Research Networks for Graduate Students

Reference

Eyman, D., Sheffield, S., & DeVoss, D. N. (2009). Developing Sustainable Research Networks in Graduate Education. Computers and Composition, 26(1), 49-57. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2008.11.001

Topic

The authors provide a framework for establishing a research network by studying the Rhet.net research network at Michigan State University.

Research Question

The research question was stated as a thesis: “As we see them, research networks tap into the affordances of both networks (in the material and systemic senses) and communities of practice, but in order to be open to emergent possibilities and also sustainable over time, the community of researchers connected through a commitment to advancement of field-specific practices must acknowledge and explicitly construct itself as situated within an ecology of disciplinary, institutional, and social networks” (51).

Methodology

The author’s study Michigan State University Rhet.net research network which manifested from a 2004 course called “Digital Rhetoric.” The author’s look at the history of the network and analyze the stages of the its evolution to provide a working framework for the development of other research networks.

Results

The authors identify a “three-fold framework” for developing a research network

(following is quoted directly from the text):

1. Building a community of practice

2. Engaging critically

3. Applying skills in practical ways (54-55)

Authors’ Interpretation of Results

The authors see research networks as breaking from the model of individualistic work to collaborative work, moving towards “student-centered and critical pedagogies” (56). Furthermore, framing courses as “small-scale research networks” helps move research beyond coursework and creates a community of researchers (56).

Suggested Further Research

Eyman et. al. suggests that “the framework…can serve a springboard for thinking through curricular changes that may help to bring graduate education in rhetoric and composition into a productive dialogue with the collaborative activities that mark the professional work of the field” (56).

Critique

The authors do a fine job in breaking down a successful model and suggesting a framework for other departments to create a research network that will engage its students. However, the run through of the case study was brief and its methodology for developing its framework was unclear.

Professional Development in Multimodal Teaching and Research

Reference

Graupner, M., Nickoson-Massey, L., & Blair, K. (2009). Remediating Knowledge-Making Spaces in the Graduate Curriculum: Developing and Sustaining Multimodal Teaching and Research. Computers and Composition, 26(1), 13-23. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2008.11.005

Topic

The authors emphasize the importance of providing graduate students with a framework for how to use digital technologies for teaching, research, and professional development.

Research Questions

The research question is stated in thesis format: “In response to the need for professionalizing graduate students who are likely to work in a range of spaces, including digital environments, it is only fitting that programs take a multimodal approach to teaching and research” (13).

Methodology

The author’s provide a case study of the work they do at Bowling Green State University, mostly focusing on the digital tools used by co-author and doctoral student, Meredith Graupner, in course work and teaching assignments. In addition, the authors draw from current scholarly research to provide a critical analysis of the state of multimodal composition/writing in teaching and research contexts.

Results

The authors provide five benchmarks for creating and maintaining “multimodal teaching and research” (21) [the following benchmarks are quoted directly from the text]:

• Developing technological learning outcomes
• Establishing an online professional identity
• Identifying site-specific opportunities to develop and sustain technological learning outcomes
• Technological mentoring and the dissertation committee
• Continued support for graduate faculty (21)

Author’s Interpretation of Results

As a field, composition and rhetoric programs need to begin utilizing new digital technologies to create space for “formal and informal collaborative knowledge-making” where there is “shared [expertise and power] among and between students and faculty” (22).

Suggested Further Research

No further research was suggested by the authors.

Critique

The authors analyze and utilize textual scholarship on digital composition adequately to support the thesis that more training and opportunity is needed to develop effective digital spaces for professional development and pedagogical development for graduate students. However, empirical data is scant as only one graduate students’ work is analyzed for the purpose of this article. The author could have provided more analysis or evidence of how digital identity could or does benefit graduate students when they become faculty. Furthermore, the emphasis on discussing the importance of Electronic Thesis and Dissertations is interesting, especially in discussing the format ETDs take on (i.e. pdf texts). However, the author’s do not explore the complexities of housing more sophisticated ETDs in the academy. Overall, the interpretation of the current state of graduate education in composition and rhetoric was interesting, but more research that showed the benefits to students and programs would have strengthened this study.