IGNORANCE AND INQUIRY
Thomas Girshin, Ithaca College
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY
Ignorance and Inquiry is a lower-level writing course designed to fulfill a requirement within Ithaca College’s new general education program, the Integrative Core Curriculum. Rooted in writing pedagogy and rhetorical theory, the course engages students in pursuit of questions across disciplinary boundaries. The course analyzes the epistemic conditions of research across disciplines, beginning with Stuart Firestein’s assertion that research is the discovery not of knowledge, but of ignorance. One of the unique elements of this course is its heavy reliance on invited experts to share their narratives of scholarly exploration. Students write a creative and academic inquiry into a found object, an interdisciplinary research narrative and annotated bibliography, and regular inquiry posts, in which they first ask and then respond to a question about an assigned text. In addition, students give an oral presentation on their research project. As is typical of writing courses, classes center on student discussion and analysis of texts, project workshops, peer review, and student presentations.
The function of inquiry in the research process is a rich site for analysis, especially considering growing efforts in Writing across the Curriculum/Writing in the Disciplines (WAC/WID). The course studies effective questioning in the context of scholarly research, predicated on the observation that what it means to do research varies greatly from discipline to discipline, and that much of what one discipline might call research might not count as such in another discipline. Drawing on published accounts of the research processes of others (e.g., Firestein, Sobel, Nachmanovitch), the course explores the function of curiosity in the research process. Curiosity is the primary habit of mind espoused by the WPA’s Framework for Success in Postsecondary Writing (FSPW), defined as “the desire to know more about the world” (525). The course stipulates that curiosity is the desire to foster an overall intellectual relationship with one’s lived experience. In classical rhetoric, this quality of mind is the subject of much laud: Socrates finds favor with a mind that is not “servant” to a task, but which can wander about in Plato’s Theaetetus (172c-173c; see also Muckelbauer, especially Chapter 5).
Curiosity does not become valorized much as a habit of mind until scientific inquiry emerges as a major precept of intellectual engagement throughout the Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment eras. The Enlightenment, with its emphasis on breaking from traditions, begins to align intellectual growth with inquiry and a search for knowledge. In his gloss of Immanuel Kant’s “Was ist Aufklärung?” Michel Foucault argues that enlightenment is a habit of mind akin to curiosity, but with a core of skepticism, something like a critical curiosity. The FSPW’s description of curiosity also bears much in common with tenets of scientific inquiry, with its characterization of inquiry as a process and its emphasis on disciplinary research methods. This scientifically oriented view of curiosity is actually at odds with many contemporary views of curiosity as an undisciplined mind, a mind moving aimlessly, or thinking for the sake of thinking.
The primary purpose of this course is to 1) provide opportunities to study the role of inquiry in the history and rhetoric of science, and 2) to allow students to develop their curiosity into a substantial research agenda and project. The course asks students to contextualize their curiosity in relation to similar questions being asked within disciplines, and formalize that curiosity in an extended research project.
An exciting aspect of this course is its use of guest speakers to provide insight into research processes across disciplines. This provides students with opportunities to have conversations with working researchers in a variety of fields. Invited guest speakers would prepare a presentation using whatever format they prefer, and within these parameters: 1) the lecture should be highly interactive, and 2), the lecture should respond to this question paraphrased from Stuart Firestein’s Ignorance: How it Drives Science, “What ignorance, unknown, or mystery drives the research project(s) you're currently involved in?”
The course can be thought of as consisting of two units: Ignorance, which explores the role of questions, mysteries, or unknowns in the emergence of scientific research, and Inquiry, which studies and puts into practice the processes for formalizing curiosity into a research project. Projects are scaffolded according to the sequence 1) developing curiosity, 2) disciplinary analysis, and 3) “publication,” or dissemination of research to an interested public.
While Project 1, “Wa(o)ndering,” is primarily concerned with the development of curiosity, it nods toward disciplinary analysis in asking students to construct a history of a found object from researched sources. Projects 2 and 3 are linked together, and ask students to think like experts and members of the general public simultaneously. Designed to help students put their burgeoning academic interests in conversation with disciplinary concerns and traditions, they ask students to pursue a single inquiry in an extended research project. Prompts for the course projects are designed to be specific enough to illicit form in the responses, but not unnecessarily constrictive. In keeping with the goals of the course, the prompts allow the students’ curiosity to be the main productive force on which they draw. The oral presentations give students the opportunity to mimic their favorite guest speakers, and more importantly, to infect their peers with their curiosity.
SYLLABUS: IGNORANCE AND INQUIRY
COURSE CATALOG DESCRIPTION:
Exploration of scholarly inquiry and the meaning of research from a rhetorical perspective. Compares and contrasts research methods in the humanities, arts, social sciences, and natural sciences in order to understand how different fields describe what they don’t know in their effort to engage what is still unknown. 3 credits.
