Writing Sociology

About two years ago, we began discussions around this special issue of Teaching Sociology, and it has been a privilege to oversee this project as it has come to culmination. Over the course of my time as guest editor, I’ve had the pleasure of working with a good number of sociologists—each committed to the use of writing in unique ways. At the same time, I have served as chairperson of the Sociology Department at Quinnipiac University and codirector of our campus Writing across the Curriculum (WAC) program with one of my colleagues in English. These three roles have intersected many times, and I’d like to share here some of the various insights I’ve acquired by wearing these multiple hats at once in the spirit of inspiring other sociologists to follow my path(s). Having become a bit of an insider in the world of writing—I now present as often at writing conferences as I do at sociology conferences—I believe sociologists have much to contribute to campus, and even national, conversations about writing. Because of the unique juxtaposition of our skills as writing teachers, but also researchers of institutional practice, sociologists have much to contribute to wider academic conversations about writing pedagogy.

I’ll begin at the top. How might sociologists contribute to discussions about writing on the national and international levels? One need only examine the themes and keynote speeches of the most recent International Writing across the Curriculum (IWAC) conferences to see the obvious connections to our discipline. In 2008, writing professionals were focused on “crossing borders” (between disciplines, modes of communication, and literally looking at writing pedagogy from an international perspective) to examine the ways in which the work of WAC is translated in multidisciplinary contexts. In 2010, the keynote presentation emphasized the need for attention to cultural inclusiveness in WAC practices and the important work that writing professionals do with nonnative English speakers. Finally, the keynote at the most recent IWAC meeting in 2012 addressed strategies for disciplinary inclusion and the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration as a means to sustain the relevance of writing programs.

Clearly, each of these themes is social in its own unique way, as is the process of writing itself. Imagine the effect if we could somehow more fully connect our disciplinary dialogue about writing to the literature in composition: if, for example, writing professionals routinely contributed at sociology conferences and we at theirs, to share and synthesize our insights on writing pedagogy from our unique vantage points. As a participant at international writing conferences since 2006, it has been my observation that looking at writing pedagogy through the lens of the other—that is, learning to understand the thinking of professionals whose work is aimed at improving campus writing practices—has offered me many invaluable insights. I would also like to believe that the disciplinary perspective that I have shared at these conferences has altered the thinking of writing professionals in some fundamental and important ways. I am grateful to my colleagues in the composition world for having facilitated our many exchanges.

My work as codirector of the writing program on campus has convinced me that we are at a crucial time in the academy: The pressure to assess and articulate tangible learning outcomes (e.g., better writing skills) as a result of the education we provide has never been greater, while at the same time, resources continue to be constrained. So both sociology and writing programs are under fire to do more with less. As sociologists, we are uniquely positioned to contribute to the wider campus dialogue surrounding writing pedagogy because of our knowledge of organizations, systems, and cultures and the ways people behave within them. Truly, students learn to write by immersing themselves in and understanding academic culture across their entire college experience; they do not simply become writers once they have completed freshman English. There is no other generic academic skill (think here, e.g., of critical thinking or oral communication) that can claim such a substantial investment of resources as we have built up around teaching college students to write. Yet writing instruction is dispersed throughout our institutions in a kind of informal organizational structure that we, as sociologists, are uniquely qualified to dissect and understand.

Ironically, our academic discussions around the development of students’ writing skills are situated in a cultural context in which our students write more than ever. Today’s college students arrive on campus having had extensive experience putting their thoughts into written words because of the large amount of time that they spend texting, “facebooking,” and blogging—all forms of social media that sociologists study. During the past year, I have observed the dialogue among composition faculty about the potential for capitalizing on what is now a proclivity to communicate via written, rather than spoken, word. Any parent who has given up on texting her teen (my 50+-year-old fingers move only so fast!) and tried calling the old-fashioned way only to have his or her call go unanswered understands the depth of this shift away from speaking to writing. How can we build on this propensity to communicate with text to enhance students’ skills with formal writing? As sociologists, we recognize that we may be in a period of technological lag—our teaching has not quite caught up to the world in which our students now live. Together with our colleagues in composition, we can work to improve our understanding of how we might link the writing instruction we provide to our students’ everyday experiences with writing.

