Author: ksuchor

Committee Charge

Research Committee

General Charge: Reflecting a broad and diverse range of research methods and types, the Research Committee monitors and identifies updates in research developments in the field and employs and advocates for ethical research standards across a variety of areas of influence in writing studies.

Responsibilities

• Conducts an inventory of research trends in the field, and provides an oral and written annual report to the Executive Committee regarding some or all of the following: suggested updates to CCCC calls for proposals, targeted calls for grant proposals for the CCCC Research Initiative grants and Emergent Researcher Awards, recommendations for breadth and diversity of methods and findings, and identifying needed areas of research in keeping with the CCCC overall mission.
• Provides two Research Committee members to participate in the Executive Committee-appointed committee evaluating and selecting CCCC Research Initiative grants and Emergent Researcher Awards.
• Sponsors an annual full-day Research Methods Workshop at the CCCC Convention.

Membership

• Members will serve three-year terms.
• Chair: Selects members in consultation with administrative committee chairs and is responsible for fulfilling or delegating its charges.
• Members: Assist Chair in fulfilling the responsibilities of its charges.

 

In collaboration with the CCCC Feminist Caucus, CCCC is pleased to offer small grants of no more than $300 per attendee that can be used to offset the costs of dependent care expenses at the 2024 CCCC Annual Convention, or for other caregiving needs, as described by the applicant, for the 2024 Convention. The grant is intended for caregivers, including those caring for children, a spouse, a parent, and/or any friend or family member who needs assistance with daily activities. Priority for these funds will be given to contingent faculty members, graduate students, and/or independent scholars without institutional support.

To apply for funds, please complete the application form by Friday, February 2, 2024, 11:59 p.m. ET.

Criteria for Evaluating Grant Applications

The committee will review the applications submitted and will rank them, prioritizing the following criteria:

• Available funding for conference attendance
• Conference participation commitments
• How participation in the convention will advance the applicant’s personal and professional goals
• How the award will support applicant’s contributions to the profession and the CCCC organization
• How the grant will help with caregiving responsibilities

Applicants who have received funding from CCCC for another award or scholarship will not be considered. CCCC assumes no responsibility for any liabilities associated with dependent care or dependent care providers.

Selected recipients will be notified by the CCCC Feminist Caucus by March 8, 2024. Selected recipients will then work with the CCCC Liaison to submit paperwork required to receive funding. The award process will be completed in advance of the 2024 CCCC Annual Convention.

Procedures for Award Recipients

After the convention, grant recipients should submit a one-page summary indicating how the funding supported the recipient’s participation in convention activities. Please submit the funding report to Feminist Caucus Care Grants Coordinator Alex Hanson by April 20, 2024.

Name: Sushil K. Oswal
Title: Associate Professor
Institution: University of Washington
Skype: Sushiloswal1

Name: Diane Martinez
Title: Assistant Professor
Institution: Western Carolina University
Location: Cullowhee, NC
Phone: 828-227-3923
Email: dlmartinez@email.wcu.edu
Skype: diane.martinez64

 

 

    

Committee Members

Megan Busch, Chair
Jessica Jorgenson Borchert
Alex Evans
Michael Harker
Mary Karcher
Travis Margoni
Ben McCorkle
Sean Morey
Eliot Parker
Ellen Payne
Michael Rifenburg
Matt Rome
Katie Silvester
Christine Tulley

Committee Charge

General Charge: To function as a point of first contact for new members and to develop convention-specific programing and outreach.

Responsibilities

• Provides a staffed Welcome Table where new attendees can ask questions, receive suggestions, and find materials helpful for navigating the Convention.
• Creates, in cooperation with the NCTE national office, a Tip Sheet, designed to help new attendees make the most of their experience at the Convention.
• Hosts an Orientation to review strategies for Convention attendance.
• Sponsors a Career Quest roundtable to help participants develop a plan to find opportunities at the Convention and within the organization that can play an important part in their career development.
• Hosts a Coffee Hour where new attendees can hear from various member groups of the Convention (e.g., Meet Leaders of SIGs, TYCA, C’s the Day, etc.).
• Sponsors the Think Tank where new attendees can work with experienced professionals to discuss and develop proposals for the next year’s Convention.
• Maintains relationships with other subcommittees and groups (e.g., Digital Archive of Literacy Narratives, C’s the Day, etc.).

Membership

• Members will serve three-year terms.
• Chair: Selects members in consultation with administrative committee chairs and is responsible for fulfilling or delegating its charges.
• Members: Assist Chair in fulfilling the responsibilities of its charges.

Suggestions for Drafting Effective CCCC Proposals

Maricela Guzman: Case #3

Characterization of Institution

Research Intensive, headed toward Research Extensive

It has been raising the bar on expectations for tenure for the past decade, although it seems to respect the conditions under which people were hired.

