Category: Uncategorized

Harrison Spenser: Case #5

Characterization of Institution

Research I University

Characterization of Department

We are not an English Department, although we do teach literature courses.

Our undergrad. major is “Science, Technology, and Culture,” and we offer an M.S. in Information, Design, and Technology.

We also supply the composition and Technical Writing courses required by the Institute

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

Without the book, and with a displeased Chair, it might have turned out the same. However, the candidate in the case study did make a good-faith effort to get at least some writing done, and did finish some important computer-based projects. With a carefully chosen P& T committee (assuming they are appointed by the Chair) and equally carefully chosen referees who could understand the relationship between the various parts of the candidate’s work, a case could definitely be made.

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

Chair’s role to be mentor and chief for a new faculty member and continually point out what is required for tenure. That book should have been finished, published and NOT considered a project started before the candidate’s work at the University (if it’s published while the candidate is onboard, it gets the University’s name). More important, a Chair, as eager is he or she might be to get technology rolling in the unit, may not balance the load on the shoulder’s of a junior faculty member. My current thinking, for example, is not to assign a junior faculty member any major non-research duties accept those that the person can show fits into his or her agenda and time. In other words, service is voluntary unless it can be counted into research.

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

Failed to take into account the candidate’s effort to start publishing; failed to make the appropriate argument for the candidate.

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

Of course he should have finished his book; he should also have tried to explain to his Chair that he needed to balance his research with the service. This is easier said than done, since junior faculty are rarely in a position to countermand their Chair.

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

Inadequate preparation of the candidate by the Chair. Failure to recognize–on someone’s  part–that the new Chair was antagonistic to the candidate. This might be the job of the Dean.

What went wrong?  What went right?

At the risk of repetion: no matter how anxious a department may be to get itself up to speed technologically, it may not do it by ruining the career of a new faculty member.

Maricela Guzman: Case #3

Characterization of Institution

Research II

Characterization of Department

M.A. granted in English literature, teaching of writing and literature, and professional writing and editing;
B.A.  granted in English, with writing tracks;

(Also note, that we have a heavy involvement in Ph.D.in Cultural Studies and D.A. in Community College Education)

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

I can’t imagine that a productive scholar of this proficiency would have reached this point in her career at my school and not have been fully confident of how to proceed. From the outset, she would have known what was expected and we would have taken pains to make clear to ourselves and her the nature of her work and our approval of her agenda. First, given her educational background and interests, we would have made sure that she was the person we wanted in that position, then each year the Chair would have reviewed her progress and suggested any modifications.
    
Let me say that I don’t think we would have hired for WC director a person who could not make those fertile connections between technology and the work of the Center, but had we made such a choice we would have stuck by our decision and not have expected her to become a new person.
    
The technological nature of her work, by the way, does not appear to be the problem here, but its scientific subject matter. On our campus, more and more work by more and more faculty is being done onlind and in multimedia; given her background and interests we would probably have been excited by her potential.

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

The Chair is an independent voice in these decisions not a mouthpiece for the rest of the faculty.  Sure, the Chair should mention and reflect on the committee vote in her letter, but the Chair primarily should exercise her own judgment. Otherwise, why have a separate letter from the Chair? In this case, I find it appalling that the Chair did not take responsibility for defending a scholarly agenda that she had either openly or tacitly approved earlier on.

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

The Chair of the Re-appointment, Promotion, and Tenure (RPT) Committee here expressed dismay and surprise at the vote, since it did not reflect the discussion. That disjunct should not have occurred, and it’s the RPT chair’s fault that it did. We caution faculty during meetings that they must bring out in discussion anything that might lead to their negative vote. Whenever there has been the hint of a breach of confidentiality of meeting proceedings we have held meetings to reinforce the rules, because we know that the discussion must be secure if faculty are to be forthright.

