Category: Uncategorized

Conference on College Composition and Communication
April 2016

Since the 1980s, as composition has grown as a scholarly field, the composition job market has grown correspondingly in both size and complexity. Specifically, over the fourteen years since AY2000–01, ads seeking expertise in composition and rhetoric have consistently made up 30 percent or more of all job ads placed in the English edition of the MLA Job Information List—the most of the ten scholarly specializations offered in the English JIL. In addition to searches that departments announce in the JIL, numerous part-time and non-tenure-track hires are made throughout the academic year and over the summer. The practices described here apply to both tenure-track and non-tenure-track positions. The purpose of this statement is to provide guidance on best practices in hiring processes for positions in composition and rhetoric, and its intended audience is faculty members serving on hiring committees.

This statement is divided into the following sections:

• Best Practices for Forming the Search Committee
• Best Practices for Writing the Position Advertisement
• Best Practices for Ensuring a Diverse Candidate Pool
• Best Practices for Submission of Application Materials
• Best Practices for Managing the Search Timetable
• Best Practices for First-Round Interviews
• Best Practices for Final-Round Interviews
• Best Practices for Hiring Writing Program Administrators
• Best Practices for Hiring International Candidates

Best Practices for Forming the Search Committee

• Search committees include at least one faculty member with expertise in composition and rhetoric.
• Search committees charged with hiring non-tenure-track candidates include at least one non-tenure-track faculty member on the committee. Department chairs request remuneration for NTT faculty for such work, if it falls outside their contractual duties.
• Graduate students participate in the search process and, when possible, on the search committee.
• Members of the search committee are expected to know and abide by their institutions’ procedural, ethical, and legal guidelines for searches before reviewing applications or interviewing candidates.
• Hiring committees communicate often with candidates about the timetable of the search and any questions candidates may have about the position.
• When possible, all members of the search committee are available for all stages of the interviewing process.

Best Practices for Writing the Position Advertisement

The position advertisement contains the following:

• An accurate description of the title and department(s) of appointment.
• A description of areas of research interest that uses current descriptors from the field of composition and rhetoric.
• A clear description of duties involved in the position, including mentoring, advising, and writing program administration, if applicable. For non-tenure-track employees, the job ad makes explicit if duties such as service and advising are expected, and if so, whether those duties are accounted for through course reductions, employment distribution calculations (e.g., 80/20), or are expected in addition to a full teaching load.
• For tenure-eligible positions, the list of duties in the job ad clearly corresponds to the criteria for tenure and promotion.
• A statement of qualifications that accounts for considerations such as completion of the PhD and consideration of terminal degrees other than the PhD.
• A deadline for submission of materials that is at least one month after job posting. If circumstances require a shorter timeline, it specifies whether applicants may submit materials after the deadline and still be considered for the position.
• Contact information for the chair of the search committee.
• A clear timeline for the search—e.g., will candidates be interviewed on particular dates (at a conference) with decision thereafter or is the search ongoing until the position is filled?

Best Practices for Ensuring a Diverse Candidate Pool

Lack of diversity among faculty ranks often stems from problems in the search and hiring process. As explained in “Effectively Recruiting Faculty of Color at Highly Selective Institutions: A School of Education Case Study,” “Without formal and pronounced action in support of recruiting faculty of color, hiring processes for this population may be considered tenuous at best” (Gasman, Kim, & Nguyen, 2011, p. 213). Because many composition and rhetoric hires, however, are managed at the department level, there are ways that the search committee can help to ensure a diverse candidate pool.

• The search committee is composed of members representing diverse perspectives who share a commitment to diversity, including a discussion about what diversity means to committee members.
• At the time that the search committee is formed and the job ad crafted, the committee seeks out the Human Resources office on campus and, if applicable, the campus’s diversity officer to form strategies for recruiting diverse candidates that are in compliance with state and local policies. The committee investigates university policies related to “target of opportunity” and other incentives that allow for flexibility in hiring diverse candidates (e.g., hiring off official dates or allowance for additional lines when qualified diverse candidates are identified).
• The job ad identifies the institution’s commitment to diversity, student demographics, and job duties that relate to institutional goals on fostering diversity. The valuation of diversity is reflected in the job ad, both in the kinds of candidates sought as well as the kinds of expertise valued.
• In addition to usual places where job ads are posted, the committee considers targeted advertising and reliance on professional networks to cultivate a diverse candidate pool.
• At the time of the interview, the committee members are able to answer candidates’ questions regarding campus climate, student demographics, resources available for diverse faculty, questions about retention of diverse hires, and community profile.
• Search committees review the candidate pool at multiple times in the search process to ensure diversity.
• After the committee has made a preliminary list of finalists for first-round interviews, the committee goes back through the list of candidates to determine if potential diverse candidates have been overlooked because the selection criteria do not account for the kinds of expertise they offer.
• At the time of the campus visit, candidates meet other tenured diverse faculty. This ensures a link between recruitment and retention. It is also advisable that they meet a range of graduate students, non-tenure-track faculty, and administrators who share and support their pedagogical and research interests. Candidates are asked if there are faculty members from departments or programs outside the hiring department whom they would like to meet.

