Click to edit Master text styles
Second level
Third level
Fourth level
Fifth level
‹date/time›
‹footer›<=
span
style=3D'font-size:78%;mso-special-format:lastCR'>
‹#›
------=_NextPart_01C7964E.014F7AF0
content-location: file:///C:/08F46C8D/qualexam_files/master03.xml
content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
content-type: text/xml;
charset="utf-8"
The Qualifying Exam Process
Texas Tech PhD in Techn=
ical Communication
and Rhetoric
Purpose:
Looking back
•=
Synthesizes your course work.
<=
/div>
–Ex: How medical rheto=
ric
course readings connect
to those in document design when doing a discourse analys=
is of
health clinic brochures.
–Ex: How Freire’s
pedagogy connects to theories of written invention and
theories of digital
media.
•Reflects over your co=
urse
work.
•Shows you to be
well-rounded TCRer.
Purpose:
Looking forward
1.Helps
to establish and determine your qualifications as a specialist in order to proceed to dissertation
research
=
•Command of
specialized literature
•Understan=
ding of
the research gaps
2.Focuses
your research question(s) in ways that matter to the field of TCR
=
•Use the
literature to show why we should care? (WGRA?)
•Shows how=
big
civic questions and those from specialized disciplines translate over to the TCR domain.
–Ex: ̶=
0;Why
do institutions spend time and money writing planning documents (business plans, strategic pla=
ns, environmental policy plans, etc.) that no one reads?” U=
94; “What
rhetorical and technical communication strategies can a writer employ to help her institution develop more
usable and indispensable pla=
nning
documents?
=
3.Shows
a command of research methods you might use.
![](3D"slide0006_image001.gif")
Between
coursework and diss.
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
Preliminary
proposal
Committee
finali= zes
finali= zes
wording
![](3D"slide0006_image002.gif")
Exam
![](3D"slide0006_image003.gif")
Reading List
(100 books,
(100 books,
4 articles =3D=
1 book
Work w/ committee<=
br>
on ex=
am
questions
Meet w/ committee<=
br>
![](3D"slide0006_image004.gif")
Final proposal
The reading list
•=
List of 100 books or the equivalent in articles (=
four articles equal one book)
•<=
/span>Materials for TCR (broadly defined) and materials=
for your area of interest within the field
•=
Materials for specialty area outside the field (e=
.g. economic theory, history of nursing, computer
software)
•=
You may group the items by themes or issues, such=
as composition pedagogy, history of rhetoric, audien=
ce, and
visual communication. &#=
13;
•=
Some of these books and articles you will have re=
ad already in your classes and some will likely be n=
ew.
Exam questions
•Three
or four take-home questions answered=
over a
four-day period.
•Most
relate specifically to your proposed
dissertation topic and might eventually
serve as dissertation content.
•=
Literature uniting TCR and your topic.
•=
Justify your method
•One may be a a general TCR topic outside your area of
specialty.
–
•=
Spend approximately 8-12 hours writing the entire
exam.
•=
Approximately 6000 words for the entire exam.
•=
Answer to each question should include a formal
works-cited list.
Q1: Comp focus
•Where do theories of composition and=
technical
communication overlap? What common pool of knowledge in rhetoric=
al theory
do these two sub-disciplines draw from? What common proble=
ms or
research questions do the two fields consider?
Where do composition theory and technical communication theory <=
/span>diverge?
Q1: TCR focus
Suppose
you are at a conference talking to some people about your goals in the field of technical=
communication. A few big names in the field are a=
t the table, but the spotlight is on you. Someone with =
a background in composition asks you how techn=
ical communication is different from composition studi=
es.
"I hear people in t=
ech
comm talk about rhetoric, but it would
seem to me that tech comm is more about computer
programming. What's the tie to rhetoric?
What do you folks teach your students?" How would you answer this person?
