Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol. 20, No. 1 (2022)

Helping Undergraduate Tutors Conduct and Disseminate Research: A Practical Guide for Writing Center Administrators

Megan Keaton
Pfeiffer University
megan.keaton@pfeiffer.edu

Ashley Schoppe
Pfeiffer University
ashley.schoppe@pfeiffer.edu

Daisha Oliver
Pfeiffer University

Abstract

In recent years, the field of writing center studies has begun to recognize the value of undergraduate research (McKinney; DelliCarpini and Crimmins; Fitzgerald and Ianetta). Additionally, scholars have begun arguing that the writing center itself is a prime research site.  As tutors ask questions about the writing center and its work, the center becomes a place in which the tutors can look for answers (McKinney; DelliCarpini and Crimmins). In this article, we argue that writing center administrators should encourage and mentor undergraduate tutors to conduct and disseminate research. To this end, we offer specific practices for doing so. We begin by discussing the benefits of undergraduate research to tutors, to the institution, and to writing center studies as a field. Together, these benefits serve to make a case for administrators to devote time and resources to mentor their undergraduate tutors in research. Then, we list practical strategies for helping tutors conduct research and disseminate that research in the form of professional conference presentations and publications. Finally, we speak to potential challenges. We acknowledge that undergraduate research involves sacrifice, as too often writing centers are understaffed and underfunded. Yet we firmly believe that this work amply repays this investment, as our personal experiences attest.

The Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) Position Statement on Undergraduate Research in Writing states that undergraduate research involves “the formation of one or more mentoring relationships, preliminary study and project planning, information gathering and analysis, and the feedback loop of peer review and revision associated with the dissemination of findings.” Too often, though, we see undergraduates stopping short of the final step of dissemination. As writing center administrators (WCA), we can mentor our undergraduate tutors to help them disseminate their research and contribute to scholarly conversations about writing center (WC) work.

Undergraduate research (UGR) has been increasing over the last 70 years, due in part to the Council on Undergraduate Research’s (CUR) practical work to support student scholarship (Karukstis 47). However, CUR generally focuses on STEM projects. This tendency replicates UGR broadly, as studies have shown that UGR is more often conducted and supported in STEM than in Arts and Humanities (Schneider et al.; Lopatto; Haeger et al.). Indeed, CUR itself recognizes the dearth of Humanities undergraduate scholarship and has published work addressing this discrepancy (Malachowski; Kistner et al.). Kinzie and BrckaLorenz, too, analyzed data from the National Survey of Student Engagement from 2013-2019; when examining the responses of 1,248,854 senior students, they found a senior participation in research averaged 28.8% for Arts and Humanities majors, while participation of Biology, Agriculture and Natural Sciences majors averaged 48.12% (42). We recognize that WCs are not solely focused in Arts and Humanities, as most support writing in all majors and employ students from across disciplines. However, many WCAs are likely from a Humanities background, and much of our WC studies scholarship appears in Humanities-based publications. With a dearth of scholarship in Humanities about UGR and a smaller statistical likelihood that WCAs took part in research as undergraduates, WCAs may have limited knowledge about how to facilitate this research.

Moreover, little of the scholarship about UGR in Humanities offers strategies for mentors. Scholarship explores the benefits of UGR (Young; Kistner et al.), lists potential barriers to UGR (Kinzie and BrckaLorenz; Haeger et al.; Sell et al.) or states numbers and perceptions of UGR at specific institutions (Schneider et al.; Cruz et al.). Other scholarship focuses on how to create a culture that supports UGR (Cruz et al.; Figlerowicz). If UGR is understudied in the Humanities writ large, it is even more so in WC studies.

WCs, however, are a ripe space for undergraduates to perform UGR. Malachowski emphasizes the effectiveness of UGR in which faculty and students labor together, instead of faculty and students completing independent projects. The Humanities have been at a disadvantage in this regard due to the independent nature of most scholarship; research does not typically occur in the laboratory, the setting for the majority of STEM research, which is conducive to group research (Malachowski 41). Yet WC-based research is unique in Humanities UGR in that the WC itself functions as a kind of laboratory, particularly conducive to shared research projects between WCAs and students. Working in the WC, too, provides students with the authority and confidence to participate in scholarship. Christopher Ervin argues that compared to their undergraduate peers, tutors are in a better place to determine their own research questions and methods (“The Peer Perspective”). Tutors become experts in providing rhetorical guidance as they are immersed in this work; moreover, they exist in a dual position of student and tutor, so they can view the university through a lens unique from that of other students and of faculty and administrators (Ervin, “The Peer Perspective”). As tutors ask questions about the WC and its work, the center becomes a place in which the tutors can look for answers (McKinney; DelliCarpini and Crimmins).

If the WC is a prime research site, how can WCAs fully utilize UGR for the benefit of students and composition studies? There are some guides that exist for WC research, such as Lauren Fitzgerald and Melissa Ianetta’s The Oxford Guide for Writing Tutors: Practice and Research and Jackie Grutsch McKinney’s Strategies for Writing Center Research, which offer practical advice to tutors conducting research. However, there is a lack of resources about how tutors can disseminate their research. Even McKinney’s guide only addresses research dissemination in one chapter, offering eight pages on writing for publication and presenting at conferences. Our article addresses practices for mentoring students through the process of conference presentations and publications. Moreover, while Fitzgerald, Ianetta, and McKinney provide wonderful resources for tutors in their books, there is a lack of scholarship about the ways WCAs can prepare tutors for conducting and disseminating research. This deficiency is critical because, as the CCCC Position Statement quoted above emphasizes, UGR requires mentoring relationships. If administrators want to mentor their undergraduate tutors, they need strategies. This piece is intended to begin to fulfill that need.

