Category: CFP

Call for Proposals for a Special Issue of Composition Forum: “Risk, Failure, and the Teaching of Writing”

Posted by – April 25, 2024

Guest editors: Alexis Teagarden, UMass Dartmouth, and Justin Mando, Millersville University

We are pleased to open our call for proposed submissions to the Summer 2025 Special Issue of Composition Forum on the theme Risk, Failure and the Teaching of Writing.

Already engaged with the failure/risk conversation? Jump down to

Looking for more context? Read on.

Contextualizing Risk and Failure in Composition Studies

Failure is never far from a writing classroom, and risk is forever emerging in the writing (and learning) process. Instructors across specialties– from First-Year teaching to doctoral dissertation advising, Professional/Technical Communication to Creative Writing– as well as Rhetoric and Composition scholars and writing program administrators have considered the role failure and risk can and should play in writing. The work is invigorating, demonstrating the virtues it hopes to foster: creativity, curiosity, reflectiveness, intellectual humility, and a willingness to engage with difficulty. But it might be that the conversations have raised more questions than answers.

One issue is that failure holds different, even contradictory meanings. When Coles agrees that in a writing course “a certain amount of initial failure is not only inevitable but also desirable” (Boe, 2002, p. 12) and when Bartkevicius (2023) argues “Teaching, like writing, involves rough drafts (little failures) and revisions” (p. 117), they both emphasize failure as a part of invention, experimentation, and incremental improvement. This is a familiar connotation to failure, but not the only one. Carr (2013), for instance, ascribes a much more significant role to failure; it is “a deeply felt, transformative process” (n.p.). Are little, ongoing failures on the same continuum as Carr’s kind? Or is Coles right that “we need another name” for the ubiquitous failures of drafting, to contrast them with the transformative experience of “being a failure”? Understanding what we mean by failure might be a necessary step to fully develop the pedagogy of failure for which Carr and others have called.

Intellectual risk-taking appears to maintain a more stable definition: choices involving stakes and uncertainty (Johnstone, 1963) which all writers confront (e.g., Artemeva, 2005; Canagarajah & Lee, 2013). But how do the lines of scholarship on risk and failure interact?

Work from our field often references both without delving into their relationship. Kelty and Bunten (2017), in contrast, have argued risk and failure are part of a larger learning cycle, but their edited collection Intellectual Risk-Taking in Higher Education notably includes no chapters on writing classes. Does their model hold for our field? And if failure and risk are both phases in learning to write, how do we guide students into this cycle?

Such questions inspire our Special Issue, as we recognize a need for collective attention on the role failure and risk together should take in writing pedagogy. A central aim of this special issue is to bridge conversations between intellectual risk and failure, so we are particularly interested in submissions that focus on the relationship between the two. How might we continue to theorize, and what might we together generate as best practices in response to the potentials (good and ill) attached to teaching writing through risk and failure?

Some Quandaries to Consider

What is the interplay between intellectual risk-taking and failure, and how might the two together guide our approach to teaching?

How might we consider the ethical dimensions of intellectual risk-taking and failure? In On Duties, Cicero argues “a spirit which is ready to face danger but is driven by selfish desire rather than the common benefit should be called not courage, but audacity” (26). Does this attention to communal stakes change the way we consider risk-taking? In parallel, if Johnson and Sheehan (2020) are right that “Failure does indeed open up new possibilities and ways of thinking; however, failure also has material realities that must be acknowledged and dealt with ethically” (p. 133), how do we evaluate the role failure plays in our classrooms (Cox, 2011; Inoue, 2014; Inoue, 2020; Pantelides, 2020)?

Such questions apply to students but also instructors: what risks can and should teachers take on, and when do those risks become failures (Segal, 1996; Hall, 2002; Bauer, 2007; Waite, 2017; Craig, 2021)? How should such risks and failures be evaluated? (Horner & Lillis, 2015; Combs et al., 2015)?

In short, how should we bring both risk and failure into writing classrooms:

● for First-Years (e.g., Holmes and Wittman, 2020; Thoune, 2020; Fernandes et al, 2021),

● or majors (e.g., Bauer, 2007; Hamilton, 2016; Feigenbaum, 2021),

● or graduates (e.g., Rickly & Cook, 2017; Beare, 2018; Fredrick et al., 2020),

● in Prof/Tech Comm (e.g., Artemeva, 2005; West-Puckett & Moeggenberg, 2022),

● or Creative Writing (e.g., Bartkevicius, 2023; Ballenger, 2023; Suphap, 2023)?

Addressing the ethical issues raised by classroom risk-taking and failure can create another problem: how do we foster risk and failure safely or fairly without sanding away the very elements that prompt learning? For example, if we require students to take risks, have we encouraged risk-taking or have we just shifted the ways students conform to expectations and produce safe work (Hamilton, 2016; Fredrick et al., 2020)? Outside of grades, what do students–and writers more generally–recognize as risks (Kerschbaum, 2014; Teagarden et al., 2018; Saunders, 2020; Banville et al., 2021; Tennant, 2022; Tennant et al., 2022; Commer et al., 2024) and how can we encourage engagement in what feels risky (Hall, 2007; Canagarajah & Lee, 2013; Badenhorst et al., 2015; Chanock et al. 2015; Taczak & Mitchell, 2020; Meadows, 2023)?

Turning to administrative work, how do we respond to Cook & Hoermann-Elliott’s (2023) conclusion about failure’s potential for guiding writing program administration: “perhaps what the field needs next is not a heuristic defining failure’s purpose but one for exploring failure” (72)? How can we explore failure at the administrative level; how do and should administrators approach intellectual risk-taking (Nearman, 2008; Roach, 2008; Gross & Alexander, 2016; Bastian, 2019; Phillips & Giordano, 2020; Stenberg & Waite, 2020)?

Submission Information for Interested Authors and Reviewers

For Interested PEER REVIEWERS | Applications due July 15, 2024, submitted via our interest form

We invite interested readers to apply to serve as reviewers for initial proposals and/or completed manuscripts. Please note, submitting a proposal does not preclude you from also serving as a reviewer for the other journal sections or standing as a peer reviewer for full manuscripts. To indicate interest in serving as a special issue reviewer, please complete the reviewer interest form (

For Interested AUTHORS | Proposals due August 2, 2024, all submitted via our proposal form

We are soliciting proposals for

Research articles

Please submit a max 250-word proposal that outlines your argument or research project. Your proposal should include 3-5 key sources that guide your current thinking; these can be embedded or a separate list. See Composition Forum’s author guidelines for full expectations for a research article.

Program profiles

Please submit a max 250-word proposal that describes the program/course you would report on and how it relates to the special issue’s theme. Your proposal should include 3-5 key sources that guide your current thinking; these can be embedded or a separate list. See Composition Forum’s author guidelines for full details on what a program profile piece entails.

Book reviews

Please rank the books in terms of your review preference and submit a 150-word proposal outlining your strengths as a reviewer of work in the risk/failure conversation.


The special issue’s review process is governed by the conventions of Composition Forum (, with slight adjustments, noted below, to account for the special issue process.

All proposals will be reviewed by at least one special issue editor and one external reviewer, using this rubric (links to a google form).

Accepted manuscripts will be reviewed by either one editor and one external reviewer or two external reviewers. If you would like feedback on your proposal, we will be happy to review in advance of submission. Please contact the special issue editors: and


Mid-April, 2024:       Special Issue call circulates

July 15, 2024:         Applications due for peer reviewers 

August 2, 2024:     Proposals due

Early January 2025:   Full manuscripts of articles, profiles, book reviews due

Early May 2025:         Revised manuscripts due to editors

July 2025:                Special Issue published

Citations for the call available here: CF 2025 sp iss CFP references

  • Category: CFP
  • Comments Closed

Call for Proposals for a Special Issue of Composition Forum: “The Discourse-Based Interview: Forty Years of Exploring the Tacit Knowledge of Writers”

Posted by – May 3, 2021

Guest editors: Neil Baird, Bowling Green State University, and Bradley Dilger, Purdue University

In 1983, Lee Odell, Dixie Goswami, and Anne Herrington published “The Discourse-Based Interview: A Procedure for Exploring the Tacit Knowledge of Writers in Nonacademic Settings.” Since that time, over 250 published articles and 100 dissertations have cited this landmark essay, underscoring its enduring value for empirical research in writing. Researchers have extended the original scope of the discourse-based interview by developing new techniques for discovering the questions to ask participants and adapting the interview process to study multimedia-rich texts. In the forty years since Odell, Goswami, & Herrington wrote, writing has changed immeasurably, yet discovering writers’ tacit knowledge remains incredibly valuable—especially because, as Goswami and other scholars have pointed out, writing researchers and teachers have strong exigences to identify and explore the knowledge of all writers, not only those working from positions of privilege.

