About the case: While several established user-experience research (UXR) methods can reach far-away users (e.g., remote usability testing), the digital divide makes implementation difficult, especially for rural populations facing barriers to transportation and high-speed internet. Situating the case: Web surveys can eliminate these concerns by providing customization for specific use cases, gathering both qualitative and quantitative data, and combining multiple questionnaires and/or UXR methods within them. Our case study demonstrates an instance where our lab—Auburn University's Lab for Usability, Communication, Interaction, and Accessibility—used advocacy-based HCD and design thinking (DT) to develop a nonstandard UXR Qualtrics web survey to solve our client's wicked problem: designing a usability test for rural audiences unable to travel to our lab while also considering time constraints and technological literacy. Methods: Our survey design followed the Nielsen Norman Group's adaptation of DT, and our process was informed by academic research on: 1. Survey design, question formats, and response bias, 2. Existing user-experience (UX)/usability methods, and 3. Mixed-methods approaches to UXR. Discussion: Our work suggests this tool can potentially serve as the UX testing situation itself, implementing multiple in-person research methods (i.e., heatmapping, user interviews, card sorting) virtually. Conclusion: We conclude with six survey design suggestions and a discussion of how this nonstandard UXR tool can reach underrepresented or vulnerable populations, serving to empower and advocate for users. We suggest that using DT to ideate new UXR methods is a means for UXR practitioners conducting future studies to better address the wicked problems they will face.

Background: 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. Literature review: 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. Research questions: 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? Methods: 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. Results: 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. Implication: 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.

Background: With climate change becoming a critical issue, scientists and policymakers are developing solutions to address the risks it poses. One such solution is Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), which reduces the amount of CO2 that enters the atmosphere by capturing it and storing it underground. Literature review: Previous research on CCS has focused on the technical interpretation of risk through quantitative risk analyses. Social science research has focused on public acceptance of CCS, and to what extent knowledge about risks plays a role. However, a comparison of risk perceptions from both CCS developers and local community members during a CCS study, and why these perceptions are different is absent. Research questions: This article attempts to fill this gap by asking: 1. How do perceptions of potential CCS risks vary between interested local community members and CCS technical professionals, and how do these perceptions influence the messaging and receiving of risk communication? 2. What personal, institutional, and other factors, such as past experiences with heavy industry, influence how people view CCS and its risks? Methodology: Through 30 interviews and participant observation, this study examines the varied perspectives on the risks of CCS among local community members and CCS professionals analyzed using thematic coding and a quantitative analysis of codes. Results and discussion: Findings suggest that there are clear differences in how local community members and CCS professionals think about the risks of CCS, such as CCS professionals addressing risks to the project rather than risks of the project that community members reference most frequently. Implications: By identifying institutional reasons why these gaps in risk perceptions appear, this article provides insights into what risk communication practices are being used and how they impact project communication.

Metaphor is a pragmatic device that might influence how arguments are evaluated. Beyond its cognitive and aesthetic value, metaphor also fosters linguistic intimacy, i.e., the feeling of belonging to an intimate community. The paper hypothesizes that linguistic intimacy might be particularly relevant in ad populum arguments, where a sense of belonging to the community endorsing the argument might influence the acceptance of the conclusion. In ad populum arguments, indeed, metaphors might act as a “concealed invitation” to accept and share a conclusion, encouraging effortful interpretation that results in a feeling of shared community. However, not all ad populum arguments are fallacious: they may reflect reasonable consensus, with the agreement with their conclusion depending on how they are framed. The article presents an empirical study investigating whether conventional and novel emotive metaphors vs. their literal counterparts within ad populum premises increase participants’ acceptance of the argument conclusion. The results showed that especially novel and negative metaphors in the premises make people less prone to evaluate the conclusion of ad populum arguments as logically acceptable, while conventional and positive metaphors in the premises makes them feel intimacy with the group of people supporting the conclusion, more easily leading to agreement with their conclusion.

Research on conditional reasoning has long debated whether human rationality is best captured by logicist accounts or by pragmatically oriented approaches such as Relevance Theory, which highlight contextual and communicative factors. While the former predict reliable adherence to logical schemata (e.g., Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens), experimental evidence consistently reveals systematic deviations, such as endorsement of invalid inferences. The latter view attributes such patterns not to irrationality, but to pragmatic expectations that guide interpretation. This study contributes to this debate by examining how logical validity and pragmatic congruency jointly shape the evaluation of conditional arguments. We report two experiments employing a 2 × 2 factorial design. In Experiment 1, participants evaluated conditional syllogisms framed in the standard 'if/then' format. Results showed that pragmatic violations slowed responses and, crucially, facilitated detection of logical invalidity, without hindering performance on valid arguments. Experiment 2 reformulated the same arguments using the Periodic Table of Arguments to replace 'if/then' conditionals with lever-based structures. Here, participants exhibited a generalized tendency to resist conditional inference, resulting in improved rejection of invalid arguments but reduced recognition of valid ones. Across both studies, pragmatic congruency alone did not predict accuracy, but interactions between pragmatic expectations and logical form systematically influenced evaluations. Taken together, the findings suggest that pragmatics does not override logic but modulates its accessibility: violations of pragmatic expectations invite deliberation. At the same time, semantic scaffolding, such as explicit 'if/then' cues, supports deductive reasoning. We propose that natural argumentation depends on this interplay, highlighting the need for situated accounts of logos.

Previous research in argumentation has closely examined distortions of the opposition—particularly the straw man—and has recently provided some experimental evidence on their effects on persuasive outcomes. However, comparatively little empirical attention has been given to the inverse practice of faithfully reformulating an opponent’s contribution. The effects of accurate and inaccurate representations on speaker ethos and perceived reasonableness also remain underexplored. This paper addresses these gaps through three pre-registered experimental studies comparing accurate reformulation, misrepresentation, and no reformulation of the opposition. Experiment 1 assesses the impact of these practices on perceived trustworthiness using a six-item, 7-point semantic differential scale. Experiment 2 examines judgments of reasonableness using a scale repeatedly employed in pragma-dialectical effectiveness research. Experiment 3 measures persuasiveness at both the attitudinal and behavioral intention levels. Participants read a series of pre-tested argumentative exchanges between two speakers in a charitable-giving context. Results show that, in the cases examined, misrepresenting the opposition negatively impacted both trustworthiness and reasonableness judgments, addressing concerns that adhering to dialectical standards may diminish rhetorical success.

The paper investigates whether contradictory arguments are less likely to be noticed when they are expressed implicitly rather than explicitly. It builds on the fact that—in natural language productions—contradictions are often not logical but rather—lato sensu—pragmatic in nature. The study presents an experiment using ecological and slightly modified material. In a Facebook post, Italian journalist Selvaggia Lucarelli conveyed two contradictory arguments through implicatures, presuppositions and vague expressions. This text was presented to experimental subjects: half read the original version, while the other half read a version in which the implicit content had been made explicit. Their responses to specific questions indicate that the contradiction is more easily noticed when it occurs between explicit assertions rather than between arguments that must be at least partially inferred. A strong effect is observed in relation to age and education differences among the groups. These results may provide experimental insight into the conditions under which argumentation flawed by contradictions may still achieve its intended effect, as if the contradiction were not present.

Abstract Personal attacks, which might convey damaging accusations, can take either an explicit or an implicit form. When they are communicated implicitly, they are referred to as insinuations . Their implicit nature is said to allow speakers to evade responsibility, preserve their public image, or even conceal argumentative weaknesses. In previous studies, we found that insinuated ad hominem arguments supporting disagreement made speakers appear more persuasive and trustworthy than explicit ones. However, further exploratory analyses of our data revealed that the advantage of insinuated over explicit ad hominem arguments was either only present or more pronounced when the personal attack was fallacious. This distinction between explicitness and fallaciousness —and their possible interaction—had not been accounted for in earlier work. To investigate this interaction more systematically, we conducted four preregistered experiments examining the combined effects of explicitness and fallaciousness in ad hominem arguments. Results indicate that there is no significant interaction between fallaciousness and implicitness, regardless of whether the personal attack targets the proponent’s expertise or character. While the often-assumed persuasive benefits of insinuation do not consistently emerge—and may even undermine argumentative support in the context of disagreemen—insinuation confers social advantages, as the speaker is perceived as more trustworthy overall. Moreover, valid arguments are consistently preferred over fallacious ones—not only when it comes to supporting disagreement, but also in shaping how the speaker is perceived. This suggests that while pragmatic subtleties, such as insinuation, can enhance perceived trustworthiness, argumentative soundness remains a central criterion in both rhetorical and interpersonal judgments.

