Notes
Guide to my materials
English 569—Rhetoric, Urban Justice, and Public Engagement (Spring 2020)
Candice Rai, English
My course is at an early stage of development and much will shift based on the community-partnerships I build over the next 9 months.
Here’s what I’ve included in my materials:
some backstory about my previous experiences developing community-based courses and partnerships and about my investment in issues of urban equity
a projected timeline for building relationships and project planning
a checklist for collaborative project design
a heuristic for assessing this course and some general questions for next week
dust devils of thoughts swirling around
the syllabus draft with sketched course projects
Thank you so much for reading. I welcome all feedback, push back, and ideas!
Building on Previous Experience
Placed-based, Publicly-Oriented, Collaborative Research
As teacher, scholar, and administrator, my general disposition leans toward:
1) collaborative work rooted in long-term relationships built on trust and reciprocity;
2) place-based work grounded in local issues/contexts/communities/exigencies (which is not to say I’m not interested in macro-level forces, let’s say global capitalism—but I tend to be compelled by and drawn to an understanding how such forces manifest and shape everyday life. I think this is because I find hope in engaging the everyday as a way to make meaningful and tangible changes with others. I suppose, too, this must be why field-based approaches appeal to me);
3) ongoing reflexive engagement with systemic inequity and violence (what forms of systemic inequity exist here or there; how are these forms reproduced and how do I/we participate in their reproduction; and how might I/we imagine and negotiate a more just collective life—Such questions, for example, are centered in ethnographic work I’ve done on affordable housing in Chicago as much as in changes I’ve tried to make in my writing program ecology to promote more equitable (and less racist) assessment practices.);
4) an interest in the formation of publics and in capacities required to respond to the complex public problems we face.
Well, that’s enough for now.
Of late, this work has been grounded in what I do as the director of the Expository Writing Program. As I turn the corner to finishing my rotation as director, I look forward to having the time and energy to return to my work on urban justice that began in Chicago.
To be brief, long before I entered graduate school, I became very interested in affordable housing advocacy and urban zoning in Chicago. I was connected with activists doing work on these issues in a neighborhood called Uptown on Chicago’s north side, which eventually became the research site for my book, Democracy’s Lot. That book is an ethnography, over a decade in the making, on contested publics and neighborhood politics, grounded in case studies on affordable housing and gentrification, public art and activism, community policing, and public space.
I’m sharing this because developing my course is a welcome opportunity to return to these interests in Seattle.
Community-based teaching and partnership
I have various experiences with community-based pedagogy. At the University of Illinois-Chicago, I co-designed and taught in a new certificate program for undergraduates, called the Chicago Civic Leadership Certificate Program, which involved building multiyear partnerships with Chicago non-profits and governmental organizations to serve as sites for collaborative public writing and research projects. As a graduate student, this was a formative experience for me and my peers teaching in the program, many of whom have gone on to shape their careers around what we might call public scholarship and engaged teaching.
At UW, I have done a lot of work in teacher preparation in K-12 contexts and in EWP and have participated in several community-engaged research and pedagogy projects related to this work. For example, I have collaborated on public engagement projects including co-leading a community-based partnership with high school teachers to collaboratively design writing-as-social-action curriculum and co-founding and coordinating the Phoenix Project which offers service learning opportunities to future K-12 literary arts teachers in partnership with Seattle area teachers.
Looking Ahead
I plan to spend the next 9 months laying the groundwork for building relationships with Seattle organizations and stakeholders (including other faculty and students) working on issues of urban justice around, for example, interrelated issues of housing affordability, racial equity, sustainability, and transportation.
Ideally, these partnerships would extend beyond this graduate course, which I plan to teach in Spring 2020. For example, beginning in fall, I’ll also be the new writing partnership coordinator in English and plan to continue offering 100-level community-based writing courses and pilot community-based courses at the 200-300-level. A small team of instructors and I will be developing courses (some of which will be community-based) that take up issues of urban equity and sustainability next year. I’d love to continue collaborating with organizations. Similar to my experience of working with K-12 teachers and schools in the Phoenix Project, I would love to develop partnerships that deepen over time where we can co-develop projects that are taken up by different student groups as makes sense to everyone & where partners might opt in and out at different points & and where the nature of the collaborative work can evolve depending on everyone’s needs.
As mentor for teachers of these courses, I see this as an opportunity for creating more professional development and community for teachers interested in this kind of pedagogy. This is all to say that I see the labor of partnership building for this graduate course as a starting point, not an endpoint.
