Digital rhetoric

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Student using technology in the classroom

Digital rhetoric is a way of informing, persuading, and inspiring action in an audience through digital media. It is an advancing form of communication composed, created, and distributed through multimedia platforms. Rhetoric combines multiple methods such as persuasion, effective writing, and effective speaking to present information in inventive ways.[1] The meaning of rhetoric has changed over time, developing with changes in technologies. Online media are increasingly used as communication and information platforms, and since more text is placed online, there is more opportunity for persuasion through innovative and creative means. Because of this shift in rhetoric, the relationship between writers and readers has changed in form, communication style, and effectiveness. Digital rhetoric is advancing and changing how people choose to communicate their ideas with broader audiences. Both rhetoric and digital rhetoric hold various meanings and definitions depending upon who is looking at it; for example, the online journal Harlot of the Arts holds a competition through Twitter for people to define rhetoric, and the submissions are extremely varied.[2]



The term digital rhetoric was coined by rhetorician Richard A. Lanham in his 1993 essay collection, The Electronic Word: Democracy, Technology, and the Arts.[3] In 2009, rhetorician Elizabeth Losh[4] offered this four-part definition of digital rhetoric in her book, Virtualpolitik:[5]

  1. The conventions of new digital genres that are used for everyday discourse, as well as for special occasions, in average people's lives.
  2. Public rhetoric, often in the form of political messages from government institutions, is represented or recorded through digital technology and disseminated via electronically distributed networks.
  3. The emerging scholarly discipline concerned with the rhetorical interpretation of computer-generated media as objects of study.
  4. Mathematical theories of communication from the field of information science, many of which attempt to quantify the amount of uncertainty in a given linguistic exchange or the likely paths through which messages travel."[6]

Losh's definition demonstrates that digital rhetoric is a heterodoxical field, one that relies on different methods to study various permutations of information: as code, as text, as visuals, as videos, and so on.

Scope of influence[edit]

As the power of technology grows, so too do the uses and scope of digital rhetoric. This includes, but is not limited to, schools offering online classes and test-taking, online news sources including scholarly journals and online editions of newspapers, and people searching for information online rather than consult a more traditional means such as an encyclopedia. Teachers can use podcasts, YouTube videos, and social media sites like Facebook and LinkedIn to facilitate discussions and increase students' interest in a topic. In addition, they can make use of distance learning modules, as a form of online teaching. In academia, online journals allow for information to be more accessible due to the use of digital rhetoric. Writers also have more opportunities to write in various formats instead of a traditional linear format. In social media, people come into contact with digital rhetoric on a daily basis whether it be an updated Facebook status, a 140 character tweet, or even the use of visual rhetoric on websites such as Instagram.


The urge for digital rhetoric to be introduced to classrooms is the fact that in the era of Web 2.0, quite a proportion of school managements and instructors stick to the traditional rhetoric and resist the pervasiveness of technology. For the first time, the knowledge taught at and the methods employed by the academia are far behind the social and cultural advancement, rather than leading it. As Clark (2010) argues, "...the traditional essayistic literacy ... needs to be replaced by an intentional pedagogy of digital rhetoric that emphasizes the civic importance of education...".[7]

In universities, courses on digital rhetoric are taught at the graduate and undergraduate level as courses in English, Communication, and Media Studies departments. Courses in digital rhetoric study the interactions between users and digital texts, as well as how different backgrounds such as age, ethnicity, gender and more can affect these interactions.[8] By studying digital rhetoric in this way, students are able to better understand the uses and purpose of digital rhetoric in the modern world.

