This article calls for an expansion of the inquiry methods used to explore rhetorical education during the Americanization movement of the early twentieth century. It offers the methodology of administrative history as an approach to help scholars gain perspective on why and how local programs were developed and implemented from the perspective of administrators and participants. This approach enables a more robust understanding of not only the complexity of Americanization programs but also the diversity of approaches that were employed.

Montaigne composed his essays through an elaborate and extensive process of additions, a revision process that was ongoing throughout the quarter century he was working on them. His painstaking practice of addition helps complicate the "self" Montaigne often tries to convey—that of a casual, digressive, "open" writer. The revisions also supply a metacommentary on his writing project (including his tendency to make additions). In these self-reflective additions, he openly grapples with the dominance of writing mentors, particularly Seneca and Plutarch, and he works out a theory of audience for his work.

Abstract The way rhetorical analysts now use the term appeals—meaning to plead or to please—has outstripped the available theories, particularly those derived from Aristotle. Indeed, Aristotle's ethos, pathos, and logos may not even be appeals in the modern sense. A revised model relates author and author positions to values in a triangulating relationship. Appeals also appear as techniques for working through varying media, not only media defined semiotically but also as forms of resistance related to cultural differences. Examples from criticism, film, and advertising provide a foundation for replacing a modes approach to rhetorical appeals with a genre approach.

In the second edition of Writing Without Teachers (1998), Peter Elbow issues an explicit "challenge. . . for people to engage me in a theoretical context" (xxv, xxvii). When Elbow is read "carefully" as he requests, much more is at stake than the reputation of one "expressivist" (xxvii). For John Dewey's pragmatist philosophy provides a theoretical framework that not only highlights the strengths of Elbow's theory but also exposes some flaws of social theory and practices so that they can be revised.

The idea for this symposium began when Sheryl Fontaine and Susan Hunter told Rick Gebhardt about two studies they had made of manuscript reviewing practices in composition studies--one surveying experiences and perceptions of authors and one dealing with journal referees. The subject of peer reviewing seemed an important one for a field working, as ours is, to definie its scholarly identity. Rick sensed that his efforts to bring blind refereeing to composition's oldest journal might prove useful in exploring the subject and, for addtional views, he contacted several of CCC's consulting readers. Carol Berkenkotter, who had been studying peer reviewing in the sciences, agreed to attempt a brief theoretical perspective. Phillip Arrington decided to explore the subject personally, from his experiences both as author and referee. And Doug Hesse chose to use personal experience, chaos theory, and MLA panels to discuss referees' reports as scholarship.

(1991). “Revision/re‐vision”: A feminist writing class. Rhetoric Review: Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 258-273.