Ultimately, we argue that WCAs should encourage and mentor undergraduate tutors to conduct and disseminate research. To this end, we offer specific practices for doing so. This article arises from collaborations among a WC Director, an English faculty member, and an undergraduate tutor at Pfeiffer University. Megan (the Director) has been developing a culture of research in her center since 2018. Every year, the tutors each choose a topic to investigate, such as helping students with brainstorming, utilizing non-directive tutoring strategies, or injecting humor into sessions. The tutors then locate and read scholarship about their chosen topic. In addition to using what they learn to lead a training session for their peers, the tutors are encouraged to apply the scholarship to their experiences and to submit a tutor column to a WC studies journal. Ashley (the English faculty member) primarily focuses on teaching at the university, but she has a background in WC administration, having served as a tutor and administrator during her graduate studies. In the Spring 2019 semester, Daisha (the undergraduate tutor) worked on her first column under the mentorship of Ashley. Megan then coached Daisha on the submission process, and Daisha submitted the column that May. Daisha submitted another column the following year. Also, Ashley, Daisha, Megan, and another tutor collaborated on a CCCC presentation in April 2020, during which they offered strategies for WCAs who wish to foster tutor UGR. This presentation provided the foundation for this article. The three of us are, therefore, uniquely positioned to discuss the ways in which administrators can aid undergraduates in conducting and disseminating research.

In this article, we begin by discussing the benefits of UGR, which serve to make a case for administrators to devote time and resources to mentor their undergraduate tutors in research. Then, we list practical strategies for helping tutors conduct disseminate research in the form of professional conference presentations and publications. Finally, we address potential challenges. We acknowledge that UGR involves sacrifice, as too often WCs are understaffed and underfunded. Yet we firmly believe that this work amply repays this investment, as our personal experiences attest.

Benefits of Undergraduate Tutors conducting and disseminating research

Benefits to Tutors

Conducting and disseminating research presents undergraduate tutors with advantages and developmental opportunities. According to Grobman and Kinkead, research in the scholarly community allows tutors to develop critical thinking skills and experience different forms of collaboration, including mentorship (“Introduction,” xxii). When tutors recognize unanswered questions and develop ideas for avenues of research, it leads them to discover where their voices fit into the conversation of a discipline. It is important that tutors feel empowered to determine their own research agenda, to recognize where their passion and expertise will create new scholarship. As tutors progress further into the research process, they develop critical thinking skills through analyzing, evaluating, and answering research questions. At the beginning of their research journey, tutors may employ a narrative, experience-based study, which can help to build confidence and to learn novice methods of dissemination. For instance, as we detailed above in the description of our own WC’s approach to UGR, tutors can begin by reading WC studies scholarship, applying the scholarship to their own tutoring experiences, and submitting a tutor column about those experiences to a journal. This kind of work can help tutors learn how to locate, interpret, and apply scholarship, as well as introduce them to the processes of submitting and revising academic work (Ervin, “The Peer Perspective”; Schneider et al.). Moreover, this exercise allows novices to become familiar with the conversations in the field, a necessary first step to becoming a tutor-researcher (Hall 9). Once they have some experience in conducting and disseminating research, tutors can begin embarking on empirical RAD¹ studies. Additionally, tutors learn research skills that can be applied to future projects, whether those projects occur in an academic setting - such as graduate school - or in their professional careers (Elder and Trapp). These research skills can include writing effective research questions, selecting appropriate research methods to answer those questions, and preparing IRB applications. Further, conducting research can lead to improving tutors’ professionalism. When tutors participate in conferences and publish their work, it not only serves as an invitation to professional conversations, but also shapes their professional identity (Fitzgerald 22-23; Fischer et al. 87).

Benefits to the Institution

Along with benefits to the tutor, encouraging tutors to conduct and disseminate research is a boon to the institution. First, the mentoring that occurs during the research strengthens relationships between students and administrators, who often also serve as faculty (Grobman and Kinkead, “Introduction,” xxi; Elder and Trapp 8-9; Young 11). These relationships matter, first, because they increase retention rates (Grobman and Kinkead, “Introduction,” xxi; Schneider et al. 108; Fischer et al. 88). Students who feel connected to university faculty may be more likely to reach out when problems occur, meaning they have a support system. Such mentoring relationships have been shown to be especially valuable for students of color from underprivileged backgrounds (Shanahan et al. 7). Since the administrator is closer to the student, the student is less likely to become disengaged without someone noticing and reaching out. Moreover, the mentoring relationship allows students to begin seeing themselves as partners in meaning-making, rather than as subordinates to the WCA (Elder and Trapp 8-9). When students begin to feel like valued members of the field, they are more likely to continue their membership beyond their undergraduate years and pursue graduate studies (Groban and Kinkead, “Introduction,” xxi-xxii; Ervin, “What Tutor Researchers” 41; Schneider et al. 107). Although not all students wish to pursue postgraduate studies, these mentoring relationships serve the crucial function of building the confidence of those who do.

Tutors who have been initiated into the academic community of conference presentation and publication are uniquely beneficial to the institution’s WC, too. Put simply, conducting research makes better tutors. The anxiety that accompanies conducting research, especially for the first time, can be productive, especially for WC tutors. Tutors are often skilled writers who may have forgotten the fear of learning to write in academic genres. Experiencing this apprehension of learning to research and write in new professional genres can prompt tutors to recall that feeling, which the student being tutored is likely experiencing; therefore, tutors engaging in academic research become humbler and more empathetic (Ianetta, “What is Undergraduate Research?”). In this way, UGR not only enhances the institution in ways mentioned above, but also strengthens the institution’s WC.

