Writing Studies Ideation and Disciplinary Identity Notes

Ideation Framework and Session Structure

  • Methodology and Purpose:

    • Ideation sessions are structured to be fluid, unstructured, and comfortable with ambiguity to bring implicit needs, unacknowledged insights, and potential solutions to the surface.

    • The framework incorporates the Stanford D School principles of fluency and flexibility, generating a high volume and wide variety of ideas to ensure subsequent decision-making is well-informed.

    • The session alternates between small group ideation and large group synthesis to leverage collective perspectives across diverse higher education institutions.

  • Operational and Room Logistics:

    • Participants utilize slide decks, printed organizers, and online graphic organizers.

    • Microphones are muted periodically during breakout conversations to prevent audio overload for virtual attendees.

    • An overflow conference room is provided for participants experiencing chatter or sensory overload in the main space.

    • Grad student carpools facing traffic delays included students brought by Adonis, with driver coordination handled by Omar.

Data Collection and National Research Infrastructure

  • National Archival and Aggregation:

    • Designated note-takers collect artifacts to publish through the WAC Clearinghouse.

    • Current data builds upon prior ideation session findings collected in Colorado a few weeks prior.

    • A national synthesis event is planned for the following spring or summer to convene leadership and analyze aggregate data generated from ideation sessions nationwide.

  • Central Florida Group IRB Research Project:

    • Principal Investigators: Caitlin Martin and Doctor Xing (Phuong).

    • Schedule: Follow-up regional session scheduled for October; participation in the August session does not require attendance in October, nor does October require prior attendance.

    • Institutional Review Board (IRB) Protocols:

      • Advance disclosure is required by stringent IRB guidelines prior to session activities.

      • Participation is optional and managed via an post-session survey collecting demographic data and participant feedback.

      • Declining participation carries no penalty or change in session activities.

      • Artifacts from consenting participants are transferred to separate files, fully anonymized, and evaluated longitudinally to study how graphic organizer responses evolve over time.

    • Core Research Questions:

      1. How do participants describe their identities and relationships to the field?

      2. How do participants describe the field and their expected gains?

      3. How effective was the ideation session for attendees?

Disciplinary Mapping and Participant Perspectives

  • Mapping Exercise Structure:

    • Groups utilize paper post-its/markers in person or Canva whiteboard links online (accessible without logging in) to map out four quadrants:

      1. Words and ideas defining the field.

      2. Actual actions and practices performed by field practitioners.

      3. Guiding values of the discipline.

      4. Stakeholders and actors included in the work.

  • Participant Profiles and Disciplinary Values:

    • Doctor Xing (Phuong):

      • Assistant Professor of Composition and Humanities (4th year) at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.

      • Specialization: Multilingual writing and intercultural competence.

      • Scope: First-year composition, technical writing for domestic and international students, and graduate writing support workshops for the College of Aviation.

      • Values: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) integrated into pedagogy, service, and scholarship. Treats student cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic differences as valuable resources.

      • Disciplinary Vision: Desires an inclusive, pluralistic community. Advocates for an independent flagship conference and flagship journal (comparable to 4Cs / CCCC and 3Cs) operating without dependency on parental organizations.

    • Sandy Branham:

      • Associate Professor of Humanities and Communication and Associate Department Chair at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.

      • Education: PhD from UCF (University of Central Florida) in Texas Technology.

      • Research Focus: Interdisciplinary digital literacy, digital communication, pop culture representations of technology, and public technological adoption.

      • Disciplinary Vision: Prioritizes interdisciplinarity, keeping pace with technological shifts like AI without outsourcing human thought, maintaining research connections, and ensuring active shared governance.

    • Elora:

      • Master's student and Graduate Teaching Assistant (GTA) at UCF; completed a Bachelor of Arts in Writing & Rhetoric at UCF.

      • Background: Former peer tutor at the UCF Writing Center working alongside Doctor Shakino, facilitating writing groups and tutoring sessions.

    • Diamond:

      • Graduate Assistant at UCF teaching First-Year Composition (ENC 1101 in fall, ENC 1102 in spring).

      • Research Focus: Language and power, arts, pop culture, and prison literacies.

    • Juan:

      • Graduate student, tutor at the CCDM, digital media specialist, and designated table note-taker/recorder.

    • Daytona State / Embry-Riddle WAC-WID Coordinator:

      • Associate Professor of English at Daytona State / Faculty at Embry-Riddle.

      • Directs a Writing Across the Curriculum / Writing in the Disciplines (WAC/WID) professional development program, training faculty across disciplines in writing pedagogy and AI literacy.

Disciplinary Boundaries, Inclusion, and Marginalization

  • Inherent Exclusion in Disciplinary Convenings:

    • All meeting formats, modalities, and schedules implicitly exclude specific populations.

    • Disciplinary maps were evaluated to identify missing, marginalized, or excluded perspectives and examine who dictates insider/outsider boundaries.

  • Identified Marginalized and Excluded Groups:

    • Literature vs. Writing/Rhetoric Divide: Historical tension (e.g., historical exclusion experienced at MLA) leads faculty with literature PhDs teaching writing to view literature as their primary home, causing friction during disciplinary shifts.

    • Contingent and Adjunct Labor: Non-tenure-track lecturers and adjunct faculty teach a substantial proportion of writing students and generate extensive pedagogy, yet remain underrepresented in organizational leadership and ideation spaces.

    • Institutional Classifications: Disconnects persist between two-year colleges and four-year/graduate research universities.

    • Practitioners vs. Researchers: Dichotomy between high-level theoretical researchers and classroom practitioners/GTAs, requiring intentional structural pathways to include teaching-focused instructors.

    • Cross-Disciplinary Writing Teachers: Scientists, engineers, and non-humanities faculty who teach writing within their specialized domains are rarely integrated into mainstream writing studies frameworks.

    • Non-Specialist Instructors: Interdisciplinary departmental structures often utilize non-specialists (such as historians or philosophers) to teach first-year writing courses.

Defining Writing Studies: Epistemology, Terminology, and Advocacy

  • Takeaway Statement Synthesis:

    • Groups were tasked with filling in the standard disciplinary definition template: "As a group, we understand writing studies as a discipline that [BLANK], grounded in [BLANK], and accountable to [BLANK]."

  • Nomenclature and Scope Debates:

    • "Writing" vs. "Composing": The terms "composing" or "all forms of writing" are preferred to capture non-textual compositions, including video, audio, digital media, spoken speech, and pre-writing cognitive stages.

    • Avoiding "Communication": The term