Characterization of Department

M.A. granted in English (concentrations in Children’s Literature Technical Communication)

(We are working on the ED.D with a department in the College of Education.  Approval of this degree is some years away.)

There are  20 tenured/tenure-track  faculty and 12 non-tenure track lecturers, mostly with MA degrees.  About a third of the tenured faculty have had some contact with writing centers in their past and most of the lecturers have worked in our writing center.  The department is down about 8-10 tenure-line positions since the early 90’s, through retirements and job transfers.

How would this case turn out in your department?  At your university/college?

I think this case at my university would have proceeded pretty much as it did in the case study.  Our department has been open (perhaps too open) to faculty changing directions in scholarly interests even before tenure.  Guzman was hired to develop a program in technology and tenure, which she did.  She has developed a reputation in technology, which she was expected to do when she was hired.  I don’t think the science emphasis would be a problem here because the project was developed within the technology paradigm for which she was hired.

At the third year review, in our review committee we might have commented on her time spent in the writing center. As chair of the committee, I would have made sure that this would have been part of the committee discussion since that was what she was hired to do, and the department should have reasonable expectations that the appropriate amount of time/effort/energy would be spent in that area.   The committee third year recommendation would have been more directive, pointing her toward attention that must be paid to the writing center.

She would have gotten tenure based on her scholarship and presumed good teaching.  She would not have been denied even if her performance as director of the writing center remained below average, because if this is conceived as service, service doesn’t count very much.  It especially would have been a non-issue if the writing center was functioning, even if the quality could have been raised.

What are the Department Chair’s responsibilities toward Guzman?  Which did she/he fulfill?  Fail?

I think much of the problem began at hiring.  The hiring committee and the department overlooked a critical part of he job that they wanted Guzman to perform.  Because of this, she may have interpreted her hiring differently:  that directing the writing center was not central to her duties and that the department was much more flexible than it turned out to be.  At hiring, it is the Chair’s responsibility to make duties clear to potential hires.  It may also have been his/her responsibility to keep in close touch during non-review years with Guzman’s progress and to advise her of her writing center responsibilities.  I don’t know that she/he could have foreseen the response of the review committee at the third year, however.  

In general, I think it is a chair’s responsibility to walk that fine line between making sure that people do what they were hired to do (so you don’t have to make another hire in the same area) and encouraging creativity and versatility.  It also may be the chair’s responsibility to mentor and encourage new faculty and to keep them informed of their progress toward tenure.  It is not his/her responsibility to “support” them  after the fact or when another chair may have blown it at an earlier date.

What are the Personnel Committee’s responsibilities toward Guzman?  Which did they fulfill?  Fail?

Responsibilities of the Chair of Review.  In this case study, the review/personnel committee and its chair failed in its responsibility to give feedback to the chair and through him/her to Guzman about her performance in the writing center.  The chair of the committee also failed to elicit from committee members their “true” feelings about Guzman, that they were  unhappy about her scientific leanings.  The chair also failed to remind the committee of the conditions under which Guzman was hired and the department’s stated policy to accept on-line and technological research.  However, in my department’s review committee, it is often the case that committee members will not discuss negative issues for fear of losing a position or for fear of not being “collegial” (in our department’s case.)  It is often difficult to be critical and if you are, you might be seen as “negative” or “uncollegial” even where a negative judgment is warranted.

At the fifth year, the chair of the committee (or perhaps the chair of the department) should discuss with Guzman how she sees her future within this English department.  Without this discussion and follow-up work with the members of the department, Guzman may very well get tenure, but abandon the writing center and become alienated from the department.

What are the responsibilities of the Dean?  Which did she/he fulfill?  Fail?

Having never been a Dean, I am less certain of his/her responsibilities.  Since hiring is contractual, I would guess that the Dean must be certain of the match between the candidate’s qualifications and the needs advertised.  A mismatch might even raise legal questions, especially if other candidates may have been overlooked or bypassed in the search if the requirements change.  It would be the Dean’s responsibility to question the chair at every point in the tenure process, again for mostly legal reasons.

What are Guzman’s responsibilities?  Which did she fulfill?  Fail?

At the third year, Guzman needs to be reminded of her responsibilities by the chair of the department.  She needs to know from the chair the unofficial position of the department and the possible negative ( mostly interpersonal it seems) fallout if she continues to lean even more toward scientific enactments of her technology scholarship.  She needs to know that her performance in the writing center is not seen as fulfilling her contract–if this is the case.  It is not clear in the case study that she was told any of this stuff by the chair, dean or whomever, and she should have been.

