A

wwaoi©

K

1

adaeFa3Tpo

st<tat

8

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Computers and Composition 29 (2012) 137–151

The posthuman grant application

Ryan S. Hoover ∗St. Edward’s University 3001 South Congress Avenue Austin, Texas 78704

bstract

Online grant applications are commonly seen as a generic form of writing, one that maintains consistency and style from writer toriter. In this article, I challenge that perception, instead presenting a view of the online grant application as a posthuman writing toolhose influence can vary immensely according to the characteristics of the writer. This view is based on interviews conducted with

pplicants to the National Science Foundation, especially their experiences with NSF’s application Web site, FastLane. Workingn the assumption that FastLane is a tool designed to aid in composition, my participants’ variety of use connects the posthumannfluence of Web sites such as FastLane with current interpretations of rhetorical agency.

2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

eywords: Grant applications; Rhetorical agency; Genre systems; Posthumanism; National Science Foundation

. Introduction

External grant funding is critical to the success of any researcher. It is impossible to fund any large project personallynd internal funding often cannot cover all projected costs. And, though grant funding has been readily available forecades, the process in which it is acquired is undergoing a major technology shift. As recently as ten years ago grantpplications were submitted on paper. In recent years, major funding agencies across disciplines have recognized thefficiency of electronic submissions and shifted to a digital format for their grant applications. The National Scienceoundation (NSF), National Institutes of Health, National Endowment for the Humanities, and Department of Defense,ll major research funders in their fields, have adopted electronic submissions for applications (Grants.gov, 2009, p.72). Rather than producing a printed, pages-long document, applicants to these agencies are completing online forms.hey fill in pre-determined fields for demographic information, enter budgets into a formatted Web page, and pasteroject summaries into text boxes. Applicants are uploading Microsoft Word-processed documents for only a fractionf the content areas that the agency requires.

Like most technology transitions, this shift from paper grant applications to electronic is causing a significanthift in the rhetorical strategies the applicants must employ (Porter, 2002). This shift can be seen prominently inhe National Science Foundation’s electronic grant system: FastLane (National Science Foundation, 2008). FastLanehttps://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/index.jsp> has fundamentally altered the application process at NSF since its launch in

he early 1990’s. Visual design options are now much more tightly constrained for the applicant. The presentation of

budget is limited to fields that NSF prescribes. Previous research is entered into a database rather than describedhrough prose. And full color illustrations are now much more feasible in an environment where access to a color printer

∗ Tel.: +512 492 3145.E-mail address: ryanh@stedwards.edu

755-4615/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2012.04.001

138 R.S. Hoover / Computers and Composition 29 (2012) 137–151

is no longer a prerequisite. In short, the current NSF application bears very little resemblance to the NSF applicationof two decades ago.

That the design of an online writing tool can impact a user’s rhetoric and actions is a well-accepted maxim ofboth digital composition and usability research, presented in a number of studies (Buck, 2008; Carpenter, 2009;Hoover, 2010a; Johnson, Salvo, & Zoetewey, 2007; Nielsen, 1999; Quesenbery, 2004). James E. Porter used a verysummative analogy for the redefinition of rhetorical canons in the context of online composition, calling it “[n]ot yourfather’s Oldsmobile, but an updated vehicle, an expanded and retheorized notion of [rhetorical canons]” (2009, p. 207).Recently, William I. Wolff analyzed the shifts of rhetorical power that occur when a university moves to online grantforms (2009). Yet, the influence of FastLane on the rhetorical styles of its users manifests in a way that one wouldnot suspect given much of the recent literature on grant writing (Moeller & Christensen, 2010; Myers, 1990; Tardy,2003). While most analyses of grant writing rely on a genre theory-styled interpretation of FastLane’s role, it appearsthat the Web site can have a much more individualized impact. That is, the means by which one individual is affectedby FastLane can be markedly different from the means of another. The variance relies to a large degree on whetherone is digitally literate, but it also relies on one’s experience with NSF as an institution, creativity in FastLane’s use,collaborators, and a range of highly individualized characteristics.

This particular realization—that a grant application Web site’s influence is highly variable and contingent on anumber of idiosyncratic dynamics—helps to elucidate the role of online applications in grant funding. And it suggestsways in which that role can be optimized to provide the maximum rhetorical agency for applicants. Figuring prominentlyare the potential advantages from employing user experience design principles that provide multiple methods foraccomplishing a single task.

In the remainder of this article I attempt to defend why the rhetoric surrounding online grant applications is bestseen as idiosyncratic, rather than the traditional view based on genre theories. I begin with a more detailed look atFastLane, a well respected online application tool. Continuing, I summarize some of the scholarship forming the currentunderstanding of grant application rhetoric. After a discussion of the study motivating this article, I detail the rhetoricalapproaches of five researchers who have used FastLane. And I conclude by considering the implications of a recastrhetorical approach for grant applications.

2. Context: FastLane’s structure

To manage its grant applications, the National Science Foundation has developed FastLane. The Web site serves asthe primary portal for an individual’s interaction with NSF. Reviewers access and respond to proposals through it. Grantrecipients receive their official notification and submit status reports using FastLane’s features. And Program Officers(POs) use FastLane as a content management system. Nonetheless, the site is most widely used and best known for itsproposal submission features as applicants submit all of their documents through the site (see Figure 1).1

How that content is submitted varies significantly from document to document. The project description, the fifteen-page heart of an NSF proposal, can only be uploaded as a Microsoft Word file. Other documents, like the projectsummary, references cited, and biographical sketches, are generally submitted through a textbox on the Web page.The more quantified information is usually submitted through a form system. NSF’s decision to provide multiple,context-appropriate formats for submitting different types of information has undeniably created an attractive andusable system. Yet, the nature of submitting proposal documents according to pre-defined fields can be constraining.

Budgets are a good example of this (see Figure 2). A system that uses fields on a Web page to enter budget datasimplifies the process. The applicant knows exactly what information NSF is seeking in the budget; totals are calculatedautomatically, reducing the chance of errors; design issues are largely negated; and NSF receives all proposed budgetsin a common format. Yet, given the wide range of projects that NSF funds (from elementary educational programs toAntarctic research stations), it seems unlikely that such a form system can meet the needs of the full range of NSF’sapplicants. Indeed, this study encountered NSF applicants who found the homogenized budget system inadequate to

fully justify their proposed costs.

Despite any constraints imposed by FastLane on researchers, the site maintains an outstanding reputation in thecommunity. It is frequently characterized as the “gold standard” in online proposal tools (Jelinek & Griffith, 2005;

1 For more information on the content of an NSF grant application, please visit <http://www.nsf.gov/funding/preparing/?>

R.S. Hoover / Computers and Composition 29 (2012) 137–151 139

Stta

3

t1swha

Figure 1. FastLane Screenshot of FastLane’s main data entry page.

