My research agenda is focused around the technologies–devices, file formats, platforms, and networks–that people use in daily acts of literate practice. Specifically, through this focus on technology and practice, I have tried–and continue to try–to identify what effects digital culture has had on how people practice writing and meaning-making. Further, given the emphasis on pedagogy in my sub-field, Computers and Writing, a concern of my research also involves exploring how to best help students identify what kinds of intellectual work are afforded by digital technologies as well as how to assist students in effectively employing digital technologies in service to their learning, writing, and meaning-making.
In addition to selected publications below, a full list of publications is available through my C.V.
Refereed Articles & Chapters
“The Technologies, Environments, and Materials of Everyday Writing.” South Atlantic Review. vol. 51. no. 2 (2020).
“Jacob Craig takes up issues of materiality of everyday texts both analogue and digital in “The Technologies, Environments, and Materials of Everyday Writing.” For both print and digital texts, he argues, everyday writing is a material practice participating in a complex economic system, one that can undermine or compete with the writer’s purposes, perhaps most often when the writer’s funds are short. Using a handmade booklet and the everyday writer’s account of its composing process as a first example, Craig considers the multiple motives and costs of an everyday print text. He then uses the same framework to consider costs and competing kinds of value of everyday digital writing, particularly when made and shared online with free-to-use technologies like Google and social networks. Focusing especially on Twitter, Craig calls on the Burkean rhetoric of the pentad as a frame for analysis. In addition, he points out that composers of everyday texts often need to do more with less, an important factor in the writing of such texts that previous scholarship on everyday writing has been reluctant to acknowledge.”
“Affective Materialities: Places, Technologies, and Development of Writing Processes.” Composition Forum. vol. 41. (2019).
“Jacob W. Craig’s Affective Materialities: Places, Technologies, and Development of Writing Processes examines how writers’ preferences for particular materials—places, technologies, objects—develop over time. Craig’s study suggests that writers’ material practices register both materially and affectively and are echoed in writers’ processes years later and shape how processes evolve as writers learn to write in new contexts.”
“A Difference in Delivery: Reading Classroom Technology Practices.” (with Matt Davis). Digital Reading and Writing in Composition Studies. Eds. Mary R. Lamb and Jennifer M. Parrott (2019).
In this book chapter, we examine the delivery policies that writing instructors often hold their students to following. In doing so, we consider how instructors’ requirements, guidelines, and technology bans limit students’ agency as learners. By limiting students’ agency to research, write, and learn in ways that they prefer, they limit students opportunities to live productively with their preferred technologies.
“The FSU Symposium: Origins, Revisions, and Reflections.” (with Rory Lee and David Bedsole). Computers and Composition Online. (2018).
In this article, we offer a history of Florida State’s (FSU) Digital Symposium, a celebration of student work that supports FSU’s first-year, undergraduate, and graduate writing programs as well as FSU’s Digital Studio. In recounting the history of FSU’s Digital Symposium, we show how events like FSU’s Symposium can be a powerful means of institutional change to cultivate a departmental and programmatic culture that values digital writing and multimodal composition.
“Navigating a Varied Landscape: Literacy and the Credibility of Networked Information.” Literacy, Democracy, and Fake News, special issue of Literacy in Composition Studies, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 24-42. (2017).
“Craig takes note of the rhetorical skills of the Macedonian teenagers who compose fake news stories to profit from click-bait ads[…] As Craig discusses, such efforts to teach civic reasoning can be enhanced by attending to how the rhetorical dynamics of network literacies complicate print-centric assumptions that close reading teaches students to be reasonable. As Craig’s article notes, such conceptions of information literacy do not attend to the rhetorical complexities involved in surfing across diverse platforms, media, and genres.”
“Device. Display. Read: The Design of Reading and Writing and the Difference Display Makes.” Deep Reading: Teaching Reading in the Writing Classroom. Eds. Patrick Sullivan, Howard Tinberg, and Sheridan Blau. (with Kathleen Blake Yancey, Matt Davis, and Michael Spooner). (2017).
This chapter explores the relationship between digital devices, the texts they display, and meaning-making. In it we focus on the designs that are created by device-specific displays and how such designs might shape or otherwise impact the act of reading. Additionally, we offer two pedagogical recommendations for helping students make good choices about technologies commonly used to read and research: mobile phones, tablets, laptop, ereaders, and printed texts.
Gildersleeve, Jessica. Review of Deep reading: teaching reading in the writing classroom. Higher Education Research & Development, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 198-200. 2018. (review of five books including Deep Reading.)
Blewett, Kelly. “In Defense of Unruliness: Five Books on Reading.” College English, vol. 80, no. 3, pp. 297-307. 2018.
Callopy, Trisha. “Deep Reading: Making a Case for the Pleasures of Difficult Reading at the College Level.” Council Chronicle, 27.3, 2018, pp. 10-14.
“Against the Rhetoric and Composition Grain: A Microhistorical View.” (with Matt Davis, Christine Martorana, Kendra Mitchell, Tony Ricks, Bret Zawilski, and Kathleen Blake Yancey). Microhistories of Composition. Ed. Bruce McComiskey. Utah State UP. 2016
[The authors] retain a biographical emphasis, but they shift their purpose from recovering marginalized figures to reinterpreting central individuals, reframing their work by placing them into institutional and historical contexts available only through archival research and oral history.
Sanchez, Raul. “Review Essay: Moving Knowledge Forward.” CCC, vol. 70, no. 1, 2018. (review of three books including Microhistories of Composition).
Spiegel, Cheri Lemieux. “A Review of Microhistories of Composition.” Across the Disciplines, vol. 16, no.1, 2017.
Babb, Jacob. Rev. of “Microhistories of Composition, Bruce McComiskey.” Rhetoric Review, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 100-102, 2016.
Malinowski, Liane and Anne Bellow. “New Directions in Revisionist Histories of Composition.” Composition Studies, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 195-202, 2016. (review of two books including Microhistories of Composition).
“Print Made Fluid: Design, Format, and Attention in a Convergence Culture.” The Tablet Book. Eds. Caroline Bassett, Ryan Burns, Russell Glasson and Kate O’Riordan. Sussex, UK: REFRAME. (2015).
“Craig’s chapter “Print Made Fluid” also deals creatively with the form of the e-book. His chapter reflects upon the role of the code ‘behind the page’ of the e-book in creating meaning for the content. The code behind e-book formats is on the one hand designed to make the e-book adaptable to different devices. However, Craig also explores the idea that, on the other hand, in aiming to make the text fluid over platforms, e-book formats also fix the e-book in the semblance of a printed book. In his exploration of these parallel impulses – in which the pursuit of an adaptable e-format simulates print – Craig allows an approach to what seems to lie behind, or beyond the surface of the object.”
“Makers and Guilds: Teaching Composition in a Creative Economy.” Pedagogy and Practice. Pearson. (2014).
“Digital Rhetoric.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. (2013).