This article investigates the strategies web-writers develop when their audiences respond to them via textual participation. Focusing on three web-writers who want to “continue the conversation,” this article identifies five major strategies to accomplish this aim: (a) editing after production, (b) quotation, (c) question posing, (d) naming secondary writers, and (e) textual listening. Using the lens of writer-audience tension, I find that due to these web-writers’ perceptions of audience, one that is partially externalized via the website’s template, the term audience itself may not be a discrete concept, but a fluid, evolving, and recursive one, in other words, ongoing. These perceptions of audience reflect the unending nature of online texts and are exemplified by these five strategies.
ArolaK. (2010). The design of Web 2.0: The rise of the template, the fall of design. Computers and Composition, 27(1), 4-14.
2.
BartholomaeD. (1985). Inventing the university. In RoseM. (Ed.), When a writer can’t write: Studies in writer’s block and other composing-process problems (pp. 134-165). New York, NY: Guilford.
3.
BizzellP. (1986). What happens when basic writers come to college?College Composition and Communication, 37(3), 294-301.
4.
BrakeD. R. (2012). Who do they think they’re talking to? Framings of the audience by social media users. International Journal of Communication, 6, 1056-1076.
5.
CanterL. (2013). The misconception of online comment threads. Journalism Practice, 7(5), 604-619.
6.
ChevalierJ. A.MayzlinD. (2006). The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online book reviews. Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 345-354.
7.
ChuaA. Y.BanerjeeS. (2015). Understanding review helpfulness as a function of reviewer reputation, review rating, and review depth. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(2), 354-362.
8.
DashtiA. A.Al-KandariA. A.Al-AbdullahH. H. (2015). The influence of sectarian and tribal discourse in newspapers readers’ online comments about freedom of expression, censorship and national unity in Kuwait. Telematics and Informatics, 32(2), 245-253.
9.
DuncanM. (2011). Polemical ambiguity and the composite audience: Bush’s 20 September 2001 speech to Congress and the epistle of 1 John. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 41(5), 455-471.
10.
DysonA. H.GenishiC. (2005). On the case: Approaches to language and literacy research. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
11.
EberlyR. A. (2000). Citizen critics. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
12.
EdbauerJ. (2005). Unframing models of public distribution: From rhetorical situation to rhetorical ecologies. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 35(4), 5-24.
13.
EdeL.LunsfordA. (1984). Audience addressed/audience invoked: The role of audience in composition. College Composition and Communication, 35, 155-171.
14.
EdeL.LunsfordA. (2009). “Among the audience”: On audience in an age of new literacies. In GonzalezA.WeiserE.FehlerB. (Eds.), Engaging audience: Writing in an age of new literacies (pp. 42-72). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
GallagherJ. (2015). The rhetorical template. Computers and Composition, 35(1), 1-11.
17.
GeeJ. P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses, critical perspectives on literacy and education. New York, NY: Routledge.
18.
GoffmanE. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press.
19.
GoffmanE. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
20.
HarveyD. (1989). The condition of postmodernity. London, UK: Basil Blackwell.
21.
HerringtonA. (1985). Writing in academic settings: A study of the contexts for writing in two college chemical. Research in the Teaching of English, 19(4), 331-361.
22.
KareklasI.MuehlingD. D.WeberT. (2015). Reexamining health messages in the digital age: A fresh look at source credibility effects. Journal of Advertising, 44(2), 88-104.
23.
KendallL. (2009). A response to Christine Hine’s “defining project boundaries.” In MarkhamA. N.BaymN. K. (Eds.), Internet inquiry: Conversations about method (pp. 21-25). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24.
LaquintanoT. (2010). Sustained authorship: Digital writing, self-publishing, and the ebook. Written Communication, 27(4), 469-493.
25.
Len-RiosM. E.BhandariM.MedvedevaY. S. (2014). Deliberation of the scientific evidence for breastfeeding: Online comments as social representations. Science Communication, 36(6), 778-801.
26.