Scholars like Jeff Grabill contribute to the use of digital rhetoric by pushing for its use in the classroom. Grabill embraces the age of technology and encourages his contemporaries to do so as well. His backgrounds in English, education, and technology and work in those fields make him a gateway between the scholarly field of digital rhetoric and its implementation. Another scholar, Cheryl Ball,[9] specializes in areas that consist of multimodal composition and editing practices, digital media scholarship, and digital publishing. She also focuses on university writing pedagogy. Ball teaches people to write and compose multimodal texts by analyzing rhetorical options and choosing the most appropriate genres, technologies, media, and modes for a particular situation. During her own education, Ball made significant advances in the digital rhetoric field by completing her school's first electronic and interactive thesis. She also received tenure at another university using the first all-digital tenure portfolio. For her undergraduate course, Clark created and employed a set of practices, including ePortfolios, digital stories, online games, Second Life, and blogs. In doing so, she managed to "engage(s) students in the interactivity, collaboration, ownership, authority, and malleability of texts".[7] In another approach, Douglas Eyman recommends a course in web authoring and design that provides undergraduates more practical instruction in the production and rhetorical understanding of digital texts. Moreover, he explains that web authoring and design for digital rhetoric instruction provides opportunities for students to learn fundamentals of web writing and design conventions, rules and procedures.[10] Attention to multimodality has  also influenced Understanding Rhetoric: A Graphic Guide to Writing by Elizabeth Losh and Alexander Jonathan, which emphasized engaging the comic form of literacy.

Digital rhetoric pedagogy has been further developed in the secondary level of education due to support at the university level. This allows for students to create and edit projects simultaneously through the internet. Collaboration is seen as one of the biggest advantages to digital rhetoric, as it gives students and teachers the ability to collaborate and critique anywhere anytime. By being educated in various forms of technology, students are exposed to a more multimodal world and teachers foster a more well-rounded learning environment. Through digital writing, students have a broader choice of composing to fit their needs. Students can have people see their work anywhere, which reflects the accessibility of social media that students are used to in their everyday lives.


Rhetoric to digital rhetoric[edit]

Rhetoric is defined as the art of discourse, and is the root of digital rhetoric. As technology has changed, so have rhetorical situations. While the five canons of rhetoric[11] developed for oratory print still apply, they are reconfigured to work in new contextual forms like the database, the hypertext, the cybertext, and other born-digital texts. Invention,[12] arrangement,[13] and style[14] take on new meanings while delivery[15] is elevated to new importance, and memory comes to refer to textual forms like search engines,[16] archives,[17] and tags.[18] Although the rhetorical canon of delivery once referred to the oral/aural and bodily aspects of delivery, in the age of digital rhetoric, it refers to "Internet-based communication", and the mediums that are used.[15] While the study of digital rhetoric is not specific to any one technology or era of technology, ideas in digital rhetoric do evolve alongside new technologies such as smartphones, new and easy to use composing platforms like Storify, Pixorial and WeVideo, and techniques such as Ajax. Ideas evolve as technology evolves, because one way of studying digital rhetoric is to trace the ways that the affordances and constraints of technology "support and enable the transformation of the old rhetoric of persuasion into a new digital rhetoric that encourages self-expression, participation, and creative collaboration".[19] Many trace the transformation of old rhetoric into digital rhetoric through the classical rhetorical canons.

Shift from print to digital[edit]

Dennis Baron states, "The first writing technology was writing itself." While previous writing technologies involved pencils and hieroglyphics, the evolution of communication technology now allows for online and immediate rhetorical conversations.[20] The evolution of communicative technologies started with the chisel, then the book, the quill, the Greek alphabet, and the pencil, onto more modern technology such as the computer. The origins of modern computing are to be found in the techno-military context of World War II.[21] Just as the pencil was originally intended as a marking utensil for builders and is now used for writing, the computer was originally intended to compute advanced math problems, but is now used for word-processing and a myriad of other tasks. Technology continues to modify itself to meet the needs of people; in the case of digital rhetoric, technology has become more prevalent to match people's usage of the Internet and computers, which creates a technoculture. Another scholar who highlights the changing landscape from print to digital is Jay Bolter. He argues that the computer is the most significant development since the start of the alphabetic/print tradition and that digital texts will continue to move print to the "margins of literate culture."[22]


Visual rhetoric[edit]

