This essay should be written as an op-ed style opinion piece for a major newspaper. The goal is to write a smart, informed argument using the materials from the course about what we (the societal we) should keep in mind about the future of data/algorithms given the history of archives. You can argue for anything you’d like—it’s an op-ed after all—but it needs to be CAREFULLY GROUNDED in our readings.
You might argue how most or all of the archival challenges we’ve discussed apply to algorithms; you might argue that very few or none of them do. There is no right answer. There are only more and less effective ways of making an informed argument. That’s what I’m looking for: an informed argument. You’re free to take your essay in whatever direction you choose, but be sure you’re able to broadly cover course material.
For some ideas about how to write an op-ed, this short guide is an excellent starting point (ignore the first point about op-eds being short! We’re doing an extended op-ed, I suppose).
A typical op-ed doesn’t have citations, but we are atypical. I think everyone has used parenthetical citations (author, page) to anchor their posts to the readings (Hartman, 12), and you should continue to do that. As your piece gets longer, it helps you visualize what you’re specifically drawing on (or not), which is useful. But you will also want to reference general ideas, like archival power as Schwartz and Cook describe, that won’t have a specific citation (but you might mention the names of the author(s)). As a pretend op-ed and a real class assignment, it should be obvious that you’re drawing from the wide array of course readings.
Before you start writing you should invest a few hours time to REVIST THE READINGS—not necessarily re-reading them—to remind yourself what you’ve read, or maybe reading a little more of something you could only skim before or looking for ideas that you didn’t pick up on the first time. You should absolutely use our reflection posts (yours and others) to remind you of what was going on over the many weeks of class. ALL THOSE POSTS are more than just assignments for you to do—they are our course archive that makes the key ideas from the course and the readings easily accessible. The VIDEO LECTURES can be tedious, but they try to pull together broader themes and highlight key issues that you’ll want to be sure appear in your essay.
I may have mentioned this once or twice in the course already. Specificity and clarity (in thinking and organization) is what separates excellent from mediocre work. The easiest way to make your writing clearer is to provide specific examples whenever possible. Like now!
NOT GREAT: Archives are filled with silences and this shapes their power.
This is not great because, while true, it’s just so vague.
BETTER: Archives are filled with silences, such as how enslaved Africans are frequently represented only by a number in archival sources, and these silences have powerful repercussions for the historical identity of Black Americans and their standing in society.
In this case, the “better” sentence gives a specific example of a silence (we read about many, but even a single example is way better than nothing) and gives a more specific example of the power of silences.
The more you can tie themes together and speak about the course as a whole (while giving specific examples from the readings—yes, I’m going to keep repeating it), the more successful your op-ed will be. Essays that speak very generally about one topic after the other in the order of the syllabus will make a case that you haven’t really made any connections or aren’t making an argument. Almost every single reading can be related to at least a handful of others on the syllabus. Many of you have been doing this in your posts of late—keep it up! When I see those connections in your essay, I know you’re putting in the work to make them.
Remember, you’re being evaluated on NOT WHAT you argue, BUT HOW you argue it. Given how everyone is doing in the course thus far, here’s the effective grading scale that I’ll be thinking about and using when I critique/evaluate your assignment: