Home » Articles posted by Andréa Stella
Author Archives: Andréa Stella
Weekly Module 
Module 9: The coded gaze
Hi! Hello!
It’s so funny, I talk so much about access and being kind to yourself and yet I feel this innate urge to apologize for being unavailable last week. So I guess I will say I’m sorry because I do really care about your learning space and I hope that comes through. I think that it does. But this semester, like most or all semesters I would argue, is untenable because the conditions that we’re expected to perform under are unrealistic for any bodymind (bodymind is a Disability justice term). So for any bodymind that is looking to have any amount of joy for the time that we’re here on this planet earth — yeah, it’s rough out here people. I apologize for the rant, I can’t help myself. I also don’t understand why we’re expected to be productive constantly. But that is another byproduct of white supremacy culture. So. All the more reason to flip the script.
Please DM me if you need any support or feel lost or just want to say hello. I’m here for you and hope this asynchronous space can still feel human.
Let’s jump back into thinking critically about the fields inside engineering and the sciences. This goes for everyone, but especially for Computer Science majors — have you considered the ways in which your field has bias? the ways your field has a profound impact on how society is shaped?
I’m not sure if these questions are being raised in your other courses (I hope they are! Tell me if they are!) and since we’re considering both rhetoric and composition, these questions must be taken into account.
For this week, I would like you to watch this 13 minute talk by Dr. Joy Buolamwini about facial recognition and the effects when the sample set skews white and male.
For the module comment, I would like you to consider the following:
Take note of 2-3 rhetorical issues Dr. Buolamwini raises that speak to you. For me, it was her reframing of the “under-sampled majority” as a way to think about who is represented in most technological spaces and who is erased. So often we say “minority” when speaking about the people of the global majority who are not white and that set standard creates an intentional bias which has real implications (think policing, thinking community funding, think incarceration rates).
Have you ever considered algorithmic bias when using your devices?
What are some ways we can shift the dominant data set?
If you have an experience of algorithmic bias that you want to share, I welcome it in this space but it is not required.
Thanks everyone for staying engaged and enjoy the rest of your week!
Module 8: Mid semester recap
Hi! Are you struggling? I’m struggling! I even wrote this on time and then didn’t get to make a video and then wanted to make a video and then forgot to post it.
I mean of course I hope you’re all doing okay, that goes without saying but it’s rough out here people!
In lieu of a project or more work, I want to do a quick reflection on what we’ve done so far. Hopefully a reflective point will give you an opportunity to take stock in what you’ve learned (or haven’t had a chance to engage with yet).
So please for this week, just write to me in the comments something you can take with you to your broader education, from what we’ve done so far. It could also be “to prioritize myself even when the weight of classes seems like it’s dragging me down”.
Looking forward to hearing from you!!
Module 7: Writing as an equation
Hey everyone!
How are you? I guess we’re sort of half way through the semester? Next week I’ll introduce our mid semester project (spoiler: it will be low stakes and more writing practice). Now that we’ve thought about the broad strokes of writing and a bit about research, I want to get granular.
I asked you to watch a few videos from Craft of Scientific Writing. I think it’s a decent source to check out if you want to continue practicing specific parts of writing scientific articles, and I would recommend book marking it as something to go back to when you have to write different documents in other classes.
Now to the details of writing for in this technical genre. Did you know that it is common practice to mimic writing styles in academia? We mimic what people have done before us and change the content. Academics rarely write from scratch. This is a helpful tool! We can use a formula to make the writing easier.
For most scientific documents, we use a sentence formula that is not dissimilar to a math equation. These formulas are constructed through a system of “moves” and “steps”.
Dr. Budsaba Kanoksilapatham created a worksheet that shows the different moves and steps in a typical academic research paper. Each “move” is the information you’re trying to claim/establish and each “step” is how to support the move. The PDF is attached below. Dr. Kanoksilapatham shows the various moves and steps for the Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion section of a journal article. We can even pause for a second and think about how most articles even follow the same formatting convention (as a clue to support my statement that academics are rarely writing from scratch and instead repurposing much of what has already been written).