Q1 or =
2: Your
specialty and TCR
Technical
Communicators largely accept the previously contentious idea of a relationship between
“rhetoric” and “science”,
and often simply combine these terms to indicate “the rhetoric of science,” or
“rhetoric of science”, but
the exact relationship between “science” and “rhetoric” is (and is likely to remai=
n)
problematic. Summ=
arize
the key technical communication scholarship in this area, and describe the differences between
“the rhetoric of
science,” “rhetorical science,” and “the <=
/span>rhetorical presentation of science.” How do=
these rhetorical approaches to science derive from and =
correspond to studies in philosophy and sociology=
of science?
Q1 or =
2: Your
specialty and TCR
•
Who is the most important theorist on the subject
of intercultural communication? Defend your position both=
by
discussing the strengths and weaknesses of this individual’s
work and by comparing and contrasting his/her work with that =
of at
least two other likely choices.
Q1 or =
2: Your
specialty and TCR
1.You
have argued that it is no longer fruitful for technology studies to continue obsessing on the issue of determinism, a=
nd that
evolution of homo-tool-user=
might
be more fruitful. Is there a
similar impasse in te=
chnical
communication theory that corresponds to the heideggerian or marcusian preoccupation with
"essence" or the feenbergian
preoccupation with socialism? If
so, describe this impas=
se and
explain its underlying assumptions; if not, explain how the field has avoided topics that congeal progres=
sive
discussion.
2.As
the field of technical communication develops, we encounter a variety of "progress narratives" that s=
eek to
show how it is either movin=
g in a
good direction or in a bad direction.&nb=
sp;
How do our theori=
sts
represent progress in the field's literature? How might we conceive of alternative narratives about our fiel=
d's
development and traje=
ctory?
Thinking of your reading list theorists in technology philosophy, who might correspond to the Heidegger=
, the
Marcuse, the Ellul, the Fe=
enberg,
the Winner in our own field?
Q3: Methods
•All metho=
ds
questions are more or less variations
on the following:
– “Explain your methods and why they are better =
than
others for addressing your question and leading to valuable insights for your
field.”
Methods questions
1.Explain the methods that you will use in your dissertation research and how such methods) can <=
/span>inform the practice of tutoring and/or directing =
writing
centers in worki=
ng with
business and technical communication
students. How will you ensu=
re that
your methods are
trustworthy and that your findings will
have relevance beyond your research setting?
2.You propose two primary methods for assessing intercultural awareness in technical communicatio=
n textbooks: discourse analysis and a survey of instructors. Drawing from scholarship on research=
methods and technical communication, make the case that these two methods together will be trustworthy, insightful, and useful to the field =
of technical communication.
–=
Question 4: General
•The
conference lounge question to impress bigwigs.
–=
You will likely be asked to teach a technical
communication servi=
ce
course (for example, Introduction to Technical Writing, ENGL 2311) long before you are given the opportun=
ity to
teach graduate level co=
urses
related to one single theory or set of theories (i.e. Rhetoric of Science, Feminist Meth=
ods,
Ethics, etc.). What might=
a
feminist approach, or an ethics-centered approach, to teaching the technical communication
service course look like?=
Write
an essay that identifies and summarizes key elements of these approaches (feminism and et=
hics)
in relation to teach=
ing
technical communication.
Good and not so good exams
•Poor answer
–Meandering, w/o a clear
thesis.
–Literature sprinkled =
about
w/o coherence, name dropping.
–Too much personal lore
not balanced with literature.
–Claims are too sweeping.
•Good answer
–Both breadth and depth.
–Clear argument throughout.
–Literature synthesize=
d with
sophistication.
–Confidence w/o bravado.
–Leaves the reader wanting
more.
Questions,
comments?
‹header›
‹date/time›
Click to edit Master text styles
Second level
Third level
Fourth level
Fifth level
‹footer›
‹#›
' + ENDSHOW_MESG + '
![](3D"notes_flag.gif")
N=
otes![](3D"buttons.gif")
