The Writing Wars: Scholarship and the Construction of Knowledge

Can published educational scholarship include poetry? Should Spanish be translated for English-only readers of academic articles? What is the relation between narratives and theories? What is the status of clarity — is it a democratic appeal to inclusion or an oppressive mechanism for making everything fit the dominant discourse? What status do reason, coherence, objectivity, and accessibility have, in progressive educational scholarship?

Over the past ten years or so, what counts as scholarship in education has become a matter for dispute, with newer — either more artistic or otherwise transgressive — approaches to scholarship challenging the assumptions built into traditional approaches to scholarship. Traditional approaches to scholarship aim for transparency and accessibility, expecting claims to be presented in a linear, more or less scientific fashion; alternative and oppositional approaches, by contrast, may enlist forms of knowledge making from outside the sciences (and sometimes outside the humanities as well). This course will examine competing approaches to knowledge construction and to the dissemination of knowledge in educational scholarship. Among the questions we will be asking are how each kind of scholarship does its work, what its silences and textures are, how it addresses its audience, what its strengths are, what its limitations are, what it assumes about meaning and knowledge, and what it assumes about persuasion, engagement, and transformation.

We will be looking at specific examples of each type of writing in order to understand how it does its work and how it succeeds and/or fails in addressing its audience and its materials. In addition, the course will offer practical suggestions for and practice at pursuing each kind of scholarly writing. Finally, we will be considering a variety of theoretical arguments for and against each approach to scholarly writing.

Because the purpose of the course is to understand how different approaches to scholarly writing work, students will not only be reading and analyzing different approaches to writing, but will be experimenting with different approaches themselves (in very short, compact form). Students will be encouraged to take some risks in these experimental papers and also will be asked to give one another written feedback. Although the final paper will be somewhat traditional in format, the emphasis in the other course writings will be on experimentation that allows students to better gauge the power and possibilities, as well as the limitations, of each of the four approaches.

Required Texts:

The readings will be available on electronic reserve at the Marriott University Library or will be provided in class.

Course Requirements

Requirements for the course also include regular attendance and participation; in-class process writing; posting as scheduled to the class listserv; several short (two-page) written assignments that experiment with the various writing types; and a final paper. The final paper should offer arguments and counter-arguments regarding the positions it describes, and should support the arguments with reference to the readings, lectures, and discussions. While outside readings certainly may be included, the primary emphasis should be on the readings from the course. (Outside readings are not required for any of the papers.) The final paper should be 12-15 pages in length. There is no final exam.

Postings to the class listserv will include the following assignments: 1) strengths and limitations of the approaches taken in the readings; 2) assumptions about textual trustworthiness in the readings; 3) the “best of the month” first sentence in a scholarly book or article (not from the class); 4) practice pages and paragraphs in the different writing approaches discussed in the course

Grading:

Class attendance and participation; in-class process writing 15%
Participation on the class list; scheduled postings 20%
Two-page pieces to be written outside of class and emailed three days before class 20%
(these assignments must be completed and emailed on time)
Several one-page (or less) written critiques of fellow students two-page pieces 15%
Final paper 30%

In writing the final paper, you should take into account the following criteria:

1) The paper should focus on one or more issues regarding the writing wars. (These might include, for example, the question of whether scholarly writing can and should be generally accessible, and what the considerations related to this are; how writing is related to knowledge; issues of objectivity and neutrality; the role of emotion and experience in scholarly knowledge; the kind of worldview represented by particular approaches to scholarly writing; what counts as clarity, persuasiveness, rigor, etc.). The issues criterion means that there should be an argument in your paper.

2) You should discuss at least two of the modes or traditions we have talked about in class, although one of these can be primary. For example, you could talk mostly about genre-based writing in comparing it to transgressive and transparent writing. (Keep in mind that genre-based writing is a type of artistic writing. You can talk about artistic and genre-based writing as two modes but don’t compare and contrast them, as they do not have competing goals. Genre-based writing is a highly specific type of artistic writing.) Or you could compare and contrast transparent and artistic writing, giving each of them equal time. Possibly you would make an argument for a kind of transparent writing that weaves in some elements of artistic writing but subordinates these to the transparent project (etc). It is not required that you actually write in more than one mode. I suggest that you rely on the transparent mode at least strategically, to a fair degree, as this is the language of power and a code you need to know. As you are learning other scholarly modes of writing, it is best to practice them in small amounts rather than rely on them to do all your work for you. (Keep in mind, too, your limited audience, i.e., me. I will be able to respond to some things better than others. For example, I am better at responding to narrative than at responding to poetry. Check with me before embarking on anything too avant garde, as I may have to tell you that I am not able to respond adequately to some undertakings.)

3) Naturally your paper should draw on and be informed by both the readings and the class discussions. In the interests of a well focused and compact paper, please do not combine this assignment with an assignment for a different course. This should be a paper distinctively for this course. This is not to say that you cannot draw on other things you have read, naturally, but it is to say that it should be clear that this is a paper that emerges from this course and that is pushing you (and me) to think further about the issues raised in the course.

Doing a specific textual analysis of a provocative article from the course and bringing other articles to bear on it would be one way of approaching the final paper. An epistemological and political journey is also a possible approach to the final paper, insofar as it focuses on issues raised by the course and is informed by readings from the course. It is better to have a tight, focused paper than an overly ambitious paper that you try to squeeze down, so with a topic like this, I would suggest focusing on some aspect of the journey — for example, going back and forth between different ideas about objectivity or accessibility; what writing in Spanish might have meant to you at different points in your school career and how this ties in with the issues raised in the course; or how you have struggled with ideas about the role of emotion and experience in academic writing.

Class Participation

Come to class having read the articles carefully. Also read one another.s writing carefully, with an eye to helping others achieve their writing goals. Listen at least as much as you talk. The goal in this class is not to be authoritative but to recognize and explore the value and limitations of different approaches to scholarly writing. This means taking some risks. It is vital that students listen to one another respectfully and give one another uptake.

• Prevent disruptions by turning off and refraining from use of cell phones and beepers, and by putting away extraneous reading materials. Use of laptop computers in class is not allowed without the instructor’s permission.
• Adhere to the University of Utah code for student conduct available at: http://www.admin.utah.edu/ppmanual/8/8-10.html.

Tue. 21 Aug.                    I. Introduction: Academic Ways of Meaning-Making

Handouts:
Dinitia Smith, “When Ideas Get Lost in Bad Writing,” The New York Times [Arts] (February 27, 1999): A19, 21.
Judith Butler, “A ‘Bad Writer’ Bites Back,” The New York Times [Op-Ed] (March 20, 1999): A27.
John McGowan, “Nussbaum vs. Butler, Round One,” guest post on Michael Bérubé Weblog (Thursday, August 11, 2005). http://www.michaelberube.com/index.php/nussbaum_v_butler_round_one/
John McGowan, “Theory Tuesday: Nussbaum vs. Butler, Round Two,” guest post on Michael Bérubé Weblog (Tuesday, August 23, 2005). http://www.michaelberube.com/index.php/theory_tuesday_nussbaum_v_butler_round_two/

Electronic handout: Some Questions We Will Be Asking about the Readings
 

Tue. 28 Aug.                 II. The Debate over Clarity

Readings:
Roger Andersen, “Overwriting and Other Techniques for Success with Academic Articles,” in Academic Writing: Process and Product, ed. Pauline C. Robinson (Basingstoke, UK: Modern English Publications in association with the British Council, 1988), 151-58. [ELT Documents #129]
James Miller, “Is Bad Writing Necessary? George Orwell, Theodor Adorno, and the Politics of Language,” Lingua Franca 9, no. 9 (December/January 2000): 33-44.
Henry Giroux, “Language, Difference, and Curriculum Theory: Beyond the Politics of Clarity,” Theory into Practice 31, no. 3 (Summer 1992): 219-27.
Francis Schrag, “On Style in Theorizing,” Educational Theory 46, no. 2 (Spring 1996): 151-59.

