Category: Uncategorized

Conference on College Composition and Communication, November 2003, revised March 2015

Preamble

The CCCC represents teachers and researchers of composition and communication in all possible genres, media, contexts, and exigencies; for the purpose of these guidelines, “writers” and “writing” will be all-encompassing, and the term “researcher” will refer to anyone who undertakes a study. We embrace numerous subfields, many of which have also issued their own ethical statements and have published commentary about conducting research that should be consulted. As members of the CCCC, we share a commitment to protecting the rights, privacy, dignity, and well-being of the persons who are involved in our studies, whether as participants or co-researchers. These guidelines are intended to assist researchers in fulfilling this commitment.

The following guidelines have been informed by U.S. Federal policies, regulations, and laws on the ethical conduct of research;¹  however, they do not replace or supersede them. Researchers who conduct studies outside of their home countries should also refer to the policies, regulations, and laws that govern the locales where the research takes place. The U.S. Office of Human Research Protections maintains a listing of international standards that may be consulted.²

The following guidelines apply to all efforts by scholars, teachers, administrators, students, and others that are directed toward publication of a book or journal article, presentation at a conference, preparation of a thesis or dissertation, display on a website, or other general dissemination of the results of research and scholarship. The guidelines apply to formally planned investigations. They likewise apply to emergent studies that discuss the writers and unpublished writing that researchers encounter in other ways, such as when teaching classes, holding student conferences, directing academic programs, conducting research in nonacademic settings, or going about their professional, civic, and personal lives.

U.S. Federal policy allows an exception for studies that researchers conduct solely for the purpose of improving their own practice, or solely for discussion within their own institution. To confirm that a study falls under the exception, researchers should follow local review processes. Moreover, even in studies confirmed as exceptions (granted an exemption), CCCC members carefully protect the rights, privacy, dignity, and well-being of their participants and co-researchers. These guidelines suggest ways to accomplish this goal.

Compliance

As researchers, we learn about and comply with all policies, regulations, and laws that apply to our studies. Many institutions have an Institutional Review Board (IRB)³ or alternative review process to which we submit our plans for advance review and approval. We then conduct our studies in accordance with the approved research plans. We also confirm with the IRB or alternative review committee if we believe a proposed study should be allowed an exception (granted an exemption). If we work at or are students at an institution without an IRB or alternative review process, then we contact colleagues at other institutions so we can learn about and follow procedures that IRBs require.⁴

Although we comply with the final decision of our IRBs or alternative review processes, we recognize that members of the review committee may need to be educated about the particular methods and methodologies of writing research. As researchers, we negotiate with committees about IRB requirements or restrictions that hamper research unnecessarily and without benefit to participants. Moreover, we engage in ongoing conversations with regulatory agents to advise them in developing policies, regulations, and laws that take into account the methods and methodologies of writing research.

We acknowledge that mere compliance with policies, regulations, and laws does not necessarily guarantee the ethical conduct of research (see Maintaining Competence).

Maintaining Competence

As researchers, we strive to refine our competence and to keep apprised of ongoing ethical discussions for several reasons:

1. Understandings of and definitions of ethical research practices are constantly negotiated among members of a discipline or subfield;
2. New experiences among researchers and participants may raise new ethical issues; and
3. Formal policies, regulations, and laws continually evolve (See the “Selected Bibliography” section).

We assure that we are appropriately trained and prepared to conduct the studies we undertake, and we likewise assure that our co-researchers and assistants are appropriately trained and prepared. Training and preparation may include activities such as enrollment in classes, review of relevant published research and methodological discussions, and consultation or collaboration with other experienced researchers.

Researchers who are supervisors of and/or collaborators with novice researchers (such as undergraduates, graduate students, postdoctoral scholars, colleagues new to a discipline/subfield, and participant-researchers) should maintain frequent and open discussion of research procedures with those in their charge as the studies are conducted and disseminated.

Recruiting

Some studies may include populations who may be considered vulnerable and protected, including but not limited to children and adolescent minors, students, prisoners, pregnant women, military veterans, disenfranchised groups, persons with disabilities, and adults with legal guardians. In these cases, as researchers, we consult carefully with the IRB/reviewing agencies, colleagues, and (when allowed) with prospective participants to develop a protocol that protects their rights, privacy, well-being, and especially, dignity.

When conducting studies with individuals who are perceived to have less institutional power or others whose well-being depends on the researcher’s opinions, decisions, or actions, we take special care to protect prospective participants from adverse consequences of declining or withdrawing from participation.⁵

To avoid situations in which students feel that their decision to participate (or not) in a study might affect their instructor’s treatment of them, we recruit participants from other classes or other sources. If the topic of the research or other special circumstances require that the study involve our own students, then we use measures to avoid coercion or perceived coercion, such as confirming students’ voluntary participation after grades are submitted or asking colleagues to conduct the actual data collection.

Obtaining Informed Consent

When asking people to volunteer to participate in (or in the case of co-researchers or novice researchers, collaborate in the design and execution of) a study, we provide participants a copy of the consent document and explain the study in a way that enables the participants to understand the following points:

1. The purpose of the research and its possible benefits.
2. Why the participant was recruited.
3. What the participant will be asked to do and how long it will take.
4. What we plan to do with the information or data obtained from participants.
5. Any potential discomforts, harms, or risks one might incur as a result of participating and how we plan on minimizing any potential discomforts, harms, or risks.
6. Any potential benefits (separate from compensation, if any) participants may experience from the study.
7. Whether or not we intend to include data in research reports that would render participants identifiable. (We always honor participants’ requests that disseminated reports contain no personally identifiable information, including data that would make them identifiable to persons familiar with the research site. We acknowledge that sometimes a conflict may emerge when some participants want to remain anonymous and others want to be recognized, and we resolve the issue before presenting, publishing, or reporting on the study.)
8. How confidential data will be stored and who will have access to confidential data and materials, particularly in the case of research teams/co-researchers. If data and materials are to be included in an archive, we receive explicit consent (see “Conducting Studies Involving Archival Work”).

In addition, we emphasize the following points:

1. Participation is completely voluntary.
2. Participants can decline to answer any questions instead of withdrawing from the study.
3. Participation is an ongoing and constantly negotiated process between the participants and the researcher or research team.
4. If anonymity for participants is not possible, then we are explicit about this constraint.
5. Participants may withdraw at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which they are otherwise entitled.

For studies involving vulnerable populations who have parents or legal guardians, we obtain written permission from the parents or legal guardians in addition to the assent of the prospective participant or we seek permission from IRBs for a waiver of consent. If required, we also gain the permission of sponsoring institutions, such as public schools or private workplaces. We are careful to determine that whatever terms of access we agree to are consistent with the stipulations of applicable IRB regulations and the provisions of these guidelines.

We always provide those invited to participate in a study an opportunity to ask questions. When asked questions by participants during or after a study, we reply in a timely manner.

In the case of classes in which undergraduate and graduate students are collaborators in research projects, we guide their work toward best practices and acknowledge their collaboration in any presentation, publication, or report.