Possible partners:
UW’s Urban@UWUW’s Homelessness Research Group
Timeline and Process of Partnership Building and Project Development
Overview
I am using this summer and into next year as an opportunity to begin the process of establishing
relationships with potential partners and to learn more about what is going on in Seattle.
In the past, I have created a CFP for organizations and circulated through the UW Carlson Center, as well as directly reached out to organizations. The CFP would articulate course goals and a range of possible projects ideas. Collaborative projects will be guided by the general criteria that the project contributes to the organization’s work and to the students’ education, requires the methods and expertise students bring, and involves concrete written/composed outcomes, whether this entails a write up of interview data that was collected, drafted sections of grant proposal, participating in qualitative research, etc. I imagine that the collaboratively designed projects, with perhaps 1-3 partners, would be co-designed before the start of the quarter and that graduate students would decide which projects they would most like to participate in. My preference is to allow the shape and scope of projects to emerge through collaboration with partners, first, and then negotiated with student research teams through the quarter. This will take some creative plansning to keep things flexible, structured, and doable enough. The collaborative group projects need wiggle room, options, and parts yet to be shaped so that the students can collaborate and find their way into the projects. The description in the syllabus and the checklist for developing these projects below offer a bit more shape to these yet-to-be-designed projects.
2019
June and July: Learn more about existing Seattle projects, organizations, and initiatives. Meet with
Carlson Center and other people in my network to identify potential partners and resources.
August - December: Begin reaching out to prospective partners and meet with faculty involved in similar or parallel work for feedback and support.
2020
January: By this time, if not earlier, I hope to have identified 1-3 partner organizations who have the
capacity and interest in working with students during my spring graduate course
January-March: I anticipate doing the leg work of meeting with each partner to learn more about their work and needs, and to co-design the projects for the quarter. The content, shape, and final focus of the graduate seminar will be affected by these meetings. For example, depending on what emerges as the most pressing needs of partners, along with the kinds of rhetorical and field-based projects we might do, the course readings and units might shift or narrow.
March-June: Teach the course.
June: Public presentation. This might be simple and campus-centered: student groups present their co-designed projects, perhaps with partners, about what they did and learned. Perhaps it might be more elaborate or at partner sites. We’ll see.
June-September: Continuing relationship building. The hope is that a partnership might serve as a research hub where new and ongoing projects can be co-designed for various courses, as makes sense for everyone involved. See if graduate students might be interested in co-authoring a publication on our work or doing conference presentations/workshops.
Checklist for Collaborative Project Design
(Note to colleagues: This is a “shitty first draft.” I’m aiming for spare, accessible language that guides design and the conversation on project design. I imagine that student research teams might have a similar kind of checklist or tool to help guide their work in developing their collaborative research plan and process. Maybe I’ll develop a suite of things like this to help generate conversation and guide work and process. Not sure.)
Project values, draws on, and contributes to the expertise, knowledge, and capacity of the partner organization/community members and students
Someone at the partner organization will be available to meet with and support the research team and answer questions, offer feedback, provide expertise and background on the organization’s work, etc.
Uses multiple methods, such as visual and rhetorical analysis, interview, observation, photography, etc. to complete the project
Project ideally centers research that culminates in writing/outcomes for multiple audiences, genres, contexts
Students’ participation is centered explicitly on work related to the project
Project emerges out of an actual need the partner has for our work, research, expertise; project can be completed by researchers outside of your organization with support and guidance from you and me
Scope and do-ability: project has discrete work and parts that can be accomplished in ten weeks by a team (even if work is ongoing) and a clear way to pass along work-in-progress
Project has various opportunities for shaping the direction of the work
Project is multifaceted and flexible, with opportunities for students to choose parts they would like to complete and contribute to
Project offers team members various ways to work (independent, collaborative, different hours of the day, some work that can be done off site, etc.)
Project takes care to consider the ethics of collaborative work. Students are prepared to engage community members, questions of reciprocity and positionality of all stakeholders is considered and negotiated, etc.
Rhetoric, Urban Justice, and Public Engagement
Heuristic for Assessing the Course/Partnership
Below I share some criteria I have in mind for assessing this course, followed by some general questions for today. Because projects are going to emerge from relationships yet to form, it might be hard to answer questions in the top three categories, but these will be the sort of questions that guide the work of partnership building and co-design of projects.