LittE. (2012). Knock knock. Who’s there? The imagined audience. Journal of Broadcast & Electronic Media, 56(3), 330-345.
27.
LokeJ. (2012). Public expressions of private sentiments: Unveiling the pulse of racial tolerance through online news readers’ comments. Howard Journal of Communications, 23, 235-252.
28.
LunsfordA.EdeL. (1996). Representing audience: “Successful” discourse and disciplinary critique. College Composition and Communication, 47(2), 167-179.
29.
MalinenS. (2015). Understanding user participation in online communities: A systematic literature review of empirical studies. Computers in Human Behavior, 46, 228-238.
30.
MarchionniD. (2015). Online story commenting: An experimental test of conversational journalism and trust. Journalism Practice, 9(2), 230-249.
31.
MarwickA. E.boydd. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114-133.
32.
MaxwellJ. A. (2004). Qualitative research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33.
MolinariD. L. (2004). The role of social comments in problem-solving groups in an online class. American Journal of Distance Education, 2, 89-101.
34.
Moss-RacusinC. A.MolendaA. K.CramerC. R. (2015). Can evidence impact attitudes? Public reactions to evidence of gender bias in STEM fields. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39(2), 194-209.
35.
OdellL.GoswamiD.HerringtonA. (1983). The discourse-based interview: A procedure for exploring the tacit knowledge of writers in nonacademic settings. In MosenthalP.TamorL.WalmsleyS. A. (Eds.), Research on writing: Principles and methods (pp. 221-236). New York, NY: Longman.
PerelmanC.Olbrechts-TytecaL. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
38.
PhillipsW. (2015). This is why we can’t have nice things: Mapping the relationship between online trolling and mainstream culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39.
PorterJ. E. (1992). Audience and rhetoric. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
40.
PorterJ. E. (2009). Recovering delivery for digital rhetoric. Computers and Composition, 26(4), 207-224.
ReaderB. (2012). Free press vs. free speech? The rhetoric of “civility” in regards to anonymous online comments. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 89(3), 495-513.
43.
ReagleJ. M. (2015). Reading the comments: Likers, haters, and manipulators at the bottom of the web. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
44.
RickertT. (2013). Ambient rhetoric: The attunements of rhetorical being. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
45.
RicklyR. (2007). Messy contexts: Research as a rhetorical situation. In McKeeH. A.DeVossD. N. (Eds.), Digital writing research: Technologies, methodologies, and ethical issues (pp. 377-397). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
46.
RoweI. (2015). Civility 2.0: A comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion. Information, Communication, and Society, 18(2), 121-138.
47.
SantanaA. D. (2014a). Controlling the conversation: The availability of commenting forums in online newspapers. Journalism Studies. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2014.972076
48.
SantanaA. D. (2014b). Virtuous or vitriolic: The effect of anonymity on civility in online newspaper reader comment boards. Journalism Practice, 8(1), 18-33.
49.
SmagorinskyP. (2008). The method section as conceptual epicenter in constructing social science research reports. Written Communication, 25(3), 389-411.
50.
SpringerN.EngelmannI.PfaffingerC. (2015). User comments: Motives and inhibitors to write and read. Information, Communication, and Society, 7, 798-815.
51.
StakeR. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
52.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
53.
SungK. H.LeeM. J. (2015). Do online comments influence the public’s attitudes toward an organization? Effects of online comments based on individuals’ prior attitudes. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 149(4), 325-338.
54.
ÜrperD. C.ÇevikelT. (2014). Editorial policies, journalistic output and reader comments: A comparison of mainstream online newspapers in Turkey. Journalism Studies. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2014.969491
55.
WarnerM. (2005). Publics and protopublics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
56.
WolffW. I. (2013). Interactivity and the invisible: What counts as writing in the age of Web 2.0. Computers and Composition, 30(3), 211-225.
57.
YinR. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
58.
ZiegeleM.BreinerT.QuiringO. (2014). What creates interactivity in online news discussions? An exploratory analysis of discussion factors in user comments on news items. Journal of Communication, 64(6), 1111-1138.
