Category: ENGL 810 – Major Debates

In Caitlin Cornell Holmes’ article, “At the Commencement of an Archive: The National Census of Writing and the State of Writing Across the Curriculum,” she explains the background of the National Census of Writing (NCW) and how it can allow us to archive information, potentially solving the problem of definition for the field (in this case, writing across the curriculum, or WAC) as well as benefiting methodological concerns among scholars who seek to represent WAC work in their scholarship and at their institutions. She argues for archives as a methodology for gathering and sorting research, noting that “[a]rchives—and the databases that constitute them—have since remained a focal point within rhetoric and composition as an emerging and evolving field, often calling attention to what is included and what is excluded” (p. 76). The CWP is a type of survey that collects and compares data from participant responses to a variety of WAC program-related questions.

Holmes draws on Susan Wells to justify her support of the archive, and reminds us that we are no longer limited to traditional archival work due to recent technological advancements; searchable and generative databases should be considered archives. According to Wells, archival work “help[s] us to rethink our political and institutional situation,” thus allowing us to reconfigure “how we situate and represent our larger scholarly conversation and practices” (cited in Holmes, p. 77). Archival work, therefore, allows us to discover the definition of WAC and the methodologies we use to implement and assess WAC in spite of what our current situation is or is not.

Holmes also draws on several scholars who have highlighted the problems of definition and methodology in their work. In her discussion of the definition of WAC programs, Holmes highlights Condon and Rutz (2012) who wrote, “As WAC’s thirty-plus-year history argues, the pedagogy and associated philosophy have become widespread, yet WAC as a phenomenon does not possess a single identifiable structure; instead it varies in its development and manifestation from campus to campus” (p. 80). This is, of course, because WAC programs have a tendency to be absorbed into other institutional structures such as composition programs or assessment initiatives (p. 86).

To address methodological concerns in the field, Holmes points out the struggles of several scholars, including Thaiss and Porter in their 2008 survey that sought to determine how many WAC/WID programs exist in the US. Holmes posits that “all efforts to survey and report. . . have been limited by the fixity of data represented in publication, the labor-intensive nature of collecting this information from individual schools, and the continuing ambiguity around how these types of writing programs are constituted and positioned within local contexts” (p. 78).

The CWP is not fail proof, however, as some respondents from the same institution gave conflicting answers, some respondents did not feel capable of giving information about their programs or requirements, and some respondents were sure there was a WAC program but did not know who at their institution would be able to provide information on it. It
seems that problems of methodology cannot fully be addressed until the field has defined itself. If this is the case, then the field will continue to struggle to define itself as long as there are questions about methodology. So at what point do definition of a field and methodology depart from each other? Are the terms inseparable? Must our methodology be driven by the conventions of our field alone and vice versa? Given these questions after thirt-plus years of WAC research, we seem to still be at commencement.

Holmes, C. (2015). At the commencement of an archive: The national census of writing and the state of writing across the curriculum. The WAC Journal 26. Retrieved from http://wac.colostate.edu/journal/vol26/holmes.pdf

In the introduction to their edited collection, Landmark Essays on Writing Across the Curriculum, Charles Bazerman and David Russell (1994) explain how specialized discourses are grounded in the rhetorical theory that dates back to the Ancient Greeks and the debates and discussions that were shaped by the Sophists, Plato, and Aristotle. Bazerman and Russell explain that “[a]s there are professional rivalries today, so there were battles among the technai in the fifth century b.c.e., as one group of practitioners challenged the knowledge or skill of another group to win social credit in some activity field” (xvii). This history interestingly parallels the evolution of the field of English over the last 60 to 70 years, as literature has sought to suppress technical communication, composition, creative writing, etc.

Yet specialized fields such as writing across the curriculum have evolved. Bazerman and Russell explain, “the Sophists were interested in the uses of discourse for training young men to speak persuasively in legal and political forums.” As such, “rhetoric became the art of civic discourse and what came to be known as liberal education” (xix), and the evolution of specialized discourses in general first became evident during the Middle Ages after the breakup of the Roman Empire: “by the twelfth century, social structures for organizing specialized knowledge had begun to evolve, and with them specialized discourses” (xxiv). The first universities began to take shape in which students could study law, theology (including religion), and medicine, and while rhetoric “was relegated to lower levels of teaching,” it greatly influenced the activity of law and religion.