RA International, 2007). FastLane is not a visually appealing system, but it is very well designed. Perhaps because ofheir strong reputation, NSF’s application process and FastLane are often the specific topic for scholarship examininghe rhetoric of grant applications. And that scholarship routinely describes the rhetorical foundation of FastLanepplications as inherently genre-based. The following section summarizes some of that scholarship.

. History: Traditional genre-based view of FastLane

Analyses of proposal writing in general and of proposal writing for NSF routinely share a genre theory-basedheoretical premise (Connor, 2000; Connor & Mauranen, 1999; Johns, 1993; Moeller & Christensen, 2010; Myers,990; Tardy, 2003). Genre theory, as Miller (1984) summarizes, is an attempt to classify and categorize the myriad ofocial documents we are presented with. This gives genre analysis an ability to generalize trends found in documents

ith a common purpose, making it a potent theory when studying grant proposal rhetoric. Yet, a genre theory frameworkas certain limitations. Recent publications on grant proposal writing have recognized that there is an inherently socialspect to the process. As Moeller and Christensen pointed out, “this type of thinking [genre-based analysis] demonstrates

140 R.S. Hoover / Computers and Composition 29 (2012) 137–151

Figure 2. FastLane Budget Partial screenshot of FastLane’s budget entry page.

the limitations of genre theory in that it tends to isolate player-agents from the other parts of [the process]” (2010, p.69). In recent years, efforts have been made to try to factor in the interaction of those player-agents—mostly in theform of genre system-styled analyses. Genre systems and their close cousins—genre repertoires, ecologies, and sets(Spinuzzi, 2004)—are analytic methodologies that look at “the dynamic nature of genres and their surrounding socialdynamics and how they influence and mediate one another as well as the activity of human beings” (Christensen,Cootey, & Moeller, 2007, p. 1). Genre system analyses of grant proposal writing go further in accounting for the socialinteractions that make up the authorial process.

Moeller & Christensen (2010) and Tardy (2003) have represented that trend well. Both analyzed NSF’s grantapplication process using a genre system framework. And, interestingly, both have come to a similar conclusion: theapplication process at NSF is an intensely social one in which a number of individuals interact in the creation of anumber of generic communications.2 Moeller & Christensen (2010) identified POs as an example of this complexity.The role of the PO is minimized in the “official” instructions posted to NSF’s Web site. Yet, they argued that applicantswho made use of the officer stood a much greater chance of success than those who simply wrote according to thegenre’s assumed conventions. In a similar fashion, Tardy (2003) described the complexity of discourse communities

that applicants must simultaneously navigate during the process if they wish to be successful. She argued that suchsimultaneous navigation is a highly social process that is omitted from the “official” rules posted to the NSF governmentWeb site <www.nsf.gov>.

2 Generic is here used to mean communications that operate according to the rules of a genre.

R.S. Hoover / Computers and Composition 29 (2012) 137–151 141

Table 1Grant Recipients.

Name Academic Rank Field Number of Grants Panel Reviewer Proposal Reviewer Interview Length

Ben Full Professor Math 2-3 No No 0:39:14Bradley Full Professor Geosciences 6+ Yes Yes 1:17:54Chris Full Professor Chemistry 4-6 No Yes 0:40:37Debra Asst Professor Geography 2-3 No No 0:24:36Helen Assoc Professor Geosciences 1 No No 0:45:39Hillary Asst Professor Math 1 No No 0:52:06Larry Asst Professor Civil Engineering 4-6 Yes Yes 0:42:10Marcus Assoc Professor Chemistry 1 No No 0:37:47Michael Full Professor Chemical Engineering 4-6 No Yes 0:51:05Paul Assoc Professor Chemistry 2-3 No No 0:36:03Sarah Full Professor Chemical Engineering 6+ Yes Yes n/aSharon Assoc Professor Education 1 No No 0:43:26

taahrww

4

sgrsrcs

aoamm

Syyaph

f

Tardy, Moeller & Christensen, and other genre theorists have relied upon one of the basic assumptions of genreheory (and its iterations): the behavior of a future communication by one person can be predicted from the behavior of

past communication made by another person. When understanding proposal writing at NSF, that idea will work—to certain degree. As these authors have highlighted themselves, though, there are idiosyncrasies that occur which canave a significant impact on how the communication develops. One particularly salient “small variable” which haseceived little attention is the influence of application Web sites such as FastLane. FastLane, or more accurately, theay in which FastLane is employed, can impact both individual proposals and a researcher’s long-term relationshipith NSF as an institution. The remainder of this article explores that impact.

. Method: Interviews and focus groups

The individual experiences reported here are parts of a larger study looking into the relationship between rhetoricaltrategies and social dynamics in NSF’s grant application process. My larger study combines document analysis, focusroups, and interviews with 19 individuals representing a range of experiences with NSF. 12 of the participants wereesearchers who had received at least 1 grant from NSF. 5 had formerly served as a PO for NSF, and 2 were currentlyerving as a PO. I recruited the participants through both mass solicitations and personal recommendations. The 19epresented a range of fields: including chemistry, mathematics, biology, geosciences, geography, history, education,ivil engineering, and chemical engineering. All of the participants were currently in tenure-track faculty positions attate universities, aside from the 2 serving POs who were on leave from such positions.

I interviewed all 19 participants individually. 4 participated in a focus group. And a different 4 volunteered previouspplications they had submitted to NSF for analysis. The interviews and focus groups were recorded and transcribed. Allf the research material was entered into the NVivo qualitative analysis software, where I coded and analyzed it using

4-step method similar to that promoted by David Dean Dayton (2001): editing (carefully reviewing the researchaterial); coding (labeling pertinent areas of the material); a data-driven micro-level analysis; and a theory-drivenacro-level analysis.The19 participants provided a variety of perspectives stemming from their varying degrees of experience with NSF.

everal were first-time grant recipients. One had maintained consecutive funding for a particular NSF grant for 15ears. The 5 former POs provided an institutional memory of NSF, as they had served anywhere from15 years to 2ears previously. And the 2 current POs were able to speak about NSF’s current state and efforts. This variety gave men opportunity to view NSF’s grant process from a number of vantage points. Given the extended experiences somearticipants had with NSF, I also had an ability to gain firsthand accounts describing how NSF’s application processad changed since the release of FastLane in the early 1990’s.

Table 1 details those who had received a grant from NSF but not served as a PO. Table 2 details those who hadormerly served as POs. Table 3 details those who were currently serving as POs. All names are pseudonyms.

142 R.S. Hoover / Computers and Composition 29 (2012) 137–151

Table 2Former Program Officers.

Name Academic Rank Field Number of Grants Panel Reviewer Proposal Reviewer Interview Length

Calvin Assoc Professor Biology 2-3 Yes Yes 0:41:03Henry Full Professor Chemistry 6+ No Yes 0:53:13Nate Full Professor Chemistry 6+ Yes Yes n/aPhil Full Professor Biology 1 Yes Yes 1:09:34Rick Full Professor History 6+ Yes Yes 0:59:31

Table 3Program Officers.