Visual rhetoric relates to digital rhetoric because they can act together to communicate ideas in a way that is not bound by a linear format. Mary Hocks, a visual rhetoric scholar, states "the screen itself is a tablet that combines words, interfaces, icons, and pictures that invoke other modalities like touch and sound".[23] By manipulating the tools described by Hocks, a writer in the digital world has access to influence a broader audience, and an influx of modes to communicate their ideas. This in turn creates a way for writers to communicate The use of visual images in rhetoric allows for a writer to convey an idea that may be so abstract that the written linear word will not suffice. Abstract ideas in rhetorical images, as Charles Hill states, that not only are abstract ideas represented in images acceptable but they are prominent, images "do not necessarily have to portray an object, or even a class of objects, that exists or ever did exist".[24] Images allow for the writer to depict the closest representation of their thought possible since they can blend abstract and tangible thoughts. Hill uses the peace sign, swastika, and the confederate flags as examples of abstract ideas represented by images. Ironically the image of a peace sign, which seems to be universally accepted as a call from the 1970s 'hippie' movement, originated as an anti-Christian symbol. The original graphic was used to show an upside down broken cross symbolizing the despair of man and the crucifixion of the Apostle Peter. This shows how visual images can change over time and be adapted in such powerful ways that it actually changes the meaning completely. Images are versatile, and coupled with the motive of the author can provide key components to an argument. By being informed on how visual rhetoric interacts with its different components a reader/viewer can reduce abstract ideas to a more tangible state.


James E. Porter defines avatar as a "virtual body".[15] With developments in technology, there are new ways to present oneself online. This online presentation of one's own identity is an avatar. While scholars such as Beth Kolko hoped for an online world without physical barriers, making it a "realm of ideas", there are still social issues, such as gender discrimination and racism.[25] Beth E. Kolko believes that an idealistic online world would be a "realm of ideas", without definitive factors such as gender, race, or age. Kolko argues that a non-gendered online world would not garner enough attention, because individuals could not relate to each other without gender identity.[25] Victoria Woolums found in a study of the video game World of Warcraft that the gender identity of the avatar affected behaviors of other characters, showing a bias even in a realm where gender identity of an avatar may not be physically accurate to its user.[26]


Circulation theorizes the ways that texts and discourses move through time and space. Any kind of media can be circulated. Henry Jenkins "sticky vs. spreadable media" applies to circulation. Essentially, "sticky" media is media that can be spread. A new form of communication is composed, created, and distributed through digital technologies. Explained by Henry Jenkins, there is a shift from distribution to circulation which signals a move toward an increasingly participatory model of culture in which people shape, share, reframe and remix media content in ways not previously possible within the traditional rhetorical elements like print.

"A number of scholars have seen delivery in networked systems as circulation of digital texts, following John Trimbur's (2000) argument that circulation should be re-introduced in writing instruction; however, his definition of circulation is as an element or result of delivery. Trimbur suggests that neglecting delivery has led writing teachers to equate the activity of composing with writing itself and to miss altogether the complex delivery systems through which writing circulates. By privileging composing as the main site of instruction, the teaching of writing has taken up what Karl Marx calls a "one-sided" view of production and thereby has largely erased the cycle that links the production, distribution, exchange, and consumption of writing. This cycle of interlocked moments is what Marx calls circulation. (190)"[27]

Rhetorical velocity[edit]

Rhetorical velocity is the concept of authors writing in a way in which they are able to predict how their work might be recomposed. With the advancement of technology, there is no limit to the speed and distance at which an author's work is able to travel. Therefore, it is important for them to be able to predict how their audience will recompose their works. Jim Ridolfo and Danielle DeVoss first coined this idea in 2009 when they describe rhetorical velocity as "a conscious rhetorical concern for distance, travel, speed, and time, pertaining specifically to theorizing instances of strategic appropriation by a third party".[28]

Mind sharing[edit]

Mind sharing is a way to get collective intelligence—crowd wisdom that is comparable to expert wisdom. The methodology for this is simple. One would look for a consensus from the crowd—the answer that most minds are suggesting is the best answer. If it's a numeric question (like guessing the weight of an ox), it's a calculated average or median. If it's an open question (like "what car should I buy?"), it's the most common answer.[29]


Multimodality means having several modes, modalities, or maxima—in simpler terms, it is a form of communication that uses multiple methods (or modes) to inform audiences of an idea. It can involve a mix of written text, pictures, audio, or videos. Online journals often embrace multimodality in their issues and articles by publishing works that use more than just written text to communicate the message. While the digital turn in rhetoric and composition has encouraged more discussion, theorization, and pedagogical application of multimodality and multimodal texts, the history of the field demonstrates a continuous concern with multimodal communication beginning with classical rhetoric's concern with delivery, gesture, and memory. All writing and all communication is, theoretically, multimodal.[30]