Benefits to Writing Center Studies

UGR is also of premium value for the fields of composition and WC studies. Scholars have made clear that tutor-authored UGR poses special insight. Ervin emphasizes the “liminal space” that undergraduate tutors occupy because of their dual role as students and professionals (“The Peer Perspective”). As student writers themselves, undergraduate tutors are in a better position to recognize the issues that trouble their peers—issues that thus call for inquiry and research—than administrators. Fitzgerald emphasizes the need for the field to expand its recognition of the value of tutors beyond their ability to offer practical advice about the daily functioning of WCs to incorporate their perspectives into the production of scholarship (25). Indeed, Fitzgerald makes the case that undergraduate researchers are driven by an immediate sense of gaps in current scholarship or problems that must be fixed, which motivates their own research (Fitzgerald 24). As an example, Gallagher and Greaves - undergraduate peer tutors - describe their own project about revision as arising from the realization that the topic played a crucial role in student writing but had received little attention from scholars (7). Aside from dual identities as tutors/professionals and possessing distinctive insights about new avenues for research, Ervin stresses that in failing to appreciate the potential of UGR, WC studies choose not to capitalize on the possibilities of valuable interdisciplinary insights that arise from prompting tutors from various majors to apply their expertise to the field (“The Peer Perspective”). Composition and WC studies have much to gain from a fuller recognition of UGR’s value.   

Specific Practices

Our purpose here is to further the conversation concerning specific practices for facilitating tutor-authored UGR. In our WC, professionalization through performing research, presenting at conferences, and publishing articles is an established part of working in the center. Our advice below is built from both WC scholarship and our own experiences.

Concepts to Discuss at the Beginning of Research

Mentorship is a crucial component for UGR, as tutors rely on the counsel of experienced administrators to introduce them to the field of academic scholarship. As the administrator and tutor begin working together, there are three important concepts to discuss: (1) what the mentoring relationship will look like; (2) undergraduate expertise; and (3) time commitments.

A mentor relationship should not be assumed to occur naturally; rather, it must be intentionally developed as students will be used to occupying a subordinate instead of collaborative role with the administrator due to institutional hierarchy (Elder and Trapp 11). At the beginning of the mentoring relationship, then, some logistical guidelines should be discussed with the tutor. The first is the amount of communication and control that should exist in the relationship. A mentor should be involved enough to know the struggles and successes that a student experiences throughout their research. On the other hand, students need an amount of freedom in their process because this freedom can “foster their interdependence and sense of responsibility” (Mills 2). Therefore, administrators should discuss with their tutors on an individual basis how much communication and support are necessary. It is important to have this conversation in the beginning of the research process and to return occasionally to the topic to ensure each tutor is receiving the correct amount of support. In terms of control, the administrator should establish with the tutor what kind of collaboration is needed for the project and what role the administrator should assume. As Cheatle states, there are many different kinds of roles an administrator can undertake: “mentor, primary investigator, collaborator, facilitator, and so forth” (232). When the administrator and tutor are not collaborating on a research project, the administrator can practice a tutor-driven collaboration technique in which the administrator becomes a facilitator. In this kind of relationship, the tutor leads and makes final decisions and the administrator's role is limited to guiding, critiquing, and making suggestions (Grobman and Kinkead, “Introduction,” xiv). The administrator places the tutor at the center and encourages the tutor to “follow their own lines of questioning, adopt their own processes, make mistakes, and experience successes” (233).

Another key area of discussion is defining expertise. Tutors may require significant encouragement to view themselves as worthy of participating in the creation of research. Tutors may fear entering scholarly conversations because they perceive themselves to be novices, especially compared to published authors. Thus, it falls to the administrator to assure tutors that they do indeed possess the expertise necessary to author scholarship; this expertise comes from their experiences tutoring. Tutors are experts in the WC because they are immersed in the daily occurrences of the WC. Their experiences generate valuable and distinct research questions. DelliCarpini and Crimmins state, “Experience becomes the subject of reflective impulses that drive students to ask wider questions about the practices of the field, and so to engage in disciplinary research” (192). When tutors have encounters in the WC that spark a desire for further exploration, they can begin researching to gain knowledge about that particular issue. As the tutors learn more about that issue, they become experts. Therefore, their expertise is twofold: (1) they are experts in the daily operations of WCs and (2) they are experts in the issue they researched. Once the tutor’s work is disseminated, they “are not identified as students of particular teachers or particular pedagogies, but as authors in their own right” (Robillard 254). Administrators can help tutors recognize their expertise by highlighting their research and specific WC experiences. Administrators can also complicate the idea of expertise. Grobman argues that all scholars - from students to long time professionals - are always on “a continuum of scholarly authority” (W177); she argues that “scholarly authorship is not an all or nothing proposition but a matter of degree” (W179). Scholars established in the field are experts in the issues on which they have published. However, when a scholar wants to pursue a new topic, the scholar is once again a novice. Administrators can explain this continuum to tutors, emphasizing that they exist on the same continuum as the administrator and all scholars.