Once she knows or is reminded of these responsibilities and if she were to continue in directions that are not within her original or third year contract, she might expect some repercussions.   In her tenure document, she has the responsibility to explain her past performance, especially as it fits into the goals of the department.  She must also explain her performance in the writing center, which seems to be the main reason she was hired.  She has the responsibility to find a balance between the needs (not the biases) of the English Department and her own scholarly needs and aspirations and to explain that balance to her department and the rest of the university

What went wrong?  What went right?

In many universities (and this is the case here also) the third year review seems to be pro forma.  It seems that few places have the stomach to be tough, to outline clearly what expectations  are and are not being met.  In this case, as I said, it is not clear if Guzman ever found out the “unofficial” version of the third-year decision.  If she never found out, that would have been a mistake.  Probably the pressure to raise the teaching load instead of working with Guzman to define the position is a mistake.  The department chair’s promise of support seems hollow if it is only support for tenure; the support should include ways to help Guzman identify herself within the social context of her department so she will not be ostrasized.

I think hiring people with many talents is a right thing to do.  The program in technology and curlture seems like innovative thinking.  However, the whole department has to be on board with decisions to hire folks outside the box, even when there is a stated departmental policy to support such scholarly efforts.

Jared Johns: Case #1

Characterization of Institution

Research I University

Characterization of Department

Ph.D. granted in English (Literature)
Ph.D. granted in English (Linguistics)
Ph.D. granted in Rhetoric/Composition
M.F.A. granted in Creative Writing
M.A. granted in English
M.A. granted in Professional Writing
B.A. granted in English
B.A. in Secondary English Education
B.A. in Creative Writing

How would Jared Johns’ case turn out in your department?  At your university/college?

Provided that Johns takes the advice and does publish some articles in refereed journals, the department primary committee would likely vote positively on his case when he came up for promotion with tenure in year 6.  Likely result of case at university level:  Expecially with the strong support from the outside evaluators, and provided that the department head and dean presented the case skillfully, explaining that Johns was hired for a very specifc purpose and that his profile was basically a new one for the department, he could–with a beefed-up publication record in recognized journals by his 6th year–get through the school and university committees.

What are the Department Chair’s responsibilities toward Johns?  Which did she/he fulfill?  Fail?

At the most basic level, the department needs to question whether–in light of their refusal to provide the necessary resources for technology–they should even have hired to fill this position.  Certainly, Johns has, by virtue of his degree and previous publications, the appropriate qualifications for such a position;  and by hiring him the department is tacitly indicating its support for the kind of work he is doing.  But to bring him in without adequate resources to do the administrative part of his job, and even to appoint an untenured assistant professor (let alone a beginning one) to what is bound to be a touchy and potentially volatile administrative position, puts Johns in an almost untenable situation before he even begins.  So the department head may have failed in leadership and made an inappropriate decision right from the start–and that was only compounded if he was not very forthright about what would be expected of Johns and some of the difficulties he was likely to face.  Also, where is the director of composition in all of this?  Certainly the writing course using the new technologies that Johns is assigned to teach should have been planned out and developed much more carefully, so that the technology could be integrated in a way that would support rather than dilute the main focus.  Once Johns is on board (or ideally even before the position had been announced), the department head should have appointed a computer advisory committee;  should have strongly advised Johns not to becme overcommitted to work on student committees–and, in fact, should have sought out other faculty to help share this burden;  and should have taken it upon himself to answer the parent’s irate letter to the president, by explaining just what the philosophy behind error recognition/ correction of the writing program is, and how new pedagogies fit into this.

What are the Personnel Committee’s responsibilities toward Johns?  Which did they fulfill?  Fail?

In my department, the Personnel Committee is comprised of all full professors.

The committee really should have provided Johns with more feedback about his teaching and, particularly, his research progress much earlier on. Apparently, a couple senior faculty who were enthusiastic about the new tchnologies did observe his teaching and make suggestions, but they probably should have taken it upon themselves also to educate their colleagues, so that they would be better able to evaluate Johns’ work.  Given the sparse knowledge about Johns’ specialization among the current faculty, this kind of “education” is an obligation if the contributon of new faculty is to be measured appropriately.  Furthermore, in light of their own limited knowledge of the field, the committee should probably have been considerably more open to the assessments of the outside experts.

What are the responsibilities of the Dean?  Which did she/he fulfill?  Fail?

The Dean seems not to have a very good overall sense of the place of computer technology in the teaching and research missions of the school/college.   The Dean should never have authorized filling the position without making certain that financial resources for both adequate  (paid) staff and hardware and software were in place within the department to suppoort their computer facilitiy.

From discussion with Johns before he was appointed, the Dean should have ascertained what research support he would need personally and been convinced that the type of research he was engaged in fit with the mission of the school and could lead to tenure and promotion.  At the very least, the dean’s office could make certain that computer sections of various courses were clearly designated, so that students would know when they enrolled;  and the Dean should have worked to encourage, even if necessary designate, another faculty member to chair the computer-fee committee.