"At first, Memory seemed to have to do solely with mnemonics (memory aids) that would assist a budding orator in retaining his speech. However, it clearly had to do with more than simply learning how to memorize an already composed speech for re-presentation. The practice of storing up information or other material arrived at through the topics of invention can be called for in a given occasion in order to redistribute information that is already known or given. The canon of Memory also suggests that scholars consider the psychological aspects of preparing to communicate and the performance of communicating itself, especially in an oral or impromptu setting. Typically Memory has to do only with the orator, but invites consideration of how the audience will retain things in mind."[31]


For the general scholar, the term delivery means the way in which a form of information is conveyed to a particular audience or group of people. These ideas of delivery could mean hearing information spoken at a conference or reading the newspaper. The forms can range from podcasts to videos, pictures to text, or even songs and newspapers. Delivery is the modem in which information is given in order for the topic to be best understood and related to. The term "delivery" is often aligned with the term "performance". The Forest of Rhetoric states that delivery is not only the fifth canon of rhetoric, but it is also a translation of the word "hypokrisis", or "acting". This Greek word was translated into delivery in the standpoint of spoken or recited information rather than newspapers or essays. Performance of plays, speeches, skits, etc. turns into the delivery of information in the piece being performed or spoken. This is the same as a piece of literature or rhetoric delivering its information through word choice, layout, and structure.[31]


Collaboration in digital rhetoric does not mean a co-authorship directly, even though this could be constituted as that as well, but collaboration looks more like an outlet that scholars can share their work and receive feedback as well. Instead of using solely the individual and their work, scholars use each other to spur on each other's ideas and build their concepts upon another. Collaboration takes on a much more broad meaning in terms of content on the internet. Not only does it offer the opportunity for scholars to collaborate with each other, but it also gives readers the chance to share their reactions with creators of content on the internet. In this way, digital rhetoric allows the audience to interact and work with creators of content. In Braun's book "Cultivating Ecologies for Digital Media Work: The case of English studies", she suggests a collaborative work by interdisciplinary scholars.[32] "This is scholarship", a digital article published in Kairos 12.3,[33] is the example of collaborative multimedia text by Catherine Braun as a rhetorician and compositionist, and Kenneth Gilbert as an audio-technician. The shared authorship from this work is shown in the editorial process including writing, digital production, display, and design to produce a final piece of a scholarly article in the form of webtext.[32]


Remix is a method of digital rhetoric that manipulates and transforms an original work to convey a new message. The usage of remix can help the creator make an argument by connecting seemingly unrelated ideas into a convincing whole.[34] As modern technology develops, self-publication sites like YouTube, SoundCloud, and WordPress have stimulated remix culture, allowing for easier creation and dissemination of reworked content.[35] Unlike appropriation, which is the use and potential recontextualization of existing material without significant modification, remix is defined in Kairos as "the process of taking old pieces of text, images, sounds, and video and stitching them together to form a new product."[36]


In the digital age most everything is considered appropriation. Scholars pull their information from a myriad of sources and are constantly redefining terms in order to apply them to the digital world. Appropriation carries both positive and negative connotations. In some ways appropriation is a tool that can be used for the reapplication of outdated ideas to make them better. In other ways appropriation is seen as a threat to creative and cultural identities. Social media receives the bulk of this scrutiny due to the lack of education of its users. Most "contributors are often unaware of what they are contributing.[37] which perpetuates the negative connotation. Many scholars in digital rhetoric explore this topic and its effects on society such as Jessica Reyman, Amy Hea, and Johndan Johnson-Eilola.


Electracy is a term developed by Gregory Ulmer describing the emerging digital age.[38] Electracy is often discussed as being in transition, advancing along with digital rhetoric. Electracy explains the full communicative potentials of new electronic media. Electracy is embedded in the approach of digital rhetoric and covers a large paradigm of literacy which is enhanced through Ulmer's idea of 'electracy'. The recent decades observes a sound effect of 'electracy' in the field of digital media. According to Arrayo, "Participatory Compositions begins by exploring the apparatus of electracy in many of its manifestation while focus on the participatory practices found in online video culture. As research suggests the concept of 'electracy' has changed through the very idea of Ulmer who once articulated in the orientation of analogue video that serves rhetorical dimension of  'Teletheory'. But his vision of 'electracy' changed by bringing in a more broader literary concept that enterprise writing—coding, hypertext etc.[39]