According to Bazerman and Russell, “the Renaissance further complicated the relationship between the formal study of rhetoric and communicative practices in specialized fields.” Because of the invention of the printing press, specialized discourses were now accessible to the university while other discourses in practical arts and technology such as martial arts, mining, herbal lore, and shipbuilding began to evolve. The fourteenth century humanist revival of classical learning and education reinstituted and encouraged the study of rhetoric in the university, but it in turn “militated against the acceptance of specialized discourses as objects of study” (xxv). Humanist education was highly literary and Ciceronian prose was the compositionist ideal.

Other individuals such as Francis Bacon (16^th century), Joseph Priestly and Adam Smith (17^th century), and Hugh Blair, George Campbell, and Richard Whately (19th century) have influenced the ebbs and flows of rhetoric over the course of time. In spite of what rhetoric has endured over the last 16 centuries, it has proven, in one way or another, to be foundational in every discourse, even supporting specialized discourses such as writing across the curriculum. But if rhetoric is so foundational to the many disciplines, why do we, scholars of English, continue to struggle to locate ourselves? Bazerman and Russell’s essay is useful in identifying and understanding the theoretical underpinnings of not only the field of English but also WAC as a subdiscipline, and I expect this work will be useful to me as I continue to work to locate myself within our field.

Bazerman, C., & Russell, D. (Eds.). (1994). Landmark essays on writing across the curriculum. New York, NY: Hermagoras Press.

Todd Ruecker, in his article, “Reimagining “‘English 1311: Expository English Composition’” as “‘Introduction to Rhetoric and Writing Studies,’” discusses his first-year composition (FYC) course redesign from a traditional course based around a textbook with readings and four essays representing the EDNA model: expository, descriptive, narrative, and analytical to a rhetoric and writing studies (RWS) course with a writing about writing (WAW) approach. Interestingly, Ruecker acknowledges that though he says he uses a WAW approach, he finds it to be too broad a title for what he does within his course, in which he seeks to expose students to disciplinary discourses (89). Ruecker further explains that describing his course as using a writing about writing approach is problematic because it ignores rhetoric. Though, because he focuses on writing as a subject, he finds it to be the most suitable title to explain what he does.

This contradiction makes me curious: If Ruecker’s purpose is to expose students to disciplinary discourses, then would a writing in the disciplines (WID) title or description not be more suitable? And what is his purpose for teaching such a course? Other than his director’s initiative to “design courses more in line with RWS” (88). These questions are difficult to answer as Ruecker’s justification for his course redesign choices are unclear. Yet, on the last page of his article, Ruecker suggests that the goal of a FYC course is to challenge students “with intellectually demanding disciplinary content, material that better prepares students to write across a variety of academic and social contexts” (98). He seems to be speaking to writing across the curriculum (WAC) as a means to achieve transfer
even though there is no mention of WAC or transfer in the article. Perhaps his desire is to prepare students, but he is does not yet have the vocabulary to articulate what he is doing and what he desires to do. I sympathize with Ruecker here. I’ve been teaching using the WAW approach for over two years and at times have noticed gaps in my teaching but was not able to articulate what those gaps were because I did not have the vocabulary to do so.

Though Ruecker’s discussion begs several questions for me, it also provides me with a greater understanding of my current use of a WAW approach to FYC. Ruecker’s article reveals that a writing about writing approach may be a blend of several approaches. For example, my approach focuses on writing studies while emphasizing rhetorical theory and the transfer of knowledge. This realization also makes me question my textbook choice for the class—Downs and Wardle’s Writing About Writing, 2^nd edition. Ruecker acknowledges that he has struggled to find a suitable text for a writing about writing class (89), and though I use Downs and Wardle’s text, I have always stressed that I do not use the “Downs and Wardle WAW approach.” Perhaps I am limiting my writing about writing approach through the use of this text and therefore my students’ experience in a writing studies course.

Ruecker, T. (2011). Reimagining “English 1311: Expository English Composition” as “Introduction to Rhetoric and Writing Studies.” Composition Studies 39(1), 87-111.