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

The Dean obviously had a different agenda from that of the Department in hiring this person.  If the Dean approved the hire of a WC director, that’s what he/she had the responsibility to support.  The release time agreement should have been honored. At this point, the Dept. chair should consult with Guzman about her career goals, and, if she wants to become primarily associated with the new culture/technology program, then the Dept. should argue for a new hire to direct the WC.

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

Like it or not, the candidate needs to be sure that her goals and accomplishments are meeting with Department approval; this means regualr, at least annual, review and consultation.  If the Chair doesn’t require this, the candidate must. When it comes right down to it, lack of mutual assurance hurts the candidate the most, so the candidate must take the initiative. In her favor, of course, she did what she assumed she was supposed to be doing and did it well. But she still left too much to blind faith.

What went wrong?  What went right?

What went right was the candidate’s work; what went wrong was the process. Let me add that this case assumes continuity in college and departmental leadership during these five years; but most chairs don’t serve the full probationary period for any candidate; RPT committee chairs serve much less. Hence, all the more need for the candidate to by reassured each year that she is on the right track. As a case in point, in my first semester as chair I was blindsided by a surprisingly weak vote from one candidate’s subcommittee; everyone vilified the subcommittee for not bringing their dissatisfaction with the candidate to anyone’s attention earlier, but clearly the candidate had assumed too much for too long without consultation, and the resulting confusion led to the candidate’s leaving the university.

Maricela Guzman: Case #3

Characterization of Institution

Regional Comprehensive, State University

Characterization of Department

Ph.D. granted in English
Ph.D. granted in Composition/Rhetoric
M.A. granted in English
M.A. granted in Composition/Rhetoric
B.A. granted in English
B.A. granted in Composition/Rhetoric

(Department Head with a PhD in Composition/Rhetoric)

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

Guzman would receive yearly positive reviews and would have been granted tenure without question.

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

The Depaartment Chair’s responsibilities are to counsel Guzman and to present Guzman’s case to upper-level administration in a positive light. She seems to have done some of this, but I would question why she did not direct Guzman to publish in a different venue if the ones she was publishing in were problematic to the department.  Perhaps, she should also have informally discussed Guzman’s research more with members of the department before the committee meeting, but since the chair/head gives a separate decision on tenure and promotion, I think there is good reason to avoid informal influence. 

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

The Personnel Committee Chair should run the meeting, try to keep tempers cool, and write a report that reflects the spirit of the department.  I don’t think the Chair should influence the voting or discussion, except to keep discussion professional and polite.

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

I’m afraid I don’t see the Dean discussed in this case.

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

Guzman seems to have done what she was hired to do, publish in her field of expertise.

What went wrong?  What went right?

This problem developed from the absolute start.  The department didn’t respect the work Guzman was doing.  They wanted a more conservative member, and they shouldn’t have hired someone whose work they could not support.  There needed to be a re-education early on if this situation were to have “corrected.”  What went right is the chair of the department showed Guzman that she supported her work and would support her candidacy. 

Workshop Reports of the 1952 Conference on College Composition and Communication Meeting, March 28, 29, The Carter Hotel, Cleveland, Ohio.

Maricela Guzman: Case #3

Characterization of Institution

Research I

Characterization of Department

Ph.D. granted in English
Ph.D. granted in Composition/Rhetoric
M.A .granted in English
M.A. granted in Composition/Rhetoric
B.A. granted in English

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

I don’t think Dr. Guzman would have received tenure here. As a Research I University; the expectations are higher than 6 published articles and conference presentations and a CD-Rom that isn’t clearly connected to her institutional position. Much would depend on the reputation of the journals in which she published, the length and substance of the articles, and the other aspects of her profile—particularly how well the writing center and the program in technology and culture are doing..