Name NSF Program NSF Rank Interview Length

Barbara Chemistry Program Officer 0:44:46

Lewis Chemical Engineering Program Director 0:51:10

5. Results: Five researchers’ use of FastLane

Over the course of the study, all nineteen participants commented on their experiences with FastLane, almost entirelypositive. But the experiences of five particular individuals stand out, given the depth of their discussion. Ben, Hillary,Paul, Sarah, and Sharon all had a significant portion of their interviews include observations on FastLane either directlyor indirectly.

Perhaps the most interesting recognition gained from these five, and indeed from all nineteen, participants was theinherent inconsistency with which they used FastLane. In general, rhetorical approaches and writing processes for theapplication varied from individual to individual. But this inconsistency was especially visible in their use of FastLane.Their use of FastLane—and by extension, FastLane’s impact on the rhetoric of their proposals—varied immensely.Many used FastLane only at the very end of the application process, posting documents to it once they had beencompletely written. Some participants, though, used the Web site as an all-in-one location for their grant activities.They stored archival documents on FastLane for easy access and used it as a tracking tool for their submissions.Others used the tool as a computing cloud to simplify their collaboration with co-researchers. One, in contrast, wentto arguably the other extreme.

This other extreme is found in the actions of Ben, a researcher who had applied for several grants since FastLane’srelease in the mid-1990’s but had never personally visited the site. Instead, he relied on a secretary and co-researchersto submit his proposals. Ben had a long history with NSF, having applied for dozens of grants and achieved funding fora handful over a career of research. And, though he held a command of NSF’s review process, he felt uncomfortableusing FastLane. As Ben described it, “I’m a traditionalist, never learned the newer things. . . I don’t even touch it[FastLane].” Indeed, it seems that Ben rarely if ever visited the NSF Web site. He routinely applied for unsolicitedproposals, meaning that he never needed to read a specific CFP. And Ben’s communication with NSF personnel wasdominated by personal exchanges with friends and colleagues who were serving as Program Officers. This lack ofinteraction meant that Ben was unable to comment on the quality or effectiveness of NSF’s application tool or onlineresources. Ben was, at least, fully aware of this: “Well, I’ve got to be totally honest with you on that issue. I have beenapplying usually with other people and I don’t personally deal with FastLane so my answer to your question is, asksomebody who does.”

Ben’s choice not to directly interact with the system has some interesting rhetorical/usability implications in and ofitself. (How does a Web designer working for NSF design a system that meets the needs of an applicant who refusesto use the system?) But when trying to understand the larger impact of a grant application system like FastLane onresearcher behavior, how does one approach Ben’s situation? Or, rather, when a system so intimidates a user that hehas never used it, can there be any connection drawn between the technology and the user? Especially if a posthuman

view of composition is used—one in which the author of the proposal is considered a combination of the human andthe technology—an understanding of FastLane’s role in determining the author of Ben’s proposals is nearly impossibleto develop.

ddtla

ol

nmamapmb

idbaTN

pltsaf

aowuFh

hiIoett

R.S. Hoover / Computers and Composition 29 (2012) 137–151 143

Yet, Ben is one extreme in the range of FastLane’s use among my participants. There are other extremes thatemonstrate just how varied (and pervasive) FastLane’s influence can be. Hillary and Paul represent that other. Bothid a curious thing when I inquired into their history with NSF. I asked both how many grants they had submitted inhe past and how many they had received. Neither could immediately answer. Rather, they went to their computers,ogged on to FastLane and pulled up the listing there. And, after a quick count, they were able to give me an exactnswer. Hillary’s comments during this time are particularly revealing:

I meant to look this up [number of NSF grant applications] just so I would know these things. As you can tell Iwas running late. Luckily NSF remembers all these things. I see two listed here so it’s probably two funded andone—uh, one funded and two declined. It’s possible that there’s something a little bit older that’s already fallenoff the list.

Hillary did not know off-hand how many NSF grants she had applied for. But, perhaps even more troublesome, hernly records for this information seemed to be on the FastLane Web site—and any applications that had “fallen off theist” were completely lost to her.

My conversation with Paul followed a similar path. Paul’s reliance on FastLane during our interview started with theumber of proposals he had submitted: “Well, I have here one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, plus threeore in the other categories, so that’s twelve NSF proposals that I’ve submitted...” Later in the interview Paul revealed

nother reliance on FastLane with his praise for its document conversion tools and their stability enhancements: “Theain thing in terms of the improvement is just that it works, it doesn’t crash. That’s really it.” He would have been

ble to convert proposal documents on his own to submit to NSF, but Paul had decided to rely on FastLane for thisotentially troublesome process. These are two examples of a wide-ranging dependency by Paul. FastLane played aajor role in planning phases, collaborative writing, and even funding decisions—the latter of which is supposed to

e a duty of the PO.In fact, both Hillary and Paul used FastLane to get advance notification on their grants’ fates. Both described using

t as an “early warning system” for funding decisions (note that Hillary and Paul do not work together and most likelyo not know each other). In their experience, FastLane will mark a proposal as accepted or declined potentially weeksefore a PO will formally notify the applicant. FastLane’s ability to serve such a purpose goes against NSF culture,s funding decisions should be communicated through a “compassionate” program officer and not a “cold” computer.hese two researchers have consciously chosen to use a technology for notifications on grant funding in place of anSF representative.What is most revealing about Hillary and Paul is that they interacted with FastLane in a way that permeated the grant

rocess across the years. They used the system to submit grants, as intended. And they used it in a novel fashion to get aeap on funding notifications. However, they also used it as an archival tool long after submitting a grant. Emphasizinghis, when Hillary was asked a detailed question on a particular grant, her only copy of the needed document wastored on FastLane. She had to log back onto the system to pull up the document and gain access to the information. Inll of these instances, Hillary and Paul were relying heavily on FastLane’s Proposal Status tool and proposal revisioneatures.

Sarah and Sharon also relied heavily on FastLane’s features, though they used completely different ones. Sarah was seasoned researcher who had a long history with NSF. Sharon was a green researcher who had only dealt with NSFn one grant project. Both used FastLane as something of a cloud-computing tool. Though FastLane would seem toork very poorly as a cloud (it was never intended to be one), these two researchers reported a good deal of successsing it in this fashion. As an example, Sarah commented that she would store the drafts of her proposal documents inastLane’s proposal preparation section. That then gave her the ability to access the drafts from either her work or herome computer.

Sharon’s grant had been a collaborative project in which she teamed up with researchers from another department ater university. She and her collaborators used FastLane as something of a wiki/file sharing system. As Sharon describedt, she started using the system for personal cloud storage, since she would “go in there quite a number of times because

have multiple computers and I can never remember which document is where. And so sometimes if I need a copy

f the proposal, I’ll just go into FastLane and it’s very easy to pull up...” Her use of FastLane as cloud storage thenxpanded to include the rest of her team once they started to collaborate in their writing. They would type commentso each other in the fields of required forms and upload drafts of the narrative to FastLane’s file manager. This gave allhe researchers on the project access to the comments and drafts in a common and logical location.