When WCAs occupy the role of mentor, it is important to recognize that tutors will confront similar pressure and responsibilities as that of the administrators themselves, such as “recruitment of research subjects, IRB, scheduling of research activities, miscommunication, and more” (Ervin, “What Tutor Researchers” 68). Time is of especial consideration, because it can discourage a tutor from initiating a project and research (Ervin 62). While administrators and tutors both agree that time is a challenge, discrepancies exist between the views of each group, which negatively impact the productivity of the mentoring relationship (Ervin 39). Students may not realize that their administrators also experience time as a barrier to completing research (Ervin 67), and administrators may fail to appreciate the hurdles logistical issues such as IRB approval and locating test subjects represent for students (Ervin 68). Articles written by undergraduate or graduate students reveal a similar breach in communication with their mentors surrounding the length of the revision process typical for academic writing, resulting in frustration and discouragement (Elder and Trapp 5; Kong and Pearson 229). An openness on the part of administrators towards sharing their own challenges regarding time management and IRB approval can encourage student researchers to recognize that such struggles are natural and can be overcome.

Helping Tutors Conduct Research

Administrators have a significant impact on tutors’ attitude towards research. Elder and Trapp share about a professor and a student’s time working together in which the student emphasizes the impact of effective mentorship. The student recalls that the professor “helped me work through ideas, taking time out of her already busy schedule, and most importantly, she infused in me a developing sense of research methodology” (5). Tutors encounter barriers when conducting research, but assistance from an administrator operating as a trusted mentor can help to attenuate this stress.

In their Position Statement, CCCC explains that another hallmark of effective mentors is their attention to helping students understand genre, process, and methodology. Tutors may face challenges in the research process as they try to apply scholarship and as they select appropriate research methods. Providing undergraduates with guidance as they read academic texts prepares them for the complex ideas and unfamiliar jargon they will encounter. Administrators, too, can direct tutors to recognize the different genres of academic articles, such as the disparities between an IMRAD study and an article organized by an introduction, literature review, discussion, and implications. Administrators can teach tutors techniques for locating arguments in distinct genres and understanding jargon. Administrators might also encourage students to keep track of the ideas they read by suggesting the creation of an annotated bibliography. After reading and analyzing extant scholarship, the tutor can begin using the scholarship for their specific research purposes. DelliCarpini and Crimmins advise, “Students need to read scholarly work with two purposes: first, to inform their own observations and experience; and second, with an eye toward responding to it with their own critique and their own studies” (207). Responding to scholarly work can be challenging for tutors determining where their voices fit into the academic conversation for the first time. One method of assisting tutors in discovering their place in extant scholarship is to reinforce their confidence in their own expertise, encouraging them to analyze their experiences and to identify the “unanswered questions arising from their experiences in the writing center” (DelliCarpini and Crimmins 196). Once the research questions have been written, administrators can inform the tutor of their methodological options; the administrator might utilize helpful guides such as those authored by McKinney and/or Fitzgerlad and Ianetta. When selecting methods, it is important to be upfront about the length of time required for empirical research, especially when an IRB approval process is involved. After the research data is collected, the administrator can help the tutor choose methods of analysis.

Helping Tutors Present at Conferences

The purpose of performing research is to share it with a larger audience, which in the academic context typically involves conference presentations. Administrators can prepare tutors for a successful conference presentation in a variety of ways. First, tutors must become familiar with the distinct genres involved, including the Call for Papers (CFP), proposal, and the actual conference presentation. A training session for tutors dedicated to CFPs and conference proposals is an effective way to convey this information. At our own WC, Megan routinely leads such presentations alongside other English faculty members. She distributes a handout detailing the conventions of the genres associated with conferences, and she provides tutors with examples of CFPs and the corresponding proposals to identify potential differences among diverse conferences and presentation types. After this introductory professional development meeting, Megan deepens the conversation about presentation types when individual tutors apply to specific conferences. For instance, when cowriting a proposal with two of her tutors for CCCC 2021, Megan explained the differences between a presentation panel and a workshop and the ways in which the proposal would be framed based on the kind of presentation they chose. This choice would involve anticipating what participants would gain from the experience and designing activities to encourage attendee discussion and participation.

Along with genre conventions, administrators can share a list of conferences, due dates for proposals, geographic locations of the conferences, and general information about the conferences such as typical attendance numbers, friendliness of attendees, and frequency of undergraduate presenters. In addition to national professional conferences like the IWCA Annual Conference, National Conference on Peer Tutoring in Writing, and CCCC, administrators can introduce the tutors to undergraduate-specific conferences, such as the National Conference on Undergraduate Research. Tutors might also consider conferences at nearby universities and/or regional WC associations.

Following a conference proposal’s acceptance, there are a range of ways the administrator can continue to provide mentorship as the tutors plan their presentation. It is often helpful for the administrator to remind the tutors that while the conference presentation genre is new, the basic format of offering and supporting an argument is similar to that of writing papers. The administrator should encourage the tutors to return to the proposal to review the original vision for the presentation. Reconsidering the proposal can also help tutors determine which ideas are most significant and how best to accomplish the goal of their presentation. Further, the administrator should offer a reminder that while some divergence from the proposal is acceptable, attendees will expect the general focus to remain the same. McKinney’s Strategies for Writing Center Research offers additional advice about presenting at conferences that administrators and tutors may find useful, such as adhering to the time limit, using visuals effectively, offering enough background information, reading the audience, and avoiding fidgeting and self-deprecating jokes (146-150).