What are Johns’ responsibilities?  Which did she/he fulfill?  Fail?

Although prepared “academically,” Johns has not thought through clearly enough how to integrate computer technology into the introductory writing classroom so that it is non-threatening to the students and complementary to the major aims of the course.  But he’s clearly working hard and  shows signs of making the effort to do so by adjusting to course expectations–and, again, I would ask:  where is the director of freshman cmposition in all of this?

Johns needs to be reassured, over and again, that he can say “no” to excessive demands on his time.  And throughout it all, he needs to be made to feel comfortable being very up front and candid with his department head about the problems he is having and the things that he needs to help him succeed.

Given the nature of the department he entered and the mindset of most of his colleagues, he has to be receptive to their advice on finding more traditional refereed outlets for his research, at the same time that he helps educate them in the use of new media in teaching and unconventional research.  But the “faults” are not primarily his.

What went wrong?  What went right?

What went wrong?  The culture of the department was really not prepared for the kind of hire it made;  the infrastructure and suppoort system were not there–probably because the department got on the technology bandwagon without ever discussing  the ramifications for pedagogy and scholarly research.  Johns can’t be expected to take them “into the future” singlehandedly, which appears to be pretty much the case.

What went right?  The department appears to have some notion of the need to mentor beginning faculty, though not much is in place to accomplish it properly.  And they appear educable about new areas of specialization–at least they came around to supporting Johns, however marginally.  But the task ahead is to make certain that, if Johns achieves promotion and tenure, he isn’t burned out and demoralized in the process.

Since 1949, CCCC has provided a forum for all those responsible for teaching composition and communication skills at the college level, both in undergraduate and graduate programs. For over 50 years, CCCC members have charted new courses in the teaching and scholarship of composition and rhetoric, helping to shape our academic community and professional practices. As members, through the College Forum of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), of the American Council of Learned Societies, CCCC is the professional voice of composition and rhetoric studies.

When you join CCCC, you will be welcomed into a community of scholars and teachers who share your concerns about important issues influencing the teaching of composition and rhetoric. You will be connected to current trends in scholarship and research, developments in teaching, national trends in higher education, and much more.

CCCC Resources: Read these quick snapshots to learn more about various CCCC initiatives, including the CCCC Annual Convention, publications, grants, awards, position statements, the Policy Analysis Initiative, and the Connected Community.

Ashley J. Holmes is an assistant professor of English at Georgia State University, where she teaches first-year composition and undergraduate and graduate courses in composition theory and pedagogy, public and visual rhetoric, and digital writing and production. She has published peer-reviewed essays in English Journal, Community Literacy Journal, Reflections, Kairos, and Ubiquity, as well as in three edited collections. She is currently an assistant editor with Kairos. She is the author of the SWR book Public Pedagogy in Composition Studies (2016).

In this conversation with Charissa Che, Holmes talks about her use of pop culture in a student-centered classroom, the productive tension found in the public/private binary, the differences between service learning and public pedagogy, the uses of social media, and much more. (35:10)

 

Conference on College Composition and Communication
March 2015, references and further reading updated November 2022

In 1999, the NCTE resolved to “[a]ffirm, seek, and encourage all teachers to include a diversity of perspectives, cultures, aesthetic responses, and experiences in the teaching and learning of English language arts.” Yet, as Daniel Byman, Senior Fellow for Foreign Policy at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, observes, “many professors harbor stereotypes about the military, not recognizing the diversity of opinion within military circles on many issues and the remarkable minds of many young [military service members].” In order to reflect the spirit of the NCTE resolution, this document asserts that “learning about the military, war and combat, and service members’ experiences [can actually] complement a campus’s broader commitment to diversity and social understanding” (Rumann 31).

This document first identifies multiple assets student veterans often bring to writing classrooms and then acknowledges some of the special considerations that writing instructors and WPAs should take into account when working with student veterans.  After presenting these generalizations, the document offers classroom instructors and WPAs some more detailed answers to the question, “What do I need to know about working with student veterans?”  A list of references and further reading, organized roughly by field of study—from composition and writing studies to disability studies and student services—is provided at the end of the document.  This organizational structure is meant to present a deliberate move away from deficit-model thinking about military veterans—that veterans are damaged or unprepared or otherwise problematic—to representing military service members as considerable assets and sources of strength, vision, and leadership for our universities, colleges, and our society at large.

