Uncategorized Archives - Page 43 of 77 - Conference on College Composition and Communication

Characterization of Institution

Research I (for what many call our main campus)

I work at one of four “campus colleges” within this system. Some persist in referring to these campus colleges as “branch” campuses.

Characterization of Department

B.A. granted in Professional Writing

We do not have departments at our college; the English faculty are housed in the Division of Liberal Arts. The Director of our Writing Center is a half-time appointment, in which capacity he reports to the Director of the Learning Center. He teaches English/writing courses for the other half of his time, for which he is evaluated by the Head of the Liberal Arts Division.

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

Although there are a number of relevant variables that are not mentioned in the case (notably, how much did she teach and how was her teaching evaluated? how much bearing did her writing center duties have on her evaluation?), I am confident that her accomplishments would have been sufficient for her to be recommended for tenure by her division and by the college on the basis of her scholarship. I also conclude from the case that appropriately selected external reviewers would have evaluated her work favorably.

On the strength of these endorsements, I conclude that the University Promotion & Tenure Committee, which is the final level of tenure review prior to the case being sent to the Provost for approval, would also have recommended tenure. Assuming that our college’s criteria for Promotion and Tenure clearly validated the kind of research and scholarship that Guzman produced and given the support of the division, the college, and external reviewers, the university committee would very likely have recommended tenure as well. In such a situation, I can’t imagine the Provost overriding these recommendations.

However, I think it bears mentioning that if Guzman had been housed at what many persist in considering our “main campus” (and not at a branch campus), she might not have gotten tenure. This is because the departments at that institution tend to have a much narrower definition of what constitutes acceptable scholarship and research; this typically takes the form of identifying a list of “A” journals, where candidates for tenure are expected to publish the majority of their scholarship and research. Faculty at our college tend to have more flexibility in placing their work in a wider range of refereed publications, so long as tenure-track faculty continue to publish quality scholarship and research.

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

The Department Head’s responsibility is to help Guzman make satisfactory progress toward promotion and tenure, to communicate with her candidly and explicitly about her progress toward that goal, and to give her reliable guidance for accomplishing that goal.

In charging the Personnel Committee, the Department Head could have been more explicit up front in clarifying the department’s policies concerning acceptable scholarship and/or letting the committee know that Guzman was authorized and expected to produce scholarship in specific areas and venues. When the Chair of the Committee informed the Head about the “mixed review,” the Head should have visited with the Committee to encourage them to translate their mixed review into explicit guidelines for the future.

The Head is to be applauded for his continued support of Guzman, but he is not doing her any favors if his support ignores significant opposition within the department. Given such opposition, the Head should be encouraging to Guzman to pursue research that will align her more closely with the intellectual culture of the department. Lacking a background in composition, Guzman seems out of synch with even the high tech side of English studies, and if she is to become part of the professional community of an English department, she may be well advised to channel her research in directions that are more consistent with the prevailing paradigm of that discipline.

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

From what I can tell, the Chair of the Personnel Committee fulfilled his/her responsibilities, which were to oversee the review of Guzman’s dossier and to communicate the results of that evaluation to the candidate. Where the Chair seems to have failed is in allowing the committee to convey this mixed message to the candidate. If the promotion & tenure process is to work, the committee must provide feedback and direction to the candidate that will help her focus her efforts for the remainder of the process. The Chair could have insisted that the committee translate its ambivalence into unambiguous recommendations. For example, does the committee’s ambivalence signify that the candidate should or should not pursue her scientific scholarship? The mixed message fails to give Guzman the direction she needs, leaving her open to interpret the recommendation either way.

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

Based on my assumption that the Dean represents the “administrators of the branch campus” referenced at the beginning of the case, I would say the Dean caused the problem by hiring someone for a position for which they were seemingly not qualified. The Dean apparently does not understand that the position of Director of the Writing Center is not a “technology” position. By hiring a technology person–and not a composition person–for this job, the Dean increases the likelihood that this employee will not produce scholarship in the composition field.

The Dean or “administrators” should certainly have consulted with the Department Head about the appropriateness of this person’s qualifications for the job; hiring a Writing Center director because she might help develop a new program in technology and culture smacks of pretzel logic. However, if they are going to proceed with the hiring of someone who does not have the most appropriate background, then there should have been an understanding in writing, at the outset, of the kinds of expectations there would be for the person holding this position. Guzman might have requested such clarification in writing herself, but it would have helped if the Dean had offered to clarify those expectations in writing.

It is not clear to me what bearing the insistence that Guzman teach more has on the tenure case. I assume that her contract (assuming she has one) specifies that she will teach a minimal amount, if at all. If the responsibilities of the Writing Center Director have been redefined, then I think the Dean should speak with Guzman and the Department Head about renegotiating the contract.

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

Guzman’s responsibilities are to direct the writing center and to maintain her scholarship and research; the case does not state whether she has any teaching responsibilities. She was also expected to contribute in some unspecified way to the development of a new program in technology and culture. The case does not say whether and how she is evaluated as writing center director and whether this has any bearing on her evaluation of tenure. It therefore appears that the real issue here is whether she has fulfilled her responsibility to publish sufficient research and scholarship to satisfy the criteria for tenure.

All indications are that the quality and quantity of her published research and scholarship should be sufficient to meet the criteria for tenure. If pressed, I would say that she should have insisted upon clarification in writing from the Department Head about what would constitute acceptable scholarship and research. Because she was getting “mixed” signals, she should have insisted upon explicit clarification from the Chair about what would constitute an acceptable focus and outlet for her research. The purpose of the Promotion & Tenure process is to give the candidate formative feedback about her progress toward tenure. If the committees and administrators are doing their job of communicating candidly and explicitly with the candidate, then she puts herself at risk if she opts to ignore their advice.

What went wrong? What went right?

As I state above, I think this case got off to a wrong start with the “administration’s” decision to hire Guzman as Writing Center Director; the case does not indicate that the English department concurred with this decision or even that it was consulted. (Was this viewed as a “staff” hire? To whom does Guzman report as Writing Center Director?) As talented as she may be, Guzman does not present the credentials and qualifications that candidates for this position are typically expected to have. All of the problems devolve from that initial questionable hiring decision.

But, once the decision is made to hire this person, then both the candidate and the administration have a responsibility, respectively, to obtain and to clarify the criteria for her to succeed in the position. Throughout this case, this kind of clarification seems to have been lacking. In fact, a failure of communication accounts for most of the problems. In this case, there seem to have been only two moments in the process at which the candidate got any kind of feedback on her progress: at the 3rd year review and in the 5th year. Shouldn’t the Head have been reviewing and evaluating Guzman’s work all along? Was she not appointed a faculty mentor from the department in which she was being evaluated? And shouldn’t the Head have been encouraging some kinds of research and discouraging others? And shouldn’t these recommendations have been made explicit not only to her but to others who would be responsible for evaluating her work?

Finally, the Writing Center Director issue seems to be something of a red herring in this case. Guzman was hired to do a job she was not really qualified for; an “assistant” was hired to handle most of the work; the administration observes at some point that Guzman is not doing much in the Writing Center and recommends that she teach more. I do not believe this is the typical career path for most Writing Center Directors.

