Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol. 17, No. 1 (2019)
A Practitioner’s Inquiry into Professionalization: When We Does Not Equal Collaboration
Georganne Nordstrom
University of Hawai'i at Mānoa
georgann@hawaii.edu
AbstractThis pilot study details how a Practitioner Inquiry methodology was implemented as both a practice and research heuristic in our center. I explain how I draw from the foundational tenets of Practitioner Inquiry (Nordstrom) to foster collaboration among consultants and between consultants and the director in the running of our center. At the same time, I employ Practitioner Inquiry as a framework to produce Replicable, Aggregable, Data-supported (RAD) research to determine the efficacy of this approach in terms of consultant learning and their professionalization through qualitative and quantitative discourse analysis on consultants’ end-of-semester anonymous evaluations of their experiences working in the center. Recent scholarship points to the potential benefits that working in writing centers facilitates for consultants (Kail et al.), and represents our centers as pedagogical spaces that engender consultant learning and professionalization. This article furthers this work through an empirical investigation of the less examined subtopic of the director-consultant relationship in the context of the administration of the center. In addition, it acts as a case study that illustrates the efficacy of Practitioner Inquiry as a methodology for both practice and research.
When perusing writing center research published over the years, it quickly becomes apparent that a significant body of our literature focuses on consultant training and the relationship between the consultant and the writer. Indeed, this work has been fundamental not only for informing best practices for consultant training, but also in giving us language for talking about the services we provide to the student writers who visit our centers and, by extension, to our academic institutions. Comparatively less attention, however, has been paid to the relationship between the administrator of the center and consultants and the ways consultants benefit from their work experiences beyond the specific act of tutoring. The increasing attention on writing centers as pedagogical spaces that support consultant learning and professionalization, however, has laid a foundation for inquiry into what consultants gain from participating in the administration of the center. Harvey Kail et al.’s groundbreaking online project, The Peer Writing Tutor Alumni Research Project is dedicated to examining what students get out of their “education and experience as peer writing tutors.” In “Publications about Tutor Alumni Research and Tutor Learning,” Kail et al. identify fifty-six publications that, in different ways, address consultant learning. While a majority of these articles provide insights into the skills consultants gain through the actual act of tutoring, several begin to explore the different skills consultants acquire through engagement in administration.
Building on this work, in this article I discuss how I applied a Practitioner Inquiry methodology to the director-consultant work relationship to foster collaboration in the management of our center, and at the same time, used Practitioner Inquiry as a framework for research to produce Replicable, Aggregable, Data-supported (RAD) research on the efficacy of this approach. This pilot study details the collaborative approaches and practices implemented over the course of one academic year in the administration of our center. In terms of benefits realized by consultants, the focus encompasses center management and consultant training, but not necessarily actual consultant-writer interactions (although arguably it is impossible to separate these). In this article, I will discuss the ways emphasizing the consultants’ knowledge and experiences in the creation of a shared vision for our center fostered collaboration and ownership of the center. To determine the efficacy of this approach in terms of consultant learning and their professionalization, I conduct discourse analysis on consultants’ end-of-semester anonymous evaluations of their experiences working in the center. With this study, I hope to move beyond a narrow focus on collaboration in the tutor-writer relationship. I hope to demonstrate that implementing practices that enhance collaboration in the director-consultant relationship yields positive, practical results, which add depth to our understandings of writing centers as collaborative and pedagogical spaces that support consultant learning and professionalization.
Understanding Centers as a Pedagogical Space for Consultants
While writing center literature examining consultant learning makes up a relatively small portion of writing center scholarship overall, there has been sustained attention to this important topic since the 1970s. The list of works included in Kailey et al.’s “Publications about Tutor Alumni Research and Tutor Learning” begins in 1978 and provides a comprehensive representation of scholarship that contributes to our understanding of what consultants gain from their work.¹ Moreover, looking at publication dates points to increasing interest in this area of research: among the 56 publications listed, 36 (63%) were published since 2000, and 25 of those 36 (69%) were published since 2005: eight in the Writing Lab Newsletter (WLN); three in The Writing Center Journal (WCJ); one in Praxis: A Writing Center Journal (Praxis); eight in anthologies or books; two in journals not specific to writing center studies; one in a conference proceeding; one is a dissertation, and one is a website. To better understand how consultant learning is being treated in on our research, I focus on 12 articles published since 2005 (one not included on Kail et al.’s list) in the three journals specifically focused on writing center studies: the WLN, WCJ, and Praxis.
Among the eight articles that have been published in WLN, three focus on what consultants gain from actual tutoring (Kedia; Monroe; Dinitz and Kiedaisch), two look specifically at the transferability of skills acquired as consultants for future teachers or in other jobs (Whalen; Hammerbacher et al.; Gerald), and one examines teachers who work in centers (Moneyhun and Hanlon-Baker).