144 R.S. Hoover / Computers and Composition 29 (2012) 137–151

For Sarah and Sharon, FastLane permeated the grant process across space. When putting together an application,FastLane served a prominent role in the writing process. Every writing space, both physical and metaphorical, thatSarah and Sharon used were mediated at least in part by FastLane’s Proposal Preparation tools. And like Hillary andPaul, this stands in contrast to Ben. Ben’s writing spaces were fully separated from FastLane; since he never visitedthe site, the site’s role in his writing was negligible. The four researchers who did interact with FastLane used differentelements of the tool. Hillary and Paul relied on the features most similar to a content management system when theyused the Proposal Status tools. Sarah and Sharon relied on different selections of the Proposal Preparation compositiontools for cloud computing features.

6. Discussion: What five researchers imply for all researchers

That the five researchers each relied on a different collection of FastLane’s features and tools tells us somethingabout the role FastLane’s design played in their authorship and hints at a better way to understand the nature of grantwriting in Web-based formats. The relationship that develops between researcher and Web site can be well understoodusing posthuman philosophies, and those posthuman ideas can be further expanded by bringing in current theories onrhetorical agency. This section will walk through the reasoning process needed to reach that point.

Applying either the label of “genre” or of “posthuman” to FastLane requires an understanding of FastLane’s place inthe larger context of the NSF grant proposal. Specifically, when a researcher enters proposal information into FastLanefields and boxes, is the researcher using the site as a writing tool, or is the researcher creating a final document whosecontent is partially dictated by FastLane? One of the rhetorically challenging aspects of this online system is that theanswer to both is yes. An NSF grant proposal written before FastLane would have a much cleaner divide between thetool and the document. The researcher would compose the proposal using a tool like Microsoft Word. But the finalprinted document would not have the indelible marks of Word in it (aside from, potentially, a preference for TimesNew Roman and a linear narrative structure). While Word would be a tool for creating an NSF proposal, it would notbe part of the final product. FastLane, though, is both. Four of my participants relied on FastLane’s features as writingtools while preparing their proposals. And the final proposals of all five were heavily influenced by FastLane’s design,order, and coding.

FastLane’s role as both a tool and an element of the final product forces a realization that writing in this onlineenvironment does not produce simply a new genre of grant proposals. Nor does it seem that writing proposals to submitin FastLane is the intersection of a variety of genre types, a genre system as Tardy (2003) and Moeller & Christensen(2010) have argued. If FastLane were simply an element of the final product, such an interpretation would hold. But agenre system approach omits the role FastLane plays in actually authoring the proposal.

FastLane is better thought of as a tool for authorship than as an element in a genre system. A tool can be usedin whichever way the individual desires—a description similar to Porter’s argument for understanding basic writingtechnologies (Porter, 2002). Sarah can use FastLane’s proposal preparation features as she authors her documents indifferent physical locations. Paul can use the proposal tracking features to maintain a long-term memory of his proposalsubmissions. Ben can opt not to use the tool altogether. Still, considering FastLane as simply a tool may be too limiting.That view doesn’t account for the fundamentally altering influence that the Web site can have on its users.

It seems that Sarah and Sharon literally saw the budget differently than some of my other participants. Theirinterviews imply that they viewed the budget as a collection of isolated costs with little relation to each other becausethey completed the budget directly on the Web-based form in FastLane. This is different from Chris, another participantwho drafted his budget first as a spreadsheet and seemed to sense a greater connection among the costs. Hillary andPaul had their basic understanding of their proposal history filtered through FastLane. Because they only accessed theirprevious proposals through the site, there was more prominence placed on the judgment of the PO and the critiquesof reviewers than on the original work (this stems from the order in which the information is presented in FastLane).That emphasis on feedback and the conversational aspects of the proposal rather than their own writings seemed tocolor their attitudes toward grant writing as they both saw the process in a much less isolated way than their peers.

Rather than seeing FastLane as simply a writing tool, a posthuman interpretation of FastLane better encompasses

the intimate relationship between the tool and the users. A posthuman view of that relationship posits that “the humanand the technical are no longer seen in opposition but as operating together in complex ecologies” (Hawk, 2004, p.372). FastLane, in such terms, is a tool or technology that enables the user to accomplish a task: a traditional definitionof a tool (see, for instance, Ellul, 1964; Garrison, 2009; Hayles, 1999). Yet, by using the tool, the applicant relinquishes

aoiouw

grqbdiat

iadpda

p2rtm

sFtttpuMts

osoa

sitshio

R.S. Hoover / Computers and Composition 29 (2012) 137–151 145

certain degree of autonomy and performs the task (submits the proposal) in a manner constrained by the featuresf the tool (FastLane). And the tool takes over part of the creative role normally prescribed to the applicant. Thenterconnectedness that emerges between FastLane and its users reinforces Andrew Mara and Byron Hawk’s criticismsf attempts to oversimplify the identity of tool-enabled writers, as described when they argued that “Attempts tonderstand human beings as autonomous, isolated, or determinative do not fully account for the complexities of living,riting, and working in a variety of biological and mechanical systems” (2010, p. 2)This posthuman use of FastLane presents a challenge to NSF. As made clear by the POs I interviewed, NSF goes to

reat lengths to maximize the rhetorical agency of its applicants. If five different researchers all use the system in suchemarkably different ways, what should NSF do to try to maximize their rhetorical agency? To begin to answer thisuestion, NSF must determine exactly whose agency they are trying to maximize. Since proposals are being writteny researchers collaborating, in a posthuman sense, with the FastLane technology, the author of the proposals can beescribed as something of a cyborg combination of the researcher and the technology. The term cyborg here is beingnvoked in the sense that was defined by Donna Haraway (1991). Understanding the rhetorical agency of that cyborguthor can be determined by understanding the rhetorical agency of the cyborg’s two components: the human and theechnology.

The process of understanding the rhetorical agency of a human agent is something that has been discussed extensivelyn the past. Scholars have approached this issue from a multitude of directions, including the relationship of authorialgency to social structures (Koerber, 2006; Schryer, Lingard, Spafford, & Garwood, 2003, Winsor, 2006) and theevelopment of rhetorical agency in speeches (Campbell, 2005; Miller, 2007). A broad summary of this scholarshiplaces the origins of rhetorical agency for any one communication as a combination of both historical biases, oftenescribed using Pierre Bourdieu’s habitus, and elements of the moment where interactions between speaker andudience develop in a way to enable the speaker’s persuasive potential.