Chair, Personnel Committee #1

Sherry Richer: Case #4

Characterization of Institution

Small Private Engineering School

Characterization of Department

Department of Liberal Arts. B.A. granted in Liberal Arts

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

History says it’s a no-go. And I don’t think the Chair/Committee would be out of line here. The tenure expectations seemed pretty clear to Richer (at least based on the narrative), so the fact that she hasn’t met the requirements would be grounds for non-tenure. The key issue would be, it seems, how Richer was being rewarded for her administrative work. How will that count in her tenure case? As with most administrative/service posts, it’s common for such work to get lost. I think that WPA discussions and strategies might be useful here.

The problem turns (at least in this aspect of the argument) on whether or not her institution allows people to be tenured based primarily on service. If that’s not feasible—and it doesn’t sound like it is—then it doesn’t seem she has a case. And I don’t think she should be surprised.

I also would have to say, I think denying tenure would be appropriate in this case. Her position is at a “major research university” (rather than a teaching university); she would seem obligated to doing research. Of course, in one sense she is—but she’s failing to (a) construct her work as research (in the eyes of the university) and (b) circulate her research findings in ways that make the available, long-term, to the community. Conference presentations are a start, but they’re only a start. And although CCCC and C&W are somewhat selective, their acceptance rate is relatively high (compared to peer-edited journals, especially research-oriented journals). And she’s failed to translate her work into what would seem to be the most natural (and probably acceptable) category in terms of tenure: a scholarship of teaching. Why isn’t she publishing journal articles on her mentoring and teaching? Those would seem to be obvious ways to make her work visible in an institutionally valued way.

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

The chair succeeded by creating the position in the first place—the structure of the post seems well suited to the work that Richer wants to do. But they have failed in making Richer successful—there’s no mention anywhere of reviews prior to the one the case ends on. The chair had a responsibility much earlier to alert Richer that she needed to adjust her strategies in order to be successful for tenure. (Although the chair’s failure to do so may provide Richer with a loophole—if she wasn’t making adequate progress, she should have been informed of this much earlier.)

For her part, Richer also seems to have failed to self-assess her progress, at least in a proactive way. From the narrative, she senses that she’s not doing well but fails to do anything substantive to reposition herself. For example, the major tenure issue appears to be a lack of publication—that is, she thinks she needs a book, but she doesn’t appear to be planning on writing a book. It’s not so much that the journal article was in an online journal, but that all she has at this point is a single chapter and an article in a small journal. The focus on all of her service work (assessment, running an online conference, etc.) are only going to allow her to martyr herself to The Cause.

This has become, I think, something of a trend in composition (and in computers and writing): the insistence that service replace scholarship in academia. For example, running an online conference is, I agree, both a great deal of work and an invaluable service to the community. Teaching in a computer-based classroom is a lot of work and a lot of fun (sometimes). Knowing HTML is a valuable job skill. Being able to install and configure software is extremely helpful. But these service and teaching activities do not replace research and scholarship. Ideally, the different aspects of the job (teaching, service, scholarship) need to exist in some sort of healthy balance. But that balance needs to be negotiated with an institution, not assumed.

One thing to consider is the effect of allowing non-scholarly work to be substituted for scholarship in academic tenure. Although in this case we may find ourselves leaning toward rewarding Richer for doing socially valued work, once we decouple scholarship from its research components, that opens the door to a host of other activities that may be used to substitute for scholarship. For example, corporate-sponsored research in sciences and engineering–which are already crowding out traditional research– will become the norm.

My own institution is currently considering the possibility that textbooks be counted as scholarship. I am arguing against this because I see the two entities as very different. (I should add that I’ve authored two textbooks, so this move would actually *help* me out a great deal in terms of promotion—but I think it would have a negative effect on the discipline and academia in general.)

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

They either need (a) earlier reviews, or (b) more clearly articulated requirements for administrative/service positions.

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

It will depend on the climate at the institution. There’s not much info about this, but if the university community seems like it’s pushing hard at teaching and technology as institutional goals, there’s a chance the Dean could negotiate some sort of agreement that part of Richer’s service work substitutes in some way for scholarship. (As I said above, I’m not sure I agree with that—but if that substitution is formally spelled out as part of the terms of her appointment as director of the center, then I don’t see it as necessarily obviating scholarship in general.

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

She has lived up to the teaching and service aspects of the job (which may be enough to make the university fight hard to keep her); she’s failed to adequately assess her situation and then fix what seem to be pretty clear problems.

What went wrong? What went right?

Not enough communication on the part of anyone here.

CCC Appendices on the Web

Teacher Education
Janet Alsup, Elizabeth Brockman, Jonathan Bush, and Mark Letcher. “Seeking Connections, Articulating Commonalities: English Education, Composition Studies, and Writing Teacher Education.” CCC 62.4 (June 2011).

Appendix in PDF Format

Research Centers
Brian Gogan, Kelly Belanger, Ashley Patriarca, Megan O’Neill. “Research Centers as Change Agents: Reshaping Work in Rhetoric and Writing.” CCC 62.2 (December 2010).

This list of Research Centers compiled by the authors.

The complete directory can be downloaded in PDF
Viewed the Directory on the web in three parts: 1962-1966; 1980-1999; 2000-2010.
Please note that the directory does not contain any research centers between 1967-1980.

CCCC Professional Equity Project (PEP)

Nomination Deadline: November 1, 2024

Purpose and Eligibility: The Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) invites you to participate in the Professional Equity Project (PEP). CCCC will offer a grant valued at $500 each to teachers of writing with part-time or adjunct status at two-year colleges, four-year colleges, and universities, or independent scholars, including community partners and scholars outside of the discipline, to attend the CCCC Annual Convention. Priority will be given to teachers of writing with part-time or adjunct status. The $500 grant includes a $310 stipend to help cover expenses, a paid registration for the Convention, and a complimentary membership in CCCC. The Convention will be held in Baltimore, MD, April 9–12, 2025.

Award Criteria: A department or individual can nominate teachers who would benefit most from this professional development experience. Additionally, we do accept and encourage self-nomination. CCCC seeks nominees exhibiting a sustained interest in the teaching of writing – both faculty early in their career and more experienced faculty – who have never attended a CCCC Convention (individuals who have never attended a CCCC Convention will be given first consideration but we will still accept nominations of those who have attended). While a department or individual may nominate as many teachers who meet these criteria as they would like, there is a generous yet limited number of grants. If there are more nominees than we have grants, one selection criterion we’ll use is the date we receive nominees, so early response is desirable. Another criterion is proximity to the Convention city; this year, we especially encourage nominees from Baltimore and the surrounding states. Finally, we’ll try to distribute grants among multiple institutions, if need be, and we’ll give priority to people who haven’t yet attended a CCCC Convention. Having said that, we heartily encourage all nominations.

Award Specifics: We’ve designed the nomination process to be simple. Please complete this nomination form for each nominee you wish to nominate (including their name, city, state, zip code, and email address) by November 1, 2024.

We will notify grant winners by January 2025, sending each registration materials and procedures for receiving grant funds. We appreciate your support of this initiative to bring more writing teachers to our 2025 Annual Convention in Baltimore, MD.

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

Nomination Form

Email Questions

A Special Note for Administrators:
Last year a few administrators volunteered to match the $500 grants CCCC had awarded their faculty members. One of them noted, “This opportunity provides terrific professional development at a surprisingly reasonable cost.” We agree.

We are, therefore, posing this gentle invitation to you and your institution: what matching support can you provide for your faculty? It was said, and we agree, that this is a win-win situation for both CCCC and institutions. CCCC increases the adjunct and part-time faculty presence at the conference, and institutions are able to offer and support professional development for their adjunct and part-time faculty. We think of this as a partner institution effort, and as a gesture of thanks, we will be pleased to acknowledge such participation by listing partner institutions on the CCCC website.

We hope that you too will become a partner in this faculty development effort, one that benefits instructional staff, of course, and students as well.

CCCC Research Initiative

Call for Proposals: 2024–2025 Research Initiative

CCCC’s Research Initiative speaks to our belief that bold, creative research furthers the organization’s mission to advocate for broad and evolving definitions of literacy, communication, rhetoric, and writing (including multimodal discourse, digital communication, and diverse language practices) that emphasize the value of these activities to empower individuals and communities. CCCC promotes intellectual and pedagogical freedom and ethical scholarship and communication. To this end, CCCC sponsors research that produces knowledge about language, literacy, communication, rhetoric, and the teaching, assessment, and technologies of writing. That research has never been more needed as policymakers take up questions related to our members’ curricula and students. Among the most important resources CCCC membership can bring to bear upon public conversations is the sustained, substantial, and informed research that has been, and continues to be, produced by our scholarship. Now is the time for our members’ evidence-based research to be present in discourses that will inform public policy.

We call for proposals to investigate key challenges faced by literacy, communication, rhetoric, and writing instructors and administrators in their classrooms and programs. The initiative also asks recipients to clearly address the impact their research might have on these conversations, conveying the implications of their work in at least two final products: one that is addressed to a scholarly audience of researchers and teachers in the field, and one that is addressed to a specifically identified more public audience.

Particular topics and areas of interest are those that advance the mission and vision of CCCC, which include but are not limited to the following broad areas:

Research that produces knowledge about language, literacy, communication, rhetoric, and the teaching, assessment, and technologies of writing at the postsecondary level and beyond
Social, racial, and linguistic justice and counterstory as research method and genre in approaches to instruction in rhetoric, language, and literacy
Writing in organizations, communities, and/or cultures
Transfer of writing ability across contexts
Disciplinarity of writing studies and composition, including
- critical praxis of the discipline’s growth,
- development of teachers or researchers, and
- professionalization or mentoring of undergraduate or graduate students joining the discipline
Historiography
Assessment of writing and literacy
Development of writers or writing abilities
Material and working conditions for writing instruction and their influence on teaching and learning

We invite proposals for research that employ diverse perspectives and methodologies, including historical, archival, rhetorical, qualitative, quantitative, ethnographic, and textual.

Proposals may employ diverse perspectives, genres, registers, and methodologies. Proposals should

define the project and articulate specific research questions;
explain the significance of the project for CCCC audiences within and beyond postsecondary institutions, identify what gaps in knowledge it seeks to fill, and address how the research aligns with the CCCC mission (i.e., why should CCCC fund this research?);
describe the proposed evidence and methods of analysis, including a brief explanation of why the particular methodology was selected and its appropriateness for the project (no more than 300 words);
describe one or more possible audiences beyond the scholarly (i.e., more “public” audiences) invested in the project and outline at least one public genre (e.g., podcast episode or guest blog post in an outlet relevant to the topic, such as The Conversation or Huffington Post article, etc.) that will be created to engage with these audiences; and
describe the personnel and financial resources needed to complete the project, detailing why they are appropriate.

Recipients will be expected to propose sessions for the CCCC Annual Convention to present their findings (though receipt of a grant does not guarantee acceptance to the Convention, and the grant funds may not be used for travel to present on the funded research). Recipients also will be expected to submit any publications to College Composition and Communication prior to submission to other publications (though again, receipt does not guarantee acceptance by CCC).

Eligibility

Researchers may submit only one research proposal per award cycle for either the CCCC Research Initiative or the CCCC Emergent Researcher Award—researchers cannot submit to both. Additionally, CCCC research grant recipients may not apply for CCCC research funding in the three years following the initial grant year (e.g., if the initial funding term begins in 2025, researchers may not apply again until the 2028 award cycle).

CCCC plans to fund proposals of up to $8,000 each. The principal investigators of each proposal must be members of CCCC at the time of proposal submission. Proposals are expected to last up to two years but can run for shorter periods of time.

Proposals are to be submitted no later than 11:59 p.m. CT on September 1, 2024, as a single PDF email attachment to the CCCC Liaison at cccc@ncte.org. Proposals are reviewed by a joint committee comprising CCCC Executive Committee members and members selected from the CCCC Research Committee. Decisions will be announced by January 30, 2025. A mid-project report will be due by May 1, 2026. This will be the final report date for projects lasting up to one year. Projects should be completed and a final report submitted by May 1, 2027, for projects lasting two years. A summary version of the final report will be hosted on the CCCC website. Successful proposals should lead to concrete products, whether scholarly articles/monographs or writing in the public domain such as op-eds, blog posts, and the like.

Proposals should consist of the following:

Narrative of no more than 1,500 words addressing items 1, 2, 3, and 4 from the list above;
Description of each investigator’s credentials, including their qualifications to conduct this research (no more than 300 words total); and
One-page budget with specific rationale for all expenses. Funds may be used for direct costs associated with the research, such as reassigned time/course buyout, student assistance, software, stipends for research subjects, etc. If student assistance is included in the budget, proposals should explain how the assistance will provide a learning/mentoring opportunity for the students involved. Please note that this grant may not be used to pay indirect costs (such as overhead or other costs associated with administration) or for travel to the CCCC Annual Convention. Equipment costs are allowable if justified.

REVIEW CRITERIA FOR 2023–2024

SAMPLE PROPOSAL

2004-2007 Research Initiatives

The CCCC Research Initiative “Composition, Rhetoric, and Literacy—What We Know, What We Need to Know” was approved in early 2004 and was awarded three consecutive years (2004-2005, 2005-2006, and 2006-2007). This effort was largely been focused on supporting new meta-analytical research by providing funding and an opportunity for researchers from all participating institutions to gather to share ideas and receive advice. The program aimed to create an opportunity for researchers to bring together what the profession has already learned, through a variety of methodologies, regarding the teaching and study of composition, rhetoric, and literacy. While each award year had a slightly different focus, in general the proposed research should address, in one of these areas, questions such as: What do we know? What do we still need to know? What research approaches seem fruitful?