Facilitating opportunities for practice before an audience and discussing potential reactions and questions from attendees are key when preparing tutors for their presentation. For many tutors, writing a rough script and/or preparing a PowerPoint can be an effective place to start. The tutors should practice at least twice while being timed, as staying within time limits is an important aspect of conference participation, as is comfortable delivery of the presentation material. During the initial practices, the tutors can rely heavily on their script and PowerPoint. However, the tutors should eventually graduate to maintaining eye contact with the audience. While practicing, the tutors may initially lose their train of thought or stumble over their words. Administrators should remind tutors that it is acceptable to pause, take a breath, and start again. If the tutor is attending a conference at which they are expected to read a paper, the first few practice sessions might consist of the tutor reading directly from the paper without looking up. Then, the tutor can begin practicing pausing to look at the audience, possibly even marking places on the paper indicating when to look up. If the presentation will take place virtually through video conference, the practice sessions can begin in person and graduate to using technology. When the tutor is comfortable with the flow of the presentation, the administrator and tutor can separate into different rooms to practice with the video conferencing technology; this routine allows the tutor to practice looking at the camera instead of the content on screen and, perhaps most importantly, to work out technological issues that may occur. Finally, if possible, the administrator should gather supportive faculty for a practice presentation with a live audience. Once at the conference, rehearsing the presentation in the assigned meeting room can alleviate fears as well.

Briefing tutors on the various questions and responses they may receive from the audience is another crucial aspect of mentorship regarding conference presentations within the administrator’s purview. For instance, at some conferences, the audience may be expected to criticize a presenter’s research methodology; at other conferences, attendees may be more likely to ask questions to help the presenter develop their ideas. The administrator can preempt some questions attendees might ask and help the tutor craft answers. Once the tutor is aware of potential questions, the administrator and tutor can discuss ways of responding. The administrator should emphasize to tutors that lacking the answer to a question is not a failure; conference presentations exist to share research and receive feedback, and an unexpected question can open up new avenues for expansion of the project.

Finally, the nerves that accompany presenting should be acknowledged by the administrator. McKinney addresses such unavoidable apprehension, writing, “Presentations can bring out anxieties you did not even know you had because they require public speaking and typically have pretty high stakes; if you flub, it could mean getting a lower grade, looking foolish, or not getting a job. Or, that’s how it feels” (144). Administrators should validate their tutors by frankly discussing emotions, acknowledging the reality of pre-presentation jitters. An important first step is for the administrator to share his or her own coping mechanisms. In addition to being scared of “flubbing,” tutors may suffer from “imposter syndrome,” worrying that they do not possess the authority or knowledge to present, especially to established scholars in the field. In these instances, administrators should counsel tutors that while it is normal to experience stress, they are prepared because they have practiced; they are knowledgeable because they have done the necessary research for the presentation; and they are brave for their willingness to share new ideas in front of an audience.

Helping Tutors Publish

Tutors, both in their classes and in WC training, are routinely lectured about genre, audience, and purpose. However, this conversation is abstract because the compositions tutors encounter in the WC are usually class assignments: the audience and purpose rarely depart from the expected “to persuade a scholarly audience of one’s peers.” Yet conversations about genre, audience, and purpose assume added significance when preparing tutors to pursue actual publication. Thus, publication can be valuable and refreshing for administrators and tutors, granting new relevance to familiar topics.

When preparing tutors for publication submission, administrators should empower tutors by introducing them to the culture of publishing. Similar to discussions about distinct conferences, tutors need to be taught to recognize different genres and their conventions. For instance, administrators can discuss the genre convention differences between a tutor column and a feature article, including word count limitations, tone expectations, and willingness to accept narrative evidence versus empirical evidence. Tutors must also be educated to recognize each journal’s distinct target audiences. When a tutor chooses the journal that best suits their submission, the administrator should prompt the tutor to consider the ways the argument complements that journal’s audience. During these conversations, the administrator should also reference the submission page for the journal to guide tutors as they review requirements for submission, including deadlines. Practically, it is useful to create a schedule of due dates for drafts, feedback, and revisions in partnership with the tutor; this schedule should remain flexible as the writing process develops, however. In the early stages of creating a draft for submission, administrators again discuss the issue of time with tutors, making them aware of the time a scholarly submission requires. Tutors must understand that academic publishing is a lengthy process, including drafting and revising, a wait time for response following submission, and additional revision after the publication’s response. In terms of estimating time between submission and response, a good strategy is searching the intended journal’s website to see if an approximation of turnaround time is listed. Tutors also need to know that revision after response can require a significant amount of time. For instance, revise and resubmit can take multiple rounds before full acceptance. Tutors may be surprised at how much revision will occur to their original project, so this reality should be discussed upfront. Administrators may confide the time involved for their own publications as a way of assuring tutors that the lengthy process is normal.

Once the tutor begins the writing process, the administrator should assist the tutor to identify what is new, interesting, and valuable about their ideas. For tutors working on a topic that is already represented in the scholarship, administrators can direct tutors towards considering how the scholarship reflects, or diverges from, their own tutoring experience. When tutors consider their own time in the center, they are more likely to discover an original viewpoint. Many tutors, though, will have too many ideas to fit in a single publication. A key aspect of the administrator’s responsibility, then, is to lay out the different directions that the project could pursue. This guidance allows tutors to survey the routes their research might take and select one. In this way, tutors are more likely to develop a unified and focused argument. The administrator can help the tutor conform to the expected genre, thinking through which specific sections are required. For instance, Eric James Stephens, in his piece "A Successful Failure: What I Wish I'd Known about Research before Submitting to a Journal," briefly discusses defining terms, understanding the scholarship, justifying methods, and avoiding overgeneralized claims may be utilized here (27-29). As tutors draft, the administrator can remind the tutor to keep audience considerations front of mind, particularly in terms of knowledge that can be already assumed and what the audience is likely to value the most about the scholarship. As the tutor approaches a complete draft, the administrator will likely need to assist tutors to stay within the bounds of the word count. It can be beneficial to advise tutors to aim for a shorter word limit than is required; for instance, if the word limit is 1500, the tutor should plan for 1200. This strategy allows tutors space to insert additional details if needed. Tutors may also require assistance identifying which ideas are most important, as they revise to meet the word count. The administrator can provide feedback on drafts designed to aid the tutor in writing concisely. The word count issue may also arise if the student’s submission is rejected, and they are revising to submit in another location with a shorter or longer word count. Again, the administrator can aid the tutor in determining which are the most important aspects of the article so that they can concentrate on those ideas in the new draft.