For this week, I would like you to return to https://arxiv.org/ and find an article where you can identify the different moves and steps within the document. Identify and highlight the various sentences that are in the IMRD worksheet. You can do the analysis on any one of the four sections: Introduction, Methods, Results, or Discussion – just make sure the article you choose has a good example of one of the sections. A pro tip (and I had a student a couple of semesters back do this): she was having some challenges in her chemistry labs with the discussion section of her reports, so she decided to use this assignment as a way to really peel back the layers of the discussion section and figure out how to write it.
My hope is that by demystifying the code of how these scientific articles are written, you’ll be able to access the act of writing with a bit more ease.
That’s all for now! Next week we’ll get back on track working towards collective liberation.
Module 6: Research remix
Hey everyone! As always, hope you’re thriving out there! Please let me know if you need any support at all!
So based on some questions that I got from you all, I realized that I might have gone out of order — or maybe I should have slowed down as we started our initial descent into the “writing” section of this course.
A foundational part of what is course is meant to show you, is that technical writing has different conventions than a persuasive essay or a book report that you might have done earlier in your academic career. Technical writing is a specific genre of writing (genre being a category, a type). So when I asked you to watch those videos and find an article, it was actually not about the content of the article and more about the components of it. I guess like a sample. If someone has a better way of describing this in terms that are familiar to you, please share it with me.
ANYWAY, very long story short, the second part of last week’s module asked you to use a datebase and find an article. I want to go back to that request and discuss research a bit. There are a lot of different ways that we can get information we need to support our writing. A simple google search is always a start, but if you’re going to begin there, I’d really like you to try out Google Scholar because it will give you access to only academic articles. If you’re accessing Google Scholar, or any database that’s not open source, you should do it through the CCNY Library link. Most of the research that you will want to use for papers in other classes will have paywalls and as a student you can use your CCNY login credentials to get articles for free.
Let’s also pause here a moment and think back to Science Under the Scope — how is research dissemination impacted by the use of paywalls? Have you ever considered who has access to research results and who doesn’t?
This is where arxiv, the database I mentioned in the last module, becomes really interesting. Arxiv is a “free distribution service and an open-access archive” that hosts scholarly articles without a paywall. Many of these articles are not peer-reviewed, which means that it’s helpful to dig a bit into the credentials of the authors, but it is still an incredible tool that shows the possibility of collective knowledge sharing not driven by for-profit publishing journals. Another note is that authors of paywalled articles see almost no money for the articles they write.
And how does one use a database? Personally, I like to take my time, I like to search a term, see what comes up first, look at titles, find something that interests me and then see who has cited it (might lead to more current research) and I like to see who they cite (works cited page can give you such rich information).
So for this week, let’s try to enter research from a different angle. Use a database of your choosing, find an article of interest to you, and share with us why you chose the article you chose and how you got to it. The naming of this process will hopefully help you remember in the future how to find articles you might need for different classes. I don’t need a summary of the article, this is really a look at the research process and not the content of the article.
Okay now that I’ve sufficiently confused you all, that’s all I have for this week! As always reach out with questions!
Module 5: What even is writing in the sciences
Hey everyone!
I know I say it every module, but I am really just so impressed by your responses to these modules. You’re considering the implications of these difficult concepts and comparing them to other real world examples, I love it! And to those of you who haven’t been engaging as much as you hope or haven’t been able to engage yet, don’t worry! You’re not behind! There’s still no where to get to (except collective liberation).
Now I want to dive into the writing and rhetorical concepts portion of this writing course.
Let me first start by explaining a bit about the field that I am in (which is not English Literature). My field is called “Composition and Rhetoric” and while it is housed in the English Department, that is actually based on a historical riff from back in the 1940s when Composition and Rhetoric split off from the academic communications department. I am mentioning this because the type of writing that I want you to learn about is very formulaic. I am sure that some of you got hives when you had to sign up for an English course, but I am here to show you tips and tricks for how to write within this very niche genre (genre is a category) of technical writing. As we get further into this section of the course, I am going to show you how to write research sentences like equations.
But first we have to look at the basics and zoom out a bit on the rhetorical (art of persuasive speaking or writing by focusing on audience) structures of writing for engineering.
Penn State has a technical writing program and they have put out a decent set of short videos (link in transcript) that break down the process of technical and science writing. I have been hesitant to use them for course work because I think that they do a bit of whitewashing (deliberate attempt to conceal unpleasant or incriminating facts in service of upholding white supremacy) by explaining technical writing in a vacuum. But they do serve a purpose. And now that you have read Science Under the Scope and know to think critically about sources, especially in science, I feel more comfortable having you use these as a framework. I want you to finish this semester and have some baseline understanding of the writing expectations in your field.