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

If Guzman is in her fifth year, her Head’s responsibilities towards her are clear: to do what she has indicated she would do—support her tenure case. But the unknown here is what happened after the third-year review. Was Guzman told that she needed to publish in areas that are more clearly recognized as English Studies (whatever that might mean—since the scenario doesn’t indicate the kinds of places she published, it’s not clear if the problem is with where she’s publishing or how people interpret where she’s publishing)? Was her teaching load protected? It should have been, since running a writing center is significant work. 

Which did the Chair fulfill? Hard to say, given the lack of information about the Head’s response to the third year review in years four and five.  Fail? Again, hard to say. If Guzman were publishing in Computers and Composition, The Writing Lab Newsletter, and other comp/rhetoric journals, then the Head should have dismissed the criticisms of the Tenure and Promotion Committee and in fact worked to educate them.

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

This is a pretty institutionally specific question, depending on the role of the committee, the frequency of reviews, etc. Do untenured faculty get annual reviews? (They do here.) If so, Guzman should have been advised about what she needed to do to improve her chances for tenure, and her next two reviews should have told her how well she was doing. If there are not annual reviews, the chair of the Tenure and Promotion Committee should have certainly advised Guzman about the concerns raised by the Head.  If the committee conversation was only praise, we have to assume the Head’s information about faculty’s dissatisfaction with Guzman’s scholarship must have come from elsewhere than the T&P committee,  so then it would be the Head’s responsibility to advise Guzman. 

Which did they fulfill?  Fail?  There’s inadequate information in the scenario to answer these questions. We don’t know what the chair of the committee did or didn’t do. .

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

The Dean isn’t mentioned in this scenario, so I won’t offer a reply to these questions.

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

Her responsibilities were to do the job for which she was hired, which it seems she has done. In addition, she has some responsibility for finding out what the tenure expectations are and how the work she’s doing in her first few years fits, though I think most of that responsibility lies with the Head and Tenure and Promotion Committee, which should be particularly attentive to the work of untenured faculty working in relatively new and interdisciplinary areas like technology and writing. 

Which did she fulfill? She’s certainly publishing and she’s presenting at appropriate conferences.  I would assume that at an institution like hers, her profile looks pretty strong, so I’m not surprised she’s likely to get tenure.   Fail?  Well, it depends on what kind of advice she’s been given. From the brief description given in the scenario, the CD-Rom project sounds like a mistake. Not because it’s a CD-Rom, but because it’s about Mars, not writing and technology or writing centers.

What went wrong?  What went right?

What appears to have gone wrong is that Guzman wasn’t given enough information and guidance about what would be valued and what wouldn’t at tenure time. It’s very hard to persuade tenure committees that someone whose profile looks unusual is doing what he or she should be. Unfortunately, untenured faculty have to do work that fits expectations, at least to some extent.

Again, if Guzman’s publications were in composition or composition and technology journals, then the problem isn’t hers; it’s the department’s, and the Head and T&P chair should be doing what they can to educate people. And Guzman’s being dispirited is something that went wrong. The work she wants to do in racism and gender and technology is consistent both with her connection to the technology and culture program and to work being done in composition studies. If she feels it’s not going to be valued, then something is definitely wrong with the place she’s working. 

What went right? Guzman’s likely to get tenure, and her Head is going to support her.

Nomination Deadline: October 15

Purpose: The CCCC Committee on Technical Communication presents the Outstanding Dissertation Award in Technical Communication annually during the Awards Session at the CCCC Convention.

Eligibility: Dissertations eligible for the 2025 Dissertation Award in Technical Communication must have been completed in 2023 or 2024. A dissertation may be nominated only once during its two-year period of eligibility.

Award Criteria: Dissertations are evaluated according to the following five criteria: originality of research, contribution the research makes to the field, methodological soundness of the approach used, awareness of the existing research in the area studied, and overall quality of the writing.

Award Specifics: Applicants must submit the following materials: (1) letter of nomination from a dissertation committee member, preferably the chair, emphasizing the significance of the research for technical communication studies; (2) an extended abstract (approximately 250 words); and (3) a copy of the dissertation. Send materials by October 15, 2024, to the CCCC Liaison, cccc@ncte.org.