Bourdieu’s concept of habitus, the “set of dispositions which incline agents to act and react in certain ways” hasroven particularly useful for predicting beforehand an individual’s rhetorical agency in a communication (Bourdieu,003, p. 12). For Bourdieu, one’s behavior in a situation is predominantly dictated by the individual’s past expe-iences. Our exposure to events, individuals, and tools over a lifetime comprise our habitus—and our habitus ishe primary tool we use to determine a reaction to a situation, such as how a Web site like FastLane should be

anipulated.In the case of all five researchers discussed here, their previous experiences with computers and with online systems

eemed to direct the composition of their habitus. And that, in turn, directed their behavior when interacting withastLane. Sarah and Sharon serve as a good example of the usefulness of understanding an individual’s habitus. These

wo seemed to have some prior experience with cloud computing before authoring their grant proposals, experiencehat gave them what is often referred to as multiple computing literacies. And those multiple literacies then led themo seek out a similar feature in FastLane. When none was found, they “customized” the system—in a fashion—torovide that feature. Such customized use of a pre-structured system is similar to the customization that new mediasers often employ when they use a Web system such as Twitter in a non-traditional fashion (see, for instance,anovich, 2001). But there are limitations to the application of habitus, a concept that parallels multiple literacies in

his situation, as it does not account for the agency that can develop when someone is encountering an entirely novelituation.

Rather, there are a number of elements that come into play to determine an individual’s rhetorical agency, manyf which exist only at the moment of the situation. Our state of mind, our recent previous actions, the communityurrounding us at the time, and our habitus all play a role in deciding how we act in a particular situation. This interplayf a number of factors which cannot feasibly be predicted beforehand is reminiscent of a redefinition of rhetoricalgency posited by Carolyn R. Miller in 2007: kinetic agency.

When defining kinetic agency, Miller is primarily concerned with the development of rhetorical agency in publicpeakers. Miller applied the concept of kinetic agency solely to speakers presenting to a live audience. However,t seems applicable to a much broader range of communications—including communicating the idea for a scien-ific research project to a collection of critics. For her, rhetorical agency is not a force that exists before the act of

peaking in public. Rather, it develops through that act. The speaker begins a speech having no relationship wither audience and by extension no rhetorical agency. As the speech progresses, the relationship builds and rhetor-cal agency increases. Miller employed a metaphor with kinetic physical energy to explain the growth in agencyver time:

146 R.S. Hoover / Computers and Composition 29 (2012) 137–151

If agency is a potential energy, it will be thought of as a possession or property of an agent. . . but if agency isa kinetic energy, it must be a property of the rhetorical event or performance itself. Agency thus could not existprior to or as a result of the evanescent act. (2007, p. 147)

Just as a stone falling to the ground gains kinetic energy through the motion, a rhetor speaking to an audience gainskinetic agency through the speech. Rhetorical agency at the start of a speech “measures” zero. And it increases fromthere over the course of the speech, reaching its peak at the end. One’s rhetorical agency when authoring a documentinitially has no measurable “value.” And, as one writes, that rhetorical agency increases until it peaks when one isfinished with the document.

A broadly encompassing understanding of rhetorical agency in the human element of our cyborg author needsto take into account both historical biases as described by Bourdieau and the building of agency at the moment, asdescribed by Miller’s analogy. The second part of the equation that needs to be decided to determine a cyborg author’sagency is the rhetorical agency of the technology, FastLane.

Arguing that FastLane itself has a form of rhetorical agency can seem nonsensical. Rhetorical agency, the Burkeanability to act, is often seen as being a distinctly human characteristic. Prominent scholars on the relationship betweentechnology and society are generally vague about the potential of agency in any one technology; they routinely presenttechnology as having an influence only in the means by which it is used by society (see, for instance, Ellul, 1964). Thepotential for agency in a technology does exist, however, in Andrew Feenberg’s oft-quoted assertion that “in realitysubjects and means are dialectically intertwined: the carpenter and the hammer appear accidentally related only solong as one does not consider carpentry as a vocation shaping the carpenter through a relation to the tools of the trade”(1991, p. 65). But, if technology is given the intimacy of being considered an extension of its user, as is done whenauthors are considered a cyborg combination of the human and the writing tool, that line dividing what can and cannothave agency gets blurred. And with no sharp distinction between human and tool, ascribing the concept of rhetoricalagency to a Web site becomes both possible and useful.

In the context of FastLane, there appear to be two primary aspects defining the site’s agency. One is the coding andinfrastructure that manages the database and provides the basic content management functions of the system. Thosefeatures are largely invisible to users such as Ben, Sharon, and Paul. And given the reliability of the system, they arewell maintained. Among my participants, FastLane was described as highly reliable. The only instances of systemdown-time that my participants encountered were during periods of high usage, primarily the few hours before a majorsubmission deadline.

The other aspect that defines FastLane’s rhetorical agency is the external interface with which applicants interact.This includes the forms applicants fill out to submit their proposals, the notification pages used to communicate fundingdecisions, and the reporting system that recipients use to submit activity summaries. Defining the rhetorical agency ofthese interfaces means defining their ability to act, to do their job. And deciding whether an interactive Web site is ableto effectively allow its users to do their tasks is a realm well-explored by usability experts. In his well-traveled bookDon’t Make Me Think, Steve Krug (2005) presented a straightforward definition of usability, capturing the essence ofhow Web sites enable their users as: “usability really just means making sure that something works well: that a personof average (or even below average) ability and experience can use the thing” (p. 5).

The budget stands out as one facet of the interface that has a particularly strong rhetorical agency. Recall thatFastLane’s budget feature operates entirely as a Web-based form. The design of that interface gives FastLane a greatdeal of rhetorical agency in determining how budgets are expressed. The order and hierarchical layout of fields givesFastLane the ability to direct how researchers think of their project’s costs. That emphasis carries over to how researchersthink of the projects themselves. By placing the costs of other personnel such as post-doctoral scholars and techniciansat the top of the budget, FastLane implies that quality projects include such collaborators. By relegating all equipmentcosts under $5,000 to a lump sum field, FastLane communicates strongly NSF’s attitude toward the cost of doingdesirable scientific research. This budgetary influence demonstrates a key recognition about FastLane: it is far from aneutral technology. Rather, it has a clear bias toward certain rhetorical moves. While it can be argued that no technologyis entirely neutral, FastLane (and especially its budget form) has a clear and definite bias.

Developing a comprehensive definition of rhetorical agency for a cyborg writer in this situation then brings in fourdifferent elements. The first is the habitus of the human, which is composed of the human’s previous experiencesand personal inclinations. The second is the underlying infrastructure of the Web site: the coding, networking, andhardware that keep FastLane up and running. The third is the interface of the Web site, including the rhetorical

pagbf

afmtr

Aaft

Ftta

hathe

orItsadir

O(aerFdoc

7

t

R.S. Hoover / Computers and Composition 29 (2012) 137–151 147

redispositions embedded in it. And the fourth is the kinetic agency that Miller defines. That kinetic agency developss the researcher writes the application. By crafting the proposal’s rhetoric for an anticipated audience, the researcherains kinetic agency. But the kinetic agency also builds through the researcher’s interactions with the rhetoricallyiased Web site—including frustrations that emerge from interactions with bad design and empowerments that emergerom interactions with effective and intuitive design.

