Conference on College Composition and Communication Logo

Dean #1

Harrison Spenser: Case #5

Characterization of Institution

Research II University

Characterization of Department

M.A. granted in Tech/Prof Comm
M.A. granted in English
B.A. granted in English

How would Harrison Spenser’s case turn out in your department?  At your university/college?

Probably the same, department and university. However, it is possible that Spencer would have received a positive vote from the P/T Committee. I’d put the odds at 60/40 no/yes. His publication record of 2 refereed articles and 6 book reviews, with maybe a couple of other articles under initial review, would not be enough for tenure. Good paper record, yes. Also problematic at my institution would be his uneven teaching and why he showed no efforts (encouraged and to some degree monitored by the department) to improve his undergraduate teaching. Apparently it improved enough by 6th year to be competent and that improvement would be noted positively. The research would point toward a negative. Service is great.

There was no mention of external review, which is required at my university. With even slight care, external review would have materially changed this outcome. External review can be very helpful to committees reviewing candidates whose specialties they don’t know or understand. The senior composition/computers faculty at other institutions who end up reviewing such cases are usually sensitive to issues that Spencer faced: overload of administrative work, classification of grants as service instead of research, and so on. With luck they would also be candid about his publications and where they stand in the computers ‘n’ writing firmament, which is good and promising but not fabulous. For a P/T committee, these reviews (3 are required at my university) would give Spencer’s work considerable credibility, not only by praise and evaluation but most importantly by placing it in context.

There is also no mention of departmental or institutional standards for scholarship. Like many English departments, they are reluctant to specify what they expect, but they “know it when they see it.” Books and articles in refereed publications are the easiest to see in that fog. My college, which includes fields outside the usual arts and sciences, has a definition of research that embraces creative work and professional practice as well as grants, research, the scholarship of teaching, and traditional humanistic scholarship (like the book on medieval rhetoric). That doesn’t mean there aren’t major holes and misunderstandings, but it’s a start. The umbrella standard is “peer reviewed and distributed to appropriate audiences.” So I would immediately ask, what is the evidence for the grant proposal being peer reviewed?

My college within the university also explicitly values collaboration, though the definitions are pretty loose. You can’t be tenured for demonstrating collaboration unless you also are judged a “very good” teacher, satisfactory in research, and satisfactory in service. Spencer’s collaboration would help his case.

My college is very decentralized in P/T decisions, without a college P/T committee (not even in an advisory role to the dean). Thus the departmental decision–committee and chair in agreement–would likely stand all the way to the Provost. That is, AS LONG AS the sequence of annual reviews indicated that Spencer was warned that refereed publication was the standard by which he would be judged for tenure. He was, at least in his 3rd-year review. The Dean might possibly investigate why the tenure case was not unanimous in the committee. In addition to Spencer’s own tenure file, the five-year sequence of peer review letters, chair’s letters, and annual reviews would be key to establishing if the 6th year tenure review was rational and defensible. On the other hand, let’s say my department’s committee voted yes 5-2 and the chair recommended no. (That’s unlikely because this chair was elected, and probably would go along with the peer committee.) A split vote between the P/T Committee and the chair, especially one with little experience with this candidate and possibly a grudge, would prompt close analysis of the case by the Dean. Barring other factors, the college recommendation would likely support the peer committee. The Provost analyzes carefully using a prescribed format but in recent years has upheld the college’s decisions.

What are the Department Chair’s responsibilities toward Spencer?  Which did he fulfill?  Fail?

There are two chairs here. The chair who hired Spencer seems typical to me. There was much to do, and he let Spencer take on everything. In that he both offered him the opportunity to develop professionally, and also failed him. The chair of any department is in a unique position to help new tenure-track faculty set professional goals that also fit the department’s goals. This chair failed in the first responsibility, mentoring Spencer. I don’t mean socializing him into the department, but formulating some sort of professional plan and agreement on goals.  The most obvious omission of many was not formalizing the contribution of the grant for software development to Spencer’s research/scholarly effort. That should have been put into writing in specific terms, and if possible making explicit that such work was equivalent to (a certain number of) refereed publications. Spencer funded five faculty for three years. Whether it’s software or Shakespeare, that impact is hard to ignore. Spencer should have been given milestones in this effort, too. This is not a one-year effort any more than a book is. If he’d lost the grant, would there have been consequences as far as the department or his P/T was concerned? As it was, he met milestones and devoted much time and energy to its success, including a contract that might lead to patents for the university.

This chair saw the value of the grant in “practical implications.” Like many of us trained in English, he didn’t know how to convert that into scholarly terms. I’d argue that is not his job, but the faculty’s. It’s his job to engage the faculty in that task. See the later comments on the P/T committee. Grants also bring collaboration and different relationships into an English department used to solo research, power relationships. See the next paragraph for more on that.

The first chair obviously liked what Spencer did and, typical of chairs, wanted to support the P/T committee as well. He wanted  everything. On a professional level, he failed Spencer by not reining in his own goals for the department or at least spreading them around. Instead he overloaded a junior faculty member without safeguards. He also failed to back up this junior faculty member who was supervising senior faculty on a research project. The chair should have been the one to negotiate with Spencer and Professor N (again, to set up goals if Prof. N could meet them) and then “fire” Professor N when the time came. On a personal level, the chair failed Spencer by not preparing for his own exit with some attention to the professional lives he’d left in limbo. He could have at least written a support letter to the P/T committee clarifying his view of Spencer’s many administrative and (apparently) research contributions. The chair was laissez-faire to a fault. Elected, presumably, like the second one.

The subsequent chair did nothing overt for or against Spencer. By going along with the P/T committee’s recommendation he covered himself. I think most chairs with one year’s experience would do the same, regardless. What would you do about someone’s record for five years, all pretty much of a piece in terms of review by the previous chair and the P/T Committee? Not much different from this guy, I’d argue. The slight he’d experienced at the hands of a junior faculty member is a consideration but minor. I don’t think much of this guy, but in the circumstances, his actions contributed little. Chairs change all the time.  This one will see the lab and the software development project decline, and at first he’ll cheer, and then he’ll get depressed because his faculty loved the lab, etc., etc. And they’ll hire another techie, having learned nothing.

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

The P/T Committee Chair was probably at least 2 different people during this time. The committee recommendations seem absolutely typical to me. It has no means of judging the non-traditional work. It may be applying some vague standard in departmental bylaws, plus the collective wisdom and memory of seven senior faculty. I’d argue that there IS wisdom there. They want to see refereed publications, or the equivalent. They want to see new work, new refereed work. Did Spencer show them that? In the words of the car rental ad, Not exactly. So what do you expect? They warned him. They accepted the technology aspect of his work, the online articles. They ignored the grant. They ignored the time required for program development in computers and writing, both the lab and the distance ed. Now, if Spencer’s grant had NEH stamped on it, would things have been different? I think so. But don’t take that as a slur. Senior literature faculty (we don’t know if there were compositionists on the committee, though we hope there were and that they were responsible for the “considerable discussion” of the tenure review) are comfortable with NEH. Let’s look a little further, beyond “comfort.” NEH awards are national, peer reviewed, and difficult to get. An easy call. What does the committee know about this grant? They could have asked for documentation about the granting process, and should have done so by the 3rd-year review.