Positive communication and its importance to organizations has become a popular topic of research among organizational scholars. However, there remains a paucity of work exploring nonlinearities in the role of positivity in communication effectiveness, with little research examining whether there can be too much of a good thing when it comes to communication positivity. To address these gaps in the literature on positive communication, I tested the hypothesis that work-related workplace communication will exhibit an inverted U-shaped curvilinear relationship with positive emotion. This relationship is hypothesized to result from a tradeoff between total workplace communication and the proportion of total workplace communication that is explicitly work-related as communication positivity increases. The results of this study generally support the hypothesized relationship and, save for some minor caveats, the hypothesized mechanisms underlying it. Enclosed are discussions on these caveats and the implications of this study’s findings for both organizational researchers and practitioners.

This study contributes to the literature on corporate diversity and crisis management by analyzing stakeholder perceptions in the aftermath of Google’s and Microsoft’s sexual harassment scandals. The results reveal that both scandals were construed from the perspective of activism, an inherent feature of social media communication. While users made demands for additional corrective action from both companies, Google’s scandal was predominantly defined from the frames of controllability and perceived injustice, possibly eroding corporate reputation. By contrast, the frame of severity prevailed in the online discourse around Microsoft and showed a delineation between perceptions of senior leadership and HR. The findings have implications for the practice of communication management with respect to scandals.

Purpose: Writing has been identified as an important skill. Business writing refers to the form of writing that is used to communicate in formal settings in various corporations and organizations. A number of research studies have identified writing as a crucial skill that needs to be developed by students. The purpose of the study is therefore to understand how an experiential learning module on business writing can improve the email-writing and report-writing skills of management postgraduates. Design/Methodology/Approach: The study uses an experimental research methodology based on experiential learning pedagogy to obtain the results of the intervention on the business writing skills of the management postgraduate students. The module was developed by the researcher and then was taught to the students through the online platform Zoom. Pretest, posttest, and delayed posttest analysis was conducted to find the impact of the intervention. The students were evaluated by an industry expert to avoid bias as they were trained by the researcher. Findings: The results of the study indicated that the intervention had a significant impact on the business writing skills of the participants. The results of the component analysis also indicated a large effect on the content, persuasive abilities, lateral thinking abilities, and the interpersonal skills of the participants in written communication. The analysis of the test scores revealed that an initial training based on the experiential learning methods can have a long-term impact on the improvement of the skills of the students, as the delayed posttest results were more than the posttest results. Originality/value: The study will be beneficial to educators, trainers, as well as students in understanding how experiential learning can impact the business writing skills of the students.

Team presentations are prevalent in education and business, yet there is a notable scarcity of scholarly research and discussion on effective delivery practices. The authors bridge this gap by introducing a theoretical foundation for team presentations, enabling further exploration. They first establish prerequisites that a team must address regarding the speech outline, member roles, and transition techniques. They then categorize five distinct team presentation formats and explore each one’s strategic advantages, disadvantages, and application contexts. Lastly, the authors offer strategic implications for practitioners and proposals for future academic inquiries into the realm of team presentation theory.

In this article I explain how the ecological perspective, posthumanism, and rhetorical genre studies all coalesce into a theoretical framework from which to approach business communication theory and practice. I use the United States National Security Strategy as a research object to demonstrate this theoretical approach.

This case, developed for the 2025 ABC Case Writing Competition and sponsored by the ABC Student Competition Committee, asks students to apply persuasive communication strategies to a real-world crisis in public service. Following a violent incident at the Worcester (Massachusetts) Public Library, students step into the role of Board President to advocate for staff safety and resources before the City Council. The case highlights the challenges of community advocacy, secondary traumatic stress, and organizational resilience while offering students practice in crafting persuasive, high-stakes messages.

This study examines the role of positive communication in AI-generated recruitment messaging and its influence on Generation Z job seekers. Drawing on positive communication scholarship (Mirivel & Fuller, 2024) and the Human Needs Approach (Socha & Beck, 2015), we explore how AI-generated job descriptions shape anticipatory socialization and perceptions of workplace culture. Using qualitative focus groups, we identify key themes related to authenticity, engagement, and the fulfillment of fundamental psychological needs. Findings indicate that although positive communication enhances job attractiveness, job seekers remain skeptical of AI-generated content unless it aligns with real-world workplace values. Organizations must balance AI efficiency with human oversight to maintain trust and ensure transparency in recruitment messaging. This study contributes to business communication research by offering practical and pedagogical implications for AI-integrated hiring strategies and ethical recruitment communication.