The articles in this special edition speak to our unique ability as sociologists to examine writing in these many contexts—national, disciplinary, classroom, and cultural. The first portion of this issue addresses our overarching disciplinary goals for students’ written work. Kolb et al. and Ciabattari’s pieces provide us with two alternatives for assessing how our students learn to write and encourage us to consider how we might use these class-based experiences with writing to inform wider dialogues, in our departments and beyond, on writing practice. The message that these articles offer us is not new to sociologists: namely, to examine carefully standard institutional practices around writing pedagogy while at the same time creating more coherent and meaningful approaches to writing through collaboration within our disciplinary community. I am confident that both sociologists and writing program directors will find the insights shared in these two pieces useful.

The articles by Grauerholz et al. and Hudd et al. provide us with a higher-order perspective about how sociologists think about assigning and working with writing: What kinds of written work do we require of our students, and how do we, as sociologists, think about ourselves as writing teachers? Purcell’s piece reminds us that as much as we teach writing, we can also use it to enhance our own reflective practice and refine our teaching. His strategy offers us the opportunity to explore the ways in which writing can modify thinking, deepen understanding, and ultimately, help us to alter our way of being in the classroom: to experience rather than impart the benefits that written work can offer.

The second half of this special issue is dedicated to classroom strategies for employing writing, and here, I have been purposeful to include articles that inform our approach to assigning both formal and informal writing. Heckler et al.’s article offers valuable insights on approaches for dealing with a common concern related to the assignment of formal writing in the sociology classroom: plagiarism. Their work demonstrates that writing assignments do not begin with grading papers; rather, we must be thoughtful in the crafting of the prompts that guide student writing and the ways in which students gather and use information to frame their written work. The pieces by both Picca et al. and Kaufman provide powerful examples of how writing and thinking are intertwined. These innovative strategies with informal written work offer us a means to observe transitions in student thinking during the course of the learning process such that we might guide our students as they pause and reflect. Finally, Pelton demonstrates the important role that writing can play in reducing anxiety by providing opportunities to “play with” complex thinking. In sum, this diverse collection of articles demonstrates quite clearly what Pelton observes: “Writing to learn clearly entails much more than having students write more, and more often.” The collection of approaches to writing pedagogy presented here demonstrates the unique outcomes that our commitment to teaching writing can yield.

I have many people to thank for this opportunity to serve as guest editor for this important issue: most of all, my family—my husband Steve Hudd and daughters Ellie and Mia. For many hours during the summer of 2012, they watched me sit at my computer responding to inquiries and reading and commenting on articles and revisions. As I write this, Ellie has just opened the door to my office, wishing me a “good morning,” and then closed it again, after our all-too-brief conversation, urging me to “get back to work.” This scene has been replayed many times since I’ve taken on this charge. My family has done the yeoman’s work of attending to unfinished business in other parts of our life together, allowing me the time and space to bring this issue to fruition.

Before becoming a “writing editor,” I spent many years as a student of writing, under the able instruction of many experts in the field. I am most indebted to Bob Smart, with whom I codirect the WAC program at Quinnipiac University, and Andy Delohery, who runs the Learning Center at Quinnipiac and serves as the third member of the strategic steering committee for our writing program. Much of what I have to say about writing is likely derived from words that they have shared in one of our many conversations about creating a faculty-centered writing program on our campus. I must also thank Hans Bergmann, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, and Mark Thompson, senior vice president for academic affairs, for their support and recognition of writing as a multidisciplinary skill, which has provided me with the space to invest myself fully in our campus program. And finally, thanks go to Sally Mitchell, head of the writing program at Queen Mary, University of London, for engaging with me in an exchange project that has enabled me to understand writing as an organizational phenomenon. My experience in writing administration has given me gifts I could not foresee—friendships and new ways of being in the classroom that I could not otherwise imagine.

Finally, I am most indebted to Kathleen S. Lowney, editor of Teaching Sociology, who has patiently guided and mentored me in my role as guest editor during the past year. Our discipline is truly fortunate to have someone as thoughtful, as knowledgeable, and who cares so deeply about disciplinary pedagogy overseeing this journal. She simultaneously wears the hats of editor and teacher with a grace that few could achieve. Thanks most of all to the many faculty who took the time to submit to this issue and to those who served as reviewers. Your work is laudable, and I know I have benefited from our collaboration.