Student Veterans’ Assets

• Student veterans are experienced writers and communicators who are familiar with military genres of writing and questions of authorship sometimes different from but related to those encountered in higher education.  That expertise and familiarity should be acknowledged, explored, and built upon.¹
• Student veterans have served as part of a team and have often served in leadership roles for which problem-solving and thinking on one’s feet were daily requirements.  This experience should be valued, honored, and recognized.  For example, instructors might invite student veterans to take leadership roles in the classroom, as small group facilitators, or as mentors to other students.
• Many student veterans have spent considerable time overseas and/or working with diverse populations and therefore can contribute meaningful insights they have garnered from these experiences to classroom discussions.  As Corey B. Rumann and Florence A. Hamrick explain, “learning about the military, war and combat, and service members’ experiences [can actually] complement a campus’s broader commitment to diversity and social understanding” (31).
• While student veterans may not choose to write about their military experiences for classroom assignments (see Leonhardy), providing venues for student veteran publications and creative work (essays, narratives, creative writing, video making, art work) and sponsoring on-campus events related to military and veterans topics can create opportunities for student veterans to portray the complexities of veterans’ individual as well as collective experiences.  Veterans’ writing groups and programs are growing across the country (see Schell), and faculty members can help establish and/or facilitate such groups on their campuses, collaborate with local community groups, or encourage students to take part in already existing programs (e.g., Words After War, Military Experience and the Arts, The Veterans Writing Project).

Student Veterans: Special Considerations

• While student veterans have access to benefits that help them pay tuition and other expenses, difficulties processing or receiving benefits can result in retention risks and distraction from academic work.
• Veterans can sometimes feel alienated by campus and classroom cultures (in terms of age, politics, and experience) and thereby also be at risk in terms of retention.
• “Veterans who sense that academia regards them as broken, willfully nonconformist, or unworkable in the college environment will react with understandable frustration, which puts them at risk for attrition.” (Gann)
• Some student veterans may have service-related disabilities: “Surveys with student veterans and student service members on their experiences using the Post 9/11 GI Bill, found that most of these survey and focus group participants encountered substantial transition challenges while adapting to life on campus.  Among these students, one of the most frequently discussed challenges was coping with service-related disabilities and PTSD….Participants cited such difficulties as being unable to move quickly from one class to the next across campus, hyper-alertness and anxiety caused by PTSD, difficulty concentrating due to TBI, and difficulty relating to other students.” (http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/programs/policy-government-affairs/key-policy-priorities/objective-2-economic-empowerment/initiative-2.aspx)
• Student veterans may be reluctant to seek assistance—whether through disability services, counseling, or the Writing Center.
• Student veterans, like other adult students, are more likely to have family and work obligations in addition to their academic workload.
• Student veterans may have to miss classes for VA appointments or may be recalled to active duty, necessitating flexibility in attendance policies.
• Instructors should consider including a syllabus statement indicating their awareness of the complexities of being a student veteran, such as this example created by Katt Blackwell-Starnes:“I recognize the complexities of being a student veteran.  If you are a student veteran, please inform me if you need special accommodations.  Drill schedules, calls to active duty, complications with GI Bill disbursement, and other unforeseen military and veteran-related developments can complicate your academic life.  If you make me aware of a complication, I will do everything I can to assist you or put you in contact with university staff who are trained to assist you.” (Hart and Thompson, “An Ethical Obligation”)

FAQs

I’m a classroom composition instructor. What do I need to know about veterans?

• Veterans are a diverse population in terms of race, gender, sexuality, class, and ability.  Many student veterans, like other adult students, have job and family responsibilities.
• Veterans will often be older and somewhat more mature than conventional college students.  They are often disciplined students who exhibit a keen sense of purpose (mission accomplishment) and a strong work ethic.
• Veterans are accustomed to following orders, and therefore they will often value structure and clear, straightforward instructions for writing tasks.  They may be unfamiliar with process models of writing and academic documentation styles.  They will likely seek explicit standards of assessment.
• Because concerns about the chain of command are important to veterans, they tend to regard their professors as authority figures and may therefore be uncomfortable with informal classroom atmospheres or a perceived lack of structure within a classroom setting.
• Veterans often draw on a range of experiences broader than those associated with typical college-age students, and they often wish to have those experiences valued and respected.
• Veterans also value their privacy, so professors and classmates should not demand that veterans disclose the particulars of their experiences, nor should student veterans be expected to function as stand-in military spokespeople.  Veterans may also sometimes be uncomfortable with explicitly or overtly politicized course content.

I’m a writing program or writing center administrator. What do I need to know about veterans?