Handout: Guidelines for Student Responses to Peers’ Papers
 

Tue. 4 Sept.                 III. Transparent Writing: The Structure of the Argument

Readings:
Lawrence Kohlberg, “Indoctrination versus Relativity in Value Education,” in The Philosophy of Moral Development: Moral Stages and the Idea of Justice (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981), 6-28.
James D. Anderson, “How We Learn about Race through History,” in Learning History in America: Schools, Cultures, and Politics, ed. Lloyd Kramer, Donald Reid, and William L. Barney (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1994), 87-106.
Avon Crismore and Rodney Fransworth, “Metadiscourse in Popular and Professional Science Discourse,” in The Writing Scholar: Studies in Academic Discourse, ed. Walter Nash (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990), 118-36.

Handout: Checklist for Transparent Scholarly Writing

Please bring to class two copies of the first 2-3 pages of a paper you have written for another class OR the first 2-3 pages in which you lay out the argument (which may not be the actual first pages of the paper). We will be spending some class time in small-group exercises concerned with issues such as clarifying the structure of the argument, honing language, shaping detailed imagery, and identifying foils. If you do not have such a paper that you want to use for the class, write 2-3 pages on a topic in which you have an ongoing interest, laying out the foil and the argument..

Prepare a thesis statement and outline for a 2-page paper on why you think a particular course (graduate or undergraduate) should be offered (or should be made mandatory). After you have completed the outline and thesis statement, write a 2-page on this topic, using the principles of transparent writing, which include clarity, simplicity, brevity, accessibility or transparency, direct action verbs, and precision. The purpose of this assignment is to gain practice at transparent writing and to realize some of the strengths of the transparent tradition.
 

Tue. 11 Sept.                 IV. Authority in Transparent Writing

Readings:
Liz Stanley, “‘A Referral Was Made’: Behind the Scenes during the Creation of a Social Services Department ‘Elderly’ Statistic,” in Feminist Praxis: Research, Theory and Epistemology in Feminist Sociology, ed. Liz Stanley (London: Routledge, 1990), 113-22.
Charles Bazerman, “Codifying the Social Scientific Style: The APA Publication Manual as a Behaviorist Rhetoric,” in The Rhetoric of the Human Sciences: Language and Argument in Scholarship and Public Affairs, ed. John S. Nelson, Allan Megill, and Donald N. McCloskey (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1987), 125-44.
Nancy Zeller and Frank M. Farmer, “‘Catchy, Clever Titles Are Not Acceptable’: Style, APA, and Qualitative Reporting,” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 12, no. 1 (January-February 1999): 3-19.

Before class, prepare one typed page of comments for one person whose 2-page assignment you received via email. (Partners will be determined in advance.) Also read the assignments of the other two people in your group.

Tell a story you’ve always wanted to tell because it nags at you; or write a 1-2 page analysis or description of a classroom interaction; a wake-up experience in a relationship or in reading a book or article; a family tradition; a geographic setting; or any other description-based topic that has significance for something you would like to write about in connection with your studies (it could be a hobby, a sport, a humorous anecdote). Again, use the principles of transparent writing. In writing this piece, do not start with an outline. Start with an image or other sensory experience and spin off the writing from that, going back later to revise and reshape it in emergent ways. After you have written the story, write 3 sentences or a paragraph to start you on your way towards an analysis or argument. (Do not finish the analysis or argument; simply suggest the direction it would take.)
 

Tue. 18 Sept.                 V. Aesthetics and Rhetoric in Transparent Scholarly Writing

Readings:
George Orwell, in The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell, vol. IV: In Front of Your Nose, 1945-1950, ed. Sonia Orwell and Ian Angus (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1968), 127-40.
William Strunk, Jr., and E. B. White, “An Approach to Style,” in The Elements of Style, 4th ed. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2000), 66-85.
Mac Marshall, “The Wizard from Oz Meets the Wicked Witch of the East: Freeman, Mead, and Ethnographic Authority,” American Ethnologist 20, no. 3 (August 1993): 604-15.

By class period, have prepared one typed page of comments for one person whose 2-page assignment you received via email. (Partners will be determined in advance.) Also read the assignments written by the two other people in your group.
 

Tue. 25 Sept.                 VI. Institutional Politics and Transparent Scholarly Writing

Readings:
Margaret J. Marshall and Loren S. Barritt, “Choices Made, Worlds Created: The Rhetoric of AERJ,” American Educational Research Journal 27, no. 4 (Winter 1990): 589-609.
James W. Chesebro, “How to Get Published,” Communication Quarterly 41, no. 4 (Fall 1993): 373-82.
Tullen E. Bach, Carole Blair, William L. Nothstine, and Anne L. Pym, “How to Read ‘How to Get Published’,” Communication Quarterly 44, no. 4 (Fall 1996): 399-422.
Mari Matsuda, “Affirmative Action and Legal Knowledge: Planting Seeds in Plowed-Up Ground,” Harvard Women’s Law Journal 11 (Spring 1988): 1-17.
 

Tue. 2 Oct.                 VII. Critiques of Transparent Scholarly Writing

Readings:
Jane Tompkins, “Me and My Shadow,” in Gender and Theory: Dialogues on Feminist Criticism, ed. Linda Kauffman (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989), 121-39.
Joyce Trebilcott, “Dyke Methods,” Hypatia 3, no. 2 (Summer 1988): 1-13.
Ofelia Schutte, “Cultural Alterity: Cross-Cultural Communication and Feminist Theory in North-South Contexts,” Hypatia 13, no. 2 (Spring 1998): 53-72.

Tue. 9 Oct.                 FALL BREAK: CLASS DOES NOT MEET

Tue. 16 Oct.                 VIII. Artistic Scholarly Writing

Readings:
Min-zhan Lu, “Redefining the Legacy of Mina Shaughnessy: A Critique of the Politics of Linguistic Innocence,” Journal of Basic Writing 10, no. 1 (Spring 1991): 26-40.
Elliott W. Eisner, “What Artistically Crafted Research Can Help Us to Understand about the Schools,” Educational Theory 45, no. 1 (Winter 1995): 1-7.
Patricia J. Williams, “The Death of the Profane,” in The Alchemy of Race and Rights (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991), 44-51.
Barbara Tomlinson, “The Politics of Textual Vehemence, or Go to Your Room until You Learn How to Act,” Signs 22, no. 1 (Autumn 1996): 86-114.

