{"id":7094,"date":"2007-05-30T11:27:57","date_gmt":"2007-05-30T11:27:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.earthwidemoth.com\/blog\/2007\/05\/30\/maureen-dalygog\/"},"modified":"2007-05-30T11:27:57","modified_gmt":"2007-05-30T11:27:57","slug":"maureen-dalygog","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.earthwidemoth.com\/blog\/2007\/05\/30\/maureen-dalygog\/","title":{"rendered":"Daly-Goggin, Authoring A Discipline<\/i>."},"content":{"rendered":"\u23f3 Approximate reading time: <\/span> 4<\/span> mins<\/span><\/span>

Daly-Goggin, Maureen. Authoring A Discipline: Scholarly Journals and the
\nPost-World War II Emergence of Rhetoric and Composition<\/i>. Mahwah, N.J.:
\nLawrence Erlbaum, 2000. <\/p>\n

Searchable text available in Google Book Search<\/a>.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Daly-Goggin presents a study of nine major journals in rhetoric an
\ncomposition over 40 years as evidence of the discipline’s emergence: College
\nEnglish<\/i>, CCC<\/i>, Research in the Teaching of English<\/i>, Rhetoric
\nSociety Newsletter\/Quarterly<\/i>, Freshman English News<\/i>, Journal of
\nAdvanced Composition<\/i> (later only JAC<\/i>), Pre\/Text<\/i>, Rhetoric
\nReview<\/i>, and Written Communication<\/i>. The preface very clearly
\npositions the project as a history; the opening traces rhetoric as an
\ninstitutional interest, from its lowly status in the early twentieth century to
\nits resurgence in the late twentieth century. Daly-Goggin draws heavily on
\na gardening metaphor–an organic framework related to gardening, budding,
\nfruits, transplanting, and harvesting.<\/p>\n

The book is organized by periods. The second chapter covers 1950-1965;
\nthe third chapter, 1965-1980; and the fourth chapter, 1980-1990. The fourth
\nchapter\/era is the time when disciplinarity was best established, relative to
\nthe earlier periods, and, as such, Daly-Goggin suggests that the ways journals
\ndefined themselves shifted toward theory, methods, and history and away from
\npractice and pedagogy. Put another way, the discipliniographers<\/i>
\n(i.e., editors and contributors who literally write the discipline (xvii))
\ncontinued to move in their thinking to a point where rhetoric and composition
\nwas thought a Wissenschaft (14, 122a) or legitimate knowledge-making
\nconglomerate. <\/p>\n

Daly-Goggin’s analysis of each journal focuses on transitions between
\neditors; she characterizes the journals according to each editor’s predilections
\nfor what the journal would do and how decisions would be made about what sorts
\nof content would be featured. This is especially significant when it comes
\nto features such as tables of contents (added to RSQ in 1981) and double-blind
\npeer review (introduced to CCC<\/i> relatively late compared to other
\njournals, during Richard Gebhardt’s editorship, starting in 1987<\/i>). <\/p>\n

To account for the early years (1950-1965), Daly-Goggin draws on Laurence
\nVeysey’s idea of patterned isolation<\/i> where "knowledge production and
\nconsumption was dispersed, localized, and personal" (48, 65). Collin has written
\nabout this, as well, and it is tremendously useful for getting at questions of
\njust how much journals did to alter the pattern or relieve the experience of
\nisolation. Daly-Goggin also suggests that, for this era, many in English studies
\nmight not have been paying attention to the journal–might not have been reading
\nit at all. In 1964, Macrorie published ten accounts by graduate students
\ncriticizing their graduate training in English. Daly-Goggin writes, "Yet
\nEnglish professors were silent for reasons that are not entirely clear; some may
\nhave agreed and thus saw no reason to speak out; others may have chosen to
\nignore the publication, and still others–most likely many others–probably
\nsimply had not read the journal" (61d). Simply had not read<\/i> the
\njournal.<\/p>\n

Also:<\/p>\n