• WPAs should familiarize themselves with the veteran resources on campus; should make faculty, graduate students, and staff in the writing program aware of the resources available to student veterans; and should encourage instructors to inform student veterans of these resources.
• WPAs should offer training to writing instructors to facilitate a better understanding of military culture, the assets that student veterans bring to writing classrooms, and the challenges that veterans may face.  Such training could raise awareness of available resources for veterans on campus (see above) and in the local community.²
• Writing Center directors should consider offering writing consultations in the campus veteran center (if one is available) and should try to ensure that consultations are offered when student veterans are on campus, as many student veterans are likely to be commuter students who have job and family responsibilities off campus.  Writing Center directors may want to consider offering online consultations, as well.
• Writing programs should have plans in place to accommodate veterans with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) concerns and with Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI concerns), as both of these sometimes manifest in a need for additional time for reading and writing as well as difficulties concentrating and short-term memory loss.  In addition, syllabi should be made available to veterans in advance of registration, when possible, and instructors should consider offering alternative assignments and readings if triggering material is part of their existing course.

¹ “Student veterans who were able to identify and then translate previous learning and rhetorical experiences from the military into academic writing contexts reported positive perceptions about that writing.” (Hinton)

² It may be possible and even desirable to coordinate this training with the Veterans Services Office on campus (if there is one) and/or with the student veterans’ organization on campus (if there is one). See also Sander: “research shows that where support services for veterans exist, those students do well in the classroom.”??

References and Further Reading (Updated November 2022)

Bibliographies

Blackwell-Starnes, Katt. “2019 Veterans Studies Bibliography.” Journal of Veterans Studies, vol. 7, no. 1, 2021. Doi: 10.21061/jvs.v7i1.244.

———. “2018 Veterans Studies Bibliography.” Journal of Veterans Studies, vol. 5, no. 1, 2019. Doi: 10.21061/jvs.v5i1.157.

———. “2017 Veterans Studies Bibliography.” Journal of Veterans Studies, vol. 3, no. 1, 2018. Doi: 10.21061/jvs.v3i1.51.

Asset-Based Approaches

Institute for Veterans and Military Families & Student Veterans of America. Student Veterans: A Valuable Asset to Higher Education, Nov. 2019, https://ivmf.syracuse.edu/student-veterans-a-valuable-asset-to-higher-education/.

Kinney, Adam R., and Aaron M. Eakman. “Measuring Self-Advocacy Skills Among Student Veterans with Disabilities: Implications for Success in Postsecondary Education.” Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, vol. 30, no. 4, 2017, pp. 343–358, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1172799.pdf.

Kranke, Derrick, et al. “A Qualitative Investigation That Applies an Ecological Strengths-Based Perspective to Veterans’ Experience of Reintegration into Civilian Life.” Military Behavioral Health, vol. 4, no. 1, 2016, pp. 75–81. Doi: 10.1080/21635781.2015.1119771.

Rodriguez, Darlene Xiomara, and Eric Manley. “How We Fail US Foreign-Born Veterans: A Scoping Study of the Literature. Journal of Veterans Studies, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 1–9, 2020, https://doi.org/10.21061/jvs.v6i3.186.

Schell, Eileen. “Writing with Veterans in a Community Writing Group.” Composition Forum, vol. 28,  2013.

Sullivan, Nicole, et al. “Student Veterans and Adjustment to College: Making Meaning of Military Experiences.” Journal of American College Health, vol. 69, no. 5, 2019, pp. 503–512, Doi: 10.1080/07448481.2019.1683017.

Civilian Reintegration & Post-Service Transitions

​​Cancio, Robert. “Examining the Effect of Military Service on Education: The Unique Case of Hispanic Veterans.” Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, vol. 40, no. 2, 2018, pp. 150–175, https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986318761849.

Derefinko, Karen J., et al. “Perceived Needs of Veterans Transitioning from the Military to Civilian Life.” The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, vol. 46, no. 3, July 2019, pp. 384–398. Doi: 10.1007/s11414-018-9633-8.

Hunniecutt, Jeni Ruth. Rethinking Reintegration and Veteran Identity: A New Consciousness. Palgrave Macmillan, 2022.

Kranke, Derrick, et al. “A Qualitative Investigation That Applies an Ecological Strengths-Based Perspective to Veterans’ Experience of Reintegration into Civilian Life.” Military Behavioral Health, vol. 4, no. 1, 2016, pp. 75–81. Doi: 10.1080/21635781.2015.1119771.

Martin, Travis L. War & Homecoming: Veteran Identity and the Post-9/11 Generation. University Press of Kentucky, 2022.

McCormick, Wesley H., et al. “Military Culture and Post-Military Transitioning Among Veterans: A Qualitative Analysis.” Journal of Veterans Studies, vol. 4, no. 2, 2019, pp. 288–298. Doi: 10.21061/jvs.v4i2.121.

Schultz, Kelsey M., et al. “Seven Connotations of the Word ‘Transition’ in Student Veteran Literature.” Journal of Veterans Studies, vol. 8, no. 1, 2022, pp. 15–28, http://doi.org/10.21061/jvs.v8i1.273.

Composition/Writing Studies

Blaauw-Hara, Mark. From Military to Academy: The Writing and Learning Transitions of Student-Veterans. Utah State University Press, 2021.

