The story of digital publishing in Writing Studies is one of innovation, collaboration, and do-it-yourself spirit. The field's digital publication venues emerged alongside the birth of the World Wide Web, and scholars used those venues to experiment with the possibilities of publishing in digital spaces. Visionary editors built journals with just a university server and a call for papers, and that creative spirit expanded the form and possibilities of scholarly communication. This article extends that work through the concept of “reader-choice publishing,” an approach that privileges reader needs and preferences by distributing scholarly texts in multiple open formats: HTML, PDF, and EPUB. Through a reader-choice approach, writers and publishers ask, “How will the reader use this text?” “What affordances do they need?” “What tradeoffs will they accept, and how might a single text be offered in multiple ways to offset those tradeoffs as the reader's needs and contexts change?” This article situates the reader-choice approach alongside a history of digital publishing in the field, acknowledging the past while pointing to a more usable future.

This article offers multiple strategies for instructors who are implementing intercultural communication (IC) projects in their classrooms for the first time. The strategies—referred to as UNITE—are based on five main stages that collaborative projects can follow: understanding and learning about IC collaborations, navigating the project prior to the classroom collaboration, introducing the project to students, tending the project throughout its duration, and ending the project. Using their years of experience in participating in the Trans-Atlantic and Pacific Project (TAPP), the authors provide examples and explanations of moves and activities that have worked in facilitating successful IC collaboration projects for students in their technical and professional communication courses.

This study investigates collaborative interdisciplinary research writing at a large public Western U.S. university through surveys, interviews, focus groups, and textual analyses. While 75% of faculty at this institution supported campuswide interdisciplinary initiatives, only 31% believed current institutional structures enhanced such work—a 44-percentage-point gap that our analysis suggests stemmed from five key obstacles to successful interdisciplinary writing: structural barriers, career concerns (particularly for pre-tenure faculty), disciplinary cultural differences, terminological conflicts, and divergent goals between faculty and administrators. Faculty in this study focused on immediate practical challenges and professional development, while administrators prioritize institutional transformation and structural change. The study concludes with recommendations relevant for universities with comparable resources and commitment to Writing Studies informed approaches, including revised tenure guidelines that explicitly value interdisciplinary contributions, dedicated funding mechanisms, facilitated networking opportunities, and targeted writing support programs. By addressing faculty’s practical needs and administrators’ strategic vision, institutions can create environments where collaborative boundary-crossing becomes not just possible but sustainable and rewarding.

<bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><i>Background:</i></b> Both technical professional communication (TPC) and translation training call for a closer academia-industry link to cultivate students’ professional competence and enhance employability. Among the collaborative efforts, the internship serves as a key part in bridging the gap and enhancing students’ work-readiness. Their effectiveness, however, depends on the alignment of expectations among the internship stakeholders. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><i>Literature review:</i></b> While prior studies have examined translation internships, they typically center around either students or language service providers (LSP) in isolation. A significant gap exists in quantitatively comparing the perceptions of these two key stakeholder groups. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><i>Research questions:</i></b> How do students and LSPs differ in their perceptions of internships? What factors contribute to the misalignment in stakeholders’ perceptions from the perspective of university educators and administrators? <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><i>Methods:</i></b> This study employed a mixed-methods approach. A survey was administered to translation students and LSP representatives to identify their perception differences across four key dimensions of internships, followed by interviews with university educators and administrators to explore the causes. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><i>Results:</i></b> Quantitative analysis revealed statistically significant discrepancies in 18 of the 44 items. The subsequent qualitative interviews identified four primary factors contributing to these discrepancies: inadequate internship management, curriculum misalignment due to the lack of qualified faculty, emphasis on hard skills over soft skills in evaluation, and pragmatic concerns from both students and employers. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><i>Implication:</i></b> The findings provided recommendations for students, employers, and institutions to improve the effectiveness of internships, which are relevant not only for translation but also for other practice-oriented disciplines like TPC.

Positive communication is crucial for effective teaching, influencing student engagement, motivation, and educational outcomes. Synthesizing educational and interdisciplinary literature, this article develops two core propositions: (1) cultivating classroom relationships through responsive interactions and peer connectedness, and (2) strengthening teacher affirmation and credibility via authentic and empathetic communication practices. Specific strategies, such as personalized feedback, inclusive communication methods, structured confirmation behaviors, and generationally responsive techniques, equip educators to enhance classroom environments, improve student learning experiences, and prepare students effectively for academic achievement and professional collaboration.

This conceptual article develops a model of positive LinkedIn communication, arguing that responsive, affirming, and authentic interaction—organized into two higher-order behavioral dimensions—strengthens perceived support and trust, thereby shaping professional outcomes (e.g., recruitment, collaboration, and commercial opportunities). By shifting attention from static profile signals to communicative behaviors enacted in posts, comments, and messages, the framework advances testable propositions and specifies mechanisms, boundary conditions, and potential trade-offs that invite empirical evaluation across organizational and cultural contexts.

Since the launch of ChatGPT, the use of and debate around generative AI has grown rapidly. Professionals whose work depends on writing have expressed concern about the potential impact of such tools on their roles. But are these concerns justified? Can ChatGPT truly take on the responsibilities of a professional writer? This study investigates that question by comparing the performance of ChatGPT with that of professional editors tasked with optimizing business communication. We conducted two studies, using both qualitative and quantitative methods. In the first, three experienced editors were asked to rewrite four business letters. Their editing processes were recorded using the Microsoft Snipping Tool, and immediately afterward, we conducted retrospective interviews using stimulated recall. These interviews were transcribed and analyzed. Insights from the observations and interviews informed the design of the prompt instructions used in the second study. In the second study, we asked ChatGPT to revise the same four letters using three different prompt types. The Simple prompt instructed the model to “make this text reader-focused.” The B1 prompt referred explicitly to the CEFR B1 language level, requiring ChatGPT to tailor the text for intermediate readers. Finally, the Process prompt simulated the editing steps observed in the professional editors’ workflows. To evaluate outcomes, we conducted both a qualitative comparison of the revised texts and a quantitative readability analysis using LiNT, a validated tool developed for Dutch texts. Our results show that the human editors substantially improved the readability of the original letters, reducing the use of unfamiliar words, shortening complex sentences, and increasing personal engagement through pronoun use. Among the AI outputs, ChatGPT B1 achieved results most comparable to the editors, both in readability and accuracy. In contrast, ChatGPT Simple fell short in terms of clarity and introduced errors through faulty inferences. Surprisingly, ChatGPT Process also underperformed compared to ChatGPT B1 and the human editors. Only the editors' and ChatGPT B1versions were free from errors. In the discussion, we reflect on how generative AI is reshaping the concept of writing within organizations, the skills required to produce effective written communication and the impact on writing pedagogy. Rather than replacing human editors, we argue that generative AI can play a valuable role as a collaborative tool in the organizational writing process.

