Collaboration Bibliography


Allen, N., Atkinson, D., Morgan, M., Moore, T., & Snow, C. (1987). What experienced collaborators say about collaborative writing. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 1(2), 70–90.

Allen, N., & Benninghoff, S. T. (2004). TPC program snapshots: Developing curricula and addressing challenges. Technical Communication Quarterly, 13, 157-185.

Anders, A. (2016). Team communication platforms and emergent social collaboration practices. International Journal of Business Communication, 53(2), 224–261.

Baker, M.J. (2015). Collaboration in collaborative learning. Interaction Studies: Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems, 16(3), 451–473.

Behfar, K., Kern, M., & Brett, J. (2006). Managing challenges in multicultural teams. In Y-R. Chen (Ed.), National Culture and Groups (Research on Managing Groups and Teams, Volume 9) (pp. 233-262). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Behles, J. (2013). The use of online collaborative writing tools by technical communication practitioners and students. Technical Communication, 50(1), 28-44.

Bennett, L.M., & Gadlin, H. (2012). Collaboration and team science: From theory to practice. Journal of Investigative Medicine, 60(5), 768–775. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3652225/

Blair, K. & Nickoson, L. (Eds.) (2018). Composing feminist interventions: Activism, engagement, praxis. Fort Collins/Boulder, CO: The WAC Clearinghouse & University Press of Colorado.

Bleich, D. (1995). Collaboration and the pedagogy of disclosure. College English, 57(1), 43–61.

Blumer, H. (1986). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Bormann, E. (1972). Fantasy and rhetorical vision: The rhetorical criticism of social reality. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 58, 396–407.

Boyle, C. (2018). Rhetoric as a posthuman practice. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press.

Bruffee, K.A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the conversation of mankind. College English, 46(7), 635–652.

Bruffee, K.A. (1998). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Burnett, R.E., Cooper, A., & Welhausen, C.A. (2013). What do technical communicators need to know about collaboration? In J. Johnson-Eilola & S.A. Selber (Eds.), Solving problems in technical communication (pp. 454-478 ). University of Chicago Press.

Burnett, R.E. & Ewald, H.R. (1994). Rabbit trails, ephemera, and other stories: Feminist methodology and collaborative research. JAC: Journal of Advanced Composition, 14(1), 21–51.

Burnett, R.E., White, C.I., & Duin, A.H. (1997). Locating collaboration: Reflections, features, and influences. In K. Staples & C. Ornatowski (Eds.), Foundations for teaching technical communication: Theory, practice, and program design (ATTW contemporary studies in technical communication; v.1, pp.133–160). Greenwich, CT: Ablex Publishing.

Cardon, P.W. (2016). Community, culture, and affordances in social collaboration and communication. International Journal of Business Communication, 53(2), 141–147.

Cella, L. & Restaino, J. (2014). Lean on: Collaboration and struggle in writing and editing. Literacy in Composition Studies, 2(2), 66–76.

Chism, N. (2006). Challenging traditional assumptions and rethinking learning spaces. In D.G. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning spaces (pp. 2.1–2.12). Boulder, CO: Educause.

Collaboration software. (2019). Capterra, https://www.capterra.com/collaboration-software/

Cooke, N. & Hilton, M. (Eds.) (2015). Enhancing the effectiveness of team science. National Research Council. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/19007.

Crisp, C.B., & Jarvenpaa, S.L. (2013). Swift trust in global virtual teams: Trusting beliefs and normative actions. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 12(1), 45-56.

Cronen, V. (2001). Practical theory, practical art, and the pragmatic-systemic account of inquiry. Communication Theory, 11, 14–35.

Cross, G.A. (2001). Forming the collective mind: A contextual exploration of large-scale collaborative writing in industry. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Data visualization. (2019). https://www.elsevier.com/authors/author-resources/data-visualization

Duffy, W. (2014). Collaboration (in) theory: Reworking the social turn’s conversational imperative. College English, 76(5), 416–435.

Duin, A.H., Palumbo, G., Arno, E., Goetz, G., Maylath, B., Mousten, B., Vandepitte, S. (2018). The trans-Atlantic and Pacific project (TAPP) model. Instructions for designing, deploying, and studying internationally networked collaboration. https://sites.google.com/a/umn.edu/tapp2018/

Duin, A.H., Moses, J., McGrath, M., Tham, J., & Ernst, N. (2017). Design thinking methodology: A case study of “radical collaboration” in the Wearables Research Collaboratory. Connexions: International Professional Communication Journal, 5(1), 45–74.

Duin, A.H., & Tham, J. (2018). Cultivating code literacy: A case study of course redesign through advisory board engagement. Communication Design Quarterly, 6(3), 44–58.

Ede, L. & Lunsford, A.A. (1984). Audience addressed/audience invoked: The role of audience in composition theory and pedagogy. College Composition and Communication, 35(2), 155–171.

Ede, L. & Lunsford, A.A. (1985). Let them write––together. English Quarterly, 18, 119–127.