These guidelines concerning informed consent are intended to complement (not replace) any additional requirements of applicable policies, regulations, and laws.

Conducting Studies Involving Classes

When conducting studies involving classes, we give primary consideration to the goals of the course and fair treatment of all students. Toward that end, we take the following measures, whether the students are members of our own classes or are from classes taught by colleagues:

1. We design our studies so that participation is completely voluntary.
2. We assure that volunteering, declining to volunteer, or deciding to withdraw after volunteering will not affect a student’s grade.
3. We assure that pursuit of our research goals will not hinder achievement of the course’s educational goals.
4. We assure that all students will receive the same attention, instruction, support, and encouragement in the course. For example, studies may be conducted so that instructors do not know who participated or not until the class is over.
5. We assure that reports on the research do not include information about students who did not volunteer.
6. If there is a possibility that one or more of the volunteering students have changed their minds since the study began, we obtain confirming consent at the end of the course.
7. In the case of classes in which undergraduate and graduate students are collaborators in research projects, we guide our work toward best practices and acknowledge their collaboration in any publication.

Conducting Studies Outside the Classroom

When conducting studies in sites outside the classroom, we give primary consideration to the contexts of our research and to the fair treatment of all participants. Toward that end, we take the following measures:

1. We design our studies so that participation is completely voluntary.
2. We assure that volunteering, declining to volunteer, or deciding to withdraw after volunteering will not affect participants or a participant’s standing at the research site.
3. We assure that pursuit of our research goals will not hinder achievement or operation at our research site.
4. We coordinate and discuss our research plan with site leaders/administrators before proceeding with research.
5. We assure that reports on the research do not include information about participants who did not volunteer.
6. In the case of research projects in which participants, undergraduate, and/or graduate students are collaborators, we guide our work toward best practices and acknowledge their collaboration in any publication.
7. When conducting research with protected/vulnerable populations, we follow federal guidelines to ensure our research is ethical and legal.

Conducting Studies Involving Digital/Online Media

When conducting studies involving digital/online media, we are particularly aware that researchers’ and participants’ expectations regarding the public/private, published versus unpublished documents, informed consent, sensitivity of the data, vulnerability of the participants, identifiability of the data, and other aspects of the research study must be negotiated.⁶ We recognize that these expectations are often contingent and may shift in response to revised trajectories in disciplinary research practices; newly introduced, innovative technologies; and the multifaceted histories that specific digital/online communities have experienced. As a result, we should explicitly justify our research choices and our positioning as researchers when we plan, conduct, and publish our studies.

We do not assume, for example, that all digital/online communications are available for research studies simply because they can be accessed. Nor do we assume that we must always receive express permission from authors before citing their digital/online materials. A balance must be struck between these extremes, a balance that is informed by institutional regulation, consultation with published research and other researchers, discussion with members of the online communities themselves, and sensitivity to and understanding of the expectations that authors (including student authors) may have had in posting their materials.

We are also aware that promising anonymity to participants may be impossible when conducting certain digital/online studies. Communication technologies may not be secure enough for discussing sensitive topics. Likewise, search engines have become increasingly powerful in their capacity to locate text strings. Materials that are protected behind a firewall or password today may become readily available tomorrow as passwords are compromised, the mode of access changes, a database is archived, or other modifications in technology occur that are beyond the researcher’s control. Instead, we may need to integrate practices that take into account these possibilities, such as finding alternate means of communicating with participants; turning off the collection of IP addresses in online survey services; asking participants’ permission to use real names; allowing participants to review interview data before employing them; and so on.

Researchers interested in digital/online media are encouraged to consult the more extensive ethical guidelines published by researchers in these subfields, including those by the Association of Internet Researchers. In addition, they are encouraged to consult the many and lengthy discussions found in the provided Bibliography.

Conducting Studies Involving Archival Work

Conducting Studies Involving Archival WorkaAs researchers, we often consult library resources, museums, and other archival materials. These already collected materials are not governed by IRB review. However, we are aware that some archival materials may have been assembled without ethical consideration for all cultural stakeholders involved, and that understandings of ethical standards may shift over time. As researchers, we are alert to these concerns and debates, and when we choose to use these archival materials, we strive to represent them and their multilayered, multivoiced contexts accurately and fairly.

The following guidelines speak to studies that involve living participants, plus the intent to generate, construct, and curate an archive. Such a study typically requires an IRB’s/review committee’s approval. For example, as researchers, we may collect and analyze a large sample of student or professional documents, and then make the documents available for use by other researchers. When we plan to build a new archive as a component of a study, we need to negotiate several considerations:

1. As researchers, we are sensitive to our participants as cultural stakeholders in a long-term archive of materials. We explicitly ask for permission to include a participant’s materials in an archive. In some cases, stakeholders may actively collaborate on building the archive. Negotiations over what materials to include and exclude should be explicit, and they may need to consider the archival materials’ impact on the descendants of those whose work is included.
2. Libraries and other institutional repositories may not be able to accept materials from studies involving human participants unless their own versions of permission forms are collected in addition to informed consent letters. (These additional permissions often address intellectual property and access issues.) As researchers, we consult early in the process with the intended host to determine what conditions may apply and what procedures to follow.
3. We must balance accessibility to the archive with both the participants’ and the future researchers’ rights to privacy. When we create archives, we organize the artifacts and the information about their provenance so that the organization is clear and consistent. If we create or adopt data-mining tools for digital archives, we facilitate access to the artifacts without violating the researchers’ privacy. When we compile culturally sensitive records, we are careful to follow procedures to maintain participants’ anonymity when permission to use real names is not granted (for example, by removing identifying information and/or by embargoing materials until an agreed-upon date).
4. We acknowledge the impact that different cataloging, data-mining, coding, and other software may have in shaping our access to and interpretation of archival information. When building an archive, and when reporting on materials in an archive, we explicitly name and justify the relevant software used.
5. We strive to ensure the proper long-term storage and preservation of artifacts, whether they are physical or digital materials.

Conducting Studies Involving Assessment Data

Studies involving assessment data may include outcomes data, portfolio evidence, survey data, directed self-placement scores, interviews, and so on. According to U.S. Federal policy, if such studies are conducted solely for the purpose of internal assessment (e.g., placement testing, improving a program), they are typically considered exceptions. As researchers, we confirm the exception (request an exemption) as well as any local requirements (e.g., anonymity of data) with our IRB/review committee.

If we plan to present, publish, or report on assessment data beyond the local institution, then we submit a protocol for advance review and approval by the IRB/review committee.

Using Unpublished Writing Collected Outside of an IRB-Approved Study

When studying unpublished writing samples that have been collected outside of a study approved by an IRB or other process, we, (and, when applicable, our undergraduate/graduate researchers, collaborators, and colleagues), determine whether our planned use of these samples is consistent with the policies governing research at our institutions and, if different, the institution at which the samples were collected.