This empirical exploration investigates how integrating a handwritten diary with a generative AI writing companion can strengthen elementary school students' writing habits and interests in a naturalistic classroom setting. The AI companion serves as a personalized assistant, offering real-time ideas, suggestions, and feedback. By encouraging students to handwrite daily experiences and emotions, then digitize their entries, the approach fosters both reflection and skill development. Over 18 weeks, 32 students from grades three to five (average age 10.5 years old) recorded their diary in Chinese and interacted with the AI companion. This exploratory study employed a pre-post, single-group design, analyzing diary entries, interaction logs, and questionnaire data to assess changes in writing participation and interest. The findings indicate three major outcomes: a notable increase in writing participation, reflected by a rise in the number of ideas and entry length; an enhanced level of writing interest, demonstrating the effectiveness of merging traditional handwriting with AI tools; and improved writing behavior through more frequent and diverse writing activities. When students encountered challenges—such as topic selection or content organization—the AI companion supplied up to three suggestions, preventing information overload and preserving independent thinking. Overall, this interactive, AI-supported environment transformed writing from a solitary task into a dynamic, collaborative process, boosting motivation and quality. The study thus illustrates how strategically blending handwritten diary with innovative AI systems can enrich writing education and sustain students' long-term engagement, while acknowledging its exploratory nature and the need for further research to establish causal links.

Abstract The use of social media influencers as a rhetorical strategy contributes significantly to reshaping Emmanuel Macron’s public image. Aimed at countering the perception of distance conveyed in his initial Covid-19 speeches, this study explores the strategy’s rhetorical mechanisms, illustrated by a surprising encounter with two Youtubers, presented as a reward. I argue that Macron’s ethos is redefined through a deliberate balance between authority and proximity – both crucial to his image repair. The influencers’ unique format enables the implementation of this dual strategy, but they go even further by functioning as intermediaries who assist the president in adapting his discourse to align with the expectations, language, and values of their followers. In this encounter, ethos serves as both a means and an end. The collaboration between the politician and the influencers raises several critical questions: How is the strategy constructed? Who holds authority, and upon which models of authority does each party construct and articulate their discourse? How does this interaction affect the president’s style and language? What are the characteristics of their interaction? This analysis explores how influencers shape Macron’s communication and reveals distinctive features of his rhetoric within this unique format. In doing so, broader questions emerge about the boundaries between rhetoric, argumentation, and manipulation.

This Research Brief presents an overview of current research in community-engaged writing, particularly foregrounding the importance of praxis-oriented and collaborative approaches. Here, we articulate collaboration, reciprocity, and accountability as some of the main tenets of community-engaged writing, and we showcase the variety of projects that such work can include (from local food writing to prison literacy work to transnational social justice movements and beyond). Then, we explore some of the methods and methodologies that are central in this scholarship, drawing on examples that engage storytelling, oral history and interview methods, archival methods, ethnographic research, and even public performances and workshops. We conclude with a discussion of future possibilities for research, teaching, and the imperative to see community-engaged work as part of scholarly work in tenure, promotion, and review.

This article describes a gamified technical writing assignment inspired by the Hunt a Killer board games. Students solve a fictional mystery by analyzing AI-generated technical documents as an introduction to the most common deliverables and genres in the field and practice of Technical and Professional Communication. Grounded in research on gamification and AI, this activity fosters experiential learning by situating technical writing genres as both structured and dynamic tools. By combining genre analysis with collaborative problem-solving, the assignment offers a novel approach to teaching genre in technical writing, emphasizing flexibility and critical thinking.

This critical reflection, motivated by a comprehensive program review and the opportunity to teach a new course, explores issues of relevance and engagement in English Studies.  Arguing for instructional methods that meet our current challenges, the author shares her experience with case-based learning in a graduate level English Language Study course.   The course utilized real-life cases to teach advanced linguistics, encourage critical thinking, and show students the ways linguistics can be used to address everyday problems.  Feedback from students evidenced a high level of relevancy and engagement.  The article also highlights the importance of scaffolding and collaboration in implementing case-based learning successfully.

Abstract This article argues that care — especially care grounded in Black feminist traditions — is not an affective supplement to teaching but rather the radical foundation of liberatory pedagogy. Amid rising attacks on critical education and the austerity logics of the neoliberal university, the authors theorize care as infrastructure, method, and resistance. Drawing from the work of bell hooks, Audre Lorde, Patricia Hill Collins, Mia Mingus, and Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha, they offer a framework for care-centered teaching that foregrounds mutuality, trust, and collective accountability. Through vignettes, student reflections, and practices such as trauma-informed design, mutual aid, and collaborative assessment, the article demonstrates how care fosters relational transformation and deep intellectual engagement. It also interrogates the structural devaluation of care labor, particularly for women and faculty of color, and challenges dominant educational paradigms that equate rigor with detachment. As one student reflected, “You believed me when I said I needed more time, without asking for proof. That made me want to do the work even more.” Drawing from their institutional experiences, the authors position teaching as a form of organizing — an insurgent, relational practice that refuses extractive academic norms while building collective conditions for educational and institutional transformation.

Doctoral education often treats academic writing as a solitary, human-centered activity, guided by conventions that emphasize structure, clarity, and discipline. These frameworks rarely consider how other-than-human entities shape the writing process. This article explores how multispecies assemblages inform doctoral writing, proposing that knowledge production can be understood as an eductive process – an unfolding of latent ideas through relationship with the so-called “natural” world. Drawing on examples from my own work, I share an excerpt from a multispecies duoethnographic project that seeks to recognize and incorporate other-than-human perspectives. I reflect on how these encounters have shaped my scholarly voice and academic identity, challenging dominant assumptions about writing as an isolated human endeavor. Reimagining writing as a relational, evolving practice, I offer reflections for integrating multispecies sensibilities into doctoral training and invite educators, researchers, and students to view academic writing as a collaborative process shaped by entanglements of human and more-than-human life.

