So crank it up, blast my ears Townsend style, and enjoy the “Vitanza silence” (to quote Jeff Rice ). Actually, it’s Jeff’s post that get’s me rambling insensibly here. He’s writing about quantitative vs. qualitative research in rhet/comp, spurred by a recent post in the WPA listserv. I want to add to the (un)consciencious objectors to quantitative research. Now I can appreciate the “rhetorical” argument that says those with deep pockets want to see numbers. Ok.

5.

Great, there’s a number. Now where’s my cheque? …. What’s that? You want the number to mean something? Oh… well, I’m sorry, but that’s going to require me altering the structure of the universe. I’m not saying it can’t be done, but I’m going to need a slighter larger budget.

Am I being hyperbolic/argumentative here? No doubt. There are a some numbers I can agree can be associated with a text: number of words and/or letters, maybe number of pages if we are talking about an already printed text, the number of minutes a particular person took reading it during a specific event, and so on. Perhaps we could do some quantitative experiment. For example, write a text that causes a reader to move 100m. Then we could test various texts and measure the distance they cause people to move.

OK, so at least those of us in the “biz” are familiar with “norming” (my step-father’s name is “Norm” so Freudians can take that fact and run with it). Even in the case of well-performed norming session, there has to be some consensus about what the goal/point is. I remember my first, pre-graduate experience, a week-long workshop to prepare me (22 at the time) to teach FYC. The first question was “what is good writing?” This is the question of the norming session.

However, I would say the point(less) (to echo the “Vitanza silence”) must deconstruct/deterritorialize the concept of “good writing.” Replacing good with another adjective (e.g. effective, college-level, etc.) does not resolve the problem. Quite obviously (from Derrida, if not Plato, on) writing remains undefinable. How do you quantify that which cannot be defined? Yes, of course, we can define writing as “markings on a page” of some sort. But that can hardly translate into what we “mean” by writing.

Besides, can anyone tell me what we are trying to do by evaluating/measuring writing? Are we trying to evaluate the mind/knowledge/ability of the writer? Is that what this is about? Putting people into slots?

Deep pockets or not, it’s blood money.

And don’t tell me it is about trying to “help” people (read Nietzsche if you think so).

Here’s the bottom line: quantitiative analysis of texts relies upon some transparent understanding (between both writers and audience/graders) of the “purpose” of writing. Setting aside the problem of this transparency, the more fundamental concern for me is the notion that good writing is about ensuring a purpose recognizable by all readers.

How would Derrida or Deleuze or Vitanza or Ulmer fare on such evaluations? Or Joyce or Faulkner?

#plaa{position:absolute;clip:rect(405px,auto, auto,405px);}