When using unpublished writing samples for reasons outside of research purposes (e.g., textbook samples, writing samples collected for writing consultant or teacher training), we determine whether our use of these samples is consistent with the policies governing student privacy at our institutions, and, if different, the institution at which samples were collected.

We continue to apply to these materials the same ethical guidelines we employ when analyzing and reporting on data collected under the auspices of an IRB-approved study. We are also mindful that copyright regulations may apply to these materials.

Quoting, Paraphrasing, and Reporting Statements

In our publications, presentations, and other research reports, we quote, paraphrase, or otherwise report unpublished written statements only with the author’s permission. That permission may be indicated by written consent, or (in digital/online research) through click-through approval on a form, and/or through another procedure approved by an IRB or alternative review process.  We likewise seek permission to quote, paraphrase, or otherwise report a spoken statement that a participant has made with the expectation that it will remain private.  U.S. Federal policy allows an exception to be made for spoken statements made while participants are speaking in or attending a public forum (the definition of which may be contingent upon institutional regulation, previously published research, and the expectations of the participants involved).

When quoting, paraphrasing, or reporting unpublished writing and when reporting (with permission) oral statements made in private, we respect the writer’s or speaker’s wishes about whether or not to include the writer’s or speaker’s name or identifying information. When the writer or speaker is a member of a vulnerable/protected population with a parent or legal guardian, we obtain permission from a parent or legal guardian in addition to the assent of the prospective participant. When we use an informed consent process approved by an IRB or similar committee, we have obtained the necessary permission.

We do our best to represent language/meaning accurately, understanding that meaning-making is often negotiated, shifting, multivoiced, and changeable over time. We report written and spoken statements in ways consistent with the collected data, and avoid deliberately misrepresenting participants’ words. We provide contextual information that will enable others to understand the statements the way the writer or speaker intended. When in doubt, we check the accuracy of the reports and interpretations with the writer or speaker. We are especially sensitive to the need to check interpretations when the writer or speaker is from a cultural, ethnic, or other group different from our own.

When discussing the statements that we quote, paraphrase, or otherwise report, we do so in ways that are fair and serious, and that avoid harm.

Describing Individuals and Groups

We describe individuals and groups fairly and accurately, in ways that are accountable to the data, observation, or other evidence on which the descriptions are based. We describe people in ways that are fair and serious, avoid harm, and protect privacy.

Using Video, Audio, Photographs, and Other Identifiable Representations of Participants

Because video, audio, photographs, and other representations (e.g., cartoons) of participants in the studies that we conduct allow individuals to be identified, we include them in conference presentations, publications, or other public displays only with written consent (or other approved procedure for receiving consent) from all persons whose voices and/or images were recorded or shown. When the person recorded is a member of a vulnerable/protected population with a parent or legal guardian, then we obtain permission from the parent or legal guardian in addition to the assent of the prospective participant. When we use an informed consent process approved by an IRB or similar committee, we have obtained the necessary permission.

One exception allowed by U.S. Federal policy are instances when the recording was made while participants were speaking in or attending a public forum (the definition of which may be contingent upon institutional regulation, previously published research, and the expectations of the participants involved).

Working with Co-Researchers and Co-Authors

Research studies often rely upon the assistance of many people, not only the participants, but also those who organize and perform data collection, those who assist with coding, those who analyze information, and so on. We are generous in acknowledging these contributions, whether by name or general category (e.g., reviewers of the manuscript).

In some cases, participants in and/or other contributors to a study should be considered co-researchers and/or co-authors. Determining who should be a co-researcher and/or co-author depends on disciplinary convention, institutional regulation, and local expectations. Ideally, participants who become co-researchers and/or co-authors benefit, learn, and gain insight/knowledge through the collaborative process. We strive for reciprocal relations. Participants who become co-authors should be made aware that a designated “author” on a publication has legal privileges (e.g., copyright) and ethical obligations for the acceptable conduct, representation, and/or dissemination of the study.

Co-researcher status and/or co-authorship may be determined at the beginning of the study, or they may emerge during the course of the study. In either case, expectations about who can use what data, and under what circumstances, should be negotiated and made explicit. Many institutions have a representative, committee or office (such as the IRB office or Ombuds Office) that can assist in negotiating these expectations to avoid conflicts.

Working with Editors/Publishers

When accepting manuscripts for publication or other public display, editors and publishers should assist in maintaining ethical standards without unduly burdening the researcher. For example, editors/publishers should doublecheck for occasions where identifying information has been incorporated accidentally into a manuscript, or for representations of participants that may be misunderstood.

Publishers also recognize the difference between informed consent letters (as approved by an IRB or other reviewing committee) and copyright release permissions. If anonymity has been promised to participants, it is inappropriate to demand copies of the signed informed consent letters.

Indicating Possible Financial Conflicts of Interest

In accordance with U.S. Federal guidelines, for any presentation, publication, or report on a study, the researcher(s) shall make full disclosure of all possible financial conflicts of interest with an entity connected to the research topics. (Research conducted under the auspices of other nations should accommodate those nations’ regulations regarding conflicts of interest as well.) The following exceptions are allowed:

1. Amounts less than $5,000 per calendar year per entity and associated entities
2. Book royalties
3. Instances when an author’s or speaker’s stated affiliation is with the entity or associated entities.

This policy applies to all researchers associated with the study. Presenters at a conference will also disclose if an interested entity has paid some or all of the expenses related to performing the study and/or attending the conference.

Full disclosure can consist of statements in the methods section, acknowledgements, footnotes/endnotes, or, in the case of a presentation, a statement on a slide or handout. The exact amount of financial remuneration need not be disclosed, but, except for the cases indicated above, the fact that remuneration was received must be stated.

Selected Bibliography

CCCC has compiled a selected bibliography of sources on the ethical conduct of research involving human participants. It is available at /cccc/resources/positions/ethicalconductbiblio.

Notes

¹Information about these policies, regulations, and laws can be found at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Office of Human Research Protections, http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/

²The International Compilation of Human Research Standards, http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/international/index.html

³An institutional review board is a committee established under the federal regulation for the protection of research participants (45 CFR 46). Each IRB is legally responsible for assuring that all research involving human participants that is conducted under the aegis of its institution complies with this regulation. For more information, visit the website of the federal Office for Human Research Protections: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/

⁴In several cases, institutions without IRBs have made arrangements with a local institution with an IRB to conduct the reviews.

⁵This sentence is adapted from the American Psychological Association Ethics Code, 3.08. http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/

⁶This section has been informed by work by Heidi McKee & James E. Porter. “The Ethics of Digital Writing Research: A Rhetorical Approach.” College Composition and Communication 59.4 (2008): 711–749, and by the Association of Internet Researchers’ 2002 and 2012 reports, Ethical decision-making and Internet research: Recommendations from the AoIR ethics working committee, located at http://aoir.org/ethics/
Researchers may also be interested in the Statement of Principles and Best Practices by the Oral History Association, located at http://www.oralhistory.org/about/principles-and-practices/

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

The CCCC represents teachers and researchers of composition and communication in all possible genres, media, contexts, and exigencies; for the purpose of these guidelines, “writers” and “writing” will be all-encompassing, and the term “researcher” will refer to anyone who undertakes a study. We embrace numerous subfields, many of which have also issued their own ethical statements and have published commentary about conducting research that should be consulted. As members of the CCCC, we share a commitment to protecting the rights, privacy, dignity, and well-being of the persons who are involved in our studies, whether as participants or co-researchers. These guidelines are intended to assist researchers in fulfilling this commitment.