This review analyzes 59 studies from 2014 to 2024 examining design thinking integration in professional communication pedagogy across eight disciplinary journals. Design thinking has evolved from experimental use to systematic pedagogical approaches, with assignment-level integration proving most viable for educators. Empathy interviews and user research bridge design thinking principles with communication pedagogy’s audience awareness focus. Students show enhanced empathy, improved collaboration, and increased creative confidence with high motivation levels. Implementation challenges include time constraints, student resistance to ambiguity, and assessment difficulties. The study recommends scaffolded introduction, integration with existing content, and institutional support for desirable implementation in business and professional communication pedagogy.

Using both a Bakhtinian and a collaborative writing framework, in this qualitative study, we sought to understand writing practices in one elementary school. Through observations in three classrooms and interviews with students, the study found that students had opportunities to engage in a variety of collaborative writing activities, including supportive contributions and co-constructing a text. When engaging in supportive contributions, students inspired, assisted, or shared their work with peers. In collaborations of a single text, students who had experiences writing with one another negotiated ideas and texts successfully. In pairs where students experienced conflict, there tended to be fewer collaborative moments, and students sought help from the teacher. The study demonstrates that students’ relationships with one another play a significant role in collaborative writing practices and highlights the important role of friendships in successful interactions.

Few studies to date examined the emotional unrest that results from communication across cultures in multinational teams (MNTs). Through examination of 12 in-depth interviews and a focus group of respondents from MNTs, this study investigates the impact of language-induced emotions in MNTs resulting from a corporate language mandate. Even with highly proficient linguists, MNTs still experience collaborative difficulties caused by language differences and associated emotions. Issues identified include loss of information, ambiguity over equivalence of meaning, variability in sociolinguistic competence, and problems of adjustment to cultural norms. The research also pinpointed several lingua-culturally adaptive behavioral strategies relating to international leadership.

Advanced technologies and other rapid changes in the global business environment, especially following the pandemic of 2020, have fundamentally disrupted how, when, and where we work. Through design thinking, business communicators can reenvision the affordance of traditional rhetoric to thrive in this new workplace. The article opens with a scenario based on the postpandemic problem of accommodating a hybrid style of work and then describes how the mindset and method of design thinking transform traditional rhetoric. Grounded in empathetic collaboration, design thinking positions rhetoric as a recursive, nonlinear, and nimble process and provides new perspectives on rhetoric’s time-tested persuasive appeals.

Using eye-tracking and interview methods, this study investigates how business communication students and editing students attend to and evaluate writing. Participants reviewed blog posts embedded with errors and judged publication readiness. While both groups visually fixated longer on errors than non-errors, business communication students were more likely to approve error-containing texts for publication. Qualitative data revealed that business communication students prioritized content while editing students prioritized surface-level issues. These findings suggest that disciplinary background informs evaluative standards, even when error-detection behavior is similar. The results carry implications for instruction in business writing and editing, especially concerning collaborative, cross-disciplinary workplace writing.

This study explores the critical role of internal communication in driving employee engagement and fostering organizational success. By examining leadership communication, symmetrical communication, emotional culture, communication audits, and digital enablement, the research highlights actionable strategies for enhancing trust, alignment, and collaboration. Leveraging audits and digital tools, organizations can address communication gaps and strengthen employee-organization relationships. The findings contribute to a robust framework for sustainable internal communication, emphasizing inclusivity, transparency, and adaptability in dynamic work environments.

By Andrea A. Lunsford. I’m grateful to the editors of Composition Forum, Aja Y. Martinez, and the authors of this symposium for the opportunity to read and reflect on the essays included here, since doing so led me to do some very memorable time traveling. And specifically to the mid 1980s and my first encounter with what would become known as Critical Race Theory (CRT)—in the work of Patricia Williams, particularly her “Alchemical Notes: Reconstructing Ideals from Deconstructed Rights.” In those years, Lisa Ede and I were studying (and practicing) collaborative writing, with its implicit challenge to traditional notions of singular authorship as the only valid and valuable form of academic publication. We were attuned to scholars who were resisting such values, rejecting the unwritten but powerful rules against anything other than single authorship, and who were pushing the boundaries of traditional academic discourse in other ways as well.

This article is the result of a multiyear collaboration between a tech comm professor, agricultural education faculty, an Extension agent, and 12 producers, and explores agritourism as a form of tactical technical communication (TTC), whereby agricultural producers advocate for themselves and their communities through communication about complex food systems with farm visitors. Through interviews, surveys, and observations, we learned what forms of TTC producers are already doing, what research is needed, and what our next steps need to be in supporting their communication goals with regard to agritourism. Our research offers key insights for technical communication practitioners working in Extension or in other capacities where they may be able to train producers, park rangers, or subject-matter experts in other fields who may not yet regard themselves as technical communicators, but who are poised to practice TTC with an attentive audience.

Megan McIntyre Abstract In response to a growing awareness of the oppressive foundations of educational institutions, literacy educators have turned to antiracist, culturally responsive (Alim and Paris; Paris), and equitable teaching and assessment practices to combat the inequities (colonialism, racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, etc.) on which our institutions are built. According to scholars including Geneva [&hellip;]

This grounded theory study, informed by Communication Accommodation Theory, explores how frontline managers ( n  = 11) support early-career employees’ communication development. Findings identify three support strategies—structured scaffolding, adaptive leadership, and onboarding for cultural fit—and suggest colleges emphasize verbal and intercultural communication, applied learning, and professional presence. These insights reframe communication readiness as a relational process shaped by emotion, power, and organizational norms. The study calls for stronger collaboration between higher education and employers.

In today’s digitally advanced, AI-driven workplace, effective communication is more critical than ever. Business communication scholarship empathizes competencies such as professionalism, clarity, conciseness, persuasiveness, and evidence-driven messaging, yet applying these systematically in complex decisions remains a challenge. This article introduces the Evaporating Cloud tool—part of the Theory of Constraints Thinking Processes—as a structured communication aid. Through a fictional case study, we show how EC clarifies objectives, uncovers underlying needs and hidden assumptions, and supports ethical, collaborative decision making. The article highlights EC’s value in enhancing core communication competencies in business and professional contexts.