While several of these articles mention administrative roles, only one of the eight WLN articles focuses solely on the learning and skills acquired from such work. In “Shaping Careers in the Writing Center,” Kathleen Welsch “examine[s] how writing centers contribute to the professional learning experience of our student staff,” focusing on five areas: administration, public relations, client relations, writing, and personal professional development (2). Welsch discusses the creation of administrative, public relations, and client relations “jobs” in her center that were filled by consultants and provides brief anecdotes from graduate assistants who worked in these positions who attest to the positive experience and skill sets gained. In light of the positive outcomes Welsch and her team experienced, the article ends with Welsch advocating center practitioners to explore such options in their own centers.
The three articles in WCJ that address consultant learning examine different aspects of tutoring and the transfer of skills: Bradley Hughes et al. provide an overview of the skills 126 former consultants indicate their working as peer consultants facilitated; Emily Isaacs and Ellen Kolba discuss pre-service teachers working in high school centers; and Kenneth Bruffee notes important skills gained from consultants teaching other consultants, briefly mentioning administrative skills among these.
In Naomi Silver et al.’s Praxis article, “From Peer Tutors to Writing Center Colleagues,” the authors discuss the implementation of a summer internship made available to two consultants and how the increased responsibilities in terms of training and center oversight provided an opportunity for “tutors to move beyond self interest and gain a more holistic perspective on professional work.” And, while not specifically addressing consultant learning (and not on Kail et al.’s list), Kelli Prejean’s Praxis article “Reaching in, Reaching Out: A Tale of Administration Experimentation and the Process of Administrative Inclusion,” details the creation of several administrative positions in her center and how working with her consultants as a team enabled her to accomplish things they would not have had they adhered to a director-consultant paradigm wherein administrative work is solely/mostly the responsibility of the director.
Collectively, this body of scholarship points to the potential for consultant learning that working in writing centers facilitates; it represents our centers as pedagogical spaces that engender consultant learning and subsequently professionalization in addition to providing support for writers across our campuses. This article furthers this work through an empirical investigation of the less examined subtopic of the director-consultant relationship in the context of the administration of the center. Moreover, it acts as a case study that illustrates the efficacy of Practitioner Inquiry as a methodology for both practice and research.
Methodology
The Practitioner Inquiry model is particularly appealing to me as a writing center practitioner because it is designed to inform both praxis and research. In Practitioner Inquiry, a practitioner also assumes the role of researcher, conducting research in their own location of practice with their professional context and the practices enacted therein being the subjects of inquiry (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, Inquiry as Stance). Moreover, it employs a systematic approach that produces RAD research with clearly identified methods (Nordstrom). In engendering research through their practice, a practitioner’s “stance” is foundational to this model. Marilyn Cochran-Smith and Susan Lytle call it “inquiry as stance” (Inquiry as Stance), and Sarah Liggett et al. name it “reflexive stance,” but each refers to practitioners developing “a worldview and habit of mind” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, viii)—a stance, if you will—of continually reflecting on their work, where and how it is performed, then conducting research in order to improve efficacy in terms of educational outcomes.
An essential characteristic of Practitioner Inquiry, and a foundational concept in this project, is collaboration. Collaboration is one of, if not the key term associated with writing center work, and as with most writing center practitioners, it informs my work in multiple ways. I am interested in reinforcing collaboration as part of the tutoring environment in ways that move beyond the consultants’ relationship with student-writers to include the director-consultant relationship. To elucidate my understanding of collaboration, I draw from Indigenous (Smith) and feminist (Kirsch and Ritchie) methodologies. Both Linda Tuhiwai Smith and Gesa Kirsch and Joy Ritchie argue that for a project to be truly collaborative, all participants’ interests and ways of knowing must be taken into account and all participants should realize benefits. In other words, for me to determine if our center is collaborative, the consultants must have input in and benefit from their work in ways that are equitable with my input and benefit. By employing collaboration this way, it means that in addition to informing how we, the consultants and I, work together in our center, it also means using collaboration as a defining term to assess benefits realized by all parties.
The other key concept examined in this project is consultant professionalization. In defining professionalization, I looked to general career-advice sources as consultants may pursue a variety of jobs both within and outside of academia. Consistent in several definitions of professionalism is the emphasis on attainment of “specialized knowledge” (MindTools) or “competence” (Joseph). No matter how it is categorized, discussions of professionalization point to a commitment to, or investment in, developing and improving expertise to enhance job performance and improve the work environment. Professionalization thus has implications for confidence (confidence is specifically mentioned in both sources cited here)—particularly in the way attainment of specialized knowledge can facilitate an individual claiming agency over that knowledge in achievement of the goals (i.e., services provided) of a particular workplace. So, for the purposes of this project, in the data I would be looking for evidence of investment, confidence/agency, and specific learning outcomes in relation to the work consultants perform in the center.
The broad research problem I focus on is the need to further document the ways consultants benefit from their writing center work; however, the central research questions for this project also need to account for the intersection between collaboration and professionalization. Foregrounding the conceptual frameworks outlined above, I designed the following two central research questions:
Was a collaborative environment achieved in the writing center as evidenced by consultants indicating they experienced: a) investment in the work and work environment; b) agency in interactions and the work of the center; and c) learning/acquisition of skills?
