday: Workshop: Managing Your Copyright and Author’s Rights, 12-1 PM, 314 Main Library
  • Thursday: Scholarly Communication Interest Group Kickoff meeting, 12-1 PM, 106 Main Library
  • Friday: Workshop: Sharing Your Research with ORCiDs, DOIs, and open data repositories, 12-1 PM, 314 Main Library

Fore more information on open access, visit the Scholarly Communication and Publishing website.

Facebook Twitter Delicious Email

Survey Research Methods Webinars Fall 2017

The Survey Research Laboratory is offering two webinars on survey research methodology during the Fall 2017 semester. The webinars are free to University faculty, staff and students. All webinars begin at 12:00 p.m.

ADVANCE ONLINE REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED

You will receive a reminder about the webinar for which you have registered shortly before the date. Webinar notes will be available here shortly before the webinar.

Social Desirability in Survey Research

Wednesday, November 1, noon

Presenter: Timothy Johnson

Researchers who study sensitive social topics are often confronted with the problem of survey measurement error due to social desirability concerns. This webinar will provide an overview of this important issue and consider various methodologies for addressing it.

Survey Experiments

Wednesday, November 8, noon

Presenter: Allyson Holbrook

Survey researchers are increasingly embedding experiments in surveys in order to maximize both internal validity and generalizability. This webinar will describe the ways that experiments have been used in survey research to explore both methodological questions and substantive questions.

Facebook Twitter Delicious Email

Spotlight: Library of Congress Labs

The Library of Congress Labs banner.

It’s always exciting when an organization with as much influence and reach as the Library of Congress decides to do something different. Library of Congress Labs is a new endeavor by the LoC, “a place to encourage innovation with Library of Congress digital collections”. Launched on September 19, 2017, Labs is a place of experimentation,and will host a rotating selection of “experiments, projects, events and resources” as well as blog posts and video presentations.

In this post, I’ll just be faffing around the Labs website, focusing on the “Experiments” portion of the site. (We’ll look at “LC for Robots” in another post.) As of writing (10/3/17), there are three “Experiments” on the site — Beyond Words, Calling All Storytellers, and #AsData Poster Series. Right now, Calling All Storytellers is just asking for people’s ideas for the website, so I’ll briefly go over Beyond Words and #As Data Poster Series and give my thoughts on them.

Beyond Words

Beyond Words is a crowd-sourced transcription system for the LoC’s Chronicling America digitized newspaper collection. Users are invited to mark, transcribe, and verify World War I newspapers. Tasks are split, so the user only does one task at a time. Overall, however, it’s pretty similar to other transcription efforts already on the Internet; though, the tools tend to be better-working, less-clunky, and clearer than some other efforts I’ve seen.

#AsData Poster Series

The #AsData Poster Series is a poster series by artist Oliver Baez Bendorf,  commissioned by the LoC for their Collections as Data Summit in September 2016. the posters are beautiful and artistic, and represent the themes of the summit. One aspect that I like about this page, is that it’s not just the posters themselves, but includes more information, like an interview with the artist. That being said, it does seem like a bit of a placeholder.

While I was excited to explore the experiments, I’m hopeful to see more innovative ideas from the Library of Congress. The Labs “Experiments” have great potential, and it will be interesting to stay tuned and where they go next.

Keep an eye on Commons Knowledge in the next few weeks, when we talk about the “LC for Robots” Labs page!

Facebook Twitter Delicious Email

Meet Carissa Phillips, Data Discovery and Business Librarian

This latest installment of our series of interviews with Scholarly Commons experts and affiliates features Carissa Phillips, Data Discovery and Business Librarian.


What is your background education and work experience?

I earned a BS in physics and astronomy and an MBA with concentrations in finance and statistics, both from the University of Iowa. After receiving my MBA, I worked for the State of Iowa for 2.5 years in the newly-created position of “performance auditor” within the Office of the Auditor of State. After that, I moved to Chicago and worked for Ernst & Young (now EY). For my first 1.5 years there, I was in a newly-created auditing position within Internal Audit Services; for my last 3.5 years, I was an analyst in the Mergers and Acquisitions Due Diligence group (later renamed Transaction Advisory Services).

I joined GSLIS (now the iSchool) in 2002, and worked as a graduate assistant in the Physics Library (since closed) until I graduated in May 2004. I worked as an academic professional in the Library until 2005, when I was hired as the Business and Finance Information Librarian in the Business and Economics Library (since closed). I earned tenure in 2012, and moved to the Scholarly Commons (SC) that same year. I moved again in 2015, this time to Research and Information Services (RIS), and was the interim unit head for a year. This past January, my title changed to Data Discovery and Business Librarian, and I now split my time between RIS and SC.

