Rhetorical Convention is a Fancy term for Argument Genre, perhaps.

My interest was lured quickly with this week's reading. It was food for thought to consider the domains in which genre functions, and seeing the list of macrogenre types and forms. The article discusses the study of how rhetorical conventions are drawn-upon and implemented by first year composition students, based on our thinking and self-evaluation as novices or experts (basically what we bring to the table and how we think about it as we approach new challenges). To me, 'Rhetorical conventions' equals 'argument style', which equals 'argument genre'. My interest was initially piqued when I read mention of Sommers and Saltz mapping of self-identifying novice and expert writers, suggesting that students who identify as experts early-on develop less than those writers who take the position of novice, and how this expert-novice relationship impacts how we make use of our previous knowledge about genre. It was also interesting to read that those who were certain about their genre knowledge guarded genre boundaries, whereas those less certain were crossing boundaries - and it was further still interesting to have it noted that students often aren't even conscious of how they use previously learned skills, unless explicitly asked to perform such a skill. So, being sure of yourself isn't always the best thing. If we're open to a cycle of thinking in which we can apply bits and pieces from our acquired knowledge toolbox to discover and create new applications (and consciously know we can do this), while being willing to admit that we don't know everything, but have a willingness to learn by taking the risk to gamble on creating something new and useful, then we would all just rock. Here we are, using a rhetorical convention (blogging) to discuss rhetorical convention. 

When I first attended college I think I had a case of the expert mentality because I was great at executing a 5 part essay, and even though I wrote quite a bit in between, I don't think I learned much until I came back to Boise State. I was even surprised at first at how much I could learn and open my mind to by returning to school.  I was a boundary guarder before, but have since shifted and am willing to cross boundaries now even if its sometimes difficult at first. I'm especially spreading my wings in terms of revision (which is directly connected to our genre purpose), but still developing in those of genre, and even still learning what genre means to me,to others, and if it matters. Since there aren't a ton of scholarly articles on 'regenre', the idea seems fairly unexplored, It feels pretty cool to be a student among a few others with a focus on a topic of study which is fairly original, not derivative. As artists and writers we have the gift of rhetoric, to posit and explore and vary in our writing interests, theories, and abilities from those of others. We have flexibility to explore and to fall down and get up (where many others do not have much room), and its this down and up pattern which, in part,  prepares us for dealing with rhetorical situations beyond the higher education setting.Problem. Idea, Implement, result, repeat as necessary Sorting through genre sounds a lot like revision.

I've been questioning my understanding of genre (and rhetoric) a lot this semester. I used to think of genre as only having to do with a type of music or type of reading like fiction versus non-fiction, and subgenres of those categories such as biography, or sci-fi. I've never previously thought about the various ways in which we write and communicate to be genre. This semester is the first time I've been put in a position to think about genre in relation to my writing, my rhetoric, myself. As someone who is constantly striving to gain knowledge about effective ways to communicate, this  exploration is much welcomed, but it scares me too... what if I'd gotten out of college without exploring or even acknowledging this piece to the puzzle? I've performed regenre before, once or twice in my previous job, but I didn't know that's what I was doing and it felt sneaky, and a bit shady because I had no prior knowledge of genre as it applied to communication. 

I am enthusiastic about technical communication, but I know I am far from being an expert, and even if I was an expert on technical communication, it doesn't mean I could expertly apply the sub-genres to the topic, however, I'm optimistic that I will continue to become better at identifying best practices of tech comm genre implementation. Regenre to me is taking something already existing and somehow transforming it in part (or whole) into something different in order to effectively repurpose or create new to meet a desired goal or attain an outcome. As an aspiring technical communicator, I know I could spend a lot of time on this post and likely write it better so that my thoughts are most easily received, but the genre here is to read and reflect and then converse, so that's all I'm going to do. If there was no discussion, and therefore no room for Q & A, it would be best for me to make my thoughts clear and my rhetoric as strong and concise as possible before posting.

If I wanted to be super philosophical, I could posit that regenre is constantly occurring all around us, and we're constantly enacting it. When We wake in the morning, we regenre our sleeping selves into our dressed and ready-for-the-day selves. The food in our kitchen might undergo regenre, transforming from something which gives us peace of mind to have possession of, into sustenance and energy by eating it. So the act of eating is a regenre of food. When we pay for something we're turning our money into something else which brings us use, the regenre of money. Basically almost everything we do everyday are forms of identifying the constant shift in genre in order to implement, and identifying how we seek best practices (genre, subgenre) in rhetoric and composition, much like we'd identify best practices for grocery shopping or playing the stock market, is indeed worthwhile.