Handout: Checklist for Artistic Scholarly Writing

Choose a topic that you think tends to be (or is likely to be) misrepresented in the transparent, universalist, direct-access-to-meaning tradition (perhaps discrimination against gay and lesbian students; what it means to communicate across racial divides; the problem of large college lecture formats; the ethics of friendship) and write 1½ - 2 pages on this topic. (Your discussion will be partial; write the paragraphs as if they were an important part but only a part of a longer paper.) Follow the principles of artistic scholarly writing: engage the attention and emotions of your readers, encourage them to trust your voice and your experience or insight; bring them into the meaning you are trying to create (rather than leaving them outside as objective observers and judges); help them to appreciate the distinctiveness of what it is that you are describing or discussing. The writing should be an invitation to a conversation (which does not mean that your tone has to be “nice” — it can be frustrated or angry, for example. But it should not be dismissive and it should not signal “end of conversation”). The purpose of this assignment is to gain practice at artistic writing and to realize some of the strengths of the artistic tradition.
 

Tue. 23 Oct.                 IX. Critiques of Artistic Scholarly Writing

Readings:
D. C. Phillips, “Art as Research, Research as Art,” Educational Theory 45, no. 1 (Winter 1995): 71-84.
Mary Ann Cain, “Writing the Subject: Representations of Experiential Knowledge,” in Revisioning Writers’ Talk: Gender and Culture in Acts of Composing (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995), 1-21.
Suzanne de Castell, “Literacy as Disempowerment: The Role of Documentary Texts,” in Philosophy of Education 1990, ed. David P. Ericson (Normal, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, 1991), 74-84.

By class period, have prepared one page of comments each for two other people in the class whose 2-page assignments you received via email. (Partners will be determined in advance.)
 

Tue. 30 Oct.                 X. Genre-Based Scholarly Writing

Readings:
Laurel Richardson, “Writing: A Method of Inquiry,” in Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd ed., ed. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Pub., 2000), 923-48.
Kevin K. Kumashiro, “Second Route: Rereading Normalcy in Christopher’s Stories,” in Troubling Education: Queer Activism and Antioppressive Pedagogy (New York: RoutledgeFalmer, 2002), 97-108.
Brent Kilbourn, “Fictional Theses,” Educational Researcher 28, no. 9 (December 1999): 27-32.
Octavio Villalpando, “Self-Segregation or Self-Preservation? A Critical Race Theory and Latina/o Critical Theory Analysis of a Study of Chicana/o College Students,” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 16, no. 5 (September/October, 2003): 619-45.

Handout: Checklist for Experimental and Genre-Based Scholarly Writing

Using either a paper you have already written or an ongoing writing project, select an idea or argument that would “open up,” become clearer or more vivid, be made richer or more complex, or otherwise benefit from being pulled out and recast as a 2-page genre moment (part of a television screenplay, a poem, an autobiography, an email exchange, a fairy tale, or a science fiction scene, for example). Use a genre you know well as well as one that would be useful or provocative for your paper. The purpose of this assignment is to gain practice at genre-based writing and to realize some of the strengths of that scholarly approach.

Alternatively: You and a writing partner from the class may work together to produce the 2-page genre piece. If you choose to write together, each writing partner should also write one to two paragraphs about what makes joint writing different from independent writing.
 

Tue. 6 Nov.                 XI. Critiques of Genre-Based Scholarly Writing

Readings:
Richard A. Posner, “Narrative and Narratology in Classroom and Courtroom,” Philosophy and Literature 21, no. 2 (October 1997): 292-305.
Roland Barthes, “Deliberation,” in The Rustle of Language, trans. Richard Howard (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), 359-73. [replace??]
Claudia Salazar, “A Third World Woman’s Text: Between the Politics of Criticism and Cultural Politics,” in Women’s Words: The Feminist Practice of Oral History, ed. Sherna Berger Gluck and Daphne Patai (New York: Routledge, 1991), 93-106.

By class period, have prepared one page of comments each for two other people in the class whose 2-page assignments you received via email. (Partners will be determined in advance.)
 

Tue. 13 Nov.                 XII. Transgressive Scholarly Writing

Readings:
María Lugones, C. Lugones and Elizabeth V. Spelman, “Have We Got a Theory for You! Feminist Theory, Cultural Imperialism and the Demand for ‘the Woman’s Voice,’” Women’s Studies International Forum 6 (1983): 573-81.
Patti Lather, “Fertile Obsession: Validity after Poststructuralism,” The Sociological Quarterly 34, no. 4 (November, 1993): 673-93.
Audrey Thompson, “Philosophers as Unreliable Narrators,” in Philosophy of Education: 2005, ed. Kenneth Howe (Urbana, IL: Philosophy of Education Society 2005), 60-68.

Handout: Checklist for Transgressive Scholarly Writing

Write one page on a topic that seems to you to invite transgressive treatment (a controversial topic, an untouchable or clichéd topic, or a normalizing theory, for example), using the principles of either transparent-transgressive or artistic-transgressive scholarly writing. Write a second page in which you explain or discuss the purposes that your transgressive approach was intended to meet. (Presumably these will be purposes that some other approach could not meet.) This assignment is intended to offer practice at transgressive writing and to demonstrate some of the strengths of that approach.
 

Tue. 20 Nov.                 XIII. Writing Workshop

Bring to class the 3 strongest pages from your draft of the final paper (or the three pages you most want help on). Students will work in small groups to give one another feedback. If you prefer, you can bring in 2 or 3 pages from an earlier class assignment that you have reworked and want more feedback on.
 

Tue. 27 Nov.                 XIV. Critiques of Transgressive Scholarly Writing

Readings:
Denis Dutton, “Writing Good, Bad, and Classic,” Philosophy and Literature 21, no. 2 (October 1997): 500-11.
Steve Fuller, “Whose Bad Writing?” Philosophy and Literature 23, no. 1 (April 1999): 174-80.
Gerald Graff, “Academic Writing and the Uses of Bad Publicity,” in Eloquent Obsessions: Writing Cultural Criticism, ed. Marianna Torgovnick (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1994), 208-19.

By class period, have prepared one page of comments each for two other people in the class whose 2-page assignments you received via email. (Partners will be determined in advance.)
 

Tue. 4 Dec.                 XV. Embodiment in Writing

Readings:
Jennifer Kelly, “‘You Can’t Get Angry with a Person’s Life’: Negotiating Aboriginal Women’s Writing, Whiteness, and Multicultural Nationalism in a University Classroom,” in Creating Community: A Roundtable on Canadian Aboriginal Literature, ed. Renate Eigenbrod and Jo-Ann Episkenew (Penticton, BC and Brandon, MB: Theytys Books/Bearpaw Publishing, 2002), 147-86.
Megan Boler, “The New Digital Cartesianism: Bodies and Spaces in Online Education,” in Philosophy of Education 2002, ed. Scott Fletcher (Urbana, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, 2003), 331-40.
Elspeth Probyn, “Problematic Selves: The Irony of the Feminine,” in Sexing the Self: Gendered Positions in Cultural Studies (London: Routledge, 1993), 32-57.
Lauren Smith, “Staging the Self: Queer Theory in the Composition Classroom,” in Straight with a Twist: Queer Theory and the Subject of Heterosexuality, ed. Calvin Thomas, with Joseph O. Aimone and Catherine A. F. MacGillivray (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2000), 68-84.
 

