Scholarship on the Move - 4 - Discussion Groups

Aug 30, 2026

An academic analysis examines how online discussion groups, including email listservs and Twitter communities, function as spaces for scholarly activity rather than only professional development. Drawing on evidence from Techrhet exchanges, the work argues that discussion posts can employ rhetorical and argumentative elements—dialogic exchange, information sharing, vetting ideas, and exploring current disciplinary issues—without necessarily aiming at definitive conclusions. It compares depth-of-analysis perceptions shaped by text length with alternative ways to assess argumentative strategies, highlighting how digital affordances can reshape thoroughness and influence.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryGeneral

FormatDOCX

Pages14

Reading Time5 min

AccessFree to download

A Note on Scholarly Content and Discussion Groups

Explicit Argument

Depth of Analysis

Books

Articles

Short Articles

Conference Presentations

Listserv Posts

Scholarship on the Move – 4 (Discussion Groups) by James P. Purdy and Joyce R. Walker This Prezi is one of six by James P. Purdy and Joyce R. Walker for “Scholarship on the Move,” a piece in The New Work of Composing, forthcoming by Utah State University Press and Computers and Composition Digital Press (http://ccdigitalpress.org/). Discussion Groups A Note on Scholarly Content and Discussion Groups When moving into a discussion of spaces like email discussion groups and Twitter groups, it's important to recognize that these spaces seem to be more often associated with professional development than scholarship (i.e., while its possible that some institutions might allow faculty to list participation in discipline-specific discussion groups as part of their professional development contributions, permission to list the same participation as a scholarly contribution would be much less likely). (see note 1.) NOTES In fact, in a discussion on Techrhet regarding this issue, the following exchange between two participants illustrates the ongoing dialogue regarding the place of discussion groups in tenure and promotion: Excerpt from a post by Carrie Lamanna: "...If you participate in a significant way in a particular thread, I'd argue for going further than listing it in the annual activities report as Mike Palmquist mentioned. I'd say that such participation is the same as presenting at a conference—you are presenting research/making arguments and engaging in discussion with colleagues about said research/arguments." Excerpt from the response post by Michael Palmquist: "Good point. I worry that you'd run into problems with that argument, though. Although it's pretty easy to get into some conferences, barriers usually exist. In contrast, there are few barriers (if any) to participating in online discussions. I think some online discussions are important, but I can think of a lot that aren't, and in the main I suspect most people put far more time into preparing a conference presentation than they put into the vast majority of email list posts." ("Using Techrhet for Tenure and Promotion," Techrhet, Jan.31, 2010) This is, in fact, a core component of our argument. If there is evidence that scholarly kinds of activities (using our more diverse framework for identifying scholarly activity) are occurring in these spaces, then perhaps we might increase the likelihood that scholars who are active in these spaces could receive credit for this type of scholarly production. Explicit Argument In our sections on webtexts and blogs, we found that similar types of scholarly activity are indeed occurring, in spite of differences between the two types of texts. Some of the criteria we used to examine those sections included the use of rhetorical elements of argument, the language of argument, the use of images as evidence and illustration, a linear organization, and the inclusion of citational gestures in support of arguments. One of the most salient features of discussion groups is that while they may indeed also contain these same elements of argument, they are not necessarily designed or intended by their users to lead to definitive statements. While we quite easily found evidence of the use of argumentative strategies, in the discussion groups these strategies are often used in the service of primarily dialogic exchanges, information sharing, the process of vetting theories or arguments in development, or exploration of a range of issues current within the discipline. However, it is certainly not impossible to argue that these same activities are similar to the primary work done by print texts in a field such as computers and writing. Therefore, in analyzing how discussion groups use argument, it seems more relevant to discuss how these uses might parallel, or depart from, the purposes for which arguments are used in conventional texts. One common idea that has separated discussion posts from more conventional print-based texts that are seen

FAQs

Why are email and Twitter discussion groups often treated as professional development rather than scholarship?

They are frequently associated with professional activities, and listing participation as scholarship is considered less likely in tenure and promotion contexts. The text notes this perception and the ongoing dialogue about where discussion-group engagement should be credited.

What argumentative elements are found in discussion groups despite their dialogic purpose?

Discussion groups can use rhetorical elements of argument, the language of argument, images as evidence, linear organization, and citational gestures. However, these strategies often serve dialogic exchanges, information sharing, and the ongoing development and testing of theories.

How does the document address the idea that print texts have greater “depth-of-analysis” than discussion posts?

It argues that depth cannot be judged simply by length, since argument structure is affected by factors like page length. It also proposes that thoroughness is only one criterion among multiple ways to assess argumentative strategies, allowing for scholarly discussions with narrow focus.

Aug 30, 2026

Upload by Valentina