Ede, L. & Lunsford, A.A. (1990). Singular texts/plural authors. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Ede, L. & Lunsford, A.A. (2001). Collaboration and concepts of authorship. PMLA, 116(2), 354–369.

Ede, L. & Lunsford, A.A. (2009). Among the audience: On audience in an age of new literacies. In M.E. Weiser, B.M. Fehler, and A.M. Gonzalez (Eds.), Engaging audience: Writing in an age of new literacies (pp. 42–72). Urbana, IL: NCTE.

Fluckinger, D. (2019). AI in enterprise collaboration platforms: A comparison. https://searchcontentmanagement.techtarget.com/ehandbook/Artificial-intelligence-meets-enterprise-collaboration-systems

Frank, D.A., & Bolduc, M. (2010). Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca’s New Rhetoric, Quarterly Journal of Speech, 96(2), 141–163.

Fredlund, K. (2016). Feminist CHAT: Collaboration, nineteenth-century women’s clubs, and activity theory. College English, 78(5), 470–495).

Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Gierdowski, D. & Reis, D. (2015). The MobileMaker: An experiment with a mobile makerspace. Library Hi Tech, 33(4), 480–496.

Goel, A.K., & Polepeddi, L. (2016). Jill Watson: A virtual teaching assistant for online education. Design & Intelligence Laboratory, School of Interactive Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology. https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/59104/goelpolepeddi-harvardvolume-v7.1.pdf

Gouran, D. (1988). Group decision making: An integrative research. In C. Tardy (Ed.), A handbook for the study of human communication (pp. 247–267). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Gouran, D. (2003). Reflections on the type of question as a determinant of the form of interaction in decision-making and problem-solving discussions. Communication Quarterly, 53, 111–125.

Gurak, L. & Duin, A.H. (2004). The impact of the Internet and digital technologies on teaching and research in technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 13(2), 187–198.

Hackos, J. (2015). Changing times––Changing skills. Communication Design Quarterly, 3(2), 7-12.

Hall, K., Vogel, A.L., Huang, G.C., Serrano, K.J., Rice, E.L., Tsakraklides, S.P., & Fiore, S.M.  (2018). The science of team science: A review of the empirical evidence and research gaps on collaboration in science. American Psychologist, 73(4), 532-548.

Hart, H. & Conklin, J. (2006). Toward a meaningful model for technical communication. Technical Communication, 53(4), 395–415.

Henschel, S. & Meloncon, L. (2014). Of horsemen and layered literacies: Assessment instruments for aligning technical and professional communication undergraduate curricula with professional expectations. Programmatic Perspectives, 6(1), 3–26.

Hinrichs, M. M., Seager, T.P.,  Tracy, S.J., & Hannah, M.A. (2017). Innovation in the knowledge age: Implications for collaborative science. Environment Systems and Decisions 37(2), 144–55.

Hirokawa, R. (1994). Functional approaches to the study of group decision. Small Group Research, 25(4), 542–550.

Iliadis, A. & Pedersen, I. (2018). The fabric of digital life: Uncovering sociotechnical tradeoffs in embodied computing through metadata. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society. 16(3), 1-19.

Isenberg, P, Elmqvist, N., Scholtz, J., Cernea, D., Ma, K-L, & Hagen, H. (2011). Collaborative visualizatino: Definition, challenges, and research agenda. Information Visualization, 10(4), 310-326.

Jones, S.L. (2007). How we collaborate: Reported frequency of technical communicators’ collaborative writing activities. Technical Communication, 54(3), 283–294.

Karach, A. & Roach, D. (1992). Collaborative writing, consciousness raising, and practical feminist ethics. Women’s Studies International Forum, 15(2), 303–308.

Katz, S. (1992). The ethic of expediency: Classical rhetoric, technology, and the Holocaust. College English, 54(3), 255–275.

Kent, T. (1993). Paralogic rhetoric : A theory of communicative interaction. Cranbury, N.J.: Bucknell University Press.

Lave, J. (1991). Situated learning in communities of practice. In L. Resnick, J.M. Levine, and S.D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 63–82). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Lay, M.M. (1989). Interpersonal conflict in collaborative writing: What we can learn from gender studies. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 3(2), 5–28.

Lay, M.M. & Karis, W.M. (Eds.) (1991). Collaborative writing in industry: Investigations in theory and practice. Amityville, NY: Baywood.

Levy, P. (2000). Collective intelligence: Mankind’s emerging world of cyberspace. New York, NY: Perseus Book Group.

Li, Y., Rau, P.P., Li, H., & Maedche, A. (2017). Effects of a dyad’s cultural intelligence on global virtual collaboration. IEEE Transactions in Professional Communication, 60(1), 56-75.

Lunsford, A.A. & Ede, L. (1990). Rhetoric in a new key: Women and collaboration. Rhetoric Review, 8(2), 234–41.

