Speculative Capture: Literacy after Platformization

IF 3.9 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Reading Research Quarterly Pub Date : 2024-04-05 DOI:10.1002/rrq.535
T. Philip Nichols, Alexandra Thrall, Julian Quiros, Ezekiel Dixon‐Román
{"title":"Speculative Capture: Literacy after Platformization","authors":"T. Philip Nichols, Alexandra Thrall, Julian Quiros, Ezekiel Dixon‐Román","doi":"10.1002/rrq.535","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This conceptual article examines the role of <jats:italic>speculation</jats:italic> in driving responses to generative AI platforms in literacy education and the implications for research, pedagogy, and practice. Our focus on “speculation” encompasses two meanings of the term – each of which has inspired lively lines of inquiry in literacy studies and transdisciplinary research on artificial intelligence, respectively. In the first sense, literacy scholars have recognized literacy education as a speculative project – one characterized by the cultivation of particular reading and writing practices in order to prefigure different imagined social futures. In the second sense, scholars of media and computational cultural studies have theorized a different kind of speculative logic that underwrites the design and functioning of AI platforms – one characterized by extrapolative prediction and algorithmic reasoning. Investigating the evolving relationship between these modes of speculation, we argue that the former has allowed literacy education to be uniquely susceptible to the influence of the latter; and likewise, that the latter exerts its influence in ways that remake the former in its image. We theorize this relation as a process of <jats:italic>speculative capture</jats:italic>, and we highlight its stakes for equitable literacy education. We then conclude by providing provocations for researchers and teachers that may be of use in preempting the collapse of these speculative formations into one another; and perhaps, in mobilizing a conception of the speculative that works productively toward alternative ethico‐political ends.","PeriodicalId":48160,"journal":{"name":"Reading Research Quarterly","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reading Research Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.535","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This conceptual article examines the role of speculation in driving responses to generative AI platforms in literacy education and the implications for research, pedagogy, and practice. Our focus on “speculation” encompasses two meanings of the term – each of which has inspired lively lines of inquiry in literacy studies and transdisciplinary research on artificial intelligence, respectively. In the first sense, literacy scholars have recognized literacy education as a speculative project – one characterized by the cultivation of particular reading and writing practices in order to prefigure different imagined social futures. In the second sense, scholars of media and computational cultural studies have theorized a different kind of speculative logic that underwrites the design and functioning of AI platforms – one characterized by extrapolative prediction and algorithmic reasoning. Investigating the evolving relationship between these modes of speculation, we argue that the former has allowed literacy education to be uniquely susceptible to the influence of the latter; and likewise, that the latter exerts its influence in ways that remake the former in its image. We theorize this relation as a process of speculative capture, and we highlight its stakes for equitable literacy education. We then conclude by providing provocations for researchers and teachers that may be of use in preempting the collapse of these speculative formations into one another; and perhaps, in mobilizing a conception of the speculative that works productively toward alternative ethico‐political ends.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
投机性捕获:平台化之后的扫盲
这篇概念性文章探讨了 "推测 "在推动扫盲教育中对生成式人工智能平台的反应中所起的作用,以及对研究、教学和实践的影响。我们对 "推测 "的关注包含了该词的两种含义--每种含义都分别激发了扫盲研究和人工智能跨学科研究的热烈探讨。在第一种意义上,扫盲学者已经认识到扫盲教育是一个投机项目--其特点是培养特定的阅读和写作实践,以预设不同的社会未来想象。在第二种意义上,媒体和计算文化研究的学者们已经将支撑人工智能平台设计和运作的另一种投机逻辑理论化--一种以推断预测和算法推理为特征的逻辑。在研究这些推测模式之间不断演变的关系时,我们认为前者使扫盲教育独特地易受后者的影响;同样,后者施加影响的方式也使前者按其形象重塑。我们将这种关系理论化为一种投机性的俘获过程,并强调其对公平扫盲教育的利害关系。最后,我们为研究人员和教师提出了一些建议,这些建议可能有助于防止这些投机形式相互瓦解;或许还有助于调动投机概念,使其有效地实现其他伦理政治目的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.50
自引率
4.80%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: For more than 40 years, Reading Research Quarterly has been essential reading for those committed to scholarship on literacy among learners of all ages. The leading research journal in the field, each issue of RRQ includes •Reports of important studies •Multidisciplinary research •Various modes of investigation •Diverse viewpoints on literacy practices, teaching, and learning
期刊最新文献
Civic Place Literacies: Tracing Urban Migrant Girls' Democratic Meaning‐Making Through Virtual Transnational Practitioner Research Chronotopes of Transnational Literacies: How Youth Live and Imagine Social Worlds in their Digital Media Practices Fair or Foul? Interrogating the Role of Baseball Knowledge in Studies of Knowledge and Comprehension “It's Like They Are Using Our Data Against Us.” Counter‐Cartographies of AI Literacy To Become an Object Among Objects: Generative Artificial “Intelligence,” Writing, and Linguistic White Supremacy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1