For this week I want you to check out the following videos:
Introduction: Importance of Writing of Engineers and Scientists (2min) → It gives an example of types of writing you might encounter in your fields
Analyzing Audience → you can start at the 3 minute mark when the student begins talking because they explain the rhetorical concept of “audience”
Analyzing Purpose → you should listen to the breathy professor because he explains rhetorical design choices in different writing forms that you will see in your courses and might be asked to write within.
Analyzing Occasion → the student starts to break down different language and formatting conventions that you will find in engineering documents. Please know that these are not “better” than other types of writing, but they are the formats used for technical writing.
Once you’ve checked out the videos, please search arxiv, an open-access archive for scholarly articles, and find an article in your field that has some of the conventions mentioned in these videos (you might not find all, you might find more), then pick a few pages and digitally write in the margins what you’re seeing. I’ll share a student example I have from last semester on Slack. Also if this is confusing, message me and I’ll try to explain myself better.
Okay, that’s all I have for now! I’m looking forward to seeing what you all come up with!
(student example below)
Module 4: Crafting new worlds
Hi everyone!
Your responses have been so engaging, thank you! For anyone who might have missed a module so far, take a moment to check out your classmates responses, I think it will help situate you in the conversation.
I like to start the semester with Science Under the Scope, because I think it unveils the reality in how our environments (not just natural, think social systems too) shape our reality. There might be certain truths we think are irrefutable (tbh I even challenge 1+1 = 2 because doesn’t 2 also signify a third, new thing?) but there is no way to separate our humanness and biases from the science we do, no matter how hard we try. I’ll keep offering examples through the rest of the semester.
So, what if instead of proclaiming neutrality, we embraced our subjectivity and crafted a new world entirely? As Wang alludes to, capitalism and whiteness will always be extractive and create unbalanced hierarchies; that is their function. Is there a way for people to experience abundance outside of these systems? What if we put our energies into crafting that type of world? There are people already working towards a world outside these rotting constructs. We can look to Black women and femmes who have been sharing with us Afrofuturistic dreams forever.
In Octavia Butler’s science fiction, there is room for disabled Black femmes, they are often the heroines. This isn’t a literature course, but I highly recommend reading any of Butler’s post-apocalyptic work where the systems that were in place failed and it’s up to the true innovators to create something new.
Okay maybe that was a bit of a tangent from our text, but it’s all connected. I had a friend come over for dinner a few weeks ago, they’re a designer, and they challenged me to think about how much my life is impacted by other people’s decisions. They said “look at your phone, Steve Jobs and his team designed that, what would you have done it differently?” The School of Poetic Computation (link) states that “poetic computation is a relational practice organized around communal study” and lecturer Olivia McKayla Ross poses the question: “what if software was made by people who love us?”
For this week, let’s finish up Science Under the Scope sections nine, ten, and eleven. And please respond to any two of the questions I posed to you in this module (lol I posed a lot). I want to hear from you!
Next week we’ll change gears a bit and look at some writing in the field of engineering so that we can practice the form.
Thanks everyone!
Module 3: Who benefits from science?
I was planning on finishing up Science Under the Scope, but I think we can break it up between this week and next week just to really take our time. There’s no rush! we have nowhere to get to! Urgency is a trait of ableist white supremacy culture (bonus personal growth points if you have a moment to check out the link), it perpetuates the myth that we need to be productive to be valuable, that we need to be doing labor to have value. Fuck that noise.
We will take our time, let’s let this all marinate.
Segments eight, nine and ten of Science Under The Scope dive deeper into the real world impacts of uneven resource distribution and how that siphoning of resources by the overly resourced (usually white people) will intentionally minoritize other people and keep hold of power. Wang shows us this through breaking down “who benefits” from science industry funding. This is not the science we think about when we’re dissecting frogs (do the youth even still do that? I’m old and I still remember those little frog organs omg).
The example Wang gives is the difference between scientific research funding for cystic fibrosis (which predominantly affects white people) and sickle cell anemia (predominantly affects Black people).
