Fighting Back Responding to Dennis Jerz's Attack Analysis, or
Why Striking Out Should Be Struck-out, Students Should Be Heard, and
Meta-Commentary Rocks  < It sure does! >

James A. Inman
Co-Editor and Co-Publisher

Not one to be "out-cheek-ied" in tone, if I can help it, I thought I'd respondreply compose a response to Dennis Jerz's projectwebtext critique.

< Hmmm----I talk a good game, but am I really cheeky at times?  I dunno.  Oh, well. >

I don't disagree with the critique of the Kairos interface, as the journal has evolved over time, and I'm especially pleased to know the journal provides his classes opportunities to discuss web design and publishing.  Instead of fighting back responding, then, by arguing that the Kairos design was not fairly reasonably critiqued, an untenable position in my mind, I offer my own critique and discussion of Jerz's site design choices.

First, it's important to realize that a fundamental distinction exists between drawing a line through striking out words and erasing them; this distinction is best described by the term "visibility."  That is, words that have been struck out remain visible for readers; their character is not obscured to such a degree that they are unreadable.  So, words beneath strike-outs bear the same responsibility as words without such marks: both are visible, both convey meaning for readers, and both are intentional.

< Should I write this?  There aren't many strike-outs in Jerz's project.  Maybe I'll use it as an entrance point for others who'll join the conversation in Kairos Interactive >

With this idea in mind, I'll turn to the most visible strike-out in Jerz's project: the header for the final section, as referenced on the index page.  As you'll see, if you don't remember the header, it reads "Parting Shots Thoughts."  Including the "Shots" strike-out suggests a considerably different tone than if "Thoughts" had been there alone.  Indeed, Jerz terms his own project as "cheeky," and this strucken-out rhetoric is one example of where that tone emerges.  And, because the strike-out is still visible, it devalues, I believe, the critique, suggesting that Jerz takes shots at Kairos, when  he's actually performing and presenting a much more thorough analysis.  The issue I'll raise, then, ultimately, is whether efforts like the striking-out are necessary to achieve "cheek-i-ness," or instead if the critique publication analysis writing review project effort text pursuit interrogation report account delineation representation sketch depictment argument dissection induction examination investigation pervestigation inquiry interpellation discussion query reasoning logic case rationale statement illustration webtext should stand on its own with implicitly a more formal tone.

< My new best friend:  Roget.  Heh. >

And, I don't have the answer (Readers: please join Jerz and the Kairos team in this issue's interactive forum to discuss just such issues!), meaning only to raise the issue as an entrance into conversation.

Next, I want to emphasize the importance of metaprocessing and metadiscourse, as Jerz provides in his analysis and as I'm simulating at least to some degree in this response.

< Yay metaprocessing and metadiscourse! >

<Yay the yay of metaprocessing and metadiscourse! >

< Yay the yay of the yay of metaprocessing and metadiscourse! >

< Yay the yay of the yay of the yay of metaprocessing and metadiscourse! >

< Yay the yay of the yay of the yay of the yay . . . . Aw, heck, they get it. >

Several examples of this sort of metadiscourse are evident on Jerz's pages, as he uses them in support of his "cheeky" tone, helping us understand the effect/s he is hoping to create and the way he is thinking about web design and publishing issues.  Perhaps the file that best illustrates this approach is his letter.html, titled "Requiem for a Useful Critical Target."  In writing courses, we often talk to students about the importance of reflection, either in terms of making sound revision and editing choices about a paper in progress or about the way they can come to understand themselves as writers, yet such reflective efforts are generally absent from our own writing.  (CoverWeb Editor Joel English offers an exception to the rule, as he writes about reflection in MOO environments; see his "MOO-Based Metacognition," published previously in Kairos, and his "Putting the 'OO' in MOO," a chapter in Taking Flight with OWLs, reviewed in this issue of Kairos.)  Jerz, in this way, offers us a model for adding reflection into our own work, our scholarly or sometimes not so scholarly projects in development.  Of equal or possibly more importance, he shows us that we don't have to "formalize" our thoughts and perspectives; while I realize we don't ask out students to reflect formally, the issue still is key because the way we typically situate our voice in scholarly publications requires more formality.

Finally, I'd like to praise Jerz's emphasis on student voices, especially as it relates to the ethos of Kairos, which reflects an interest in and respect for both graduate and undergraduate students.

< I wonder if readers of Kairos know how many students have been actively involved in the development and editorial process of our journal----hmm. >

Attention to student voices is key, and Jerz's choice to include full versions of their responses (see the files tw-full.html and review11.htm in particular) as data for readers to peruse is important, as it enables everyone who encounters his webtext to examine the same data and see if they'd draw the same or similar conclusions.

< Errr, should I contextualize those file references more?  Naah.  (:   >

While ultimately readers still rely on Jerz (and other authors, of course, who include student voices in other projects) for analysis and understanding, the sort of "full disclosure" transcripts and records offer is key.  At the same time, more attention should be paid to what Jerz does.  Notice that he doesn't just add links to the data; he incorporates them into the analysis directly, using a color-coded table, for instance, in the tw-samples.html file and using bulleted lists in the about.html file.  The quality model, then, reflects a statement like this:  Student voices should be both indexed in their entirety and included in publications grounded in classroom and even extracurricular discourse.

In closing, let me again invite readers to join Jerz and the Kairos team in our interactive forum for further discussion.  Many of you have encouraged us to develop more interactivity, and we've definitely been listening.  As always, please also email the editors directly with your feedback and ideas.

vol. 5 Iss. 1 Spring 2000