Job Market Mentoring in Rhetoric and Composition and Technical Communication

Abstract

Based on survey responses from eighty-five scholars on the job market from 2013 and 2019, this article examines mentoring for the job market in rhetoric and composition and technical communication. Respondents indicate needs for job market mentoring; more transparency about the job market itself; and more extensive, integrated support throughout graduate programs. The article concludes with actions that can be taken to improve the job market experience in rhetoric and composition and technical communication programs.

Notes

1 I thank RR reviewers, Drs. Michelle Eble and Erika Sparby, for giving specific, invaluable comments for how to make this manuscript stronger. I also thank Dr. Collin Craig for writing with me each week and encouraging me, Dr. Rebecca Walton for giving me helpful advice, and, most importantly, Dr. Bridget Gelms, who spent many hours with me moving through the data and helping this manuscript find focus.

2 Totals for the academic year are based on a July 1^st deadline on Rhet Map.

3 The survey was designed using Survey Monkey and distributed mainly via professional listservs in the field, as well as social media.

4 It was indicated to respondents that any place in which their or another’s gender (e.g. pronouns) or institution was named it would be anonymized. All respondents and their referents are referred to with they/them/their pronouns and institutions were anonymized (e.g. “large public university”).

5 Thematic analysis is similar to such qualitative methods as grounded theory and discourse analysis (Kiger and Varpio 2), common methods in rhetoric, composition, and technical communication scholarship.

6 Unfortunately, it was not possible for Dr. Gelms and I to complete the study together post-data analysis due to unforeseen and personal circumstances. I am indebted to her for her labor on this project, especially in developing our methodology, interpreting data, and developing themes.

7 The Post-Phase 3 Themes are in no particular order; if anything, the order they appear in this list is the way in which they surfaced as we moved through the data set.

8 Two respondents identified as Black (“African American” and “Multiracial Black and White” descriptors); four respondents identified as Latinx (Latina, Chicana, Chicanx, and Mexican American descriptors); Seven respondents identified as Asian (Filipino, Indian, South Asian, South-Asian American, and Tamil descriptors). Still other respondents (one each) described themselves as Indigenous, Jewish, Italian, and Arab.

9 Descriptors such as “cis woman,” “cis female,” “woman,” and “female” were used.

10 While this study does not focus explicitly on how LGBTQ people experience mentoring, especially mistreatment, more research is warranted given the many responses that highlight these.

11 Institutions were defined by type and size in this survey. Large 4-year institutions were defined as enrollment over 20,000 students. Mid-sized institutions were defined as enrollment between 10,000 and 20,000 students. Small institutions were defined as enrollment under 10,000 students.

12 Respondents could elect more than one of these and write in their own.

13 There were considerable overlaps between working conditions, financial precarity, and the theme Lack of Transparency About Realities of the Market.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Zarah C. Moeggenberg

Zarah C. Moeggenberg is an assistant professor of technical communication and interaction design at Metropolitan State University in the Twin Cities. She teaches courses driven by social justice in editing, document design, rhetorical theory, and technical communication. She publishes on the job market, social justice in technical communication, and queer and feminist rhetorics.