Buckley, Meghan. “Empowering Female [Student] Veterans through Community Writing and Experiential Learning in the Classroom.” Journal of Veterans Studies, vol. 7, no. 2, 2021, pp. 44–59. Doi: 10.21061/jvs.v7i2.268.

Doe, Sue, and Lisa Langstraat, editors. Generation Vet: Composition, Student-Veterans, and the Post-9/11 University. Utah State University Press, 2014.

Hart, D. Alexis, and Roger Thompson. “Veterans in the Writing Classroom: Three Programmatic Approaches to Facilitate the Transition from Military to Higher Education.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 68, no. 2, Dec. 2016, pp. 345–371.

———. Writing Programs, Veterans Studies, and the Post-9/11 University: A Field Guide. National Council of Teachers of English, 2020.

Hembrough, Tara, and Kameron Dunn. “A Study of Rural and Native-American Students’ Military Identities, Military Family History, and Reading and Writing Interests in a Military-Friendly, Military-Themed Composition Course.” Journal of Veterans Studies, vol. 4, no. 2, 2019, pp. 203–228. Doi: 10.21061/jvs.v4i2.112.

Disability Studies

Boccieri, Brian J., et al. “Severe Pain in Veteran Students.” Journal of Allied Health, vol. 48, no. 3, Fall 2019, pp. 172–180.

Kinney, Adam R., and Aaron M. Eakman. Measuring Self-Advocacy Skills among Student Veterans with Disabilities: Implications for Success in Postsecondary Education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, vol. 30, no. 4, 2017, pp. 343–358, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1172799.pdf.

Lau, Stephanie J., et al. “Unique Needs and Challenges of Women Veteran Students with Disabilities: Conceptualizing Identity in Higher Education.” Journal of Veterans Studies, vol. 6, no. 3, 2020, pp. 101–109. Doi: 10.21061/jvs.v6i3.212.

Rattray, Nicolas A., et al. “The Long and Winding Road to Postsecondary Education for U.S. Veterans with Invisible Injuries.” Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, vol. 42, no. 3, 2019, pp. 284–295. Doi: 10.1037/prj0000375.

Military Culture

Caforio, Giuseppe, editor. Handbook of the Sociology of the Military. Springer, 2006.

Mansoor, Peter R., and Williamson Murray, editors. The Culture of Military Organizations. Cambridge University Press, 2019.

Schading, Barbara. A Civilian’s Guide to the U.S. Military: A Comprehensive Reference to the Custom, Language, and Structure of the Armed Forces. Writer’s Digest Books, 2007.

Williams, Allison J., et al., editors. The Routledge Companion to Military Research Methods. 1st ed., Routledge, 2020.

Postsecondary Education: Experiences and Support

Bagby, Janet H., et al. “Is Anyone Listening? An Ecological Systems Perspective on Veterans Transitioning from the Military to Academia.” Military Behavioral Health, vol. 3, no. 4, 2015, pp. 219–229. Doi: 10.1080/21635781.2015.1057306.

Barry, Adam E., et al. “Student Service Members/Veterans in Higher Education: A Systematic Review.” Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, vol. 51, no. 1, 2014, pp. 30–42. Doi: 10.1515/jsarp-2014-0003.

Blackwell-Starnes, Katt. “At Ease: Developing Veterans’ Sense of Belonging in the College Classroom,” Journal of Veterans Studies, vol. 3, no. 1, Winter 2018, pp. 18–36. Doi: 10.21061/jvs.v3i1.2.

​​Cancio, Robert. “Examining the Effect of Military Service on Education: The Unique Case of Hispanic Veterans.” Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, vol. 40, no. 2, 2018, pp. 150–175, https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986318761849.

DiRamio, David, and Kathryn Jarvis. Veterans in Higher Education: When Johnny and Jane Come Marching to Campus. ASHE Higher Education Report, vol. 37, no. 3, 2011, pp. 1–144.

Hinton, Corrine E., “‘I just don’t like to have my car marked’: Nuancing Identity Attachments and Belonging in Student Veterans.” Journal of Veterans Studies, vol. 6, no. 3, 2020, pp. 84–100. Doi: 10.21061/jvs.v6i3.211.

Jenner, Brandy M. “Student Veterans and the Transition to Higher Education: Integrating Existing Literatures,” Journal of Veterans Studies, vol. 2, no. 2, July 2017, pp. 26–44. Doi: 10.21061/jvs.14.

Morris, Phillip, et al. “Student-Veterans’ Perceptions of Barriers, Support, and Environment at a High-Density Veteran Enrollment Campus.” Journal of Veterans Studies, vol. 4, no. 2, 2019, pp. 180–202. Doi: 10.21061/jvs.v4i2.102.

Theoretical Models & Approaches

Bagby, Janet H., et al. “Is Anyone Listening? An Ecological Systems Perspective on Veterans Transitioning from the Military to Academia.” Military Behavioral Health, vol. 3, no. 4, 2015, pp. 219–229. Doi: 10.1080/21635781.2015.1057306.

Elnitsky, Christine A., et al. “Military Service Member and Veteran Reintegration: A Critical Review and Adapted Ecological Model.” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, vol. 87, no. 2, 2017, pp. 114–128. Doi: 10.1037/ort0000244.

Harris, G. L., et al. Women Veterans: Lifting the Veil of Invisibility. Routledge, 2018.

Hodges, Eric. “Teaching Veterans Studies.” Journal of Veterans Studies, vol. 3, no. 1, 2018, pp. 89–105, http://doi.org/10.21061/jvs.v3i1.7.

Hunniecutt, Jeni Ruth. Rethinking Reintegration and Veteran Identity: A New Consciousness. Palgrave Macmillan, 2022.

Phillips, Glenn A., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. “Introducing Veteran Critical Theory.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, vol. 30, no. 7, 2017, pp. 656–668. Doi: 10.1080/09518398.2017.1309586.

Veterans from Historically Marginalized Communities

Albright, David Luther, et al. “When Women Veterans Return: The Role of Postsecondary Education in Transition in Their Civilian Lives.” Journal of American College Health, vol. 67, no. 5, 2019, pp. 479–485. Doi: 10.1080/07448481.2018.1494599.

Bradford, Anita Casavantes. “Latinx Veterans, Outsider Patriotism and the Motives behind Minoritized Military Service.” Journal of Veterans Studies, vol. 7, no. 3, 2021, pp. 4–22. Doi: 10.21061/jvs.v7i3.272.

Buckley, Meghan. “Empowering Female [Student] Veterans through Community Writing and Experiential Learning in the Classroom.” Journal of Veterans Studies, vol. 7, no. 2, 2021, pp. 44–59. Doi: 10.21061/jvs.v7i2.268.

Burkhart, Lisa, and Nancy Hogan. “Being a Female Veteran: A Grounded Theory of Coping with Transitions.” Social Work in Mental Health, vol. 13, no. 2, 2015, pp. 108–127. Doi: 10.1080/15332985.2013.870102.

​​Cancio, Robert. “Examining the Effect of Military Service on Education: The Unique Case of Hispanic Veterans.” Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, vol. 40, no. 2, 2018, pp. 150–175, https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986318761849.

Carter, Susan P., et al. “Discrimination and Suicidal Ideation among Transgender Veterans: The Role of Social Support and Connection.” LGBT Health, vol. 6, no. 2, 2019, pp. 43–50. Doi: 10.1089/lgbt.2018.0239.

Estes, Steve. Ask & Tell: Gay & Lesbian Veterans Speak Out. University of North Carolina Press, 2007.

Fox, Nancy Ann. “Aretē: ‘We As Black Women’.” Journal of Veterans Studies, vol. 4, no. 1, 2019, pp. 58–77. Doi: 10.21061/jvs.v4i1.75.

Hall, Deon M., et al. “Military Life Narratives and Identity Development among Black Post-9/11 Veterans.” Journal of Veterans Studies, vol. 6, no. 3, 2020, pp. 36–46. Doi: 10.21061/jvs.v6i3.216.

Harris, G. L., et al. Women Veterans: Lifting the Veil of Invisibility. Routledge, 2018.

Hembrough, Tara, and Kameron Dunn. “A Study of Rural and Native-American Students’ Military Identities, Military Family History, and Reading and Writing Interests in a Military-Friendly, Military-Themed Composition Course.” Journal of Veterans Studies, vol. 4, no. 2, 2019, pp. 203–228. Doi: 10.21061/jvs.v4i2.112.

Kinder, John M., and Jason A. Higgins, editors. Service Denied: Marginalized Veterans in Modern American History. University of Massachusetts Press, 2022.

Lau, Stephanie J., et al. “Unique Needs and Challenges of Women Veteran Students with Disabilities: Conceptualizing Identity in Higher Education.” Journal of Veterans Studies, vol. 6, no. 3, 2020, pp. 101–109. Doi: 10.21061/jvs.v6i3.212.

Lehavot, Keren., et al. “Race/Ethnicity and Sexual Orientation Disparities in Mental Health, Sexism, and Social Support Among Women Veterans.” Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, vol. 6, no. 3, 2019, pp. 347–358. Doi: 10.1037/sgd0000333.

Strong, Jessica D., et al. “Female Veterans: Navigating Two Identities.” Clinical Social Work Journal, vol. 46, 2018, pp. 92–99. Doi: 10.1007/s10615-017-0636-3.

 

This position statement may be printed, copied, and disseminated without permission from NCTE.