Read the full statement, CCCC Guidelines for the Ethical Conduct of Research in Composition Studies (November 2003, revised March 2015)

This bibliography presents sources that composition researchers can use to supplement the “CCCC Guidelines for the Ethical Conduct of Research in Composition Studies.” The guidelines are available at /cccc/resources/positions/ethicalconduct.(Revised March 2015)

Associations’ Statements of Ethics

American Anthropological Association. “Principles of Professional Responsibility.” 1 November 2012. http://ethics.aaanet.org/ethics-statement-0-preamble/

American Educational Research Association. “AERA Code of Ethics.” February 2011. http://www.aera.net/AboutAERA/AERARulesPolicies/ProfessionalEthics/tabid/10200/Default.aspx

American Folklore Society. “A Statement of Ethics for the American Folklore Society.” 1988. http://www.afsnet.org/?page=Ethics&hhSearchTerms=%22statement+and+ethics%22

American Historical Association. “Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct.” 2011.
http://www.historians.org/jobs-and-professional-development/statements-and-standards-of-the-profession/statement-on-standards-of-professional-conduct

Association of Internet Researchers. “Ethics.” 2015. http://aoir.org/ethics/
2002: Ethical decision-making and Internet research: Recommendations from the AoIR ethics working committee
2012: Ethical decision-making and Internet research 2.0: Recommendations from the AoIR ethics working committee

American Psychological Association. “Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct 2010.” 1 June 2010. http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/

American Political Science Association. “A Guide to Professional Ethics in Political Science,” 2nd ed. 2012 http://www.apsanet.org/Files/Publications/APSAEthicsGuide2012.pdf

American Sociological Association. “Code of Ethics.” 2008. http://www.asanet.org/about/ethics.cfm

Modern Language Association. “Statement of Professional Ethics.” 2004. http://www.mla.org/repview_profethics

Oral History Association. “Oral History and Best Practices.” October, 2009. http://www.oralhistory.org/about/principles-and-practices/

Society of American Archivists. “SAA Core Values Statement and Code of Ethics.” May 2011. http://www2.archivists.org/statements/saa-core-values-statement-and-code-of-ethics

Society of Professional Journalists. “SPJ Code of Ethics.” 6 September 2014 http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

Human Subject Research and Academic Freedom

Abbott, Lura, and Christine Grady. “A Systematic Review of the Empirical Literature Investigating IRBs: What We Know and What We Still Need to Learn.” Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 6.1 (2011): 3–19.

American Association of University Professors. “Protecting Human Beings: Institutional Review Boards and Social Science Research.” Academe 87.3 (2001): 55–67.

Boateng, Boatema. The Copyright Thing Doesn’t Work Here Anymore: Adinkra and Kente Cloth and Intellectual Property in Ghana. Minneapolis: U Minnesota P, 2011.

Office for Human Research Protections. “Federalwide Assurance (FWA) for the Protection of Human Subjects,” 17 June 2011. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/assurances/assurances/filasurt.html

Tierney, William G., and Zoë Blumberg Corwin. “The Tensions Between Academic Freedom and Institutional Review Boards.” Qualitative Inquiry 13.3 (2007): 388–398.

Law, Copyright, and Intellectual Property

Biagioli, Mario, Peter Jaszi, and Martha Woodmansee, eds. Making and Unmaking Intellectual Property: Creative Production in Legal and Cultural Perspective. U Chicago P, 2011.

Butler, Paul. “Copyright, Plagiarism, and the Law.” Authorship in Composition Studies. Ed. Tracy Hamler Carrick and Rebecca Moore Howard. New York: Wadsworth, 2006. 13–27.

“Copyright Office Basics.” U.S. Government. July 2006.

Herrington, TyAnna K. Intellectual Property on Campus: Students’ Rights and Responsibilities. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2010.

Hobbs, Renee. Copyright Clarity: How Fair Use Supports Digital Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, 2010.

Intellectual Property Caucus of the Conference on College Composition and Communication. “The CCCC-IP Annual: Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2013” [and all years back to 2005].  Available from /cccc/committees/ip

Kennedy, Krista and Rebecca Moore Howard.  “Introduction to the Special Issue on Western Cultures of Intellectual Property.”  College English (2013): 75.5. 461–469.

Lessig, Lawrence. The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World. New York: Random House, 2001.

Lessig, Lawrence. Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. New York: Penguin Books, 2009.

Pfannenstiel, A. Nicole. “Digital Literacies and Academic Integrity.” International Journal of Educational Integrity 6.2 (2010). http://www.ojs.unisa.edu.au/index.php/IJEI/article/view/702

Rife, Martine Courant. Invention, Copyright, and Digital Writing. Southern Illinois UP, 2013.

Rife, Martine Courant, Shaun Slattery, and Danielle Nicole DeVoss, eds. Copy(write): Intellectual Property in the Writing Classroom. Anderson, SC: Parlor, 2011.

Vaidhyanathan, Siva. Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How It Threatens Creativity. New York: New York UP, 2001.

General Disciplinary Discussions of Research Ethics

Anderson, Paul V. “Simple Gifts: Ethical Issues in the Conduct of Person-Based Composition Research.” College Composition and Communication 49.1 (1998): 63–89.

Barton, Ellen. “The Implications of Narrative: A Reply to Seth Kahn.” College Composition and Communication 52.2 (2000): 292–96.

Barton, Ellen. “Further Contributions from the Ethical Turn in Composition/Rhetoric: Analyzing Ethics in Interaction.” College Composition and Communication 59.4 (2008): 596–632.

Barton, Ellen, and Susan Eggly. “Ethical or Unethical Persuasion? The Rhetoric of Offers to Participate in Clinical Trials.” Written Communication 29.3 (2009): 295–319.

Denzin, Norman K., and Yvonna S. Lincoln, eds. Handbook of Qualitative Research. 4th ed. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE, 2011.

Greer, Jane. “Refiguring Authorship, Ownership, and Textual Commodities: Meridel Le Sueur’s Pedagogical Legacy.” College English 65.6 (2003): 607–625.

Haswell, Janis, Maureen Hourigan, and Lulu C. H. Sun. “Affirming the Need for Continued Dialogue: Refining an Ethic of Students and Student Writing in Composition Studies.” Journal of Teaching Writing 18.1–2 (2000): 84–111.

Hesford, Wendy S., and Eileen E. Schell. “Introduction: Configurations of Transnationality: Feminist Rhetorics.” College English 70.5 (2008): 461–470. Print.