In the interim reviews, they also should have made clear one or two goals that would show measurable progress toward tenure. There isn’t enough info about the reviews after 3rd year to see if they met their responsibility.

The committee seems unclear in its own mind about the book contract or whether work pre-hire or based on a dissertation counts. The point is really moot, as Spencer seems to be doing everything but that. Still, it should be clear in writing, and ideally, the overall expectations similar from one year to the next.

This committee (and the chair) also ignore the issue of applied research. Apparently the teaching article was fine (online was not an issue). What of a grant that supports 5 faculty for 3 years? If the peer-reviewed grant had been for developing a regional Shakespeare festival, would that count as “distributed to appropriate audiences” and therefore research? Then why not a piece of published software that enhances the university’s reputation? Or must all grants lead to traditional or online publications? A second issue, less defensible for tenure but worth airing, is serious administrative responsibility that works toward departmental and university goals. This department needs to meet — its advisory committee, senior faculty committee of the whole, or maybe just the personnel committee — and decide some things. If it decides solely for traditional contemplative scholarship, then it should hire people like Spencer only in non-tenure-track positions, or assign administrative responsibilities like these only to tenured faculty. There has to be some consonance between what the department does on a daily basis and expects from tenure-track faculty and what it counts toward promotion and tenure. I also think it needs to consider external review.

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

No Dean’s role stated here, but a Dean might ask the following questions:
At hire: Is the British degree equivalent to a terminal degree in the field (PhD)? (Apparently there was no issue with the degree.) Is a 2/2 load customary for research faculty in the department, or was this release time to set up and run the lab? If the former, Spencer took on an administrative overload in lieu of research. If the latter, he took it on to replace a course and would be expected to conduct research as well. As the lab required development well beyond teaching another section of ENGL xxx, was there a set of even informal goals to be met, and if so, what would be the rewards? A Dean might ask the Chair to make that clear to Spencer in the letter of offer or at the first annual review, in writing.

Mid-way: Is the department consistent in its judgments about books based on dissertations? Can it show evidence of that consistency? Does this faculty member know where the department stands on that issue? He is getting mixed messages about its value. In fact, he’s getting lots of mixed messages. Is a book required? Or what? What proportion of the department’s grant success is solely due to Spencer? Is the department monitoring Spencer’s teaching? How? What help have they offered? Has he accepted help and taken opportunities to improve? Why is he pursuing so many activities that are not being mentioned in the P/T committee letters? Are these service? If so, he is taking on too much, and the Dean will mention that. Regardless of their value, if that is not what he will be judged by, why is he doing it?

Deans care about the broad strokes, the categories or classifications that make sense compared to the way other fields are judged: what did this person contribute overall? How can that be characterized? Does the overall profile show someone fully engaged and on track to be productive at a level of, say, at least some national prominence in his field in a few years? Is there a pattern of scholarly/creative activity that shows the clear movement from idea to peer review to publication (dissemination)? Is there some heft and weight in these activities, gravitas, “reach” in dollars, citations by other scholars, regional/national influence? In those terms, in five years Spencer has taught graduate students outstandingly, raised his teaching of undergraduates to competency, developed 2 new courses, developed a very successful computer lab for the English department, given a number of papers at competitive national conferences, published a modest 2 articles in refereed journals, had the roles in a national professional organization expected of a junior faculty member, competed successfully for a major grant that supported 5 faculty with release time for 3 years, led them collaboratively to develop a copyrighted, publishable type of software, developed the department’s first distance learning course (and published a referred article on it), and served on a state committee on distance education. A dean will not go against the department’s will, as long as the process is clearly documented and the department showed the candidate its expectations. However, in this case a dean might have pointed out that instructional technology and distance education are university goals and that this profile looks like someone in applied psychology/human factors who was recently tenured in the psychology department. (The imaginary psych professor had 4 more articles and no software contract.)

What are Spenser’s responsibilities?  Which did he fulfill?  Fail?

What Spencer did right was his administrative work, his service, and his research/grants. He was very successful in most areas and he apparently kept good records, unlike many junior faculty. He was collegial almost to a fault. He wasted no time on unrefereed publications, and he never claimed that course Web pages were publications. He didn’t whine, he didn’t exaggerate his contributions, he didn’t offer excuses for failure (rejections, poor student evaluations, etc.). He showed excellent project management skills. What he did wrong was to accept every challenge, never said no, never asked to have his responsibilities clarified in their role toward tenure, and never enlisted the support of people in his field to clarify his specialty to the P/T committee and chair. That is common enough, unfortunately, and the responsibility is shared–I’m not blaming him. Chairs can be very persuasive. Spencer apparently attended enough to his undergraduate teaching, but relatively late. At my institution faculty would usually be expected to be “very good” teachers by around the third year, so that they can concentrate on research, which (we assume) shows results more slowly.

At hire he should have asked, What are the scholarly expectations? What will a book based on my dissertation contribute? What is the standard for judging publications? Refereed, ranking of journals, book only, book in covers at time of tenure review, etc.? How do I document progress in unpublished work? (A lot of smart people are surprising dumb about keeping objective evidence of their progress.) What about grants? What is the standard for judging grants? (Number submitted, number received, dollar award, etc.) I know that faculty hate to be pinned down on this, but a few conversations can reveal a lot.

I don’t think Spencer would have gotten much more out of this faculty or chair, regardless of his own strategies or tactics. Some features of this case are, I hope, passe, but the attitudes and procedures still seem current. He was stuck with running the lab. He also was clearly drawn to technology (both in course creation and software development), so he was developing a new specialty. He was successful at that, but had to take a long, running start that compromised his chances for tenure. The complicity of the chair–well, Spencer was doing what he himself loved, apparently, and took the chair’s “blessing” as affirmation.

The best thing he could have done for himself would have been to find a mentor, probably a senior faculty member in composition, or ideally computers and writing, at his own or another college/university. (Sounds like there was no one in the new comp/rhet program that qualified.) Even a little mentoring–a resume review, a few questions by phone once or twice a year — would probably have helped. The issues are not strictly technology related, but refer more to work that crosses the boundaries of applied/pedagogical/funded, where research overlaps the other two areas of teaching/instructional development and service. I am personally very sympathetic to his case, as I’ve known some of the same problems. I think he would have been advised 2nd-3rd year to get that book or some articles underway and jettison 1) the curriculum development in medieval rhetoric (though it sounds counterintuitive, curriculum development is majorly time-consuming and he’s already got a good graduate course) and 2) the C&W teleconference and MOO. (Sorry, guys.) In the scheme of things, organizing conferences is service to the profession. Definitely positive for the field, but I’d ask if the conference participants had a number of senior scholars able to write great letters for me at tenure time. Young fields have young, enthusiastic, but untenured folks.

The second best thing would have been to ask 2-3 senior faculty from other institutions to review his materials and write a letter, regardless of the department’s requirements. Also ask the computer science faculty member on the grant to write. Ask beforehand if these could be included in Spencer’s file for the P/T committee, of course.