COURSE OVERVIEW:
even say it is the foundation. To gloss the sophist Gorgias, if everyone knew everything about everything, there would be no need for language, no need for communication, no possibility of inquiry, wonder, curiosity, and probably little desire for art, music, writing. Ignorance, then, is a powerful and productive force. In this class we will work to develop this force in our own writing, as we work to increase our curiosity and formalize that curiosity through research.
THEME AND PERSPECTIVE:
THEME: INQUIRY, IMAGINATION, AND INNOVATION
How do we know what we know? Every breakthrough discovery begins with a question. In the inquiry, imagination, and innovation theme, you will examine what you do not know, challenge what you think you know, and learn how to transform these new insights into innovative ideas. You will also explore how the quest for answers has long driven art, science, imagination, and the creative process. Here are some of the concepts you will be investigating:
• How is knowledge discovered? How is it transformed into new technology and institutions?
• How do artists discover and transform the world into creative works such as visual art, drama, or dance?
• How do we interpret visuals, sound, and other media in meaningful ways?
• How can we integrate knowledge from different perspectives to create a more holistic and useful way of understanding the world?
PERSPECTIVE: HUMANITIES
The humanities perspective considers what it means to be human. Courses in this perspective will help you understand the human experience by analyzing expressions of language, image, text, and culture. You will learn to describe and interpret the values, beliefs, and behaviors of yourself and others in the context of historical and contemporary cultural institutions.
STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES:
• Paper #1 (1000-1500 words; see Daily Schedule for prompt): 15% of final grade.
• Paper #2 (1000-1500 words; see Daily Schedule for prompt): 15% of final grade.
• Participation to class discussions and activities (see Requirements for explanation): 10% of final grade.
• Contributions to the Meme projects (see Course Assignments for explanation): 60% of final grade (20% for each contribution).
REQUIRED TEXTS AND MATERIALS:
Due to the interdisciplinary nature of the course, it would be impossible to provide exhaustive disciplinary coverage in the readings. Therefore, my aim with the readings was to provide a diversity of accounts of the role(s) inquiry and ignorance play in research.
Gladwell, Malcolm. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Boston: Little, Brown, 2000.
Nachmanovitch, Stephen. Free Play: Improvisation in Life and Art. Los Angeles: J.P. Tarcher, 1990. Petroski, Henry. Invention by Design: How Engineers Get from Thought to Thing. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP, 1996.
Plato. "Theaetetus." Trans. Benjamin Jowett. Internet Classics Archive. MIT, n.d. Web. 5 Jan. 2014. Sobel, Dava. Longitude: The True Story of a Lone Genius Who Solved the Greatest Scientific Problem of His Time. New York: Walker, 1995.
Vitek, William, and Wes Jackson. The Virtues of Ignorance: Complexity, Sustainability, and the Limits of Knowledge. Lexington: UP of Kentucky, 2008.
Watts, Duncan J. Everything Is Obvious: Once You Know the Answer. New York: Crown Business, 2011. NOTE: There are multiple different ways of reading. On the screen, we tend to scroll and skim. In textbooks in courses emphasizing memorization or disciplinary knowledge, we tend to focus on section headings and keywords. For this course, the focus is on close reading and careful analysis. The goal of reading these texts is not so much to acquire knowledge, to ask, what do I know now that I did not know before reading this text, but rather, to ask, what can I do with this text? What can I say, write, or create in response to this text? When you read, you should do so with a pen in your hand, having a “conversation” with the text as you read. Underline what you see as important, or interesting, or what you want to come back to later, respond to what you are reading by writing in the margins
ASSIGNMENTS:
All the work you do for this class will be submitted online. Some of the work you do will be private on Sakai—only you and I will have access. Some of the work will be public to the class, and some of the work will be published online through your WordPress blog.
QUESTIONS FOR GUEST SPEAKERS
You are to compose, bring to class, and submit via Sakai (under Assignments) two questions for each guest speaker we have this semester. Sometimes the guest speaker will ask you to read something prior to their presentation. In those cases, you may draw on that text for your questions. At other times, the guest speaker will not provide any materials prior to the presentation. In those cases, you may draw on course themes and texts, and/or do a little informal research to come up with two relevant questions. (7 speakers, 2 questions for each; 200 points possible)
INQUIRY POSTS
the course. Exceptional questions tend to make connections across texts (e.g. How does X’s statement in text A respond to Y’s statement in text B?). Good questions reveal complexities— tensions, controversies, repetitions—inherent in a particular text, and respond to these complexities in compelling ways.
