Rhetorical Cues and Cultural Clues: An Analysis of the Recommendation Letter in English Studies

Abstract

Analysis of a collection of contemporary recommendation letters for admission to a PhD program in English studies revealed differences in length, level of specificity, and rhetorical appeals that applied much more strongly to candidates' acceptance status than to gender. Across both status and gender groupings, however, candidates were frequently appraised through economic metaphors, indicating a disciplinary culture that dually approaches graduate students as immediate sources of labor and as the future of the profession. Findings from these letters should promote continued conversation about disciplinary culture and clearer guidelines for those writing and requesting recommendation letters.

Notes

¹My own work on the contemporary letter of recommendation has benefited from the helpful feedback of RR peer reviewers Duane Roen and Janice Lauer, and most especially from the generous mentoring of Professor Jeff Carroll. As Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg explain in their introduction to the Ars Dictaminis, an anonymous manuscript on the principles of letter-writing dating back to ca. 1135 Florence, in medieval universities “instruction in ‘rhetoric’ came to be exclusively instruction in the art of letter writing” (494). For additional historical scholarship on epistolary theory and practice, see the work of James Murphy, Martin Camargo, Carol Poster, and Linda Mitchell.

²In 1991 Henrik Eger from the University of Illinois at Chicago's English Department wrote a dissertation on the recommendation letter; Egar's dissertation, however, focused on letter-writing practices within American business culture rather than within the profession of English.

³Prior to my viewing these letters, a member of the Graduate Admissions Committee redacted all identifying information, including names of candidates, recommenders, and institutions. For each letter the redactor noted the acceptance status, gender of recommender and candidate, country of origin, and institutional classification (private/public and highest degree granted).

⁴Some sentences addressed more than one category, and in these cases, I credited both topics equally.

⁵A sentence ostensibly about scholarship, teaching, or citizenship may also serve as a doubt raiser, as in the following examples of faint praise: “In all her work, [name] can be counted on to come to class prepared to participate in class discussions” and “To my knowledge, she has never missed one of our optional professional development workshops, which range across topics like CV-building, preparing conference abstracts, and identifying suitable journals and organizations in your field.” A majority of Graduate Admissions Committee members noted that they tended to read descriptions of an applicant doing what any graduate student would be expected to do as code for the candidate being rather pedestrian.

⁶There are some parallels between these stylistic flourishes and the British models studied by Kristen Precht (256).

⁷The Modern Language Association (MLA) website notes that advisers should be prepared to write their graduate students “honest and constructive” letters of recommendation and that those who “doubt their ability to evaluate a student fairly should decline the task.” For academic job seekers in need of recommendation letters, the MLA website provides a useful checklist of questions: “Have you requested letters from three to five faculty members who feel positively about you and who know your coursework, dissertation, and teaching? Have you given your referees sufficient information about your record and the kinds of institutions you are applying to? Have you given referees at least several weeks to prepare their letters of recommendation?”

Eger, Henrik. “Writer Perception, Writer Projection: The Influence of Personality, Ideology, and Gender on Letters of Recommendation.” Unpublished diss. University of Illinois at Chicago: 1991.