Community membership through socially situated writing processes : a journey of inkshedding into Inkshed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research examines the ways that socially mediated writing processes facilitate membership in communities of practice. Writing practices are located within rhetorical contexts and as newcomers to a community participate in community practices, they learn to recognize the rhetorical context in which they are writing. As their competence in the rhetorical context increases, they move from a position of peripheral membership in that community to a position of full participation or membership. Drawing on theories of practice and genre to understand the ways that writing practices form communities and shape membership, the research investigates the Canadian Association for the Study of Language and Learning (CASLL) and a writing process called inkshedding. The study uses a variety of qualitative methods to examine the ways that learning to inkshed facilitates (and sometimes frustrates) membership in CASLL. Each stage of the inkshedding activity is presented as a stage in membership. The initial stage of writing in inkshedding engenders feelings of anxiety that confront newcomers in their peripheral position. The circulation of texts illustrates the different ways that texts can be read, moving newcomers either to increased participation in the collective or leaving them on the periphery. The subsequent publication of selected texts mirrors the ways that newcomers may successfully become full participants. This study of writing practices and community membership contributes to a growing body of literature that demonstrates the central role that writing plays in the development of collectives. It is significant because it offers a detailed account of a process whereby individuals become full members of a community of practice through writing practices and thus supports notions of writing as socially situated. It also supports notions that community membership is attained through gradually increasing participation in community practices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".