Did employing a collaborative approach to our work have a positive impact on consultants’ professionalization?
Following the work of Matthew Miles and Michael Huberman on qualitative research methodologies, John Creswell notes the need to articulate subquestions that “narrow the focus of the study but leave open the questioning” (129-130). I thus identified two sets of subquestions, one to inform each practice and research. When doing this, I remained particularly focused on how I was using collaboration as a frame to determine what all participants, the consultants and myself, brought to and gained from our work and the equity between the same.
The first set of five subquestions were designed for inquiry into collaboration in our praxis:
What sources of knowledge do the consultants bring to the table?
How am I benefiting from the work consultants do?
How are the consultants benefiting?
What is the benefit to the center and those who use it?
Are the benefits fairly equitable or are they skewed to favor one party?
I then articulated four additional subquestions to guide the research and provide a means to capture consultants’ professionalization, from their perspective, vis-a-vis the collaborative framework described above:
Do the consultants experience the writing center as a collaborative space?
Do the consultants indicate they have agency in the running of the center?
Do the consultants indicate they are learning skills?
Overall, do the findings suggest a correlation between a collaborative work environment and professionalization?
Thus, in this study, Practitioner Inquiry is employed as a framework for praxis to foster a multi-directional collaborative relationship between the teacher-director and the student-consultants to increase consultants’ agency. At the same time, Practitioner Inquiry informs the research design, particularly the goal of producing RAD research to document the efficacy of the approaches implemented in terms of professionalization by foregrounding data triangulation, systematicity, and recursivity in data collection, analysis, and presentation (Nordstrom).
Collaboration as Professionalization: Interventions
To better capture the approaches initiated to facilitate collaboration as defined in the previous section by the first set of subquestions, I offer here a brief explanation of the practices I implemented as director of our writing center. Throughout the discussion, I will add in parenthesis Q1, Q2, etc. to refer to the specific subquestion a particular approach or practice addresses.
During the period data was collected for this pilot study, seven graduate assistants were assigned to the center each semester: five from English and two from Second Language Studies. Undergraduate consultants are either simultaneously enrolled in a senior-level “Teaching Composition” course and, as part of the course practicum, work five hours per week as paid consultants; or have completed the course and been invited to continue as consultants. I refer to consultants who have worked in the center for more than one semester as “experienced,” and those concurrently enrolled in the course as “new.”
My first “job” as writing center director was to physically bring our center back to the English Department from the Learning Assistance Center, where it had been relocated several years prior. The move provided the perfect opportunity for a “fresh start.” I began envisioning ours as a “center for writers” rather than a writing center. I wanted to create a space where writers could come even if they weren’t working with a consultant, where they could book tables for a writing group, or just drop in to talk with other writers. Rebecca Jackson and Jackie Grutsch McKinney capture the veritable cornucopia of resources provided by writing centers that go beyond tutoring, and scholarship and listserv discussions both indicate that writing centers, in general, are “active in being resource centers for teachers and students” (Harris qtd. in Threadgill 20). Following the example of other writing centers, I also wanted to expand the services and supports we offer.
When entertaining the possibilities, it was apparent to me that my position as faculty and director distanced me in certain ways from the student body such initiatives are meant to serve. I knew I could greatly benefit from the experiences and knowledge my staff brought as both consultants and students. I wanted to articulate an approach for working with the consultants that reinforced their investment in the center and facilitated a collaborative work relationship between all of us. I believe strongly that a work environment built on these premises would nurture the invaluable resource that is our consultants.
To prepare the new writing center space, I, like so many other writing center administrators, attended to the physical nature of the center: I cleaned and brought in a couch, tables, chairs, and plants; set up a coffee and tea station; put up wall hangings; joined the listserv; subscribed to (inexpensive) appointment software (not really knowing what I needed); set up weekly consultant meetings and implemented a training plan that included readings, presentations, and time for consultants to share. The goal was to create a place where students felt welcome to hang out, working under the assumption that if students were “in” a space that was positively associated with writing, it could translate into positive relationships with writing.
Every modification was intended to engender a collaborative, supportive space, but so much of this work took place prior to my actually meeting any consultants. I attempted to counter my autonomy over these decisions by actively seeking the consultants’ advice on the physical space, training, and session protocols once the semester began. The experienced consultants were quick to offer suggestions and provide input, and after the semester started, all changes, no matter how seemingly trivial, were discussed as a group. Maintaining transparency in terms of information proved to be key in establishing a collaborative environment. These efforts informed my practitioner “stance” and set the tone for our interactions as is evidenced in one consultant’s comment in the end-of semester evaluations: “[The Director] always discussed with us matters of importance (regarding policy and related updates) and went out of her way to instill a sense of agency and authority in us.”²
Knowing there was more work than I could possibly do alone, I recruited my first Assistant Director. This student had worked as a consultant longer than any of the others and thus brought a lot of experience and knowledge to this new position (Q1). Creating this administrative position that drew on the consultant’s knowledge reflects the Practitioner Inquiry position that assumes “those who work in a particular educational context … have significant knowledge about those situations” (Cochran-Smith and Lytle, Inquiry as Stance 42). The Assistant Director not only had lengthy tutoring experience, but was also a student at our institution, and, as such, possessed an understanding of the student body that differed from my own (Q1). We collaboratively agreed on the parameters of the job so that it met both of our needs and expectations. In terms of benefits: they would be graduating at the end of the semester and an administrative position would be a nice addition to their CV, so the benefits to both of us were material and immediate (Q2, Q3, and Q5).³ The addition of this position became a significant step in characterizing our consultants as both experts and professionals, who have the skills and maturity—both academic and professional—to take on administrative roles and responsibilities in the center.
