I was curious to see a sketch of which authors have been foundational for Rhetoric Society Quarterly (RSQ) and Quarterly Journal of Speech (QJS) for the last few years. RSQ has historically seen contributions from people in writing studies and QJS has primarily been a communication journal devoted to rhetoric, although in both cases those differences have been collapsing. To get a rough idea of who is being cited, I took the reference lists from each journal from between 2011 and 2016 and noted which authors were being cited together in the same reference lists. So for instance, if scholar A and B were cited in the same reference list, this would hopefully indicate some sort of relationship. For each co-citation of two authors, a count was tallied. With that data, I created a couple of maps with VOSViewer that represented networks of co-citations. [caption id="attachment_1587" align="alignnone" width="960"] QJS Co-Citation Network of Authors, 2011-2016[/caption] [caption id="attachment_1586" align="alignnone" width="960"] RSQ Co-Citation Network of Authors, 2011-2016[/caption] In these graphs, the closer the authors' names, the more they were counted together. The colors indicate clusters, which were constructed with the VOS method, of related authors. The closer the clusters, the more the authors were shared among authors in each cluster. I didn't spend a lot of time cleaning the data (fixing author names and typos in citation lists), so these graphs really aren't authoritative. Still, it gives a compelling representation of scholarship clusters in the two fields. In the QJS graph, you can see six different clusters. Farthest to the left, I might describe the teal cluster as a New Rhetoric sphere (characterized by Perelman approaches). Next, I see something that looks like a public address cluster,--you can actually see FDR and Obama (yes, the presidents) as part of the network, likely because of a number of citations to an FDR/Obama speech or talk, which says something about the research/citation practices of that particular cluster. Next, I see something that looks like a critical rhetoric cluster, a newer critical rhetoric group devoted to gender, affect, and identity, a cluster of public memory, and a set of theorists constellating Lacan and Massumi, which I would have characterized as a psychoanalytic approach fifteen years ago, but which has really become much richer than those authors. Note that the authors listed have all been writing for a while, because being co-cited frequently means that you'd have to have had enough work out for a long enough time to be considered relevant to cite. In the RSQ graph, there's definitely overlap with QJS, but also difference that highlights the journal's difference in scope. Again, there's the post-psychoanalytic cluster, but there's also a close reading cluster (characterized by Leff and Mailoux), and a set of folks studying women in rhetoric (Enoch and Donawerth). I also see Burkeans, which weren't as strongly represented in QJS. That's my quick read of the graphs. I'd be eager to know what people who publish in these journals see.
The following chart helps show the distribution of faculty placement that I described here. Here's a recap of the data and how it was collected.
- I recorded the names of faculty associated with a rhetoric and composition program from each school listed as a member of the Consortium of Doctoral Programs in Rhetoric and Composition.
- I identified each faculty member PhD alma mater and year of graduation.
- I created a dataset that associated feeder institutions to the doctoral consortium schools.
* updated with a note on data collection 5/2/15 The Invisible College was introduced in Diana Crane's book Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities. The idea is a foundational part of sociology of science. Crane suggests that the memberships of knowledge communities influence the diffusion of ideas and what communities come to know and think about. Crane's idea is similar to Lave and Wenger's Communities of Practice, Knorr Cetina's Epistemic Cultures, or Swales's Discourse Communities. Crane was writing in the early 70s, and the idea seems fairly commonplace in the social sciences and humanities. Crane is particularly useful because she focused on networks that influence communities. Following Derek de la Solla's bibliometric approach to history, she uses citation networks as a methodological approach to identifying invisible colleges. In her book, she focused on faculty in the hard sciences. This idea has relevance for other disciplines, though, and I've been playing around with approaches to better understand rhetorical studies, rhetoric of science, and professional and technical communication. For the last couple of days I've been collecting the PhD institution of faculty in programs associated with the Doctoral Consortium of Rhetoric and Composition. These programs are the primary producers of PhDs in rhetcomp in the United States. Although they aren't citation networks, they are institutions that shape the questions that their graduates ask. So viewing an Invisible College this way is a hybrid Crane/Institutional Critique approach. By collecting information on faculty's graduating institutions, I collected information on the institutions feeding the faculty of the majority of rhetcomp faculty in the U.S. Practically, I did this by going to the websites of Doctoral Consortium programs, identifying their faculty, and then finding their alma maters and year of degree. The ProQuest Dissertations database helped a lot. This collection isn't as straightforward as it seems. I decided not to count visiting faculty or continuing lecturers (unless they were directing a program), for instance. Some faculty were difficult to distinguish as contributing to rhetcomp. Rhetcomp is usually a part of an English department, and some departments will imply their rhetcomp program is healthier than it is by sticking more faculty into a rhetcomp "specialization" on their website. I used my best judgment to distinguish whether a faculty member would be actively contributing to the rhetcomp research and education. I didn't want to limit it to folks who were not actively doing rhetcomp work in the 70s or earlier 80s because the field is fairly young, and a midcareer shift in interests was common. Lots of the rhetcomp faculty (especially early on) were trained in literature. Of course, having been a part of a department, I can also say that there would be disagreements between faculty within the department about who would be considered part of a rhetcomp teaching/research mission, so that made it easier. Keep that in mind. I haven't analyzed this data seriously yet, but here's a few interesting notes. 1.) There were 119 unique programs that fed the Doctoral Consortium. 2.) 54% of the consortium faculty were accounted for by 20 programs. Those twenty programs are: Purdue University (39) University of Texas at Austin (28) Pennsylvania State University (27) Carnegie Mellon University (20) University of Michigan (18) University of Wisconsin-Madison (18) Ohio State University (18) University of Minnesota (17) University of California at Berkeley (16) University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (16) University of Louisville (15) Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (14) University of Washington (13) Iowa State University (13) University of Arizona (13) Michigan State University (11) University of Illinois at Chicago (11) University of Iowa (10) Texas Christian University (10) Miami University (9) 3.) The median graduation date of these faculty was 1999. 4.) Four of the faculty graduated from non-U.S. institutions. All of those were European: Sofia University, University of Durham, University of London, and Bar-Ilan University. 5.) If faculty weren't from a rhetcomp background, prior to 1995 they'd likely have a literature background. After 1995 they were likely to be from Education, Linguistics, or Curriculum and Instruction programs. I'm about to do a time-series analysis of this dataset. Just eyeballing the data, it's clear that many of the schools had a specific time period when they were generating faculty for the doctoral consortium. For instance, University of California at Berkeley's alumni primarily graduated between 1980 and 1995. They're alumni (minus one outlier) don't hit the median mark. Conversely, Michigan State had 11 alumni, 10 of which graduated after 2000. More soon.