In this special issue, we invite scholars to explore how writing research and the discourse-based interview (DBI) have changed since the publication of Odell, Goswami, & Herrington’s landmark essay nearly 40 years ago. We invite proposals for feature articles that address relevant issues:

  • Ethical concerns related to any aspect of the DBI, but especially issues such as authorship, collaborative writing, and/or representation of participants in research;
  • New contexts or exigences for using DBIs, such as engaging the knowledges of indigenous and under-represented communities;
  • How changes in technologies for reading, writing, and publishing should be reflected in in the DBI to best capture the tacit knowledge of writers;
  • How emergent digital tools impact DBIs methodically: developing interview questions, identifying relevant alternative choices, analyzing data,  and representing tacit knowledge accurately;
  • Implications of changes in scholarly approaches to tacit knowledge, expertise, and disciplinary knowledge;
  • Implications for the DBI of the increase in collaborative writing in both academic and workplace contexts;
  • Methodological issues related to the use of stimulated elicitation or stimulated recall in qualitative research;
  • Meta-analysis or systematic review of studies that use DBIs.

We are especially interested in proposals for articles that would, in the tradition of Composition Forum’s “Retrospectives” section, reflect on and update prior methodological work by examining how thinking about tacit knowledge has changed since the publication of “The Discourse-Based Interview” in 1983.

Following the tradition of Composition Forum’s “Program Profiles,” we also plan an “Approaches, Practices, and Applications” section that includes articles focused on practical application, in contrast to the more theoretical or empirical pieces above. These articles would be written in a manner that facilitates engagement by those seeking to adapt the discourse-based interview in research, teaching, or other contexts, such as: 

  • The use of discourse-based interviews in teaching, mentoring, or other areas adjacent to writing research;
  • Mentoring novice researchers who want to integrate the DBI in their own work;
  • Innovative techniques for conducting discourse-based interviews;
  • The integration of discourse-based interviews into mixed-methods research designs.

We also seek contributors for book reviews that speak to the methodical and methodological universe of the discourse-based interview: subjects such as tacit knowledge, expertise, intersectionality in empirical research, and collaborative writing. Please see the list of titles on our web site (, and contact the editors if you are interested in writing a review. We welcome suggestions for other relevant titles.

This special issue is part of a larger project exploring the discourse-based interview methodologically. For more background, see


Fri July 30, 2021                   Pre-submission deadline for review of draft proposals.

Wed September 1, 2021:       Deadline for submissions (11:59pm Hawai’i time).

Mon October 4, 2021:           Notification of submission decisions.

Fri January 14, 2022:            Deadline for manuscript drafts.

Fri March 25, 2022:              Feedback shared with authors.

Fri June 17, 2022:                 Final manuscripts due.

Mon August 15, 2022:          Publication.

Submission Guidelines

Please download our proposal template, fill it out, and email your proposal to Proposals should be no more than 500 words, excluding Works Cited. Indicate the type of contribution you’re proposing: an article, retrospective, or approaches & practices. We are especially interested in proposals from emergent scholars, scholar-teachers from teaching-intensive institutions, and scholars who study under-represented communities.

Following Composition Forum guidelines, expect the following length for contributions if accepted:

  • Articles: 6,000 to 8,000 words
  • Retrospectives: 3,000 to 5,000 words
  • Approaches, practices, and applications: 5,000 to 7,000 words
  • Book reviews: 1,500 words
  • Review essays: 2,500 words

All accepted articles will be peer-reviewed by the guest editors and members of the CF editorial review team, following the Anti-Racist Scholarly Reviewing Practices developed by a coalition of technical communication journal editors. Our style reference will be the MLA Handbook, ninth edition.

We welcome your questions. The editors are happy to read and comment on draft proposals shared before July 30. Please contact the special issue editors:

  • Category: CFP
  • Comments Closed

Call for Proposals for a Special Issue of Composition Forum: “Promoting Social Justice for Multilingual Writers on College Campuses”

Posted by – July 8, 2019

Guest editors: Brooke Schreiber, Baruch College, CUNY; Eunjeong Lee, Queens College, CUNY; Jennifer Johnson, Stanford University; Norah Fahim, Stanford University

Deadline for proposals: September 15, 2019

The fight for linguistic equity in writing education in the U.S. has a long and complex history. From the statement on “Students’ Rights to Their Own Language” (SRTOL) in 1974, to Asao Inoue’s recent CCCC Chair’s address calling out White language supremacy, the efforts to achieve justice for language minoritized students have been fraught with tension and conflict. At the core of this conflict is a fundamental question: in a world where English-only ideology and a deficit perspective towards language minoritized students still dominate (e.g., Lee, 2017), how we best serve our linguistically diverse students and promote pluralism in the writing classroom? In the current sociopolitical climate, where we see racist attitudes and acts linked with monolingual and monocultural bias in the daily news cycle, discussion and enactment of anti-racist praxis are more important than ever. And in order to bring about social justice for multilingual students, we must shift the conversations to ones that recognize multilinguals’ unique competencies in moving across languages and cultures (Canagarajah, 2013; You 2016).

