Funferal

UICC colloquium

Last Friday saw a one day colloquium in Chicago where students of the Institute of Communications Research at UIUC had an opportunity to meet with students of the Communications Department at UIC. Organised by Sabryna Cornish the motivation came from the increasingly closer links between the two units, with some students from UIC now being enrolled in the ICR’s doctoral program (UIC does not have its own doctoral program in communications). There was also input from the department of Speech Communication at UIUC, with one of their students making the trip to Chicago to present some interesting research on the atitudes of cancer patients and their partners to availability of information.
A total of twelve students made presentations relating to their research, spanning a wide range of methodologies and topics. There was also a welcome surprise in the form of a video conference with Professor James Carey, currently in New York, and formerly a Dean of the College of Communications at Urbana. A number of faculty from the two programs also addressed the group, discussing the nature of the collaboration between the two programs, and the role of communications research, and the academy in general (a topic also addressed by Prof. Carey).

Steve Jones opened the event by introducing Kevin Barnhurst who has recently taken over from him as head of the UIC department. Prof. Barnhurst looked at why the interaction between the departments is happening now. Though it is easy to implicate technology (the internet makes contact easier) this is not sufficiant (we had telephone and the mail shuttle in the past) and he drew attention to personal interaction and contacts between the two campuses.
Pointing to the role played by ‘guinea pig’ students who are taking part in the evolving joint program he referred to Dewey’s comments on the individual and groups. Since individuals belong to various different groups, needs of groups can only be fulfilled when different groups interact. Groups need to liberate the potential of the individuals who belong to them. This is important not because of groups and democracy separately, but because democracy arises out of groups.
He was followed by John Nerone of UIUC, incidentally a co-author of Barnhurst, who fittingly, given his status as an historian, gave a brief history of the interaction of the two units, and pointed to Colloquium organiser [and frequent funferal guest columnist] Sabryna Cornish as an embodiment of the interaction. He looked forward to to continued development of the link, noting that Steve and Kevin would be travelling to Urbana to take part in the ICR’s faculty meeting this Friday (30th).
Cliff Christians, former director of the ICR, followed John and described the ‘ICR approach’ which focuses on interdisciplinarity and thinking in depth. Christians saw Steve Jones, an ICR alumn, as providing a prime example of this approach – noting that Steve had chosen to have 6 members on his dissertation committee, never an easy feat. He also pointed to the lack of an MA in Urbana as providing a possible arena for future collaboration.
Moving to the role of a PhD program Christians talked of the citizen-scholar, someone who is concerned not just with abstract matters but with engaging with the issues of the day and making a difference in the world around them. The Carnegie project’s conception of the role of PhD program provided some useful ideas, though Christians would want the core concept to be somewhat more fluid than their suggestion of steward. Prof. Christians closed by noting that the interaction is going well, if slow. It was symbolically appropriate, he felt, to have the conference before the faculty meeting as it is ideas, rather than administrivia that matter.
The first panel was chaired by Andy Rojecki. Camille Johnson began with a metaphorical analysis of Microsoft ads over time, showing how they demonstrated changes in understandings of the internet. From ‘human assistant’ in 1990, to ‘computer as family/parent’ in 1998 to ‘computer as person and person as computer in 2003’ the trend was for a personalisation of computers.
Grant Kien of the ICR spoke next, performing extracts from an autoethnography on performing Westerness in South Korea. From trying to locate a bookstore to various experiences in purchasing goods, he examined some of the assumptions challenged by this different social setting. Han Lee, speaking next, looked at how race and ethnicity are constructed in online dating sites in his piece “Social constructivism and identity in cyberspace.” Jenn Diaz wrapped up the panel with an analysis of rhetoric in bathroom grafitti. This interesting study examined the discourse undertaken from the point of view of the logical fallacies to which authors referred in dismissing or challenging the writings of previous posters. Other parts of the study look at the bounds of accepted discourse (such as where authors challenge the use of certain language, occasionally censoring through the simple method of scribbling over offensive terms).
Following questions from the audience we broke for lunch. In a change from the schedule (to accommodate Carey’s appearance) lunch was shortened and the second panel took place as people ate, which made for a slightly more relaxed atmosphere (good thinking should, of course, be accompanied by good food, and the buffet provided was excellent). Annette Markham of UIC chaired, and the first panellist was Ivon Rivera of UIC who discussed her own experiences, as a native Spanish speaker and experienced chat room participant in that language, in taking part in discussino groups and chats in English following her move to UIC. She was followed by Angela Lawson’s discussion of a project she is working on which will examine some ‘Flash Mob’ style actions through a semi-fictionalized and narrative approach.
I spoke next on the topic of electronic voting in Ireland, one of my main projects of the moment, giving a presentation based on the latest version of my essay on the topic. The last speaker was Claudio Moreira, also of the ICR, who, in ‘They are made for sex’ presented extracts of an autoethnography in progress that looks at life in areas of deprivation in Brazil, which examines why certain people are raped, examining dominant narratives. A layered and complex piece it is in places harrowing, and attempts to identify what actions might be successful in breaking cycles of sexual abuse.
Following a short break we started our video conference with Professor Carey. He had hoped to attend in person, but this proved not to be possible, so Steve Jones was able, through the miracles of iSight and iChat, to arrange a ‘virtual’ keynote. I had not seen iSight work previously, and all they say is true. The image of Prof. Carey – projected onto a large screen – was clear and fluid. We used the internal microphone from the iSight, and while at times Prof. Carey had some difficulty hearing those further back in the room it generally worked well (I suspect that feedback from the speakers at both ends was a factor here, and the use of headphones would lead to even better sound reception).
In lieu of a prepared talk – given the short notice at which the event had been arranged – Prof. Carey invited questions from those present, and a lively debate on the role and nature of the academy ensued.
After the ‘v-note’ speech we began the third and final panel, chaired by Mike Vari, a student at UIC. Kristen Lindholm of UIUC’s Speech Comm department began with her analysis, mentioned above, of the information that people with cancer, and their partners want. She identified seven areas of ‘dilemmas’ where different people express preferences that differ from each other, creating difficulties for professionals planning to deal with patients. These include amount of information, and – somewhat strikingly – consistency of information, with some people preferring to see sources that provided different conclusions.
Sreela Sakar outlined her case study of a community video art group. Among the interesting points were a resistance to being termed ‘activists.’ She also drew attention to the fact that while video production is a democratic form of production, the sites in which videos are displayed and exhibited are traditional, elitist venues, with institutionalist/elitist descriptions being affixed to the exhibitions.
Kevin Harvey examined websites for online education, arguing that the metaphors used (stressing speed, time and place) served to commoditise education. Finally, Tom Shipp outlined his project on British newspaper coverage of the Iraq war, which shows a striking consistency on both the Left and Right (he examined the Guardian and the Telegraph) in the way in which they challenge American values and norms.
And then, as in all the best conferences, we adjourned to a local ‘tavern’ – Jak’s Bar. For those who care about such things, Jak’s now serves Smithwicks, a long time favourite of mine which has only recently become available in Chicago. (I first became aware of Smithwicks’ availability here at another great pub, this one run by fellow Galwegian Billy Lawless, The Irish Oak on Clarke St.)