Two of my researchers, Hillary and Paul, developed a similar rhetorical agency. The habitus of each was similar,s both had similar research experience and were at similar points in their careers. And both interacted with similareatures of FastLane when they used the site as an archival tool. By dedicating so much of their research history andanagement to FastLane’s Proposal Status functions, they were bringing the rhetorical agency of those functions into

heir identities as cyborg writers. And the rhetorical agency of those functions is heavily skewed to the comments ofeviewers and summary findings of the Program Officer.

Sarah and Sharon’s comprehensive rhetorical agency must include FastLane’s ability to act as a computing cloud.nd, while the site is technically capable of being used in that fashion, the process is clumsy. Files do not sync

utomatically; there are no revision history functions; uploading and downloading is a complicated process. Theseeatures combine to present a rhetorical agency toward cloud computing with FastLane that is far from desirable. Andhat poor rhetorical agency on the technological side carries over to the rhetorical agency of Sarah and Sharon.

But Sarah and Sharon highlight an important caveat when measuring the rhetorical agency of a technology likeastLane. FastLane can have a form of agency that its designers never intended. Given the design of the site, it is apparent

hat FastLane’s programmers never envisioned someone using it for file storage. Yet, FastLane as a technology is ableo assume functions for which it was never intended. It can develop an agency for unanticipated activities if used in anppropriate manner.

Ben’s comprehensive rhetorical agency is much more challenging to describe. Since he never used FastLane, it isard to determine exactly how FastLane’s agency factors into his own. There may be a transitory effect, as FastLane’sgency would affect the agency of those submitting the proposals on behalf of Ben—and that effect could carry overo Ben eventually. But it is perhaps most accurate to describe Ben as something of a handicapped cyborg. Becausee is competing for grants in an arena where others are capitalizing on FastLane’s rhetorical agency to become moreffective rhetors, Ben is operating with less ability than his competitors.

When considering the rhetorical agency of all five researchers, it becomes difficult—if not impossible—to factorut the effect of FastLane. And, as shown with Hillary, Paul, Sarah, and Sharon, FastLane can come to dominateesearchers’ interactions with NSF. Hillary perhaps put it best: “You know, at heart I’m an introverted mathematician.

would rather pull up FastLane than call my Program Officer.” The posthuman interpretation of FastLane implieshat the technology has fundamentally entangled itself in the rhetorical conversations it facilitates. It is impossible toeparate the format of FastLane from the proposals submitted through it. And it is impossible to separate the rhetoricalgency of the researchers from the rhetorical agency of FastLane. Much like the authors of online poker strategy blogsescribed by Tim Laquintano (2010) and the writing tutors holding sessions mediated by Microsoft Word as illustratedn Amber M. Buck’s “Invisible Interface” (2008), the authors of grant proposals for NSF are unable to separate theirhetoric from the technology they used to create that rhetoric.

Given that intertwining, a better designed FastLane will implicitly lead to better rhetoric. There is, however, a catch.ne of the most powerful techniques of a successful grant writer is to communicate regularly with the program officer

Hoover, 2010b; Moeller & Christensen 2010; Tardy, 2003). A more intuitive system can lead to less communications the applicant needs to ask fewer questions of the PO. Hillary’s comment regarding the introverted researcher ismblematic of this effect. A system that is intuitive and well-designed can have both positive and negative effects onhetoric—through posthuman authorship and encouragement of introverted behavior respectively. Ideally systems likeastLane can encourage applicant–PO interaction. Implementing synchronous and asynchronous communication toolsirectly into the application platform can make applicants more likely to ask questions of the PO. But given the pacef upgrades to FastLane, such tools are almost assuredly a long way off. There are, though, some improvements thatan more easily be implemented.

. Implications: Moving forward

FastLane is a tool that melds itself with the rhetoric of its users. And the ways in which that melding occurs must beaken on a case-by-case basis. As was seen with the participants in this study, each individual researcher uses FastLane

148 R.S. Hoover / Computers and Composition 29 (2012) 137–151

in a unique fashion. That is, FastLane combines with each of its users to create a unique “cyborg” writer. What, then,are the implications of that cyborg nature? Or rather, how should such a view of FastLane’s influence on researchers’behavior be used to improve that very behavior?

7.1. National Science Foundation

For the National Science Foundation, managing a system that integrates itself so pervasively into researchers’ rhetoricshould not be taken lightly. While NSF has developed a quality system (as seen with the near-universal praise FastLanereceived from this study’s participants) the system is not perfect. Nearly all of the 19 researchers interviewed commentedthat they struggled using the system initially.3 The format imposed on budgets was seen as constraining. Submissionof Word-processed documents could be confusing. The distinction between required documents and optional ones wasnot clear. One individual, Helen, expressed a great deal of frustration with the system; she had struggled submittingseveral proposals in the past and was unable to find online help documentation.

Frustration in using a Web Site is far from a unique experience at NSF. NSF stands apart from most other sites,though, because of the nature and breadth of what the organization does. The Foundation accounts for 20% of allfederal research funding (National Science Foundation, 2010). That size means that the rhetorical functionality ofNSF’s grant system quite literally has an impact on the progress of science research in the U.S. On an individual level,many researchers in this study built their academic careers on a single NSF grant. Hence, the system used to submitthose grants played a very real role in determining the fate of their careers.

FastLane, while functional, is in need of some sprucing. According to FastLane’s records, there have been no majorrevisions to the site since 2004 (National Science Foundation, 2004). NSF has added some well-appreciated featuresin recent years, notably a PDF conversion tool that allows Principle Investigators to upload a range of documentformats rather than simply PDFs. Outside of NSF, there have been major advancements in interactive systems similarto FastLane in recent years. And NSF may benefit from adopting some of them for its submission site.

Currently, the general trend toward User Experience (UX) design, a philosophy with its roots in social networking,holds potential for improving FastLane (see, for instance, Tullis & Albert, 2008; Usability Professionals’ Association,2010). UX design is, in part, focused on enabling a variety of users. A well-formatted site (in UX terms) is one thatallows users with different needs and different styles to interact with the content in ways that feel comfortable to each.While UX designers rarely use the term “posthumanism,” their approach to Web design emphasizes how the tool (thesite) impacts the behavior of the user. Hence, in a highly posthuman system such as FastLane, UX design holds a greatdeal of potential for improvement.

7.2. Grant applicants

For researchers submitting to NSF (or any other system), there needs to be a greater awareness of how the site isimpacting their behavior. Given the distinctly posthuman nature of FastLane, researchers would benefit greatly from aconscious recognition that FastLane is impacting their rhetoric. Feenberg and others have argued that when a society asa whole is aware of the role that technology plays in shaping its identity, that society is able to better direct technology’seffect toward more desirable ends (Feenberg, 1991). In the case of FastLane, that argument seems equally applicableto individuals who become aware of a technology’s impact.

