Prelim Exam Questions
To prepare for my dissertation, my exam prep lists were more broadly situated in digital rhetoric, rhetorical criticism in the online public sphere, and network cultures and technologies. This trifecta gave me a solid footing for wading into the depths of rhetoric and Internet culture, and my exam questions (see below) were a source of unexpected a-ha moments for my research agenda. Thanks, committee members, for putting me through a serendiptious ringer.
Exam Question 1) Digital Rhetoric: Theory and Practice
What does rhetoric bring to the study of digital media? Consider this question in several ways:
- First, the positive: what capabilities, what authority, and what achievements can rhetoric contribute to the study of digital media artifacts and phenomena? Develop a brief discussion by pointing to specific examples of work from your reading list, both works that address the digital and those that don’t but could provide materials for doing so.
- Then the negative: what limitations, what baggage, what conceptual blind spots does “rhetoric” as a discipline (though a baggy and ill-defined one at that) bring to the digital realm? Again, briefly develop your answer by discussing the shortcomings in the scholarship as illustrated by specific works on your reading list in digital rhetoric.
- Finally, consider in more detail whether rhetoric itself has already been revised, expanded, or otherwise changed by its encounter with the digital. Look for evidence both within particular items on your reading list and within the reading list as a snapshot of a field. Are there signs of continuity or discontinuity? resistance or innovation? slow adaptation or radical transformation? Other signs?
Exam Question 2) Rhetorical Criticism of the Online Public Sphere
David Zarefsky concludes his discussion of “Knowledge Claims in Rhetorical Criticism” with this paragraph:
Finally, it is important to clarify why one engages in rhetorical criticism and why it is a valuable mode of inquiry in its own right. Explicating how rhetorical texts or actions ‘‘work’’ and why they matter is valuable in enabling people both to be appreciative of the artful use of rhetoric and to be sensitive to the possibility of its abuse. In addition, criticism enables one to assess whether and how particular works perform the two principal functions of rhetoric: building community and inspiring people to achieve collective goals. The first function is performed as the rhetor identifies with the audience, establishing and strengthening common bonds among people and thereby constituting otherwise isolated individuals as a public with shared interests and values. The second is performed as the rhetor articulates a vision or goal and motivates an audience to seek and pursue it. By explaining how this work is done in particular cases, rhetorical criticism offers models for appreciation, insights for possible emulation, and instances of abuse for condemnation. (pp. 638–39).
Drawing from your reading list on Rhetorical Criticism of the Online Public Sphere, evaluate how well the examples of critical practice on your reading list fulfill Zarefsky’s vision for rhetorical criticism. Select and discuss in some detail two examples of critical practice, one that illustrates these claims for rhetorical criticism pretty well and one that falls short in one or more ways.
Then, based on your discussion above, consider the more general issue of how well Zarefsky’s conception of rhetorical criticism suits “the online public sphere” and the activities and artifacts that constitute it. Discuss any differences between the “public sphere” as traditionally conceived in rhetorical studies and the “online public sphere” that might require a rethinking of the goals and functions of a rhetorical criticism adapted to online discourse. What changes, if any, would you want to make in Zarefsky’s statement to describe rhetorical criticism for the online environment? Explain and justify your revisions.
Exam Question 3) Network Cultures & Technologies
Scholarly accounts on the history of the Internet (e.g. Abbatte, Rheingold, Beer, Turkle) often highlight four main phases in its development:
- The 1970s, when access was restricted to the military and computer science departments;
- The 1980s, when access expanded to a small percentage of the general public with specialized knowledge, such as hackers and hobbyists;
- The 1990s, which witnessed the development of the WWW (a.k.a. Web 1.0) and increasing participation of the general public in the construction of webpages, and
- The 2000s, when many pointed out the development of a “new” web, called 2.0. (e.g., O’Reilly, Beer, boyd, Bruns, Shirky, Jenkins, etc.)
Focusing on the transition from the Web 1.0. to Web 2.0.:
- Outline the technological characteristics of Web 2.0 that have facilitated the remix, sharing, and distribution of content online, and
- Bearing in mind the supposed promise of Web 2.0, comment on how networks of actors (cultural, political, legal, etc.) have shaped or been shaped by the technologies associated with Web 2.0.
In your answer, be sure to cite specific examples, texts, and thinkers to make and support your points.