Kairos is catching the opportune moment. It is the rhetorical time, or persuasive relevance, of the context in which a text is written or a speech is given. Kairos[Purdue University 1] refers to the elements of a speech that acknowledge and draw support from the particular setting, time, and place that a speech occurs. It is imperative that the speaker knows when and where to place the argument and if it is appropriate. Aristotle considers kairos as a concept that is related to ethos, pathos and logos. Ethos[40] is defined as the established credibility of a writer or speaker, relevant to the kairos of an argument. Establishing credibility is important to kairos in order to engage an audience and give them a reason to listen to the argument being made. Kairos has been put on the rhetorical back burner, but has become more relevant in the digital age in fact checking and considering the academic relevancy of a source. Digital scholars like Jim Ridolfo are on the forefront of reviving the concept of kairos and implementing it into the classroom.[41]


Daren Brabham defines Crowdsourcing as, "using an online, ... model to leverage the collective intelligence of online communities to serve specific organizational goals."[42] As a concept within digital rhetoric, it is a utilization of modern technology to collaborate and create collectively. Companies and organizations use crowdsourcing to build creativity, by acquiring information other than what their immediate employees know. However, there are several concerns that come up when crowdsourcing tactics are used. Issues relating to Intellectual Property and Copyright are some of the foremost problems when crowdsourced ideas are used for commercial problems. Because the business did not conceive the idea, terms of use must be clearly set while fielding responses.[42] Ethical concerns have been raised as well when engaging in crowdsourcing without a clear set of compensation practices or protections in place to secure personal information.[43]



There is controversy regarding the innovative nature of digital rhetoric. Arguments opposed to legitimizing webtext are Platonically-based in that they reject the new form of scholarship, web text, and praise the old form, print, in the same way that oral communication was originally favored over written communication.[44] Originally some traditionalists didn't regard online open-access journals with the same legitimacy as print journals for this reason; however, digital arenas have become the primary place for disseminating academic information in many areas of scholarship.[45] Modern scholars struggle to "claim academic legitimacy" in these new media forms, as the tendency of pedagogy is to write about a subject rather than actively work in it.[46] Within the past decade, more scholarly texts have been openly accessible, which provides an innovative way for students to gain access to textual materials online for free, in the way that many scholarly journals like Kairos,[47] Harlot of the Arts,[48] and Enculturation[49] are already available through open access.


Referred to as the digital divide, issues of economic access and user-level access are recurring issues in digital rhetoric. These issues show up most prevalent in computers and writing circles. Access can refer to inequality in the access of information, access to a reading public, and access to means of communicating. For those that teach digital rhetoric in schools and universities, student access to technologies at home and in school is an operative concern.[50] There is some debate about whether mobile computing devices like smartphones make technology access more equitable.[51]

Open access[edit]

Open access has removed the barriers of fees associated with accessing a work and restrictions of copyright and licensing. The matter of eliminating fees is most prevalent to digital rhetoric, because it allows for more access to works. Open access and digital rhetoric do not eliminate copyright, but eliminates restrictions by giving authors the choice to maintain their right to copy and distribute their materials however they choose, or they may turn the rights over to a specific journal. Digital rhetoric involves works that are found online and open access is allowing more people to be able to reach these works.

Copyright issues[edit]

Copyright controversies in online and digital texts affect the way digital rhetoric is utilized. Many of these arguments deal with the problem of cost for the publishers and consumers of scholarly text. Copyrighting materials is an expensive task, especially when the materials can be translated into many other forms of digital sources that are freely found by the public. Because of this ease of transformation, copyright laws are undermined as scholars lose predication in their online materials through maneuvers as simple as copy and paste or translating hyperlinks. In James P. Zappen's piece "Digital Rhetoric: Toward an Integrated Theory", he refers to transferring material in ways that create misapplication of a work that a scholar has written. "A media database, for example, can produce an almost infinite variety of end-user objects, which can be customized for different users, manipulated through hyperlinks, periodically updated, and scaled upon demand." Zappen's statement of "infinite" is in no way subjective or an over statement. Many digital pieces are infringed upon, stolen, or misused by the avoidance of copyright. These many forms of copyright avoidance lend to the controversy of digital rhetoric and media as a whole.[19] Digital composition in the classroom is a practical space for grasping intellectual property and copyright where students can possibly (re) mix and mash digital properties across digital spaces that can “typically at odds with digital (and material) protection practices.”[52] DeVoss argues for the responsibility of a teacher to train students to fairly make use of digital materials borrowed from several digital sources by having copyright negotiation and agreements as well as the knowledge of intellectual property.[52] The introduction of public domain work such as Creative Commons[53] serves as the open source of free-license materials for students to use and combine.