Sarah and Sharon were actively engaged in controlling FastLane’s influence when they used the site as a storagecloud. They seemed aware of the impact that FastLane was having on their writing and worked to manipulate thatimpact. Others may benefit from adopting a similar attitude. While I am not arguing for all researchers to use FastLane

as a storage cloud, I am arguing for a conscious awareness of FastLane’s rhetorical influence. This awareness can havea straight-forward benefit in the crafting of budgets, if researchers are aware of the structure of FastLane’s budget formand design their budgets to match the rhetoric of that structure. But it can also have a more subtle benefit in the crafting

3 One of the strange inconsistencies with this study was participants’ judgment of FastLane. Nearly all of the participants praised the systemrepeatedly. Yet, nearly all of the participants had struggled while using it. There are multiple explanations for this dichotomy. FastLane may be asystem that is easy to use—once it is figured out. Participants may be transposing their satisfaction with NSF onto FastLane without justification.Or participants may be comparing FastLane to other systems; while FastLane has a number of flaws; it works better than its competitors.

oiHii

hsA

7

fsAw

eps

nFatT

7

Mmqt

cd(tpt

tict

7

e

R.S. Hoover / Computers and Composition 29 (2012) 137–151 149

f Works Cited pages. Unlike other sections of the proposal, the Works Cited has no length cap and, because of that,s the least rhetorically constraining. Paul used that rhetorical freedom to add extra justification of their qualifications.e claimed to routinely include over three-hundred sources as a way to show his mastery of the topic. Paul, here,

s manipulating the tool in a way to maximize his rhetorical agency and affect FastLane’s impact on his posthumandentity.

While understanding the impact a new technology has on oneself is good advice at large, it seems especially poignantere. As seen among my participants, an individual’s tenure and career can often hinge on success in securing just aingle NSF grant. Maximizing one’s chances of success means maximizing one’s rhetorical agency when applying.nd that can be done through an explicit understanding of FastLane and of FastLane’s impact on one’s rhetoric.

.3. Grant writing

There are perhaps larger implications for grant writing in general. NSF’s move toward an entirely online system is farrom unique. Grant writing is largely moving toward an online submission format, a transition well-represented by theite Grants.gov <http://grants.gov/>. The advantages and efficiency gained from online submission are overwhelming.

move toward online submissions means a move away from paper submissions and the rhetorical techniques thatent with it.This goes beyond simply having to print and collate twenty copies of a proposal. Communicating in an online

nvironment riddled with preformatted content and database fields is strikingly different than communicating in arint-based environment where design, organization, and narrative all rest on the shoulders of the author. Rather, theubmission Web site is taking on a much larger role in crafting the rhetoric of submitted proposals (Wolff, 2009).

There then needs to be a greater emphasis on well-designed Web sites for these grant submissions. That is, thereeeds to be more pressure put on the Web designers to craft effective, usable, and empowering Web sites. NSF’sastLane requires a steep learning curve to operate. The standard Grants.gov submission form is visually confusingnd poorly worded. And there seems to be a general trend among government agencies to spend far more time polishinghe “public face” of their sites than polishing the grant submission pages (for one poignant example of this, see theexas Department of Transportation site <http://txdot.gov/>.

.4. Computers and composition

For the field of computers and composition, there emerges a new relevance outside of our traditional boundaries.ichael Knievel recently argued that computers and composition is fundamentally a branch of the humanities, basinguch of its context and philosophy on humanistic traditions (2009). That perspective does seem valid. Still, it seems

ualified to say that the humanistic work done by computers and composition is relevant far beyond the boundaries ofhe humanities.

Our field has developed a complex and nuanced understanding of posthumanism, especially in relation to onlineomposition and literacy (Porter, 2009; Selfe, 1999). Our nuanced understanding works in both the abstract, throughiscussions of technology’s role in social change, and in the applied, through ideas such as new media customizationManovich, 2001). This breadth is largely missing from other fields, especially those with a weaker grounding inhe humanities. The work of our discipline to understand how rhetoric unfolds in online arenas has a relevance thatermeates the full range of grant funding communities. Physicists, psychologists, and historians all rely on funding forheir research; by extension, they all rely on the ideas purported by our field for their research.

If we are able to assist those communities in maximizing the effectiveness of their grant systems, we will be ableo reassert the far-ranging relevance of computers and composition, and of the humanities, at a time when emphasiss being placed more strongly on STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) fields. And assisting thoseommunities to maximize their posthuman agency holds the potential to promote collaboration and cooperation acrosshe disciplines, a process that can benefit all those involved.

.5. Teachers of grant writing and HCI

For those of us who teach courses in grant writing and human computer interaction, we have a highly tangiblexample of posthumanism to incorporate into our classes. The FastLane grant application tool is an emerging form of

150 R.S. Hoover / Computers and Composition 29 (2012) 137–151

writing that mirrors trends in both fields. As such, it can serve as a lucid representation of the posthuman nature ofonline composition.

Much posthuman scholarship focuses on larger social trends. Both Feenberg and Ellul, arguably the two mostprominent “fathers” of the movement, were concerned with the relationship between technology and social progress.Recent publications that include posthuman ideas tend to follow that trend. Representative of that trend, both Hayles(1999) and Porter (2009) discuss posthumanism in the abstract. Concrete examples of the idea in action can be hard tocome by. Bringing FastLane and systems like it into the classroom can be a way to codify the theory into somethingstudents can more readily grasp. Using FastLane as a teaching tool can also demonstrate the pervasiveness of posthumaninfluences. Demonstrating that posthuman ideas can be so strong in something as innocuous as a budget form can helpto drive home the ways technology and technological choices embed themselves in our daily activities.

8. Conclusion

Understanding the ways that FastLane impacts NSF’s applicants is not a straightforward task. It is tempting togeneralize that impact and claim that FastLane simply represents a new genre that researchers interact with in a similarfashion; however, such an attitude omits the influence of FastLane on researchers’ writing processes. Each researcherwho uses FastLane as a tool to write does so in an idiosyncratic way. Some simply employ the site at the end of theauthoring process to submit their proposal. Others, however, are more creative in factoring FastLane into a variety oftheir writing behaviors. And still other researchers find ways to totally avoid interacting with the system.

That variability in impact, then, invokes ideas of posthumanism. Seeing the site not as a writing genre to be followedbut as a tool that modifies behavior allows for a theory that accounts for the variety of ways in which the site is utilized.And consistent with posthuman ideas in general, researchers who use FastLane as a tool find their very identitiesimpacted. The site is not simply a hammer that can be put down when the job is done. Rather, the rhetorical creativityand effort that goes into writing a proposal for the site changes how researchers approach proposal writing morebroadly—and how researchers conceive of the very research they conduct.

NSF applicants who are aware that FastLane modifies their proposal writing behavior are in a better position tocontrol FastLane’s modifications. Indeed, that claim seems extendable to grant applicants at large. And grant fundingagencies such as NSF that are aware of the role their application system plays in developing rhetorical agency in theirapplicants are in a better position to optimize that effect for all applicants. A broader recognition of the posthumanforces at play in online grant applications has potential to give all those involved more power over the influence of thetechnology. That recognition can hopefully push us closer to Andrew Feenberg’s critical theory of technology (1991)and away from Jacques Ellul’s fatalistic vision of technology (1964).