In this special issue, we focus on how we as educators can work towards social justice for multilingual students through classroom practices, campus-wide advocacy, and administrative choices. We invite proposals for articles (print-based or multimedia) that address issues such as:

  • Initiating discussions of linguistic racism and promoting language plurality in dominant monolingual and/or white institutional spaces
  • Understanding the range of multilingual student backgrounds (i.e., international visa holders, immigrant/gen 1.5 students, refugees) and their experiences at our institutions
  • Developing pedagogical practices (rhetorical grammar, cross-cultural communication activities) that create spaces for multilingual students to negotiate language standards
  • Supporting writing faculty across the disciplines to enact anti-racist and translingual pedagogies
  • Implementing writing center policies and practices to support multilingual students
  • Using course options and placement practices to advocate for students

We also seek proposals for two Program Profiles, which might address various aspects of writing programs, including first-­‐year composition, WAC/WID, student support programs, teacher training, professional writing, and/or writing centers. We are particularly interested in profiles of programs which have developed innovative structures or curriculum for reaching out to, placing, assessing, or otherwise supporting multilingual student populations.

Proposal Submission Guidelines

Due date: September 15th, 2019

Length of proposals: an abstract of no more than 500 words and a tentative title

Proposals should be submitted to:

For any questions, please contact:Eunjeong Lee at

Notification of acceptance: October 7th

  • Category: CFP
  • Comments Closed

Call for Managing Editor for Composition Forum!

Posted by – May 16, 2018

Composition Forum: A journal of pedagogical theory in rhetoric and composition

Composition Forum is pleased to invite applications for the position of Managing Editor. The Managing Editor will work closely with Editor Christian Weisser in all aspects of the journal. The primary responsibility of this position is to facilitate the peer-review process of scholarly articles. This includes the following activities:

  • Review and screen new articles submitted for publication to determine if they fit the scope and focus of the journal
  • Solicit and assign reviewers to write written evaluations of screened articles
  • Evaluate reviewer feedback and decide upon accept, reject, or revise and submit status for each peer-reviewed article
  • Communicate with authors regarding the status of their articles and facilitate revisions (where applicable)
  • Guide accepted articles through editing and proofing to final publication, working closely with Web Editor Kevin Brock

Candidates should have an established record of scholarship in rhetoric and composition. Some editorial experience is preferred. Composition Forum welcomes individuals or teams of two editors to manage the workload—the current Managing Editors (Anis Bawarshi and Mary Jo Reiff) have worked as a team for several years. The incoming Managing Editor(s) are also encouraged to bring on Editorial Assistants (such as advanced graduate students). All positions within Composition Forum are on a volunteer basis with no monetary compensation, though editors are encouraged to secure compensation and/or release time from their universities to offset the time invested in this scholarly work.

Applications will be reviewed on a rolling basis beginning on June 1st. Applicants should send an email to containing the following:

  • A brief (2-3 paragraph) statement of interest, describing the applicant’s background and experience relevant to the position, as well as an overview of your “vision” or goals for the articles section of Composition Forum in the future.
  • A current curriculum vita or resume

Applications will be promptly acknowledged, and finalists will interview through Skype or by phone. We hope to conclude the search in early summer 2018, allowing the new Managing Editor(s) to shadow and interact with the current editors before the Fall 2018 academic year begins.

Please direct questions or comments about the position (but not applications) to Christian Weisser at

Composition Forum Call for Applications: Review Editor

Posted by – April 17, 2017

Composition Forum: A Journal of Pedagogical Theory in Rhetoric and Composition seeks a Review Editor to replace the outgoing editor. The Review Editor solicits book reviews and review essays, offers editorial feedback to review authors, and helps to format reviews for two regular issues and one “special themed” issue per year. Duties also include maintaining contact with publishers to obtain new titles, ensuring that review authors receive copies of texts, and participating in online editorial meetings. The incoming editor will shadow the current Review Editor for one production cycle.

Please submit a CV and an email describing your qualifications and vision/goals for the Reviews section of Composition Forum to Christian Weisser ( Review of applicants will begin on May 15, 2017.

Call For Papers: Composition Forum Special Issue: Public Writing in Composition

Posted by – August 10, 2016

The editors of Composition Forum are pleased to announce a call for papers for an upcoming special issue on Public Writing in Composition guest edited by Christopher Minnix. Please send 300 to 500 word proposals for articles and Program Profiles by September 15, 2016 to Christopher Minnix ( See below for a complete timeline.

Special Issue CFP: Public Writing in Composition
Guest editor: Christopher Minnix (

Twenty years ago Susan Wells introduced us to the story of Arthur Colbert—a Temple University student who crafted a powerful and effective public response to being falsely accused, detained, and beaten by two Philadelphia policemen—in the introduction to her seminal article “Rogue Cops and Health Care: What Do We Want from Public Writing?” Writing six years after Wells, Christian Weisser predicted that public writing could become “the next dominant focal point around which the teaching of college writing is theorized and imagined” (42) in Moving Beyond Academic Discourse: Composition Studies and the Public Sphere. Over the past twenty years, public writing has indeed become a major focus in composition and a major initiative in many composition programs. At the same time, rereading Arthur Colbert’s story in our contemporary moment, a moment marked by significant police brutality but also by powerful and savvy rhetorical responses, such as we see from movements like #BlackLivesMatter and Dreamers Adrift, underlines the continued importance of teaching public writing, while returning us to the perennial question articulated by Wells: “what do we want from public writing?”

This special issue of Composition Forum calls on public writing teachers to respond to this question in our current disciplinary and political moment. The editor invites work that examines and explores critical issues in the theory and teaching of public writing within the discipline of composition studies, but also invites studies that examine how contemporary public discourse, such as the rhetoric of social movements, collective activism, or advocacy, might shed new light on enduring controversies in public writing research and provide new theoretical and pedagogical approaches to teaching public writing.

Research on public writing has theorized and critiqued understandings of the classroom as public space, debated the authenticity of public writing assignments and genres, theorized and outlined multimodal public writing pedagogies, developed the use of rhetorical case studies of public rhetoric in teaching public writing, argued for the role of community literacy and community publishing work in fostering students’ public knowledge and agency, and theorized composition studies as a public. The past 20 years have also witnessed the development and increasing accessibility of new media genres, multimodal composing platforms, and digital networks that have expanded our students’ opportunities for composing and circulating public arguments. These developments have challenged scholars in public writing to explore the relationship between access and opportunity for public writing and the potential influence or public efficacy of students’ public writing. Both the expansion of opportunities for public writing and the development of public writing theory and pedagogy have served as catalysts for numerous writing programs across the country to “go public” by crafting public writing curricula and defining public writing as part of their outcomes.

To revisit the question “what do we want from public writing?” in our contemporary moment, authors are encouraged to engage and revisit the tensions and problems that have defined public writing pedagogy in composition, while also exploring and defining new areas of inquiry. Authors might pursue issues such as the following, though they should not feel limited by them:

  • emerging genres and mediums of public writing and their pedagogical applications.

  • materiality and public writing pedagogy, including investigations of material rhetoric in the public writing classroom and explorations of the relationship between materiality and the composition and circulation of public writing.

  • students’ prior knowledge of genres and mediums of public writing and the potentials and constraints of this knowledge for the public writing classroom.

  • case studies or analyses of public writing—social movement rhetoric, activist rhetoric, advocacy rhetoric, etc.—with pedagogical implications for the public writing classroom.

  • spatial or place-based perspectives on public writing, including work that examines rhetorical ecologies of public writing

  • new approaches to service learning and community-based projects that foster students’ public writing and agency.

  • interdisciplinary approaches and perspectives applicable to public writing in composition, such as work in civic media, youth political participation, civic gaming, etc.

  • approaches to the problem of authenticity in public writing classrooms, including work that examines authentic public writing assignments.

  • work that expands our understanding of what counts as public participation in the public writing classroom, including explorations of participatory acts that often fall outside of the category of persuasion, such as sharing information across social networks.

  • approaches to assessing public writing and public writing programs.

  • public writing pedagogy that engages global contexts and exigencies.

  • theoretical and pedagogical approaches to multimodal public rhetoric.

  • approaches that revisit or explore public writing and theories of the public or publicity—public spheres, counter-publics, etc.