If he can recover from the blow, and it’s a serious one, Spencer will either:

1) get another tenure-track job at a university that will be eager to term him a technology expert, be tenured in two years on the basis of his software, a second major grant (this one from the Department of Education), and an article in Kairos, and in five years become department chair, probably of a hybrid department, but still mainly English. He has the skills to lead. 

or

2) work in industry for a while (the software company that gave him the contract), then develop a program in new media partnering a two-year college and a graduate-only institute in a major city, where he becomes a dean. Faculty work on contracts and there is no tenure. References to medieval rhetoric pepper Spencer’s remarks to the board of trustees and the new media program’s advisory board.

What went wrong?  What went right?

See above.

Additional Comments

In this case I see more failure at the level of departmental discussion of standards and procedures–faculty taking responsibility for articulating the basis for the department’s actual work, reputation, and future, compared to a scholarly ideal of solo books and articles–than I find personal blame.

Spencer himself is a success story. He worked incredibly hard and learned much, in effect a new specialty that is much more marketable than medieval rhetoric, and apparently more interesting and fulfilling to him. This department failed him, but also gave him room to grow.

A personal opinion: The “outlaw” perspective in technology work and studies is energizing but also leads to our casting ourselves as victims of the evil, backward establishment. It doesn’t work. We need to get out of that mode and look at other people (in lit, in senior positions, on P/T committees) as real people with brains. There are often reasons for what they’re doing, reasons we can appreciate. I also will argue that technology itself is not so alien that it requires vastly different guidelines for evaluation. Composition directors and writing lab directors already have run interference on many of these issues, as have grant writers whose work doesn’t lead to traditional publication. Relating technology work to known categories, where that makes sense, helps everyone understand. There are problems in the system, true, but it’s a system of peer review. Like democracy, it ain’t perfect, but the alternatives are abysmal.

Dean #2

Sherry Richer: Case #4

Characterization of Institution

Research I

Characterization of Department

Ph.D. granted in English (literature)
M.A. granted in English (literature)
B.A. granted in English (literature)

How would Sherry Richer’s case turn out in your department?  At your university/college?

Professor Richer’s record is inadequate. Unless she radically changes her approach to scholarship in the next two years, we would be forced to let her go.  Unfortunately, this case is a no-brainer.

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

I would expect this case to be turned down at the departmental level. In fact it would be the responsibility of the English Department Head to make sure that she’s turned down. The head should have had a serious discussion with Richer way before this third year. If her case were to make it to the College, even with a couple of more publications it would be dismissed. After three years, only one print publication and an unrefereed book chapter at that.

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

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

What went wrong?  What went right?

N/A

Chair, Personnel Committee #1

Harrison Spenser: Case #5

Characterization of Institution

My institution is a Reseach I University. We have high standards for tenure/promotion, and over the last few years a single authored book with a university press has become the expectation.   However, we also have found ourselves demanding a great deal of service from our pre-tenure people because they bring in expertise, such as that described in this case, that senior faculty either do not have or have no interest in acquiring. Regardless of that demand, however, the pre-tenure people are still expected to meet the standards of “traditional” tenure/promotion guidelines.

Characterization of Department

Ph.D. granted in Composition/Rhetoric
M.A. granted in Composition/Rhetoric
B.A. granted in Composition/Rhetoric
M.S. granted in Technical Communication.

How would Harrison Spenser’s case turn out in your department?  At your university/college?

There is a key phrase in this case: “The committee recognized his book at the end of his first year but noted it was underway pre-hire.” With this book in place, Spencer’s tenure review would have probably been positive at my institution. The case would have been made stronger by publication of journal articles in print (rather than online). His conference work and his service, however, would have been recognized by the department as appropriate to his area of expertise. In addition, the external review letters written for tenure/promotion carry a tremendous amount of weight during a review here. If Spencer’s reviewers attested to his national expertise in the area of technology and composition/communication (as evidenced in this case), then he would have an excellent chance at tenure. Moreover, the department chair has a great deal of influence—and an agreement is made when the faculty member is first hired. In other words, the change in the chair in this case might not negatively affect Spencer if his hiring was based on his furthering the department’s expertise in technology/communication and indeed he has done that. These agreements again can be made in writing and therefore will protect the faculty member from a change in leadership in the department.  It seems that Spencer’s combination of traditional (the book) and non-traditional or innovative research and publication would lead to tenure at my institution.

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

The Department Head should have a written contract with Spencer, made within his first year, about the specific requirements of his position. These can vary greatly among faculty and therefore can be made specific to any one job. This written agreement would have protected Spencer from a change in leadership at the end of his pre-tenure period. However, the Department Head failed to protect Spencer from (1) the burden of too much service and (2) difficult negotiations with senior faculty members. The first protection can be given in terms of course release or summer grants to provide the pre-tenure faculty member with a block of time to finish research projects. The Department Head should have taken leadership in negotiating with more senior members of the department.

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

The Personnel Committee Chair should have solicited and read carefully outside letters of evaluation for the faculty member. These experts in the specific area of research can protect the pre-tenure faculty member from departmental politics. Outside letters can attest to the status of unusual publications (such as in online journals) and the impact of the pre-tenure faculty member’s thinking on the field of technology and communication. The letters should be solicited and read by all those voting for or against tenure for the individual.

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

I don’t see a role that the Dean took in this case. At my institution, the Dean does not read the file under it has gone through the department and the college P and T committee. He seldom overturns these earlier votes.

What are Spencer’s responsibilities?  Which did he fulfill?  Fail?

Spencer should have worked hard to estimate the amount of time it would take to fulfill his research projects and continually renegotiate with the Head his responsibilities to keep them at a reasonable level. He should have developed professional contacts outside the department—at conferences, for example—so that he could have strong letters of evaluations from experts in his field to convince his department. He should have asked for additional course release and a DEPARTMENTAL MENTOR who would guide him through his pre-tenure years (the mentor should not be the Head).

What went wrong?  What went right?

Expectations for the particular nature of Spencer’s job were not put in the form of a “contract.” However, Spencer’s case is not at all unusual—and he needs to draw upon the help of experts outside his department to help him make tenure. He needs an agreement about the amount of service that he will do—and the help he will get in doing it. It would be great if our field could establish those—for example, anyone setting up and running a computer lab should get one course release per year.

Sherry Richer: Case #4

 

Sherry Richer was excited about her new job. The major research university where she was to begin work provided her with exactly what she had imagined: a light teaching load (one class a term); a course release to work in the computer classroom with new graduate students to help them learn to teach in that environment; scholarly publication. This, she thought, was more than do-able; this was academic heaven.

Her first year, Sherry didn’t get as much accomplished as she’d hoped, not as a scholar at least. She taught one undergraduate course and one graduate course; she found the undergrads in her new institution resistant to her liberatory pedagogy, and she found the graduate students surprisingly unsophisticated, not at all like her peers from her own graduate days. And she found that teaching graduate students was really quite different than working with undergrads. The prep time was considerable, and the grading took longer as well. Fortunately, the work with the TAs in the computer environment was going well. Four of them had developed papers that were accepted for the Computers and Writing Conference, and Sherry herself had put in a paper on the topic for CCCC.