E-mail questions

Outstanding Dissertation in Technical Communication Award Winners

2024

Morgan Banville, “Am I Who I Say I Am? The Illusion of Choice: Biometric Identification in Healthcare”

2023
Wilfredo Flores, “Toward a Virulent Community Literacy: Constellating the Science, Technology, and Medicine of Queer Sexual Health”

2023 Honorable Mentions
Veronica Joyner, “Black at the OB-GYN: Rhetorics of Race in Women’s Health Care”
Jessica McCaughey, “Dynamic Workplace Writing Transfer: Writing Across Career Change”

2022
Gabriel Edzordzi Agbozo, “Spatial Technologies, (Geo)Epistemology, & the Global South: Addressing the Discursive Materiality of GhanaPostGPS through Technical Communication” 

2022 Honorable Mention
Yeqing Kong,“‘Water Is a Human Right’: Exploring Environmental and Public Health Risk Communication in the Flint Water Crisis” 

2021
Cecilia D. Shelton, “On Edge: A Techné of Marginality”

2021 Honorable Mentions

Sweta Baniya, “Comparative Study of Networked Communities, Crisis Communication, and Technology: Rhetoric of Disaster in the Nepal Earthquake and Hurricane Maria”
Wil LaVeist, “Adding Soul to the Message: Applying African American Jeremiad Rhetoric as Culturally Competent Health Communication Online”

2020
Temptaous Mckoy, “Y’all Call it Technical and Professional Communication, We Call it #ForTheCulture: The Use of Amplification Rhetorics in Black Communities and Their Implications for Technical and Professional Communication Studies”

2019
Julie Collins Bates, “Toward an Interventionary Rhetoric for Technical Communication Studies”

2018
Kathryn Swacha, “‘I Could Probably Live to Be 100’: A Rhetorical Analysis of Aging, Agency, and Public Health”

2018 Honorable Mentions
Joy McMurrin, “Negotiating the Supermarket: A Critical Approach to Nutrition Literacy among Low-Income Consumers”
Beau Pihlaja, “New Black Boxes: Technologically Mediated Intercultural Rhetorical Encounters on the US–Mexico Border”

2017
Ella R. Browning, “Rupturing the World of Elite Athletics: A Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis of the Suspension of the 2011 IAAF Regulations on Hyperandrogenism”

2017 Honorable Mentions
Laura Gonzales, “Sites of Translation: What Multilinguals Can Teach us about Rhetoric, Writing, and Technology”
Emily J. Petersen, “‘Reasonably Bright Girls’: Theorizing Women’s Agency in Technological Systems of Power”

2016
Erin Trauth, “A ‘Natural’ Miscommunication: An Examination of Front-of-Package Label Claims and User-Centered Food Labeling Practices”

2015
Erin A. Frost, “Theorizing an Apparent Feminism in Technical Communication”
Ashley Rose Kelly, “Hacking  Science:  Emerging  Parascientific  Genres  and  Public  Participation in  Scientific  Research”

2014
Natasha N. Jones, “Mediation, Motives, and Goals: Identifying the Networked Nature of Contemporary Activism”

2013
Ehren Pflugfelder, “In Measure of the World: Advancing a Kinesthetic Rhetoric”

2012
Joy Santee, “Inter-institutional Collaboration and the Composition of Cartographic Texts: Mapping the Underground Railroad Bicycle Route”

2011
Colleen Derkatch, “Rhetorical Boundaries in the ‘New Science’ of Alternative Medicine”

2010
Rebekka Andersen, “The Diffusion of Content Management Technologies in Technical Communication Work Groups: A Qualitative Study on the Activity of Technology Transfer”

2010 Honorable Mention
Sarah Hallenbeck, “Writing the Bicycle: Women, Rhetoric, and Technology in Late Nineteenth-Century America”

