From Surviving to Thriving: Top Tips to Help Newer Chairs

2018

2011

a different trajectory from the discipline in the United States. Because of its unique history, the faculty is positioned to make significant contributions to the further development of writing instruction and scholarship in rhetoric and writing in Canada and beyond. At the same time, the close fit between the department's character and the mission of the institution makes it a strategic asset to the university. This report presents my findings, analyses, and recommendations to the Department and the Fulbright Specialist Program, based on six weeks of inquiry and conversations. I visited the University of Winnipeg from April 24 to June 4, 2011. From undergraduate students to central administrators, my hosts were extremely gracious and generous with their time. I conducted interviews with faculty members and administrators and met with faculty and student groups for a total of over 70 hours. I collected and read a large body of historical and current materials from the department and university (curricular materials, syllabi, faculty publications, university reports and reviews, policy papers, and more). Before and during my visit, I read a body of publications and reports about the history and current state of writing instruction in Canada as well as examples of Canadian scholarship in rhetoric and writing. I also conducted 3 phone interviews with Canadian scholars at other institutions, as well as talking with others at two conferences in the U.S. prior to my visit. On May 27, 2011 I delivered an invited lecture in the university's Distinguished Scholar Lecture Series. Copies of this speech, which was videotaped, will be made available to the department. During my visit, I worked closely with a Steering Committee, which included Judith Kearns, department chair, and faculty members Jennifer Clary-Lemon, Wade Nelson, Barry Nolan, Jaqueline McLeod Rogers, and Tracy Whalen. At my request, this group met weekly to engage in conversations focused on the writings and curricular contributions of its members. Members presented a sample of their work and explained how it represented their intellectual interests or disciplinary affiliations, and how these translated into the curriculum. I also asked them to discuss how each benefited from being in a department with this particular focus and configuration, as signified by the terms "rhetoric," "writing," and "communications." I am indebted to these colleagues for the insights developed in these conversations, as well as in wide-ranging interviews with them and other faculty. Judith Kearns was an invaluable source of information, materials, and wisdom about departmental history, structures, and processes. Jennifer Clary-Lemon, who developed the

2016

This issue of Forum represents the work of NTT faculty in concert with more established colleagues in varied institutional and programmatic contexts. Further, it demonstrates significant research being conducted about the often invisible work of teaching, program development, and administration described as "disciplinary, emotional, and everyday" by contributors Nicole I. Caswell, Jackie Grutsch McKinney, and Rebecca Jackson in their study of nine new writing center directors with various levels of institutional power ("A Glimpse into the Working Lives of New Writing Center Directors"). They seek to understand work with "a more inclusive set of questions about writing center labor: 'Who is doing the work of directing writing centers?' 'What work do new writing center directors perform?'" Each of the essays describes work that goes above and beyond job titles, job descriptions, and institutional affiliations. Christopher Ervin's essay, "Non-Tenure-Eligible Writing Center Directors and Successful Mentoring of Undergraduate Peer Writing Tutor Researchers" describes his research on the extent to which "some NTE directors are actively and successfully engaging peer writing tutors in productive research about writing center practice, student writing, and writing instruction." The work we all do daily, weekly, or over the course of a semester or year sustains our programs and centers in spite of labor conditions.

1999

A study investigated the working relationship between writing program directors and writing center directors nationally, to develop a picture of such a relationship and to compare the nature and status of the two positions and the backgrounds of the people who hold them. In all, about 650 surveys were distributed to members of professional associations, and useable responses were received from 176 people. Responses suggest that writing program directors regard writing center directors more as partners and less as helpmates than they did in a 1988 study (Olson and Ashton-Jones), and that the relation of the program director to the center director is much more collaborative than supervisory. Often, collaboration and communication can help overcome a lack of power or status in their institutions or a lack of knowledge about composition research, management practices, or institutional politics. Still, survey data suggest that program directors enjoy a more privileged place in college/university structures and that the professionalization of center directors is lagging behind the professionalization of other writing program administrators. Respondents almost never described coming to an agreement about philosophies and goals as a result of collaboration. Many respondents mentioned how important it was for a director in either position to be a scholar in composition studies. (Contains 9 tables, 4 notes, and 27 references. Appended is a sample survey instrument.) (NKA) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from tha ^riginq dr,f9,mPnt.

(Our faculty writing group in the Faculty of Education at Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada began in 2009 and over the past three years it has grown into a successfully publishing community of practice. When we have presented papers on the writing group at conferences, we have found that the first question asked tends to be: How did you get the writing group to work? It is a deceptively simple question but the answer taps into many issues surrounding the difficulty of faculty writing and publishing in academic contexts. For many academics, the challenge of navigating the competitive discourse demands of conducting research and publishing journal articles, while at the same time navigating teaching and administrative loads, often leads to anxiety and stress. Situated within the literature on writing groups and research productivity, we contribute by narrating and analysing the evolving story of our group. The purpose of this paper is to explore why members continue to participate and why we have been able to successfully write and publish both individually and as a group. This study used 'the self as data', a qualitative methodology particularly relevant in the analysis of writing processes and groups. The data collected consisted of weekly written reflections, additional written narratives by each group member, and recordings of meeting discussions. We analysed the data qualitatively using the constant comparison method of analysis to generate themes. Results indicate that members attended the group because they were looking for a place to get support for research and writing and to cope with negotiating academic cultures. We argue that the ethos of a 'non-competitive environment' and 'relationships-first' were crucial in fostering collaboration and productivity despite diverse individual differences. We offer this analysis of our experiences, not only in terms of practicalities but also as an alternative way of working in the academy.

2016

Writing at the State U: Instruction and Administration at 106 Comprehensive Universities, 2018

System, 2002

light-heartedness. This is not an author preaching from the inaccessible height of his ivory tower, but rather someone standing in the classroom with chalk on his clothes, using some self-deprecatory humour and anecdotes to get his message across. He is the type of language teacher you wish you had had as you sat in your first foreign language class or the teacher you hope your children will have, or at least that they will have someone who has read this book. Although primarily aimed at language teachers and teacher trainers, the strategies proposed in this book apply to all teachers and everybody who has to judge and give feedback on other people's work, be they supervisors, directors, editors, reviewers.. . A Dean might apply the same strategies to enhance the cohesion among his or her staff, and some metacognitive control strategies could be applied successfully to staff-meetings: ''intentionally ignore attractive alternatives or irrelevant aspects'', ''identify recurring distractions'' and finally ''cut short any purposeless or counterproductive procrastination'' (p. 112). A very useful book indeed!