Best Practices for the Submission of Application Materials

• Search committees minimize job-seekers’ time and financial expense with regard to submitting application materials. With the initial application, searches request the least volume of materials possible. In most cases, a letter and CV will suffice.
• Following this first-round request, committees request institution-specific, though still not overly idiosyncratic, documentation. Insofar as they can, hiring committees seek to reduce the costs candidates incur to transfer files and materials connected with their applications.

Best Practices for Managing the Search Timetable

• Departments update candidates each time the committee reaches a new stage of the hiring process that makes a cut in the candidate pool, except when Human Resources offices or other administrative entities explicitly dictate otherwise.
• Whenever search committees wish to solicit additional materials, candidates have at least two weeks to submit them.
• During the first-round interview, search committees provide an honest account of the timeframe for subsequent decisions (e.g., for campus visits).
• When an offer is made to a candidate, the candidates are given at least two weeks to respond to the offer.

Best Practices for First-Round Interviews

The expense and stress of traveling to a conference for in-person first-round interviews are well documented. Given this, search committees carefully consider whether the benefit of meeting candidates in person outweighs the potential drawbacks, not only for committee members but for candidates themselves. For both in-person and phone/video interviews, candidates are informed ahead of time who will be present, as well as what general format the questions will follow.

Best practices for in-person interviews include:

• Committees plan ahead carefully to ensure that access needs for all candidates are met, using the principles of Universal Design.
• If the interview room is not well labeled, committees might consider posting a sign with the room number on the outer door, and/or stationing a person near the room to help candidates reach the location.
• Committees are familiar with barrier-free ways to reach the interview space (for example, they know where the nearest elevator is located, as well as the nearest escalator or stairwell).
• The space in which interviews take place is as roomy as possible, with space for a scooter, wheelchair, person on crutches, or person with a service animal to move around.

Best practices for phone or video interviews include:

• Candidates know who will be interviewing them, and in a virtual medium, committee members provide more frequent reminders of who they are. For example, during a phone interview, a committee member might say, “This is [name] speaking now. I’d like to ask . . . .”
• Committees plan ahead of time to select a venue and equipment that enable everyone to appear on camera at the same time; the practices of having only one person visible or passing a laptop from hand to hand have been reported by candidates to be disorienting and unhelpful.
• In virtual media, committee members attend carefully to sending visual cues that they are listening while candidates speak; for example, they may wish to make a point of looking into the camera and nodding as often as seems appropriate.
• Most campuses have a dedicated space for video conferencing; search committees contact their campus IT department well ahead of time to learn about the best options for well-designed video interviewing or phone interviewing.

Best Practices for Final-Round Interviews

The following practices pertain to both tenure-track and non-tenure-track searches, as the practice of bringing NTT candidates to campuses has become more common. Just as first-round interviews require attention to accessibility, so do final-round interviews.

• Regarding travel expenses, the obligation for explaining how these are incurred and resolved belongs to the institution and is addressed at the time the invitation is extended. Expenses are paid for up front by the hiring institution, but when this is not possible, procedures for reimbursement are articulated clearly and early in the process, as well as facilitated in order to ensure timely return of funds. Candidates do not pay their own expenses for on-campus interviews.
• Time for rest is built into a candidate’s schedule every few hours.
• Prior to research presentations or teaching demonstrations, a faculty member from the hiring committee gives a speech introducing the candidate that clearly explains the candidate’s areas of teaching and research and their value for a wide audience.
• Finally, hiring committees speak openly and positively about negotiation. During final-round interviews, members of the committee and institution make suggestions about kinds of support to ask for, or recommendations for language to use in negotiation if the candidate is offered the position.