Cognizant of their workload, I maintained a heightened vigilance concerning benefits to me outweighing benefits to the consultants (Q5). As I actively explored ways to expand opportunities for the consultants to have input in administration so that they could gain transferable skills and experience, I was cautious of exploiting them. I proceeded, informed by Practitioner Inquiry’s concept, with “ways of knowing in communities,” because of its focus on “the conjoined efforts of teachers and students as inquirers [as a means to alter] the relations of power in the schools and universities” (Cochran-Smith and Lytle, “Teacher Research” 18). This pedagogical stance aligns with Andrea Lunsford’s “idea of a writing center informed by a theory of knowledge as socially constructed. . . that presents a challenge to the institution of higher education” (5). With its focus on student empowerment, incorporating this tenet into my stance helped ensure I was not exploiting my consultants’ desire to perform well in their jobs when presented with additional roles. This was and still is a tricky negotiation. The only way to really know whether someone is feeling “pushed in a direction” rather than “offered welcome opportunities” is to know—or observe—that they feel comfortable declining. I frequently asked the consultants in groups and individually if they had any concerns or felt overworked; however, I knew this didn’t entirely ensure candid responses. The end-of-semester evaluations thus became an important temperature check as did all eligible consultants requesting to continue to work in the center over the subsequent two semesters.
I continually tried to identify ways to add to my administrative support that created opportunities for the consultants to claim agency in the space. The consultants worked on mini-projects—such as updating our information flyer and the website, re-defining our mission statement, and articulating learning outcomes for both writers who visit the center and consultants who work there—while I provided oversight. I was very careful not to undo or redo anyone’s work; changes were discussed and negotiated, with the assumption that everyone brought expertise and knowledge to the conversation (Q1). I found that working with my consultants from this collaborative stance correlated to the consultants increasingly recognizing areas wherein they felt comfortable claiming agency. One student wrote in the end-of-semester evaluation, “[The Director] allows her employees room to grow and make decisions.” And, another commented:
I was pretty darn satisfied with the amount of trust [the Director] had in all of us, which translated to a healthy amount of autonomy and independence she afforded her staff. Though she was always clear and forthright about her expectations, [she] invariably treated us as emerging professionals capable of handling things well enough on our own.
If, as this statement suggests, the consultants were benefiting through academic maturation, both the center and I were also (Q2, Q3, and Q4). The center was bustling with activity from 9-5 every day. Indeed, that first year, we facilitated almost 2,000 appointments with students representing 123 different disciplines across campus. My colleagues often commented on the positive impact of the center, and, as a pre-tenured faculty, having this work recognized was a great benefit to me professionally (Q2).
In line with understanding our center as a pedagogical space that provides the consultants with a foundation in composition and writing center pedagogy (and now administration) (Q3), I next wanted to explore ways the experienced consultants could support the new consultants to add to their pedagogical experiences. Therefore, when it came time to incorporate the new consultants into the schedule, I turned to my experienced consultants for help with the orientation process. They are, after all, a significant source of knowledge when it comes to the everyday running of the center; in addition, some of them have worked in management and/or know quite a bit about training (Q1). Another key concern of mine was establishing a sense of camaraderie amongst all the consultants, similar to what had been established amongst the experienced consultants and myself.
We assigned each new consultant an experienced consultant “liaison” as their point of contact (Q1). Not only did this help me tremendously in the work of initiating the new consultants into the center (Q2), it worked to build a staff that became incredibly close and protective over each other. One consultant wrote on an evaluation, “Aside from the pleasure of talking to students about their writing, I really like the camaraderie the consultants had with each other.” In the weekly meetings, which only experienced consultants attended, it was refreshing to hear how quickly the experienced consultants got to “know” the new consultants—they knew if they were having difficulties and frequently commented on tutoring styles. It became apparent to me that the experienced consultants were observing the new consultants, reflecting on their practices, and learning from them (Q3). I began to see our center as a multi-directional learning environment. It is well-documented that consultants acquire a tremendous skill set from tutoring, but consultants, in this case, were learning not only from working with and observing other consultants, but, as Bruffee points out, from teaching other consultants.
With this basic foundation for working together in place, we decided to pursue some of our other goals for the center. Mindful of current scholarship on the robust range of services offered at other centers (Jackson and Grutsch McKinny; Threadgill), I raised the idea of creating workshops that the consultants could administer. I introduced the idea saying something like: “I have no idea what such a workshop can or should look like, I have no preconceived notions, I am open to all suggestions, who wants to take the project on?” Several of the consultants immediately expressed interest. What transpired next was nothing short of amazing, not just in terms of the workshops produced, but also in terms of the ways these consultants engaged in this activity. What I observed as my consultants tackled this project suggests that having autonomy over a project fosters investment and adds another layer of skills to what consultants already learn from the more traditional aspects of the job (Q3). The consultants had to report each week on progress to the whole group. Several of the consultants had a unique knowledge base to draw from as they had been or were currently course-embedded peer mentors in First Year Writing (FYW) courses. While I work with peer mentors when I teach FYW, many of them had worked with several teachers, and thus brought a wide array of ideas on how to best serve the widest group of students (Q1).
At the foundation of Practitioner Inquiry is advocacy for collaboration with all participants and providing opportunities for the consultants to use their knowledge and implement their ideas align with this basic tenet. Articulating a collaborative framework for both the director–consultant and consultant-writer relationship creates the possibility for knowledge building on multiple levels. The consultants were drawing from their experiences working in the center and synthesizing that with their experiences as mentors in FYW courses, all of which was fostered by continual discussion of scholarship. These new roles that drew from their work as consultants and mentors and included leadership activities engendered professionalization in different ways than only tutoring did. Two of the consultants took the lead on the workshop project: they scaffolded the project into discrete tasks and asked each member of our group to work on one item. In addition to building a workshop template, they organized meetings, incorporated everyone’s ideas, and accomplished this work in a way that, remarkably, increased the aura of collaboration in the center. In the evaluations, one consultant suggested that the workshop projects “[made] us feel like we all played an important part in a successful center,” and another stated, “I am certain that all consultants felt that we were contributing.”
By the end of that first year, there were two titled positions: Assistant Director and Workshop Coordinator. Assigning titles may seem a small thing, but, according to my staff, it changed the way they understand their roles in the center. One consultant commented:
I must admit that when I was assigned the title of Workshop Coordinator, it helped me to understand the responsibilities that I had been given. I forced myself to take a more involved approach to being an administrator, and taking an active role in delegating responsibilities and effectively supporting the other consultants in their assignments.
The titled positions—which at the time had no clear job descriptions—somehow pushed the students to perform in ways they had not previously. One consultant related, “I can say with confidence that the assigning of titles along with additional duties only enhanced our prospects as emerging professionals… These duties required skills and habits that will serve me quite well in both academic and non-academic professional settings.”
Triangulation: Quantitative Data
In the previous section, for anecdotal purposes I included several excerpts from the end-of-semester consultant evaluations; however, selecting particular qualitative data to demonstrate positive response to a particular approach allows for a certain bias in the representation of data. To counter this bias, I triangulate these excerpts with a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the same evaluation responses. This data consists of answers to two end-of-semester writing center evaluations (Fall and Spring) made up of four questions written and administered by the Assistant Director. The following questions were designed prior to the inception of this project, and not for the specific purpose of collecting data to address the previously noted research questions:
Reflecting upon the Writing Center meetings you participated in, the supervision you received, and your overall work experience in the Center this semester, please identify and discuss the areas you were satisfied with.
Please identify and discuss the areas you would change (in other words, improve, eliminate, etc.) and, if possible, how you would change them.
Please identify and discuss areas, topics, or issues that you wish were addressed or addressed more during the meetings.
Please provide any additional comments about the training and supervision you received from [the director] this semester.
For this project, seven experienced consultants are the “participants” from whom data was gathered to evaluate the approach documented here. I focus on these consultants because they all worked in the center for an entire year; worked twice as many hours weekly as new consultants; and as the new consultants were simultaneously enrolled in the corresponding practicum course for at least one of the semesters, they filled out a different end-of-semester evaluation in adherence to departmental protocol.
For the fall semester, all seven consultants responded to the evaluation; however, inconsistently across questions: seven consultants responded to questions one and two, and six consultants responded to questions three and four. In the spring semester, again all seven consultants responded to the evaluation, but, also again, inconsistently: seven consultants responded to questions one and four, and six consultants responded to questions two and three. Table 1 (see Appendix) reflects a breakdown of responses for the two semesters. Across both semesters, there were a total of 52 responses in 14 evaluations. All responses were included as data. I approached the analysis of the data in two ways, both which involve discourse analysis, to get at the extent to which collaboration, agency, learning, and investment were realized in terms of practice and benefits:
I conducted qualitative discourse analysis by coding the written responses for themes
To triangulate these findings, I quantified usage of collective pronouns—we, us, our—and examined their use in terms of inclusivity/exclusivity.
In my approach to coding the data at the sentence and phrase level, my goal was to identify “repetitive patterns of action and consistencies in human affairs” (Saldaña 5), in terms of the consultant’s experience of our center. Following both Creswell and Johnny Saldaña’s recommended processes, I first read through all fifty-two responses to get a general sense of the information, highlighting sentences or phrases that caught my attention in the context of the study. I then created a table with the sentences or clauses and went through them to identify in vivo codes—codes taken directly from what a participant wrote. I employed an “Affective Coding Method,” as this method “investigate[s] subjective qualities of human experience (e.g., emotions, values, conflicts, judgments) by directly acknowledging and naming those experiences” (Saldaña 86), which seemed the method most appropriate to uncover consultant’s perceptions about and reactions to their work. I then condensed codes. Except where meaning was obviously deviant, all forms of a word encompassed one code; for example, independent, independence, independently were grouped together within the code “independent.” I practiced recursivity throughout, sometimes recoding and recategorizing as I pondered different implications of written responses, codes, and categories
Table 2 (see Appendix) lists the in vivo codes that were grouped together, the corresponding number of times a code appeared, and the category that was created for the grouping. When grouping, I looked for codes that addressed my original research questions and the subquestions, specifically investment, confidence/agency, skills acquisition/learning, and, the important overarching variable, collaboration. It is important to note that when considering the number of times a listed word appeared, only instances that aligned with actual consultant experience were counted. For example, “Open” was counted when referring to “open discussion,” “open for feedback,” but not for “open the center earlier.” Since I had decided to use in vivo coding, if a meaning was vague or unclear, I left it out of my count.
The naming of the categories for Group 1 and 2 was rather straightforward: the cluster of codes in Group 1 represent behaviors and experiences that suggest consultants having Agency. For Group 2, the words all point to consultants being supported in some way, so I named the category Support. (Important to note here as it relates to the discussion of inclusive and exclusive we that follows is that the agent doing the support is me, the director; so, the director encouraged, nurtured, supported the consultants). Group 3 became the category Investment. The codes included in this group were taken from statements in which the consultants made explicit suggestions for training or administration, with 11 suggestions applicable to training and five to administration. The feature of professionalization operationalized for this this study is “a commitment to, or investment in, developing and improving expertise to enhance job performance and improve the work environment” (see pp. 5-6). I posit that making suggestions for training and administration reflect investment in the workplace and a desire to improve job performance, both elements of professionalization as defined here. Group 4 was labeled Collaboration, as this is a primary theme in this study, and these words/phrases suggest collaboration. Lastly, as part of the collaborative approach includes ensuring all participants benefit and because in the evaluations consultants specifically (and without unsolicitation) identified what they learned, Learning was identified as the last category
The categories are all operationalized, either directly or indirectly, in the subquestions informing this study:
Do the consultants experience the writing center as a collaborative space?
Do the consultants indicate they have agency in the running of the center?
Do the consultants indicate they are learning skills?
Overall, do the findings suggest a correlation between a collaborative work environment and professionalization?
Before addressing the categories with the highest and lowest number of references, Support (33) and Collaboration (7), I will first discuss the three categories with relatively similar numbers of references (Agency 16; Investment, 14; Learning, 12) in relation to questions two, three, and four. Unsolicited by the questions, consultants consistently mentioned that they felt they could exercise agency in the space whether literally through decision making or having a sense of growing confidence. That Agency was referenced on average more than once per evaluation (14 total evaluations, seven each semester), suggests that consultants felt they did have agency to some extent. The evaluation questions similarly did not specifically ask about consultants’ learning; however, almost all consultants addressed specific things they learned across both semesters. The overt acknowledgment that they were learning and acquiring skills contextualize the center as a pedagogical space for consultants and indicates they realized a benefit to their work. This acquisition of skills also points to professional development in the context of how the term is defined here. In terms of the Investment category, to be fair, one of the evaluation questions specifically asks for consultant’s suggestions, although the question did not give any direction for these suggestions. Overwhelmingly, consultants offered suggestions on training, and to lesser degree on administration. As such, these suggestions imply the consultants’ investment in their own improvement through training that enables them to better do their jobs.
Overall, I believe the findings point to adequate evidence that consultants felt they had agency, showed a level of investment through articulation of ways to expand training, and that they were actively learning skills that enabled them to perform better—outcomes all aligned with professionalization. These characteristics are also used to evaluate “collaboration” as articulated in the first central research question, as there is an indication a collaborative environment was achieved. Interestingly, however, collaboration was not alluded to as frequently in the evaluations. To further examine collaboration, I now turn to the Support and Collaboration categories.
Support had double the number of references compared to all other categories. Considering this academic year was the first year I was director and therefore the first year any of the consultants had worked with me, and indeed several of the consultants’ first time working in a center, I see this as a positive outcome. I should be providing support in terms of both soft (confidence, agency) and hard (specific tutoring strategies) skills. Moreover, I am the director, and therefore while achieving a collaborative environment is key for me, especially in that I believe a collaborative environment fosters consultants’ professional development, I still need to provide the model and direction—at least until consultants acquire enough experience and grounding in the scholarship to claim more agency in their own development. Interestingly, direct references to collaboration were fewer than in any other category. The extent to which Support was referenced and collaboration was not has implications for understanding how collaboration was enacted in the center, a topic I explore in the following discussion of the collective pronoun we as inclusive and exclusive.