Ryan Hoover is an Assistant Professor of English Writing & Rhetoric at St. Edward’s University in Austin, Tx. His research focuses on new mediarhetoric, rhetoric of science, and the intersection of those two areas.

References

Bourdieu, Pierre. (2003). Language and symbolic power. Harvard U P: Cambridge.Buck, Amber M. (2008). The invisible interface: MS Word in the writing center. Computers and Composition, 25, 396–415.Campbell, Karlyn K. (2005 March). Agency: Promiscuous and protean. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 2(1), 1–19.Carpenter, Rick. (2009). Boundary negotiations: Electronic environments as interface. Computers and Composition, 26, 138–148.Christensen, David M.; Cootey, Jason L.; & Moeller, Ryan M. (2007). Playing in genre fields: a play theory perspective on genre. Paper presented

at the ACM international conference on Design of communication, El Paso, TX.Connor, Ulla. (2000). Variation in rhetorical moves in grant proposals of U.S. humanists and scientists. Text - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study

of Discourse, 20(1), 1–28.Connor, Ulla, & Mauranen, Anna. (1999). Linguistic analysis of grant proposals: European Union research grants. English for Specific Purposes,

18, 47–62.Dayton, David Dean. (2001). Electronic editing in technical communication: Practices, attitudes, and impacts. Lubbock, Texas: Texas Tech

University.

Ellul, Jacques. (1964). The technological society. New York: Vintage Books.Feenberg, Andrew. (1991). Critical theory of technology. New York: Oxford UP.Garrison, Kevin. (2009). Technology studies and technical communication: Substantive rhetoric revisited. Lubbock, Texas: Texas Tech University.Grants.gov. (2009). Status of Agency Participation FY10 Q4. Retrieved from http://grants.gov/assets/StatusofAgencyParticipation.pdf.

H

HH

HH

JJ

J

K

KKL

MMMMM

MNNNNPPQS

S

S

S

TT

UW

W

R.S. Hoover / Computers and Composition 29 (2012) 137–151 151

araway, Donna. (1991). A cyborg manifesto: Science, technology, and socialist-feminisim in the late twentieth century. In Simians, cyborgs, andwomen: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge., 149–181

awk, Byron. (2004). Toward a post-technê Or, inventing pedagogies for professional writing. Technical Communication Quarterly, 13(4), 371–392.ayles, N. Katherine. (1999). How we became posthuman: Virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature. In and informatics. Chicago: U of Chicago

Press.oover, Ryan. (2010a). The Impact of NSF and NIH websites on researcher ethics. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 40(4).oover, Ryan. (2010b, December 10). Perspective: Joining NSF’s culture of communication. Science Careers. Retrieved from http://sciencecareers.

sciencemag.org/career magazine/previous issues/articles/2010 12 10/caredit.a1000119.elinek, Mariann, & Griffith, Terri L. (2005). Organizational science and the NSF: Funding for mutual benefit. Organization Science, 16(5), 550–559.ohns, Ann M. (1993). Written argumentation for real audiences: Suggestions for teacher research and classroom practice. TESOL quarterly, 27(1),

75–90.ohnson, Robert R., Salvo, Michael J., & Zoetewey, Meredith W. (2007). User-centered technology in participatory culture: Two decades “beyond

a narrow conception of usability testing”. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 50(4), 320–332.nievel, Michael. (2009). What is humanistic about computers and writing? Historical patterns and contemporary possibilities for the field. Computers

and Composition, 26, 92–106.oerber, A. (2006). Rhetorical agency, resistance, and the disciplinary rhetorics of breastfeeding. Technical Communication Quarterly, 15, 87–101.rug, Steven. (2005). Don’t make me think (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: New Riders Press.aquintano, Tim. (2010). Manufacturing scarcity: Online poker, digital writing, and the flow of intellectual property. Computers and Composition,

27, 193–201.anovich, Lev. (2001). The language of new media. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.ara, Andrew, & Hawk, Byron. (2010). Posthuman rhetorics and technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 19(1), 1–10.iller, Carolyn R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151–167.iller, Carolyn R. (2007). What can automation tell us about agency? Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 37, 137–157.oeller, Ryan M., & Christensen, David M. (2010). System mapping: A genre field analysis of the National Science Foundation’s grant proposal

and funding process. Technical Communication Quarterly, 19(1), 69–89.yers, Greg. (1990). Writing biology: Texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge. Madison: U of Wisconsin P.ational Science Foundation. (2004). What’s new. Retrieved from https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/note user/fastlane news.jsp?page=4&idx=25.ational Science Foundation. (2008). NSF FastLane home. Retrieved from https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/fastlane.jsp.ational Science Foundation. (2010). US NSF – About the National Science Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/about/.ielsen, Jakob. (1999). Designing web usability: The practice of simplicity. Thousand Oaks, CA: New Riders Publishing.orter, James E. (2002). Why technology matters to writing: A cyberwriter’s tale. Computers and Composition, 20, 375–394.orter, James E. (2009). Recovering delivery for digital rhetoric. Computers and Composition, 26, 207–224.uesenbery, Whitney. (2004). Virtual communities: Weaving the human web. STC Intercom (January), 26-28.chryer, Catherine F., Lingard, Lorelei, Spafford, Marlee, & Garwood, Kim. (2003). Structure and agency in medical case presentations. In

Charles Bazerman, & David Russell (Eds.), Writing selves/Writing societies: Research from activity perspectives. Fort Collins, CO: The WACClearinghouse and Mind, Culture, and Activity.

elfe, C. L. (1999). Technology and literacy: a story about the perils of not paying attention. College Composition and Communication, 50(3),411–436.

pinuzzi, Clay (2004). Four ways to investigate assemblages of texts: genre sets, systems, repertoires, and ecologies. Paper presented at theInternational conference on design of communication: The engineering of quality documentation, Memphis, TN.

RA International. (2007). SRA international eNews, April 2007. Retrieved from http://www.srainternational.org/sra03/template/enews/0407a.cfm?id=1536.

ardy, Christine. (2003). A genre system view of the funding of academic research. Written Communication, 20(7), 7–36.ullis, Thomas, & Albert, William. (2008). Measuring the user experience: collecting, analyzing, and presenting usability metrics. San Francisco,

CA: Morgan Kaufmann Pub.sability Professionals’ Association., (2010). UPA–The Usability Professionals’ Association. Retrieved from http://www.upassoc.org/.

insor, Dorothy. (2006). Using writing to structure agency: An examination of engineers’ practice. Technical Communication Quarterly, 15(4),

411–430.olff, William I. (2009). Systems of classification and the cognitive properties of grant proposal formal documents. Technical Communication

Quarterly, 18(4), 303–326.