Significantly, education about the culture of publication must include explanations of the possible responses to a submission: acceptance, resubmission with revisions, and rejection. In particular, when tutors receive a “revise and resubmit” or their piece is rejected outright, they require guidance about how to proceed. Administrators should stress that neither of these responses should be interpreted as failure. David Elder provides an example: “I...was asked to go through two revision cycles. I was disheartened by this news, but [Joonna]... told me that this was a great opportunity to do valuable research for the field, and was quite normal for the publishing process” (5). If possible, the administrator should inform the tutor of the typical acceptance rate of a particular journal so that the tutor knows what to expect.

Helping Students Process Failure

When encouraging undergraduate tutors to participate in academic research, especially publishing, one area that cannot be overlooked is preparing them to encounter failure. More specifically, it is important to discuss failure as an inevitable step of academic scholarship, and this conversation should occur as early as possible. Although it may feel counterintuitive, even discouraging, to greet tutors into the world of academic scholarship with news of impending rejections, there is ample evidence that omitting the reality of failure is more damaging. Eric James Stephens describes his first experience submitting to an academic journal, which may sound familiar: “I submitted [my article] with that air of confidence…Not too much later, I received an email from the editors…Rather than containing the glowing praise I expected, the email included a thoughtful message with an invitation to chat… regarding the ‘extensive note[s] in the comment section.’” Indeed, Stephens’s rejection represents a best-case scenario, as the editor’s suggestion that they speak on the phone was clearly intended to soften the blow of the reviewers’ feedback and to encourage him to rethink the project. Not all rejections are proffered in such a thoughtful manner: Devoney Looser recounts a reader’s report for her book proposal “so nasty it made me question my will to write another sentence.” Even if the rejection is couched in motivational terms, it can be a devastating blow, especially for driven students who regard academic achievement as part of their identity. In the examples cited above, neither scholar was an undergraduate student: Stephens was completing his master’s degree, and Looser was already a Ph.D. If postgraduates experience failure on such a visceral level, the stakes are arguably even higher for undergraduates, the responsibility of the mentor to address failure in an ethical manner that much greater.

Administrators mentoring tutors as they embark on academic research can set the tone for perceptions of failure. Administrators should share their personal encounters with failure, perhaps even sharing their own reader reports from rejections with students. This action requires vulnerability, but such a step humanizes administrators, and strengthens the relationship with tutors. Further, adopting an attitude of openness about experiences with failure and rejection can begin to improve the experience of failure in academia overall. Looser theorizes an imaginary document she terms her “shadow CV” that lists her rejections as well as her accomplishments, and she urges academics to be more forthcoming about the ratio between the failures and achievements of a career. Through administrators’ acknowledgment of their “shadow CVs,” tutors can begin to think of failure not as defeat, but rather as a rite of passage. This attitude works to ensure that tutors perceive failure as part of the writing process instead of a judgment on their writing and research capabilities. Allison Carr identifies failure as an “affect-bearing concept” that impacts people on an emotional level, and she distinguishes between failing as an action and identifying oneself as a failure: “The infinitive form, to fail—that is one thing. This is an action directed outward. To be a failure, on the other hand—to take on the noun form, the ‘thingness’ which names one’s identity—this is something else entirely.” It behooves administrators, then, to direct tutors towards viewing setbacks and rejections in the infinitive form, as an action that has occurred, instead of as a noun descriptor applying to them. Administrators can guide tutors through the next steps after receiving negative feedback: review the readers’ reports with them, direct their attention to aspects of the criticism they can use to improve their projects, and help the tutors determine if they should submit their work to another journal after minimal edits and revisions, or if they should pause to rethink the argument or methodology. Administrators should check in with the tutors often about their progress so that they know their work has value. Looser opines, “Increasingly, I see rejection as a necessary part of every stage of an academic career. I remind myself that the fact that I’m still facing rejection is evidence that I’m still in the game at a level where I should be playing.” Working to instill a similar mindset towards failure in burgeoning undergraduate researchers should be the goal of mentors. 

Addressing Challenges

Although the benefits to encouraging UGR for tutors and the institution are undeniable, one should not underestimate its challenges. For administrators, there are ethical considerations about asking tutors to assume the burden of a research project that is not part of a course assignment, especially considering their hectic schedules. College has always been demanding, but it has become even more so as tutors seek to balance the rising costs of tuition by increasing their hours of employment. Further, depending on the university’s student population, tutors may have family obligations. Administrators should be attentive to tutors’ workloads, asking not only about the demands of their classes and time in the center, but also about other responsibilities. While fostering UGR involves coaxing tutors to recognize the value of their input to academic scholarship, administrators must be careful not to overwhelm. For Ashley, the English faculty member mentoring two WC tutors as they completed research projects, it soon became apparent that the students were not in an equal place to focus on research independent of their class work. One of the students, Daisha, was eager to pursue her academic article, appearing at all scheduled meetings ready to discuss how her ideas had evolved and promptly returning drafts. The second student, however, was a graduating senior managing her work study position at the WC, multiple senior projects, and job applications. Ashley realized that for this student, the pressure to complete an academic column was a source of anxiety instead of a positive experience, and they mutually agreed to pause the project.