To more fully capture the extent to which collaboration was realized and to provide a data set to triangulate the findings discussed above, I conducted quantitative discourse analysis at the word and sentence level and compared uses of the collective pronouns (we, our, us) to the singular I. Table 3 (see Appendix) presents the number of times each pronoun was used and the ratio of plural pronoun usage to singular. I further examined uses of we in light of linguistics research that complicates the use of we in terms of how it constructs collectivity. Joanne Scheibman notes, “First person non-singular expressions reveal ways in which speakers align themselves with other individuals and groups in discourse. These uses also draw attention to the types of collectivities participants routinely identify within a given language community” (23). Specifically, research on we usage articulates “grammatical distinctions between the inclusive and exclusive” (24): Inclusivity is frequently represented through present tense predicates or use of modals (can, could, may, might, must, ought to, shall, should, will, and would) and exclusivity through past tense predicates (24). The numerical data below the dotted line in the “# of times we is used” column in Table 3 represents the number of times and corresponding percentage we appeared with past tense predicates, which would suggest exclusivity.
After examining how we is used in the evaluations in light of the linguistic scholarship on we, I identified two uses of we: 1. an inclusive we referring to the consultants and me, the director; and 2. an exclusive we that refers to only the consultants, separate from me. The data indicates that overall plural pronoun usage is close to 80% compared to the number of times consultants invoked a singular I, suggesting that the consultants do align with a group; however, examining we in terms of inclusivity and exclusivity complicates this finding. Consultants overwhelmingly employed an exclusive use of we (68%), suggesting that the we excluded the addressee (Scheibman 24), which in this case, would be me, the director.
These findings are particularly interesting in terms of applications and claims of collaboration in writing centers. In this particular case, the data suggests that efforts to facilitate a collaborative environment were realized, but not in the full extent intended. If the consultants’ use of we is representative of their experience working in the center and an indication of the collectivity they align themselves most frequently with, then they often see me, the director as apart from that group. This finding aligns with the earlier discussion of the Support category. I do not necessarily see this outcome as negative: I am the director after all, and I should be both providing support and training to the consultants. However, these findings do complicate claims of collaboration—in particular, the extent to which a collaborative environment was achieved between the director and the consultants. Moreover, that 30% of the time the inclusive we is used could point to a shift from consultants aligning themselves mostly with only other consultants to seeing all of us as one group. This finding, in particular, would be interesting to track over time as consultants work in a center longer to determine if the ratio shifts to favor the inclusive we.
Overall, in terms of the central research questions discussed, the data gathered from the open-ended evaluation questions indicate that a collaborative environment was achieved, although perhaps not in the way I expected. Consultants noted ways they benefited from their experience working in the center, and as indicated by their suggestions for training and policy, were invested in their work, both which also point to professionalization. The data does not draw an explicit connection between collaboration and professionalization, although a correlation is implied. The collaborative approach to running the center provided space for the consultants to claim agency, and this arguably led to their feeling comfortable enough to make suggestions for improvement. It does seem that the consultants see themselves as being a part of a distinct group separate from me. I think this is both productive and points to the ways practices can be shaped going forward to facilitate a next all-inclusive level of collaboration.
Conclusion: Next Steps
End-of-semester evaluations, such as the ones I quoted in the previous section, are a valid form of data for assessing whether Practitioner Inquiry is a viable framework that supports both collaboration and research in the writing center; however, it is only one form of data, and in this case, has been used to evaluate only one year and one set of consultants. To determine the efficacy of the practices I discuss here in terms of professionalization, more data needs to be collected and outcomes need to be documented over time. The next phase of this project would therefore require further operationalizing of the term professionalization specifically in terms of collaboration, continued documentation vis-a-vis consultant evaluations of practices for at least one additional year, as well as the implementation of an assessment tool designed to gather feedback specific to the assignation of administrative roles in the center.
When we talk about collaboration in writing center pedagogy, much of the focus has been on the consultant-writer relationship. My hope is that the research presented here addresses the increasing interest in what has been a relatively under-examined, and potentially highly impactful, outcome of writing center work—consultant learning. After all, recasting our centers as not only providing a service that supports writers across our campuses, but as a pedagogical space that provides consultants with training and skills that benefit them in careers both in and out of academia, elevates the work we do in significant ways. Specifically, I assert that implementing practices that enhance collaboration in the director-consultant relationship adds depth to the collaborative nature of the center and ultimately has implications for consultant learning. In this study, Practitioner Inquiry informed practices that created space for us to incorporate the consultants’ wide array of skills and knowledge, and also provided a model for assessing and theorizing these practices that align with both writing center and RAD research, making it an ideal framework for conducting research in the writing center.
Notes
I would like to acknowledge and thank Harvery Kail, Paula Gillespie, and Bradley Hughes for making this rich resource available.
Although I use gender-neutral pronouns in this article, excerpts from student evaluations appear verbatim, and pronoun usage remains as originally written by the students.
Following their graduation, this consultant went on to secure a job as a writing center director.
Works Cited
Bruffee, Kenneth. A. “What Being A Writing Peer Tutor Can Do for You.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 28, no. 2, 2008, 5-10.