Kahn, Seth. “Rethinking the Historical Narratives of Composition’s Ethics Debate.” College Composition and Communication 52.2 (2000): 287–92.

Kirsch, Gesa E. Ethical Dilemmas in Feminist Research: The Politics of Location, Interpretation, and Publication. Albany: State U of New York P, 1999.

Kirsch, Gesa E. “The Challenges of Conducting Ethically Responsible Research.” Practicing Research in Writing Studies: Reflexive and Ethically Responsible Research. Eds. Katrina M. Powell and Pamela Takayoshi. New York: Hampton P, 2012. 409–414.

Lamos, Steve. “Institutional Critique in Composition Studies: Methodological and Ethical Considerations for Researchers.” Writing Studies Research in Practice: Methods and Methodologies. Ed. Lee Nickoson and Mary P. Sheridan. Carbondale, Southern Illinois UP, 2012.

Mountford, Roxanne, and Richard Hansberger. “Doing Fieldwork in the Panopticon: A Response to Paul Anderson.” Aug. 1998. CCC Online.

Nickoson, Lee, and Mary P. Sheridan, eds. Writing Studies Research in Practice: Methods and Methodologies. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 2012.

Powell, Katrina M., and Pamela Takayoshi, eds. Practicing Research in Writing Studies: Reflexive and Ethically Responsible Research. New York: Hampton Press, 2012.

Powell, Katrina M., and Pamela Takayoshi. “Accepting Roles Created for Us: The Ethics of Reciprocity.” College Composition and Communication 54 (2003): 394–421.

Ridolfo, Jim. “Delivering Textual Diaspora: Building Digital Cultural Repositories as Rhetoric Research.” College English 76.2 (2013): 136–151.

Royster, Jacqueline Jones, and Gesa E. Kirsch. Feminist Rhetorical Practices: New Horizons for Rhetoric, Composition, and Literacy Studies. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UP, 2012.

Schneider, Barbara. “Ethical Research and Pedagogical Gaps.” College Composition and Communication 58.1 (2006): 70–88.

Traywick, Deaver. “Preaching What We Practice: RCR Instruction for Undergraduate Researchers in Writing Studies.” Undergraduate Research in English Studies. Ed. Laurie Grobman and Joyce Kinkead. Urbana: IL: NCTE, 2010. 51–73.

Williams, Bronwyn T. and Mary Brydon-Miller. “Changing Directions: Participatory Research, Agency, and Representation.” Ethnography Unbound: From Theory Shock to Critical Praxis. Eds. Stephen G. Brown and Sidney I. Dobrin. Albany: State U of New York P, 2004.

Discussion of Ethics in Creative Nonfiction

Bloom, Lynn Z. “Living to Tell the Tale: The Complicated Ethics of Creative Nonfiction.” College English 65.3 (2003): 276–89.

Bradley, William. “The Ethical Exhibitionist’s Agenda: Honesty and Fairness in Creative Nonfiction.” College English 70.2 (2007): 202–15.

Cheney, Thomas A. Rees. “Ethical Considerations.” Writing Creative Nonfiction: Fiction Techniques for Crafting Great Nonfiction. Berkeley: Ten Speed P, 2001. 222–36.

Williams, Bronwyn. “Never Let the Truth Stand in the Way of a Good Story.” College English 65.3 (2003): 290–304.

Conducting Studies Involving Digital/Online Media

Adkins, Tabetha. “Researching the ‘Un-Digital’ Amish Community: Methodological and Ethical Reconsiderations for Human Subjects Research.” Community Literacy Journal 6.1 (2011): 39–53.

Bassett, E.H., and Kathleen O’Riordan. “Ethics of Internet Research: Contesting the Human Subject Research Model.” Ethics and Information Technology 4.3 (2002). http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/ethics_bassett.html

Bruckman, Amy. “Studying the Amateur Artist: A Perspective on Disguising Data Collected in Human Subjects Research on the Internet.” Ethics and Information Technology 4:3 (2002). http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/ethics_bru_full.html

Buchanan, Elizabeth A., ed. Reading in Virtual Research Ethics: Issues and Controversies. Hershey: Information Science Publishing, 2003.

Enoch, Jessica and David Gold. “Introduction to the Special Issue on the Digital Humanities and Historiography in Rhetoric and Composition.” College English 76.2 (2013). 105–114.

McKee, Heidi. “Ethical and Legal Issues for Writing Researchers in an Age of Convergence.” Computers and Composition 25.1 (2008): 104–122.

McKee, Heidi, and Danielle Nicole DeVoss, eds. Digital Writing Research: Technologies, Methodologies, and Ethical Issues. Cresskill: Hampton, 2007.

McKee, Heidi A., and James E. Porter. The Ethics of Internet Research: A Rhetorical, Case-Based Process. New York: Lang, 2009.

McKee, Heidi, and James E. Porter. “The Ethics of Digital Writing Research: A Rhetorical Approach.” College Composition and Communication 59.4 (2008): 711–749.

Rose, Jeanne Marie. “When Human Subjects Become Cybersubjects: A Call for Collaborative Consent.” Computers and Composition 24.4 (2007): 462–477.

Conducting Studies Using Archival Work

Cohen, Daniel J., and Roy Rosenweig. Digital History: A Guide to Gathering, Presenting, and Preserving the Past on the Web. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 2006. Center for History and New Media.

Enoch, Jessica and Jean Bessette. “Meaningful Engagements: Feminist Historiography and the Digital Humanities.” College Composition and Communication 64.4 (2013): 634–660.

Enoch, Jessica, and David Gold, eds. Special Issue. “The Digital Humanities and Historiography in Rhetoric and Composition.” College English 76.2 (2013).

McKee, Heidi, and James E. Porter. “The Ethics of Archival Research.” College Composition and Communication 64.1 (2012). 59–81.

Morris, Charles E. “Archival Queer.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 9.1 (Spring 2006): 145–51.Print

Powell, Malea. “Dreaming Charles Eastman: Cultural Memory, Autobiography, and Geography in Indigenous Rhetorical Histories.” Eds. Gesa Kirsch and Liz Rohan. Beyond the Archives: Research as a Lived Process. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2008. 116–27.

Purdy, James. “Three Gifts of the Digital Archives.” Journal of Literacy and Technology 12.3 (2011): 24–49. http://www.literacyandtechnology.org/uploads/1/3/6/8/136889/jlt_v12_3_purdy.pdf

Ramsey, Alexis E., Wendy B. Sharer, Barbara L’Eplattenier, and Lisa S. Mastrangelo, eds. Working in the Archives: Practical Research Methods for Rhetoric and Composition. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2010.

Ridolfo, Jim, William Hart-Davidson, Michael McLeod. “Rhetoric and the Digital Humanities: Imagining The Michigan State University Israelite Samaritan Collection as the Foundation for a Thriving Social Network.” The Journal of Community Informatics 7.3 (2011). http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/view/754

Tarez, Samra Graban. “From Location(s) to Locatability: Mapping Feminist Recovery and Archival Activity Through Metadata.” College English 76.2 (2013). 171–193.

