Shifting Tradition: Writing Research in Canada

Abstract

This essay locates Canadian writing research historically and provides a brief taxonomy of the scholarship produced in Canada and by Canadian rhetoric and composition scholars. It examines Canadian writing research from 1953 to the present day, and notes the importance of the scholarship of definition to mapping the Canadian landscape of the discipline of rhetoric and composition. It provides a contemporary snapshot of the work of Canadian writing scholars as intentionally separate from that of the United States, and asserts that Canadian scholarship is poised for revitalization, given the current new trend of focused attention on international writing research.

Keywords:

• writing studies
• writing research
• rhetoric and composition
• disciplinarity
• professionalization
• national culture

Notes

1. Johnson (1987a, 205–17). See also Johnson (1987b, 296–304), Johnson (1988, 861–73), Hubert (1994a), Graves (1994), and Brooks (2002, 673–84).

2. For a conversation about contemporary changes in the locales of Canadian writing pedagogy and administration, see Graves and Graves (2006).

3. Hubert (1994a, 4).

4. Hubert (1994a, 4).

5. Johnson (1988, 862).

6. Johnson (1988, 863).

7. Quoted in Hubert (1994a, 172).

8. A.S.P. Woodhouse, quoted in Harris (1988, 126).

9. See Kevin Brooks's discussion of how these events unfolded in Canadian departments of English literature (2002, 680).

10. Frye (1958, 5).

11. Bissell (1968, 10–15).

12. Brooks (2002, 673–84), Graves (1994a), Smith (1999; 2006, 319–70), and Graves and Graves (2006).

13. Graves and Graves (2006, 372).

14. Graves and Graves (2006, 372). See also Smith (1999; 2006, 319–70) and Brent (1990, 1–4; 1991, 22–5).

15. Ohmann (1999, 227).

16. Smith (2006, 355).

17. Brown et al. (2005, 7–8).

18. Doctoral Consortium in Rhetoric and Composition (2005).

19. The Canadian Association for the Study of Discourse and Writing (2008a).

20. The Canadian Association for the Study of Discourse and Writing (2008b).

21. Although the Canadian Communication Association (begun in 1980) is a flourishing scholarly organization, its primary focus is on new media practices of communication; in contrast, the NCA emerges out of the Speech Communication tradition, which has no immediate Canadian counterpart.

22. Council of Writing Program Administrators (2005–2007).

23. Canadian Society for the Study of Rhetoric (2007).

24. For a broader discussion of professionalization in the American field of rhetoric and composition, see Rosner, Boehm, and Journet (1999); Berlin (1987); North (1987; 1996, 194–207).

25. CompPile is an online bibliographic reference tool of scholarship published in rhetoric and composition (post-secondary writing) since 1939; it is maintained by Rich Haswell and Glenn Blalock, and sponsored on the web by Texas A&M Corpus Christi at http://comppile.org/.

26. Because both ESL and communication studies are perhaps outside the disciplinary center of “rhet/comp” – ESL scholarship has produced a distinct subfield, and communication studies, its own field proper – I have included them in mention and corpus data when they emerge in published locations relevant to the discipline.

27. Connors (1999, 19); Lauer (1984, 20–9); Berlin (1988, 477–94).

28. Harris (1953).

29. Connors (1999, 19).

30. Harris (1976).

31. Lunsford (1980, 41–51).

32. Lunsford and Cross (1982, 7–13).

33. Lunsford (1984).

34. Lunsford (1986, 103–27).

35. Andrea Lunsford, “Re: Canadian Writing Research,” 17 December 2007, personal email (12 August 2008).

36. Johnson (1986a, 205–17).

37. Johnson (1986b, 296–304).

38. Johnson (1988, 861–73).

39. Coe (1988, 849–60).

40. Giltrow (1988, 17–25).

41. Harris (1988).

42. Eldridge (1990, 177–87).

43. Hubert (1991, 1–30).

44. Hubert (1994b, 13–31).

45. Hubert (1994a).

46. Hubert (1995, 381–97).

47. Hubert and Garrett-Petts (2006, 61–93).

48. Graves (1993, 72–105).

49. Graves (1994b, 47–58).

50. Graves, McFadden and Moore (1994, 237–50).

51. Graves (1994a).

52. Graves (1995, 110–4).

53. Graves (1997, 235–52).

54. Graves and Graves (2006).

55. Kearns and Turner (1997, 31–43; 2002, 90–103).

56. Smith (1999).

57. Allen (2000, 249–90).

58. Dorland (2002, 46–64).

59. Hamilton (2002, 4–26).

60. Graves (1994, 24).

61. Reither (1983, 2–3).

62. Gowda (1985, 6–7).

63. Evansand Nodelman (1985, 6–10).

64. Reither (1985, 1–2).

65. Coe (1985, 1–3).

66. Brent (1986, 6–7).

67. Reither (1982, 3).

68. Berlin (1988, 488).

69. Medway (1989 22–32).

70. Baardman, Straw, and Atkinson (1994).

71. Coe (1999, 37–42).

72. Jacobs and Ronald (2000, 59–77).

73. Bazerman and Russell (1994).

74. Graves (1994) and Graves and Graves (2006).

75. Giltrow and Valiquette (1994, 47).

76. Schryer and Steven (1994).

77. Garrett-Pett (1997, 76–91).

78. Irish (1999, 83–102).

79. MacKinnon (1993. 41–55.

80. Medway (1994, 3–13).

81. Freedman and Adam (1996, 395–427).

82. Giltrow (1998, 265–86).

83. Schryer et al. (2002, 62–96).

84. Artemeva (2002, 183–97).

85. Artemeva (2002, 199–222).

86. Freedman (1993, 222–51).

87. Schryer (1993, 200–34).

88. Freedman, Adam, and Smart (1994, 192–226).

89. Freedman and Medway (1994a).

90. Freedman and Medway (1994b).

91. Coe and Freedman (1998, 136–47).

92. Dias et al. (1999).

93. Schryer (1999, 81–9).

94. Coe, Lingard, and Teslenko (2002).

95. Coe (2002, 197–207).

96. Artemeva and Freedman (2006).

97. Hunt (2006, 371–83).

98. Burke (1965, 5–6).

99. Jacobs and Dolmage (2006, 121–46).

100. Devitt (1993, 573–86).

101. Lauer (1984, 20).