There is no minimum length for the inquiry posts, but generally they are between 200-500 words. Inquiry papers must be posted to the class blog on Sakai before that day’s class meets. Your classmates will be able to view your post once you upload it to the course blog. You must also bring a paper copy of your question only to class that day. You will share your questions only in groups of three in order to decide on the one question most likely to facilitate strong discussion of the text. Each group of three will then pass their chosen discussion question to another group for response. Due dates for these are indicated on the class schedule. [5 posts x 40 points = 200 points]
MAJOR PROJECTS
These projects are public works, meaning that—while drafts may be written on Google Drive—the final versions will be posted to your own personal WordPress blog.
PROJECT 1:WA(O)NDERING
Perhaps many of you have been told by former teachers that your writing “wanders” too much. Maybe they said it lacks focus or that it “jumps” from place to place.
Focus is truly a vital aspect of any piece of writing—writing is about selection, decisions about what to keep, what to cut, what to highlight and what to cover over or neglect when representing a world in which everything is interconnected and all is clamoring for your attention.
And yet, the mind wanders; the world is interconnected. The wandering teachers of ancient Greece, the sophists, gained greater knowledge of their world precisely by wandering and noticing.
So, this project is about being curious enough about something to take the time to both think about it, wonder about it, and also to find out about it. We live in the Age of Google and smartphones, after all—there’s no shortage of access to information. The question is what can you do with that information?
For this informal assignment, I want you to engage your curiosity about your new place. Whenever I am in Manhattan, I feel I cannot spend more than a day there without exploding from sensory overload—there is just so much begging for my attention: people, advertisements, restaurants, smells, sights, sounds. Your natural reaction might be to shut down, to stop looking, to sink into your own world. Or, it may be to engage to the fullest: shop in every store, eat in every restaurant, suck the marrow from the bones of NYC (if you can ever get down to the bones).
For this project, begin by following the (apocryphal, yes) directions below:
Wander. Alone. Notice. Select an object (from the exceptional to the ordinary). Take a photo (or two, or three, or more)
a. Tell the story of this object (you will have to make it up, but be as scientific or as fanciful as you like): how did it get here? Where is it going? What is it doing? To you? The passersby? Its spatial environment? Write that story.
b. Research its “official” story, its history, on the web. Write that story.
THE FINE PRINT:
Include at least one photo you took yourself 1000 – 1400 words
Cite all sources (we will talk more about what this means) Post to Wordpress blog.
EVALUATION CRITERIA:
The project should be written in a way that your peers would find interesting and compelling. Unlike a traditional academic paper, this draws on the conventions of fiction and creative nonfiction to tell a story (first fictional, then nonfictional) that a popular, educated audience will enjoy.
This project will be evaluated according to:
• The extent to which you take risks in moving away from the traditional academic paper.
• Use of conventions of fiction and creative nonfiction such as dialogue, thick description, tone, shifts in point of view, literary style, etc.
• How well you tell a story about the object.
• The level to which you narrate a sense of interest in the object and convey that interest to your audience.
• The quality of the photos you use and how effectively you use the photo(s), in terms of placement within the overall piece.
• The extent to which the parts of your piece “talk to” one another to make this one cohesive piece.
PROJECTS 2-3:PURSUING CURIOSITIES,FINDING QUESTIONS
POSSIBILITIES:
• Write about what a field doesn’t know, the ignorances in a discipline.
• Write the biography of a question—in your life (e.g. family history), in a culture, or in an academic field.
• Write the history of an important mystery in a science or art, and how it was solved (or not).
• Write the history of the development of a specific piece of technology (i.e., what Petroski does with the paperclip).
begin. Do you have a theory about something that could be developed using research and pertinent examples? Write that theory, drawing on specific, well-researched, and well-reasoned examples.
• Pitch me something.
ARRANGEMENT
Regardless of which prompt you choose, you should present your material as the response to a specific question, problem, gap, mystery, or other perceived insufficiency in a specific discourse community. For example, Firestein argues against the idea that ignorance is a bad thing and that science is about producing knowledge in the form of facts. Berry argues against the idea that contemporary Western knowledge regimes are capable of responding to any crisis that arises. Petroski argues against the idea that simple objects lack engineering. All of these begin with some kind of a lack of ignorance, which they engage.
Thus, as far as arrangement, the first part of this project should compellingly set up such a question, problem, or ignorance, to which the remainder of the project will respond. It may be that you think of your topic in just this way: first you have some sense of a question, and then you research and write in response to this question. But it may also be that you have something you want to write about, and the question, gap, or ignorance doesn’t arise until you’re well into your research. It is also likely that this question will change over time. But, when it comes to arranging your piece, you’ll want it to begin by creating a compelling exigency. This is the raison d’être of your piece.