Tesar, Marek. “Ethics and Truth in Archival Research.” History of Education: Journal of the History of Education Society 44.1 (2015): 101–114.

Theimer, Kate. “Archives in Context and as Context.” Journal of Digital Humanities. 1.2 (Spring 2012). Web.

Wells, Susan. “Claiming the Archive for Rhetoric and Composition.” Rhetoric and Composition as Intellectual Work. Ed. Gary A. Olson. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2002. 55–64.

CCCC 2016 is just a few weeks away! It’s time to start thinking about what to bring to make this a fantastic Convention experience.

Some “must haves” to help you make the most of your CCCC experience:

  

   

Your commitment to writers and writing!

Your values and passion will form a foundation for your thinking at CCCC 2016!

 

Your issues!

You’ll have lots of opportunities at CCCC 2016 to develop systematic strategies for taking action: the Taking Action Workshops, stations in the Action Hub, sessions, caucuses, SIGS, and more!

 

Your writing or research to make a difference!

Attend the Framing Messages Taking Action Workshop (Sessions B, E, H, J), or visit the Knowledge Shaping and Writing for Change Stations in the Action Hub to learn to frame,  produce, and deliver even more effective messages about writing, writers, or issues related to writing instruction!

 

Your ideas to pitch!

Bring your ideas and visit the Pitch Practicing station in the Action Hub to practice talking to audiences outside of the field! (Check out this video for examples!)

 

Your curiosity!

CCCC 2016 is a great opportunity to learn about new ideas, or to learn more about ideas you already have!

 

Your collegiality!

Over 3,500 people will attend CCCC 2016. Reach out and meet someone new!

  

Of course, you’ll also want to include things to make you comfortable in your travels around CCCC 2016, too:

Comfortable shoes for moving around the convention venue and Houston

A water bottle to stay hydrated

An extra tote bag for books you’ll get in the Exhibit Hall!

  
 

View the recording of the CCCC First-Time Attendee Orientation
March 31, 2021 — access the session slides

From the CCCC Newcomers’ Orientation Committee:

With pleasure, the CCCC Newcomers’ Orientation Committee welcomes all of you to the 2021 CCCC Virtual Annual Convention, but especially new members and first-time attendees. We have planned several events that we hope will help you get the most out of this conference. (These events and virtual locations are listed in the Special Events schedules in the program.)

With the move to a virtual Convention, our committee will host an Orientation Session one week prior to the start of the convention on Wednesday, March 31 at 4:00 p.m. EDT. During this session, we will discuss how to navigate the virtual Convention and its virtual program, how to participate in the Convention’s many events, and how to meet others. We also look forward to meeting you at the Newcomers’ Coffee Hour on Thursday (Thursday, April 8, 10:30–11:15 a.m.), a congenial start to the first full day of activities, where you can begin the kinds of professional conversations that have made this Convention one of the high points of the year for each of us.

This year, we are also hosting a session called, “Career Quest: Navigating a Future in Composition, Rhetoric, and Writing,” (session E.1, Thursday, April 8, 4:30–5:30 p.m. EDT). This interactive session is designed for newcomers and early career attendees; its goal is to help participants develop a plan in which opportunities at the Convention and within the organization can play an important part in their career development.

Throughout the Convention, the Newcomers’ Orientation Committee will maintain a Newcomers Welcome Booth located in the Virtual Action Hub. There you will find information from the Digital Archive of Literary Narratives (DALN) where you can share your literacy story, a tip sheet for navigating the Convention, a place to drop questions for members of the committee, hints on participating in Cs the Day (the Convention’s interactive game), and more.

One more thing: what would a Convention be without a social gathering? Look for more info at the Newcomers Welcome Booth for our plan to get newcomers together for some fun and online conversation!

We look forward to meeting you at one of the many events sponsored by this committee and hope you have a wonderful experience at 4Cs!

With warm good wishes,
CCCC Newcomers’ Orientation Committee

Leslie Werden, Chair
Rachel Dortin
Michael Harker
Mary Karcher
Ben McCorkle
Sharon Mitchler
Sean Morey
Michael Rifenburg
Christine Tulley

Kent Williamson, 1957-2015

As executive director of NCTE for fifteen years, Kent Williamson led with clear vision, careful management, and generosity of spirit.

His ideas, strategies, and collegiality helped shape NCTE’s core mission and actions. We will long remember and honor a man whose firm leadership and gracious manner nurtured our professional association and all those who had the privilege of knowing him.

Tributes from Program Chair Linda Adler-Kassner
and NCTE Staff

• Linda Adler-Kassner
• Eileen Maley
• KaiLonnie Dunsmore
• Lu Ann Maciulla McNabb
• Kristen Suchor
• Lisa Fink
• Darren Cambridge

 

---

When I was drafting the call for proposals for CCCC 2016, Kent Williamson was never far from my thinking. I can’t remember when I met Kent – probably sometime in the early 2000s – but I can remember when I started to realize how much I had to learn from him. It was following a late-night conversation at the 2005 NCTE convention, where I had been lamenting both the influence that spin doctors like Karl Rove had on the public imagination and the ways in which writers and writing were framed in public discussions. Taking a dose of a medicine I now often administer, I thought: Enough complaining! Time to do something. The result was time spent with change makers thinking about how to adapt the strategies that they brought to their change-making efforts to the work of directing writing programs. These included community organizers, media strategists, political activists – and Kent.

Kent wasn’t a loud presence. He certainly wasn’t pushy, and it would be easy to walk by him in a crowded conference hallway and not notice him if you didn’t know who he was. But engage him in conversation for ten minutes – or, even better, a few hours – and he left an indelible mark. As Executive Director of NCTE for 15 years, Kent worked with NCTE presidents (and CCCC chairs) to consider critical questions: What does it mean to engage in literacy education in the 21st century? What should be the role of a disciplinary organization in helping literacy educators do their very best work? And how should that organization take up issues crucial to those educators in strategic ways in order to both support them, and proactively try to shape their working conditions? Kent challenged us as individuals and as organizations to truly engage these questions – not just talk about them, but do something about them, and do it in smart, strategic ways that would truly make a difference.

Consider the period of Kent’s tenure at NCTE, from 2000-2015. In 2000, the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that quickly became known as No Child Left Behind hadn’t been passed. By 2015 that legislation, along with initiatives like Race to the Top and the development and implementation of the Common Core Standards, had radically changed the landscape of both K-12 and postsecondary education. Under Kent’s leadership NCTE navigated these difficult conditions, creating everything from important policy statements to publications to legislative initiatives like the LEARN act to try to shape conditions for learning that allow students to thrive. At the same time, NCTE also undertook other initiatives – Advocacy Day, held each February in Washington, D.C.; the National Day on Writing, a day recognized by the U.S. Congress each year in November; the creation of joint statements like the Framework for Success in Postsecondary Writing – that worked to shape those conditions. Kent also helped create the National Center for Literacy Education, a multi-disciplinary partnership, to engage others in this work, as well.