The Research Initiative was indefinitely put on hold by the CCCC Executive Committee in March of 2007. In April 2008, the CCCC Executive Committee approved committing 5% of the contingency reserve in FY09 to establish a core descriptive database that can serve as a resource for all future CCCC-funded research projects. The goal is to create a sustained research initiative to advance scholarship in composition and rhetoric and enhance the reputation of CCCC.

CCCC-Sponsored Research: Writing in High School, Writing in College

In the spring of 2006, the CCCC Executive Committee invited proposals for a single grant of $25,000 from the CCCC Research Initiative to study the amount and kinds of writing American students do in high school and college. The purpose of this focused initiative is to create an empirically-based description of student writing in school and college settings. The expectation for the project was that it would begin in late spring 2006, that the bulk of data would be gathered during fall 2006, with a progress report made by November 1, and with a final report due in March 2007. The ideal proposal would be national in scope, gathering information from enough students, in enough diverse settings, that broad claims could reasonably be made about the nature nationally of student writing. In May of 2006, CCCC awarded Dr. Joanne Addison, University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center, and Dr. Sharon James McGee, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, the $25,000 grant. The selection committee was especially impressed by the thoughtful work Drs. Addison and McGee had already done on the survey instrument. Committee members also liked the portfolio approach to assessing student work. In the spring of 2008, the project deadline was extended to June 2009.

September 2010 CCC Article: “Writing in High School/Writing in College: Research Trends and Future Directions”

Research Initiative Recipients

2023–2024

Understanding Community College Instructors’ Perceptions of Corpus-informed Writing Instruction
Shelley Staples, University of Arizona
Robyn Ferret, Cascadia College
Natalie Serianni, Cascadia College
Randi Reppen, Northern Arizona University
Bradley Dilger, Purdue University

The Ties that Bind: Understanding the Social Connections that Shape a Campus’s Writing Culture
Maria Jerskey, LaGuardia Community College
Dominique Zino, LaGuardia Community College

Race & Writing in the Disciplines (WID)
Haivan Hoang, University of Massachusetts Amherst

Making Meaning of with the Invisible Girlfriend: (Counter)Narrating the Gendered Logics of Trauma, Dis(Ability), and Carework
Mara Lee Grayson, California State University

2022–2023

Asian/American Rhetoric after the Atlanta Shootings: Public Memory, Storytelling, and Technologies
Soyeon Lee, University of Texas at El Paso
Eunjeong Lee, University of Houston

Multi-literacy Practices in a Foreign Land: Chinese International Students’ Embodied Transnational Identity Negotiation and Raciolinguistic Experiences
Zhaozhe Wang, University of Toronto
Qianqian Zhang-Wu, Northeastern University

Know History, Know Self: Activating Cultural Literacies at the Nexus of Ancestral Homelands and Colonial Academic Spaces
Amy Lueck, Santa Clara University
Isabella Gomez, Student and Enrolled Tribal Member, Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area

2021–2022

The White Supremacy of Academic Scholarship: A Data Analysis of Composition/Rhetoric Top Journals and the Denial of Equity
Sweta Baniya, Virginia Tech
Chris Lindgren, Virginia Tech
Kevin Smith, University of Virginia
Steve Parks, University of Virginia
Laura Gonzales, University of Florida

Student Perceptions of Learning Experiences in Hybrid Writing Courses
Courtney Wooten, George Mason University
Lourdes Fernandez, George Mason University
Brian Fitzpatrick, George Mason University
Kerry Folan, George Mason University
Ariel M. Goldenthal, George Mason University
Sheri Sorvillo, George Mason University

Addressing Equity Gaps in First-Year Writing: Adding Student and Advisor Voices
Megan McIntyre, Sonoma State University

2020–2021

Examining Academic Self-Efficacy and Writing Development in Students with Specific Learning Disabilities
Heather M. Falconer, Curry College, Milton, MA

The Deep Reading Project
Patrick Sullivan, Manchester Community College, CT
Ellen C. Carillo, University of Connecticut, Storrs
Kelly Cecchini, Manchester High School, CT

2019-2020

Communication across Contexts: Mapping Linguistic Diversity with Graduate Students
Rachel Bloom-Pojar, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Claire Edwards, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Gitte Frandsen, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Chloe Smith, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Madison Williams, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Work Integrated Learning and Writing Transfer in Global Contexts
Michael-John DePalma, Baylor University, Waco, TX
Michelle J. Eady, University of Wollongong, Australia
Radhika Jaidev, Singapore Institute of Technology
Ina Alexandra Machura, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Germany
Lilian Mina, Auburn University at Montgomery, AL
Kara Taczak, University of Denver, CO

Assessing and Mapping the Impact of Decoloniality on Writing, Rhetoric, and Communication Studies
Romeo García, University of Utah, Salt Lake City
Ellen Cushman, Northeastern University, Boston, MA
Damián Baca, University of Arizona, Tucson

Students as Advocates for the Right to Their Own Languages in Their Graded Writing
Anne Charity Hudley, University of California Santa Barbara
Hannah Franz, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond

Data and Failure: A Collaborative Study of First-Year Composition
Joyce Olewski Inman, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg
Rebecca A. Powell, University of Southern Mississippi, Gulf Park

Super-Diversity in Context: A Corpus-based Study of Multilingual Writing Outcomes with Attention to Disparate Impact
Mya Poe, Northeastern University, Boston, MA
Cara Marta Messina, Northeastern University, Boston, MA
Cherice Jones, Northeastern University, Boston, MA

2018-2019

Disciplinarity and Transfer Ten Years Later: A Multi-Institutional Investigation into Student Perceptions of Learning to Write
Dana Lynn Driscoll, Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Katherine Field-Rothschild, St. Mary’s College
Roger Powell, Buena Vista University
Jennifer Wells, New College of Florida

How do Rhetoric, Composition, and Writing Studies Faculty Engage Wikipedia? A Scaled Survey of Attitudes and Uses
Alexandria Lockett, Spelman College, Atlanta
Matthew A. Vetter, Indiana University of Pennsylvania

Building Sustainable Writing Across the Curriculum Programs
Dan Melzer, University of California-Davis
Michelle Cox, Cornell University
Jeffrey R. Galin, Florida Atlantic University

Electrate Ethnography: Observing and Testing the Composing Processes of Digital and Multimodal Writers
Scott Sundvall, University of Memphis
Katherine Fredlund, University of Memphis
Elizabeth Lane, University of Memphis
William Duffy, University of Memphis

Teaching Research Differently: Assessing the Efficacy of An Information Literacy-Based Composition Course
Shevaun E. Watson, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

2017-2018

Meaning Making and Academic Identity Development of Latinx Basic Writers
Erin Doran, Iowa State University

A Survey of Students’ Online Writing Practices
David Gold, University of Michigan

Multilingual Technology Design in Community Healthcare Contexts
Laura Gonzales and Lucia Durá, University of Texas El Paso

Building Equity Through Visibility: Examining the Job Market for Two-Year College Writing Faculty
Darin Jensen, Des Moines Community College and Christie Toth, University of Utah