This article reframes professional networking through the lens of positive communication, arguing that authentic, value-driven relationship building enhances both personal well-being and professional growth. Drawing on positive psychology, emotional intelligence, and moral development, it highlights how empathy, gratitude, and identity alignment transform networking from a transactional act into a relational, self-actualizing practice. The article offers a pedagogical framework for instructors, including a multisession unit to help students internalize and practice positive communication principles. Ultimately, this approach fosters deeper, more fulfilling connections that empower students to become confident, ethical professionals capable of sustaining meaningful, high-quality relationships throughout their careers.

This article presents a curated collection of nine teaching innovations presented at the Association for Business Communication 90th conference in Long Beach, California, as well as online, in October 2025. These My Favorite Assignment (MFA) presenters demonstrated various activities in helping students prepare for their careers and develop their professional skills. This My Favorite Assignment 33rd edition introduces readers to a wide variety of classroom-ready ideas that integrate career readiness tasks. Teaching support materials—instructions to students, stimulus materials, slides, rubrics, frequently asked questions, links, and sample student projects—are downloadable from the Association for Business Communication website.

This article presents critical positive communication pedagogy (CPCP), which synthesizes the fields of critical pedagogy and positive communication pedagogy to promote positive communication practices that develop a social justice sensibility among students. We argue that CPCP contributes to the creation of learner-centered classrooms that promote interpersonal connection, foster feelings of inclusion and belonging, and aid students in achieving sustainable happiness. We provide examples of CPCP in business and professional communication classrooms to promote diversity and inclusion, specifically related to issues of gender and sexuality, race, disability, and class.

This article looks at how I successfully redesigned a business communication course to support the development of students’ interpersonal and team communication as well as negotiation skills through a strong focus on positive communication and improvisation. The article demonstrates that building a course around Mirivel’s (2014) positive communication model and using improvisational techniques in learning activities can effectively support students’ business communication skills development. The article provides instructors with concrete course modules and activities that can be used in similar courses.

We address postpandemic student stress by exploring the integration of mediated-reflexivity assignments to foster positive communication and enhance well-being. The three-part assignment—student reflection, instructor feedback, and final student response—builds on critical reflexivity and positive communication principles. Findings suggest that this assignment improves student engagement, retention, and critical thinking. Students reported a deeper understanding of course concepts and improved real-life application. Instructors benefit from connecting personally with students, adjusting lesson plans based on reflections, and fostering an inclusive, supportive classroom environment. The technique offers a scalable, flexible approach to enhance student learning and well-being.

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.

In place of (or as a complement to) “user experience research,” we propose “reader experience research” as a technique for tracing how contemporary readers make meaning through a host of social-semiotic modes. Significantly, such modes are always already conditioned by cognitive, social, economic, and technological factors. To illustrate how reader experience research can account for such factors, we describe the emergence of our institution’s Reader Experience Lab. We illustrate through three experiences how the lab (and reader experience research, in general) offers opportunities for gaining insight into how contemporary readers make meaning in and/or despite what Dan Keller terms a “culture of acceleration.”

People working at the intersection of composition and user experience often serve as the connective material that binds content to use. In merging fundamental skills of both in multimodal UX, practitioners position themselves as essential mediators connecting technical information, storytelling, and technologies that carry impactful messages across disciplines, audiences, and contexts. Building on previous work that advocates for the power of narrative in AR/VR storytelling, we demonstrate how combining the composing strategy of narrative layering with user testing can guide the creation of inclusive, community-centered VR experiences. To illustrate the power of this capacity, we ground our analysis in the design of a Virtual Reality experience about advanced water purification, outlining a method for how narrative layering and UX testing can be woven together to address a variety of perspectives through interdisciplinary, layered storytelling. In doing so, we argue that multimodal UX is most powerful when it blends the needs of a range of audiences to build stories that communicate complex information in an inclusive and engaging way.

• Postgraduates engaged behaviorally, affectively, and cognitively with GenAI feedback. • Postgraduates dealt with ChatGPT primarily as a tool for refining their proposals, not for generating content. • Postgraduates demonstrated agency by actively questioning, annotating, and negotiating feedback. • Postgraduates engaged in diverse affective responses, ranging from appreciation to frustration. As Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools such as ChatGPT are becoming increasingly integrated into English as a Foreign Language (EFL) academic writing context, learners’ engagement with AI-generated feedback remains insufficiently examined. This case study investigated how four Chinese EFL postgraduates joining a course in a Malaysian university engaged with ChatGPT feedback while revising their academic research proposals. The study triangulated screen recordings, pre- and post-revision drafts, and stimulated recall interviews. Participants displayed a range of behavioural strategies, including accepting, questioning, rejecting suggestions, annotating visually, and seeking external validation. Affective responses ranged from appreciation and curiosity to doubt and frustration, particularly when feedback appeared conflicting or imprecise. Cognitively, learners applied various strategies such as evaluating, comparing, negotiating feedback, and regulating its use. Yet, they showed differing levels of engagement, shaped by individual perceptions and writing intentions. Importantly, participants regarded ChatGPT as a tool for linguistic refinement rather than content generation. Overall, the findings revealed that learners did not passively receive feedback but interacted with it in agentive and critical ways. The study highlights the interplay among these three dimensions of engagement and the importance of individual differences when evaluating the pedagogical potential of GenAI-generated feedback in academic writing.

