Anders Fagerjord holder seksjonsseminar p Seksjon for humanistisk informatikk ved UiBThis morning, Anders Fagerjord gave my webdesign and web aesthetics students a wonderful introduction to analysing a web site. He cleverly started by asking whether any of the students had taken other classes at the university where they analysed things. Out of forty students present, only one (of the students who spoke up) had any experience with analysing aesthetical objects, expressive texts. She’d studied English. Others had analysed databases, user interfaces and political systems, and Anders asked each of them “And what did you do in that kind of analysis?” So blessedly straightforward, and boy does it remind me that these students do not have the years of experience of studying art, media, literature, theatre that I had when I started thinking and writing about the web. They have completely different experiences that don’t always make it obvious how you might go about interpreting, reading, analysing.

Anders proceeded to do a wonderful job of presenting what a textual analysis is, and how it’s similar to and different from other kinds of analysis. He gave the students simple steps to follow (ask a question, find relevant material, read slowly, take lots and lots of notes of details, group your findings, present it making sure you answer your question rather than just describe the site), talked about how he had worked to do the analyses (or readings, if you like) of the web texts he wrote about in his thesis, and gave us some examples of his analyses. Manna from heaven. Just what we needed. Watching others teach your class is a great learning experience, too. I’ll be stealing a few of Anders’s tricks next time I teach this course. Or maybe I’ll just ask him to come back next year…

After lunch Anders continued with a talk for our department where he talked more about his dissertation work, and about the rhetorical convergence – and divergence – of web genres. This was interesting too – I really do want to read his thesis properly soon. There’s excellent stuff there.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

4 thoughts on “how to analyse

  1. lisa

    My favorite science teacher in high school won me over by saying, “What I learned about scientic method I learned by analyzing the novel.”

  2. John

    It’s fun to think about the similarities of analyzing a piece of art and a database. Or can a database be a piece of art?

    Reading about lectures like this makes me want to be a student again. Or, more specifically, a student within the structure of school. 🙂

  3. Francois Lachance

    Besides the thesis, Anders offers readers of English some wonderful blog entries.
    I am still mulling over one where he describes a paper under the rubric “where do ideas come from”
    http://fagerjord.no/blog/archive/wheredoi.html
    He reports in this entry on a question from Lisbeth.
    And that straightforward clarity that Dr. Jill reports upon is there. A gem of clarity.

  4. what’s textual analysis?
    Sometimes you teach students already experienced at analysis. Sometimes your course is their first college-level exposure to the study of language and literature. The following, via Jill Walker, is about as elegant a description of the basics as one co…

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.