Professional and Technical Communication is a relatively new field, with a fairly small set of journals that are central to the field. According to studies by Smith and Lowry et al. these are the core PTC journals: The Journal of Business and Technical Communication, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, The Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, Technical Communication, and Technical Communication Quarterly. Smith used citation analysis to come to that conclusion. Lowry et al. used the opinions of experts. Neither method is authoritative, but if I had to pick a journal to read to get the best of PTC, it would be one of those. So this is useful to know, but it doesn't get at specific secondary sources central to the field. Journals are one thing, but which books and articles stand out as particularly widely read? I took those five journals and counted citations to primary sources in them between approximately 2005 and 2015. Because of the way that Web of Science and Scopus parse out data files (and limitations in my current access), some of the journals extend to 2004 while some coverage doesn't start until 2009. It's an uneven data set, which I'll being fixing in the future. Still this exercise is good for a rough estimate of what research is seeing play in the field. The ten most cited sources in the field are:
- 30 citations. Spinuzzi, C. (2003). Tracing genres through organizations: A sociocultural approach to information design:Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- 24 citations. Miller, C.R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70(2), 151-167.
- 17 citations. Johnson-Eilola, J. (1996). Relocating the value of work: Technical Communication in a post-industrial age. Technical Communication Quarterly, 5(3), 245-270.
- 16 citations. Russell, D. R. (1997). Rethinking genre in school and society: An activity theory analysis. Written Communication, 14(4), 504-554.
- 15 citations. Miller, C.R. (1979). A humanistic rationale for technical writing. College English, 40(6), 610-617.
- 14 citations. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
- 13 citations. Farkas, D. K. (1999). The logical and rhetorical construction of procedural discourse. Technical Communication, 46(1), 42-54.
- 13 citations. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- 12 citations. Hart-Davidson, W. (2001). On writing, technical communication, and information technology: The core competencies of technical communication. Technical Communication, 48(2), 145–155.
- 12 citations. Starke-Meyerring, D. (2005). Meeting the challenges of globalization: A framework for global literacies in professional communication programs. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 19(4), 468–499.
- 30/294 = 10%. Spinuzzi, C. (2003). Tracing genres through organizations: A sociocultural approach to information design:Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- 24/1940 = 1%. Miller, C.R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70(2), 151-167.
- 17/92 = 18%. Johnson-Eilola, J. (1996). Relocating the value of work: Technical Communication in a post-industrial age. Technical Communication Quarterly, 5(3), 245-270.
- 16/470 = 3%. Russell, D. R. (1997). Rethinking genre in school and society: An activity theory analysis. Written Communication, 14(4), 504-554.
- 15/142 = 11%. Miller, C.R. (1979). A humanistic rationale for technical writing. College English, 40(6), 610-617.
- 14/1380 = 1%. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
- 13/54 = 24%. Farkas, D. K. (1999). The logical and rhetorical construction of procedural discourse. Technical Communication, 46(1), 42-54.
- 13/32900 = less than a hundredth of 1%. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- 12/64 = 19%. Hart-Davidson, W. (2001). On writing, technical communication, and information technology: The core competencies of technical communication. Technical Communication, 48(2), 145–155.
- 12/66 = 18%. Starke-Meyerring, D. (2005). Meeting the challenges of globalization: A framework for global literacies in professional communication programs. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 19(4), 468–499.
- C. Spinuzzi: 224 citations
- C. Bazerman: 160 citations
- B. Latour: 135 citations
- C. Miller: 127 citations
- E. Tebeaux: 126 citations
- A. Freedman: 122 citations
- G. Hofstede 114 citations
- R.L. Daft: 105 citations
- J. Yates: 103 citations
- J. Johnson-Eilola: 102 citations