Best Practices for Hiring Writing Program Administrators

• WPAs are hired with tenure at the rank of Associate or Full Professor.
• The committee provides candidates with a comprehensive written list of the responsibilities of the administrative post, including the minimum length of time the faculty member is expected to serve as WPA, and offers candidates the opportunity to negotiate these duties at the time of offer.
• The committee gives thorough information about how administrative work will be evaluated by the university for reappointment, tenure, promotion, and annual performance reviews, using the Council of Writing Program Administrators’ statement “Evaluating the Intellectual Work of Writing Administration” as a guide.

Best Practices for Hiring International Candidates

International faculty members have contributed immeasurably to the field of rhetoric and composition. International candidates are given full consideration for positions for this reason and as a matter of commitment to diversity. Before interviewing international candidates, the search committee consults with the International Student Services Office (ISSO) on campus or similar, or the appropriate responsible persons in HR in order to determine visa requirements and payroll procedures for international travel reimbursement. It is generally a good idea to consult with ISSO or HR in order to learn about the legal and financial complexities of hiring a foreign national, which involve a work visa sponsorship and may in some cases lead to sponsoring a permanent residency. For example, the typical work visa (H1B) for qualified international workers is active for up to six years, which is also the typical amount of time required to achieve tenure, meaning that the successfully tenured international faculty must secure permanent residency status in order to continue employment in the United States. Each of these steps involves financial commitments that the departments as well as the candidates must be prepared for; the residency-related processes may also involve an external law firm.

• Search committee members do not ask applicants if they are US citizens but may ask if applicants are authorized to work in the United States.
• Either the search committee or an ISSO or HR member clarifies during the search that the position comes with automatic visa sponsorship of a work visa (which is the responsibility of the university) and what the candidates’ responsibilities, financial and otherwise, would be in securing their residency status if desired (for example, if the position is NTT, the university may not sponsor them beyond a work visa).
• Once the decision has been made to hire an international candidate, departments work along with ISSO and HR in order to clarify responsibilities and expectations regarding the documentation, visa sponsorship, and appropriate authorities handling the faculty’s legal status, preferably in writing.
• When the hiring committee reaches a clear understanding of the deadlines, paperwork, offices, and financial responsibilities to be incurred during the faculty’s employment by the university, they take measures to protect the faculty from possible administrative failures such as missed deadlines due to no fault of the faculty, as there have been cases in which faculty have lost or nearly lost their positions due to HR mishaps.

References

Association of Departments of English and Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. (1994). MLA Statement on the Use of Part-Time and Full-Time Adjunct Faculty Members.

Association of Departments of English and Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. (2012). Suggestions for Interviews Using Videoconferencing and the Telephone.

Conference on College Composition and Communication. (2016). CCCC Statement on Working Conditions for Non Tenure-Track Writing Faculty.

Conference on College Composition and Communication. (2015). Principles for the Postsecondary Teaching of Writing.

Council of Writing Program Administrators. (1998). Evaluating the Intellectual Work of Writing Administration.

Council of Writing Program Administrators. (1992). “The Portland Resolution”: Guidelines for Writing Program Administrator Positions.

Gasman, M., Kim, J., & Nguyen, T-H. (2011). Effectively recruiting faculty of color at highly selective institutions: A school of education case study. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 4(4), 212-222.

MLA Committee on Academic Freedom and Professional Rights and Responsibilities. (2013). Guidelines for Search Committees and Job Seekers on Entry-Level Faculty Recruitment and Hiring.

MLA Committee on Contingent Labor in the Profession. (2011). Professional Employment Practices for Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Members: Recommendations and Evaluative Questions.

MLA Committee on Disability Issues in the Profession. (2006). Disability and Hiring: Guidelines for Departmental Search Committees.

National Council of Teachers of English. (2010). Position Statement on the Status and Working Conditions of Contingent Faculty.

Schuman, R. (2015, January 8). The $1,000 job interview that will not die. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

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

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 2026 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 Friday, January 16, 2026, 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 February 20, 2026. 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 2026 convention.

Procedures for Award Recipients

After the convention, grant recipients should submit a one-page summary indicating how the funding supported the recipient’s participation in convention activities. Please submit the funding report to Feminist Caucus Care Grants Coordinator Alex Hanson by April 10, 2026.

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

 

 

    

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

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.

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

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