Discussion Lead: Ball, New Media Scholarship

1) It seems like the primary take-away with a lot of these multimodal projects (like the interactive photo montage described on page 420) is that meaning is constructed. Do you see any other possible learning outcomes that can be achieved by assigning students to interact with/create multimodal projects?

3) In some ways, Miles seems to suggest that reading outmoded, print-based text is a more passive activity than interacting with multimodal texts. While I do think it’s important for students to be versed in critiquing a range of texts in different modes, I wonder if he’s overlooking/underestimating the creativity involved in print-based reading practices (making annotations, activating prior knowledge, making connections, etc.)?

4). Ball acknowledges the paradox of her article: by presenting her argument in a traditional print form that foregrounds the written word, she is writing about new media scholarship rather than making new media scholarship. She defends her choice by suggesting that new media scholarship is still too new to be effective for her scholarly purposes: advancing an argument that happens to be on new media. She believes a truly multimodal project would have had “less impact.” Do you buy this disclaimer, or do you think it undercuts her main argument? Ball’s article was written in 2004. Do you think her reasoning still stands today, or has the digital environment evolved to a place where Ball’s argument could be effectively articulated in a multimodal way?

5). Ball draws a very sharp distinction between “experimental” new media scholarship and “traditional” print scholarship. In her first section, she clarifies that “traditional” print-based scholarship that appears online should be classified “scholarship about new media” rather than “new media scholarship.” But what about experimental print scholarship? What about print journals that include “free” space for creative work, or about scholarly articles which include visual elements? What about scholarship that both advances an argument and is aesthetically pleasing? Can we brainstorm some examples of scholarship that trouble Ball’s distinction? And, in our collective experience, are these considered “less scholarly?”

Activity: Can we envision what Ball’s article would look like if it were truly a “new media” piece? How might she have utilized multimodal composition and included some digital elements (video, sound, “interactive graphics,” etc)? If we were the editorial staff of a new media publication, would we accept her article for submission?