Tue. 11 Dec.                 Finals Week: No Class Meeting

5:00 PM                          Final paper due in lieu of exam
 
 

• Linda Martín Alcoff, “The Unassimilated Theorist,” PMLA 121, no. 1 (January 2006): 255-59.
• Roger Andersen, “Overwriting and Other Techniques for Success with Academic Articles,” in Academic Writing: Process and Product, ed. Pauline C. Robinson (Basingstoke, UK: Modern English Publications in association with the British Council, 1988), 151-58. [ELT Documents #129]
• Pamela J. Annas, “Style as Politics: A Feminist Approach to the Teaching of Writing,” College English 47, no. 4 (April 1985): 360-71.
• Gloria Anzaldúa, “To(o) Queer the Writer — Loca, escritora y Chicana,” in InVersions: Writing by Dykes, Queers and Lesbians, ed. Betsy Warland (Vancouver: Press Gang Publishers, 1991), 249-63.
• Arturo Arias, ed., The Rigoberta Menchú Controversy (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2001).
• Isabel Armstrong, The Radical Aesthetic (Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2000).
• Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin, eds., The Empire Writes Back: Theory and Practice in Post-Colonial Literatures (London: Routledge, 1989).
• G. Douglas Atkins, “Art and Anger — Upon Taking up the Pen Again: On Self(e)-Expression,” JAC 20, no. 2 (Spring 2000): 414-26.
• G. Douglas Atkins, “On Writing Well; Or, Springing the Genie from the Inkpot: A Not-So-Modest Proposal,” JAC 20, no. 1 (Winter 2000): 73-85.
• Tullen E. Bach, Carole Blair, William L. Nothstine, and Anne L. Pym, “How to Read ‘How to Get Published’,” Communication Quarterly 44, no. 4 (Fall 1996): 399-422.
• Roland Barthes, “Writers, Intellectuals, Teachers,” in The Rustle of Language, trans. Richard Howard (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), 309-31.
• Charles Bazerman, “Codifying the Social Scientific Style: The APA Publication Manual as a Behaviorist Rhetoric,” in The Rhetoric of the Human Sciences: Language and Argument in Scholarship and Public Affairs, ed. John S. Nelson, Allan Megill, and Donald N. McCloskey (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1987), 125-44. Also: Charles Bazerman, “Codifying the Social Scientific Style: The APA Publication Manual as a Behaviorist Rhetoric,” in Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988), 257-77.
• Charles Bazerman, Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988).
• Charles Bazerman, “What Written Knowledge Does: Three Examples of Academic Discourse,” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 11 (1981): 361-87. Also: Charles Bazerman, “What Written Knowledge Does: Three Examples of Academic Discourse,” in Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988), 18-55.
• Carol Berkenkotter, “A ‘Rhetoric for Naturalistic Inquiry’ and the Question of Genre,” Research in the Teaching of English 27, no. 3 (October 1993): 293-304.
• Michael Bérubé, “Against Subjectivity,” PMLA 111, no. 5 (October 1996): 1063-68.
• Michael Bérubé, Cathy N. Davidson, Sylvia Molloy, and David Palumbo-Liu, “Four Views on the Place of the Personal in Scholarship,” PMLA [Publications of the Modern Language Association of America] 111, no. 5 (October 1996): 1063-78.
• Patricia Bizzel, “Thomas Kuhn, Scientism, and English Studies,” College English 40, no. 7 (March 1979): 764-71.
• Joan Bolker, “Teaching Griselda to Write,” College English 40, no. 8 (April 1979): 906-08.
• Ivan Brady, “Anthropological Poetics,” in Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd ed., ed. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2000), 949-79.
• Jay L. Brand, “Can We Decide between Logical Positivism and Social Construction Views of Reality?” American Psychologist 51, no. 6 (June 1996): 652-53.
• Lillian Bridwell-Bowles, “Discourse and Diversity: Experimental Writing within the Academy,” College Composition and Communication 43, no. 3 (October 1992): 349-68.
• Joseph Bristow, ed., Sexual Sameness: Textual Differences in Lesbian and Gay Writing (London: Routledge, 1992).
• Linda Brodkey, Academic Writing as Social Practice (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1987).
• Linda Brodkey, “Writing Permitted in Designated Areas Only,” in Higher Education under Fire: Politics, Economics, and the Crisis of the Humanities, ed. Michael Bérubé and Cary Nelson (New York: Routledge, 1995), 214-37.
• Lise Buranen and Alice M. Roy, eds., Perspectives on Plagiarism and Intellectual Property in a Postmodern World State University of New York Press, 1999).
• Patricia Burdell and and Beth Blue Swadener, “Critical Personal Narrative and Autoethnography in Education: Reflections on a Genre,” Educational Researcher 28, no. 6 (August-September 1999): 21-26.
• Carolyn Burke, “Translation Modified: Irigaray in English,” in Engaging with Irigaray: Feminist Philosophy and Modern European Thought, ed. Carolyn Burke, Naomi Schor, and Margaret Whitford (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994), 249-61.
• Judith Butler, “A ‘Bad Writer’ Bites Back,” The New York Times [Op-Ed] (March 20, 1999): A27.
• Melisa Cahnmann, “The Craft, Practice, and Possibility of Poetry in Educational Research,” Educational Researcher 32, no. 3 (April 2003): 29-36.
• Mary Ann Cain, Revisioning Writers’ Talk: Gender and Culture in Acts of Composing (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995).
• Kathleen Casey, “The New Narrative Research in Education,” Review of Research in Education, vol. 21 (1995-1996), ed. Michael W. Apple (Washington, DC: American Educational Research Assn., 1995), 211-53.
• James W. Chesebro, “How to Get Published,” Communication Quarterly 41, no. 4 (Fall 1993): 373-82.
• Gregory J. Cizek, “Crunchy Granola and the Hegemony of the Narrative,” Educational Researcher 24, no. 2 (March 1995): 26-28.
• D. Jean Clandinin and Janice Huber, “Narrative Inquiry: Toward Understanding Life’s Artistry,” Curriculum Inquiry 32, no. 2 (Summer 2002): 161-69.
• Jacob Cohen, “Fuzzy Methodology,” Psychological Bulletin 112, no. 3 (November 1992): 409-10.
• Carola Conle, “An Anatomy of Narrative Curricula,” Educational Researcher 32, no. 3 (April 2003): 3-15.
• Carola Conle, “Thesis as Narrative or ’What Is the Inquiry in Narrative Inquiry?’” Curriculum Inquiry 30, no. 2 (Summer 2000): 189-214.
• F. Michael Connelly and D. Jean Clandinin, “Stories of Experience and Narrative Inquiry,” Educational Researcher 19, no. 4 (June-July 1990): 2-14.
• Robert J. Connors, “The Rhetoric of Citation Systems, Part I: The Development of Annotation Structures from the Renaissance to 1900,” Rhetoric Review 17, no. 1 (Fall 1998): 6-48.
• Robert J. Connors, “The Rhetoric of Citation Systems, Part II: Competing Epistemic Values in Citation,” Rhetoric Review 17, no. 2 (Spring 1998): 219-45.