Great Expectations: Discovering First-Year Writing Students’ Backgrounds and Assumptions about Online Writing Instruction
Janine Morris, Nova Southeastern University, Kevin DePew, Old Dominion University, Marcela Hebbard, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Megan McKittrick, Old Dominion University, Catrina Mitchum, Old Dominion University, and Monica Reyes, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley

Academic and Professional Multilingual Literacies in Sociomaterial Contexts: A Multi-Institutional Study in Norway, Ukraine, and the U.S.
Pavel Zemliansky and Angela Rounsaville, University of Central Florida

2016-2017

Preparing the “New Mainstream” for College and Career: Language, Literacy, and Postsecondary Pathways
George C. Bunch, University of California, Santa Cruz

Developing Effective Online Writing Programs: A Longitudinal Case Study
Heidi Skurat Harris, Karen M. Kuralt, and George H. Jensen, University of Arkansas at Little Rock

Understanding Genre Learning and Success in an Innovative Interdisciplinary Social Change Pilot Program
Rebecca Pope-Ruark, Elon University

Hobson City Matters #blackgirls4change
Michelle Bachelor Robinson, Margaret Holloway, and Candace Chambers, University of Alabama, and Khirsten Echols, University of Louisville

Social Media in the Composition Classroom
Stephanie Vie, University of Central Florida

Writing’s Potential to Heal: A Design-Based Study of a Body-focused Writing Workshop
Kate Vieira, University of Wisconsin, Madison, and Kathleen Conklin, PilateSpa International

The Writing Passport Project: Extending the Teaching for Transfer Writing Curriculum into Nine Sites, Multiple Courses, and Writing Teacher Education
Kathleen Blake Yancey, Florida State University, Howard Tinberg, Bristol Community College, Sonja L. Andrus, University of Cincinnati Blue Ash College, Tonya Ritola, University of California Santa Cruz, Sharon Mitchler, Centralia College, Kara Taczak, University of Denver, Liane Robertson, William Paterson University of New Jersey, Matthew Davis, University of Massachusetts Boston, and Joyce R. Walker, Illinois State University

2015-2016

Talking About Writing: Mining Key Concepts in Students’ Reflections on Drafts in Progress
Chris Anson, Chen Chen, and Meridith Reed, North Carolina State University; and Ian G. Anson, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Revealing the Educational Experiences and Needs of Los Otros DREAMers
René Agustín De los Santos, Tatiana Galvan de la Fuente, Saúl González, and Priscilla Nunez, Universidad Autónoma de Baja California

Tracing the Impact of Undergraduate Research in Rhetoric and Composition/Writing Studies
Jenn Fishman, Marquette University, Jane Greer, University of Missouri-Kansas City, and Dominic DelliCarpini, York College of Pennsylvania

Federal Grant Programs and Corollary Institutional Review Board Protocols: An Analysis of Reciprocity in Policy Determination, Implementation, and Impact on Writing Studies Research
Johanna Hillen and Joseph Moxley, University of South Florida, and Norbert Elliot, New Jersey Institute of Technology

First-Year Composition as Big Data
Chris Holcomb and Duncan Buell, University of South Carolina

Applying Threshold Concepts for Understanding Vertical Transfer from College into the Professions: A Transfer-Based Study of Early-Career Engineers’ Writing Practices
Wendy Olson and Dave Kim, Washington State University Vancouver

The History of Race in Composition Studies and Writing Program Administration
Iris Ruiz, University of California Merced, and Genevieve Garcia de Mueller, University of Texas Rio Grander Valley

Undergraduates as Writer-Researchers: A Longitudinal Collection of Case Studies
Donna Scheidt and Holly Middleton, High Point University

On Their Own Terms: A Study of Writing Discourses in Colombia, India, Nepal, and Romania
Shyam Sharma, Stony Brook University; Ligia Mihut, Barry University; Sara Alvarez, University of Louisville; and Santosh Khadka, California State University Northridge

Critical Hip-Hop Rhetoric Pedagogy and Freshman Composition at an Historically Black University: A Pilot Study
Brian Stone and Shawanda Stewart, Huston-Tillotson University

The Community College Success Stories Project
Patrick Sullivan, Manchester Community College

A Qualitative Study of How Students and Teachers Experience Varying Class Sizes in First Year Composition
Kathryn Valentine and Glen McClish, San Diego State University

2014-2015

Attitudes, Preferences, and Practices of College Writing Instructors Toward Digital Pedagogy
Rebecca E. Burnett, Rebecca E., Lisa Dusenberry, Andy Frazee, Liz Hutter, and Joy Robinson, Georgia Institute of Technology

Learning Transfer from Metacognition-Enhancing Writing-about-Writing FYC Courses: A Longitudinal Study
Doug Downs and Mark Schlenz, Montana State University

Investigating the Habits of Mind of First-Year Composition Students
Peter H. Khost, Stony Brook University

Writing in the workplace: An investigation of job requirements and expectations for professional writers
Clair Lauer, Eva Brumberger, and Mark Hannah, Arizona State University

Working Class Literacy: Archives, Academic Discourse, and the Achievement of Meta-Cognitive Academic Literacy Skills
Steve Parks, Jessica Pauszek, and Tony Scott, Syracuse University; William Thelin, University of Akron; Deborah Mutnick, Long Island University; and Jennifer Harding, London Metropolitan University

Surveying the Status of the Multi-major Professional Writing Course in U.S. Institutions of Higher Education
Sarah Read, DePaul University, and Michael Michaud, Rhode Island College

Faculty Identity Construction Through Language
Molly Scanlon, Claire Lutkewitte, Juliette Kitchens, and Allison Brimmer, Nova Southeastern University

Digital Media Academy: Designing Responsive Structures of Graduate Student Professionalization
Mary P. Sheridan, Rachel Gramer, and Megan Faver Hartline, University of Louisville

A Critical Approach to Academic Literacies in Latin America: A Multiple-Case Study
Lina Marcela Trigos Carrillo, University of Missouri

Research Writing in Education: A Genre-based Study of Four Disciplines
Anneke van Enk, Anthony Paré, Catherine Broom, Deirdre Kelly, Claudia Ruitenberg, and Jennifer Vadeboncoeur, University of British Columbia

Blended Stretch Writing at Arizona State University
James E. Wermers, Susan Naomi Bernstein, Shillana Sanchez, Karen Dwyer, and Connie J. Bracewell, Arizona State University

Investigating the Impact of First-Year Composition: A Comparative Study on One Campus
Laura Wilder and Robert Yagelski, University at Albany

The Transfer of Transfer Project: Extending the Teaching for Transfer Writing Curriculum into Four Sites and Multiple Courses
Kathleen Blake Yancey and Erin Workman, Florida State University; Matthew Davis, University of Massachusetts Boston; Liane Robertson, William Paterson University of New Jersey; and Kara Taczak, University of Denver

2013-2014

The Effects of Explicit Instruction on Sentence Fluency and Style
Nora Bacon, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Keith Rhodes, Grand Valley State University, and Star Medzerian Vanguri, Nova Southeastern University

Instructor Comments on Student Papers: Student Perspectives
Darsie Bowden, DePaul University

The Language Repertoires of First-Year Writers: A Cross-Institutional Study of Multilingual Writers
Shanti Bruce, Nova Southeastern University, Rebecca Lorimer Leonard, University of Massachusetts Amherst, and Deirdre Vinyard, Emily Carr University of Art and Design

The Genre Project: A Framework for Transfer Across the Disciplines
Jane Danielewicz and Jordynn Jack, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Mestiza Rhetors: An Anthology of Latina Rhetorical Activism in North America, 1880-1920
Jessica Enoch, University of Maryland, and Cristina Ramírez, University of Arizona

Tracing Chinese International Students’ Multilingual and Multimodal Literacy Practices in and across Translocal Contexts
Steve Fraiberg, Michigan State University, Xiaoye You, Pennsylvania State University, and Xiqiao Wang, Michigan State University

The University of Arizona Longitudinal Study of Student Writers
Amy Kimme Hea, Aimee Mapes, Kenny Walker, and Ana Milena Ribero, University of Arizona

(Re)Writing Lila: Literacy Narratives of Reform from the New York State Training School for Girls, 1920-1970
Tobi Jacobi, Colorado State University, Laura Rogers, Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, and Edward Lessor, Colorado State University

Composing Disabled Faculty
Margaret Price, Spelman College, and Stephanie Kerschbaum, University of Delaware

2012-2013

Writing initiatives and networks in Latin America and their relation to North America
Charles Bazerman, Natalia Ávila-Reyes, and Elizabeth Narváez-Cardona, University of California, Santa Barbara

Learning Information Literacy Across the Curriculum: A National Study
Adrienne Blackwell-Starnes and Janice R. Walker, Georgia Southern University

Digital Literacy and Blindness: Towards a Theory of Listening as Literacy
Melissa Helquist, Salt Lake Community College

The Writing Transfer Project: A RAD Approach to Enhancing College Writers’ Long-Term Learning
Ed Jones, Seton Hall University, Dana Driscoll, Oakland University, Gwen Gorchowski, Wayne State University, Carol L. Hayes, George Washington University, and Jennifer Marie Holcomb Wells, Florida State University

From Perception to Performance: A Study of Transfer in Student Writing
Tara Lockhart and Mary Soliday, San Francisco State University

Developing Critical Literacies of Black Womanhood in an Afterschool Program in a University and Community-based Service Learning Context
Elaine Richardson, The Ohio state University

2011-2012

The Borderlands Literacy Project
Carol Brochin Ceballos and Carlos Salinas, The University of Texas at El Paso

Reading in the First-Year Writing Classroom: A National Survey of Classroom Practices and Students’ Experiences
Ellen Carillo, University of Connecticut

Barriers to Writing Transfer: Writing in the Major at the “2+2” University
Bradley Dilger and Neil Baird, Western Illinois University

Comparing Faculty Time and Labor in Online versus On-campus First-Year Composition Courses: A Study of the SUNY Community Colleges
Cynthia Eaton, Suffolk County Community College

2010-2011

A Decade of War: Institutional and Civic Responsibilities to “Warrior Writers” in the Writing Classroom
D. Alexis Hart and Roger Thompson, Virginia Military Institute
“An Ethical Obligation”: Promising Practices for Student Veterans in College Writing Classrooms (white paper; published June 2013)

Placement of Multilingual Writers in First-Year Composition Courses in U.S. Colleges and Universities: A Nationwide Survey
Paul Kei Matsuda and Tanita Saenkhum, Arizona State University

Seniors Reflect on Their Meaningful Writing Experiences: A Cross-Institutional Study
Michele Eodice, University of Oklahoma, Anne Ellen Geller, St. John’s University, and Neal Lerner, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
The Meaningful Writing Project website

2009-2010

The Principles and Standards for the Postsecondary Teaching of Writing: Providing a Data-Based Framework for the 21st Century
Randall McClure and Dayna Goldstein from Georgia Southern University

2006-2007

“An Expanded Validity Inquiry into Minority Students’ Experiences with a Large-Scale Writing Portfolio Assessment,” (Awarded: $7,544)
Diane Kelly-Riley, Washington State University, Pullman

“Survey of Writing Instructors at For-Profit Colleges and Universities,” (Awarded: $4,600)
Luana Uluave, University of Illinois at Chicago
Patricia Harkin, University of Illinois at Chicago
Kristine Hansen, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah
J. Quin Monson, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah

“The forms and functions of instant messaging as literate practice,” (Awarded: $4,600)
Christina Haas, Kent State University, Ohio
Pamela Takayoshi, Kent State University, Ohio

“’The Things They Carried’: A Synthesis of Research on Transfer in College Composition,”(Awarded: $8,188)
Kathleen Blake Yancey, Florida State University, Tallahassee
Emily Dowd, Florida State University, Tallahassee
Tamara Francis, Florida State University, Tallahassee

2005-2006

“Community Impacts of Service-Learning in Writing Courses,” (Awarded: $5,000)
Melody Bowdon, University of Central Florida, Orlando
Maggie Boreman, University of Central Florida, Orlando

“Large-Scale Second-Language Writing Assessment,” (Awarded: $5,000)
Beth Lewis Samuelson, Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant
Mary Ann Crawford, Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant
Susan Dyste, Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant
Heidi Vellenga, Saginaw Valley State University, University Center, Michigan
Judy Youngquist, Saginaw Valley State University, University Center, Michigan
Diane Boehm, Saginaw Valley State University, University Center, Michigan
Barry Alford, Mid Michigan Community College, Mt. Pleasant

“TYCA National Research Initiative,” (Awarded: $5,000)
Jody Millward, Santa Barbara City College, California
Leslie Roberts, Oakland Community College, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Patrick Sullivan, Manchester Community College, Connecticut
TYCA Research Initiative website

2004-2005

“Uncovering Theories and Practices of Multiliteracies and New Media Pedagogies,” ($5,000)
Daniel Anderson, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill
Anthony T. Atkins, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana
Cheryl E. Ball, Utah State University, Logan
Krista Homicz Millar, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Cynthia Selfe, Michigan Technological University, Houghton
Richard Selfe, Michigan Technological University, Houghton

“Community-Based and Service-Learning Writing Initiatives: A Survey of Scholarship and Agenda for Research,” ($5,000)
Nora Bacon, University of Nebraska-Omaha
Thomas Deans, Haverford College, Pennsylvania
James Dubinsky, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg
Barbara Roswell, Goucher College, Baltimore, Maryland
Adrian Wurr, University of North Carolina-Greensboro

“A Study of the Implications for College-Level Literacy Instruction and Assessment of the P-16 Educatioon Policy Reform Movement,” ($5,000)
J.S. Dunn, Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Michael M. Williamson, Indiana University of Pennsylvania

“Visualizing Composition: Understanding Composing Processes as a Coordination of Technological and Cultural Activities,” ($5,000)
Bill Hart-Davidson, Michigan State University, East Lansing
Julie Lindquist, Michigan State University, East Lansing
Jeff Grabill, Michigan State University, East Lansing

