Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol. 21, No. 3 (2024)

From the Editors: Telling Stories & Building Histories in the Writing Center

Alexandra Gunnells
The University of Texas at Austin
praxisuwc@gmail.com

Samantha Turner
The University of Texas at Austin
praxisuwc@gmail.com

As Praxis’s incoming managing editors, we have spent much of this summer’s publishing cycle trying to find our place within the story of Praxis, and within that of the larger writing center community. We were reminded of the complexity of this task by the authors you’ll read in this issue; each approaches the (hi)stories we tell about our work in unique ways, asking questions like how our stories of the writing center–macro or micro–change over time, and to whom these stories are accountable. Decades of writing center scholarship tell us such reflections powerfully impact the how and why of what we do, over time shaping and sustaining what we consider our disciplinary histories. In this summer issue of Praxis, scale, scope, method, and context vary, but each reveal some of the rich and kaleidoscopic (hi)stories that propel us today.

In this issue’s first focus article, Don Moore analyzes a century and a half of writing center history through a cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) framework. Moore considers the writing labs implemented in late-nineteenth century composition classrooms in the United States, arguing that they demonstrate the “Formative Period” of writing center development. By applying CHAT to the historical development of the writing center, then, Moore identifies the roots through which we can trace contemporary writing center practices.

Jo Mackiewicz and Isabelle Thompson focus our scope by tracing how writing center practitioners employ the global-local dualism when framing text components. As Mackiewicz and Thompson demonstrate, the global-local dualism–or the distinction between Higher Order Concerns and Lower Order Concerns–has occupied a privileged position in writing pedagogy since the mid- to late-twentieth century. By illuminating the shortcomings of the global-local dualism (while still acknowledging its benefits), Mackiewicz and Thompson provide a model for how reconstructing our histories can inform our future work. 

Julia Bleakney, Julia Herman, and Paula Rosinski then shift our attention to student perceptions of learning and writerly growth in courses with embedded writing consultants. Evaluating student learning in course-embedded writing programs is historically challenging, and the authors offer the results of a longitudinal survey-based study wherein students self-reported their expectations for and perceptions of learning from faculty and writing consultants. This method of storytelling–localized yet replicable–offers opportunities to amplify stories we don’t always hear. 

Finally, Melanie Doyle zooms us even further in via an autoethnography of her experiences across a decade of writing center work. As Doyle’s roles shift, so do the stories that she tells herself and others about the writing center. In reflecting on the lore of her labor, Doyle reveals the material and affective impressions of the self-in-relation built in the writing center. Concluding this issue with an invitation to reflect, readers are sure to hear echoes of their own histories with writing programs across a range of contexts. 

We here at Praxis are deeply grateful to the reviewers and authors who helped make this issue a reality, especially as we begin our tenure as the new Co-Managing Editors. Ali Gunnells is a second year doctoral student in the Department of Rhetoric & Writing researching digital rhetorics, archival theory, and composition pedagogy. Sam Turner is a third year doctoral student in the Department of Rhetoric & Writing, with research interests in feminist rhetorical methods and affect and trauma studies. We look forward to growing with Praxis, and to continuing the exciting conversations our authors, reviewers, and readers have invited us into.