• Vincent Crapanzano, Tuhami: Portrait of a Moroccan (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980).
• Vincent Crapanzano, “On the Writing of Ethnography,” Dialectical Anthropology 2, no. 1 (February 1977): 69-73.
• Avon Crismore, “The Rhetoric of Textbooks: Metadiscourse,” Journal of Curriculum Studies 16, no. 3 (July-Sept. 1984): 279-96.
• Avon Crismore and Rodney Fransworth, “Metadiscourse in Popular and Professional Science Discourse,” in The Writing Scholar: Studies in Academic Discourse, ed. Walter Nash (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990), 118-36.
• Reed Way Dasenbrock “English Department Geography: Interpreting the MLA Bibliography,” in Pedagogy Is Politics: Literary Theory and Critical Teaching, ed. Maria-Regina Kecht (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 193-214.
• Cathy N. Davidson, “Critical Fictions,” PMLA 111, no. 5 (October 1996): 1069-72.
• Kari Dehli, “Leaving the Comfort of Home: Working through Feminisms,” in Unsettling Relations: The University as a Site of Feminist Struggles, by Himani Bannerji, Linda Carty, Kari Dehli, Susan Heald, and Kate McKenna (Toronto: Women’s Press, 1991), 45-65.
• Richard Delgado, “Storytelling for Oppositionists and Others: A Plea for Narrative,” Michigan Law Review 87, no. 8 (August 1989): 2411-41.
• Norman K. Denzin, “The Art and Politics of Interpretation,” in Handbook of Qualitative Research, ed. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 1994), 500-15. Also: Norman K. Denzin, “The Practices and Politics of Interpretation,” in Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd ed., ed. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2000), 897-922.
• Jacques Derrida, “Signature Event Context,” in Limited Inc, ed. Gerald Graff, trans. Samuel Weber and Jeffrey Mehlman (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1988), 1-23. Originally published in Glyph 1 (1977).
• George L. Dillon, Contending Rhetorics: Writing in Academic Disciplines (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991).
• Don Dippo, “Tantalizing Textuality,” The Review of Education 15, no. 1 (1993): 29-40.
• David N. Dobrin, “Is Technical Writing Particularly Objective?” College English 47, no. 3 (March 1985): 237-51.
• Sidney I. Dobrin, Constructing Knowledges: The Politics of Theory-Building and Pedagogy in Composition (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997).
• Robert J. Douglas, “How to Write a Highly Cited Article without even Trying,” Psychological Bulletin 112, no. 3 (November 1992): 405-08.
• Nell K. Duke and Sarah W. Beck, “Education Should Consider Alternative Formats for the Dissertation,” Educational Researcher 28, no. 3 (April 1999): 31-36.
• Denis Dutton, “Writing Good, Bad, and Classic,” Philosophy and Literature 21, no. 2 (October 1997): 500-11.
• Elliot W. Eisner, “The Promise and Perils of Alternative Forms of Data Representation,” Educational Researcher 26, no. 6 (August-September 1997): 4-10.
• Elliott W. Eisner, “What Artistically Crafted Research Can Help Us to Understand about the Schools,” Educational Theory 45, no. 1 (Winter 1995): 1-7.
• Elliot Eisner and Kimberly Powell, “Art in Science?” Curriculum Inquiry 32, no. 2 (Summer 2002): 131-59.
• Fenwick W. English, “A Critical Appraisal of Sara Lawrence-Lightfoot’s Portraiture as a Method of Educational Research,” Educational Researcher 29, no. 7 (October 2000): 21-26.
• Patricia Ewick and Susan B. Silbey, “Subversive Stories and Hegemonic Tales: Toward a Sociology of Narrative,” Law and Society Review 29, no. 2 (1995): 197-226.
• Thomas J. Farrell, “The Female and Male Modes of Rhetoric,” College English 40, no. 8 (April 1979): 909-21.
• William A. Firestone, “Meaning in Method: The Rhetoric of Quantitative and Qualitative Research,” Educational Researcher 16, no. 7 (October 1987): 16-21.
• Georgette Fleischer, “Butler: Is It All Greek?” The Nation 271, no. 19 (December 11, 2000): 40-46. [review of Antigone’s Claim: Kinship between Life and Death, by Judith Butler] http://www.thenation.com/doc/20001211/fleischer/3
• Suzanne Fleischman, “Gender, the Personal, and the Voice of Scholarship: A Viewpoint,” Signs 23, no. 4 (Summer 1998): 975-1016.
• Douglas E. Foley, “Jay White Hawk: Mesquaki Athlete, AIM Hellraiser, and Anthropological Informant,” in Inside Sports, ed. Jay Coakley and Peter Donnelly (London: Routledge, 1999), 156-61.
• Karen A. Foss, Sonja K. Foss, and Cindy L. Griffin, Feminist Rhetorical Theories (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1999).
• Steve Fuller, “Whose Bad Writing?” Philosophy and Literature 23, no. 1 (April 1999): 174-80.
• Diana Hume George, “The Miltonic Ideal: A Paradigm for the Structure of Relations between Men and Women in Academia,” College English 40, no. 8 (April 1979): 864-70.
• Sandra M. Gilbert, “Life Studies, or, Speech after Long Silence: Feminist Critics Today,” College English 40, no. 8 (April 1979): 849-63.
• Henry Giroux, “Language, Difference, and Curriculum Theory: Beyond the Politics of Clarity,” Theory into Practice 31, no. 3 (Summer 1992): 219-27.
• Ellen J. Goldner and Safiya Henderson-Holmes, eds., Racing and (E)Racing Language: Living with the Color of Our Words (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2001).
• Gerald Graff, “Academic Writing and the Uses of Bad Publicity,” in Eloquent Obsessions: Writing Cultural Criticism, ed. Marianna Torgovnick (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1994), 208-19.
• Gerald Graff, “The Politics of Composition: A Reply to John Rouse,” College English 41, no. 8 (April 1980): 851-56.
• Janis Greve, “Legal Bodies, Racial Bodies: Autobiography and Autonomy in Patricia Williams’s Alchemy of Race and Rights,” in Bodies of Resistance: New Phenomenologies of Politics, Agency, and Culture, ed. Laura Doyle (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2001), 195-216.
• Alan G. Gross, “Does Rhetoric of Science Matter? The Case of the Floppy-Eared Rabbits,” College English 53, no. 8 (December 1991): 933-43.
• Maxine Hairston, “Diversity, Ideology, and Teaching Writing,” College Composition and Communication 43, no. 2 (May 1992): 179-93.
• S. Michael Halloran and Merrill D. Whitburn, “Ciceronian Rhetoric and the Rise of Science: The Plain Style Reconsidered,” in The Rhetorical Tradition and Modern Writing, ed. James J. Murphy (New York: The Modern Language Association of America, 1982), 58-72.
• Mary Hanrahan, Tom Cooper, and Sue Burroughs-Lange, “The Place of Personal Writing in a PhD Thesis: Epistemological and Methodological Considerations,” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 12, no. 4 (July-August 1999): 401-16.
• Andy Hargreaves, “Revisiting Voice,” Educational Researcher 25, no. 1 (January/February 1996): 12-19.
• Stephen Hilgartner, Science on Stage: Expert Advice as Public Drama (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001).