Abstract Drawing from new and foundational scholarship in the field and from our experiences as teachers at a range of institutions, the authors consider how multimodal learning can support antiracist classrooms. This article emphasizes the value of cross-institutional collaboration, as the authors make a collective case for remixing the essay in first-year composition. This term denotes a method for building on the traditional college essay through activities and assignments that allow students to reevaluate and repurpose this well-established genre. The authors offer four case studies for remixing the essay—“Multimodal Translation: Playing with Post-Its” (Borough of Manhattan Community College /City University of New York), “Remixing Activism: The Essay as Personal and Political Playlist” (St. Francis College), “NYC Graffiti Autoethnography” (Fordham University), and “‘Vernacularity and Translation Activity” (Yale University). All four narratives present practices that support critical agency and linguistic justice by addressing the conventions of college writing assignments. Together, the authors offer a useful practice for composition instructors seeking to implement antiracist and multimodal instruction as well as a generative concept for administrators developing new writing curricula.

It is a mere fifty-five years since the bulk of the New Rhetoric Project (NRP) was presented to English-speaking (and -reading) audiences in the John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver 1969 translation. Not long in the grand scheme of things, but long enough for certain orthodoxies to become established in the literature. We know, for example, that this was a return to Aristotle to recover ideas that had long been lost and that would undergird the logic of value.1 And we know that the “Universal Audience” is a problematic and confused idea. But such received ideas are what this collection of essays challenges.If there has been a rhetorical turn in argumentation theory (Bolduc 2020, 9), then that turn has safely been traced to the 1958 publication of Le Traité de l’argumentation: La nouvelle rhétorique (henceforth, the Traité), and the coincidental appearance of Stephen Toulmin’s Uses of Argument in the same year. Subsequent to the Traité’s publication, its authors, Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca, expended considerable efforts in publicizing its main themes and ideas through a series of short papers in different languages, and Perelman’s single-authored précis of the larger tome, L’empire (1977), found an immediate readership among audiences—often students, for whom the larger work was deemed too unwieldy.That dissemination aside, the need for such a collection as the one now under review arises in part because of the “errors” that have found their way into the literature, but also because the Wilkinson and Weaver English translation lacks the scholarly apparatus that would provide commentary on ideas and explain the cultural background to the concerns that arise. For example, the Traité makes continuous reference to European writers of the day with which later, non-European, audiences will be unfamiliar. And beyond this, there is a growing interest in the history of the NRP: the ideas and influences that led Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca to develop one of the most important projects in the history of rhetorical theory. Their rhetorical turn in argumentation, identifying the centrality of audience adherence to theses through the development of a range of argumentation schemes and rhetorical strategies, has fascinating antecedents in Perelman’s early philosophical thinking. To this end, Michelle Bolduc and David Frank’s expressed goal is to translate the most significant texts that remain in French and to correct current mistranslations. This collection contributes to that goal.The book comprises seven essays, along with introductions and commentaries from Bolduc and Frank. Five of the essays are by Perelman alone, and the other two were written in collaboration with Olbrechts-Tyteca, including the centerpiece, “Logique et rhétorique” (1950).One of the fascinating aspects of this volume is the insights it provides into Perelman’s own development as a thinker, especially a rhetorical thinker, independent of his work with Olbrechts-Tyteca. The five essays with his sole authorship range over twenty years, from the early thirties to the early fifties, and include one of his first publications, “De l’arbitraire dans la connaissance” (On the Arbitrary in Knowledge, 1933), published when he was only twenty-one years old. Here we have a young philosopher establishing his ideas against the dominance of logical positivism, insisting that values do not lie outside of reason. Value judgments, he argues, belong to the realm of the arbitrary, or nonnecessary, and are opposed to necessary truth judgments. This inaugurates an important, positive pluralism, as it is to the underlying realm of the arbitrary that we need to turn for human knowledge.In this essay, Perelman addresses the difficulty of imagining the other. It is not enough to put ourselves in the place of another person; “we must imagine ourselves living in another time, in another context, educated differently, with a different background. This is much more difficult” (44). We might detect here an emerging appreciation of the importance of audience as well as the roots of his conception of the Universal Audience. This is also the paper, as Bolduc and Frank point out, in which we see the first discussion of the technique of dissociation that will play so central a role in the argumentative strategies of the NRP that reconfigure the way reality appears to us (31). It is through this technique, we might recall, that concepts are modified and revalued after an incompatibility in their use develops in society.Two essays on the Jewish question, “Réflexions sur l’assimilation” (1935) and “La Question juive” (1946), occupy the focus of chapter 2. Beyond providing a sense of the cultural background against which Perelman’s ideas were developing, it tells us something about his political and cultural affiliations. Perelman was a “political Zionist” who lived through the Holocaust and the establishment of the state of Israel, and his allegiance to Belgium kept him rooted in Europe, although throughout his life he worked in a number of capacities on behalf of Belgium Jews. The essay also shows that he saw his theoretical ideas having importance for the world that was developing around him. And in the remarks on antisemitism, we begin to see Perelman’s recognition of the significance of groups and how they operate in opposition to each other.A fourth essay, “Philosophies premières et philosophie régressive” (1949), receives an updated commentary and translation from the version Bolduc and Frank published in 2003 in Philosophy & Rhetoric and is here given its place in the emerging NRP story. The importance of this essay in Perelman’s development has been noted before. It introduces his conception of regressive philosophy in its opposition to a tradition of first philosophies, including Aristotle’s. In this essay, we also see more clearly the move to rhetoric as the importance of a rhetorical logic (the logic of regressive philosophy) is stressed. Unlike the dogmatism of first philosophy, with its goals of absolute and necessary knowledge, regressive philosophy champions what earlier was seen in the domain of the arbitrary. It returns thought to its human roots in human contexts. Thus, rhetorical logic, in the words of the commentary, “requires commitment and responsibility because it provides the guide for human action” (97).The last of Perelman’s essays, “Raison éternelle, raison historique” (1952), provides further details of his expanded sense of reason. He sees in Aristotle the license to develop a model of nonformal reason, but one that has Perelman’s own distinct features. His rhetorical definition of reason is rooted in human experience (time), action, and judgment. This is a conception of reason that will start to appear familiar to readers of The New Rhetoric.This is also one of the essays that clarifies details surrounding what has become one of the more difficult concepts associated with the NRP, that of the Universal Audience. As readers may appreciate, the literature is filled with readings (and perhaps misreadings) of this