|
Articles Conference Reviews |
2008A24Johnson2007 Survey of Doctoral Programs in Rhetoric and Composition As a doctoral student doing a program research on graduate education for her dissertation, I was really looking forward to attending this session. In the conference program, the session was listed as including speakers Jason Thompson from the University of Arizona, Theresa Enos, also from the University of Arizona, and Stuart Brown, of New Mexico State University. Given the speakers and the session’s title, I knew that it would offer results from this year’s survey of doctoral programs in Rhetoric and Composition Studies, which would later be published in Rhetoric Review. As the session began however, Stuart apologized for being the only panelist in attendance, as his colleagues had not been able to make it to New Orleans for the conference. Although I was initially a little disappointed by this turn of events, the session turned out to be one of the most interesting and engaging ones I attended at the conference. After this announcement, Brown reported briefly on the results of the data he and Theresa Enos have collected this year to update Rhetoric Review’s ongoing survey of doctoral programs in rhetoric and composition. This project is the most recent iteration of the survey that began with Gary Chapman and David Tate’s survey of doctoral programs in the field, the results of which were published in the spring 1987 edition of Rhetoric Review. Among Chapman and Tate’s important findings was the fact that since 1980, the number of rhetoric and composition programs had increased from about 20 to 53. In 1993 the survey was revisited and updated by Brown and Enos (the results were published in Rhetoric Review in spring 1994), who further refined it in 2001 and again for the present 2007-2008 version of the study. This time around, 67 programs responded, thus representing almost all of the current rhetoric and composition programs in the country. Stuart Brown discussed some of the present study’s key findings, beginning with an overview providing a sense of the overall scope of the nation’s existing rhetoric and composition graduate programs. The survey found that there are currently about 1500 students and 500 faculty involved in rhetoric and composition studies at the graduate level. While some of the larger programs contain 60 or more students, there are also a number of much smaller programs with fewer than 10 students currently enrolled, a situation that Brown sees as cause for concern in terms of these programs’ long-term viability. Brown spoke only briefly, instead opting to open up the session for discussion, and a lively conversation ensued. Like most audiences at the 4C’s, this one was comprised of individuals from all ranks on the academic ladder, but, unlike many other sessions, this one provided an opportunity for attendees – from present and potential graduate students to WPA’s – to engage in a more lengthy dialogue as attendees discussed the nature and benefits of various approaches to training future rhetoric and composition scholars. Although I have no qualms per se with the traditional session format, where several speakers speak and then there is a brief period of Q&A, I found that I really enjoyed the extended discussion that this session afforded. One of the key points of contention was over whether there is a schism between rhetoric and composition. Some felt strongly that there is, while others argued vehemently against any sort of division, claiming that composition is a necessary and sensible outgrowth of rhetoric, and that therefore, they should be studied in tandem. For his part, Brown feels that there is not a division between the two, citing also the consensus of the Doctoral Consortium in Rhetoric and Composition -- a group founded in 1993 that meets yearly at the 4Cs and is dedicated to tracking the status of doctoral education in the field. Also of interest during the discussion portion of this session was the huge disparity of names that the existing rhetoric and composition graduate programs are called. In response to Brown’s invitation to list them, several in the audience provided the formal names of their programs. While some of these titles specifically included the words rhetoric and/or composition, others did not, focusing instead on literacy, new media, and various other aspects of the profession. Brown indicated that this wide variety of program titles is at least partly responsible for the fact that many, both within and outside academia, have trouble seeing rhetoric and composition as a unified field of study. Nevertheless, given the wide-ranging topics that a rhetoric and composition education can include, it is not at all surprising that there are so many iterations of programs and program emphases. Two members of the audience were currently in the process of designing new graduate programs in the field (one at UC Davis and another at an institution in Houston) so it was also interesting to hear what these new programs intend to emphasize and what their departments are planning to offer new scholars preparing to enter the profession. Inside Higher Ed reported on this session in an article published 4/1/2008, while the conference was still underway. The piece can be found at [http://insidehighered.com/news/2008/04/04/cccc], and it offers another take on the session. Overall, I found this session to be extremely interesting, informative, and engaging, and for me at least, it provided an important contextual framework for the rest of the conference. |