• Sue Ellen Holbrook, “Women’s Work: The Feminizing of Composition,” Rhetoric Review 9, no. 2 (Spring 1991): 201-29.
• Chris Holcomb, “Performative Stylistics and the Question of Academic Prose,” Rhetoric Review 24, no. 2 (2005): 188-206.
• Susan Hunter, “A Woman’s Place Is in the Composition Classroom: Pedagogy, Gender, and Difference,” Rhetoric Review 9, no. 2 (Spring 1991): 230-45.
• International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 13, no. 2 (March-April 2000). Special Issue: The Rigoberta Menchú Controversy: The Nature and Politics of Truth and Representation in a Postmodern Era.
• Sally Ito, “Issues for the Writer of Colour,” West Coast Line 28, no. 13/14 (Spring/Fall 1994): 172-78. [Colour: An Issue, special double issue, ed. Roy Miki and Fred Wah]
• Jo Ellen Jacobs, “‘The Lot of Gifted Ladies Is Hard’: A Study of Harriet Taylor Mill Criticism,” Hypatia 9, no. 3 (Summer 1994): 132-62.
• Ruth-Ellen Boetcher Joeres and Elizabeth Mittman, eds., The Politics of the Essay: Feminist Perspectives (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993).
• Ruthellen Josselson and Amia Lieblich, “Fettering the Mind in the Name of ‘Science,’” American Psychologist 51, no. 6 (June 1996): 651-52.
• Hugh Kenner, “The Politics of the Plain Style,” The New York Times Book Review LXXXX, no. 37 (September 15, 1985): 1, 39-40.
• Brent Kilbourn, “Fictional Theses,” Educational Researcher 28, no. 9 (December 1999): 27-32.
• Gesa E. Kirsch, Ethical Dilemmas in Feminist Research: The Politics of Location, Interpretation, and Publication (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999).
• Gesa Kirsch, “The Politics of I-Dropping,” College Composition and Communication 45, no. 3 (October 1994): 381-83.
• Gudrun Klein, “Philosophizing Crossdressers; or, Who Does What Things with Which Words?” Hypatia 9, no. 3 (Summer 1994): 163-82.
• Janette K. Klinger, David Scanlon, and Michael Pressley, “How to Publish in Scholarly Journals,” Educational Researcher 34, no. 8 (November 2005): 14-20.
• Marcel C. LaFollette, Stealing into Print: Fraud, Plagiarism, and Misconduct in Scientific Publishing (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992).
• Patti Lather, “Fertile Obsession: Validity after Poststructuralism,” Sociological Quarterly 34, no. 4 (November 1993): 673-93.
• Patti Lather, “Troubling Clarity: The Politics of Accessible Language,” Harvard Educational Review 66, no. 3 (Fall 1996): 525-45.
• David L. Lavery, “Dissertations as Fictions,” College English 41, no. 6 (February 1980): 675-79.
• Sarah Lawrence-Lightfoot and Jessica Hoffman Davis, The Art and Science of Portraiture (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997).
• Donald Lazere, “Teaching the Political Conflicts: A Rhetorical Schema,” College Composition and Communication 43, no. 2 (May 1992): 194-213.
• Kate Lenzo, “Validity and Self-Reflexivity Meet Poststructuralism: Scientific Ethos and the Transgressive Self,” Educational Researcher 24, no. 4 (May 1995): 17-45.
• Lingua Franca, ed., The Sokal Hoax: The Sham that Shook the Academy (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2000).
• Min-zhan Lu, “Redefining the Legacy of Mina Shaughnessy: A Critique of the Politics of Linguistic Innocence,” Journal of Basic Writing 10, no. 1 (Spring 1991): 26-40.
• María Lugones, “Hablando Cara a Cara/Speaking Face to Face: An Exploration of Ethnocentric Racism,” in Making Face, Making Soul/Haciendo Caras: Creative and Critical Perspectives by Women of Color, ed. Gloria Anzaldúa (San Francisco: Aunt Lute Foundation Books, 1990), 46-54.
• María C. Lugones and Elizabeth V. Spelman, “Have We Got a Theory for You! Feminist Theory, Cultural Imperialism and the Demand for the Woman’s Voice,” Women’s Studies International Forum 6 (1983): 573-81.
• Carmen Luke, Suzanne de Castell, and Allan Luke, “Beyond Criticism: The Authority of the School Text,” Curriculum Inquiry 13, no. 2 (1983): 111-27.
• Sarah Luria, “The Architecture of Manners: Henry James, Edith Wharton, and The Mount,” American Quarterly 49, no. 2 (June 1997): 298-327.
• Scott Richard Lyons, “Rhetorical Sovereignty: What Do American Indians Want from Writing?” College Composition and Communication 51, no. 3 (February 2000): 447-68.
• Susan Peck MacDonald, “The Literary Argument and Its Discursive Conventions,” in The Writing Scholar: Studies in Academic Discourse, ed. Walter Nash (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990), 31-62..
• John McGowan, “Nussbaum vs. Butler, Round One,” guest post on Michael Bérubé Weblog (Thursday, August 11, 2005). http://www.michaelberube.com/index.php/nussbaum_v_butler_round_one/
• John McGowan, “Theory Tuesday: Nussbaum vs. Butler, Round Two,” guest post on Michael Bérubé Weblog (Tuesday, August 23, 2005). http://www.michaelberube.com/index.php/theory_tuesday_nussbaum_v_butler_round_two/
• Robert Madigan, Susan Johnson, and Patricia Linton, “The Language of Psychology: APA Style as Epistemology,” American Psychologist 50, no. 6 (June 1995): 428-36.
• Robert Madigan, Patricia Linton, and Susan Johnson, “APA Style: Quo Vadis?” American Psychologist 51, no. 6 (June 1996): 653-55.
• Mac Marshall, “The Wizard from Oz Meets the Wicked Witch of the East: Freeman, Mead, and Ethnographic Authority,” American Ethnologist 20, no. 3 (August 1993): 604-15.
• Margaret J. Marshall and Loren S. Barritt, “Choices Made, Worlds Created: The Rhetoric of AERJ,” American Educational Research Journal 27, no. 4 (Winter 1990): 589-609.
• Vivian M. May, “Thinking from the Margins, Acting at the Intersections: Anna Julia Cooper’s A Voice from the South,” Hypatia, 19, no. 2 (Spring 2004): 74-91.
• Erica McWilliam, “‘Post’ haste: Plodding Research and Galloping Theory,” British Journal of Sociology of Education 14 (1993): 199-205.
• Edward Mendelson, “The OED in Review,” The Yale Review 72, no. 4 (July 1983): ix, xii, xv, xvi, xix, xxii.
• Miguel A. Méndez, “Lawyers, Linguists, Story-Tellers, and Limited English-Speaking Witnesses,” New Mexico Law Review 27, no. 1 (Winter 1997): 77-99.
• Robert K. Merton, “The Ambivalence of Scientists,” in Sociological Ambivalence and Other Essays (New York: Free Press, 1976), 32-55. Originally printed in The Bulletin of The Johns Hopkins Hospital 112 (February 1963): 77-79.
• Robert K. Merton, “The Ambivalence of Scientists: A Postscript,” in Sociological Ambivalence and Other Essays (New York: Free Press, 1976), 56-64.
• Robert K. Merton, “Forward to a Preface for an Introduction to a Prolegomenon to a Discourse on a Certain Subject,” The American Sociologist 4, no. 2 (May 1969): 99.
• Walter D. Mignolo, The Darker Side of the Renaissance: Literacy, Territoriality, and Colonization (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1995).