During the second year, Sherry made what she considered progress. Teaching seemed to go better, and in addition to working with TAs in composition studies, Sherry began to work with the University’s Center for Teaching Excellence in their development program for TAs across the campus. The paper for CCCC was accepted; she gave it to a standing-room only crowd, and she was asked to serve on the CCCC Computer Committee. Also, given the response to her talk, she began a moderated listserv for faculty working with TAs in computer mediated environments. The focus of the listserv was to bring others together for three purposes:

  1. to define what was meant by computer-mediated environment for composition studies;
  2. to identify the major research questions such an environment raised; and
  3. to define the kinds of texts possible in such an environment and to create assessments congruent with those texts.

She was also asked to coordinate a strand on this issue for Computers and Writing, and Kairos invited and then published a version of the CCCC talk. In addition, Sherry had one chapter included in a Josey Bass book on teaching with technology.

In her work with the TAs, Sherry saw that two major changes were needed. First, although the university used a commercial software provider, the software was both clunky and limited in functionality. Fortunately, Sherry knew enough to create a software prototype for a bulletin board, and she took that on as her next task. During her third year, she was able to mount a beta version of the bulletin board and begin an ethnographic study of how it was used in two classes. Second, as the TAs had shown her, they are using old assessment strategies and values to grade new digital texts. In other words, they need to know how to evaluate texts produced in electronic environments. To study this question, Sherry has invited a group of TA researchers to work with her, and one of her doctoral students is writing a dissertation on the topic. She feels confident that together, these projects will do ground-breaking work.

At the end of her third year, Sherry is called into the Chair’s office (or into the office of the Chair of the Personnnel Committee or into the Dean’s office)  to receive word about her re-appointment. She has a nagging feeling that she should have produced more scholarship. This is a university that wants a book for tenure, and all she has to offer so far is a publication in an electronic journal and a book chapter. At the same time, she’s been a good departmental citizen and continues to work with the Center for Teaching Excellence. As important, she believes that she is making a real contribution to the field, as evidenced by the role she is playing inboth the Computers and Writing group and the CCCC; her listserv is among the most active in composition studies; and the TAs are doing what is by everyoneís account very fine teaching, and they are beginning to theorize the texts they see and ways of valuing them. Not least, Sherry believes that her bulletin board software is a major scholarly effort; the reviews so far have been favorable, and next year it will be used by all the TAs.

Tenure and Promotion Cases for Composition Faculty Who Work with Technology

Dean #1

Maricela Guzman: Case #3

Characterization of Institution

Research II

Characterization of Department

B.A. granted in English
M.A. granted in English. (With this degree, it is possible to have a concentration in rhetoric and composition.)

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

In my department, there would have been a “Statement of Chair’s Expectations” written and signed by the chair and Guzman at the time she was hired. This would have spelled out the teaching and administrative duties Guzman would be expected to perform. It would also have named the area(s) in which research publications were expected.

When it was time for third-year review, this statement would have been used as a kind of measuring stick to gauge whether she had measured up to expectations. Presuming that the research publications were in the areas expected, she would have fared all right there–except for maybe the CD-ROM on Mars. I think it would be difficult for my department and the committees evaluating her file to see how this work on Mars was pertinent to the work of an English Department (the scenario as you have written it just doesn’t seem to give enough information).

Considering that she has not been a very hands-on administrator in the Writing Center, I think she would be cautioned that she was hired to do that work and that evidence of a more active role would be expected by sixth-year review. At my institution, teaching evaluations from students and peers would also have to be favorable (and this scenario says nothing about her teaching). If they weren’t, Guzman would be warned to bring those up before sixth year review.

The basic problem I see in this scenario is that a writing center director was needed, but somebody (it’s not clear who–the university administration?) wanted a culture and technology program, which Guzman was capable of creating. So she was hired into the available position but given the freedom to create the new program. She must have been led to believe she could safely neglect the writing center to focus on her other interests. And she has done that very well indeed. But now some colleagues who thought she was a writing center director all along are not happy that she has focused on things that are not thought of as “typically” English. She sounds like she is bright and capable enough to be at a better university, and with her great reputation, she really ought to start looking for a better job so that the place where she currently works can find what they really want–a writing center director. Or she ought to negotiate to be let out of the WPA role and become just a professor who focuses on culture and technology.

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

I can’t really tell from the information in the scenario. I presume the chair knew that Guzman was being hired in the WPA position with the understanding that she was supposed to be a figurehead WPA while working on the culture and technology program. I don’t think the chair can change the way some faculty feel about Guzman. If she feels that Guzman has done what she was hired to do, she should support her case. Maybe the chair failed to inform Guzman of the political realities she would have to face, e.g., that some faculty would find her work irrelevant to English and that the administration, after getting the program up and running, would want her to become more of a WPA.

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

I can’t see from this information what the responsibilities of the Personnel Committee Chair were, except to discuss the balloting with the department chair.  So I don’t know what he failed to do or succeeded in doing.

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

I don’t see the Dean mentioned at all in this scenario, so again it’s hard for me to say what he should or should not have done. If this happened at my institution, the dean would play a fairly limited role. He would look at the promotion file and write a letter indicating whether he thought Guzman should be advanced or not.  When the final results from the highest level of review came down, he would be charged with informing Guzman that she had succeeded or not.  I don’t see it as the Dean’s role to mentor the faculty members or caution them.  That is the role of the department chair.

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

She needed to have a clear understanding in writing of what was expected of her. If she relies on verbal agreements, she might be seriously disappointed when, later, those who made the agreements say they didn’t. She did fulfill her responsibility to be a scholar, and it seems she became the kind of scholar she thought she was expected to become. It doesn’t seem that she fulfilled as well as she might have the responsibility that presumably comes with the assignment to be a writing center director. But maybe she did what she had been led to believe she should do, i.e., focus on the culture and technology program, even if it meant neglecting the WPA work..

What went wrong?  What went right?

Communication of expectations seems to have gone wrong. The hiring committee seems to have been using the writing center director position as a tool to get a culture and technology specialist regardless of interest in writing program administration.

The chair (or somebody) seems not to have communicated to Guzman that, come advancement time, some people would actually expect her to have done recognizably “English” scholarship. The administrators who were eager to hire a culture and technology specialist are in the wrong to support her up to the point that the program is up and running and then to tell her chair to pressure her to do more writing center work. I think it is duplicitous of them to want to have their cake and eat it too. No one seems to have helped Guzman to see how she might have turned her interest in technology towards the work of the writing center.

What went right is that Guzman has established an enviable record of scholarship that cannot be gainsaid. So she is viable on the job market if she chooses to look elsewhere. She may also have a strong negotiating tool to get out of the writing center and into a position that allows her to do what she is interested in so that she can be judged on her merits, not on expectations that she didn’t understand or that weren’t really intended or communicated well at the time she was hired.

College Composition and Communication

 

CCCC Book Cover
Editors

Matthew Davis, University of Massachusetts Boston
Kara Taczak, University of Central Florida

View the submission guidelines here. Questions may be sent to the editors at ccceditorialteam@gmail.com.

Access current and previous issues

Access CCC Online

Subscribe to College Composition and Communication!