If Kent were reading this, I know what he’d say: “All of this was a collaboration.” It’s true – Kent never worked alone. He was a master coalition builder, an expert listener, someone whose ability to balance strategy and tactics by thinking about national, regional, and disciplinary contexts, about the work of teachers, about NCTE as an organization — was astounding. The fact that his contributions to CCCC, NCTE, and the work that many of us do are so ubiquitous, but that so few of us are aware of his amazing intelligence, his humor, and his tireless efforts, only provide more evidence for the claim. CCCC 2016 will be the first without Kent’s physical presence, but his spirit and his ideas are everywhere evident.

We’ll have two sessions at CCCC 2016 that will honor Kent’s memory. In session E.36, CCCC chairs will share memories of Kent, and we’ll invite audience members to share their own as well. In session B.35, we’ll honor Kent’s contribution to literacy learning, K-16. If you’re able to, please join one or both of these sessions to share in honoring Kent’s wonderful presence as a colleague, and his remarkable contributions.

As important as Kent was to CCCC and NCTE as organizations, it was the NCTE staff who saw him on a daily basis. I invited staff to share their memories; their vignettes contribute to a broader portrait of Kent as a person and a colleague. In Kent’s honor, the NCTE Executive Committee has created the Kent D. Williamson Policy and Advocacy Center which will be housed in the DC Office. Each year NCTE will name a Williamson Policy Advocate for a summer residency at the NCTE DC office so that a classroom teacher can meet with policymakers and educate them about practice in the classroom.

For more information on both programs, visit ncte.org.

Linda Adler-Kassner
Program Chair
Associate chair, Conference on College Composition and Communication

 

---

There probably isn’t much I can say about Kent that hasn’t been said already.  I will say that not only did I know him as Kent Williamson, NCTE Executive Director, but as my friend.

As friends we had common interests. Work, people, and most of all golf.  We talked about them all.  Of course talk of work brought about talk of people.  Kent cared so much about people; all people.  Especially the employees and their well-being.

You might be wondering, “so where does golf fit in?” Well we both loved the game as did other employees.  Only difference, he was good at it and I’m not! But he knew how much I liked to play and being the kind hearted, caring person that he is, he would play in my group.  We had several golf outings with co-workers and Kent was there for every one of them.  And, he always ended up in my group.  Poor guy.

We at least laughed and had great times.  We actually discussed work (imagine that) while playing and still managed to have a great time!

So as most people knew him for his role with NCTE and his professional life, I was fortunate to see another side of Kent as my friend.  Every time I play now, I think of him and how much he enjoyed the game.  Which in turn makes me want to be a better golfer.  He’s still pushing me to be do better even though he isn’t here physically. I’ll never forget him and all his encouragement in work and play.

Kent, I play on and I’m still not any better but I’ll keep trying!!

Eileen Maley

 

---

I came to work for NCTE because of the commitment Kent Williamson had to improving literacy teaching and learning by attending to the how organizational conditions create systemic opportunities for collaborative professional learning and inquiry.  This vision, which led to the developed of the National Center for Literacy Education initiative and brought me on board, was quintessential Kent: practical (concrete actions, timelines, success markers); collaborative (a belief that there was no need for organizations to operate in competition but that partnership inherently be mutually beneficial) and passionately centered in teacher agency and ownership.

It wasn’t just the ideas that made NCTE a good fit for me, however, but the culture as well. I laughed—a lot—in my NCLE work with Kent. I can’t remember a meeting, whether virtual or face-to-face, where laughter wasn’t a characteristic of our work together. There were conversations and challenges that in other contexts might have involved tension or conflict; however, meetings that included Kent always seemed to have laughter and personal engagement. Part of this was his own humility in owning problems; part was his ability to keep respect for the person at the core of all conversations; and part was simply his enjoyment of life and ideas.  I strive to bring into our school partnerships what Kent modeled in the work culture he created: kindness, passion, and the ability to recognize the unique assets and expertise that individuals bring and harness them in a strong collaborative team working towards a common vision.  

KaiLonnie Dunsmore

 

---

When Kent passed away, NCTE lost a beloved leader and advocate.  Kent’s vision led to the opening of an office in Washington, DC so English teachers from preschool through graduate school could have a voice in federal policy. He was instrumental in the creation of the policy analysis initiative to discern what trends were occurring within the fifty states and the District of Columbia.

Kent spoke passionately about teacher voice and their role in shaping the discussion. In his speech, From Perilous to Promising Times in Literacy Education, at the Allerton Conference in 2011, Kent concluded, “This is our opportunity to do something different. We must join together as never before to share the powerful work that is going on, almost undercover, in so many literacy classrooms. We must point out just how scantily clad the emperors of today’s education reforms are. Because, at the end of the day, they aren’t in the classroom. You are. If we invest our time and attention in each other, in our professional community, there is real promise for our second century of organized work together.”

Kent’s hope and vision was for NCTE to use teacher voice to shape policy to enhance comprehensive literacy, to create alliances in Washington to reach that goal and to establish NCTE as an organization that is respected as an “expert in its field.” By creating the Kent D. Williamson Policy and Advocacy Center, the NCTE Executive Committee intends to honor and continue Kent’s legacy of advocacy.

Lu Ann Maciulla McNabb

 

---

Kent was my mentor, colleague, and friend and he’s a reason I’ve been with NCTE and CCCC for over 12 years. His love of and support for this organization, its members and volunteers, and the NCTE staff were evident in everything he did. Kent really believed in my abilities and it’s with his encouragement that I took on the role of project manager for the National Center for Literacy Education (NCLE), in addition to my CCCC duties.

Together, we provided the best staff leadership to CCCC and its members that we could. I really did see us as Team CCCC (along with Eileen Maley of course!). I try to carry that torch every day, in every success and challenge. I often hear Kent’s voice advising me—reminding me of the importance of the work that we do in serving literacy educators.

Some of my favorite memories are of social events, either at NCTE headquarters or at the many, many NCTE and CCCC events we attended over the years. There was rarely a dull moment with Kent. His good humor was infectious and it was rare to see him without a smile. And if you ever had the pleasure of seeing him cut a rug, it was not to be missed!

I think what I miss most of all is the day-to-day work with Kent. He was an idea-man, which was both an exciting part of working with him, and a challenge! He always had an open-door policy and we provided the same to him. This meant lots of popping in and out of each other’s offices. Kent would always start with, “Kris,” (he’s the only person who has ever called me Kris and gotten away with it!), “I have something quick to run by you.” Invariably, it would end up being a long conversation and half of the time we’d end up on some other tangent. To this day, every time I see someone lurking at my door, I half expect it to be Kent with another idea to throw my way!

Kent truly was an amazing leader, and while he is missed every day, his legacy lives on in those of us who try to carry on his enthusiasm for, and commitment to, this incredible organization.