  • work that explores the intersections and divergences of public writing and civic education, particularly contemporary pedagogies such as “the new civics.”

  • analyses of initiatives to integrate public writing into community college and university writing programs.

  • approaches and possibilities for teaching public writing across the curriculum or in the disciplines.

  • teaching public writing in Basic Writing classrooms.

  • discussions of resistances—institutional, faculty, departmental, student—to public writing in composition.

Topics other than those listed above are enthusiastically encouraged, and articles on a broad range of issues and topics that fall within the broad project of public writing theory and pedagogy will be considered.

The guest editor also seeks two Program Profiles that focus on several important aspects of public writing programs, including, but not limited to, the following: the development and implementation of public writing courses and curricula, the role of community partnerships in public writing programs, the institutional perception and politics of public writing in specific universities or community colleges, and the role of writing program administration in advocating for public writing programs. Of particular interest are profiles that focus on the benefits and risks of integrating public writing into the curriculum at the level of writing programs. Interested contributors are invited to submit 300-500 word proposals to the guest editor, Christopher Minnix (, by September 15, 2016.

For more information on submitting articles or Program Profiles, visit


August 1, 2016 – CFP released

September 15, 2016 – Deadline for proposals (300500 words)

September 25, 2016 – Notification of acceptances

January 25, 2017 – Deadline for completed MSS

March 15, 2017 – Review complete, revisions requested

May 30, 2017 – Final versions of MSS due

June 2017 – Editing, manuscript preparation, etc.

July 2017 – Special issue published

Please contact Christopher Minnix ( with inquiries.

Call For Papers: First Conference on Rhetoric and Writing Studies Undergraduate Programs (Oct. 13-14, 2016)

Posted by – February 28, 2016

Call for Proposals: First Conference on Rhetoric and Writing Studies Undergraduate Programs

October 13-14, 2016
Camino Real Hotel
El Paso, Texas

Sixteen years into a new century, we can say that undergraduate programs in Rhetoric and Writing Studies (RWS) are a diverse and exciting landscape in which, to borrow Sandra Jamieson’s words, we can discern “a snapshot of where the field of writing studies is today” and “where it is going and what it might become” (vii).

Sponsored by the Association for Rhetoric and Writing Studies Undergraduate Programs, this conference will provide a space for scholarship, conversation, and collaboration related to all facets of undergraduate programs in RWS. As such, we invite proposals on any issue related to RWS undergraduate programs, whether existing, planned, or aspirational.

Proposed topics may include, but are not limited to:

  • Defining Undergraduate Programs: Rhetoric? Writing Studies? Rhetoric &/or Writing Studies?
  • Curriculum of Undergraduate Programs in RWS
  • Teaching, Learning, and Pedagogy in Undergraduate RWS Programs
  • Institutional Locations of Undergraduate RWS Programs
  • Institutional Politics and Undergraduate RWS Programs
  • Undergraduate RWS Program Administration
  • Histories of Undergraduate RWS Programs
  • Student Recruitment, Mentoring, and Retention
  • Undergraduate Research: Mentoring, Presentation, and Publication
  • Education, Hiring, and Mentoring of Undergraduate RWS Faculty
  • Funding, Grants, and Resources for Undergraduate RWS Programs
  • Partnerships between RWS Programs and Publics, Government, Workplace, Nonprofits, etc.
  • Technology and Digital Studies in Undergraduate RWS Programs


The conference welcomes individual proposals as well as proposals for panels, roundtables, and posters.

Conference sessions will be concurrent, lasting 90 minutes per session. Individual proposals will be grouped into conference sessions by topic. Presenters may propose panels of 3 to 4 presenters, roundtables of 5 or more presenters, and poster presentations.

Faculty, graduate students, and undergraduate students may submit proposals.


Presenters should submit an abstract (500 words or less) of the proposed presentation no later than May 15, 2016.
Presenters will be notified of the status of their proposal by July 30, 2016.

To Submit A Proposal

Proposals may be submitted by email to Please identify status as faculty, graduate student, or undergraduate student.

For More Information

Information about conference registration, hotel accommodations, and El Paso attractions will be posted to the Association website at

Questions can be sent to Helen Foster at or Angela Petit at

Work Cited

Jamieson, Sandra. Foreword. Writing Majors: Eighteen Program Profiles. Ed. Greg Giberson, Jim Nugent, and Lori Ostergaard. Logan, Utah State UP, 2015. vii-ix. Print.