 

About CCC

College Composition and Communication publishes research and scholarship in rhetoric and composition studies that supports college teachers in reflecting on and improving their practices in teaching writing and that reflects the most current scholarship and theory in the field. The field of composition studies draws on research and theories from a broad range of humanistic disciplines—English studies, rhetoric, cultural studies, LGBTQIA+ studies, gender studies, critical theory, education, technology studies, race studies, communication, philosophy of language, anthropology, sociology, and others—and from within composition and rhetoric studies, where a number of subfields have also developed, such as technical communication, computers and composition, writing across the curriculum, research practices, and the history of these fields.

CCCC Tribal College Faculty Fellowship

Application Deadline: November 15

Purpose: The Tribal College Faculty Fellowship offers financial aid to selected faculty members currently working at tribally controlled colleges or at Native American-Serving Nontribal Institutions (NASNTI’s) to attend the Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) March 4–7, 2026, in Cleveland, Ohio. We are offering two Tribal College Faculty Fellowships in the amount of $1,500 each.

Featuring over 500 sessions focusing on teaching practices, writing and literacy programs, language research, history, theory, information technologies, and professional and technical communication, the annual CCCC meeting provides a forum for thinking, learning, networking, and presenting research on the teaching and learning of writing.

With this Fellowship, CCCC hopes to create new opportunities for Tribal College Faculty members and faculty at Native American-Serving Nontribal Institutions to become involved in CCCC and for CCCC to carry out its mission of serving as a truly representative national advocate for language and literacy education.

Eligibility: Open to faculty members currently working at tribally controlled colleges or Native American-Serving Nontribal Institutions. You do not need to present at the CCCC Convention in order to qualify for this award.

Award Specifics: The deadline for the 2026 award is November 15, 2025. Please submit an application letter (on institutional letterhead) describing:

  • Who you are as a teacher and what you teach at your tribal college or Native American-Serving Nontribal Institution
  • What your research interests are
  • What you hope to gain from the experience of attending CCCC (how it could help you in your teaching or research)

Send your application letter to cccc@ncte.org

Award Criteria: A selection committee including American Indian Caucus members will review applications for the Tribal College Faculty Fellowship. Fellowship awards will be based on overall quality of the application letter.

Other Considerations: In the event that the CCCC Annual Convention moves to an online-only event with no in-person component, recipients will receive a complimentary registration for the convention in lieu of any travel funds.

For More Information…
Visit the CCCC Convention website, or contact the CCCC Liaison at cccc@ncte.org.

Tribal College Faculty Fellows

2025
Guadalupe Gonzalez, Saginaw Chippewa Tribal College

2024
Meredith Marchioni, Alaska Pacific University, Anchorage

2023
Heather Flute, Sisseton Wahpeton College, SD
Nicholas Martin, Oglala Lakota College, SD

2022
Not awarded.

2021
Not awarded.

2020
Margaret Abbott, Fort Peck Community College, Poplar, MT
Ryan Winn, College of Menominee Nation, Keshena, Wisconsin

2019
Rebecca Frost, Keweenaw Bay Ojibwa Community College, Baraga, MI
Nina Knight, Saginaw Chippewa Tribal College, Mt Pleasant, MI

2018
Teresa Gomez, Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute, Albuquerque, NM
Casandra Lopez, Northwest Indian College, Bellingham, WA

2017
LaFrenda Frank, Diné College, Tsaile, AZ

2016
Nina Knight, Saginaw Chippewa Tribal College
Bond Love, Haskell Indian Nations University

2015
Norma Marshall, College of the Muscogee Nation, Okmulgee, OK

2014
Sarah Prielipp, Saginaw Chippewa Tribal College, Mount Pleasant, Michigan
Christopher L. Stockdale, Little Priest Tribal College, Winnebago, Nebraska

2013
Ahmed Al-Asfour, Oglala Lakota College, Kyle, South Dakota
Jon Kohn, Little Big Horn College, Crow Agency, Montana

2012
Kate Bertin, Chief Dull Knife College, Lame Deer, Montana
Jeanne Sokolowski, White Earth Tribal and Community College, Mahnomen, Minnesota

2011
Eric Jurgens, College of Menominee Nation, Keshena, Wisconsin

2010
Christie Cooke, Haskell Indian Nations University, Lawrence, Kansas
Jennifer Ann Owens, Little Big Horn College, Crow Agency, Montana

2009
Sara Knight, College of Menominee Nation, Keshena, Wisconsin
Ryan Winn, College of Menominee Nation, Keshena, Wisconsin

2008
Nathan Jenkins, Haskell Indian Nations University

2007
Geselle Coe, Tohono O’Odham Community College

2006
Ron Carpenter, Turtle Mountain Community College
Brian Tosky, College of Menominee Nation

2005
Priscilla A. Fairbanks, Leech Lake Tribal College
Steven King, Sisseton-Wahpeton College
Laurie Koepplin, Little Big Horn College
Patrick J. Shields, Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwa Community College

CCCC Technical and Scientific Communication Awards

Nomination Deadline: June 1

Purpose: CCCC recognizes works in Technical and Scientific Communication across these six categories:

  • Best Book in Technical or Scientific Communication
  • Best Original Collection of Essays in Technical or Scientific Communication
  • Best Article Reporting Qualitative or Quantitative Research in Technical or Scientific Communication
  • Best Article Reporting Historical Research or Textual Studies in Technical or Scientific Communication
  • Best Article on Philosophy or Theory of Technical or Scientific Communication
  • Best Article on Pedagogy or Curriculum in Technical or Scientific Communication

The selection committee may decide not to grant an award in a given category if the quality of submissions is deemed insufficiently high.

Eligibility: The awards competition is open to works published in calendar years 2024 and 2025 for the 2026 award. To be eligible for the awards, a nominee must be a member of CCCC and/or NCTE at the time of nomination. To nominate a work for the awards, the author, editor, publisher, or reader must be a CCCC and/or NCTE member.

Award Specifics: For a work to be considered, the nomination must include:

  • A copy of the article or full citation information for a book. For articles in journals or collections, the individual article must be submitted. Any work originally written in a language other than English must be submitted in translation.
  • Identification of the category for which the work is to be considered. Each submission may be nominated in only one category. Individuals submitting nominations are encouraged to consult with authors about the category most appropriate for their work. Self-nominations are permitted.
  • Information about the author. This should include the author’s name, telephone number, mailing address, and email address.

Nominations should be sent by June 1, 2025, to cccc@ncte.org.

Winners will be notified in January and are presented with a certificate during the CCCC Awards Session at the CCCC Convention.

