Thanks for drawing my attention to this volume!

I love thinking about the "new dangerous class" in comparison with the "imagined community" of the five page essay mentioned earlier. What forms of learning and communicative practice might produce the community able to liberate itself? If we controlled the tools, what would we make?

This is powerful. Higher ed and grad school often train as if precarity is not an issue. Certainly, undergrads might choose certain majors in hopes of job security and grad programs often offer professionalization workshops that aim to prepare students for difficult markets or even career alternatives. But the content and methods of education still carry on as if precarity is simply a bad dream that need not affect its core aims and processes. What would it mean to change the methods of education -- especially a humanities education -- to prepare students not only to adopt to precarity (if that's even possible) but to consider how to reverse it. It seems Larry and Jeff are both doing exactly this in their teaching, but I appreciate considering these methods in this new economic light.

First Jeff's wonderful literary analysis of student writing, now your cutting social analysis of its form. I wonder if student assignments might benefit from a comparative textual media analysis as advanced by Hayles and Pressman (2013). I especially love your brilliant question at the end that asks what sort of community does the production of five page essays entail. To play on your words, I wonder if one could say that the community imagined is one that is literally imaginary given that the traditional paper does not take part in genuine dialogue. Behind this false image of community is in fact its antithesis: an individual under judgement.

The phrase "new and weird skills and dispositions" is so much more fitting than the oft-used "digital literacy skills." I may have to borrow.

After reading reflections on the blog and browsing through the "Games," I have to say I am thoroughly delighted by this project and almost somewhat jealous I didn't participate myself! The lively "moves" were polar opposites from the strained writing you described in your first paragraph, and even the posts that described minor resistances to the project seemed to generate very thoughtful reflections on the processes of academic and literary work that I found interesting in their own right. I have many questions that I hope to discuss during our panel, but am grateful to have had a chance to read and explore the project site here.

While Rancière has quite rightly drawn attention to the different social effects of these two different pedagogical styles, it would be interesting to also analyze them according to the knowledge transmitted or produced therein. How are these two different types of knowledge different in character, use, and effects, and is one always more desirable than the other? It is also worth considering to what extent radical egalitarian pedagogy requires the full rejection of expert. It seems, to nod to Jeremy's comment here, that expertise and hierarchy in itself are not being wholly rejected (as students draw on expert secondary sources and follow a syllabus that has been set for them) but simply authoritarian expertise in the form of a teacher. This tension came up earlier in the paper when a student expressed desire for a directing figure ("a dungeon master(!)") and I'm intrigued by the counter suggestion of "narrator." As we struggle to develop effective organizational forms of dissent, I think its worth entertaining different metaphors of leadership to think through what sort of model might be most fruitful in both the classroom and in the broader political sphere.

It's great to see how many different ways cooperation is encouraged in this course design. Sometimes I think the single greatest lesson of the individual term paper is that labor, thought, and reward are and should be isolating and individuating activities.

Yay, collaborations with librarians!

If only there were a place for digital pedagogy wheel spinning and dead ends on the CV. Ha.

Were students comfortable enough to dive in and reveal their creative "performances" to one another right away? I'd probably need to bite my fingernails for at least the first few weeks! If students were able to quickly achieve a playful, collegial spirit, I'd be interested in knowing what you think supports that dynamic. Class size? Existing familiarity? Luck?

A literary analysis of student writing -- I love it! And one far more sympathetic in tone than its typical press on the #DisenchantedAcademics interwebs. I am fascinated with the phenomenon of what is often called--pardon me--"student bullshit" and am greatly interested in your investigation here into its structural causes and potential transformations.

This is a remarkable class project. Looking over it, I'm struck by the extent and quality of research throughout the entries. If I was teaching this term, I'd have students produce a comparative analysis of this student-created wiki resource and the William Faulkner page on Wikipedia. And if I could, I'd pull some anonymous student papers on Faulkner from Turnitin to add to the analysis. How does the style, audience, incentive, and social and technical conventions differ in each of the three resources, and to what degree does this affect the knowledge produced and transmitted on each? I'd love to hear more about the process and experience at some point. Thanks for sharing.

Vigorous head nodding and applause! I have a few more comments, but have to run! Looking forward to talking more, thanks again for sharing!

I relate to this!

Again, I'm really excited about the unique process you're developing for thinking about these issues (auto-ethnography, practice, experimentation, reflection, and public teaching such as demonstrated here!). As you continue to develop the process, I'd encourage you to name its activities so us kiddos can try it at home! In all seriousness!

I sympathize with what you’re saying, but as a lover of handwritten notes, I feel compelled to say that handwritten notes and collective knowledgebases both have their individual affordances and limitations. The handwritten note’s powers may be few, but I'd wager that some of them can’t be imitated by all the world’s knowledgebases.

I love this approach! It would be great to hear a little bit more about your method, if not here, than perhaps in a separate post. I can see how it could be an effective way of further identifying some of the granular tensions you mentioned above.

I’d be very curious to know more here about what you think would enhance reading, writing, and remembering texts, and how it would tie into your view of the purpose of knowledge production.

I’d love to hear more...share if you can!

YES! :)

I applaud your attention to these “granular tensions,” and agree that they would profit from further identification and a vocabulary for describing their dynamics, which I think your work here helps us begin to do. Now that you’ve got me thinking, I wonder if it would be a useful start to begin improvising provisional categories of overlapping sites of tensions, such as: the personal workflow one develops over a lifetime (that you mention below), evolutionary cognitive developments (mentioned for example described in this article: http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/wgbw/research/Weel_Articles/VanderWeel_SubstrateAndMemory_Clean.pdf or surveyed here: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reading-paper-screens/), cultural biases about different medias of reading and writing, available resources and technologies, everyday temporalities of reading & writing, everyday needs for reading and writing, the sociality of reading and writing, and so forth. That’s just a very messy start, but it strikes me that understanding the broad variety of tensions on an individual basis might help us more sensitively evaluate and direct the many tools and practices of MTI. These tensions also suggest that we need to consider the human experience of producing and interacting with knowledge with certain MTIs, not just merely the effectiveness of it.

This is a wonderful observation, and one that is not acknowledged enough while the academy pursues its everyday imperative to publish (or else perish). But I wonder if the underuse of published materials is a sign that something is wrong with our MTI, or if we might also take it as a feature of the broader culture of academic production. For example, some criticize the academic profession’s publishing requirements as leading to academic overproduction (see Bauerlein’s study here: http://centerforcollegeaffordability.org/research/studies/literary-research-analysis/) or lack of quality work (see Nobel laureate Peter Higgs’ comments here: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/06/peter-higgs-boson-academic-system). Whether one agrees with either of their views, they point to the fact that, to whatever degree the production of scholarly knowledge is motivated by a valuing of knowledge itself, it is also driven by requirements for professional advancement. While that’s not necessarily a bad thing, we should recognize that those requirements (as heterogenous as they are across fields) shape the production and engagement of scholarly knowledge as much as MTI, as you so astutely allude to in your suggestion about changing tenure review requirements in your “Utopia” chapter.

To me, it seems before we can ask if our MTI is broken, we need to have a broader discussion about the purposes of knowledge production in today’s world: who is for? what are its desired effects? what is its value? While I certainly would expect (and hope) for a diversity of (not always complementary) answers to that question, I don’t think it’s possible to evaluate MTI before coming to clear understanding of its objectives. For example, MTI designed that prioritizes individual academic advancement or copyright protection would look different than one that prioritized the free flow of knowledge and collaborative forms of knowledge making.

What a fabulous project, Jared! I think your concept of mnemotechnic infrastructure (MTI, if I may) is remarkably generative for scrutinizing our current knowledge making tools and practices, as well carefully thinking through why and how we might change them, and what the cost of such changes might be. Personally, I’d love to see this concept taken up in broader scholarly communication discussions, as I think their focus on tools, policies, and practices would benefit profusely from theoretical concepts such as the one you offer here. In turn, I would hope a more theoretically-engaged scholarly communication discourse community would attract more attention and contributions from traditional scholars who (currently) prefer their tools, practices, and knowledge systems to remain invisible while they chase their IDEAS! Not that I blame them, but the MTI that I’m personally rooting for is one developed by as many disciplinary and critical perspectives as possible, and it will take work to convince some folks that their contributions to this discussion matter. IMHO scholars need to understand--or dare I say, feel--the intellectual and social stakes of this work if they are to see it as anything other than service labor imperiling their precious time to produce knowledge.

So, given that I want your ideas here to circulate as widely as possible, I have a few suggestions for a future iteration of this piece. First, I would define MTI right off the bat, and more immediately describe /why/ this concept is helpful. You may have defined it in one of your other pieces on this site, but given the title of this piece, I as a web reader am hoping for a definition here. I would do the same with your use of the concept “thematize,” which while also a very useful concept for describing the work of scholars, may not necessarily be the way all scholars describe their work, especially those “problematizing” ones :). Can you specify more directly why thematizing is the way in which we should think of the core activity of (textual?) scholarship, and how then this conceptualization is important for better evaluating and developing our MTI? I ask not to push against the possibility, but because I genuinely want to know your answer!

Another note on the form: in paragraph two, the reader becomes aware that this piece is part of a series of chapters, but it is not immediately clear where to find those chapters (I’m assuming under the MTI nav tab), especially given that this piece is listed as the introduction and the sentence refers to two “previous chapters.” I’d love to see a sidebar or even a simple italicized introductory sentence that quickly outlines the objective and trajectory of the project such as something along the lines of (but better than) “This is part 1 of a series on Mnemotechnical Infrastructure, in which I will describe the importance of MTI and analyze some of its emerging tools and practices.”

While on one hand these sorts of changes may impede on the stimulating economy of your writing, I think it might also help bring more readers to your really wonderful ideas. Regardless, however, I found this piece very generative, and am looking forward to engaging with more of your ideas here on this site and elsewhere. Thanks for generously offering your ideas to the public! More detailed notes below.

TEST

there is a lot going on with these first four lines. it looks as if variables are being set to certain terms, such as "<"meta name="viewport" content ="width-device-width">." why do some get grouped together within the same bracket? what are they telling the theme to do, and how does the theme know to do it? finally, what on earth is that strange link which leads to a list of relationships...does that have any bearing on the published site?

i keep reading that you shouldn't put scripts into the header file, so why then is there a script in the WP theme header file? or is it only certain scripts you shouldn't put into the header file?

Is "wp_head" the name of a function? Does that mean the php is pulling this function from another file within the theme? Or is this a command that Wordpress automatically knows how to fulfill?

why is the "<?php.." awkwardly breaking up the html tag? is this standard practice? does it have a special purpose?

can someone explain why sometimes the "()" has nothing inside (such as here), and sometimes it does (such as in the line below ('charset')?

What is the significance of this text? It is commented out but it still seems to have some sort of effect? What does the "@" signify?

another sample comment

another sample comment

sample comment

eee

i cannot figure out what these are

these stars are commenting things out