Association for Rhetoric and Writing Studies Undergraduate Programs

  • Category: CFP
  • Comments Closed

Call For Papers: Emotion in Composition

Posted by – July 11, 2015

The editors of Composition Forum are pleased to announce a call for papers for an upcoming special issue on Emotion in Composition. Please send proposals of 300 to 500 words by September 5, 2015 to Lance Langdon ( See below for a complete timeline.

Special Issue CFP: Emotion in Composition
Guest editor: Lance Langdon (

By 2016, it will have been nearly twenty years since the publication of Lynn Worsham’s “Going Postal,” which traced student anger to its institutional sources, and almost a decade since Laura Micciche’s Doing Emotion, which urged emotional performance as a cognitive endeavor. It is the ambition of this special issue to reorient our field’s conversation regarding emotions once again, finding pathways through two decades’ worth of emotional investigation, charting new directions, and coming to grips with the action of emotions today—whether on campus, in local communities, or online; in program administration or in the teaching and learning of writing.

In the last twenty years the field of Composition has examined how emotion influences writers’ cognition and revision, constitutes classrooms as communities, and saturates program administration. We have asserted the centrality of emotion to critical thinking and critical literacy, to student interest and retention, and to the construction of student writers, WPAs, and instructors as gendered, raced, and classed subjects. We have valued the emotional labor of these same subjects, the work that gets done through emotional performance. And we have interrogated empathy and compassion in diverse classrooms and communities and in evolving publics.

Yet as the last decade’s blossoming of scholarship regarding affect has matured, what signs are there of a second spring? It might be argued that inquiry into emotion has spent itself and can provide no further insight, that we have hit a methodological wall in our reading of classroom interactions as symptomatic of cultural trends and in our investigation of moments of explosion. We have plumbed what positive emotions can do for student writers in opening to the world and established a framework around that stance. We have detailed and formed action plans through which to handle uncomfortable discussions of white privilege and able-­‐ism, of racism, classism, sexism, and homophobia.

Yet work remains to be done in each of the above areas. We’ve yet to account for the ebbs and flows of interest and disinterest, annoyance and curiosity, that carry the daily teaching and learning language. We’ve insufficiently explored what frustration, mania and depression contribute to writing lives. We might even more fully attend to love’s labor to produce an equitable world.

These topics, coupled with those below, by no means exhaust what a fuller grappling with emotion contributes to the teaching and learning of writing. This issue calls upon researchers, teachers, and administrators to sift through the last twenty years of emotional inquiry in imagining what we’ll need to know and do in the next twenty—complicating, reframing, and extending previous engagements with emotion. It also solicits those opening up entirely new avenues of inquiry through theories previously unexplored in composition, topics unaddressed, and methodologies yet to be applied.

Prospective authors might propose to discuss (but should not feel limited to):

  • Classroom implications of terminological distinctions (e.g. emotion/pathos/passion/feeling/affect, empathy/sympathy/compassion)
  • Boredom and engagement in FYC
  • Theories of affect in conversation with composition
  • Motivation and writing
  • Grit and retention
  • Emotional communication in tutorials and/or conferences
  • Use and abuse of “emotional literacy” and “emotional intelligence”
  • Institutional emotions (e.g. WPA disappointment, TA or job market anxiety)
  • Emotional labor of students, WPAs and writing instructors
  • Habits of Mind in the Framework for Success
  • Pedagogy concerning pathos in public rhetoric (e.g. politics of resentment, hope)
  • Affect and metacognition
  • Instructors’ proper or ideal emotions
  • Performance and embodiment as reading and writing methods
  • Emotional construction of gender, sexual orientation, class, and racial identity
  • Feminist pedagogy
  • Emotion and second-­‐language writing
  • Applications or contestation of neuroscience in composition
  • Multimodal emotional communication (e.g. emoji)
  • Ethics and rhetorics of empathy, in classrooms or in classroom-­‐community contexts

The editor also seeks up to three Program Profiles, which address various aspects of writing programs, including first-­‐year composition, WAC/WID, student support programs, teacher training, the undergraduate major, professional writing, writing centers, or postgraduate writing. The emotional labor of writing program administration is of particular interest, as is emotional communication within an institution’s budgetary and historical constraints. However, the section will field a wide range of approaches to the action of emotion within writing programs.