2009
Jonathan Buehl, “Instrument to Evidence to Argument: Visual Mediation of Invisible Phenomena in Scientific Discourse”

2008
Lara Varpio, “Mapping the Genres of Healthcare Information Work: An Interdisciplinary Study of the Interactions Between Oral, Paper, and Electronic Forms of Communication”

2008 Honorable Mention
Huiling Ding, “Rhetoric of a global epidemic: Intercultural and intracultural professional communication about SARS”

2007
Natasha Artemeva, “Becoming an engineering communicator: A study of novices’ trajectories in learning genres of their profession”

2006
Neil Lindemann, “Blurred Boundaries of Science and Advocacy: The Discourse of Scientists at a Conservation Organization”

2005
Huatong Sun, “Expanding the Scope of Localization: A Cultural Usability Perspective on Mobile Text Messaging Use in American and Chinese Contexts”

2004
Donna Kain, “Negotiated Spaces: Constructing Genre and Social Practice in a Cross-Community Writing Project”

2003
Brent Henze, “Scientific Rhetorics in the Emergence of British Ethnology, 1808-1848: Discourses, Disciplines, and Institutions.”

2003 Honorable Mention
Sandra Sterling Reynolds, “Collaboration or Subordination: The Role of Rhetoric in the Conception of Primary Healthcare Giver.”

2002
David Dayton, “Electronic Editing in Technical Communication:  Practices, Attitudes, Impacts.”

2002 Honorable Mention
Dave Clark, “A Rhetoric of Boundaries:  Living and Working Along a Technical/Non-Technical Split.”

2001
Kenneth Baake, “Metaphor and Knowledge: The Rhetorical Challenges at a Post- Modern Science Think Tank.”

2000
Clay I. Spinuzzi, “Designing for Life Worlds: Genre and Activity in Information Systems’ Design and Evaluation.”

1999
Katherine Durack, “Documentation and Domestic Technology: Household Sewing Technologies and Feminine Authority.”

1999 Honorable Mention
Brenda Camp Orbell, “Discourse, Power, and Social Ruptures:  An Analysis of Tailhook 91.”

1999 Honorable Mention
Graham Smart, “An Ethnographic Study of Knowledge-Making in a Central Bank:  The Interplay between Writing and Economic Modeling.”

Jared Johns: Case #1

Characterization of Institution

Research I

Characterization of Department

Ph.D. granted in English
Ph.D. granted in Composition/Rhetoric
M.A. granted in English
M.A.  granted in Composition/Rhetoric
B.A. granted in English

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

Probably very much like it did here—the Promotion and Tenure committee would be very concerned about John’s low number of refereed publications and would want the chair to send him a strong message about the need to focus his efforts on such publications. If he were to come up for promotion and tenure with this profile, he’d likely not receive it at the college or university level.

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

The chair’s obligations to Johns include making the criteria for promotion and tenure clear to him and to be sure he understands, early in his career, which of his work will be helpful and which will not. His conference with Johns in his first year was a step in the right direction, since he offered him specific advice about his research and teaching, but it appears that there was not as much follow-up as there could be. It also appears that Johns was given quite a bit of very time-consuming service work, and that might not have have been fair to him, despite the released time he received for it.

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

It appears that the Personnel Committee at this institution does not do annual reviews of untenured faculty. If that’s the case, then perhaps the committee did what it was required to do. However, I think it’s critical for untenured faculty to be reviewed much more frequently by those who will vote on their promotion and tenure. By the fourth year, there’s little that can be done to turn around a situation like Johns’. In this case, the thorough review Johns received came two years too late to help him. It also seems to me that the committee may have placed too much emphasis on traditional teaching and not enough on Johns’ work with students, both formally on graduate students’ committees and informally in the computer facility.

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

Sorry, I don’t see any references to the Dean in this scenario. And I don’t think that during the probationary period, Deans typically have much involvement with untenured faculty. That’s mostly a departmental responsibility.

