| Scholarship and argumentation | Argumentation in the humanities | (Dis)advatages: arguments in non-text-based media | Other issues |
| 1. Does scholarly communication in the humanities necessarily involve the presentation of arguments? | 1. What is an argument? Are there different types of argument forms used in humanities
communication that need to be distinguished in this discussion? 2. How can the meaningful elements of arguments be represented in non-text-based form? 3. How can the structural elements of arguments be represented in non-text-based form? 4. Are there theoretical limitations to the types of media that can bear arguments? 5. What issues are involved in integrating text and non-text-based media in scholarly publishing? 6. Some case studies. Which of the following are possible bearers of arguments: a. Articles in Vectors or TechnoRhetoric b. Map mash-ups c. Series of images d. Animations |
1. To what extend is “reading” non-text-based arguments a skill that requires training and/or practice? 2. Does non-text-based media offer a better alternative for presenting certain sorts of arguments? 3. What rhetorical (dis)advantages are there to presenting arguments in non-text-based media? 4. What new avenues (Web 2.0 tools, new audiences) does non-text-based scholarship open up? 5. Can scholarly work be entertaining? |
1. Job prospects, tenure and promotion ... 2. Tips for convincing colleagues and administrators of the value of producing scholarship in non-text-based formats? |