For the past three general issues of the Journal of Academic Writing, we have had a number of authors help us explore approaches, adaptations, and boundaries of academic writing.In the Summer 2024 issue, we saw an emphasis on the human element in writing and the hidden risks of our specialisations when they blind us to the human and affective dimensions in our respective fields and disciplines.For the Winter issue 2024 authors problematise our toolboxes and the requirement on us in Writing Studies to make academic writing more transparent and less of a black box for students so they can fully benefit from the cornerstone it is.The Summer 2025 issue of JoAW exemplified some of that adaptation and what the attempts of unpacking the black box of writing and writing processes might seem like to students.JoAW's authors did that through exploring alternative approaches such as book sprints or through optimising student course participation with hybrid courses.

Editorial for the issue. Addresses the themes of the articles along the lines of situating and contextualising academic literacies.

The title of this editorial is adapted froma lineinthebook review published in this issue of the Journal of Academic Writing (JoAW). The review iswritten by Livingstone,whoargues for the importance of texts that push,“those of us in academia, who have become too fixed in our ways, who are afraid of thinking outside-the-box.”This line reflects a core value of JoAW, as the journal has always endeavoured to serve as a reflexive space for innovation and development for EATAW members and the wider community of researchersand practitionersinterested in academic writing. The various genres JoAWpublishes that go beyond the traditional research article, the formative approach it takes to publishing, and the value it attributes to open-access, practice-oriented researchdemonstratejust some of the waysin which JoAWhasaimedto push boundariesin academic writing research and practice.

The review is written by Livingstone, who argues for the importance of texts that push, "those of us in academia, who have become too fixed in our ways, who are afraid of thinking outside-the-box."This line reflects a core value of JoAW, as the journal has always endeavoured to serve as a reflexive space for innovation and development for EATAW members and the wider community of researchers and practitioners interested in academic writing.The various genres JoAW publishes that go beyond the traditional research article, the formative approach it takes to publishing, and the value it attributes to open-access, practice-oriented research demonstrate just some of the ways in which JoAW has aimed to push boundaries in academic writing research and practice.Reflecting this facet of JoAW, arguably, what best connects the papers that compose this issue is their efforts to offer alternative perspectives on and innovative contributions to research and practice in academic writing.These papers offer perspectives that draw on interdisciplinary research, perspectives that reflect developments in academic writing practices and pedagogies during a time of crisis, perspectives on less studied areas of academic writing, and reflections on the past with projections to the future.The international spread of the contributors undoubtedly has played a key role in the convergence of the differing points of view offered in this issue, with submissions engaging with academic cultures from Australia, Canada, England, Germany, North Macedonia, Scotland, and the USA, contextualised for a European audience.Overall, this issue is composed of four research articles, two dialogues responding to previous JoAW publications, and one book review.In presenting the articles in the issue, this editorial reflects on how they each can help us all to 'think outside-the-box' when informing our academic writing research and practice.

Background: Research suggests that communication instruction is particularly effective when situated in disciplinary courses. While studies show that this approach improves communication skills, less is known about how it enhances engineering learning. Literature review: Prior work includes approaches to integrating communication into engineering, studies of writing to learn, and explorations of the role of communication in identity development. Research question: How might the integration of communication instruction and practice into undergraduate engineering courses support engineering learning? Methodology: Because little is known about how communication instruction enhances engineering learning, we conducted an exploratory case study of an established integrated program in one European university. Participants included six engineering instructors, five engineering program heads, and six engineering students. Using interviews and focus groups, we explored the engineering-specific gains that faculty and students perceived from integrating communication assignments into engineering courses. Results: Our analysis yielded three salient areas of learning: 1. understanding disciplinary content, 2. selecting important information, and 3. justifying choices. While the first aligns tightly with writing-to-learn research, all three themes, in fact, bridge content learning and disciplinary literacy to enhance students' development as engineering professionals. Conclusions: Communication instruction can potentially support engineering learning through assignments that prompt students to select information in ways that are consistent with both disciplinary values and the needs of stakeholders, and make and justify decisions about approaches and solutions in ways that demonstrate sound engineering judgment.

In a globally networked learning environment (GNLE), 16 students at a university in Sweden and 17 students at a university in the United States exchanged peer-review comments on drafts of assignments they prepared in English for their technical communication classes. The instructors of both sets of students had assigned the same projects and taught their courses in the same way that they had in the previous year, which contrasts with the common practice of having students in partnering courses work on the same assignment or on linked assignments created specifically for the GNLE. The authors coded the students’ 816 comments according to their focus and orientation in order to investigate the possible differences between the comments made by the L2 students in Sweden and those made by the L1 (English as a second language) students in the United States, the possible impact of peer reviewing online, and the influence of the instructors’ directions on the students’ peer-reviewing behavior.

This article is a report on the 2006 WAC Conference at Clemson University, written from the perspective of two international friends. We use our reflections on the conference as a springboard for exploring the current state of play of the WAC movement, and for suggesting future areas for development. We noted three common sets of metaphors at play throughout the conference: spatial/architectural; mechanical; and aging. We suggest that these metaphors are triply revealing. They help reveal the healthy and vibrant range of WAC activities; they point towards common problems and shared difficulties; and they illuminate some of our current blind spots about our own practice and our critical understanding thereof. We end with some suggestions relating to the future work we consider significant for the continuing flourishing of WAC, and look forward to WAC 2008.