• Casey Miller and Kate Swift, The Handbook of Nonsexist Writing, 2nd ed. (New York: Perennial/Harper & Row, 1988). Orig: Casey Miller and Kate Swift, The Handbook of Nonsexist Writing (New York: Lippincott & Crowell, 1980).
• James Miller, “Is Bad Writing Necessary? George Orwell, Theodor Adorno, and the Politics of Language,” Lingua Franca 9, no. 9 (December/January 2000): 33-44.
• Sylvia Molloy, “Mock Heroics and Personal Markings,” PMLA 111, no. 5 (October 1996): 1072-75.
• Cherríe Moraga, “Algo secretamente amado [A Review of Gloria Anzaldúa’s Borderlands/La frontera: The New Mestiza],” in The Sexuality of Latinas, ed. Norma Alarcón, Ana Castillo, and Cherríe Moraga (Berkeley, CA: Third Woman Press, 1993), 151-56.
• Janice Moulton, “A Paradigm for Philosophy: The Adversary Method,” in Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science, ed. Sandra Harding and Merrill B. Hintikka (Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Co., 1983), 149-64.
• D. G. Myers, “Bad Writing,” Weekly Standard 4 (May 10, 1999): 36-39. http://www-english.tamu.edu/pers/fac/myers/bad_writing.html
• Greg Myers, “The Pragmatics of Politeness in Scientific Articles,” Applied Linguistics 10, no. 1 (March 1989): 1-35.
• Greg Myers, Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1990).
• Robert J. Nash, Liberating Scholarly Writing: The Power of Personal Narrative (New York: Teachers College Press, 2004).
• Gary Natriello, “For the Record: Picture This: Graphs, Figures, and Photographs in Academic Papers,” Teachers College Record 99, no. 1 (Fall 1997): 1-8.
• Susan Ohanian, “Silent Partners,” The Review of Education/Pedagogy/Cultural Studies 16, no. 2 (1994): 227-37.
• Richard Ohmann, “Use Definite, Specific, Concrete Language,” College English 41, no. 4 (December 1979): 390-97.
• Penny Oldfather and Jane West, “Qualitative Research as Jazz,” Educational Researcher 23, no. 8 (November 1994): 22-26.
• George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language,” in Essays (London: Penguin Books, in association with Martin Secker & Warburg, 2000), 348-60. Also: George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language,” in The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell, vol. IV: In Front of Your Nose, 1945-1950, ed. Sonia Orwell and Ian Angus (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1968), 127-40. Orig. in Horizon76 (April 1946).
• Susan Osborn, “Revision/Re-vision: A Feminist Writing Class,” Rhetoric Review 9, no. 2 (Spring 1991): 258-73.
• David Palumbo-Liu, “Historical Permutations of the Place of Race,” PMLA 111, no. 5 (October 1996): 1075-78.
• Daphne Patai, “Ethical Problems of Personal Narratives, or, Who Should Eat the Last Piece of Cake?” International Journal of Oral History 8, no. 1 (February 1987): 5-27.
• Daphne Patai, “U. S. Academics and Third World Women: Is Ethical Research Possible?” in Women’s Words: The Feminist Practice of Oral History, ed. Sherna Berger Gluck and Daphne Patai (New York: Routledge, 1991), 137-53.
• Daphne Patai, “When Method Becomes Power,” in Power and Method: Political Activism and Educational Research, ed. Andrew Gitlin (New York: Routledge, 1994), 61-73.
• Elspeth Probyn, “Problematic Selves: The Irony of the Feminine,” in Sexing the Self: Gendered Positions in Cultural Studies (London: Routledge, 1993), 32-57.
• D. C. Phillips, “Art as Research, Research as Art,” Educational Theory 45, no. 1 (Winter 1995): 71-84.
• D. C. Phillips, “Telling the Truth about Stories,” Teaching and Teacher Education 13, no. 1 (January 1997): 101-09.
• Donald Pizer, “Bad Critical Writing,” Philosophy and Literature 22, no. 1 (April 1998): 69-82.
• Richard A. Posner, “Narrative and Narratology in Classroom and Courtroom,” Philosophy and Literature 21, no. 2 (October 1997): 292-305.
• Minnie Bruce Pratt, “When the Words Open into Some Not Yet Open Space,” in InVersions: Writing by Dykes, Queers and Lesbians, ed. Betsy Warland (Vancouver: Press Gang Publishers, 1991), 25-35. Also published in a longer version as Minnie Bruce Pratt, “When the Words Open,” in Rebellion: Essays 1980-1991 (Ithaca, NY: Firebrand Books, 1991), 125-37.
• James C. Raymond, “I-Dropping and Androgyny: The Authorial I in Scholarly Writing,” College Composition and Communication 44, no. 4 (December 1993): 478-83.
• James Raymond, “Response,” College Composition and Communication 45, no. 3 (October 1994): 383-84.
• Laurel Richardson, Fields of Play (Constructing an Academic Life) (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1997).
• Laurel Richardson, Writing Strategies: Reaching Diverse Audiences (Newbury Park, CA: SAGE, 1990). [Qualitative Research Methods Series, Vol. 21]
• Laurel Richardson, “Poetics, Dramatics, and Transgressive Validity: The Case of the Skipped Line,” Sociological Quarterly 34, no. 4 (November 1993): 695-710. Also Laurel Richardson, “Poetics, Dramatics, and Transgressive Validity: ‘The Case of the Skipped Line,’” in Fields of Play (Constructing an Academic Life) (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1997), 154-68.
• Laurel Richardson, “Skirting a Pleated Text: De-Disciplining an Academic Life,” in Working the Ruins: Feminist Poststructural Theory and Methods in Education, ed. Elizabeth A. St. Pierre and Wanda S. Pillow (New York: Routledge, 2000), 153-63.
• Laurel Richardson, “Writing: A Method of Inquiry,” in Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd ed., ed. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Pub., 2000), 923-48. Original version is: Laurel Richardson, “Writing: A Method of Inquiry,” in Handbook of Qualitative Research, ed. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994), 516-29.
• Leslie G. Roman, “The Political Significance of Other Ways of Narrating Ethnography: A Feminist Materialist Approach,” in The Handbook of Qualitative Research in Education, ed. Margaret D. LeCompte, Wendy L. Millroy, and Judith Preissle (San Diego: Academic Press, 1992), 555-94.
• Mariana Romo-Carmona, “The Color of My Narrative,” Radical America 24, no. 4 (September-December 1990): 77-83. [actually published April 1993]
• Mike Rose, “The Language of Exclusion: Writing Instruction at the University,” College English 47, no. 4 (April 1985): 341-59.
• Mike Rose and Karen A. McClafferty, “A Call for the Teaching of Writing in Graduate Education,” Educational Researcher 30, no. 2 (March 2001): 27-33.
• Edward Said, “Restoring Intellectual Coherence,” MLA [Modern Language Association] Newsletter 31, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 3-4.
• Edward E. Sampson, “Scientific Paradigms and Social Values: Wanted — A Scientific Revolution,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36, no. 11 (November 1978): 1332-43.
• Greg Sarris, “Storytelling in the Classroom: Crossing Vexed Chasms,” in Keeping Slug Woman Alive: A Holistic Approach to American Indian Texts (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 149-68.