Audiences & Reciprocal Project Design and Circulation
Does the overall project design draw on, value, and contribute to students’ and community knowledges, wisdoms, expertise, and audiences? How is knowledge co-created through the partnership circulated and/or translated in various modes, genres, and means for multiple stakeholders and audiences?
Do co-design projects have relevancy and purchase for public and academic contexts and audiences?
Partnership Building—Reciprocity and Ethics
How have various stakeholders in the partnership (faculty, community/organization members, students) articulated their needs and concerns to each other? What are the various stakeholders’ expectations, goals, and measures of success (or failure for that matter)? What forms of accountability or mechanisms of transparency will need to be established?
How has the process of partnership building established ways to hear each other, learn from mistakes, and make changes to how things are done (or not done)?
What are the positive outcomes and impacts of the collaboration? Are the outcomes of the partnership mutually beneficial?
How has the partnership increased the capacity of our students, the partner/community members, faculty, the university?
How has our partnership diminished capacities or created harm? What mechanisms have we co-created to reduce and discuss potential harm or reflect on and change things when problems arise? What are the potential risks and are they shared equitably? How have we agreed to work through problems when they arise?
Building the (Public Engagement) Capacities of Future Faculty & Humanities Scholars and Experts within and beyond the University
How has the course/partnership affected graduate students’ capacity to identify and articulate the public relevancy of rhetorical work (and their own work and the Humanities, more broadly)?
How has the course affected the students’ capacity to translate and apply their expertise within and across public audiences, genres, contexts?
How has the course/partnership affected students’ long-term teaching, scholarly, or other professional /personal goals?
Other General Questions for Today
What kinds of questions might you add to the heuristic for assessing this course/partnership?
Does anyone have any ideas for Seattle organizations that I can learn more about and possibly approach? Or suggestions for other UW faculty, students, staff to reach out to for tea and conversation? Does anyone have any other resources to share?
Here are some challenges I anticipate needing to work through:
How to balance disciplinary content learning and community-based experiences (and all that alongside ongoing reflexive conversations about the ethicality and value of our community-based work, our own experiences and positionality, and public scholarship/Humanities work, more broadly)?
How best to manage the logistics of students selecting partners? What amount of prep work before the start of the quarter would be acceptable (e.g. read through partner project descriptions and poke around their website and write a one page tentative plan ok…or a no go)?
How to keep the class on the same page even as students (or likely groups of students working in research teams) move in different directions?
How much time working with community partners is reasonable, given that the aim will be to ground and integrate the writing and research aims tightly within the work done with partners? What do you think about offering opportunities for registering for extra course credits for students who might like a more demanding experience? What do you think about inviting upper division undergraduates from across the disciplines?
Dust devils of thoughts re: this work
One significant challenge: the 10-week constraint. One reason I am leaning toward co-designing group projects with partners before the start of the quarter is that it will allow us to get going sooner. The problem here is that graduate students may have less input in the project design than they would prefer, yet this constraint might allow us to focus on other things (readings, methods, field work, reflexive and reflective thinking, etc.). I am going to experiment with building flexibility into the collaborative partner projects, maybe a heuristic of things the projects must try to address without dictating how things will unfold and maybe by co-creating projects that have options and opportunities for students to shape things by design. Jody Shipka’s work on supporting multimodal task-based composing is on my mind here.
I appreciate Rachel’s question about whether students are required to agree with the instructor when they enter the course and how to navigate this when they don’t: That is tough. I feel even less equip to answer the related question of what to do if a student fundamentally disagrees with work taking place at their partner organization or if they are somehow being asked to do research that is at odds with their politics or such. Navigating across radical differences is fundamental to collaborative work (especially when it comes to complex, fraught, political public issues) so there may sometimes be a value to leaning into discomfort and conflict. Other times: absolutely, not! Then, there is the matter of how to support people in this navigation when there are so many other plates spinning. I have thoughts on this but, wow, would love to chat.
Now, this other question, Rachel raised: What are my aspirations for my students? What are best case outputs or goals for my students? What do I hope they take away? What a great question! In this specific course, I hope they learn disciplinary stuff (rhetorical theories and methods, approaches to studying publics and place, field-based methods and so on) but I don’t think that is what we are being asked. I think I am being asked how my so-called publicly engaged pedagogy course on rhetoric and urban justice does something a more traditional course on rhetoric and urban life does not, even if both courses explore overlapping texts, issues, methods, questions.
As a starting point, when I think about my aspirations for my students, I think about the kinds of capacities needed (for collective response and survival, literally) in this moment. Here’s some working ideas. I hope that my students might develop:
more capacity for translating (and articulating the relevancy of) their work (and the work of rhetorical studies/humanities) across genres, audiences, contexts
a lifelong commitment to asking and answering questions about the (public) relevancy and application of their work and life energy toward a more equitable and just collective life
more capacity for collaboration, listening, and vulnerability (when the risk is not too great) across radical difference and in profoundly ambiguous, complex, and fraught situations
more capacity for hope in situations that seem intractable and impossible, where no moral high ground or clear solutions exist, where anything we might do will produce other problems and harm and won’t ever solve the problem once and for all, anyways–call it a capacity of hope grounded in material realities but capable of seeking new forms of existence, building new relationships and ways of being, shifting the terrains of the ecologies in which we participate in ways that are more equitable, finding joy and wonder in this work, too, and not only despair and cynicism—a praxis of place and hope
dispositions of ethicality and capacities for imaginative and fluid problem-solving, pragmatic action, and ethical decision-making that expand who and what matters and who and what should be included, considered, listened to, and cared for
Well, that’s a start and maybe lofty sounding but they are aspirations, after all.
Next, the syllabus.
English 569—
Rhetoric, Urban Justice, and Public Engagement
This is a community-based public rhetoric, research, and writing graduate seminar focused on issues of urban equity and justice. The course engages the City of Seattle’s Race & Social Justice and Equity & Environment Initiatives through partnerships with local organizations and public stakeholders who work on various interrelated urban issues, such as housing affordability, environmental justice, education, food security, and transportation in Seattle. Drawing on public and place-based rhetorical theory and methods, urban critical geography, and community-based work in writing studies, this course advocates a form of public scholarship that foregrounds ethical, reciprocal, and community-engaged research practices. This course will ground interdisciplinary conversations on urban equity and justice within collaborative writing and research projects co-designed with local organizations. As we work together, we will also consider the possibilities for public scholarship as a praxis that holds the potential to transform and expand traditional forms, audiences, and genres of scholarship and teaching; to open up who participates in producing scholarship and what knowledges, wisdoms, and experiences are valued; and to create more avenues for publication and circulation of diverse knowledges within and beyond the academy.
Course Goals and Learning Outcomes:
This course aims to help you:
better understand and engage in local, national, and global efforts to create more equitable and sustainable metropolises and to become more familiar with Seattle’s urban equity issues and the work of local organizations and public stakeholders attempting to address these issues;
explore and apply various rhetorical (and, more broadly, Humanistic) approaches to studying place and urban issues and to better understand, analyze, ethically engage, and propose interventions to complex urban problems;
identify and articulate what rhetoricians and other humanities scholars (e.g., what you) can learn from and contribute to various public audiences and exigencies;
develop more capacity for collaboration, problem-solving, and collective action across difference and in complex, fraught situations
consider the possibilities and liabilities of public scholarship and community-based pedagogy and clarify for yourself how you might practice and position yourself within this kind of work in the future.
Possible Core Course Projects and Activities
Field Guides
You’ll be asked to keep ongoing field notes from your research and reading. Some of these notes will be structured prompts; others will be ongoing open-ended observations and reflections driven by your own experiences and interests. For example, in your field notes, you might reflect on your work with your partner organization; be reflexive about your own positionality, embodied experiences, and stories related to your partner’s work, our course, the readings, the issues we are engaging, and so on; imagine ways you might design teaching or research projects in the future to incorporate public scholarship or community-based pedagogy; integrate what we are reading about with what you are doing with your partner; etc. Your field guides might include sketches, photos, videos, and sound recording. You’ll be asked to curate resources and other artifacts (on urban equity, rhetorical and place-based research, public scholarship or engaged teaching, etc.) that you find resonate. This ongoing note taking and curation will serve as material for your portfolio and other course projects.
Collaborative Group Community-Based Research and Writing Projects + Project Sketch/Plan
We will be working in research teams to complete quarter-long projects co-designed with your community partners. There will be various forms of flexibility built into each of your projects and it will be up to you and your partners to determine the scope and final design of your projects. I will be available to consult with your team and partner throughout the process. Projects should: 1) draw on theories and methods from our course and from research with community partners; 2) include multiple genres that allow you to translate your research across different contexts and audiences; 3) help you explore and explain to others how rhetoricians and other scholars might contribute to responding to complex (urban) wicked problems; and 4) tap into each team members’ personal investments, interests, and expertise.
For those of you who are already connected to partners/initiatives or engaged in related research projects, there will be an opportunity to design your own projects..
Studio Crits
Crits (critiques) are common in studio-based design courses. They generally serve as important moments in which people can pilot ideas or present projects-in-process to receive feedback from peers, field experts, or other audiences. At three points in the course, research teams will participate in studio crits. The first crit will be focused on your initial project sketch and plan. The second will be focused on supporting and troubleshooting your project at the mid-way point. The final will be late in the quarter to offer feedback on your project before final revisions and wrap up. If possible, community partners or other respondents will join our class to participate in these conversations.
Curated Portfolio of Your Work and Experience
The portfolios will vary to serve your own needs. At minimum, your portfolio will showcase your more polished research and writing projects that emerge from the course, as well as serve as a place for you to reflect on what you have learned; to articulate for yourself the public relevancy of your own work and the Humanities more broadly; to offer forward-looking ideas for how to translate the skills and capacities learned in this course to other contexts; and to consider how you might incorporate public scholarship and community-based pedagogy into your existing research and career plans. Your portfolio might have a public dimension (such as a professional website that articulates your research or teaching in terms of public scholarship) and should have some “backstage” dimensions for you for now (such as curated links, resources, your field notes and research protocols, ideas for future research, inspirational projects, and so on). We will set up electronic portfolios early in the quarter and much of your field guide will serve as material to draw on.
Public Presentations
We will end the course with a public presentation of your team projects for each other and invited guests. You might invite representatives from your community partners to present with.
Schedule Overview
Week One—On Urban Equity and Justice—A Place to Start
(NOTE to my Simpson Center colleagues: I plan to tailor these readings to the partners who we end up working with. I’d like to also ask partners for background readings or reports that we might read as a group or that research teams might delve deeper into. Ideally, too, I’d love to consider an invited panel in week one and invited speakers throughout.)
Readings:
“Equity and Environment Agenda.” City of Seattle, Report, 2018.
C
ity of Seattle Racial Equity Toolkit
Race and Social Justice Initiative—2019-2021 Strategy, City of Seattle. 2019.
UW Climate Impacts Group, UW Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, Front and Centered and Urban@UW, 2018. An Unfair Share: Exploring the disproportionate risks from climate change facing Washington state communities. A report prepared for Seattle Foundation. University of Washington, Seattle.
Zukin, Sharon. Introduction: The city that lost its soul. The Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places. Oxford University Press, 2010.
Week Two—Public Scholarship/Community-Based Partnerships & Your Research Plans
Readings:
On Public Scholarship and Community-based Pedagogy
What is Public Scholarship? Center for Community and Civic Engagement
CCCC Statement on Community-Engaged Projects
Baca, Isabel, Gonzales, Laura, and Victor Del Hierro, eds. Community Resistance, Justice, and
Sustainability in the Face of Political Adversity. Special Issue of Reflections: A Journal of Writing, Service Learning, and Community Literacy. Winter Issue 2017-2018. Web. https://reflectionsjournal.net/archive/
Bartha, Miriam and Bruce Burgett. “Why Public Scholarship Matters for Graduate Education.” Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition, and Culture 15.1 (2014): 31-43.
Fishman, Jenn and Lauren Rosenberg. “Community Writing, Community Listening.” Reflections 13.1 (2018): 1-6.
Santiago-Ortiz, Aurora. “From Critical to Decolonizing Service-Learning: Limits and Possibilities of Social Justice–Based Approaches to Community Service-Learning.” Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning. Winter 2019: 43-54: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/p/pod/dod-idx/from-critical-to-decolonizing-service-learning-limits.pdf?c=mjcsloa;idno=3239521.0025.104;format=pdf
On Inquiry, Research Plans, and Designing Group Projects
Mattern, Shannon. “Identifying Your Interests and Establishing a Research Plan.” Words in Space.
Ndlovu-Gatsheni, Sabelo “Decolonizing Research Methodology Must Include Undoing Its Dirty History,” The Conversation (September 26, 2017).
“What are best practices for designing group projects?” and “Sample group project tools.” Eberly Center. Carnegie Mellon.