FORMAT
You should post this to your Wordpress blog. It should include any non-textual elements (e.g. photos, videos, sound files, etc.) that increase the overall appeal and effect of the piece. Genre: Popular/journalistic/literary nonfiction
AUDIENCE
Educated popular audience. You should not assume that your audience has read any of the texts you are citing, nor that they are familiar with the discipline you’re engaging (if applicable). But you should assume that they are interested, intelligent, and educated. Think college graduate, but not PhD student in the discipline you are writing about.
RESEARCH
PARTS
Annotated Bibliography (turned in via Sakai)
At least three texts, roughly 500 words per entry. Each entry should include 1) citation in MLA style, 2) a summary of the text (this should be the longest part of the entry), and 3) a sentence or two describing how this fits into the overall project. (100 points possible)
Proposal(Oral Presentation):
Outlines your basic question, including why it is interesting, summarizes at least two sources (may be textual or not) and suggests at least five more for further study, and provides a basic timeline.
Fine print: 12-15 minutes long; including at least 5 minutes for Q&A; should include some kind of visual (PowerPoint, Prezi, slideshow, handout, etc.). (100 points possible)
Written Project, posted to Wordpress, described above
EVALUATIONCRITERIA
The project should be written in a way that your peers would find interesting and compelling. Unlike a traditional academic paper, this may draw on the conventions of fiction and creative nonfiction, including literary style, extended, evocative description, storytelling, and reflection. This project will be evaluated according to:
• The extent to which you take risks in moving away from the traditional academic paper
• Use of conventions of fiction and creative nonfiction such as dialogue, thick description, tone, shifts in point of view, literary style, etc.
• The level to which you narrate a sense of interest in the subject and convey that interest to your audience
• The quality of the non-textual elements you use and how effectively you use them
• The effective use of sources, including substantial summary and repurposing of sources
• The clarity and development of the question or mystery the project pursues
CALENDAR
DAY IN CLASS PROJECT WORK
SCHEDULE BDLOG UE*POST 1 Introduction to course and each other, set up
Wordpress *Blog posts are due by
class time 2 Firestein Ch. 1-4; Inquiry Posts
3 Firestein Ch. 5-8 Inquiry 1
4 Introduce Unit 1
5 Berry (Virtues of Ignorance)
6 Guest Speaker: Jason Hamilton, Environmental
7 Jackson (Virtues of Ignorance) 8 Guest Speaker: Raphael St. Gelais,
Post-Doctoral Researcher of Engineering, Cornell University
9 Free Play; Peer Review Peer Review 10 Guest Speaker: Sara Haefeli, Music, Ithaca
College
11 Watts. Everything is Obvious
12 Guest Speaker: Jonathan Ablard, History,
Ithaca College Project 1 due
13 Guest Speaker: Ted Galanthay, Mathematics,
Ithaca College
14 Introduce Unit 2; Watts. Everything Is Obvious Inquiry 2
15 Spring Break
16 Spring Break
17 Introduce Unit 3; Petroski
18 No Class (CCCC conference)
19 Troy Richardson, Native American Studies,
Cornell University
20 Guest Speaker: Antonio DiRenzo, Writing,
Ithaca College
21 Plato. Theaetetus up to Section 160e
22 Workshop Proposal
23 Theaetetus, 161a-187a Proposal Inquiry 3
24 Workshop Proposal
25 Theaetetus, 187b-end Proposal Inquiry 4
26 Workshop Proposal
27 Gladwell Annotated
Bibliography
28 Peer Review
29 Longitude Inquiry 5
30 Student Presentations
31 Student Presentations
Bibliography
Berry, Wendell. "The Way of Ignorance." The Way of Ignorance: And Other Essays. Emeryville, CA: Shoemaker & Hoard, 2005. 53-68. Print.
Firestein, Stuart. Ignorance: How It Drives Science. New York: Oxford UP. 2012. Print.
Foucault, Michel. "What Is Enlightenment?" The Politics of Truth. Ed. Sylvere Lotringer and Lysa Hochroth. New York: Semiotext(e), 1997. 101-34. Print.
Framework for Success in Postsecondary Writing. Issue brief. N.p.: CWPA, NCTE & NWP, 2011. Print.
Gladwell, Malcolm. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Boston: Little, Brown, 2000. Print.
Plato. "Theaetetus." The Collected Dialogues of Plato, Including the Letters. Ed. Edith Hamilton. New York: Pantheon, 1961. 845-919. Print.
Muckelbauer, John. The Future of Invention: Rhetoric, Postmodernism, and the Problem of Change. Albany: State U of New York P, 2008. Print.
Nachmanovitch, Stephen. Free Play: Improvisation in Life and Art. Los Angeles: J.P. Tarcher, 1990. Print.
Petroski, Henry. Invention by Design: How Engineers Get from Thought to Thing. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP, 1996. Print.
Sobel, Dava. Longitude: The True Story of a Lone Genius Who Solved the Greatest Scientific Problem of His Time. New York: Walker, 1995. Print.