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

Johns’ responsibilities include understanding the criteria on which he will be evaluated for promotion and tenure and focusing his work so that it dovetailed with those criteria. He probably should have understood that he needed to publish his work in the kinds of forums that are accepted and recognized at his institution, since it’s very difficult to be a “break-through” case. He also had the responsibility to work hard to improve his teaching, since it was made clear to him that there were concerns about its quality. Johns did seem to fulfill his responsibilities in terms of administering the computer facility and working with graduate students. He certainly seemed to be a good colleague—one who shared his expertise willingly with his peers and students. He was clearly establishing a national reputation among people in his area of expertise. 

What went wrong?  What went right?

Two things went wrong. First, the department did not seem to give Johns the kind of detailed “warning” about his status until too late. Second, Johns, like a number of new faculty I’ve seen, didn’t seem to understand that ultimately his service contributions and his non-tradtional publications would not help him earn tenure and promotion. He seemed not to understand how conservative most universities are—looking for traditional peer-reviewed publications and teaching evaluations that are at least average for the institution and the courses. Though Johns’ chair did seem to talk to him about these issues early in his career, there did not appear to be enough regular subsequent evaluation and/or mentoring.

Nomination Deadline: November 1

Purpose: The CCCC Executive Committee presents, as occasion demands, the CCCC Exemplar Award to a person whose years of service as an exemplar for our organization represents the highest ideals of scholarship, teaching, and service to the entire profession.

Eligibility: The Exemplar Award seeks to recognize individuals whose record is national and international in scope, or whose record is local and regional with national implications, and who set the best examples for the CCCC membership.

Award Specifics: Nominations should include a letter of nomination; four letters of support; and a full curriculum vita. The nominating material should be send to the CCCC Exemplar Award Committee at cccc@ncte.org. Nominations must be received by November 1, 2024.

E-mail questions

Congratulations to the 2025 CCCC Exemplar!

Anne Ruggles Gere, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Exemplar Award Winners

2025

Anne Ruggles Gere

2024

Mike Palmquist

2023

Jonathan Alexander and Jacqueline Rhodes

2022
Louise Wetherbee Phelps

2021
Beverly J. Moss

2020
Charles Bazerman

2019
Cheryl Glenn

2018
Kathleen Blake Yancey
(watch Kathleen Blake Yancey’s acceptance speech during the 2018 CCCC Annual Convention Opening Session)

2017
Deborah Brandt
(watch Deborah Brandt’s acceptance speech during the 2017 CCCC Annual Convention Opening Session)

2016
Sondra Perl

2015
Sharon Crowley

2014
Gail E. Hawisher and Cynthia L. Selfe

2013
Keith Gilyard

2012
Mike Rose

2011
Edward M. White

2010
W. Ross Winterowd

2009
Victor Villanueva

2008
Patricia Bizzell

2007
Peter Elbow

2006
David Bartholomae

2005
Erika Lindemann

2004
Jacqueline Jones Royster

2003
Winifred Bryan Horner

2002
Art Young

2001
Lynn Quitman Troyka

2000
Muriel Harris

1999
Geneva Smitherman

1998
Janice Lauer

1997
Ann E. Berthoff

1996
Edward P.J. Corbett

1995
James L. Kinneavy

1994
Andrea Lunsford

1993
Richard Ohmann

1992
Janet Emig

1991
Richard Lloyd-Jones

Contact the Editor

EMAIL: Bump Halbritter, Editor, CCC Online, ccconlineeditor@gmail.com

MAIL: Bump Halbritter, Editor, CCC Online,

Department of Writing, Rhetoric, and American Cultures,

298 Ernst Bessey Hall, Michigan State University,

East Lansing, MI 48824-1033

 

CCC Online Submission Guidelines

The editorial staff of College Composition and Communication Online (CCC Online) invites the submission of stand-alone webtexts comprised of digitally-mediated research and scholarship in composition studies that supports college teachers in reflecting on and improving their practices in teaching writing. The field of composition studies draws on research and theories from a broad range of humanistic disciplines— English studies, linguistics, literacy studies, rhetoric, cultural studies, gay studies, gender studies, critical theory, education, technology studies, race studies, communication, philosophy of language, anthropology, sociology, and others—and within composition studies, a number of subfields have also developed, such as technical communication, computers and composition, writing across the curriculum, research practices, history of composition, assessment, and writing center work.

