Using data from 88 students, 20 advisers, and 24 hirers, this article examines the rhetorical persona of the "Professional" in résumés and cover letters. Participants often explained professionalism by its inverse: items, formats, and language that are labeled "unprofessional." Their discussions suggest that professionalism can be a problematic requirement for applicants with work history or formats associated with feminized sexuality, or for applicants whose names trigger biases about White English Vernacular.

Although we had not shared ideas before the 2021 ATTW conference, we noticed during our panel that we had considerable overlaps in our pedagogical approaches and goals for encouraging students’ social justice advocacy. This reflection discusses those overlaps while acknowledging how our different positionalities affect our approaches. One takeaway of this article is deliverables from our presentations, including citation lists and illustrations that might help other educators. The other takeaway is seven of our overlapping pedagogical approaches (three that affect course structure and four that concern day-to-day interactions) that we hope will provide other TPC educators with ideas on how to adapt to students’ positionalities while fostering students’ ability to see themselves as social justice advocates.

Using a case study of four professionals who suddenly worked from home during COVID-19, this article discusses participants' experiences of proving work when their bodies were not physically near coworkers ("proof"). I explain proof's features; participants' concerns and responses to it; its consequences for workers; and its potential devaluation of nonproductive, unwitnessed processes. I suggest technical and professional communicators are in a kairotic moment for negotiating the value of nonproductive time and unwitnessed work.

What reasons do applicants use to write résumés, and what reasons do employers use to evaluate them? This article advocates for teaching reasons as a way to empower writers to make more nuanced, adaptive résumé decisions. Drawing from a study of 63 students, 20 advisors, and 24 employers, the article touches on résumé format, sections, and items; then it moves beyond formal features to compare eight reasons that participants used as a framework in their decision making: relevance, recency, value, personality, fluff, unprofessionalism, discrimination, and applicant fit. It ends with pedagogical suggestions for teaching this framework alongside résumé formal features.

Using data from 88 students, 20 advisers, and 24 hirers about U.S. résumés, this article focuses on face of the company, the concept of employers' evaluating how well applicants might represent a company. The results of applying rhetorical listening’s identification–disidentification to “face” suggested two outcomes and their implications. First, primary audiences invoked secondary audiences to the point in which they conflated, suggesting that résumés should incorporate secondary audiences. Second, hirers sometimes violated their own beliefs about diversity hiring because of audiences they invoked, suggesting that because invoking audience can perpetuate inequitable hiring practices, hirers should be more nuanced about the audiences they choose.

This article explores what sources students use for advice while writing their résumés, their reasons for choosing those sources, and their perceptions about the sources’ quality. Results from surveys, interviews, and focus groups with 86 undergraduates and 20 career counselors and instructors suggest issues with educators’ credibility and students’ access. To address these issues, the author suggests that educators approach the résumé as a research project, which empowers students and legitimizes educators’ expertise.

Traditional Rhetorical Genre Study (RGS) methods are not well adapted to study exclusion because excluded information and people are typically absent from the genre, and some excluded information is simply unrelated to the genre because of genre conventions or social context. Within genre-based silences, how can scholars differentiate between an item of silenced information that suggests exclusionary practices and another item that is unrelated to the genre? This article serves as an example of how augmenting RGS with rhetorical listening and silence can benefit our pedagogy, research, and practice. Incorporating exclusion gives a more complete understanding of a genre’s social action and responds to cross-cultural issues with genre practices. To illustrate the benefits of this combination, the article draws from the researcher’s ongoing inquiry into the construct of the “well-rounded individual” that has become routinized in the U.S. résumé and cover letter.