Lunsford, A.A. & Ede, L. (2011). Writing together: Collaboration in theory and practice: A critical sourcebook. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Maylath, B. (2019). The trans-Atlantic & Pacific project. https://www.ndsu.edu/english/transatlantic_and_pacific_translations/

McComiskey, B. (2015). Dialectical Rhetoric. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.

McCue, R. (2015). Research & collaboration tools for students, staff & faculty: Creating a modern memex. University of Victoria Libraries. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mAzYoaRrWZr16TjOxCxq5i6NVnfAnknMjPM17bC1cvE/edit

McKee, H. & Porter, J. (2017). Professional communication and network interaction: A rhetorical and ethical approach. New York, NY: Routledge.

Meloncon, L., & Henschell, S. (2013). Current state of U.S. undergraduate degree programs in technical and professional communication. Technical Communication, 60 (1), 45-64.

Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Mendenhall, A. (2013). The historical problem of vertical coherence: Writing, research, and legitimacy in early 20th century rhetoric and composition. Composition Studies, 41(1), 84–100.

Mills, J., Bonner, A., & Francis, K. (2006). The development of constructivist grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 25–35.

Monk, J., Manning, P., & Denman, C. (2003). Working together: Feminist perspectives on collaborative resaerch and action. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 2(1), 91–106. Retrieved from https://acme-journal.org/index.php/acme/article/view/710

Morgan, M. (1994). Women as emergent leaders in student collaborative writing groups. JAC: Journal of Advanced Composition, 14(1), 203–219.

Moses, J. (2015). Agile writing: A project management approach to learning. International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development, 7(2), 1–13.

Moses, J. & Tham, J. (2017, March). Agile writing: Design thinking approaches to writing instruction. Paper presented at the Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC), Portland, OR.

Moses, J. & Tham, J. (2019). Four ideas for creating a collaborative writing environment that works. Medium. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/2Uk8X7w

Nystrand, M., Greene, S., & Wiemelt, J. (1993). Where did composition studies come from?: An intellectual history. Written Communication, 10, 267–333.

Palumbo, G., & Duin, A.H. (2018). Making sense of virtual collaboration through personal learning networks. In B. Mousten, S. Vandepitte, E. Arno, & B. Maylath (Eds.), Multilingual writing and pedagogical cooperation in virtual learning environments (pp.109-136). IGI Global.

Paretti, M.C., McNair, L.D., & Holloway-Attaway, L. (2007). Teaching technical communication in an era of distributed work: A case study of collaboration between U.S. and Swedish students. Technical Communication Quarterly, 16(3), 327–352.

Pearce, B. (2004). The coordinated management of meaning. In W.B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 35–54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Pearce, B. (2008). Making social worlds: A communication perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Perelman, C. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958/1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Poole, M.S. (1997). The small group should be the fundamental unit of communication research. In J. Trent (Ed.), Communication: Views from the helm for the 21st century (pp. 94–97). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Poole, M.S. (2003). Group communication and the structuring process. In R. Cathcart, L. Samovar, and L. Henman (Eds.), Small group communication, 7th ed. (pp. 48–56). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Co.

Poole, M.S. & Doelger, J. (1986). Developmental processes in group decision-making. In R.Y. Hirokawa and M.S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision-making (pp. 35–62). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Pope-Ruark, R. (2012). We Scrum every day: Using scrum project management framework for group project. College Teaching, 60(4), 164–169.

Pope-Ruark, R. (2015). Introducing Agile project management strategies in technical and professional communication courses. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 29(1), 112–133.

Pope-Ruark, R., Moses, J., Conner, T., & Tham, J. (2017). Special issue of JBTC, July 2019. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 31(4), 520–522.

Porter, J. (2009). Recovering delivery for digital rhetoric. Computers & Composition 26, 207–224.

Qualley, D. & Chiseri-Strater, E. (1994). Collaboration as reflexive dialogue: A knowing “deeper than reason.” JAC: Journal of Advanced Composition, 14(1), 111–130.

Rainey, K., Turner, R., & Dayton, D. (2005). Do curricula correspond to managerial expectations? Core competencies for technical communicators. Technical Communication, 52(3), 323–353.

The rise of the social enterprise. (2018). Deloitte Global Human Capital Trends. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/at/Documents/human-capital/at-2018-deloitte-human-capital-trends.pdf

Rice, R., & St. Amant, K. (Eds.). (2018). Thinking globally, composing locally: Rethinking online writing in the age of the global internet. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press, University Press of Colorado.

Russi, D., & Schneider, R. (2016). A guide to translation project management. The COMET® Program with support from NOAA’s National Weather Service International Activities Office and the Meteorological Service of Canada. https://courses.comet.ucar.edu/pluginfile.php/27060/mod_resource/content/12/GuideToTranslationManagement_V1a_02102017_final.pdf

Spinuzzi, C. (2007). Technical communication in the age of distributed work. Special issue. Technical Communication Quarterly, 16(3), 265–277.