What led you to this field?

Events were converging that made me stop and reassess my career and life direction. I started to think about what I loved to do. There was a common thread of research and investigation running through every job I had ever held, and I realized that was the part I enjoyed most. So I started to look around at professions and careers that would let me develop and formalize my skills in that area, and I stumbled across librarianship. Once I learned that the top-ranked program was in my home state, it was an easy decision.

What is your research agenda, if you have one?

When I was working toward tenure, I studied the approaches students took in gathering information during experiential consulting projects and their perceptions of the research process. Now, as part of my transition into my new role of Data Discovery and Business Librarian, I’m exploring research areas that will inform my activities.

Do you have any favorite work-related duties?

I love working with researchers to help them identify resources from which they can acquire or derive the data they need. My favorite situations are the ones that seem impossible, when it’s so unlikely that anyone ever collected that data… and then I find it.

What are some of your favorite underutilized resources that you would recommend to researchers?

It really depends on the context, but I love any opportunity to recommend Hathi Trust for social science data. This is one of the best places to hunt for that “impossible” data I mentioned earlier, the data you can’t believe anyone ever collected.

Facebook Twitter Delicious Email

Studying Rhetorical Responses to Terrorism on Twitter

As a part of my internship at the Scholarly Commons, I’m going to do a series of posts describing the tools and methodologies that I’ve used in order to work on my dissertation project. This write-up serves as an introduction to my project, it’s larger goals, and tools that I use to start working with my data.

The Dissertation Project

In general, my dissertation draws on computational methodologies to account for the digital circulation and fragmentation of political movement texts in new media environments. In particular, I will examine the rhetorical responses on Twitter to three terrorist attacks in the U.S.: the 2013 Boston Marathon Bombing, the 2015 San Bernardino Shooting, and the 2016 Orlando Nightclub shooting. I begin with the idea that terrorism is a kind of message directed at an audience, and I am interested in how digital audiences in the U.S. come to understand, make meaning of, and navigate uncertainty following a terrorist attack. I am interested in the patterns of narratives, community construction, and expressions of affect that characterize terrorism as a social media phenomenon.

I am interested in the following questions: What methods might rhetorical scholars use to better understand the vast numbers of texts, posts, and “tweets” that make up our social media? How do digital audiences construct meanings in light of terrorist attacks? How does the interwoven agency and materiality of digital spaces influence forms of rhetorical action, such as invention and style? In order to better address such challenges, I turn to the tools and techniques of the Digital Humanities as a computational modes of analysis to examine the digitally circulated rhetoric surrounding terror events. Investigation of this rhetoric using topic models will help scholars to understand not only particular aspects of terrorism as a social media phenomenon, but also to better see the ways that community and identity are themselves formed amid digitally circulated texts.

At the beginning of this project, I had no experience working with textual data, so the following posts represent a cleaned and edited version of the learning process I went through. There was a lot of mess and exploration involved, but that meant I’ve come to understand a lot more.

Gathering The Tools

I use a Mac, so accessing the command line is as simple as firing up the Terminal.App. Windows users have to do a bit more work in order to get all these tools, but plenty of tutorials can be found with a quick search.

Python (Anaconda)
The first big choice was to learn how to code in R or Python. I’d heard that Python was better for text and R was better for statistical work, but it seems that it mostly comes down to personal preference as you can find people doing both in either language. Both R and Python have a bit of a learning curve, but a quick search for topic modeling in Python gave me a ton of useful results, so I chose to start there.

Anaconda is a package management system for the Python languages. What’s great about Anaconda is not only that it has a robust management system (so I can easily download the tools and libraries that I need without having to worry about dependencies or other errors), but also that it encourages the creation of “environments” for you to work in. This means that I can make mistakes or install and uninstall packages without having to worry about messing up my overall system or my other environments.

Instructions for downloading Anaconda can be found here, and I found this cheat-sheet very useful in setting up my initial environments. Python has a ton of documentation, so these pages are useful, and there are plenty of tutorials online. Each environment comes with a few default packages, and I quickly added some toolkits for processing text and plotting graphs.

Confirming the Conda installation in Terminal, activating an environment, and listing the installed packages.

StackOverflow
Lots of people working with Python have the same problems or issues that I did. Whenever my code encountered an error, or when I didn’t know how to do something like write to a .txt file, searching StackOverflow usually got me on the right track. Most answers link to the Python documentation that relates to the question, so not only did I fix what was wrong but I also learned why.

GitHub
Sometimes scholars put their code on GitHub for sharing, advancing research, and confirming their findings. I found code on here that is for topic modeling in Python, as well as setting up repositories for my own work. Using GitHub is a useful version control system, so it also meant that I never “lost” old code and could track changes over time.

Programming Historian
This is a site for scholars interested in learning how to use tools for Digital Humanities work. There are some great tutorials here on a range of topics, including how to set up and use Python. It’s approachable and does a good job of covering everything you need to know.

These tools, taken together, form the basis of my workspace for dealing with my data. Upcoming topics will cover Data Collection, Cleaning the Data, Topic Models, and Graphing the Results.

Facebook Twitter Delicious Email

Meet Helenmary Sheridan, Repository Services Coordinator

Picture of Helenmary Sheridan

This latest installment of our series of interviews with Scholarly Commons experts and affiliates features Helenmary Sheridan, the Repository Services Coordinator at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library. Helenmary manages the Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship (IDEALS), a digital archive of scholarship produced by researchers, students, and staff at Illinois. She also conducts outreach with scholars interested in using Illinois’ other public repository, the Illinois Data Bank.


What is your background and work experience?

I graduated with a Master’s Degree in Library and Information Science from the iSchool at Illinois in 2015. I earned my degree through the LEEP program and worked at Northwestern University as a metadata and digital curation assistant while I was in school, which was a wonderful experience. Before that, I worked in visual resources, primarily with the digital collections at Northwestern and prior to that at the University of Chicago where I did my undergrad. At U Chicago, I majored in art history and took significant coursework in geophysics, which was originally my major.

What led you to this field?

I came into this role primarily from a strong interest in metadata. I was creating metadata for digital objects at Northwestern. I had been working with an art historian, and the role developed into project management, working with software developers to build a repository. So I got into working with software developers, and my interest in metadata led me to being a sort of translator between librarians and developers. This led to my being interested in technical infrastructure, without being a programmer myself. But I do have some programming experience, which allows me to communicate more easily about what I’m doing.

What is your research agenda?

In general I’m interested in service management. I’m presenting at DLF (Digital Library Federation) in a couple of months on what it means to be a service manager in a library, museum, or archive setting when a lot of management systems are built for an IT environment. We often have people coming into service manager roles from something else, and I’m interested in seeing how this gets done practically.

I’m also interested in interfaces and how designers of technical systems conceptualize our users and how, through technology, it’s really easy to abuse users.

Do you have any favorite work-related duties?

I do! I love communicating with people and patrons outside of the university. At many academic libraries, you think of your patrons as being just part of the university. Running IDEALS, I communicate with lots of people all over the world, which is really satisfying. That is, both helping people here, and communicating with all sorts of people to spread Illinois scholarship worldwide.

What are some of your favorite underutilized resources that you would recommend to researchers?

I think that a lot of people don’t look outside of their disciplines, which makes a lot of sense. As a researcher, you develop your most efficient ways to find information. But as a student, it can be really productive to go to sources outside of your own discipline. When I was an art history major as an undergrad, I wrote my thesis on scientific illustration and scientific representation through art. Can you trust an artist who has no scientific knowledge to represent what they see? I was consulting lots of scientific work and lots of technology studies stuff, as well as lots of art image databases.

The way these resources are organized is totally different. It broadened my horizons to see what a wealth of resources is out there. Stuff that isn’t necessarily in the libguide for art history, or science and technology studies.

That’s another satisfying part of my work. A diversity of stuff comes into IDEALS, so when I can’t help a patron directly, I can help them find a related resource that might be useful to them.

If you could recommend one book to beginning researchers in your field, what would you recommend?

Something I was thinking about the other day is Clifford Lynch’s 2003-2004 papers and talks on institutional repositories, about how they are going to help solve the crisis of scholarly communication. He suggested that they would become tools to provide researchers with alternative sources for dissemination of their work, or even a platform for new forms of scholarly communication, and he imagines this future where there’s a robust system of interconnected repositories that can all communicate with one another.

Contrast those with his 2016 updates, in which he addresses a trend of saying that the institutional repository has failed. He thinks it’s true that institutional repositories and the places that run them haven’t fulfilled all of these promises and that it might not be worth an institution’s time to develop a repository. But you can use repositories in different ways, and different ways of using them have emerged. He rejects the claim that IRs have proven to be a failure. So instead of seeing institutional repositories and other repositories as a solution that failed to solve a problem, Lynch’s work helped me think of them as solutions to problems that weren’t foreseen.

For instance, you’ll have family members who are looking up their great aunt’s thesis to have something to remember her by. This problem falls outside the traditional scope of academia, but institutional repositories prove very beneficial for people in these sorts of ways. This helps me think about digital libraries in general. We’re not just trying to solve a problem, but to help people. We should be user focused, rather than problem focused.

Helenmary Sheridan can be reached at hsherid2@illinois.edu.

Facebook Twitter Delicious Email

The Importance of File Names

We’ve all been there. You’ve been searching for a file for an hour, sure that you named it ‘draft 2.docx’ or ‘essay.docx’ or ‘FINAL DRAFT I SWEAR.docx’. There’s an hour until your deadline and the print queue is pretty backed up and you cannot find the file.

Again, we’ve all been there. But we don’t have to be.

Creating a naming convention for your files can save you the hassle of searching through files of ‘essay’s and ‘draft’s. Instead, you’ll be able to find files with ease. While everyone should create a system that works for them, here are a few suggestions to think about before choosing a system to name your files.

Think About How You’ll Search For Your Files

Naming conventions are only useful if they actually help you find what you’re looking for. So, create a naming convention that works for how you think about your files! For example, if you’re working with lab data that you save daily, create a system based on the date so your files will be in chronological order.

Keep It Simple!

If you know that you’re not going to want to type out long file names, then don’t choose long file names. Or, if you know that a format will be more difficult for you in the long run, don’t use it in the short run! There are few things more irritating than having to go through and change things because you’ve created a system that’s too complicated.

Change It Up

This is something that I’ve had trouble with — if your system stop working, don’t be afraid to change it up to make things work for you. If your file names are getting too long, or you’re finding that you have trouble differentiating between dates, save yourself a headache by investing some time in creating another style sooner rather than later. That’s not to say that you should go changing all your file names willy-nilly whenever the mood strikes you, but it’s important that you find a way that you can commit to long term.

Resources

If you’re inspired and want to create a new system for naming your files, here are a few resources that you should check out:

Facebook Twitter Delicious Email

Introducing Clay Alsup, Scholarly Commons Intern

This latest installment of our series of interviews with Scholarly Commons experts and affiliates features Clay Alsup, Scholarly Commons Intern. Clay started working at the Scholarly Commons in August 2017.


What is your background education and work experience?

I started out in community college, and got my BA at Salisbury University on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, majoring in Philosophy. After that, I received an MA in Philosophy from Louisiana State University. I did a year in AmeriCorps working for Hospitality Homes, a wonderful not-for-profit in Boston that provides free volunteer host housing for people who travel to Boston for medical care. I spent another year in Boston working at Eureka!, a puzzle and game store, which was an enormous amount of fun. I came to the University of Illinois in 2012 to enter the PhD program in Philosophy.

What led you to this field?

I’d say that I didn’t really have a choice; I was never all that good at anything else, and I was always quite good at philosophy. Neither of my parents were surprised with where I ended up. I love reading and teaching philosophy and just never really get tired of it.

What is your research agenda?

My project has to do with what conspiracy theories are and why we find them so compelling. There’s a small literature on what a conspiracy theory is and whether anything is wrong with them in philosophy. In most of the work, however, very little (if any) empirical evidence is given for why a particular definition is settled upon, and little focus is given to what is so compelling about them. In psychological and sociological literature, a definition of “conspiracy theory” is normally imposed without much questioning, though lots of work is done on why people believe them. My hope is to use empirical evidence to support a particular definition of conspiracy theory (or distinguish between different types), so that a more satisfactory account can be given about their epistemic adequacy and psychological appeal. In order to do this, I am working through a comprehensive collection of conspiracy theories with a couple undergraduates and determining what features tend to be present. In addition, I will be analyzing the text using various tools in R in order to uncover other, less obvious features about conspiracy theories in order to work out which are most typical.

Do you have any favorite work-related duties?

I just started, so I haven’t had an opportunity to do a whole lot yet. Working on my project is one of my duties, though, and I’m enjoying that very much!

What are some of your favorite underutilized resources that you would recommend to researchers?

I’m not sure I have much to say about this. Certainly, I think that philosophers often make unsupported empirical claims in support of their arguments, and instead of waiting for a study to be conducted on the matter, it’s not a bad idea for philosophers to learn about experimental design and pursue the question themselves.

If you could recommend only one book to beginning researchers in your field, what would you recommend?

Yikes! I don’t think there’s any hope of picking a single philosophy text. For an example of an endlessly dissatisfied intellect that is always looking for a deeper understanding of various phenomena, it’s hard to outdo Nietzsche, so perhaps his On the Genealogy of Morals.

Want to get in touch with Clay? Send him an email or come visit him at the Scholarly Commons!

Facebook Twitter Delicious Email

Scholarly Smackdown: PowerPoint vs. Google Slides vs. Prezi

Everyone, at some point in their life, will be asked to give some kind of presentation to go along with a talk. For many of us, projecting a slide show along with a class report or talk has been something we’ve done since childhood. That being said, the nature of the presentation game is changing. While the PowerPoint remains the standard, new challengers are making a splash in the presentation world. In this article, I’ll go through the pros and cons of each of these platforms.

The PowerPoint logo.

PowerPoint

Microsoft PowerPoint is so ingrained in our idea of modern presentations that giving any sort of slide show is often called “giving a PowerPoint”. But at the same time, does PowerPoint hold up to its new competitors? Let’s take a closer look.

Price:

Microsoft has shifted towards yearly subscriptions for various packages. UIUC affiliates can download the suite on their home computer for free. Otherwise, packages range between $70-$100 per year, or a one-time purchase of $150, which does not include applications such as OneDrive. For more information on options, go to the UIUC Webstore or Microsoft’s website.

Usability:

Though it’s gotten better with time and my own familiarity with Microsoft Office, PowerPoint is not the most usable option of these. Part of that has to do with the sheer amount of options available in PowerPoint. That being said, the more you can customize your project, the greater the potential to misuse tools or make mistakes. Real problems arise when you want to do things that aren’t included in their preset slide layouts, and formatting images — while it has become simpler than in older versions of the software — remains, at times, an issue.

Web Capability:

Microsoft PowerPoint is first and foremost downloadable computer software. However, PowerPoint has recently come out with a competitor to online platforms called PowerPoint Online, which has most of the capabilities of PowerPoint software, but allows for you to collaborate in real-time with others. To log into PowerPoint Online one needs a Microsoft ID (UIUC affiliates can log in with their email). One cannot access or purchase access to PowerPoint Online without a Microsoft ID. PowerPoint Online is useful if you like the look of PowerPoint and want an easy-to-open and portable version, but I find that the interface is a little clunky, but it does integrate slideshows made on the desktop version easily. I think PowerPoint Online is an important addition to the Microsoft Suite because, with time, it will eliminate that awkward 15 minutes that happens during any and every presentation session where someone can’t get their jump drive to work.

Aesthetics:

When done well, a PowerPoint can look good. It isn’t going to be a beauty queen, but it will look good. However, people have a tendency to over-embellish a PowerPoint, or leave it so bare that it looks sad. There’s a happy medium when it comes to PowerPoint. Just make sure you include some images to spice up your PowerPoint and stay away from templates that include gradients — this isn’t a business convention in 2002.

The Google Slides logo.

Google Slides

Google Slides is Google’s online PowerPoint equivalent. Most notable for the ability to collaborate on presentations, it’s a simplified PowerPoint that you can access from anywhere (with Wifi).

Price:

Google Slides is free with your Google account. Your limiting factor here is memory. While the automatic Drive memory is typically more than enough for most people, you can add on extra memory or $2-$300 a month, depending on your needs.

Usability:

Google Slides is the most bare bones of these three programs and the easiest to use. This is a trade-off, of course, because it also means that it has the least options of these choices. Google Slides’ controls are generally pretty similar to Google Docs and easy to learn. Even for those who aren’t familiar with other Google Drive programs, the tools are pretty intuitive — more so than PowerPoint’s.

Web Capability:

Google Slides was built for the Web. It’s the easiest to access of these programs, and the most widely-recognized Web application. That being said, it lacks a good offline mode, which can be frustrating when you need to work on a presentation without Wifi. However, its connectivity with the other online components of Google Drive are worth it.

Aesthetics:

I give Google Slides a one-up on PowerPoint for aesthetics, because while they have fewer templates, they tend to be a little more modern and aesthetically pleasing than PowerPoint’s. Further, while there are fewer overall customization options for Google Slides, the result can end up more attractive because your time and energy is focused on getting the job done, as opposed to playing around.

The Prezi logo.

Prezi

Prezi is the newest presentation platform on the scene. Created as a more dynamic alternative to slideshow presentations, this web-based app uses zoomable canvases for presentations.

Price:

A basic account is free, and a basic student account (which includes privacy controls) is also free. Other individual packages range from $7 to $59.

Usability:

Honestly, I find Prezi difficult to use. Part of that can be attributed to my years of experience with PowerPoint and similar platforms and my comparative inexperience with Prezi, but I do think that there’s an element that isn’t entirely my fault here. Moving through your presentation can be cumbersome, even in the edit mode. Customization options are more limited, and can easily ruin the flow of your presentation if you’re not careful. I do think that the more closely you stick to Prezi’s pre-made options, the easier it is to use. Also, the shorter your presentation is, the less cumbersome Prezi is both as a creator and consumer.

Web Capability:

Prezi is a web-based application, and offline access must be paid for.

Aesthetics:

Prezi is, undoubtedly, pretty. I find it a little ironic that animation — which PowerPoint has been criticized for — is one of the major selling points of Prezi. When I watch a Prezi, I do have the tendency to feel a little seasick, especially if it’s a presentation with a lot of points that zoom in and out. But overall, the aesthetics are the most modern of any of the platforms, the most visually-striking, and the most impressive if you are able to handle them correctly and create a good presentation.

Overall:

Each of these have their merits and flaws, but I will be, personally, sticking with PowerPoint. Especially given the new online component of PowerPoint, it is a tried and true partner that may not produce the most striking results, but can accompany my work just fine. That being said, I’ll also look further into Prezi, maybe sign up for our Savvy Researcher workshop on it, and see if it does live up to its incredible reputation.

Facebook Twitter Delicious Email

Introducing Matthew Pitchford, Scholarly Commons Intern

Matthew Pitchford, Scholarly Commons Intern

This latest installment of our series of interviews with Scholarly Commons experts and affiliates features Matthew Pitchford, Scholarly Commons Intern. Matt started working at the Scholarly Commons in August 2017.


What is your background education and work experience?

I would call myself a rhetorician. I earned my Bachelor’s degree from Willamette University in Oregon before coming to U of I for my Master’s in Communication, which I received in 2014. I am currently working toward my PhD in Communication. I’ve taught introduction to public speaking and writing, argumentation, and communicating public policy. The courses I teach tend to focus on thinking about how rhetoric intersects with contemporary political discourse and how people use rhetoric to make arguments in that arena.

What led you to this field?

My interest in communication began back in high school in Washington State, where I competed in speech and debate. I also worked for a few college newspapers, where I discovered I was interested in political communications. When I entered college I originally set out to be political science major, but I quickly realized that the ways of thinking about political communication in the field of rhetoric interested me more.

What is your research agenda?

I study the rhetoric of digital spaces. I’m interested in what changes and what stays the same when we start to think about rhetorical theories in the context of new media and social media. How should our theories change when we think about rhetoric in a digital space? My research here at the Scholarly Commons is about Twitter responses to terrorist events. Some of the questions I’m asking are: How do people on Twitter talk about these events? What are the political communities they’re imagining when they speak about these events? What are the ways of articulating one’s political views in this context?

Do you have any favorite work-related duties?

My favorite work-related duty is talking to the subject specialists at Scholarly Commons. It’s fun to gain insight and new ways of seeing my research by discussing the problems I’m facing to my colleagues. They’re a great resource because their diversity helps me conceptualize my research in new ways.

What are some of your favorite underutilized resources that you would recommend to researchers?

Savvy Researcher Workshops. The workshops for some of the more obscure topics aren’t heavily attended, but they helped me get a gauge on how other people were working on their projects and showed me what tools I should be using.

If you could recommend only one book to beginning researchers in your field, what would you recommend?

I’m cheating and choosing two books, one for rhetoric and one for digital humanities. For rhetoric I’d recommend Still Life with Rhetoric by Laurie Gries. It’s about the digital circulation of images and represents a way of thinking about distributed rhetorical activity in digital contexts. And for digital humanities I’d recommend Reading Machines: Toward an Algorithmic Criticism by Stephen Ramsay. It makes a broader call for “algorithmic criticism” that uses computation as a productive constraint under which humanistic inquiry can take place.

Want to get in touch with Matthew? Send him an email or come visit him at the Scholarly Commons!

Facebook Twitter Delicious Email