central idea as scholars struggle to understand it. The problem was such that Perelman himself was still trying to clarify matters late in his career (Perelman 1984). Bolduc and Frank put the confusions partly down to the Wilkinson and Weaver translation (12). Whatever the cause, there is material here to set readers down the right path. Reacting to the rather feckless audiences imagined by Aristotle in his Rhetoric, Perelman promotes audiences that are “no longer constituted by a crowd of ignorant people, but by the subject himself when it is a matter of inner deliberation or, during a discussion, by an individual interlocutor, or by what we could call the Universal Audience, formed by all reasonable humans, during the presentation of a thesis whose validity should be universally recognized” (170). Accepting that we understand “validity” here in the nonformal sense in which it is employed in the NRP, then we have a clear statement of the three audiences that will become important for Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca.The Universal Audience is not a “blank slate,” but accepts facts, values, and argumentative techniques. This audience represents “incarnate reason,” but is not provided by experience alone because it always begins with an extrapolation from “the actual adherence of certain individuals.” Thus, Perelman concludes, “We posit that the theses attributed to this audience can vary in time, that they are not impersonal but rather dependent on the person who declares them, and on the milieu and the culture which shaped him” (170–71). Thus, we see changes in the understanding of what is reasonable influencing the way people argue at different times and in different places about, say, the value to be accorded to the physically disadvantaged or about those to whom the category of “person” should be extended. This is indeed the Universal Audience that can be extracted from The New Rhetoric, but its nature is expressed far clearer in Bolduc and Frank’s new translation.The remaining two essays are authored by Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca together. “De la temporalité comme caractère de l’argumentation,” from 1958, develops some of the insights in Perelman’s earlier essay on historical reason. Because time plays no role in demonstration, its importance is pronounced when we turn to argumentation. The nature and logic of argument cannot escape its history, the demands of the present, and future consequences. Here is another way in which reason informs the human condition, grounding thought in the experience of self and others and our relation to the world.It is, however, the other coauthored paper (identified as their first collaboration), “Logique et rhétorique,” from 1950, that is the most valuable essay in the collection, in terms of its anticipation of the NRP and illumination of ideas found there. It constitutes chapter 4 of the book, aptly titled “The Debut of the New Rhetoric Project.”We gain a better sense here, for example, of how Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca consider the relationship between persuasion and conviction, which can be another point of confusion in The New Rhetoric. For many scholars, and for figures such as Kant, conviction is the stronger mental state. But the authors of the NRP allow that the relationship can be reversed, a position rarely seen since Richard Whately (1963, 175). They write,True to the focus on values and action, persuasion is the conversion of conviction into action; a position or claim that is judged as correct, to which there is adherence, is personalized as it informs the behavior of the audience.Also, in accordance with its title, this article announces the importance of rhetoric for the authors and clarifies their understanding of this concept in relation to their predecessors’ views. Rhetoric differs from logic in its concern with adherence. Hence the important, but revised sense, of persuasion. As Bolduc and Frank observe, both Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca were surprised by their discovery of rhetoric (131n18), and they explain the central importance of epideictic rhetoric (often marginalized at the expense of the deliberative and judicial types) in a way not made clear in the Traité or any work prior to L’empire: “The battle that the epideictic orator wages is a battle against future objections; it is an effort to maintain the ranking of certain value judgments in the hierarchy or, potentially, to confer on them a superior status” (134). It is the association between the epideictic and value judgments that elevates epideictic in their eyes. As Perelman will later write, “In my view the epideictic genre is central to discourse because its role is to intensify adherence to values, adherence without which discourses that aim at proving action cannot find the lever to move or to inspire their listeners” (1982, 19).Further ideas, like the Universal Audience, are again rehearsed in “Logique et rhétorique.” But this is also a paper that best clarifies the distance between Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, and Aristotle, and this is something that deserves some discussion.One of the assumptions generally made about the NRP is that it is Aristotelian in nature and its authors neo-Aristotelians. There are, of course, grounds to support this assumption. Perelman himself speaks of the new rhetoric as a project that “amplifies as well as extends Aristotle’s work” (1982, 4). Michel Meyer, Perelman’s student, seems to confirm as much when he writes, “Perelman’s view of rhetoric has often been qualified as neo-Aristotelian because it is reasonable, if not rational, to provide arguments which are convincing due to the type of logos used” (2017, 54). And even one of the current authors in question has described Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s project as “their contemporary revision of Aristotelian rhetoric” (Frank 2023, 251). So, clearly, there are careful distinctions to be made here.Throughout the papers, the debt to Aristotle is evident and frequently acknowledged. The Aristotelian syllogism plays an important role in several discussions, and the young Perelman saw value in Aristotle’s tandem of potentiality and actuality, terms that play an important role in the Metaphysics (and, one might suggest, in the Rhetoric).2 And as we have seen, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca acknowledge Aristotle as paving the way to seeing a model of nonformal reasoning and a viable conception of rhetoric.At the same time, the logic of Aristotle’s rhetoric is not one that Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca endorse. It fits smoothly into the tradition of first philosophies that the whole NRP opposes. And the vision of reason is ultimately very different, as Perelman insisted in a response to Stanley Rosen (Perelman 1959). This is made clear in “Logique et rhétorique.” Aristotle’s relevant logic, the one developed in his Rhetoric, is a logic of the plausible. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s logic, as dictated by their conception of rhetoric with its emphasis on values, is a logic of the preferable (137). Nothing could set the two systems more firmly apart. And on this distinction, if for no other, we can see why ultimately Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca would not consider themselves neo-Aristotelians.Michelle Bolduc and David Frank have provided an enormous service to present and future readers of The New Rhetoric. Elsewhere, Bolduc (2020, 288) warns against limiting the corpus of the NRP to the Traité of 1958. This volume supports that warning, bringing to light a sampling of what might be missed by such a restrictive vision. The authors have also done readers throughout the world an immeasurable service in negotiating an open-access contract with Brill. This removes all financial impediments to studying an important set of essays, and I suspect it reflects Bolduc and Frank’s belief in the value of the ideas they are presenting here, and which in further volumes they will continue to present. These are two collaborators who have thought seriously about the nature of scholarly collaboration (Frank and Bolduc 2010), deriving insights that inform their approach to their subjects here. One suspects it is a collaboration as rewarding for those involved as it is for those who benefit from its results.

<bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><i>Background:</i></b> Responding to current research gaps in the investigation of researcher identity development among graduate students, we implement a longitudinal study, powered by user-experience (UX) methods, to document engineering doctoral students’ identity formation. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><i>Literature review:</i></b> Identity formation in novice engineering researchers, such as doctoral students remains underexamined. A process-oriented approach to studying researchers’ identity development may yield useful theoretical and programmatic insights. UX methods offer visual and qualitative approaches to the understanding of student experiences by revealing their identity formation journey over time. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><i>Research questions:</i></b> 1. How can UX methods like persona building support studies of researcher identity development? 2. How can the insights generated from longitudinal UX methods inform graduate program design and assessment? <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><i>Methodology:</i></b> Twenty participants were recruited from an industrial engineering department at an R1 university. Data were collected via surveys, qualitative interviews, and journey mapping. Analysis methods, informed by a phenomenological perspective, included persona building and collaborative affinity diagramming. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><i>Results:</i></b> Seven distinctive personas were created to represent identity formation experiences influenced by learning modality, attitude, program stage, and prior experience. Theoretical conclusions and opportunities for academic programming emerged from affinity diagrams. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Doctoral engineering students’ researcher identity formation presented implications for theory and curricular design. UX methods offered benefits to qualitative research that can support cross-disciplinary efforts.

The current study aims to evaluate the impact of Facebook integration on student engagement and academic performance on a business communication course taught in an Indian private university in an online teaching environment. A direct relationship was established between Facebook usage in an online learning environment and student engagement—both situational and personal factors. A quantitative data analysis using structured equation modeling was conducted to test the validity of the conceptualized model. The study reports that integration of contemporary social media tools in academia fosters communication, collaboration, and participation in online learning environment to develop discussion-oriented learning and cocreation.

Effective source use is a critical skill for first-year writing students because it prepares them for academic, professional, and civic engagement; however, existing research demonstrates that selecting appropriate sources and engaging them insightfully remains a significant challenge. While students struggle with the combined pressures to read, evaluate, and synthesize scholarly sources, we argue that online media including news articles, opinion pieces, and social media posts are a potent but underutilized resource for building students’ competence and confidence with source use. In this article, we present the methods that we have collaboratively developed as an instruction librarian and a first-year writing instructor to propose a new approach to teaching undergraduate research using online media. We detail strategies for teaching advanced search skills using Google and social media platforms like Reddit and X (formerly Twitter), as well as a “reception study” writing assignment that requires students to develop source evaluation and synthesis skills for engaging these online sources. The success of our module highlights that enabling students to build their research skills in the context of these more familiar source formats can lead them to an enriched understanding of the research process—including formulating an authentic research inquiry and engaging meaningfully with real audiences—while also building their skills in accessing, evaluating, and synthesizing diverse sources. Furthermore, by developing research skills in the context of social media platforms and online popular media sources, students gain a practical sense of the relevance of academic research skills to their daily research habits.

With respect to AI writing technologies (AIWT), we pose three foundational questions about academic dishonesty. First, do writing instructors and students perceive differences between AI agents and human agents in classroom scenarios? Second, to what extent are writing instructor and student perceptions are aligned? Third, what types of writing scenarios are perceived as academic dishonesty? Answering these questions provides a baseline of comparison not only for future studies of AIWT collaboration but also contextualizes perceptions of human-to-human collaboration. We report on a large-scale experimental survey study that answers these questions using item response theory (IRT). Our findings demonstrate that while there are differences between AI and human agents of collaborations, writing instructors and students are generally aligned in their perceptions. Using a Rasch model, we find that academic dishonesty operates along a spectrum of textual production. Regardless of whether the collaborating agent is human or AI, the more an agent produces text, the more this collaboration is perceived as academic dishonesty. Conversely, the less text that is produced, the less this scenario is perceived as academically dishonest. In our discussion, we provide a data-driven heuristic to guide instructors and administrators.

In gaming, cheat codes change how players engage a system by inviting exploration and reducing the fear of failure. Drawing on writing center pedagogy, this article proposes a similar framework for navigating generative AI in writing instruction and positions play as a method for developing critical AI literacy. Writing centers have long served as spaces where students engage collaboratively with new technologies and construct meaning through dialogue. This article extends that tradition by positioning writing center pedagogy as a framework for helping students examine AI’s ethical implications through treating it as a rhetorical situation to be unpacked, which demands principled, human-centered engagement rooted in values such as collaborative exploration. By weaving together writing center praxis and game-informed pedagogy, this article contributes to ongoing conversations in writing studies about how to integrate AI in ways that support critical thinking and ethical reflection. It demonstrates how playful, classroom-tested activities can animate discussions of bias and representation while helping students build rhetorical discernment through experience. Ultimately, the article argues that ethical literacy must be practiced through relational, iterative work. As writing classrooms become one of the few remaining spaces where students encounter generative AI with support and critical context, writing instructors have a vital opportunity to help students learn to write with, against, and around powerful technologies.

I argue that composition studies must build critical awareness about how humans from the Global South train AI with their writing embodiments. To draw our attention to how those working in the Global South train AI in harmful conditions, even though AI companies use algorithms and terms of service to smooth away these embodiments, I adapt the concept of humans-in-the-loop. Critical awareness of humans-in-the-loop moves scholarship in writing studies from a focus on AI-human collaboration that begins after an AI produces a text to one that requires us to see how AI products are always already human authored. Through a case study of Google Translate, I demonstrate how a critical awareness of how AI can erase the writing embodiment of humans-in-the-loop affords me opportunities to ask generative questions: How does language translation play a role in the erasure of embodied writing? Why does AI produce with bias toward marginalized populations when marginalized populations are those that moderate AI? Overall, I ask compositionists to see AI products as already human authored so that writing studies can consider the invisible labor of humans-in-the-loop as the field moves forward in researching AI.

Drawing on insights from environmental systems and cross-disciplinary knowledge about ecology, this multimodal video essay narrates the collaborative process of three writing center practitioners as they created a curriculum for a professional development series on writing center ecologies—a curriculum rooted in ecological principles of scale, relationality, care and wellbeing, belonging, sustainability, and justice. Utilizing the power of image, sound, and audio, the trio brings each principle to life, sharing their personal and professional stories to highlight the importance of understanding place, culture, and power in shaping writing center dynamics. They advocate for care, sustainability, and justice in writing center practices by considering the long-term and large-scale impact of daily practices and relationships on broader systemic issues. Through this process, they not only exemplify what an ecological approach to writing center work looks like in our ecosystems, but also imagine the possibilities of how it can enhance writing center values, practices, and policies.