How does this under representation happen? “The reason the answer to all of these questions is kind of the same – (middle class folks, white folks, folks with access to science ed, folks who see themselves represented in science, by science, as scientists) – is not by chance or some inherent factor of culture or biology. The reason is because our world’s histories of injustice, oppression, marginalization, and white supremacy have created this segmentation, this privilege.”
And so when we start to think about the intentional and systemic oppression of non-white people by white people and people who uphold white supremacist ideals, it becomes clearer how scientific research and data skews to favor a specific group.
For this week, please read eight, nine, and ten, and share two or three areas of research or technological development that might have bias towards people in power. Extra points if you can find something like this in your field (we’ll be doing writing project later this semester, you might want to use the content you find now).
Thanks everyone! Next module we’ll finish up Science Under the Scope. Have a great week!
Module 2: Science is probably not neutral.
Hey everyone!
I hope you enjoyed the first three sections of Science Under The Scope. Before we jump into the content of the text, I want to mention why I chose it. This course is a “writing composition” class so we get a chance to consider different forms of “writing”. Most of my students think that writing is the five paragraph argument essay they had to do in high school, but it’s so much more! I love this graphic text because it shows how something “non-traditional” can advance critical science discourse. Remember that there are always ways to communicate beyond the written word! I’ll talk more about this throughout the course, I just wanted to point it out for anyone who’s been into comics or coding and thought those genres weren’t writing.
I want to consider this statement at the top of the third section “the biggest danger of objectivity is that it allows us to pretend that science is entirely neutral” → this fixation on “objectivity” is a way to distract us from the reality that nothing is neutral because no science is created in a vacuum. But let’s sit with this for a second, because I feel like students frequently get uncomfortable pushing up against the myth of neutrality. What does it mean for you that science needs to be neutral? How does it challenge your understanding of the field if it turns out the science is biased? Does it make you uncomfortable? (spoiler, it’s okay if the answer is yes, it made me uncomfortable the first time I realized it).
Now let’s tie this into writing composition: the same hypothesis holds true – most research journal articles that contain this “objective” research are crafted in a genre (specific format) meant to elicit authority (voice). “The information contained here is important because we said so (that’s rhetoric!).” The way facts are displayed is deliberate and makes it difficult to refute (intentionally, again rhetoric). So what does it mean if a journal article looked more like this text that we’re reading and contained critique of the existing systems that are in place?
For this week, please continue to read Science Under the Scope. I’d like you to get through section four, five, six, and seven and then consider: who didn’t go into science because of one or more structural barriers and what impact does that have on how we currently perceive scientific accomplishments? Throw your ideas in the comments section please!
Module 1: Asynchronous Welcome!
Welcome! Hi! My name is Andréa, I use she/her pronouns, and I’m genuinely excited to be with you for this semester.
This course will be a model for what is possible when care and love for students is centered instead of the directives from a non-living (usually harmful) academic entity. This Writing for the Sciences course will explore topics within the field of engineering that center Black, Disabled, and queer voices. We will challenge the concept of neutrality in science, read from a graphic textbook, and practice writing through blog responses. If you’re enrolled, you get an A. Grades are surveillance systems set up to police students with no proof of positively impacting learning outcomes (article attached if you want to challenge other professors’ policies).
We are listed as an online course, so we will be meeting asynchronously for the rest of the semester. This means that each week I will post a module, and the hope is that you’re able to engage with the module (comment, send me a message, read the section I offer) within a week’s time.
On the homepage of the course site, I try to explain how this course will run, so poke around and most questions about what will be asked of you this semester, should be revealed. If you have other questions, please send me a Slack DM, I respond there the fastest.
A little more about me: I’m Autistic, a professor and a PhD student at the Graduate Center, have two little little kids, and work a full time job in the coffee industry to pay the bills. I’m an abolitionist and I’m very excited to see how you all rebuild this world into something beautiful.
For this first week, tell me about yourself. Who are you? How did you end up at CCNY? Do you need me to help you start an uprising in any of your other classes? It can even be a 30 second video if you want, I’d love to see you face. You can send this to me as a DM on Slack.
Lastly, please read these first three sections (links: one, two, three) of Science Under the Scope. It’s a graphic text, so it should take about 15 mins to read. And answer this question in the comments section of this post: when were you taught that science was objective? and after reading these first sections, what do you think?
