Category: Uncategorized

Sherry Richer: Case #4

Characterization of Institution

Research I

Characterization of Department

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

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

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

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

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

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

N/A

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

N/A

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

N/A

What went wrong?  What went right?

N/A

Harrison Spenser: Case #5

Characterization of Institution

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

Characterization of Department

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What went wrong?  What went right?

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

Maricela Guzman: Case #3

Characterization of Institution

Research II

Characterization of Department

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What went wrong?  What went right?

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tenure and Promotion Cases for Composition Faculty Who Work with Technology

 

Editor: Malea Powell
Michigan State University
Email: ccceditorialteam@gmail.com

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

Access current and previous issues

Access CCC Online

Subscribe to College Composition and Communication!

 

About CCC

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

Next Editors Selected
NCTE and CCCC welcome Dr. Matthew Davis, of the University of Massachusetts Boston, and Dr. Kara Taczak, of the University of Central Florida, as incoming editors of College Composition and Communication. Kara and Matt were editorial assistants at CCC as graduate students and are thrilled to return to service at the journal after an editorial tenure at Composition Studies. Their first issue will be published in February 2025.

Nomination Deadline: June 1

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

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

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

Eligibility: The awards competition is open to works published in calendar years 2023 and 2024 for the 2025 award. To be eligible for the awards, a nominee must be a member of CCCC and/or NCTE at the time of nomination. To nominate a work for the awards, the author, editor, publisher, or reader must be a CCCC and/or NCTE member.

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

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

Nominations should be sent by June 1, 2024, to cccc@ncte.org.

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

Past Winners

2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2017

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

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

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

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

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

2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Application Deadline: November 15

Purpose: The Tribal College Faculty Fellowship offers financial aid to selected faculty members currently working at tribally controlled colleges or at Native American-Serving Nontribal Institutions (NASNTI’s) to attend the Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) April 9–12, 2025, in Baltimore, MD. We are offering two Tribal College Faculty Fellowships in the amount of $1,500 each.

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

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

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

Award Specifics: The deadline for the 2025 award is November 15, 2024. Please submit an application letter (on institutional letterhead) describing:

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

Send your application letter to cccc@ncte.org

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

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

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

Tribal College Faculty Fellows

2024
Meredith Marchioni, Alaska Pacific University, Anchorage

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

2022
Not awarded.

2021
Not awarded.

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

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

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

2017
LaFrenda Frank, Diné College, Tsaile, AZ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008
Nathan Jenkins, Haskell Indian Nations University

2007
Geselle Coe, Tohono O’Odham Community College

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

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

By Kim D. Gainer, Radford University, Radford, VA

In 2007, four students filed suit in a U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia, against iParadigms, a company that owns the Turnitin plagiarism detection service. This service compares uploaded student papers against not only materials available on the web but also against a database of previously uploaded papers. The students in this case argued copyright infringement: that the inclusion of their papers in the database of a for-profit company was an appropriation of their intellectual property.  In 2008, the judge in the case ruled against the students, noting that in the course of uploading their papers, the students had clicked an “I agree” button that signified their acceptance of the company’s terms of service. The judge also ruled that Turnitin’s use of the students’ writing was “highly transformative” because the texts were being used for a purpose fundamentally different from the purpose for which they were created.

The students appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth District Circuit, but in 2009, a ruling let stand crucial elements of the original decision. The students filed notice to appeal, but several months later entered into a settlement with iParadigms in which each side agreed not to pursue any legal action against the other. (As an aside, a student in the case had accessed the Turnitin database using another person’s user id and password, and the settlement ended this student’s legal exposure.)  Absent a Supreme Court ruling, the appeals court decision applies only to schools in Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia, and North and South Carolina.  Although the students did not prevail, the debate over plagiarism detection services is likely to continue.

In its Recommendations Regarding Academic Integrity and the Use of Plagiarism Detection Services, the CCCC-Intellectual Property Caucus suggests that both pedagogical and ethical issues are raised by these programs.  In terms of pedagogy, use of such services casts the student in the role of someone who must be monitored rather than as a self-motivated learner. Simultaneously, it may shift the role of the teacher from educating to policing, possibly “compromise[ing] the relationship between teachers and students.” Moreover, the reactions of students to what is effectively a presumption of guilt may create an “adversarial climate.” The statement also expresses concern that relying on computer software may become a substitute for the conversations about academic integrity that should be central to the educational process.  In regard to legal concerns, it raises questions about students’ privacy rights because student writing is shared with “commercial third parties not engaged in the relationship implied in the educational process.” (Issues such as these are also explored in “McClean Students File Suit against Turnitin.com,” an article in The CCCC-IP Annual: Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2007.)