Winners
2025

Best Book in Technical or Scientific Communication
Erin Clark, Feminist Technical Communication: Apparent Feminisms, Slow Crisis, and the Deepwater Horizon Disaster, Utah State University Press, 2023

Honorable Mention
Christa Teston, Doing Dignity: Ethical Praxis and the Politics of Care, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2024

Best Original Collection of Essays in Technical or Scientific Communication
Jason Tham and Timothy Ponce, Design and Design Thinking in Technical and Professional Communication Programs, Special Issue of Programmatic Perspectives, 2024

Best Article Reporting Historical Research or Textual Studies in Technical and Scientific Communication
Sunnie R. Clahchischiligi, Julianne Newmark, and Joseph Bartolotta, “This Is a Viral Story about Viral Stories: Image and Graphical Power in COVID Communication in the Navajo Nation,” Global Rhetorics of Science, SUNY Press, 2023

Best Article on Pedagogy or Curriculum in Technical or Scientific Communication
Alicia K. Hatcher and Lerie M. Gabriel, “(Re)situating Professionalism: Using Course Documents As Tactical Tools in the Professional Writing Classroom,” Technical Communication Quarterly, 2024

Best Article on Philosophy or Theory of Technical or Scientific Communication
Cana Uluak Itchuaqiyaq, Chris A. Lindgren, and Corina Qaaġraq Kramer , “Decolonizing Community-Engaged Research: Designing CER with Cultural Humility as a Foundational Value,” Communication Design Quarterly, 2023

Best Article Reporting Qualitative or Quantitative Research in Technical or Scientific Communication
Nora K. Rivera, “Online Design Thinking and Community-Based Learning: Co-Designing an Indigenous Curriculum to Help Redress Language Marginalization,” Programmatic Perspectives, 2024

2024

Best Book in Technical or Scientific Communication
Michael L. Black, Transparent Designs: Personal Computing and the Politics of User-friendliness, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2022

Best Original Collection of Essays in Technical or Scientific Communication
Amber Lancaster and Carie S. T. King, “Localized Usability and Agency in Design: Whose Voices Are We Advocating?,” Technical Communication, 2022

Best Article Reporting Historical Research or Textual Studies in Technical and Scientific Communication
Jessica Edwards and Josie Walwema, “Black Women Imagining and Realizing Liberated Futures,” Technical Communication Quarterly, 2022

Best Article on Pedagogy or Curriculum in Technical or Scientific Communication
Jianfen Chen, Sarah Hughes, and Nupoor Ranade, “Reimagining student-centered learning: Accessible and inclusive syllabus design during and after the COVID-19 pandemic,” Computers and Composition, 2023

Best Article on Philosophy or Theory of Technical or Scientific Communication
Candice A. Welhausen, “Wicked Problems in Risk Assessment: Mapping Yellow Fever and Constructing Risk as an Embodied Experience,” Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 2023

Best Article Reporting Qualitative or Quantitative Research in Technical or Scientific Communication
Kristin C. Bennett and Mark A. Hannah, “Transforming the Rights-Based Encounter: Disability Rights, Disability Justice, and the Ethics of Access,” Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 2022

2023

Best Book in Technical or Scientific Communication
Andrew Fiss, Performing Math: A History of Communication and Anxiety in the American Mathematics Classroom, Rutgers University Press, 2021

Best Original Collection of Essays in Technical or Scientific Communication
Rebecca Walton and Godwin Y. Agboka, Equipping Technical Communicators for Social Justice Work: Theories, Methodologies, and Pedagogies, Utah State University Press, 2021

Best Article Reporting Historical Research or Textual Studies in Technical and Scientific Communication
Lynda C. Olman, “Decolonizing the Color-Line: A Topological Analysis of W.E.B. Du Bois’s Infographics for the 1900 Paris Exposition,” Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 2022

Honorable Mention
Jason Tham, “Pasts and Futures of Design Thinking: Implications for Technical Communication,” IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 2022

Best Article on Pedagogy or Curriculum in Technical or Scientific Communication
Godwin Y. Agboka and Isidore K. Dorpenyo, “Curricular Efforts in Technical Communication After the Social Justice Turn,” Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 2022

Best Article on Philosophy or Theory of Technical or Scientific Communication
Cana Uluak Itchuaqiyaq and Rebecca Walton, “Reviewer as Activist: Understanding Academic Review Through Conocimiento,” Rhetoric Review, 2021

Best Article Reporting Qualitative or Quantitative Research in Technical or Scientific Communication
Laura Gonzales, Robin Lewy, Erika Hernandez Cuevas, and Vianna Lucia Gonzalez Ajiataz, “(Re)Designing Technical Documentation About COVID-19 with and for Indigenous Communities in Gainesville, Florida, Oaxaca de Juárez, Mexico, and Quetzaltenango, Guatemala,” IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 2022

Honorable Mention
Godwin Y. Agboka, “What is on the Traditional Herbal Medicine Label? Technical Communication and Patient Safety in Ghana,” Technical Communication, 2021

2022

Best Book in Technical or Scientific Communication
Huaton Sun, Global Social Media Design: Bridging Differences Across Cultures, Oxford University Press, 2020

Best Original Collection of Essays in Technical or Scientific Communication
Michael J. Klein (Ed.), Effective Teaching of Technical Communication: Theory, Practice, and Application, WAC Clearinghouse and University Press of Colorado, 2021

Best Article Reporting Historical Research or Textual Studies in Technical and Scientific Communication
Naoko Ozaki, Jillian Hill, and Mike Duncan, “The Rhetoric of Kamikaze Manuals,” Technical Communication, 2020

Best Article on Pedagogy or Curriculum in Technical or Scientific Communication
Shannon Butts and Madison Jones, “Deep Mapping for Environmental Communication Design,” Communication Design Quarterly, 2021

Best Article on Philosophy or Theory of Technical or Scientific Communication
Fernando Sánchez, “Examining Methectic Technical Communication in an Urban Planning Comic Book,” Technical Communication Quarterly, 2020

Best Article Reporting Qualitative or Quantitative Research in Technical or Scientific Communication
Steven Fraiberg, “Unsettling Start-Up Ecosystems: Geographies, Mobilities, and Transnational Literacies in the Palestinian Start-Up Ecosystem,” Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 2021

2021

Best Book in Technical or Scientific Communication
Rebecca Walton, Kristen Moore, and Natasha Jones, Technical Communication after the Social Justice Turn: Building Coalitions for Action, Routledge, 2019

Honorable Mention
Heidi Yoston Lawrence, Vaccine Rhetorics, The Ohio State University Press, 2020

Best Original Collection of Essays in Technical or Scientific Communication
Edward A. Malone, David Wright, and Daniel Reardon (Eds.), Special Issue on Transmedia, Participatory Culture, and Digital Creation in Technical Communication, 2019

Best Article Reporting Historical Research or Textual Studies in Technical and Scientific Communication
Edward A. Malone, “‘Don’t Be a Dilbert’: Transmedia Storytelling as Technical Communication during and after World War II,” Technical Communication, 2019

Best Article on Pedagogy or Curriculum in Technical or Scientific Communication
Cecilia D. Shelton, “Shifting Out of Neutral: Centering Difference, Bias, and Social Justice in a Business Writing Course,” Technical Communication Quarterly, 2020

Best Article on Philosophy or Theory of Technical or Scientific Communication
Avery C. Edenfield, Steve Holmes, and Jared S. Colton, “Queering Tactical Technical Communication: DIY HRT,” Technical Communication Quarterly, 2019

Honorable Mention
David Wright, “Sounding Off: Toward a Rhetoric of Sound in Technical Communication,” Technical Communication, 2019