• Pierre Schlag, “The Aesthetics of American Law,” Harvard Law Review 115, no. 4 (February 2002): 1047-1118.
• John Robert Schmitz, “Offsetting the Exclusive Use of English in International Journals,” Discourse and Society 11, no. 2 (April 2000): 283-85.
• Francis Schrag, “On Style in Theorizing,” Educational Theory 46, no. 2 (Spring 1996): 151-59.
• Francis Schrag, “Response to Giroux,” Educational Theory 38, no. 1 (Winter 1988): 143-44.
• Cynthia L. Selfe, “To His Nibs, G. Douglas Atkins — Just in Case You’re Serious about Your Not-So-Modest Proposal,” JAC 20, no. 2 (Spring 2000): 405-13.
• Sharon Shelton-Colangelo and Lynn Becker Haber, “Bringing Women’s Ways of Knowing to Doctoral Research,” in The Woman-Centered University: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. Melanie McCoy and JoAnn DiGeorgio-Lutz (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1999), 127-36.
• Judith H. Shulman, “Now You See Them, Now You Don’t: Anonymity versus Visibility in Case Studies of Teachers,” Educational Researcher 19, no. 5 (August/September 1990): 11-15.
• Dinitia Smith, “When Ideas Get Lost in Bad Writing,” The New York Times [Arts] (February 27, 1999): A19, A21.
• Lauren Smith, “Staging the Self: Queer Theory in the Composition Classroom,” in Straight with a Twist: Queer Theory and the Subject of Heterosexuality, ed. Calvin Thomas, with Joseph O. Aimone and Catherine A. F. MacGillivray (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2000), 68-84.
• Linda Tuhiwai Smith, Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples (London: Zed Books, 1999).
• Sidonie Smith, “Who’s Talking/Who’s Talking Back? The Subject of Personal Narrative,” Signs 18, no. 2 (Winter 1993): 392-407.
• Geneva Smitherman, “‘God Don’t Never Change’: Black English from a Black Perspective,” College English 34, no. 6 (March 1973): 828-33.
• Dorte Marie Søndergaard, “Angels and Research,” Educational Researcher 29, no. 7 (October 2000): 31-33. [review of Troubling the Angels: Women Living with HIV/AIDS, by Patti Lather and Chris Smithies]
• Liz Stanley, “‘A Referral Was Made’: Behind the Scenes during the Creation of a Social Services Department ‘Elderly’ Statistic,” in Feminist Praxis: Research, Theory and Epistemology in Feminist Sociology, ed. Liz Stanley (London: Routledge, 1990), 113-22.
• Camilla Stivers, “Reflections on the Role of Personal Narrative in Social Science,” Signs 18, no. 2 (Winter 1993): 408-25.
• William Strunk, Jr., and E. B. White, The Elements of Style, 4th ed. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2000).
• Janis Tedesco, “Women’s Ways of Knowing/Women’s Ways of Composing,” Rhetoric Review 9, no. 2 (Spring 1991): 246-56.
• Audrey Thompson, “Gentlemanly Orthodoxy: Critical Race Feminism, Whiteness Theory, and the APA Manual,” Educational Theory 54, no. 1 (Winter 2004): 27-57.
• Audrey Thompson, “How Scholarly Writing Makes Readers Work,” Journal of Scholarly Publishing 29, no. 2 (January 1998): 87-100.
• Audrey Thompson, “A Modest Proposal for Preventing Philosophers of Education from Being a Burden to Their Students or Their Country; and for Making Them Beneficial to Their Publick,” Educational Foundations 12, no. 3 (Summer 1998): 67-71.
• Audrey Thompson, “Philosophers as Unreliable Narrators,” in Philosophy of Education 2005, ed. Kenneth Howe (Urbana, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, 2005), 60-68.
• Audrey Thompson, “Talking Typewriters: Rethinking Written Discourse in Education,” Educational Foundations 11, no. 2 (Winter 1997): 5-30.
• Audrey Thompson, “Who Thinks Like This?” in Philosophy of Education 1999, ed. Randall Curren (Urbana, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, 2000), 15-18.
• A. M. Tibbetts, “What Did Orwell Think about the English Language?” College Composition and Communication 29, no. 2 (May 1978): 162-66.
• William G. Tierney, “Reframing the Narrative Voice in Educational Research,” The Review of Education/Pedagogy/Cultural Studies 16, no. 1 (1994): 87-92.
• Barbara Tomlinson, “The Politics of Textual Vehemence, or Go to Your Room until You Learn How to Act,” Signs 22, no. 1 (Autumn 1996): 86-114.
• Jane Tompkins, “Me and My Shadow,” in Gender and Theory: Dialogues on Feminist Criticism, ed. Linda Kauffman (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989), 121-39.
• Stephen Toulmin and David E. Leary, “The Cult of Empiricism in Psychology and Beyond,” in A Century of Psychology as Science, ed. Sigmund Koch and David E. Leary (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1985), 594-617.
• Joyce Trebilcott, “Dyke Methods,” in Lesbian Philosophies and Culture, ed. Jeffner Allen (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990), 15-29. Also: Joyce Trebilcott, “Dyke Methods, or Principles for the Discovery/Creation of the Withstanding,” Hypatia 3, no. 2 (Summer 1988): 1-13.
• Trinh T. Minh-ha, Woman, Native, Other: Writing Postcoloniality and Feminism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989).
• Teun A. van Dijk, “Editorial: The Imperialism of English,” Discourse and Society 8, no. 3 (July 1997): 291-92.
• Douglas Vipond, “Problems with a Monolithic APA Style,” American Psychologist 51, no. 6 (June 1996): 653.
• Douglas Vipond, Writing and Psychology: Understanding Writing and Its Teaching from the Perspective of Composition Studies (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1993).
• Michelene Wandor, ed., On Gender and Writing (London: Pandora Press, 1983).
• Elizabeth Weed, “The Question of Style,” in Engaging with Irigaray: Feminist Philosophy and Modern European Thought, ed. Carolyn Burke, Naomi Schor, and Margaret Whitford (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994), 79-109.
• Thomas Whiteside, The Blockbuster Complex: Conglomerates, Show Business, and Book Publishing (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1980).
• Patricia J. Williams, The Alchemy of Race and Rights (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991).
• Margery Wolf, A Thrice Told Tale: Feminism, Postmodernism, and Ethnographic Responsibility (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992).
• Diana Zacharia Worby, “In Search of a Common Language: Women and Educational Texts,” College English 40, no. 1 (September 1979): 101-05.
• Susan Wyche-Smith and Shirley K. Rose, “Throwing Our Voices: The Effects of Academic Discourse on Personal Voice,” Writing on the Edge 2, no. 1 (Fall 1990): 34-50.
• Nancy Zeller and Frank M. Farmer, “‘Catchy, Clever Titles Are Not Acceptable’: Style, APA, and Qualitative Reporting,” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 12, no. 1 (January-February 1999): 3-19.
• Jo Zuppan, “The Sexist Pronouns,” Scholarly Publishing 5, no. 1 (October 1973): 59-64.