Cochran-Smith, Marilyn, and Susan Lytle. Inquiry as Stance: Practitioner Research for the Next Generation. Teachers College Press: 2009.
---. “The Teacher Research Movement: The Next Decade.” Educational Researcher, vol. 28, no. 15, 1999, 15-25.
Creswell, John. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage Publications, 2009.
Dinitz, Susan and Jean Kiedaisch. “Tutoring Writing as Career Development.” The Writing Lab Newsletter, vol. 34, no. 3, 2009, 1-5.
Gerald, Amy S. “Back to the Center: A Former Tutor Reflects.” The Writing Lab Newsletter, vol. 33, no. 8, 2009, 11-13.
Hammerbacher, Maggie, et al. “The Road Less Traveled: English Education Majors Applying Practice and Pedagogy.” The Writing Lab Newsletter, vol. 30, no. 8, 2006, 14-16.
Hughes, Bradley, et al. “What They Take with Them: Findings from the Peer Writing Tutor Alumni Research Project.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 30, no. 2, 2010, 12-46.
Isaacs, Emily and Ellen Kolba. “Mutual Benefits: Pre-Service Teachers and Public School Students in the Writing Center.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 29, no. 2, 2009, 52-74.
Jackson, Rebecca. and Jackie Grutsch McKinney. “Beyond Tutoring: Mapping the Invisible Landscape of Writing Center Work.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, vol. 9, no. 1, 2012, www.praxisuwc.com/jackson-mckinney-91. Accessed 23 July 2018.
Joseph, Chris. "10 Characteristics of Professionalism." Small Business - Chron.com, 27 June 2018, smallbusiness.chron.com/10-characteristics-professionalism-708.html. Accessed 8 Feb. 2019.
Kail, Harvey, et al. The Peer Writing Tutor Alumni Research Project. 2018, www.writing.wisc.edu/pwtarp. Accessed 27 July 2018.
Kedia, Soma. “Everything I Needed to Know about Life I Learned at the Writing Center.” The Writing Lab Newsletter, vol. 31, no. 7, 2007, 13-15.
Kirsch, Gesa and Joy Ritchie. “Beyond the Personal: Theorizing a Politics of Location in Composition Research.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 46, no. 1, Feb. 1995, 7-29.
Liggett, Sarah, et al. “Mapping Knowledge-Making in Writing Center Research: A Taxonomy of Methodologies.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 31, no. 2, 2011, 50-88.
Lunsford, Andrea. “Collaboration, Control, and the Idea of a Writing Center.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 16, no. 4-5, 1991-1992, 3-10.
Miles, Matthew B. and A. Michael Huberman. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods. Sage Pub, 1994.
Mindtools Content Team. “Professionalism: Developing this Vital Characteristic.” Mindtools, Essential Skills for an Excellent Career, 2019, www.mindtools.com/pages/article/professionalism.htm. Accessed 8 Feb. 2019.
Moneyhun, Clyde and Patti Hanlon-Baker. “Tutoring Teachers.” The Writing Lab Newsletter, vol. 36, no. 9-10, 2012 1-5.
Monroe, Meghan. “Reflection: How the Writing Center Rekindled My Passion and Purpose to Teach.” The Writing Lab Newsletter, vol. 31, no. 6, 2007, 14-15.
Nordstrom, Georganne. “Practitioner Inquiry: Articulating a Model for RAD Research in the Writing Center.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 35, no. 1, 2015, 87-116.
Prejean, Kelli. “Reaching in, Reaching out: A Tale of Administration Experimentation and the Process of Administrative Inclusion.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, vol. 7, no 2, 2010, www.praxisuwc.com/prejean-72. Accessed 27 July 2018.
Saldaña, Johnny. Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Sage Publications, 2009.
Scheibman, Joanne. “Referentiality, Predicate Patterns, and Functions of We-Utterances in American English Interactions.” Constructing Collectivity: ʻWe’ across Languages and Contexts. Edited by Theodossia-Soula Pavlidou, John Benjamins Publishing, 2014, 23-44.
Silver Naomi, et al. “From Peer Tutors to Writing Center Colleagues.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, vol. 7, no. 1, 2009, www.praxisuwc.com/silver-et-al-71. Accessed 27 July 2018.
Smith, Linda Tuhiwai. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. Zed Books, 1999.
Threadgill, Elizabeth. "Writing Center Work Bridging Boundaries: An Interview with Muriel Harris." Journal of Developmental Education, vol. 34, no. 2, 2010, 20-22. ERIC. Accessed 6 August 2018.
Welsch, Kathleen. “Shaping Careers in the Writing Center.” The Writing Lab Newsletter, vol. 32, no. 8, 2008, 1-8.
Whalen, Lisa. “Putting Your Writing Center Experience to Work.” The Writing Lab Newsletter, vol. 29, no. 9, 2005, 9-10.
Appendix
Table 1
Summary of Number of Evaluation Responses for each Question
Table 2
In Vivo Groupings
Table 3
Comparison of Singular to Collective Pronoun Usage