See also[edit]


  1. ^ Burton, G. (n.d.). What is Rhetoric? Retrieved December 3, 2014, from What is Rhetoric? Archived 2014-12-20 at the Wayback Machine.
  2. ^ "#DefineRhetoric 2014". Harlot of the Arts. 
  3. ^ Lanham, R. A. (1994). The Electronic Word: Democracy, Technology, and the Arts. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226468853. 
  4. ^ Elizabeth Losh
  5. ^ Losh, E. (2009). Virtualpolitik. MIT Press. ISBN 9780262123044. 
  6. ^ Losh, Elizabeth (2009). Virtualpolitik: An Electronic History of Government Media-Making in a Time of War, Scandal, Disaster, Miscommunication, and Mistakes (PDF). MIT. pp. 47–48. Retrieved 24 April 2015. 
  7. ^ a b Clark, J. Elizabeth (2010). "The Digital Imperative: Making the Case for a 21st-Century Pedagogy". Computers and Composition: An International Journal for Teachers of Writing. 27: 27–35. 
  8. ^ "Teaching Digital Rhetoric: Community, Critical Engagement, and Application". Pedagogy. Vol. 6 no. 2: 231–259. 2006 – via Project MUSE. 
  9. ^ Cheryl Ball
  10. ^ Eyman, Douglas (2015). Digital rhetoric: Theory, Method, and Practice. University of Michigan Press. p. 171. ISBN 978-0-472-07268-2. 
  11. ^ "Cicero's Classical Canons of Rhetoric: Their Relevance and Importance to the Corporate Workplace". Mary. 2008-04-23. Retrieved 2017-03-27. 
  12. ^ Delagrange, Susan (2009). "Wunderkammer, Cornell, and the Visual Canon of Arrangement". Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy. 13 (2). 
  13. ^ Yancey, Kathleen Blake (2004). "Looking for sources of coherence in a fragmented world: Notes toward a new assessment design" (PDF). Computers and Composition. 21 (1): 89–102. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2003.08.024. 
  14. ^ Brooke, Collin (2002). "Enculturation: Special Multi-journal Issue on Electronic Publication". 4 (1). 
  15. ^ a b c Porter, James E. (2009). "Recovering Delivery for Digital Rhetoric". Computers and Composition. 26 (4): 207–224. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2009.09.004. 
  16. ^ Anne Wysocki; Johndan Johnson-Eilola; Cynthia L. Selfe & Geoffrey Sirc (2003). Writing New Media: Theory and Applications for Expanding the Teaching of Composition. Salt Lake City: U of Utah Press. 
  17. ^ Jeff Rice (2012). Digital Detroit: Rhetoric and Space in the Age of the Network. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. 
  18. ^ Brooke, Collin Gifford (2009). Lingua Fracta: Toward a Rhetoric of New Media. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton. 
  19. ^ a b Zappen, James (2005). "Digital Rhetoric: Toward an Integrated Theory" (PDF). Technical Communication Quarterly. 14 (3): 319–325. doi:10.1207/s15427625tcq1403_10. 
  20. ^ Baron, D. (n.d.). "From Pencils to Pixels: The Stages of Literacy Technology". Retrieved January 1, 2014. 
  21. ^ What is Digital Rhetoric?. 2011 – via YouTube. 
  22. ^ Bolter, J. (1991). Writing space: The computer, hypertext, and the history of writing. Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates. 
  23. ^ Hocks, M. (2003). "Understanding Visual Rhetoric in Digital Writing Environments". College Composition and Communication. 54 (4): 629–656. doi:10.2307/3594188. JSTOR 3594188 – via JSTOR. 
  24. ^ Handa, C. (2004). "Reading the Visual in College Writing Classes By Charles Hill". Visual rhetoric in a digital world: A critical sourcebook. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins. 