For more information on submitting articles or Program Profiles, visit

July 5, 2015 – CFP released
September 5, 2015 – Deadline for proposals (300-­‐500 words)
September 15, 2015 – Notification of acceptances
January 15, 2016 – Deadline for completed MSS
March 15, 2016 – Review complete, revisions requested
May 30, 2016 – Final versions of MSS due
June-­‐July 2016 – Editing, manuscript preparation, etc.
August 2016 – Special issue released

Please contact Lance Langdon ( with inquiries.

  • Category: CFP
  • Comments Closed

Announcing The Research Exchange Index (REx)

Posted by – October 31, 2012

The following announcement is posted on behalf of Joan MullinJenn Fishman, and Mike Palmquist, the editors of The Research Exchange Index:

The Research Exchange Index, or REx, is designed to collect information about local, national, and international writing research conducted in unpublished and published studies. REx is also designed to solve a longstanding problem in writing studies: access to a wealth of information difficult to research across publications and difficult to find because it remains in institutional reports, programs, classrooms, or departments.

As a database about the processes of a research study, entries are different than articles about the studies that might be published in journals or books; therefore, entering data in REx not only doesn’t infringe on any copyright, but, once made public, actually serves to promote work by authors/editors.

Your contribution will become part of a peer-reviewed digital publication. After the collection deadline (May 1st, 2013), REx editors will review all entries for clarity and completeness of information, contacting researchers for further information as needed. Once the review process is complete, the edited entries will be included in the searchable REx database. REx editors will introduce the database with a scholarly essay that contextualizes contemporary writing research, offers an overview of database contents, and points to current and emerging research trends indicated by your studies.

From the first edition onward, REx will provide a historical snapshot of writing research, and it will offer a resource for planning future studies. For example, REx might be used to:

  • generate aggregatable data about one or more types of contemporary writing
  • research;
  • demonstrate gaps in our knowledge of contemporary writing;
  • provide models for research studies at new sites;
  • indicate areas of future study;
  • locate archives for historical studies of twenty-first-century writing; and
  • discover potential collaborators or sites for collaborative studies.

With individual teacher-scholars’ participation, REx will provide a rich and comprehensive profile of what research in “writing studies” is and is becoming. Start your entry by going to

CFP: Undergraduate Writing Majors: Fourteen Program Profiles

Posted by – March 5, 2011

Composition Forum readers who appreciated Lori Ostergaard and Greg A. Giberson’s “Unifying Program Goals: Developing and Implementing a Writing and Rhetoric Major at Oakland University” will be pleased to learn they are editing a collection which continues their research.

Call for Proposals: Undergraduate Writing Majors: Fourteen Program Profiles

Editors: Greg Giberson, Ph.D., Oakland University
Jim Nugent, Ph.D., Oakland University
Lori Ostergaard, Ph.D., Oakland University

During the 2010 CCCC convention, fifteen contributors to What We Are Becoming: Developments in Undergraduate Writing Majors (Utah State University Press, 2010) participated in a roundtable discussion about the growing interest in the writing major. At least sixty people attended the standing-room only session and almost every question posed to the panel was practical in nature, representing some variation of the question “How do we do this?” The proposed collection is conceived as a follow up to What We are Becoming and attempts to answer this very question.

The proposed collection will provide a snapshot of the major through fourteen profiles from various types of institutions (liberal arts, MA, doctoral, etc.), different programs (having varied departmental configurations, sizes, and disciplinary homes), and curricular orientations (such as writing studies, professional/technical writing, new media, creative writing, etc.). The program profiles will:

  • overview the history of the program, institution, department, etc.; describe the program and the rationale for its structure;
  • provide a narrative explaining the local contingencies that helped/hindered the program’s implementation;
  • provide insight into the deliberations, arguments, and comprises that were made in developing the program;
  • include a “Connections” section explaining where the program fits in the university and how it relates to other programs such as first-year composition, WAC, writing centers, etc.;
  • include a “Reflection” section explaining what the author(s) learned about developing, implementing, running, and revising such a program;
  • include a “Looking Forward” section discussing the future of the program; and
  • offer brief supplementary materials as necessary (such as checklists, course descriptions, etc.).

While not an exhaustive list, each chapter should address these aspects of the program thoroughly. While all institutions have their own histories, cultures, and contexts, we believe the knowledge and experiences gathered in this collection will be an indispensable resource for those who find themselves asking “How do we do this?”–whether now or in the years of growth ahead.

The editors seek 500-word proposals for chapters of 5,000 to 7,000 words in length. The deadline for proposals is May 10, 2011. Please email questions and proposals in Microsoft Word or RTF format to: