Bibliographic Research in Composition Studies - Vicki Byard Lenses on Composition Studies

Скачать книгу

can better assess the significance of each source you find, each voice you encounter in the conversation. Learning more about how knowledge is constructed in composition studies can also prepare you to search for the full spectrum of voices that contribute to knowledge about your research interest so that your bibliographic research is as comprehensive as possible.

      The most well-known account of how knowledge is formed in composition studies is the book The Making of Knowledge in Composition: Portrait of an Emerging Field, written by Stephen North. In this book, North proposes a taxonomy of knowledge in composition studies based on what he calls its “modes of inquiry—the whole series of steps an inquirer follows in making a contribution to a field of knowledge” (1). North argues that the modes of inquiry used in composition studies comprise three major “methodological communities” (1): scholars, researchers, and practitioners. Though The Making of Knowledge in Composition was published in 1987, it remains a core text in many graduate composition studies programs because it continues to serve as a helpful introduction to how knowledge is constructed in the discipline. Using the framework provided by North’s book, let us now examine further each of these core modes of inquiry in composition studies: scholarship, empirical research, and practice. The following sections provide a definition, some examples, and advice for locating each.

      The most traditional mode of knowledge in composition studies is scholarship. North defines scholarship as a mode of inquiry that is text-based and that relies on dialectic, which he defines as “the seeking of knowledge via the deliberate confrontation of opposing points of view” (60). North identifies three major types of knowledge-makers who produce scholarship in composition studies: historians, philosophers, and critics. He describes them more fully as “those who seek knowledge about how rhetoric has been understood and practiced in the past [the historians]; or who try to get at the theoretical underpinning of rhetorical activity [the philosophers]; or whose approach to textual interpretation has a rhetorical basis [the critics]” (64). Although he says that many of the people he designates as scholars would self-identify as rhetoricians, he does not use that term in his own taxonomy of knowledge-makers in the discipline.

      Examples of scholarship can be found for any issue in composition studies; here, the topic of writing across the curriculum (often identified by the acronym WAC) will be used to provide some concrete examples of the how scholarship contributes to knowledge in composition studies. One example of historical scholarship about writing across the curriculum is “The History of the WAC Movement,” an early chapter in Bazerman et al.’s Reference Guide to Writing Across the Curriculum (2005). This chapter provides a concise history that describes the origins of writing instruction in colleges and universities in the late nineteenth century, cites some initial arguments for writing across the curriculum that emerged in the 1930s, and then traces how political and social changes that impacted college enrollments in later decades, along with educational reform movements in Britain in the 1960s and 1970s, led to the recognition of a need to teach writing skills in multiple disciplines. The chapter then identifies when formal writing-across-the-curriculum programs were institutionalized and concludes by discussing the initiation of journals, conferences, and web resources that provided further support for the development of WAC knowledge and practice.

      McLeod and Soven’s book Composing a Community: A History of Writing Across the Curriculum (2006) is also a history of WAC, but as a collection of twelve essays by different authors, it is both more selective and more detailed in its historical approach. Here, readers will find histories of particular emphases in WAC, such as Barbara Walvoord’s essay “Gender and Discipline in Two Early WAC Communities: Lessons for Today,” as well as a numerous essays that discuss the history of the WAC program at particular institutions: George Mason University, the California State University system, the University of Chicago, and Michigan Tech, to name a few. As Bazerman et al.’s chapter and McLeod and Soven’s book illustrate, histories in composition studies contribute to disciplinary knowledge by identifying the factors that have influenced some aspect of the field. In turn, that understanding of historical influences can provide insight into how the topic is currently configured in the discipline; also, histories often yield cautionary advice or recommendations for future developments in the discipline.

      In addition to histories, another type of scholarship, according to North, is philosophy, what we would now more commonly term as theory; North himself described philosophers in composition studies as those who “try to get at the theoretical underpinning of rhetorical activity” (64). In composition studies, theory is often the form of knowledge-building that most depends on dialectic, which again, North defines as “the seeking of knowledge via the deliberate confrontation of opposing points of view” (60). At times, theory can be contentious. Consider, for example, McLeod’s and Maimon’s article “Clearing the Air: WAC Myths and Realities,” published in College English in 2000. The authors begin by identifying four ways in which they believe other scholars have mischaracterized the history, definition, and effectiveness of WAC. After discussing why others’ characterizations of WAC are “myths,” McLeod and Maimon then posit theories that they contend more accurately represent the relationship between WAC and writing to learn and writing in the disciplines, as well as the intertwined elements of WAC programs.

      Often, scholarship in composition studies that is theoretical is developed because the author wants to expand on—rather than to correct—earlier scholarship. An example of such scholarship is Samuels’ article “Re-Inventing the Modern University with WAC: Postmodern Composition as Cultural and Intellectual History” (2004). Here, Samuels contrasts the traits of modernism and postmodernism, then theorizes that WAC is perfectly suited for the postmodern university because its focus on disciplinary discourse challenges students to examine the epistemologies of different disciplines. Thus, this article furthers knowledge about WAC by merging it with postmodern theory and educational philosophy; often, scholars in composition studies similarly apply theories that originated in other disciplines to issues in composition studies in ways that expand knowledge in our discipline.

      The final form of scholarship identified by North is criticism, undertaken by those “whose approach to textual interpretation has a rhetorical basis” (64). One example of textual criticism in composition studies, specifically WAC, is Ochsner and Fowler’s article “Playing Devil’s Advocate: Evaluating the Literature of the WAC/WID Movement,” published in Review of Educational Research in 2004. For this article, Ochsner and Fowler analyzed eighty publications about writing across the curriculum (WAC) and writing in the disciplines (WID). Their analysis of these texts led the authors to identify several specific weaknesses in published scholarship and studies about WAC: these texts often don’t clearly distinguish between writing to learn and learning to write; texts about WAC privilege writing as the primary mode of learning and do not adequately acknowledge other modes of learning, such as speaking, listening, and reading; the effectiveness of WAC is too often based on self-reports of faculty and students rather than more independent measures of student learning; the financial costs of WAC programs—including faculty development, program administration, program assessment, and smaller class sizes—are regularly underestimated in WAC literature; and WAC literature often does not recognize the training required for faculty to teach writing well. What distinguishes scholarship as criticism is not that it is negative in its emphasis, but rather that it is scholarship that contributes to knowledge in composition studies by analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of other scholarly texts.

      Most of the bibliographic work you will do in composition studies will entail locating and synthesizing scholarship. As you have undoubtedly learned during your undergraduate education, most scholarship is not readily available on the internet, especially through general search engines like Google and Yahoo. Whereas anything can be posted on the web, regardless of its accuracy, scholarly writing must meet more rigorous standards that ensure its credibility. One of the distinguishing characteristics of scholarly writing is that it is written by authors who are experts in the discipline and who use discipline-specific terminology when discussing ideas with readers who are also knowledgeable about the discipline; also, scholarly writing includes

Скачать книгу