User experience (UX) as both a vocation and a skillset is currently in the center of a wicked knot: emerging technologies such as generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) and large language models (LLMs) are (for the moment) widely accessible in unprecedented ways and are already heavily integrated into modern workplace practices and educational spaces. Further, workplace demands have led to a change in perception of the function and value of UX, and the field is facing new obstacles to hiring and research funding. Our article argues that a resituation of UX is needed: we-as instructors and administrators-need to focus on UX as an act of slow, embodied, and multimodal UX composition. To do this work, we offer the strategy of détournement as central to UX curriculum and preparing students for design work in a variety of rhetorical situations, expressed through our example assignments for instructors to implement within the college classroom.

Content personalization or tailoring content as per the needs of users has been a focus of technical communicators’ work since a very long time. Recently, algorithms have helped trace users’ characteristics such as devices they use, platforms they work on, local language spoken, etc. to personalize content through strategies like responsive content, automatic translation and so on. AI tools have extended algorithmic capabilities for personalization, but at the same time increased the randomness of personalized content. That is, algorithms produce different results for the same user at different times or different results for different users at the same time with the same prompt thus shifting the agency of both rhetors (or content creators) and the audience (or content users). While conventional technical communication pedagogy has focused on writing for users, and more recently on writing for algorithms which serve the users, today it is crucial to understand how technologies like AI impact knowledge consumption processes from a user experience perspective? And how can we teach content personalization and adaptive techniques in the increasingly digital spaces of audience interactions? These questions motivated our research. To follow the roles of algorithms and technical communicators closely, we analyzed three different case studies where algorithms are responsible for a high level of personalization beyond the decisions made by technical communicators. Our findings suggest that we must teach students to investigate concepts such as user personas in UX for understanding audiences, several methods of decision-making for content assets, and rhetorical ecology for a holistic view of content production to dissemination.

This study evaluates a “feedback-only,” constrained-generative AI tool designed to support revision without generating or rewriting student text. StoryCoach was developed for a business communication elective and grounded in cognitive apprenticeship with principles of feedback literacy. The tool generated structured feedback: one strength, one opportunity, and one reflective question per submission. Analysis of 57 paired drafts showed significant gains in feature-specific rhetorical execution, with vividness as the primary quantitative indicator (Cohen’s d  = 1.39), supported by independent reader judgments and student reflections. Findings demonstrate that constrained-generative AI can function as a pedagogical partner that strengthens rhetorical awareness and preserves authorship integrity.

This study investigates how students interpret AI-assisted written communication in a university context. Although AI assistant programs are increasingly used to draft institutional emails, little is known about whether they enhance clarity or undermine trust and perceived professionalism. Using survey data from 194 Vietnamese undergraduates, the study validates four constructs including perceived usefulness, trust, perceived professionalism, and attitudes toward AI assistant programs, and examines their effects on students’ intention to read emails frequently. Results show that students clearly distinguish clarity benefits from credibility concerns, indicating that AI-assisted emails can improve comprehension.

We conducted a post hoc analysis of 771 students’ argumentative writing plans and essays in the Criterion ® database, a digital writing tool, to explore the relations among plan features, essay quality, and writing traits. Students in the study were in Grades 5 to 10 from 68 schools. We found that older students produced writing plans that received higher scores and demonstrated greater genre-specific knowledge than younger students, but regardless of their grade, most students did not consider alternative perspectives or rebut counterarguments in their writing plans. We also found that students’ choice of plan templates was associated with the scores of their plans. Further, factor analysis showed that six of the seven plan feature scores hung together in a single factor (Factor 1) and correlated with multiple trait scores (Factor 2), accounting for most of the shared variance connecting plan scores with writing traits. The “both sides” plan feature loaded on a different factor by its own, suggesting that considering different perspectives is a challenging skill that students may need extra support to develop.

