Rachael
Bizzell, Patricia. "Basic Writing and the Issue of Correctness, or, What to Do with Mixed Forms of Academic Discourse." Journal of Basic Writing. 19:1. Boyd Printing Co.: 2000. 4-12.

First phase in "Basic Writing" studies decided that basic writers didn't write SWE correctly.

-Andrea Lunsford's '80 essay "The Content of Basic Writer's Essays" "treats the reliance of basic writers upon personal experience in their arguments as one sign of their arrest at an early stage of Piagetian or Vygotskean cognative development" (4).

Second phase, which Bizzell's own early work falls intoargued that the students weren't dysfunctional, the system was (more or less), and "aimed to initiate students into traditional academic discourse in a way that remained respectful of their home discourses and cognative abilities" (5).

Bizzell '86 "What Happens When Basic Writers Come to College?" Writer's difficulties are attributed to "clashes between their home worldviews and the academic worldview" (5).

But, the problem still remains in phase two, that they are seen as having issues of "correctness."

Phase Three:
"the
Rachael
Patty's revisiting her earlier claims about the need for teaching academic discourse, as she and her colleagues were inattentive to, if not unaware of, the "conflicts such teaching might generate for students coming from home discourse communities at great remove from the academic" (8).

-Joseph Harris won an award in '89 for exposing the infair pressures that notion of community (academic discourse community) "places on students and the ways it disguises internal disagreements" (8).

While there is still a traditional academic discourse, in many fields today it must "share the field with new forms of discourse that are clearly doing serious intellectual work and are received and evaluated as such, even as they violate many of the conventions of tradtitional academic discourse" (8).

These are hybrid academic discourses.

But we still need to know how to evaluate them and help their users improve them.

Traditional Academic Discourse:

There are certain rules and standards of a discourse community... "the way one employs these language-using conventions (with familiarity, with grace, or tentative bravado, for example) establishes one's place within the community: people of higher status use language (within the shared conventions) differently than do people of lower status" (9).

The community uses and shares this language for common projects and goals. The disourse and its standards and how a person fits in there has a profound impact on the individuals who use it. It's wisespread over land, class, culture, and even time.

But: "Actual humans are usually acquainted with more than one discourse, without being essentially defined by any--which helps give rise to hybrid discursive forms in which the language-using practices of more than one disoourse are blended, sometimes not smoothly" (10).

"Grapholect" is a form of language too complex to be spoken, the most "formal and ultra-correct" form of a language.

ADC’s enforce “a typical worldview, such that the persona speaking” projects objectivity, skepticism, and argumentativeness (10-11). Hence, also male.

Hybrid Academic Discourse:

Growing due to the more recent and growing diversification of academia.

“After all, in how many communities is it considered appropriate to critically question everything one’s interlocutor says, picking apart the other person’s statements and even her or his grammar and word choice, while keeping one’s own emotions and investments in the topic carefully hidden?” (11).

These hybrid languages open up the field for new possibilities. They’re “openly subjective, incorporating an author’s emotions and prejudices, forms that seek to find common ground among opposing positions rather than setting them against one another head to head, forms that deviate from the traditional grapholect by using language that is more informal, that includes words from other languages, that employs cultural references from the wide variety of world cultures rather than only the canonical Western tradition, and so on. These hybrid discourses enable scholarship to take account of new variables, to explore new methods, and to communicate findings in new venues, including broader reading publics than the academic” (12).

Victor’s discourse is “a hybrid form that borrows from both [newyorican speak and TAD] and is greater than the sum of its parts, accomplishing intellectual work that could not be done in either of its parent discourses alone” (13).
Rachael
On the New Capitalism:

"Much work in the new capitalism involves teams and collaboration, based on the idea that in a fast-changing environment, where knowledge goes out of date rapidly and technological innovation is common, a team can behave more smartly than any individual in it by pooling and distributing knowledge" (97).

Affinity Spaces:

intensive and extensive knowledge: (each person entering the space brings some special knowledge); (each person enthering the space shares some knowledge and functions with others.
knowledge is distributed:across people, tools and technologies, not held in any one person or thing
Knowledge is dispersed: that is people in the space, using modern information and communication technologies, can draw on knowledge in sites outside the space itself
Knowledge is tacit: built up by daily practice and stored in the routines and procedures of people who use the space
(98)

New Capitalist workplaces require individuals like those at whom shows like Blues Clues are aimed: people who are empowered and can think for themselves and who think of themsleves as smart and creative people. (middle class, these shows assume that parents are actively involved in their children's development, they prize things like working together and commonality and community.) (102)