Old Dominion University ODU Digital Commons English Theses & Dissertations English Spring 2016 Aristotle's Ink: Tattooing a New Understanding of Invention in Collaborative Writing Rachel L. Bragg Old Dominion University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/english_etds Part of the Rhetoric and Composition Commons Recommended Citation Bragg, Rachel L.. "Aristotle's Ink: Tattooing a New Understanding of Invention in Collaborative Writing" (2016). Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), Dissertation, English, Old Dominion University, DOI: 10.25777/ pbyf-9686 https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/english_etds/13 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the English at ODU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in English Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ODU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARISTOTLE’S INK: TATTOOING A NEW UNDERSTANDING OF INVENTION IN COLLABORATIVE WRITING by Rachel L. Bragg B.A. May 2001, Mountain State University M.A. May 2003, Mountain State University A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Old Dominion University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY ENGLISH OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY May 2016 Approved by: Julia Romberger (Director) David Metzger (Member) Danielle DeVoss (Member) ABSTRACT ARISTOTLE’S INK: TATTOOING A NEW UNDERSTANDING OF INVENTION IN COLLABORATIVE WRITING Rachel L. Bragg Old Dominion University, 2016 Director: Dr. Julia Romberger The field of writing studies continues to be expanded by new mediums of text and new methods of composing. Though rhetorical theory is recognized as being dynamic (Brooke, 2009; McKeon, 1987), it has yet to be remediated to fully account for texts composed collaboratively or visual rhetoric. This dissertation study explores the composing process of tattoos as an intersection of visual rhetoric, invention, and collaborative writing in order to provide to writing studies a remediation of the rhetorical canon of invention that accounts for visual texts composed collaboratively. Data collected included interviews with five tattoo artists and five clients, observations of the tattoo composing and tattooing processes, and photographs of completed tattoos. The findings suggest that authorship, a concept intimately connected to invention, remains complicated and rooted in the Platonic foundations of rhetoric and the Romantic notion of authorship as a profession, both of which privilege the solitary author, even when a text such as a tattoo can only come to fruition through a collaborative composing process. Relative to invention, which deals with the process of creating communication, which is often considered an invisible process (Jasinski, “Invention,” 2001; Lauer, 2004), the findings also illuminate the invention strategies and associated actions a tattoo artist and client utilize during the composing of a tattoo. Significant to this study and the identification of the invention strategies utilized during the composing process of a tattoo is the finding that the invention strategies termed negotiation and integration are similar to stasis theory, a heuristic for invention with roots in classical theories of rhetoric. Identifying the invention strategies and associated actions employed in the collaborative composing process of a visual text suggest pedagogical implications for how teachers can invite collaboration and encourage creative conflict when students are asked to produce visual texts collaboratively. Also in relation to pedagogical implications, the invention strategy of reflection in particular provides another method for participants to evaluate themselves and the contributions of collaborators when asked to compose visual texts collaboratively. iv ©2016, by Rachel L. Bragg, All Rights Reserved. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS And so this journey ends. .but not without publicly acknowledging and thanking all the people who played a part in arriving at this point—a finished dissertation. First, a thank you to all the artists and clients who participated in this study. Without your contributions, this study would not have been possible. A very special thank you to Artist A, who embraced this project with enthusiasm and went above and beyond any expectations I had to help make my project a reality. I never would have pursued this dream if it wasn’t for an amazing group of women who recognized a passion and love of learning equal to their own. To Lisa Spaulding, Patricia Gillikin, Irene Moser, Vanessa Thompson, and especially Maupsa Bonifer, thank you for nurturing my love of writing, literature, and communication during those golden years of what was then The College of West Virginia. Your passion became my own and because of your thoughtful care, guidance, and encouragement, I did this! To a special group of scholars who inspire and amaze me every day with their contributions to English Studies, the ODU ENGLISH PHDS and the Diss Bootcamp groups. Hands down, you are the best support system any doctoral student could ever ask for. I could not have completed this project without the calm and steady guidance of Julia Romberger, who always offered reassurance and encouragement, especially during some of the most challenging bumps in the road that often had little to do with writing a dissertation. I am also grateful to the other members of my committee, David Metzger and Danielle DeVoss, for their input into this project. To all of my committee members, thank you especially for your time. vi And last, a special thank you to my family. Larry, thank you for letting me check out of life here and there to chase this dream. To my Dad (Frank Lanier) and Mom (Susan Lanier), my brother (Frank Lanier II), my sister (Ruth Lanier), and my nephew (Robert Lanier), thank you for believing in me even when I didn’t believe in myself. My love for you all has no bounds. And, in case it wasn’t obvious—the nerd finally did it! vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... ix LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................x Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 II. LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................................11 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ...............................................................................12 VISUAL RHETORIC ..................................................................................................14 INVENTION ................................................................................................................19 COLLABORATION ....................................................................................................26 AUTHORSHIP ............................................................................................................30 III. RESEARCH METHODS ..................................................................................................36 CONTEXT OF THE STUDY ......................................................................................37 DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH SITES ....................................................................37 ROLE OF THE RESEARCHER .................................................................................42 INTERVIEW RESEARCH METHODS .....................................................................44 INTERVIEW DATA COLLECTION .........................................................................53 FIELD OBSERVATIONS ...........................................................................................54 FIELD OBSERVATION DATA COLLECTION .......................................................57 PHOTOGRAPHS ........................................................................................................59 PHOTOGRAPH DATA COLLECTION ....................................................................60 DATA ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................61 IV. DATA FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS ..............................................................................73 AUTHORSHIP ............................................................................................................74 EXPOSITION ..............................................................................................................89 NEGOTIATION ........................................................................................................104 INTEGRATION ........................................................................................................119 REFLECTION ...........................................................................................................127 V. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................150 SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................150 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS ..................................................................................154 PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS ..........................................................................160 LIMITATIONS ..........................................................................................................163