Author: ksuchor

The Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) Executive Committee votes on the future site for each annual convention five or six years before the convention takes place. This is necessary to secure convention meeting space and sufficient hotel rooms to accommodate several thousand attendees. Before the Executive Committee votes on a future site, CCCC members are polled about possible sites. NCTE staff investigate (through research and site visits) several feasible cities, based on the results of this poll, location of recent conventions, geographic parity, opportunities for attractive costs, and other factors. Several options are then presented in a report to the Executive Committee that includes information about hotel costs, Internet access, travel options, meeting space, and tourism. Additionally, consideration is made for the number of session rooms available at each convention facility, favoring those sites that may provide more favorable conditions for higher attendance.

In discussing siting options, the Executive Committee takes into consideration not only these detailed reports but also factors that could be objectionable to participants, including legislation that is hostile to various groups or in opposition to the values of the organization. After thorough discussion and consideration, the Executive Committee votes on a future site. Following this vote, CCCC enters into contractual agreements with the convention center, hotels, and other entities. These agreements carry heavy penalties for withdrawal, usually amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars of lost financial resources. The closer the proposal of withdrawal is to the convention date, the more complicated and expensive it becomes to move the convention to another city.

Because siting is done far in advance of each convention, it is not possible to predict future state or local legislation that could be objectionable to attendees. As a result, calls may be made to break the contractual arrangements and move the convention. Withdrawing from a location is advocated as a form of protest that harms the state’s economy and expresses the collective voice of thousands of CCCC members through the decision of their elected Executive Committee members.

At the same time, withdrawing from a future site (1) can negatively affect hundreds of service workers who rely on conventions for their livelihood; (2) may have little impact on the state if another organization takes the space vacated by the CCCC; and (3) results, through the organization’s absence, in silence on the issues of concern. This silence is particularly problematic for an organization devoted in part to the study and pedagogy of communication as a form of civic engagement and deliberation about issues involving fairness and the humane treatment of all groups of people.

For these reasons, the CCCC Executive Committee has approved the following guiding principles for future convention siting with respect to hostile legislation:

In principle, CCCC will work to change state or local policies in host convention cities that diverge from established CCCC positions or otherwise threaten the safety or well-being of our membership. We will do so by consulting closely with local groups who share our principles and arranging activities and opportunities for members to support those who are disadvantaged by offensive policies or otherwise to use their presence in the offending state as a vehicle for nonviolent protest. We will vigorously communicate the methods of support and/or protest to the media, convention and tourist bureaus, and local and state government officials, with the avowed purpose of provoking policy change or supporting current policies threatened by hostile change. In general, we will follow this strategy of engagement rather than abrogating or cancelling contracts for future conventions as a method of protesting existing or future legislation.

November 2013, revised March 2019

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 or for other caregiving needs as described by the applicant, at the 2025 annual 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. The grant may also be used for those who require a caregiver to attend the conference. Priority for these funds will be given to adjuncts, graduate students, and/or independent scholars with limited institutional support.

To apply for funds, please complete the application form by Monday, February 10, 2025, 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 award 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 12, 2025. 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 CCCC 2025 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 May 12, 2025.

CCCC 2016 will be a great opportunity for attendees to think together about how to work systematically and strategically on issues related to writing and writers. Identify issues you want to act on or would like for CCCC to act on. Write these on white boards around the convention venue, post to Twitter with the #4C16 hashtag, or submit on postcards. We’ll aggregate all responses for the closing plenary on Saturday from 12:30 p.m. to 1:45 p.m.

The questions:

GOALS:

• What are your most important goals for writing and writers in one or more of these locations?

    course(s)
    institutions
    states or regions
    our professional organization, CCCC
    our discipline

VALUES AND PRINCIPLES:

• What values or principles are most important for you as you think about writers and writing?

STRATEGIES FOR ACTION:

• What have you learned at CCCC 2016 to achieve your goals?
• What does CCCC need to learn to do or to do better to reach or help you reach your goals?
• Who can you/we learn from and with for these goals, and with whom can we build alliances?

 

 

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
Kate Comer
Alex Evans
Michael Harker
Wytinsea Jones
Travis Margoni
Dylan Maroney
Ben McCorkle
Eliot Parker
Ellen Payne
Lynn Reid
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.