In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

As I suggested in chapter 3, virtual peer review has marks of “abnormal discourse ” because it requires a new way of thinking about peer review. I described this new way of thinking in terms of a “literacy of involvement,” or actively reading, writing, and interacting in virtual environments. This depiction of involvement and activity in virtual environments has not been accounted for in past literature that has emphasized peer review as an exercise of oral communication. In this chapter I further explore how this new way of thinking about peer review might manifest in context. Specifically, I suggest that reading, writing, and interacting are helpful starting points in characterizing the activities involved in virtual peer review. However, these activities in virtual peer review are made more complex by the influence of two additional factors: collaboration and technology.These factors present unique challenges, such as complexities of ownership, authorship, and technological adaptability, that may not be as apparent in face-to-face peer review. If we are to truly embrace virtual peer review in all its “abnormality,” we must address these challenges so we are better equipped to conduct virtual peer review. In the following sections, I identify these challenges of collaboration and technology, and I illustrate them through excerpts of actual virtual peer review dialogue. Challenges Related to Collaboration: Ownership and Authorship Virtual peer review can be categorized as a collaborative activity in that it involves two or more persons working toward a goal of improving writing, and in this sense, virtual peer review shares roots with peer review as a collaborative activity. As I discussed in chapter 1, peer review has been deeply connected to collaboration both in practice and theory. Scholars have described peer review as collaborative because the activity involves two or more persons conversing with each other about writing, with the goal of helping one another improve writing (Bruffee, “Collaboration”; Gere; DiPardo and Freedman ). Bruffee connected this collaborative nature of peer review more broadly to social constructionist theory, which asserts that knowledge is created through social interaction with others. The deep roots of peer review in terms of collaboration, then, have been well established. 79 C H A P T E R 4 Challenges of Virtual Peer Review Virtual peer review, however, may require finer distinctions with regard to collaboration, because the textual nature of the activity may raise issues of ownership and authorship. For example, when virtual peer reviewers are writing comments to one another, comments can easily be seen as property—as the textual ownership of ideas. In addition, written comments offered from peers may be too easily integrated into texts, thus potentially changing an individually authored text to a collaboratively authored text. Spigelman concurs, noting that “traditional writing groups are face-to-face encounters” and that “Online writing groups raise new and interesting questions about group dynamics and about issues relating to intellectual property ” (16). Because virtual peer review introduces complications related to ownership and authorship, the collaborative nature of virtual peer review appears fundamentally different than the collaborative nature of face-to-face peer review. This difference in collaboration is yet another illustration of the remediation of peer review to virtual environments. Thus, we need to carefully distinguish the connection of virtual peer review and collaboration, keeping in mind the complications that arise due to online media and the textual nature of commentary. To help distinguish forms of collaboration that apply to virtual peer review, I return to DiPardo and Freedman’s categories of collaborative activities : “responding to writing, thinking collaboratively, writing collaboratively, and editing student writing” (120). As I remarked in chapter 1, DiPardo and Freedman have asserted that face-to-face peer review best fits the category of “responding to writing.” This distinction of collaboration has served peer review well, for it has helped shape boundaries for the activity. However, virtual peer review (and other forms of written peer review, such as handwritten comments on print drafts) may extend into the categories of “writing collaboratively ” and “editing” student writing—and perhaps even into the category of “thinking collaboratively.” Relying on DiPardo and Freedman’s collaborative categories for support, I will address the following forms of collaboration in virtual peer review: (1) responding to writing, (2) editing, and (3) collaborative writing. Using excerpts from actual review sessions, I will illustrate how virtual peer review can sometimes move into these categories, and I will describe the challenges that these moves create. Responding to Writing First, it is important to demonstrate how virtual...

Share