Best Article Reporting Qualitative or Quantitative Research in Technical or Scientific Communication
Lucía Durá, Lauren Perez, and Magdalena Chaparro, “Positive Deviance as Design Thinking: Challenging Notions of Stasis in Technical and Professional Communication,” Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 2019

Josephine Walwema, “A Values-Driven Approach to Technical Communication,” Technical Communication, 2020

2020

Best Book in Technical or Scientific Communication
Elizabeth L. Angeli, Rhetorical Work in Emergency Medical Services: Communicating in the Unpredictable Workplace, Routledge

Best Original Collection of Essays in Technical or Scientific Communication
Angela M. Haas and Michelle F. Eble (Editors), Key Theoretical Frameworks: Teaching Technical Communication in the Twenty-First Century, Utah State University Press

Best Article Reporting Historical Research or Textual Studies in Technical and Scientific Communication
Natasha N. Jones and Miriam F. Williams, “Technologies of Disenfranchisement: Literacy Tests and Black Voters in the US from 1890 to 1965,” Technical Communication, 2018

Best Article on Pedagogy or Curriculum in Technical or Scientific Communication
Daniel Kenzie and Mary McCall, “Teaching Writing for the Health Professions: Disciplinary Intersections and Pedagogical Practice,” Technical Communication Quarterly, 2018

Best Article on Philosophy or Theory of Technical or Scientific Communication
Madison Jones, “Sylvan Rhetorics: Roots and Branches of More-than-Human Publics,” Rhetoric Review, 2019

Best Article Reporting Qualitative or Quantitative Research in Technical or Scientific Communication
Rebecca Walton and Sarah Beth Hopton, “All Vietnamese Men Are Brothers: Rhetorical Strategies and Community Engagement Practices Used to Support Victims of Agent Orange,” Technical Communication, 2018

2019

Best Book in Technical or Scientific Communication
Christa Teston, Bodies in Flux: Scientific Methods for Negotiating Medical Uncertainty, University of Chicago Press

Best Original Collection of Essays in Technical or Scientific Communication
Natalia Matveeva, Michelle Moosally, and Russell Willerton (Editors), Special Issue on Plain Language, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 2017

Best Article Reporting Historical Research or Textual Studies in Technical and Scientific Communication
Lilly Campbell, “Simulation genres and student uptakes: The patient health record in clinical nursing simulations,” Written Communication, 2017

Best Article on Pedagogy or Curriculum in Technical or Scientific Communication
Julie Watts, “Beyond Flexibility and Convenience: Using the Community of Inquiry Framework to Assess the Value of Online Graduate Education in Technical and Professional Communication,” Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 2017

Best Article on Philosophy or Theory of Technical or Scientific Communication
Jordan Frith, “Big Data, Technical Communication, and the Smart City,” Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 2017

Best Article Reporting Qualitative or Quantitative Research in Technical or Scientific Communication
Lynda Walsh, “Visual invention and the composition of scientific research graphics: A topological approach,” Written Communication, 2018

2018

Best Book in Technical or Scientific Communication
Ehren Helmut Pflugfelder, Communicating Technology and Mobility: A Material Rhetoric for Transportation, Routledge

Best Original Collection of Essays in Technical or Scientific Communication
Clay Spinuzzi (Ed), Special Issue on the Rhetoric of Entrepreneurship: Theories, Methodologies, and Practices, Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 2017

Best Original Collection of Essays in Technical or Scientific Communication Honorable Mention
Derek G. Ross (Ed), Topic-Driven Environmental Rhetoric, Routledge

Best Article Reporting Historical Research or Textual Studies in Technical and Scientific Communication
Kenneth C. Walker, “Mapping the Contours of Translation: Visualized Un/Certainties in the Ozone Hole Controversy,” Technical Communication Quarterly, 2016

Best Article on Pedagogy or Curriculum in Technical or Scientific Communication
Scott Warnock, Nicholas Rouse, Christopher Finnin, Frank Linnehan, and Dylan Dryer, “Measuring Quality, Evaluating Curricular Change: A 7-Year Assessment of Undergraduate Business Student Writing,” Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 2017

Best Article on Philosophy or Theory of Technical or Scientific Communication
Natasha N. Jones, Kristen R. Moore, and Rebecca Walton, “Disrupting the Past to Disrupt the Future: An Antenarrative of Technical Communication,” Technical Communication Quarterly, 2016

Best Article Reporting Qualitative or Quantitative Research in Technical or Scientific Communication
Jenni Virtaluoto, Annalisa Sannino, and Yrjo Engestrom, “Surviving Outsourcing and Offshoring: Technical Communication Professionals in Search of a Future,” Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 2016

2017

Best Book in Technical or Scientific Communication
Sean Zdenek, Reading Sounds: Closed-Captioned Media and Popular Culture, University of Chicago Press

Best Original Collection of Essays in Technical or Scientific Communication
Pavel Zemliansky et al. (Eds), Rethinking Post-Communist Rhetoric: Perspectives on Rhetoric, Writing, and Professional Communication in Post-Soviet Spaces, Rowman & Littlefield

Best Article Reporting Historical Research or Textual Studies in Technical and Scientific Communication
Chelsea Redeker Milbourne, “Disruption, Spectacle, and Gender in Eighteenth-Century Technical Communication,” Technical Communication Quarterly, 2016

Best Article Reporting Qualitative or Quantitative Research in Technical or Scientific Communication
Rebecca K. Britt and Kristen Nicole Hatten
, “The Development and Validation of the eHealth Competency Scale: A Measurement of Self-Efficacy, Knowledge, Usage, and Motivation,” Technical Communication Quarterly, 2016

Best Article on Pedagogy or Curriculum in Technical or Scientific Communication
Joanna Wolfe, “Teaching Students to Focus on the Data in Data Visualization,” Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 2015

2016

Best Book in Technical or Scientific Communication
Huiling Ding, Rhetoric of a Global Epidemic: Transcultural Communication about SARS

Best Original Collection of Essays in Technical or Scientific Communication
Miriam F. Williams and Octavio Pimentel (Eds.), Communicating Race, Ethnicity, and Identity in Technical Communication

Best Article Reporting Historical Research or Textual Studies in Technical and Scientific Communication
Sam Dragga and Gwendolyn Gong, “Dangerous Neighbors: Erasive Rhetoric and Communities at R.” Technical Communication, 61:2, 2014, 76-94

Best Article Reporting Qualitative or Quantitative Research in Technical or Scientific Communication
Jim Suchan, “Gauging Openness to Written Communication Change: The Predictive Power of Metaphor.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 28:4, 2014, 447-476

Best Article on Philosophy or Theory of Technical or Scientific Communication
Clay Spinuzzi, “Toward a Typology of Activities: Understanding Internal Contradictions in Multiperspectival Activities,” Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 29:1, 2015, 3-35

Best Article on Pedagogy or Curriculum in Technical or Scientific Communication
Joseph Jeyaraj, “Engineering and Narrative: Literary Prerequisites as Indirect Communication for Technical Writing,” Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 44:2, 2014, 191-210

2015

Best Book in Technical or Scientific Communication
Amy Koerber, Breast or Bottle: Contemporary Controversies in Infant-Feeding Policy and Practice

