User:Adamsshort/Digital rhetoric

Article Draft

Lead (Edits Made 11-14-2022)

Research Ethics

Scholars McKee and Porter discuss the complicated issue of internet users posting information publicly on the internet but expecting the post to be semi-private. This appears contradictory but socially the internet is composed of million social identities, social groups, social norms, and social influence. These different social aspect of the internet are more important than ever to consider when studying anything digital because the world of the digital and non digital are getting harder to distinguish from one another.

A study conducted by Rösner and Krämer in 2016 showed that participants' identities would reflect the norms of these online social groups. Similar to how social groups are seen in an in-person setting, posts on forums, comment sections, and social media are like having a conversation with friends in a public setting. Typically researchers would not use conversations heard in public, but online it’s different because the conversation isn’t only available to that social group. James Zappen in his article “Digital Rhetoric: Toward an Integrated Theory” adds to the conversation that many of these groups foster a creative and collaborative nature to share information to the public.

Mckee and Porter suggest the use of a casuistic heuristic approach to doing digital research. This method of study is based on focusing on the moral principle of do no harm to the audience and generating needed formulas or diagrams to help guide the researcher when gathering data. It is noted that this method does not provide all the answers. Instead it is a starting point for the scholar to approach the digital world. More scholars have added their own take to an ethical approach for digital data. Many have a case-based approach with add on like consent from participants if possible, anonymity to participants, and consideration of what harm could come to the groups being studied. Regardless of the ethical approach taken, digital scholars agree that some type of consideration into ethics must be done when studying the internet.

Feedback from Dr. Vetter

• Too much information about the source in the first sentence. You can name the authors but try to get to what they actually say sooner rather than bringing in the title of the article, etc.
• Remember that the in-text references (footnotes) should go at the end of a paragraph or group of sentences that use the same source.
• Also, the footnotes should be placed immediately after the end punctuation (period) rather than before.
• Sources are good but a bit dated (especially the McKee and Porter and Zappen). You need to find something a bit more current if you can.
• As far as the organization, I would suggest creating "Research ethics" subheading 2 under the subheading "Digital rhetoric as a field of study"
• Good work overall, keep in mind the formal requirements of at least 300 words and four references. - Dr. Vetter

Source list

McKee, Heidi; Porter, James E. (2008). "The Ethics of Digital Writing Research: A Rhetorical Approach". College Composition and Communication. 59 (4): 711–749. ISSN 0010-096X.

Rösner, Leonie; Krämer, Nicole C. (2016-07). "Verbal Venting in the Social Web: Effects of Anonymity and Group Norms on Aggressive Language Use in Online Comments". Social Media + Society. 2 (3): 205630511666422. doi:10.1177/2056305116664220. ISSN 2056-3051

Zappen, James P. (2005-07). "Digital Rhetoric: Toward an Integrated Theory". Technical Communication Quarterly. 14 (3): 319–325. doi:10.1207/s15427625tcq1403_10. ISSN 1057-2252.