TallBear, Kim. “Standing with and Speaking as Faith: A Feminist-indigenous Approach to Inquiry.” Journal of Research Practice, vol. 10, no. 2, 2014, article N17.
Week Three—Approaches to Space/Place—Spatial Justice and Inequity
Readings:
Environmental Equity Assessment Pilot: The Environmental Equity Assessment evaluates how equitably environmental impacts and outcomes are distributed in Seattle. The Assessment explores both quantitative and qualitative data that together begin to describe the landscape of environmental equity in Seattle.Mirabel, N. R. Geographies of displacement: Latina/os, oral history, and the politics of gentrification in San Francisco's Mission District. The Public Historian 31(2). (2009): 7-31.
Rothstein, Richard. “Preface” and “Racial Zoning” The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America. Liveright: 2018.
Soja, Edward W. Seeking Spatial Justice. University of Minnesota Press, 2013.
On the Brink: Documentary of Gentrification in Seattle’s Central District
Massey, Doreen. On Space. 2005.
Studio Crit #1
Week Four and Five—Field-based and participatory research
Readings:
Ackerman, John. “Walking in the City: The Arrival of the Rhetorical Subject.” Tracing Rhetoric and Material Life. Palgrave Press, 2018.
Middleton, Michael, et al. Participatory Critical Rhetoric: Theoretical and Methodological Foundations for Studying Rhetoric in Situ. Lexington Books, 2015.
Rai, Candice. “Democracy’s Lot: Rhetoric, Publics, and the Places of Invention. Alabama: U of Alabama Press, 2016.
Jenny Rice. Distant Publics: Development Rhetoric and the Subject of Crisis.
Wilson, Shawn. Research is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods. Winnipeg, Manitoba: Fernwood Publishing, 2008.
Week Six—Public memory and place-making
Readings:
Dickinson, Greg, Blair, Carole, and Ott, Brain. “Introduction.” Places of Public Memory: The Rhetoric of Museums and Memorials. Alabama: U of Alabama Press, 2010.
Phillips, Kendall. “The Failure of Memory: Reflections on Rhetoric and Public Remembrance.” Western Journal of Communication 74.2 (2010): 208-223.
Cressell, Tim “Writing Place.” Maxwell Street: Writing and Thinking Place. University of Chicago Press, 2019.
Studio Crit #2
Week Seven—Visual analysis and methodologies
Readings:
Gries, Laurie E. “Social Media, Digital Humanities, and Community Activism.” Field Guide: A Media Commons Project. 2016: http://mediacommons.org/fieldguide/question/what-relationship-does-digital-humanitiesacademy-have-social-media-activist-movements/res-1.
Gries, Laurie E. Still Life with Rhetoric: A New Materialist Approach for Visual Rhetorics. Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press, 2015.
Presner, Todd, David Shepard, and Yoh Kawano. HyperCities: Thick Mapping in the Digital Humanities. Harvard University Press, 2014 and the companion website for the book.
Solnit, Rebecca. Infinite Cities. Selections.
Misra, Ranvi. “The “Atlas of Inequality” Maps Micro-level Segregation” CityLab. 2019
Week Eight—Approaches to Studying Embodiment, Affect, Sensations, Ephemera
How do we study things/objects/feelings that exist at the edge of perspective? How do we account for objects, feelings, memories, histories, neighborhoods, environments that are in states of (de)formation?
Readings:
Lotier, Kristopher. “What Circulation Feels Like.” Enculturation: a Journal of Rhetoric, Writing, and Culture. 26 (2018).
Muñoz, José Esteban. “Ephemera as Evidence: Introductory Notes to Queer Acts.” Women & Performance: a Journal of Feminist Theory 8.2 (1996): 5-16.
Springgay, Stephanie and Truman, Sarah. Walking Methodologies in a More-than-Human Walking
Lab. New York: Routledge, 2018. Introduction and Chapter 8.
Stewart, Kathleen. “Atmospheric Attunements.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 29
(2011): 445-453.
Becoming Sensor in Sentient Worlds and Ungrid-able Ecologies
Week Nine—Resilience as Capacity and Praxis
Stormer, Nathan, and Bridie McGreavy. “Thinking Ecologically About Rhetoric’s Ontology: Capacity, Vulnerability, and Resilience.” Philosophy & Rhetoric, vol. 50, no. 1, 2017, pp. 1-25.
Studio Crit #3
Week Ten and Eleven—Presentations, Portfolios, and Reflecting on our experiences