Best Original Collection of Essays in Technical or Scientific Communication
Eva R. Brumberger and Kathryn M. Northcut, Designing texts: Teaching visual communication

Best Article Reporting Historical Research or Textual Studies in Technical and Scientific Communication
Dmitri Stanchevici, “The Rhetorical Construction of Social Classes in Stalin’s Secret Police.” Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 43:3, 2013, 261-288

Best Article Reporting Qualitative or Quantitative Research in Technical or Scientific Communication
Miles A. Kimball, “Visual Design Principles: An Empirical Study of Design Lore.” Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 43:1, 2013, 3-41

Best Article on Philosophy or Theory of Technical or Scientific Communication
Patricia Sullivan and Kristen Moore, “Time Talk: On Small Changes That Enact Infrastructural Mentoring for Undergraduate Women in Technical Fields.” Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 43:3, 2013, 333-354

Best Article on Pedagogy or Curriculum in Technical or Scientific Communication
Peter J. Fadde and Patricia Sullivan, “Designing Communication for Collaboration Across Engineering Cultures: A teaching case.” connexions, 1:2, 2013, 135-158

2014

Best Book in Technical or Scientific Communication
Robert R. Johnson, Romancing the Atom: Nuclear Infatuation from the Radium Girls to Fukushima

Best Original Collection of Essays in Technical or Scientific Communication
Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber, Solving Problems in Technical Communication

Best Article Reporting Historical Research or Textual Studies in Technical and Scientific Communication
Neil Lindeman, “Subjectivized Knowledge and Grassroots Advocacy: An Analysis of an Environmental Controversy in Northern California.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 27:1, 2013, 62-90

Best Article Reporting Qualitative or Quantitative Research in Technical or Scientific Communication
Natasha Jones, Justin McDavid, Katie Derthick, Randy Dowell, and Jan Spyridakis
, “Plain Language in Environmental Policy Documents: An Assessment of Reader Comprehension and Perceptions.” Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 42:4, 2012, 331-371

Best Article on Philosophy or Theory of Technical or Scientific Communication
Karen Schriver
, “What We Know about Expertise in Professional Communication.” In V. W. Berninger, (Ed.), Past, Present, and Future Contributions of Cognitive Writing Research to Cognitive Psychology. Psychology Press, 2012, 275-312

Best Article on Pedagogy or Curriculum in Technical or Scientific Communication
Yvonne Cleary and Madelyn Flammia
, “Preparing Technical Communication Students to Function as User Advocates in a Self-Service Society.” Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 42:3, 2012, 305-322

2013

Best Book in Technical or Scientific Communication
Huatong Sun
, Cross-cultural technology design: Creating culture-sensitive technology for local users

Best Original Collection of Essays in Technical or Scientific Communication
Jessica Reyman and Mary Lay Schuster
, “Special Issue: Technical Communication and the Law,” Technical Communication Quarterly

Best Article Reporting Historical Research or Textual Studies in Technical or Scientific Communication
Sarah Read
, “The Mundane, Power, and Symmetry: A Reading of the Field with Dorothy Winsor and the Tradition of Ethnographic Research,” Technical Communication Quarterly, 20:4, 2011, 353-383

Best Article Reporting Qualitative or Quantitative Research in Technical or Scientific Communication
Jacob E. McCarthy, Jeffrey T. Grabill, William Hart-Davidson, and Michael McLeod
, “Content Management in the Workplace: Community, Context, and a New Way to Organize Writing,” Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 25:4, 2011, 367-395

Best Article on Philosophy or Theory of Technical or Scientific Communication
Doug Brent
, “Transfer, Transformation, and Rhetorical Knowledge: Insights From Transfer Theory,” Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 25:4, 2011, 396-420

Best Article on Pedagogy or Curriculum in Technical or Scientific Communication
Cheryl Ball
, “Assessing Scholarly Multimedia: A Rhetorical Genre Studies Approach,” Technical Communication Quarterly, 21:1, 2012, 61-77

2012

Best Book in Technical or Scientific Communication
Brad Mehlenbacher, Instruction and technology: Designs for everyday learning

Best Original Collection of Essays in Technical or Scientific Communication
Margaret Hundleby and Jo Allen, Assessment in Technical and Professional Communication

Best Article Reporting Historical Research or Textual Studies in Technical or Scientific Communication
Edward A. Malone, “’Chrysler’s ‘Most Beautiful Engineer’: Lucille J. Pieti in the Pillory of Fame.” Technical Communication Quarterly, 19:2, 2010, 144-183

Best Article Reporting Qualitative or Quantitative Research in Technical or Scientific Communication
Clay Spinuzzi, “Secret Sauce and Snake Oil: Writing Monthly Reports in a Highly Contingent Environment.” Written Communication, 27:4, 2010, 363-409

Best Article on Philosophy or Theory of Technical or Scientific Communication
Jason Swarts, “Recycled Writing: Assembling Actor Networks From Reusable Content.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 24:2, 2010, 127-163

Best Article on Pedagogy or Curriculum in Technical or Scientific Communication
Natasha Artemeva and Janna Fox, “Awareness Versus Production: Probing Students’ Antecedent Genre Knowledge.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 24:4, 2010, 476-515

2010

Best Book in Technical or Scientific Communication
Carol Siri JohnsonThe Language of Work: Technical Communication at Lukens Steel, 1810-1925

Best Original Collection of Essays in Technical or Scientific Communication
Christina Hass, Written Communication, Special issue on Writing and Medicine, 26(3-4) July-October 2009, 215-396

Best Article Reporting Historical Research or Textual Studies in Technical or Scientific Communication
Catherine Schryer, Elena Afros, Marcellina Mian, Marlee Spafford, & Lorelei Lingard,
“The Trial of the Expert Witness: Negotiating Credibility in Child Abuse Correspondence,” Written Communication, 26(3), July 2009: 215-246

Best Article Reporting Qualitative or Quantitative Research in Technical or Scientific Communication
Christa Teston, “A Grounded Investigation of Genred Guidelines in Cancer Care Deliberations,” Written Communication, 26(3), July 2009: 320-348

Best Article on Philosophy or Theory of Technical or Scientific Communication
S. Scott Graham, “Agency and the Rhetoric of Medicine: Biomedical Brain Scans and the Ontology of Fibromyalgia,” Technical Communication Quarterly, 18(4), Fall 2009: 376-404

Best Article on Pedagogy or Curriculum in Technical or Scientific Communication
Rachel Spilka, “Practitioner Research Instruction: A Neglected Curricular Area in Technical Communication Undergraduate Programs,” Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 23(2), April 2009: 216-237

Click here for a list of recipients of the NCTE Technical and Scientific Communication Awards prior to 2010.

Copyright

Copyright © 1998 - 2025 National Council of Teachers of English. All rights reserved in all media.

1111 W. Kenyon Road, Urbana, Illinois 61801-1096 Phone: 217-328-3870 or 877-369-6283

Looking for information? Browse our FAQs, tour our sitemap and store sitemap, or contact NCTE

Read our Privacy Policy Statement and Links Policy. Use of this site signifies your agreement to the Terms of Use