“Students’ Right to Their Own Visual Language,” ($5,000)
Erik Hayenga, Michigan Technological University, Houghton
Dennis A. Lynch, Michigan Technological University, Houghton

“Acquisition of Level 4 L2 English Writing Proficiency by Students Whose First Language is Arabic,” ($5,000)
Betty Lou Leaver, New York Institute of Technology, Amman, Jordan
Amal Mohammed Jasser, Jordan University of Science and Technology,
Irbid, Jordan
Rajai Khanji, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan

“Second-Language Writing in College Composition Programs,” ($5,000)
Paul Kei Matsuda, University of New Hampshire, Durham

“National Adjunct Writing Faculty Survey Project,” ($5,000)
Gloria McMillan, Pima Community College (East), Tucson, Arizona

“TYCA Research Initiative,” ($5,000)
Jody Millward, Santa Barbara Community College, California
Gregory Shafer, Mott Community College, Flint, Michigan
Dianne Fallon, York Community College, Kittery Point, Maine

“A Meta-analysis of the Teaching of Technical Writing to Students for Whom English is Not a First Language,” ($5,000)
Christine Winberg, Peninsula Technikon, Cape Town, South Africa
Joyce Nduna, Peninsula Technikon, Cape Town, South Africa
Thea van der Geest, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
Barbara Lehman, The Ohio State University, Columbus

CCCC Emergent Researcher Awards

2024–2025 Call for Proposals

As teachers and scholars within the discipline and within CCCC undertake increasingly complex research projects, the nature of grant applications submitted to CCCC for research funding has changed. A greater number are submitted each year. But more important, the quality of these applications has improved considerably, and the types of projects for which funding is being sought are more diverse. As an organization, CCCC is committed to supporting the diversity of applicants, projects, and research strategies included in these awards.

The CCCC Emergent Researcher Awards reflect this commitment and are intended to invest in our organization’s members by rewarding and supporting early-career researchers, especially

faculty/instructors who have not had the opportunity to engage in funded research, and
faculty/instructors who do not have support for research within their institutions.

Only researchers who have not received previous funding from CCCC for research are eligible to apply for these awards. In addition to research funding, the Emergent Researcher Awards provide mentoring support. All selected recipients (or recipient teams) will be matched with research mentors on their projects. These established scholars will have a successful record of mentoring and publication experience. Mentoring pairs will determine procedures through which they collaborate. However, the expectation is that the mentor will be available to consult with the researcher(s) at each stage of selected projects on issues ranging from design to methodology, writing to circulation.

Application Procedures

As with the CCCC Research Initiative, the Emergent Researcher Awards are intended to contribute to CCCC’s efforts for the organization and its members to become a clear, trusted public voice on issues of writing and writing instruction. To this end, we invite proposals for projects that can contribute to or influence discussions about literacy and writing instruction in and out of formal education. The initiative also asks recipients to clearly address the impact their research might have on these conversations, conveying the implications of their work in at least two final products: one that is addressed to a scholarly audience of researchers and teachers in the field, and one that is addressed to a specifically identified more public audience.

Particular topics and areas of interest are those that advance the mission and vision of CCCC, which include but are not limited to the following broad areas:

Research that produces knowledge about language, literacy, communication, rhetoric, and the teaching, assessment, and technologies of writing at the postsecondary level and beyond
Social, racial, and linguistic justice and counterstory as research method and genre in approaches to instruction in rhetoric, language, and literacy
Writing in organizations, communities, and/or cultures
Transfer of writing ability across contexts
Disciplinarity of writing studies and composition, including
- critical praxis of the discipline’s growth,
- development of teachers or researchers, and
- professionalization or mentoring of undergraduate or graduate students joining the discipline
Historiography
Assessment of writing and literacy
Development of writers or writing abilities
Material and working conditions for writing instruction and their influence on teaching and learning

We invite proposals for research that employ diverse perspectives and methodologies, including historical, archival, rhetorical, qualitative, quantitative, ethnographic, and textual.

We welcome proposals for research that have value to the field in several ways: for example, they may be innovative in question or design, they may collect more data in the service of existing research questions, they might explore known phenomena in new locations, or they might synthesize existing research to offer insights into what is known and what is yet to be learned or discovered. Equally valuable are research project proposals that seek to confirm or replicate prior findings that are important to composition and rhetoric scholars. For example: https://library.ncte.org/journals/ccc/issues/v72-3/31162

Proposals should include the following:

Cover page that contains the title of the proposal, the names and full contact information of the investigator(s) (institution, address, phone, email), and, in the event of multiple investigators, the designation of a principal contact (maximum: 1 page).
Narrative of no more than 5 single-spaced pages (12-point font, 1-inch margins) that
a. describes how the proposer(s) fulfill(s) the criteria of emergent researcher(s);
b. defines the project and articulates specific research questions;
c.explains the significance of the project and identifies the gaps in knowledge it seeks to fill;
d. situates the project in relevant scholarly conversations about the subject to be studied;
e. carefully describes the proposed methodology and methods, including potential challenges or limitations;
f. communicates how and why the research is relevant to writing instructors and/or researchers;
g. describes the personnel and financial resources needed to complete the project, arguing why they are necessary and relevant; and
h. describes what the project will add to existing conversations among academic and public audiences and identifies at least two final products—one that is addressed to a scholarly audience of researchers and teachers in the field and one that is addressed to a specifically identified more public audience. Academic products should be submitted to CCCC or NCTE publications (e.g., CCC, Studies in Writing and Rhetoric series) for first review prior to submission to other publications (though receipt does not guarantee acceptance by CCC or Studies in Writing and Rhetoric). In addition to introducing the review committee to your proposed research, your narrative will guide the identification of potential mentors, so the proposal may explicitly address mentoring the emergent researcher hopes to receive, including any questions or concerns you have about the project.
One-page description of the credentials and expertise the investigator(s) brings to the project (relevant details about positions and teaching/research experience is sufficient) (maximum: 1 page).
Detailed budget with specific rationale for all expenses. Funds may be used for direct costs associated with the research, such as reassigned time/course buyout, student assistance, software, stipends for research subjects, etc. If student assistance is included in the budget, proposals should explain how the assistance will provide a learning/mentoring opportunity for the students involved. Please note that this grant may not be used to pay overhead, indirect costs, or travel to the CCCC Annual Convention. Equipment costs are allowable if justified (maximum: 1 page).

Maximum proposal length, including all components described above, is 8 pages.

CCCC plans to fund proposals of up to $5,000 each. The principal investigator(s) must belong to CCCC at the time of proposal submission. Proposed projects are expected to last up to two years but can run for shorter periods of time. Proposals are to be submitted no later than 11:59 p.m. CT on September 1, 2024, as a single email attachment to the CCCC Liaison at cccc@ncte.org. Proposals are reviewed by a joint committee comprising CCCC Executive Committee members and members selected from the CCCC Research Committee. Decisions will be announced by January 30, 2025. A mid-project report will be due by May 1, 2026. (This will be the final report date for projects lasting up to one year.) Projects should be completed and a final report submitted by May 1, 2027, for projects lasting two years. A summary version of the final report will be hosted on the CCCC website.