In addition to ensuring that academic scholarship does not become burdensome for busy tutors, administrators must also address practical concerns involved with supervising UGR projects, particularly if they are overseeing multiple tutors. One strategy for keeping track of where each tutor is in the research process is to negotiate due dates with the students for individual steps of their projects and to record those dates. A week prior to each due date, the administrator can send emails gently reminding students about what they agreed to accomplish. Administrators should be flexible with these deadlines, determining new due dates for students whose projects proceed more quickly or slowly than planned.

Another practical concern for administrators is compensating tutors for the time they devote to researching and writing. Indeed, a lack of funding has been cited as a reason that UGR in Humanities fields lags behind that in STEM (Kistner et al.). Although it is hoped that the established benefits of UGR will lead to more robust funding in the future, for WCs with limited budgets today we offer the following suggestions.  Tutors should be encouraged to work on their projects during their scheduled WC hours whenever possible, but inevitably some of this work will occur outside of their time in the center. If the institution’s WC budget allows for financial compensation, administrators can support UGR by funding the time tutors devote to preparing conference presentations and writing academic articles. However, if the budget does not allow for such compensation, highlighting the benefits that tutors stand to gain from participating in these projects such as professional growth, deeper understanding of the research process, and the potential for networking are even more important.

Another potential challenge is securing funding for travel to conferences. Administrators should not assume that tutors have the ability to pay for travel costs and conference registration.² Therefore, the administrator needs to help tutors investigate funding options. Even if there is not a dedicated fund for student conference travel, administrators can argue for funding from the provost’s office, admissions, student advancement, or other departments that may support students’ professionalization. Administrators should stress that enabling tutors to present at a conference will both help the tutors grow as professionals and will bring positive attention to the university; in other words, tutors presenting at conferences is a potential avenue for university advertising. If there are no funding options available through the university or in the WC budget, it is possible that the conference offers grants for undergraduate students. Another option is for tutors to present digitally via a video conference platform. In this option, the administrator could be physically present at the conference while the tutors present digitally. Ultimately, the challenges for administrators who wish to foster undergraduate research are formidable, but not insurmountable, and the satisfaction of witnessing a tutor successfully present at a conference or submit their research for publication far outweighs the struggles encountered along the way.

Conclusion

As we hope this article has made evident, we recognize the challenges inherent in facilitating UGR; however, it is our belief that such an investment is worthwhile for administrators and tutors. Academia has long been a space of privilege, and encouraging UGR could begin the important work of diversifying the so-called ivory tower. Groban and Kinkead point to issues of accessibility of research and publication in terms of gender, race, and socioeconomic class (xxii-xxv). If we light the fire to pursue research and publication in undergraduate tutors - particularly those from minority or underprivileged backgrounds- it could in turn provide them with the confidence to pursue postgraduate studies. In this way, then, the academy and the field will become more representative of the world, and in turn make the academy a more equitable place.

Notes

1. Empirical RAD research is “planned inquiry with systematic data collection, analysis, and reporting” (McKinney xvii). This research “is replicable, meaning that others can conduct the same study in a different writing center; it is aggregable, meaning that the original work is specified and clear enough that it can be built upon by others; and it is data-supported, meaning that the claims it makes are supported with systematic data” (Driscoll and Powell). RAD research denotes that qualitative and/or quantitative research has been conducted, that other WC scholars can replicate research methods, coding schemes, and other parts of the study, and that the conclusions are based on the research study (Driscoll and Powell). The Community Toolbox, an online resource associated with the University of Kansas that aims to help “people build healthier communities and bring about the changes they envision”, provides resources for participatory planning.

2. Christopher Ervin and the CCCC Position Statement both address the importance of administrator-mentors acknowledging and aiding tutors-researchers in identifying resources to help with the financial requirements conducting and disseminating research (“What Tutor Researchers” 58).

Works cited

Carr, Allison. “In Support of Failure.” Composition Forum, vol. 27, Spring 2013. https://compositionforum.com/issue/27/failure.php

Cheatle, Joseph, et al. “Creating a Research Culture in the Center: Narratives of Professional Development and the Multitiered Research Process.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 37, no. 2, 2019, pp. 227–250. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/26922023.

Conference on College Composition and Communication. “CCCC Position Statement on Undergraduate Research in Writing: Principles and Best Practices.” Conference on College Composition and Communication. March 2017. https://cccc.ncte.org/cccc/resources/positions/undergraduate-research

Cruz, Laura E., et al. “Undergraduate Research as a System: Mapping the Institutional Landscape of a High-Impact Practice.” Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, vol. 21, no. 1, April 2021, pp. 301-319. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v21i1.30648.

DelliCarpini, Dominic, and Cynthia Crimmins. “The Writing Center as a Space for Undergraduate Research.” Undergraduate Research in English Studies. Edited by Lauren Grobman and Joyce Kinkead, National Council of Teachers of English, 2010, pp. 191-211.

