Re: WC Research

["Jeanne H. Simpson" <csjhs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu>]

Neal

Serendipity perhaps....   I just finished the book I mentioned before,
Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, & Steel.  His final chapter discusses various
research methodologies and the drawbacks and advantages of each.  His
point is that each method may inform others, that no one method will yield
all the information we might want.  That seems obvious when I write it,
but the reality is that academics tend to favor one form of research over
another.  An article in the most recent Chronicle of HIgher Education
about kinds of research and how they are valued reveals just how pervasive
this pattern is.  

Cindy's observation that as writing center professionals we may be still too
much the children of literary studies has some resonance.  I wish we
would, as a professional community, encourage more historical, long-term
studies.  We argue a lot about what structures are best for writing
centers and then answer by saying that all writing centers are contextual.
Well, yes, they are, but can we discern any patterns among all or most
writing centers that might suggest greater advantage to one structure over
another?   We have not tried to answer this question.  

Can we discern some factors in writing center structures that impose the
limitations we all bump into?  Are there any choices or structures that
are always fatal?  We have done no historical studies of writing centers
that failed, but we know some have.  Surely, we need to understand these
failures in order for us to be able to have a better shot at
predicting for success. 

What prevents us from doing this kind of research?  I think simple
logistics.  These projects require long term commitment, resources of time
and people.  It is easier to go to the library and do reading there.  But
such studies could do more than just answer Jeanne Simpson's curiosity. 
They could offer us an empirical as well as theoretical basis for what we
do and how we do it.

Jeanne Simpson
csjhs@eiu.edu