Eligibility

Emergent Researcher Award Recipients

2023-2024

An Investigation of First-Year Composition Instruction in Two-Year Colleges In Belize, Central America
Felicita Arzu-Carmichael, Oakland University

Making a Way: Black Women Navigating Graduate School and Early Careers in Rhetoric and Writing Studies
Talisha Haltiwanger Morrison, University of Oklahoma

2022-2023

National Trends in First-Year Writing Curricula: Assignments and Readings
Enrique Paz, Southern Illinois University Carbondale
Cynthia Johnson, University of Central Oklahoma

Leveraging Our Expertise: A Digital Archive of WAC Work outside of Higher Education
Will Chesher, Miami University

Teaching and Learning about Privacy and Surveillance: Creating Coalitions Through the Digital Rhetorical Privacy Collective
Charles Woods, Texas A&M University–Commerce
Morgan Banville, East Carolina University
Gavin P. Johnson, Texas A&M University–Commerce
Chen Chen, Utah State University
Cecilia Shelton, University of Maryland–College Park
Noah Wason, Binghamton University

2021-2022

Black Women’s Rhetoric(s): Collective Stories to Articulating a Rhetorical Genre, Discipline, and Community
Ronisha W. Browdy, North Carolina State University

Tutors’ and Spanish-Speaking Students’ Dispositions Toward Literacy and the Effect of Their Dispositions on Tutoring Sessions
Marina Ellis, University of Maryland, College Park

The ‘STEM-minded’ Writer: Individualized Outcome-based Writing Instruction for Students at STEM Institutions
Jossalyn G. Larson, Missouri University of Science and Technology

Antiracist Challenges to Whitewashed Pedagogy: Deploying African American Rhetoric in First-Year Writing Classrooms
Angela Morris, University of Memphis

Understanding how basic coding pedagogy influences attitudes and competencies of rhetoric and composition educators
Stephen Quigley, University of Pittsburgh, PA

Adjusted Localities: Actionalizing Anti-Racist Writing Pedagogy through a Partnership between Brown University Writing Center and Providence Public Schools
Brittney Threatt, Brown University, RI
Charlie Carroll, Brown University, RI

A Rhet/Comp Digital Sound Collection: An Open-Access Resource for Teaching and Research
Shane A. Wood, University of Southern Mississippi

2020–2021

Assessing Online Writing Instruction to Move from Crisis to Sustainability
Bethany Ober Mannon, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC

Closing the gap between WID and WIP: ePortfolio as evidence of professional identity
Jonathan Torres, Quinnipiac University, Hamden, CT
Marissa McKinley, Quinnipiac University, Hamden, CT

2019-2020

Trauma-Informed Writing Pedagogy: A Pilot Study of an Evidence-Based Training Initiative
Michelle L. Day, University of Louisville, KY
Sara M. Williams, University of Louisville, KY

Reconsidering a Vexed Question: Localizing the Writing Class Size Argument
Mellisa Huffman, Angelo State University, San Angelo, TX
Cheri Lemieux Spiegel, Northern Virginia Community College, Annandale

Intersecting Genres, Transforming Modes: Feminist Writers’ Transfer Across Academic and Non-Academic Domains
Anna V. Knutson, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA

Understanding the Design, Delivery, and Impact of Multimodal Advocacy Projects: A Study of Instructors, Students, and Community Partners in Social Justice Writing Pedagogy
Jason Tham, Texas Tech University, Lubbock
Jialei Jiang, Indiana University of Pennsylvania

Developing Strategies for Designing New Media Projects and Webtexts for Long-term Access and Preservation
John Paul Walter, George Mason University, Silver Spring, MD

2018-2019

Writing Knowledge Transfer from Basic Writing to Workplace Writing
Melissa Bugdal, Salisbury University

Making the English-Only Movement: Writing, Scaling, and Resisting Language Policy
Katherine S. Flowers, Mississippi State University

An Ideology of Apologia: Hedging Racial Discourse in Scholarly Conceptions of Critical Pedagogy
Mara Lee Grayson, California State University, Dominguez Hills

Exploring Practice, Praxis, and Value in Professional Collaborative Writing in Rhetoric and Composition
Jenna Morton-Aiken, Massachusetts Maritime Academy
Christina Santana, Worcester State University

2017-2018

Early 20th Century Women Physicians Use of Print-Based Social Media: A Digital Humanities Study of the Women’s Medical Journal
Patricia Fancher, University of California Santa Barbara

Techno-Ecologies and Professional Development: Profiles from CCCC Certificate of Writing Excellence Awardees
Kerri Hauman, Transylvnia University, Alison Witte, Trine University, and Stacy Kastner, Brown University

Outsourced Writing: Transnational Literacy in the Conceptual Age
Eileen Lagman, University of Colorado Boulder

The Archive of Workplace Writing Experiences
Jessica McCaughey, The George Washington University and Brian Fitzpatrick, George Mason University

Archiving Class Identities: Re-circulating Transnational Working-Class Community Writing Through Augmented Reality
Jessica Pauszek, Texas A&M University

Archival Research in the Global South: International Feminist Historiography
Emily Petersen, Weber State University and Breeanne Matheson, Utah State University

Cross-Institutional Study of Communities of Inquiry in Blended and Online Composition
Mary Stewart, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Jennifer Cunningham, Kent State University at Stark, Lyra Hilliard, University of Maryland College Park, and Natalie Stillman-Webb, University of Utah

2016-2017

Intranationalism: Conceptualizing New Intersections Between US-Based Higher Education Models and Students in Middle East and North African Nations
James P. Austin, Fort Hays State University

Becoming an insider: Exploring the development of discursive identity in science by women of color in an undergraduate research program
Heather Falconer, Northeastern University

Remediating Culture: A Rhetorical History of the Carlisle Indian Industrial School
Sarah Klotz, Butte College

Toward Data-Driven Support for Graduate and Faculty Writers: Two Inter-Informative Research Studies
Shannon Madden, University of Rhode Island, and Sandra L. Tarabochia, University of Oklahoma

“Raising Hell”: African-American Literacy Instruction in the Jim Crow South
Sue Mendelsohn, Columbia University

Distant Readings of Disciplinarity: Knowing and Doing in Composition/Rhetoric Dissertations
Benjamin Miller, University of Pittsburgh

Reports of Agency: Retrieving Indigenous Professional Communication in Indian Bureau Agency Documents, 1902-1916
Julianne Newmark, University of New Mexico

Looking and Listening for Multiple Literacies and Transfer through Video in the Writing Classroom
Crystal VanKooten, Oakland University

Considering the Context: A Study of Early College and College in the High School Programs
Erin Wecker, The University of Montana, and Patricia Wilde, Washington State University, Tri-Cities

Welcome to the CCCC website!

Since 1949, the Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) has been the world’s largest professional organization for researching and teaching composition, from writing to new media. Welcome to our community. You’ll find the field’s leading resources and, more important, expert scholars and teachers eager for you to join us.