St. Pierre, E.A. (2014). An always already absent collaboration. Cultural Studies <> Critical Methodologies, 14(4), 374–379.

Stokols, D. (2013). Methods and tools for strategic team science; Presented at the Planning Meeting on Interdisciplinary Science Teams; January 11; Washington, DC. 2013. [May 2014]. http://tvworldwide​.com​/events/nas/130111/

Sullivan, P. (1994). Revising the myth of the independent scholar. In S.B. Reagan, T. Fox, and D. Bleich (Eds.), Writing with: New directions in collaborative teaching, learning, and research (pp. 11–30). New York, NY: SUNY Press.

Tannenbaum, S.I., Mathieu, J.E., Salas, E., & Cohen, D. (2012). Teams are changing: Are research and practice evolving fast enough? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 2-24.

Team science toolkit. (2019). National Cancer Institute. https://teamsciencetoolkit.cancer.gov/Public/WhatIsTS.aspx

Tham, J. (Ed.) (2017). The rhetoric and technology of collaboration: How digital technologies transform our collaborative work and pedagogy. Digital Rhetoric Collaborative. Retrieved from http://www.digitalrhetoriccollaborative.org/2017/11/27/the-rhetoric-and-technology-of-collaboration-how-digital-technologies-transform-our-collaborative-work-and-pedagogy/

Tham, J. (2019). Multimodality, makerspaces, and the making of a maker pedagogy. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. USA.

Tham, J. (2017). The rhetoric and technology of collaboration: How digital technologies transform our collaborative work and pedagogy. Digital Rhetoric Collaborative, http://www.digitalrhetoriccollaborative.org/2017/11/27/the-rhetoric-and-technology-of-collaboration-how-digital-technologies-transform-our-collaborative-work-and-pedagogy/

Tham, J. & Moses, J. (2019). How we use design thinking to support collaborative writing. Medium. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/2KEhF0N

Tham, J. (Curator) with 24 students. (2019). Emerging technologies for technical communication. Fabric of Digital Life https://fabricofdigitallife.com/index.php/Browse/objects/facet/collection_facet/id/29

Thompson, I. (2001). Collaboration in technical communication: A qualitative content analysis of journal articles, 1990-1999. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 44(3), 161–173.

Thralls, C. (1992). Bakhtin, collaborative partners, and published discourse: A collaborative view of composing. In J. Forman (Ed.), New visions of collaborative writing (pp. 63–82). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Trends in High-Performing Global Virtual Teams. (2018). Culturewizard. https://content.ebulletins.com/hubfs/C1/Culture%20Wizard/LL-2018%20Trends%20in%20Global%20VTs%20Draft%2012%20and%20a%20half.pdf

Tuckman, B.W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 65(6), 384–399.

Tuckman, B.W. & Jensen, M.A.C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group and Organization Studies, 2(4), 419–427.

Vie, S. (2017). Training online technical communication educators to teach with social media: Best practices and professional recommendations. Technical Communication Quarterly, 26(3), 344–359.

Wan, T. (2018). GitHub’s new education bundle equips students with industry-standard coding tools. GitHub Education, https://www.edsurge.com/news/2018-06-19-github-s-new-education-bundle-equips-students-with-industry-standard-coding-tools

Watzlawick, P. (1978). The language of change. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

What is collaboration software? (2019). FinancesOnline, https://financesonline.com/collaboration-software-analysis-features-types-benefits-pricing

Wilson, H.J., & Daugherty, P.R. (2019). Collaborative intelligence: Humans and AI are joining forces. Harvard Business Review, 96(4), 114-123.

Winsor, D.A. (2003). Writing power: Communication in an engineering center. SUNY series, Studies in scientific and technical communication. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Wolfe, J. (2010). Team writing: A guide to working in groups. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.Yancey, K.B. & Spooner, M. (1998). A single good mind: Collaboration, cooperation, and the writing self. College Composition and Communication, 49(1), 45–62.

Year 1 by the numbers

Effective 5pm on Monday the 10th, my first year as assistant professor is officially in the books. I have sent out final feedback on projects and turned in grades for students in my summer internship and graduate seminar. I have cleared my inbox and put away books that were used in courses this year.

Fall classes begin on the 24th and faculty duty resumes on the 19th. That gives me a little over a week to regroup and prepare for the new semester. As I sit back and finally take my time with that delicious cup of cold brew coffee, I reckon this is a good time to take a moment to reflect on what I’ve learned on the job this past year. As I shared in a recent podcast interview about life on the tenure track, I have been figuring things out as I go. I am extremely fortunate to have colleagues who accept my inexperience, my flaws, and my uncertainty about many things in the world of academia. I am thankful for their patience and collegiality, and above all their willingness to share resources.

Even without the pandemic, the professorial job and its expectations are quite vague to many, including graduate students who aspire to become a faculty member. I have learned in my first semester on the job that many universities and colleges consider research, teaching and service to be the holy trinity of academe, that the workload of a faculty is typically divided among these three areas of performance. Pre- and post-tenure faculty members are held to certain distribution and ordering of these three areas, plus any additional role––like administration (labs, centers, departmental offices)––they maintain, for the purposes of tenure evaluation and rank promotion (from assistant to associate to full professor).

I admit that while my PhD program had prepared me to succeed in research and teaching, I held little understanding about service. In retrospect, I get why that was the case––my advisor and professors were trying to protect me from un/under-compensated labor. Doing research (designing and carrying out a study, writing a dissertation) and teaching while completing the degree requirements for a graduate student is hard enough. I think my program was doing its best to keep me from distracted by departmental and field service.

Anyhow, I still volunteered my time as a graduate student in various disciplinary organizations. I participated in conference organizing teams, helped review presentation proposals and proceedings, led social media activities for different groups, etc. However, the effort I put into these roles were incomparable to the kind of work that counts as service for a faculty. To show what I mean, below I quantify the service activities I had done in my first year on the job.

Following the advice by Manya Whitaker in the Chronicle, I kept an active log of my teaching, research, and service activities during this past year. Documenting my teaching and research progress was rather straightforward. For teaching, I included the information, learning outcomes and activities, and summaries of student evaluations for each course. For research, I recorded scholarly activities (grant applications, publications, presentations, etc.) in a vitae format. Keeping track of service work had proven to be more complicated; it required more attention to the nature of the service (e.g., is the work pertinent to internal or external stakeholders?). So, I came up with some broad categories that house similar service activities. With that I present my first-year service, by the numbers:

Internal – Departmental committees

  • Graduate admissions committee (MA & PhD)
  • Recruitment committee (BA, MA, PhD)
  • Asian Studies (minor) committee
  • Co-director, User Experience Research Lab

Internal – Departmental contributions (non-committee)

  • Managed program’s online social presence (FB & Twitter)
  • Participated in MA portfolio redesign efforts (conducted 2 focus groups and 1 peer program interview; contributed to new course syllabus)
  • Designed program advertisements for conference use and high school recruitment (x4)
  • Attended college and departmental student events (e.g., tabling at majors & minors fair, judge at campus film festival) (x2)

Internal – Student advising and mentoring

  • Served (as member) on doctoral dissertation committees (x6)*
  • Conducted mock job interview with PhD student (x1)
  • Reviewed PhD student job application materials (x1)
  • Wrote recommendation letters for scholarship, internship, and graduate school applications (x3)
  • Advised graduate students on projects (non-class related) (x8)
  • Advised undergraduate students on projects (non-class related) (x2)
  • Supervised undergraduate researchers (RAs) (x2)
  • Met with prospective graduate applicant (x1)

* My university considers student committee work (doctoral dissertation committees) to be teaching, not service work. I am adding them here because they count as service at some other institutions.

Internal – Guest speaking

  • Spoke at graduate student professional development colloquium (x3)
  • Spoke at student organization meeting (x1)
  • Spoke to colleagues’ grad seminars (x3)

External – Guest speaking

  • Spoke to colleague’s grad seminar (x1)
  • Spoke at graduate student professional development event (x1)
  • Spoke to podcast series (x1)

External – Mentoring

  • Reviewed PhD student job application materials (x4)
  • Conducted mock job interview with PhD student (x1)

External – Field organizations

  • SIGDOC, social media manager
  • CPTSC, administrators committee
  • STC, award selection committee
  • Xchanges (journal), review board

External – Review of scholarships

  • Journal manuscripts (x8)
  • Conference proposals (x13)
  • Book reviews (x3)**
  • Co-authored book review (x1)**

** My department considers book reviews as service to the field, not research.

Upcoming

  • Joining another journal review board
  • Becoming book review editor for a journal
  • Chairing a doctoral dissertation committee

To put things into perspectives, my service requirement is 20% of my assigned workload, per my job offer letter (the other 80% are split evenly between research and teaching). I am aware I need to be more intentional in using my time this coming year. Nonetheless, I see some service as investments into the future. I especially enjoy working with students as they establish their own scholarly identities and trajectories, and I hope through my service I am helping to shape the future of our field by guiding these rising talents.

If you are reading this as a graduate student wanting to get a sense of the service load in a faculty position, please accept the caveat that every institution and program is different, and what I offer here are mere insights from my own position and perspectives. I encourage you to speak with your advisors and professors, and ask them what they do so you can get a more diverse view of the job.

To say the least, Year 1 has been meaningful to my professional growth and I hope to do better in Year 2. Now, time for another cup of coffee!

First semester on the tenure track: Of research, teaching, and service

As many of you know, my partner and I moved to Lubbock, Texas this fall (July 2019) to start my first full-time faculty position at Texas Tech University (TTU). This week last year, I was just on my third campus visit and was worried sick if a delayed flight would have jeopardized my interview. To my relief, I was granted a job talk and 2-day interaction nonetheless, and I received an offer a bit less than two weeks later. This offer was from TTU.

Transitioning into this new role at a recently classified R1 institution (research focused per Carnegie standard), I was very anxious about the expectations for tenure and promotion. With new courses under my assignment, I was also nervous about teaching undergrads at a different university and teaching graduate students as someone who has only finished grad school a few months ago. I shared my sentiment on Facebook during the first week of class in August.

Cliche as it may sound, I have experienced so much change and growth this semester. I’d like to document here a few things I learned as as a way to memorialize this new chapter in life, and hopefully to serve as advice to others.

If there’s only one thing I could emphasize, time is an asset. Being on the tenure track means I work within a given time frame to meet the institution’s expectations for tenure and promotion (T&P). At TTU, my clock is 6 years. I am supposed to use my time based on the workload distribution established in my hiring contract, which is 40% research, 40% teaching, and 20% service. Translating this into a 40-hour work week, I get 16 hours for research activities, 16 hours for teaching-related work, 8 hours for service each week in a regular semester.

Research includes funded and unfunded scholarly activities that contribute to the growth of one’s field. Traditionally, the output for research involves peer-reviewed publications (articles, book chapters, webtexts, etc.), grant activities, and other significant projects. Based on my departmental expectations for research productivity, I have learned to really maximize the 40% time I have in all research related activities. Most of it is spent on writing, really. Still, meetings with research collaborators, setting up IRB (institutional review board for projects) proposal, and searching/applying for grants do take up a significant amount of time as well. One thing that worked for me is multitasking. Whenever I hit any kind of writer’s block or boredom in one project, I jump straight into another project quickly instead of sitting on the current one. It keeps me motivated and also moving projects forward. I know this doesn’t work for everyone. For me, though, the downside of this is I tend to lose my train of thoughts because I am jumping hoops… but I can deal with that.

Teaching is valued as much as research at TTU. Quality of instruction is reflected in student evaluation, course design, student achievements, and mentorship. My contract lets me teach 2 courses every semester (minus summer sessions). Each course is equivalent to 3 hours per week (so 6 hours for two), that means I have 10 hours each week to do course prep, grade assignments, meet/communicate with students, etc. Additionally, being in a PhD-granting program means I am expected to serve on graduate student committees and direct dissertations. The TTU T&P requires faculty to chair and direct at least one student through their entire dissertation project during the tenure-track period. For the sake of context, the technical communication & rhetoric PhD here is currently a 5-year program. Thus, some strategic planning is needed to meet this specific requirement. My current strategy is same as the one I used when completing my dissertation while teaching, that is front-loading all important lessons and assignment requirements at the beginning of each course. This helps me to focus on providing 1-on-1 feedback and less time on preparing lectures later in the semester. This also allows me to move some in-person class meetings online when I need to attend conferences elsewhere.

Service, while deemed least important for T&P purpose, is required of every faculty to show collegiality and support the function of the department/university. Associate and full professors (tenured) usually assume more responsibilities with the intention to free assistant professors like myself from time-consuming tasks that don’t weigh as much as research and teaching in my own tenure case. Although I was promised protected time early on, committee and many one-off service work still found their way into my calendar slots. I am now managing the social media pages for my program, serving on the graduate admission committee, and co-directing the UX Lab. I have created recruitment materials, represented the program at college major fairs, and volunteered to appear as guest presenter at various student development sessions and classes. I was told to say “no” to things that don’t benefit my T&P progress, but that’s really hard to do. One thing I have learned is to align my service to research and teaching interests. A wise person once said, don’t do anything you can’t write (and I add: teach) about. I take that advice to heart and strive to generate scholarship out of the service I perform. Well, for instance, I am asked to design a new program advert for our program; I am now writing a research article on programmatic strategies in advertising to graduate students. And since I am teaching UX and design courses, I also work to create synergy between my classes and the UX Lab I now oversee.

All that said, every institutional context is different and each position requires different time and energy investment. What I’ve shared here are merely my own experience. My hope is to demystify the faculty role and provide some clarity to what may be expected of a new faculty. I still don’t have the answers to many things but I am learning along the way. Thank you for indulging with me on this journey.

Featured image by TourTexas.com.

Dissertation acknowledgements: Thank you, a million times.

This acknowledgement was submitted as part of my dissertation in February. I can’t possibly thank everyone involved in my project, but I do my best. You all are stellar, and please know the difference you have made in me!


There are so many people to thank for the successful completion of this project. I begin with my adviser, Dr. Ann Hill Duin, who has provided me with acute supervision and timely connections to networks of learning since I joined the program. Ann, thank you for the wisdom you have imparted onto me in this last five years. I am amazed by your energy and spirit of excellence. I look forward to further collaborations with you.

I thank Dr. Lee-Ann Kastman Breuch, who chaired my dissertation defense and provided just-in-time mentorship when I was on the job market. To my dissertation and exam committee members, Dr. Donald Ross, Dr. Laura Gurak, and Dr. Tom Reynolds, thank you for your valuable insights and knowledge on the topics I am most interested in.

The heart of this project was about the students, volunteers, faculty, and staff members in the makerspaces at the Invention Studio (Georgia Tech), Think[box] (Case Western Reserve University), and Anderson Labs (University of Minnesota). Thank you for letting me observe your spaces and sharing with me your experiences. You all have increased my confidence in the future of making. I must also thank my WRIT 3562W students for being patient and engaged during the course deployment. You all rock.

My PhD journey was enriched by collaborative projects with Dr. Joe Moses, senior lecturer in Writing Studies, who has gone beyond his duties to provide mentorship to me. Joe, thank you for always believing in my work and letting me contribute as an equal partner in many of the projects you led.

The RSTC faculty––especially Dr. Pat Bruch, Dr. John Logie, Dr. Richard Graff, and Dr. Christina Haas (Professor Emerita)––has equipped me with knowledge and confidence to join the field as a junior scholar. Thank you for your guidance and directions on my projects. I remember Dr. Carol Berkenkotter, who passed away during my second year in the program. I thank her for introducing me to rhetorical genre studies. I give a shout-out to Dr. Molly Kessler and Dr. Daniel Card, who joined the department during my final year. Thank you for giving me fresh insights on approaching the job search process. Thank you also to Dr. Ronald Greene and Dr. Aaron Doering for giving me the experiences in learning about communication from another discipline.

My experience in Writing Studies has also been largely influenced by the amazing staff members in the department who are always responsive and helpful. I thank Nan Nelson, who retired in my third year, for being a lighthearted, genuine spirit while making sure all my paperwork are in place. To Emily Kort, who stepped into the role soon after Nan’s departure, thank you also for helping me with the pre- and post-final exams (defense) logistics and protocols. To Michelle Lubbers, thank you for helping with all my course evaluations. And Bill Fricke, thank you for helping with my reimbursements! Of course, I must express gratitude to Shannon Klug, who has been there whenever I needed technical (and non-technical) support–– whether it’s setting up a room for web conferencing, copying a course shell from the learning management system, or getting back into my office after locking myself out (more than once).

I thank Nicole Montana and Barb Horvath, associate directors in the first-year writing and advanced writing programs respectively, for supporting my teaching throughout my time in the department. My teaching experience has been enhanced by the opportunities to work with international and multicultural students. I thank Dr. Sheryl Holt and Dr. Anne Fretheim for training me in supporting these students.

My dissertation project would not have been a reality without the inspirations from Dr. Jonathan Koffel, librarian turned emerging technology specialist at the UMN Biomedical Library. Thank you, Jonathan, for connecting me with so many valuable resources that made my project possible.

I want to call out my fellow graduate colleagues––Juliette Lapeyrouse-Cherry, Ryan Eichberger, Jeremy Rosselot-Merritt, Eddie Nevarez, Katlynne Davis, Ryan Wold, Danielle Stambler, Nathan Bollig, Kari Campeau, Evelyn Meisenbacher, Niki Ciulla, Chakrika Veeramoothoo, Mckinley Green, Alexander Champoux, Megan McGrath,  Brandi Fulsby, and Ellen Dupler––for being a community of care and support.

I thank RSTC graduates––Dr. Brigitte Mussack, Dr. Sarah Puett, Dr. Chris Lindgren, Dr. Kira Dreher, Dr. Jarron Slater, Dr. Rachel Tofteland-Trampe, Dr. Ashley Clayson, Dr. Ed Hahn, Dr. Jacqueline Schiappa, Dr. Timothy Oleksiak, Dr. Joe Bartolotta, Dr. Dawn Armfield, Dr. Kenny Fountain, Dr. David Beard, and Dr, Kirk St.Amant––for being sources of inspiration to me. You are my role models, and I am proud to become an alum of the same program as yours.

This dissertation was partially supported by the UMN Liberal Arts Technologies and Innovation Services (thank you especially to the amazing Sam Porter, as well as Rebecca Moss and Ann Fandrey), the Center for Writing (thank you, Dr. Katie Levin, Dr. Kirsten Jamsen, Dr. Matt Luskey, and Dr. Dan Emery), and the Center for Educational Innovation (thanks, Dr. J.D. Walker and Dr. Paul Baepler). These services have provided the generous resources I needed to complete my project.

Outside the program, I was morally supported by the Council for International Students (CIGS), and I especially thank its adviser, Dr. Noro Andriamanalina, and my friend Keven Joyal-Desmarais, for the opportunities to create something bigger than just completing a degree at the university. I have truly enjoyed and learned from the events we co-organized for the international students community here at Minnesota.

As I was finishing up in the PhD program, I was introduced to many important organizations in the field that help translate my research into larger scholarly output. I thank Dr. Isabel Pedersen and Sharon Caldwell from the Fabric of Digital Life (University of Ontario Institute of Technology) for collaborating with me to design pedagogical activities using digital archives and emerging technologies. I want to acknowledge the Association for Computer Machinery (ACM) Special Interest Group on Design of Communication (SIGDOC) for letting me contribute to the growth of our field. I thank Dr. Claire Lauer for introducing me to SIGDOC. Thank you especially to Dr. Emma Rose, Dr. Kristen Moore, Dr. Rebecca Walton, and Dr. Derek Ross for your leadership in this organization. To the Digital Rhetoric Collaborative (DRC), I thank Dr. Anne Gere, Dr. Naomi Silver, and all past and present DRC Graduate Fellows for mentoring and collaborating with me on projects that push the boundaries of our field’s scholarship. To everyone in the Computers and Writing community, thank you for your expertise and the often-critical feedback on my projects.

Finally, thank you, Kamm, for everything.

Featured photo by Hanny Naibaho on Unsplash

Learning by Designing & Making: A Design Challenge Project in TWC

SIGDOC 2018 - Learning from Making [Poster]

This is a project I sliced from my dissertation study and presented at the 2018 ACM Special Interest Group on Design of Communication (SIGDOC) annual conference in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. I participated in the Microsoft Student Research Competition and was awarded 2nd place for this project. 


This study shares the story of a design challenge a semester-long maker project where students dedicated themselves to team-based learning, ideating, and prototyping tangible solutions for wicked problems in technical writing and communication (TWC).

There are two key words to my project that I think are helpful to begin with: design thinking and the maker movement.

Design thinking is essentially a methodology and a philosophy for problem solving. It usually manifests in a 5-step process that focuses on understanding user experience and creating innovative solutions.

content_designthinking

Source: https://denovo.dwt.com/

The maker movement is a recent educational phenomenon that is gaining popularity across K-12 and college settings. It feeds on the latest development of modeling and prototyping technologies that afford instant creation of mock-up ideas using cheap materials. Making is slowing becoming a pedagogical strategy to engage students with hands-on research and problem solving. It puts design thinking to work, cultivate meaningful collaboration, and help develop students’ multimodal literacy.

15-0006158

Source: https://www.steelcase.com/research/articles/topics/active-learning/making-way-making-education/

I see an opportunity for technical writing and communication curriculum to leverage the affordances of the maker movement and design thinking.

In Fall of 2017, I integrate a semester-long design challenge with my technical communication course, and studied its viability. A design challenge is a signature activity of design thinking. A design challenge activity presents participants with a complex/wicked problem, and lets them undergo the phases of design thinking to propose a tangible solution.

screen-shot-2018-08-06-at-3-59-05-pm.png

screen-shot-2018-08-06-at-4-02-03-pm.png

My research questions were: 

  1. What resources & tools do students need to succeed?
  2. What key challenges do students face?
  3. What literacies do students develop?

I’ve used mixed methods to collect student learning data. First, the design of this course was informed by my visits to three makerspaces in the US and conversations I had with students and makerspace managers there.

During the course, I have administered surveys, students self-assessments, interviews, and students’ rating of teaching (course evals), plus my own teaching observations and reflections.

screen-shot-2018-08-06-at-4-00-33-pm.png

Through the pre- and post-course surveys, I have learned that students enjoyed working in teams to tackle a complex problem. Their attitude toward team-based project increased significantly (positive) at the end of the course.

In the students’ self-assessment, I learned that students acquired 7 out of the 10 core career competencies outlined by the college of liberal arts at our university. They are:

  • Analytical & critical thinking
  • Applied problem solving
  • Innovation & creativity
  • Oral & written communication
  • Teamwork & leadership
  • Engaging diversity
  • Digital literacy

Through the students’ rating of teaching, I found that students most appreciated the application of technical communication concepts in real-world problems. Although sometimes that connection is faint, students said they can rely on the instructor to give them motivation.

In the group and individual interviews, students revealed that they learned quickly how to find support from their team members and those outside the classroom to accomplish their design project. Students also mentioned how they appreciated the learning of non-textual communication strategies as they realized persuasion is multimodal.

To answer the three research questions I have posted earlier, I first learnt that a design challenge project in a technical communication course can be best supported by institutional units such as the university’s IT and innovation services. It is important to identify key collaborators and partner with them to enrich the course. Together, the instructor and the institutional units can co-create learning objectives/outcomes, course projects, and evaluation strategies.

Second, it is important to help students find motivation in the design challenge by guiding them to the benefits of the framework and helping them identify their inspirations. Engagement is a subjective term, and needs to be made explicit between the students and instructor. Any sources of resistance can be opportunities for conversation. The instructor has to be ready to listen to students.

Finally, it is important to figure out ways to capture students’ development of multimodal literacy. As far as tech comm pedagogy is typically concerned, we want to know how students developed rhetorical awareness to social problems and the ways they address them. How are students investigating and using different genres? What do they learn about material rhetorics? I think there needs to be a strategy for documenting these.

I believe making and design thinking can greatly enhance students’ learning in technical writing and communication courses. My study opens new spaces for scholars and instructors of TWC to incorporate hands-on problem solving projects in their classes as an innovative way to engage students meaningfully.