This study investigated how reading medium (print vs. digital) and communicative purpose (informative vs. persuasive) shape writing processes and outcomes in integrative academic tasks. Eighty-one university students read three source texts in print or digitally and, after random assignment, produced either an informative or persuasive synthesis within a 2×2 between-subjects design. Keystroke logging recorded pausing across three writing stages, indexing planning, translation, and revision. Text quality was scored with holistic rubrics capturing discourse features and integration of sources. Reading medium significantly influenced pausing: students who read in print paused longer during writing, yet medium had no effect on overall text quality. Task purpose mattered: persuasive tasks yielded higher-quality formal writing, whereas scores reflecting level of source integration did not differ. No interaction between reading medium and task purpose emerged. When controlling for reading comprehension, working memory, and planning ability, the main effects of medium and task purpose remained, but period-specific pausing effects were no longer significant. Findings highlight distinct roles for reading medium and task purpose in shaping writing behavior and performance. The results support cautious causal interpretations and suggest that incorporating digital reading and varying task types may enhance academic writing in higher education, informing curriculum design and assessment.

How do we envision the future in community? The authors in this issue of Reflections: A Journal of Community Engaged Writing and Rhetoric help us interrogate this critical question. At a time when humanity is being attacked and challenged on multiple levels across institutions and borders, the articles in this issue provide a small glimpse into how community work can continue grounding us as scholars, practitioners, and humans seeking ulterior alternatives.

This article explores the intersections of queer subjectivity, community storytelling, and recovery literacy through the digital storytelling project, Voices from Rock Bottom (VFRB). Drawing on feminist and queer theoretical frameworks, including queerstory of recovery (Bacibianco) and the concept of rhetorical velocity (DeVoss and Ridolfo), this research highlights how VFRB creates an inclusive multimodal platform for recovering alcoholics and addicts to share their stories beyond the privatized, hegemonic spaces of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). This article argues that VFRB’s feminist construct creates a civic space where queer recovering alcoholics and addicts can resist institutionalized constraints, perform their stories, and engage in collective knowledge-making. Ultimately, this study advocates for a broader understanding of recovery storytelling as a communal act of dissent that empowers queer individuals to challenge hegemonic frameworks and offer new ways of knowing, being, and narrating recovery experiences in the public sphere, through what the author terms as “queerstory of recovery.” Keywords: Voices from Rock Bottom, queerstory of recovery, recovery literacy, queer subjectivity, queerstory, queer rhetoric, recovery rhetoric

Volume 25, Issue 1, Fall 2026

This paper highlights the reflective experiences of five graduate students who emerged as practitioner-scholars in the field of technical and professional communication (TPC) through their participation in the Spring 2025 graduate course, Writing Grants and Proposals, at Sam Houston State University. The semi-simulated, Better Sam Program assignment, grounded in a community-engaged and social justice framework, required students to develop unsolicited full proposals addressing local issues or opportunities within SHSU or the Huntsville community. This assignment challenged students to align their proposals with community needs while engaging in ethical, research-driven practices. Drawing on extensive community engagement, students developed proposals that were not only realistic and contextually grounded but also reflective of broader social justice concerns. The reflective process, guided by structured questions, encouraged students to critically analyze their proposal development experiences and consider the broader implications of their work for community advocacy and social responsibility. This paper presents these reflections, offering insights into how grant writing can be a transformative educational experience that fosters critical thinking, ethical engagement, and social impact.

The rise of mass incarceration since the 1970s in the United States and the many ways that prisons touch our lives have positioned prisons as inevitable—even essential–-institutions (e.g., Davis, 2003). Prison abolitionists challenge this norm by offering alternatives that do not rely on prisons to solve social problems and address violence. Drawing from a collection of over 500 letters from the LGBT Books to Prisoners archive, we examine the many ways that abolitionist literacy practices contribute to envisioning this future. The literacy practices of the incarcerated letter writers, we argue, challenge the ways that incarcerated people are meant to engage and what they are meant to know, allowing for the building of new immaterial and material worlds. These queer immaterial worlds are the textual worlds where queer lives, experiences, and desires exist within the prison system; they are often ephemeral, leaving ghost-like traces as people navigate both the affirming and community-building role of literacy practices in prison, as well as the dangers associated with those same practices. The imaginative practice that these letter writers engage in is essential to the broader work that envisions a more abolitionist future. As acts of worldmaking, these literacy practices have much to teach us about what it means to imagine an abolitionist future, and to practice worldmaking in a world of impossibility.

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.