Webtexts for CCC Online may come out of the discussions within and among any of these fields, as long as the argument presented is clearly relevant to the work of college writing teachers and responsive to recent scholarship in composition studies. The usefulness of articles to writing teachers should be apparent in the discussion, but webtexts need not contain explicit sections detailing applications to teaching practices.

In writing for CCC Online, you should consider a diverse readership for your article, a readership that includes at least all teachers of college-level writing at diverse institutions and literacy centers, and may include administrators, undergraduate and graduate students, legislators, corporate employers, parents, and alumni. To address such an audience, you need not avoid difficult theories or complex discussions of research and issues or detailed discussions of pedagogy; rather you should consider the interests and perspectives of the variety of readers who are affected by your theories, pedagogies, and policies.

Genre, Format, Length, Documentation. You are encouraged to submit finished, stand-alone webtexts in whatever genre and format best fits your purposes, and to use alternate genres and formats if they best express your meanings; similarly, the use of endnotes and subheadings should align with your purposes and meanings. CCC Online’s audio-visual webtexts do not have typical word counts or page lengths. Your webtexts should be guided by your purposes; however, we recommend that you aim for the depth and rigor of CCC articles (generally around 7,000 words). All webtexts should be documented according to the MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing (2nd ed.). NCTE’s Guidelines for Gender-Fair Use of Language can be found here. Finally, please allow padding of no fewer than 25 pixels at the top of each page of your webtext to accommodate the CCC Online watermark that will be used to link your text to the issue in which it will appear. 

Copyright and Fair Use. Our ability to publish your webtexts in a timely manner will be determined, in part, by the speed with which we can make fair use determinations and/or obtain copyright clearances for the various media assets in your work.  Please consult the U.S. Copyright Office’s site on Fair Use and/or the site for Copyright and Fair Use available from Stanford University Libraries to make fair use determinations for your work prior to submitting it to CCC Online. Please, do not rely on fair use as a rule for your work.  We highly recommend that your seek and obtain express permission to use all media assets that appear in your webtext prior to submitting your work to CCC Online.  

Research Practices and Citing Unpublished Work. If your webtext reports the results of empirical or observational research, you need to be attentive to the ethics as well as the validity of your research methods. In any webtext, if you quote or otherwise reproduce unpublished writing by students or teachers or others, you need to get permission from the writers to do so, even if you use their writing anonymously. Permission forms for citing unpublished work are available from the CCC Online editor.

Submission and Review of Webtexts. Please contact the editor to set up a dropbox for submitting your complete webtext and all associated files. We understand that many audio-visual texts have assets that identify the author, the author’s institution, the author’s collaborators, and/or the subjects of the author’s study.  Webtexts will not be read blind by outside reviewers.  However, when possible, please make every effort to not identify yourself, your institution, or your collaborators in the text or in the list of works cited. Please include your address, phone number, and email address with all submissions.

CCC. Articles that are composed in a format that could be mediated on paper should be submitted for publication in CCC. Please contact the CCC editor for submission requirements.

About half of the submissions to CCC Online are sent to outside readers after the first stage of review by the editorial staff. You should receive prompt acknowledgment of receipt of your piece by either postcard or email, followed by a report on its status from the editor within 16 weeks. The time between acceptance and publication is usually less than a year. Please feel free to write or call the editor if you have any questions about submitting work to CCC.

CCC Online Home

Return to Table of Contents