Kristen Suchor

 

---

I came to work at NCTE after teaching elementary school for a number of years. While I don’t remember the content of my NCTE orientation meeting with Kent, I will never forget the enthusiasm he shared for the Council, the members and the work we do. I was fortunate to work closely with Kent around the ReadWriteThink.org site. He gave me a great deal of autonomy but he was always willing to be a sounding board. Kent was such a forward thinker. I loved watching him dream and often put those dreams into action. One of the things I miss most is Kent knocking on my window and waving good morning or hello. His smile was contagious and he could set the tone for the whole day. Kent was a one of a kind and I am so glad to have known him.

Lisa Fink

 

---

 

The opportunity to be mentored by Kent was a significant reason why I took the job he offered me in 2014. We had planned to work together closely shaping public policy to reflect the expertise of teachers through building alliances in Washington, but his illness cut that short.

Instead, I got my mentorship by proxy through the writing of 30 leading educators who valued Kent’s contributions to our organization and field. About a month after Kent’s death, in early July the NCTE Presidential team said they wanted to pull together a volume in Kent’s honor – and to have it ready in November for the convention. I agreed to co-edit the collection, knowing that it was a nearly impossible task because we’d need a completed manuscript by the beginning of September. Crazy.

It was the kind of challenge I’d imagine Kent would have relished. The fact that we made says a lot more about Kent than it does about me. Nearly thirty authors—all accomplished educators and scholars with perennially full plates—agreed to write chapters under wholly unreasonable deadlines. They all came through. Who else could inspire something like that?

Darren Cambridge

 

Members of the Conference on College Composition and Communication and others who are interested in the goals and activities of CCCC are invited to submit proposals for sessions, posters, and workshops at the 2025 CCCC Annual Convention, and/or to serve as convention Documentarians. CCCC Annual Convention programs are open to everyone, including scholars from other disciplines. Nonmembers of CCCC are welcome to submit proposals but are urged to join the organization. CCCC is a nonprofit organization and cannot reimburse program participants for travel or hotel expenses.

Competition for a place on the program is intense. Largely due to space constraints, many good proposals cannot be accepted. The percentage of the program devoted to a specific area (see the area cluster list) is determined by the number of proposals received in that area. All proposals are evaluated in two groups (panels and individuals) by reviewers who advise the Program Chair on proposal acceptance. These peer-reviewed submissions will constitute the greater part of the program, with the remainder consisting of sessions initiated by the Program Chair.

Deadline

To ensure participants receive an early fall notification of program participation, all proposal submissions must be received by 9:00 a.m. ET on Friday, May 31, 2024. Proposals must be submitted through the online program proposal system. No mailed proposals will be accepted.

Audiovisual Equipment

CCCC will provide LCD projectors, with the accompanying projection screen, for concurrent sessions and workshops. Presenters are responsible for bringing their own laptop/device and appropriate adapter.

Preregistration for Program Participants

CCCC depends on the support of everyone who attends the CCCC Convention. Program participants must register online when they accept their role in the program.

Using the Submission Form

The proposal submission database opened April 6, 2024.

Online Coaching

Proposals can be reviewed prior to final submission by online coaches (former Stage 1 and 2 CCCC proposal reviewers). Review does not guarantee acceptance but is intended to enhance submissions. To qualify, you must request a coach by April 22, 2024, by emailing CCCCevents@ncte.org.

No Multiple Speaking Roles Policy

To ensure maximum participation and a fair process for reviewing proposals, the Executive Committee of CCCC has adopted a policy of no multiple speaking roles. This policy reflects the Executive Committee’s commitment to include as many presenters as possible in the convention program.

Under this policy, a person may be proposed for one—and only one—speaking role in a concurrent session (including those created from individual proposals) or poster session. However, it is possible to participate in a speaking role AND as a CCCC 2025 Documentarian. Additionally, all concurrent sessions must have at least one person designated in a speaking role.

Chairing a session; participating in workshops, SIGs, or Caucus business meetings; or taking part in a Standing Group–sponsored panel or workshop does not count as a speaking role.

Similarly, a person may be proposed for no more than two roles as chair and two roles as respondent.

 

The following grants and awards can assist with the costs of traveling to the CCCC Convention.

 

Chairs’ Memorial Scholarship
Scholarships of $750 each to help cover the costs of four graduate students who are presenting at the annual conference.

Disability in College Composition Travel Awards
Six travel awards designed to support scholarship dedicated to improving knowledge about the intersections of disability with composition and rhetoric, the value of disability as a source of diversity, inclusive practices and the promotion of access, and the value of disability as a critical lens.

Gloria Anzaldúa Rhetorician Award
Supports graduate students or first-time presenters whose work participates in the making of meaning out of sexual and gender minority experiences with up to three $750 awards for travel to the CCCC Convention.

The Luiz Antonio Marcuschi Travel Awards
Two $1000 travel reimbursement awards are available to scholars living and working/studying in Mexico, Central, or South America who have papers accepted for presentation at the CCCC Convention.

Scholars for the Dream Travel Award
Encourages scholarship by historically underrepresented groups, offering up to ten $750 grants for travel to the CCCC conference.

 

CCCC 2020 is heading to Milwaukee!

CCCC Convention sessions will be held at:

• Wisconsin Center, 400 W. Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53203
• Hilton Milwaukee City Center, 509 W Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53203
• Hyatt Regency Milwaukee, 333 W Kilbourn Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53203

The CCCC hotels room blocks listed below are almost sold out. Additional options are available at this link, listed by distance from the Wisconsin Center.

Hotel Reservations

Map of Milwaukee Hotels (pdf)

Hilton Milwaukee City Center 509 W. Wisconsin Ave. Milwaukee, WI 53203 Phone: 414-271-7250 $169 single or double per night plus taxes and fees $189 triple or quad per night plus taxes and fees Click here to reserve. Reservation deadline: before midnight on February 23, 2020
Hyatt Regency Milwaukee 333 W. Kilbourn Ave. Milwaukee, WI 53203 Phone: 1-877-7534, use group code G-NCTE $140 per night plus taxes and fees Click here to reserve. Reservation deadline: before midnight on March 1, 2020
Courtyard Milwaukee Downtown 300 W. Michigan St. Milwaukee, WI 53203 Phone: (414) 291-4122 $159 single or double per night plus taxes and fees Click here to reserve. Reservation deadline: before midnight on February 25, 2020

Transportation

Delta Flight Discount

Look for the “Meeting Event Code” box when booking your flight and enter this code: NY2XP

United Airlines Flight Discount
Visit this website and enter code ZHJW236682 in the Offer Code box.

Meet the Taking Action Workshop facilitators and learn more about what to expect in their workshops!

 

Naming and Narrowing with Glenda Eoyang

   

Building Alliances with Sarah Scanlon

 

Framing Messages with Jenna Fournel

 

Influencing Policy with Lori Shorr

    

Influencing Policy with Carolyn Calhoon-Dillahunt

   

Making Action Plans with Cathy Fleischer

   

Learn more about the framework for the Taking Action workshops with CCCC 2016 program chair Linda Adler-Kassner