While conventionally it would be the job of the critic, not the critiqued, to theorize as to the author’s ulterior motives in presenting, in this case, the plainly unreasonable as theory and pedagogy, they in a radical turn however have provided an account of their own skullduggery (likely on the admittedly safe assumption that no one outside the field of writing studies would make it more than 3 pages into this work.) “Reimagining FYC as Intro to Writing Studies might create more natural gateways to WAC and WID programs,” and “while we use the bulk of this article to help readers envision the Intro to Writing Studies pedagogy, our concern is not simply to improve writing instruction but also to improve the position of writing studies in the
…show more content…
Fulkerson takes a conspicuous stance on the fracturing of his field, describing it as a “dangerous situation.” Consider the group dynamic this suggests: that of a spectrum of stances on precedence concerning to greater or lesser extent either the perusal or further stipulation of goals. This is plainly the dynamic of a party, and the concern of a partisan. This is not the disposition of rigorous scholarship; it is constituent of trends, fashion, posturing, and most damning of all: floundering. Consider a schism in partial physics, say between super-symmetry theory and its opponents. While neither disposition is based on definitive grounds, they are both valid interpretations of an empirical experimental base and subatomic theory, and both have the capacity to describe reality to a more accurate degree than previous theories or classical mechanics. One might associate with such a time words such as ‘exciting’ or ‘lively.’ Consider instead the discipline which, as they have discarded historical conceptions of truth, therefore builds on the findings of others only by choice, which is to say, to the extent it is of utility to their rhetoric. There are trends and a sort of progression, a chain of rhetoric traceable through citations to its origins, but only in the sense that a political party indeed has all of these
Fulkerson takes a conspicuous stance on the fracturing of his field, describing it as a “dangerous situation.” Consider the group dynamic this suggests: that of a spectrum of stances on precedence concerning to greater or lesser extent either the perusal or further stipulation of goals. This is plainly the dynamic of a party, and the concern of a partisan. This is not the disposition of rigorous scholarship; it is constituent of trends, fashion, posturing, and most damning of all: floundering. Consider a schism in partial physics, say between super-symmetry theory and its opponents. While neither disposition is based on definitive grounds, they are both valid interpretations of an empirical experimental base and subatomic theory, and both have the capacity to describe reality to a more accurate degree than previous theories or classical mechanics. One might associate with such a time words such as ‘exciting’ or ‘lively.’ Consider instead the discipline which, as they have discarded historical conceptions of truth, therefore builds on the findings of others only by choice, which is to say, to the extent it is of utility to their rhetoric. There are trends and a sort of progression, a chain of rhetoric traceable through citations to its origins, but only in the sense that a political party indeed has all of these