Driscoll, Dana Lynn, and Roger Powell. “Conducting and Composing RAD Research: A Guide for New Authors.” The Peer Review, issue 0, Fall 2015. https://thepeerreview-iwca.org/issues/issue-0/conducting-and-composing-rad-research-in-the-writing-center-a-guide-for-new-authors/

Elder, David, and Joonna Smitherman Trapp. “Mentor as Method: Faculty Mentor Roles and Undergraduate Scholarship.” Undergraduate Research in English Studies. Edited by Lauren Grobman and Joyce Kinkead, National Council of Teachers of English, 2010, 3-12.

Ervin, Christopher. “The Peer Perspective and Undergraduate Writing Tutor Research.” Praxis, vol. 13, iss. 2, 2016, http://www.praxisuwc.com/ervin-132.

Ervin, Christopher. “What Tutor Researchers and Their Mentors Tell Us About Undergraduate Research in the Writing Center: An Exploratory Study.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 35, no. 3, 2016, pp. 39–75. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43965690.

Figlerowicz, Marta. “Making Long Shots: A Path toward Undergraduate Professional Publication.” Undergrad Research in English Studies. Edited by Laurie Grobman and Joyce Kinkead. National Council of Teachers of English, 2010, pp. 108-120.

Fitzgerald, Lauren. “Undergraduate Writing Tutors as Researchers: Redrawing Boundaries.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 33, no. 2, 2014, pp. 17–35. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43443370.

Fitzgerald, Lauren, and Melissa Ianetta. The Oxford Guide for Writing Tutors: Practice and Research. Oxford University Press, 2016.

Frisher, Abbey E. “A Taxonomy for Developing Undergraduate Research Experiences as High-Impact Practices.” Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, vol. 21, no. 1, April 2021, pp. 84-106. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v21i1.30564.

Grobman, Laurie. “The Student Scholar: (Re)Negotiating Authorship and Authority.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 61, no. 1, September 2009, pp. W175-W196. ProQuest, https://pfeiffer.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/student-scholar-re-negotiating-authorship/docview/220696215/se-2.

Grobman, Laurie, and Joyce Kinkead. “Introduction: Illuminating Undergraduate Research in English.” Undergrad Research in English Studies. Edited by Laurie Grobman and Joyce Kinkead. National Council of Teachers of English, 2010, pp. ix-xxxii.

Hall, R. Mark. Around the Texts of Writing Center Work. Utah State University Press, 2017.

Ianetta, Melissa. “What Is Undergraduate Research?” WCJ Blog Community, April 17, 2016. http://www.writingcenterjournal.org/new-blog//what-is-undergraduate-research

Karukstis, Kerry K. “Analysis of the Undergraduate Research Movement: Origins, Developments, and Current Challenges.” Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research, vol. 3, no. 2, Winter 2019, pp. 46-55. https://doi.org/10.18833/spur/3/2/8.

Kinkead, Joyce, and Laurie Grobman. “Expanding Opportunities for Undergraduate Research in English Studies.” Profession, 2011. pp. 218-230. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41714122

Kistner, Kelly, et al. “Academic and Professional Preparedness: Outcomes of Undergraduate Research in the Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences.” Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research, vol. 4, no. 4, Summer 2021, pp. 3-9. https://www.cur.org/download.aspx?id=4730

Kong, Ailing, and P. David Pearson. “Learning: A Process of Enculturation into the Community's Practices.” Research in the Teaching of English, vol. 39, no. 3, Feb. 2005., pp. 226-232. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40171665

Looser, Devoney. “Me and My Shadow CV.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, 18 October 2015. https://www.chronicle.com/article/me-and-my-shadow-cv

Malachowski, Mitchell R. “Reflections on the Evolution of Undergraduate Research at Primarily Undergraduate Institutions Over the Past 25 Years.” Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research, vol. 3, no. 2, Winter 2019, pp. 38-45. https://doi.org/10.18833/spur/3/2/5.

McKinney, Jackie Grutsch. Strategies for Writing Center Research. Parlor Press, 2016.

Mills, Gayla. “Engaging Tutor Independence.” Praxis, vol. 5, iss. 2, Spring 2008, http://www.praxisuwc.com/mills-52.

Robillard, Amy E. “‘Young Scholars’ Affecting Composition, A Challenge to Disciplinary Citation Practices.” College English, vol. 68, no. 3, Jan. 2006, pp. 253-270. https://doi.org/10.2307/25472151.

Schneider, Kimberly. “Tracking and Assessing Undergraduate Research Campus -wide: Demographics, Academic Success, and Post Graduation Plans.” Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, vol. 21, no. 1, April 2021, pp. 107-119. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v21i1.30290.

Sell, Andrea J., et al. “The Impact of Undergraduate Research on Academic Success.”

Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research, vol. 1, no. 3, Spring 2018, pp. 19-29. https://doi.org/10.18833/spur/1/3/8

Shanahan, Jenny Olin, et al. “Ten Salient Practices of Undergraduate Research Mentors: A Review of the Literature.” Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, vol. 23, no. 5, 2015, pp. 1-18.  https://muse.engineering.illinois.edu/files/2017/08/10-Salient-Practices-for-UG-Research-Mentors.pdf

Stephens, Eric James. “A Successful Failure: What I Wish I'd Known about Research before Submitting to a Journal.” WLN: A Journal of Writing Center Scholarship, no. 43, issue 7-8, March/April 2019, pp. 26-29. https://www.wlnjournal.org/archives/v43/43.7-8.pdf

Young, Christopher J. “The Course of a Life: The High Impact of Undergraduate Research and Mentoring.” Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, vol. 21, no. 1, April 2021, pp. 9-12. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v21i1.32461.