The Northeast Ohio Medical (NEOMED) University Writing Center was founded in the winter of 2022 to support its medical, pharmacy, and graduate students. Through trial, error, and creativity, the Writing Center Specialists developed a successful writing center offering collaborative synchronous and asynchronous sessions. Often, graduate education needs a different type of support than undergraduate students do: in-house editing combined with traditional theory. This initiative highlights the importance of writing and editing support in medical education, addressing diverse needs across NEOMED’s colleges and promoting effective writing practices. On February 21, 2022, in a small meeting space between two offices, Brian sat at a large, wooden, boardroom table staring out the large window into the Aneal Mohan Kohli Academic & Information Technology Center, the official name of the Northeast Ohio Medical University (NEOMED) Library, waiting for the first students to appear for in-person writing tutoring. One week prior, Brian had signed a part-time (20 hours a week) contract to lead a writing center pilot project that ended on June 30, 2024. Brian was the Writing Center Specialist and was tasked with creating a writing center to support the more than 1,000 medical, pharmacy, and graduate students at NEOMED and had less than 30-months to do it. NEOMED is a stand-alone medical university in the rural community of Rootstown in Northeast, Ohio. It is not connected via physical space to any hospital system. NEOMED does not confer any undergraduate degrees but does offer several master’s and PhD programs for its students within its College of Graduate Studies. There are over 600 medical students, 300 pharmacy students, and more than 100 graduate students attending NEOMED. The school is within 50 miles of several teaching hospitals that partner with the NEOMED students in Cleveland, Akron, Canton, and Youngstown areas. The closest clinical location is a 20-mile drive from NEOMED’s campus. Brian’s background was in English Composition and Rhetoric, having taught at several universities since 2010. He worked in a Writing Center as a graduate student and followed writing center theory closely. Now, he was creating a writing center, carte blanche. He was given a common room and two offices. He had a small budget for paper products, a laptop, a bulletin board, and access to various means of communication. He met with the leaders of the three different colleges and asked the same questions: how can a writing center help your students? The answers were all different and began to mold the theoretical approach. NEOMED was founded in 1973 to meet Northeast Ohio’s critical need for primary care physicians. Much of the writing support for the College of Medicine (COM) was provided by the Assistant Director of Student Affairs and the Assistant Dean of Student Affairs. In the College of Pharmacy (COP), the Assistant Dean of Student Success worked with students as they navigated writing assignments. In the College of Graduate Studies (COGS), individual professors were tasked with this writing support. While the individual colleges attempted to support their students in their writing, typically, only the high-stakes professional writing—resumes, curriculum vitae (CVs), personal statements, and letters of intent—were given priority. As an example, the Assistant Director of Student Affairs for the COM reviewed 150-160 CVs and personal statements between May and July each year. The group of third-year medical students submitted their applications for residency programs through the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS), the system used by medical graduates to apply for specialized training positions in hospitals. COGS, in which Brian had been an adjunct professor since 2018, needed academic writing support for its students. Many of the nine graduate programs had writing assignments throughout the semester. Some of the program’s students wrote master’s theses and others wrote doctoral dissertations. Many of these students utilized the Writing Center for support. Professors in COGS also asked Brian to create several writing specific videos which covered topics on grammar, punctuation, research writing, and formatting. COP had one goal in mind for the Writing Center, and that was supporting their second language learning (SLL) students. The SLL students struggled with plagiarism, understanding prompts, taking notes, research writing, and reaching out for help. In August 2023, 18 months after Brian was hired, funding was allocated to hire an SLL specialist, and Brook was hired to support the SLL students, specifically those in pharmacy. COM had a detailed list of needs for the Writing Center, much of which was high stakes writing. The number one need of the COM was to support the 600+ medical students as they create their professional CVs. Then, the Writing Center was asked to collaborate with the students as they create personal statements for residency applications and research opportunities. Medical students also created oral and poster presentations, journal articles, and many other writing projects. The University provided its students with 20 hours of writing support. Yet, after a week of being open, students did not come for the support they needed. Brian sent emails to cohorts. Announcements were made. It was clear that sitting at a table facing the window to the library and waiting for students to start coming in for in-person tutoring sessions was not happening. The typical, in-person consultation consisted of reading the paper out loud in the undergraduate writing center world that Brian was accustomed to. Undergraduate writing theory was not what the NEOMED students needed. Instead, it took trial and error, a lot of support, a little bit of money, and some creativity to establish the NEOMED Writing Center as a fully funded center of the University. Ultimately, the NEOMED Writing Center pilot program is a story that all graduate schools can use to create their own writing center. By promoting asynchronous sessions, screenshares, and collaboration, a graduate school writing center became successful.

Purpose: This study offers an in-depth review of the body of research articles on the topic of boundary spanning and the dynamic nature of different actors to provide a more comprehensive knowledge on different boundary spanning activities and their effects on performance, flexibility, and resilience in educational institutions. Design/methodology/approach: To address the limited research on boundary-spanning functions in education, this study employed a two-round systematic literature review (SLR). The first round, which included an analysis of 338 research studies, sought to identify boundary-spanning functions and their activities. Using data from 39 studies, the second round sought to examine the boundary-spanning function and the critical role that information transfer plays in enabling boundary spanning in education. Findings: This review of literature led researchers to draw the main variables/strategies that facilitate boundary spanning in education (leadership and instructional strategies; collaboration and networking; training and development; teamwork; and revised pedagogical approaches). Also, the review highlighted the importance of knowledge transfer in facilitating boundary-spanning functions. Originality/value: Researchers, practitioners, and decision makers looking to improve boundary-spanning activities by utilizing networks and knowledge transfer might use this systematic review as a source. It also provides various strategies of how boundary spanners and leaders can support and facilitate the function of boundary spanning in educational institutions.

This article examines the subject of persuasion in technical and professional communications (TPC) with a specific focus on proposals in U.S. Government contracting. It demonstrates a fundamental disconnect between the intent of proposals, which is to persuade, and the rhetorical traditions and professional boundaries of technical writers. The analysis draws on the existing rhetorical- and genre-based TPC literature and borrows from theory in other disciplines—management, organizational theory, sociology, and psychology among others. To advance the scholarship on proposals, this analysis is framed within the overall context of a structural analogy to U.S. military Information Operations (IO). Through use of analogy, it is suggested that the IO community's approach to the concepts of “influence,” “narrative,” “target audience,” and “unity of effort” may offer useful insight for State and Federal contractors to consider in their efforts to write persuasive proposals. This analysis is then used to develop a research agenda for the study of proposals. Areas for future research include the science of persuasion and the use of narrative as it relates to proposals, improved rigor in the use of target audience research, and organizational constructs to improve collaborative writing in proposals.