  25. ^ a b Kolko, Beth E. (1999). "Representing bodies in virtual space: The rhetoric of avatar design". Information Society. 15 (3): 177–186. doi:10.1080/019722499128484. 
  26. ^ Woolums, V. (Fall 2011). "Gendered Avatar Identity. Kairos". 16 (1). 
  27. ^ Eyman, D. "Digital Rhetoric: Theory, Method, Practice". doi:10.3998/dh.13030181.0001.001. 
  28. ^ Ridolfo, J. & Devoss, D. (2009). "Composing for Recomposition: Rhetorical Velocity and Delivery". Kairos. 13 (2). 
  29. ^ Zoref, Lior (2015). Mindsharing: The Art of Crowdsourcing Everything. Portfolio. p. 95. ISBN 159184665X. 
  30. ^ Ball, Cheryl; Charlton, Colin (2014). "All Writing is Multimodal". In Adler-Kassner, Linda; Wardle, Elizabeth. Naming What We Know: Threshold Concepts of Writing Studies. Utah State University Press. 
  31. ^ a b Burton, G. (n.d.). "What is Rhetoric?". Archived from the original on December 20, 2014. Retrieved December 3, 2014. 
  32. ^ a b Braun, Chaterine, C (2014). Cultivating ecologies for digital media work: The case of English studies. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. 
  33. ^ Braun, Catherine, C; Gilbert, Kenneth, L. "This is Scholarship". Kairos. 
  34. ^ Kuhn, Virginia. "The Rhetoric of Remix". Transformative Works. 
  35. ^ "Digital Rhetoric/Remediation and Remix - Wikibooks, open books for an open world". Retrieved 2018-03-15. 
  36. ^ DeVoss, Jim Ridolfo and Dànielle Nicole (2009-01-15). "Composing for Recomposition: Rhetorical Velocity and Delivery". Retrieved 2018-03-15. 
  37. ^ Reyman, J. (2013). "User Data on the Social Web: Authorship, Agency, and Appropriation" (PDF). College English,. 75 (5): 513–532. Retrieved November 1, 2014 – via 
  38. ^ Electracy is to digital media what literacy is to print —Gregory Ulmer.
  39. ^ Arroyo, Sarah (2013). Participatory Composition: Video Culture, Writing and Electracy. SIU Press. ISBN 978-0809331468. 
  40. ^  Missing or empty |title= (help)
  41. ^ David M. Sheridan; Jim Ridolfo & Anthony J. Michel (March 19, 2012). The Available Means of Persuasion: Mapping a Theory and Pedagogy of Multimodal Public Rhetoric. Anderson, South Carolina: Parlor Press. 
  42. ^ a b Brabham, Daren. Crowdsourcing. MIT Press
  43. ^ Bashayr, A. (Et al.). "Legal and Ethical Issues of Crowdsourcing" (PDF). International Journal of Computer Applications. 
  44. ^ Borgman, Christine (2007). Scholarship in a Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure, and the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. p. 78. 
  45. ^ Dunham, Gary. "What are Trends in Scholarly Publishing?". 
  46. ^ Ball, Cheryl E. (2004). "Show, not tell: The value of new media scholarship" (PDF). Computers & Composition. 21 (4): 403–425. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2004.08.001. 
  47. ^ Kairos
  48. ^ Harlot of the Arts
  49. ^ Enculturation
  50. ^ Reynolds, Thomas J. & Charles R. Lewis (1997). "The changing topography of computer access for composition students". Computers and Composition. 14 (2): 269–278. doi:10.1016/S8755-4615(97)90027-X. 
  51. ^ Hea, Amy C.K., ed. (2009). Going Wireless: A Critical Exploration of Wireless and Mobile Technologies for Composition Teachers and Researchers. Cresskill, N.J.: Hampton Press. pp. 15–33. 
  52. ^ a b Devoss, Dannielle Nicole. "English studies and intellectual property copyright, creativity, and the commons". Pedagogy. 10: 201–215. 
  53. ^ "Creative Commons". 

External links[edit]

Cite error: There are <ref group=Purdue University> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=Purdue University}} template (see the help page).