Legal decisions have been rendered: a district court cited the fact that the students clicked on the “I agree” button and uploaded the papers themselves. Students may still question whether they may be required to agree to a plagiarism detection company’s terms of service. Moreover, students may raise objections if their papers are uploaded by their instructors without their consent. A student’s ‘ownership’ of her work may be undermined even if in the eyes of a judge her legal rights have not been violated.  Therefore, students may continue to challenge the use of Turnitin and other plagiarism detection services on intellectual property and other grounds, and some objections might lead to legal challenges. In essence, even if a case were to reach the Supreme Court and be decided against the students, educators may still wish to carefully consider the implications of using such services.

For further information, please contact the author, Kim Gainer.

 

Intellectual Property Reports Main Page

Nomination Deadline: May 1

Purpose: The CCCC Outstanding Book Award is presented annually for work in the field of composition and rhetoric.

Eligibility: A work eligible for the 2025 award will have been published in calendar year 2023 or 2024. To be eligible for the award, nominees must be members of CCCC and/or NCTE at the time of nomination. To nominate a volume for the award, the author, editor, publisher, or reader must be a CCCC and/or NCTE member.

Award Specifics: Each year two awards will be given: one award for a single-authored or multi-authored work and one award for an edited collection of scholarly work. Both categories will be evaluated for scholarship and research in the areas of pedagogy, practice, history, and theory.

Nominations must be received by May 1, 2024, and must include a brief statement of the book’s contribution to the profession (Note: You do not need to send copies of the nominated book with the nomination.). Please send the statement of the book’s contribution to the CCCC Outstanding Book Award Committee at cccc@ncte.org.

Outstanding Book Award Selection Committee Review Criteria and Timeline (pdf)

Email Questions

Outstanding Book Award Winners

2024 Winners

Annie S. Mendenhall, Desegregation State: College Writing Programs after the Civil Rights Movement, Utah State University Press, 2022

Christine Denecker and Casie Moreland, The Dual Enrollment Kaleidoscope: Reconfiguring Perceptions, of First-Year Writing and Composition Studies, Utah State University Press, 2022

2024 Honorable Mentions

Stephanie West-Puckett, Nicole I. Caswell, and William P. Banks, Failing Sideways: Queer Possibilities for Writing Assessment, Utah State University Press, 2023

Gesa E. Kirsch, Romeo García, Caitlin Burns Allen, and Walker P. Smith, Unsettling Archival Research: Engaging Critical, Communal, and Digital Archives, Southern Illinois University Press, 2023

2023
Aja Y. Martinez, Counterstory: The Rhetoric and Writing of Critical Race Theory, National Council of Teachers of English
Laura Gonzales and Michelle Hall Kells, Latina Leadership: Language and Literacy Education across Communities, Syracuse University Press

2022
Louis M. Maraj, Black or Right: Anti/Racist Campus Rhetorics, Utah State University Press
Patrick Sullivan, Sixteen Teachers Teaching: Two-Year College Perspectives, Utah State University Press

2022 Honorable Mentions
Rosanne Carlo, Transforming Ethos: Place and the Material in Rhetoric and Writing, Utah State University Press
Elizabeth Kimball, Translingual Inheritance: Language Diversity in Early National Philadelphia, University of Pittsburgh Press

2021
Shui-Yin Sharon Yam, Inconvenient Strangers: Transnational Subjects and the Politics of Citizenship, Ohio State University Press
Vivette Milson-Whyte, Raymond Oenbring, and Brianne Jaquette (Eds.), Creole Composition: Academic Writing and Rhetoric in the Anglophone Caribbean, Parlor Press

2020
Jessica Restaino, Surrender: Feminist Rhetoric and Ethics in Love and Illness, Southern Illinois University Press
Romeo García and Damián Baca, Rhetorics Elsewhere and Otherwise: Contested Modernities, Decolonial Visions, National Council of Teachers of English

2019
Rebecca Lorimer Leonard, Writing on the Move: Migrant Women and the Value of Literacy, University of Pittsburgh Press
Patrick Sullivan, Howard Tinberg, and Sheridan Blau, Deep Reading: Teaching Reading in the Writing Classroom, National Council of Teachers of English

2018
Rasha Diab, Shades of Sulh: The Rhetorics of Arab-Islamic Reconciliation, University of Pittsburgh Press
Tammie M. Kennedy, Joyce Irene Middleton, and Krista Ratcliffe, Rhetorics of Whiteness: Postracial Hauntings in Popular Culture, Social Media, and Education, Southern Illinois University Press

2018 Honorable Mention
Iris D. Ruiz, Reclaiming Composition for Chicano/as and Other Ethnic Minorities: A Critical History and Pedagogy, Palgrave Macmillan

2017
Asao B. Inoue, Antiracist Writing Assessment Ecologies: Assessing Writing for a Socially Just Future, Parlor Press
David S. Martins, Transnational Writing Program Administration, Utah State University Press

2017 Honorable Mentions
Kate Vieira, American by Paper: How Documents Matter in Immigrant Literacy, University of Minnesota Press
Lisa King, Rose Gubele, and Joyce Rain Anderson, Survivance, Sovereignty, and Story: Teaching American Indian Rhetorics, Utah State University Press

2016
Risa Applegarth, Rhetoric in American Anthropology: Gender, Genre, and Science
Elizabeth Losh, The War on Learning: Gaining Ground in the Digital University

2015
Jonathan Alexander and Jacqueline Rhodes, On Multimodality: New Media in Composition Studies
David Bleich, The Materiality of Language: Gender, Politics, and the University

2014
Thomas Rickert, Ambient Rhetoric: The Attunements of Rhetorical Being
Asao B. Inoue and Mya Poe, eds., Race and Writing Assessment

2013
Susan H. Delagrange, Technologies of Wonder: Rhetorical Practice in a Digital World

Margaret Price, Mad at School: Rhetorics of Mental Disability and Academic Life

2012
David Fleming, From Form to Meaning: Freshman Composition and the Long Sixties, 1957-1974

Bruce Horner, Min-Zhan Lu, and Paul Kei Matsuda, Cross-Language Relations in Composition

2011
Xiaoye You, Writing in the Devil’s Tongue: A History of English Composition in China

2010
David Gold, Rhetoric at the Margins: Revising the History of Writing Instruction in American Colleges, 1873-1947

2009
Charles Bazerman, Handbook of Research on Writing: Society, School, Individual, Text

John M. Duffy, Writing from These Roots: Literacy in a Hmong-American Community

2008
Sharon Crowley, Toward a Civil Discourse: Rhetoric and Fundamentalism

2007
Norbert Elliot, On a Scale: A Social History of Writing Assessment in America

Krista Ratcliffe, Rhetorical Listening: Identification, Gender, Whiteness

2006
Morris Young, Minor Re/Visions: Asian American Literacy Narratives as a Rhetoric of Citizenship

2005
Kristie S. Fleckenstein, Embodied Literacies: Imageword and a Poetics of Teaching

Catherine Prendergast, Literacy and Racial Justice: The Politics of Learning after Brown v. Board of Education

2004
Mary Soliday, The Politics of Remediation: Institutional and Student Needs in Higher Education

2003
Deborah Brandt, Literacy in American Lives

Eileen Schell and Patricia Lambert Stock, Moving a Mountain

2002
Paul Kameen, Writing/Teaching:  Essays Toward a Rhetoric of Pedagogy

2001
Halasek, Kay, A Pedagogy of Possibility: Bakhtinian Perspectives on Composition Studies

2000
Susan Miller, Assuming the Positions: Cultural Pedagogy and the Politics of Commonplace Writing 

Barbara Couture, Toward a Phenomenological Rhetoric: Writing, Profession, and Altruism

1999
Marilyn Sternglass, Time to Know Them: A Longitudinal Study of Writing and Learning at the College Level

1998
James A. Berlin, Rhetorics, Poetics, and Cultures: Refiguring College English Studies

1997
John Brereton, The Origins of Composition Studies in the American College, 1875-1925: A Documentary History

1996
Susan Peck MacDonald, Professional Academic Writing in the Humanities and Social Sciences

1995
Thomas L. Kent, Paralogic Rhetoric: A Theory of Communicative Interaction

1994
Lester Faigley, Fragments of Rationality: Postmodernity and the Subject of Composition

1993
Richard Bullock, Charles Schuseter, and John Trimbur, The Politics of Writing Instruction: Postsecondary

1992
Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg, The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present

Susan Miller, Textual Carnivals: The Politics of Composition

1991
Mike Rose, Lives on the Boundary, The Struggles and Achievements of America’s Underprepared