Writing and digital technologies have always been enmeshed with one another. Currently, the use of virtual reality (VR) systems and applications continues to grow across both professional and popular venues, leading to a number of questions researchers have yet to ask about how we might use these technologies for writing and writing classrooms. Based on a process-focused research approach encompassing headset recordings that captured over a year of various writing tasks in VR, this study reveals some of the ways virtual reality may be used specifically by researchers in writing and communication studies, especially in terms of invention and collaborative practices. Theories of virtual reality animate findings in three areas—invention, collaboration, and friction—and the findings raise questions about researching VR in writing-based classrooms.

Digital technologies have dramatically changed the way scientists produce, circulate, and disseminate scientific knowledge. Here we investigate women scientists’ writing activity and digitally mediated discursive practices in their professions. Using survey techniques, we identify patterns of professional and public science communication online across the disciplines. We also explore the potentially interrelated genres—“genre systems”—that routinely enact typified rhetorical actions in their professional contexts. The findings show that their socioliterate activity fully reflects the importance that their professional contexts attach to certain “privileged” genres of professional communication (e.g., journal articles), despite the fact that the respondents value highly genres of socially responsible research (e.g., blogs, infographics). Statistical analyses further confirm that “disciplinary culture” is a determining factor in the extent to which respondents engage with collaborative genres and participatory science genres. We report significant differences in the use of digital mediation tools to communicate science online to both expert and lay audiences. Finally, we discuss several implications for writing pedagogy and the development of digital skills to support scientists, especially women, who want or need to promote and disseminate their research widely.

LinkedIn has emerged as a dominant platform for professional networking and career development, yet bibliometric analyses on its scholarly landscape remain scarce. This study systematically maps LinkedIn research using 1,273 peer-reviewed publications from Web of Science (WoS), following the SPAR-4-SLR protocol. To address four core research questions, we analyze (1) thematic structures and evolution, (2) collaboration and citation networks, (3) publication venues and citation metrics, and (4) emerging trends. Key bibliometric indicators—total citations (25,461), h- index (38), and publication trends—were analyzed, while co-citation and bibliographic coupling (WoS) and keyword co-occurrence (Scopus) network analyses were conducted using VOSviewer. Results reveal a sharp publication increase, peaking at 204 in 2023, with Computers in Human Behavior (19 papers, 898 citations) and PLOS One (10 papers, 897 citations) as leading outlets. Research clusters focus on recruitment, professional branding, and LinkedIn’s role in organizations, though empirical validation remains limited, particularly regarding career outcome predictions. Findings offer a structured knowledge base for academia and industry. Limitations include reliance on WoS for citations and Scopus for keywords, potentially introducing data set inconsistencies. Future research should integrate cross-database approaches and explore LinkedIn’s role in AI-driven recruitment.

The study examines the communication difficulties faced by employees in work-from-home (WFH) environments and the impact these obstacles have on business communication education. The research employs focus groups and interviews to identify three main obstacles: ambiguous job responsibilities, decreased trust, and a lack of social cohesion resulting from decreased in-person encounters. The study highlights important pedagogical factors, such as promoting virtual professional and social connections, managing the balance between excessive and unclear communication, and providing training in virtual collaboration tools. The suggestion is to include WFH-specific communication skills in curriculum, recognizing the growing probability of future distant job assignments for students. The study highlights the significance of providing employees with the essential communication skills to achieve good performance when working from home, as firms adopt remote work.

Speechwriting is a recognized profession in politics and business, particularly in the English-speaking world where speeches are central to communication. Drawing on archival research into the Kennedy–Sorensen model of State of the Union writing and findings from the author’s survey on contemporary Speechwriting in British and American politics and business: a study of the practice, profession, and speechwriting ethics, this paper highlights how the close collaboration once exemplified by JFK and Ted Sorensen no longer reflects contemporary practice. Today speechwriters often lack access to leaders and policy deliberations, yet their communication expertise and media awareness remain vital to shaping and conveying policy.

In this study, we examine educators’ orientations to the teaching of “standardized English” (SE)—an idealized form often associated with academic and professional contexts. The perceived status of SE is reinforced by normative standard language ideologies and is often oriented as “correct” and necessary for success in education and employment. SE is also a primary focus in English language arts (ELA) classrooms, with educators often positioned as gatekeepers. In this study, we analyze discussion posts from 91 educators enrolled in an online master’s level sociolinguistics course in which they describe how they would define SE for their students. Through iterative, multi-level qualitative collaborative coding of participants’ discussion posts, we interpret six ideological orientations to SE, ranging from standard language ideology to critical language awareness, with varying degrees of acceptance of linguistic diversity and criticality regarding societal sociolinguistic power relations. Importantly, we discuss the messiness of language ideologies, especially as they pertain to ELA. This study highlights the prevalence of hybrid orientations to SE, indicating that educators’ views on SE are complex and often integrate multiple, sometimes conflicting, language ideologies. We argue for the need for teacher preparation and continuing education programs to address language ideologies, promoting strategies that go beyond respecting linguistic diversity to challenging standard language norms as inroads toward dismantling raciolinguistic and colonial legacies in English language education.

This article features a grounded theory study that explored communication in online Master of Business Administration (MBA) group work, with an emphasis on skills transferable to remote professional collaboration after graduation. Data were collected from nine online MBA students through individual reflection documents and a focus group discussion. These data were analyzed and revealed themes about the importance of agreeing on not just norms and resources but also normative actions to facilitate online collaboration. Findings led to recommendations for designing online group assignments that enhance communication skills during online collaboration—skills that are becoming increasingly integral to professional success.

As digital technologies rapidly evolve, updating and enhancing models of digital literacy pedagogy in technical and professional communication (TPC) becomes more urgent. In this article, we use "digital life" to conceptualize the ever-changing ways of knowing and being in postinternet society. Using collaborative autoethnography, we investigate features of threshold concepts in TPC pedagogy that may support models of digital literacy that are resistant to tools-based definitions, foster student agency, and facilitate accessibility, equity, and justice.