Jeffrey T. Grabill’s research while affiliated with Michigan State University and other places

Reporting on survey data from 1,366 students from seven colleges and universities, this article examines the self-reported writing choices of students as they compose different kinds of texts using a wide range of composing technologies, both traditional (i.e., paper, pencils, pens, etc.), and digital (i.e., cell phones, wikis, blogs, etc.). This analysis and discussion is part of the larger Revisualizing Composition study, which examines the writing lives of first-year students across multiple institution types throughout the United States. We focus especially on what appear to be, at first glance, contradictory or confusing results, because these moments of ambiguity in students' use of composing technologies point to shifts or tensions in students' attitudes, beliefs, practices and rhetorical decision-making strategies when writing in the 21st century. The implications of these ambiguous results suggest paths for continued collaborative research and action. They also, we argue, point to a need to foster students' reflexive, critical, and rhetorical writing - across composing technologies - and to develop updated writing pedagogies that account for students' flexible use of these technologies.

This article shares results from a multi-institutional study of the role of writing in college students' lives. Using case studies built from a larger population survey along with interviews, diaries, and a daily SMS texting protocol, we found that students report SMS texting, lecture notes, and emails to be the most frequent writing practices in college student experience and that these writing practices are often highly valued by students as well. Our data suggest that college students position these pervasive and important writing practices as coordinative acts that create social alignment. Writing to coordinate people and things is more than an instrumental practice: through this activity, college students not only operate within established social collectives that shape literacy but also actively participate in building relationships that support them. In this regard, our study of writing as it functions in everyday use helps us understand contemporary forms of social interaction.

Our essay draws from a study of interaction in a large and active online public forum. Studying rhetorical activity in open forums presents a number of methodological and conceptual challenges because the interactions are persistent and nonlinear in terms of when and how participants engage, and engagement often happens via textual fragments. We take up two related issues in this essay: one is the methodological challenge of how to study engagement in open digital places. We take up that issue by way of the example study featured here. The second issue is more conceptual and concerns how identity is leveraged as a form of rhetorical agency in these conversations. We argue that in the context of open forums like Science Buzz these identity performances are crucial as rhetorical agencies, creating space as they function to move discussion.

The authors report on a multiyear study designed to reveal how introducing a content management system (CMS) in an administrative office at a large organization affects the office’s writing and work practices. Their study found that users implemented the CMS in new and creative ways that the designers did not anticipate and that the choices users made in using the CMS were often driven not by technology but by the social implications the CMS held for their office. By contrasting how writers negotiated specific genres of writing before and after the CMS was introduced, the authors argue for increased attention to providing flexible technologies that enable writers to innovate new tools in response to the social needs of their writing environments. This approach must be driven by research on the implications of technology in workplace communities.

Our purpose in writing is two-fold: (1) to introduce this audience to the Writing in Digital Environments (WIDE) Research Center, and (2) to make an argument about the importance of understanding and supporting knowledge work for professional and technical communicators. We are particularly interested in what knowledge (writing) work looks like in multiple contexts—for instance, in civic organizations as well as in corporate organizations— because contemporary social and community contexts are dependent on high-quality knowledge work. This explains our interest in “everyday life.”

In this chapter, we explore relationships between two issues. The first is the place of semiotic remediation in the discursive work of a community environmental organization. More specifically, we are interested in describing this organization’s inventional work as it attempted to influence the public discourse of an environmental problem in their community. The second issue is the role of rhetorical activity in the formation and maintenance of organizations themselves, which is a part of a larger chain of agencies required to make and maintain issues of public concern. We understand our work to be concerned with problems of public rhetoric more generally and risk communication more particularly. By ‘public rhetoric,’ we are referring to work in rhetorical theory explicitly concerned with the definition and function of a public in relation to issues of concern (for example, Ackerman and Coogan, forthcoming; Asen and Brouwer, 2001; Banning, 2005). What is meant by public and what counts as a public issue is complex. It is not unreasonable to suggest that these problems are central to the enterprise of rhetorical inquiry and theory itself. Public typically refers to either a forum of deliberation (such as a publication or venue like a legislature) or those groups and individuals who can speak and write in that forum. Or public refers to both. What counts as a public issue of concern can be a matter of philosophical debate (What are proper public issues?’) or rhetorical pragmatism (What can we make a public issue?’).

This article introduces a simple mapping tool called Grassroots, a software product from a longitudinal study examining the use of information communication technologies and knowledge work in communities. Grassroots is an asset-based mapping tool made possible by the Web 2.0 movement, a movement which allows for the creation of more adaptable interfaces by making data and underlying database structures more openly available via syndication and open source software. This article forwards three arguments. First is an argument about the nature of the knowledge work of everyday life, or an argument about the complex technological and rhetorical tasks necessary to solve commonplace problems through writing. Second is an argument about specific technologies and genres of community-based knowledge work, about why making maps is such an essential genre, and about why making asset maps is potentially transformative. Third is an argument about the making of Grassroots itself; a statement about how we should best express, test, and verify our theories about writing and knowledge work.

Two project profiles depict content management as inquiry-driven practice. The first profile reflects on a project for a national professional organization that began with a deceptively simple request to improve the organization's website, but ended with recommendations that ran to the very core mission of the organization. The second profile focuses on an organization's current authoring practices and tools in order to prepare for a significant change: allowing users to develop and organize content.