Design Discourse - Composing and Revising Programs in Professional and Technical Writing, 2010a
Design Discourse - Composing and Revising Programs in Professional and Technical Writing, 2010a Design Discourse - Composing and Revising Programs in Professional and Technical Writing, 2010a
Griswold pendix A). I dang well wanted to be sure that they knew that this very much characterized CSU Long Beach. The next section, “Proposed Plan of Action,” as its name implies, outlined what I said we would do with the funding if awarded. Using the exact wording in the proposal, these are listed below: 1) Gather quantitative and qualitative data regarding student interest and perceptions for a master’s degree in technical and professional writing. 2) Consult with Employers and Current Professionals. 3) Fully assess the feasibility and options of establishing the master’s degree program. 4) Draft an action plan for implementing the master’s degree program in technical and professional writing. There is nothing particularly innovative about the action areas listed here; they are appropriate steps for assessing the feasibility of any academic program, and all are in line with what the RFP outlined as fundable activities. how things stand And funded they were: the proposal was submitted on time, and a few months later I learned that CGS had awarded us the grant. For a good part of a semester and much of the summer break, I have been carrying out what was promised in the proposal: wide consultation with students, faculty, technical writing practitioners, and employers in order to establish the need for the MA and begin considering the shape it might take. For me, as a “new” faculty member, I have been able to make invaluable contacts both on our campus and in the surrounding business community and have been amazed at how all sorts of folks will pay attention when I mention that our project is “supported by funds from the Ford Foundation.” I also now have a thorough understanding of the campus clearance process for faculty going after external funding. Which is a good thing, since the process is about to start all over again. CGS has invited us to submit an implementation proposal: a report of the grant’s activities thus far as well as a detailed description of how we would like to set up the program. In fact, as soon as I complete the manuscript of this very article and email it to the editors of this volume, I plan to jump upon drafting that proposal and initiating the clearance and support-letter gathering processes. I am glad to say that I have allowed a bit more time to finish this one; the deadline is once 50
Composing a Proposal month hence, but, of course, the proposal is lengthier and the required letters of support both more numerous and specific. The only glitch is that CGS has yet to receive final confirmation from the Ford Foundation that it will provide the considerably larger funding for the implementation grants. CGS has nonetheless encouraged us to submit these proposals for follow-up grants. an update It has been just about a year since I completed the terms of the planning grant. As outlined in the proposal, I held meetings with local PTW practitioners as well as those who employ them. I also conducted a survey of current English majors at CSULB and orchestrated a focus group discussion of several students enrolled in our upper-division PTW courses. In brief, these meetings established that there did indeed exist a great deal of interest in this program. As another aspect of the grant, I consulted far and wide on our campus concerning what it would take to set up a new PTW master’s degree in our department. What I discovered was quite close to what the director of our certificate program had told me: it would take around five or six years at the very least to get approval from the required department, college, university, CSU system, and California bureaucracies, and that did not include developing the curriculum. Nonetheless, I did discover a much more expedient way to essentially accomplish the same thing: we could develop an area of emphasis within our current MA. We already had ten such emphases, ranging from medieval literature to rhetoric and composition. The only thing was that just as with all those other emphases, the actual degree would say “Master of Arts in English” with no mention of the particular concentration. However, I and other faculty from the department didn’t think that would be too great an impediment since it had never dissuaded students from enrolling in the others. So, with input from a couple of interested colleagues, I wrote up a rationale describing the need and interest in and for the new MA emphasis and a description of its curriculum. This included courses that we already offered with a few more that would be developed (and that I and the others had wanted to put together for quite some time). Ultimately, the document I developed became the proposal for an “implementation grant” that CGS had invited us to submit, whereupon I spiraled back into the previously described support-lettergathering and clearance-obtaining maelstrom. 51
- Page 17 and 18: Preface omy” that has gone “off
- Page 19: DESIGN DISCOURSE: COMPOSING AND REV
- Page 23 and 24: 1 The Great Instauration: Restoring
- Page 25 and 26: The Great Instauration Updated and
- Page 27 and 28: The Great Instauration 5. Action Co
- Page 29 and 30: The Great Instauration • Always t
- Page 31 and 32: The Great Instauration • Use case
- Page 33 and 34: The Great Instauration “The proce
- Page 35: The Great Instauration works cited
- Page 38 and 39: Knievel, Belanger, Keeney, Couch, a
- Page 40 and 41: Knievel, Belanger, Keeney, Couch, a
- Page 42 and 43: Knievel, Belanger, Keeney, Couch, a
- Page 44 and 45: Knievel, Belanger, Keeney, Couch, a
- Page 46 and 47: Knievel, Belanger, Keeney, Couch, a
- Page 48 and 49: Knievel, Belanger, Keeney, Couch, a
- Page 50 and 51: Knievel, Belanger, Keeney, Couch, a
- Page 52 and 53: Knievel, Belanger, Keeney, Couch, a
- Page 54 and 55: Knievel, Belanger, Keeney, Couch, a
- Page 56 and 57: Knievel, Belanger, Keeney, Couch, a
- Page 58 and 59: Knievel, Belanger, Keeney, Couch, a
- Page 60 and 61: Griswold orientation meetings as ne
- Page 62 and 63: Griswold So at this point I had two
- Page 64 and 65: Griswold All the while I am hoping
- Page 66 and 67: Griswold anyone whose primary acade
- Page 70 and 71: Griswold Unfortunately, we were not
- Page 72 and 73: Griswold can be appended as evidenc
- Page 74 and 75: Griswold Oct.-Nov. 2003: Evaluation
- Page 76 and 77: Griswold such a program would confe
- Page 78 and 79: Griswold have been hired with exper
- Page 81 and 82: 4 Disciplinary Identities: Professi
- Page 83 and 84: Disciplinary Identities fessional w
- Page 85 and 86: Disciplinary Identities courses, th
- Page 87 and 88: Disciplinary Identities been genera
- Page 89 and 90: Disciplinary Identities sites for e
- Page 91 and 92: Disciplinary Identities ing others.
- Page 93 and 94: Disciplinary Identities responsibil
- Page 95 and 96: Disciplinary Identities well-known
- Page 97 and 98: Disciplinary Identities uncritical,
- Page 99 and 100: Disciplinary Identities departments
- Page 101 and 102: Disciplinary Identities has never,
- Page 103 and 104: Disciplinary Identities 2. Separate
- Page 105: evising
- Page 108 and 109: Ashe and Reilly question impressed
- Page 110 and 111: Ashe and Reilly humanities. In addi
- Page 112 and 113: Ashe and Reilly developing academic
- Page 114 and 115: Ashe and Reilly administrators may
- Page 116 and 117: Ashe and Reilly porate aspects of P
Griswold<br />
pendix A). I dang well wanted to be sure that they knew that this very much<br />
characterized CSU Long Beach.<br />
The next section, “Proposed Plan of Action,” as its name implies, outl<strong>in</strong>ed<br />
what I said we would do with the fund<strong>in</strong>g if awarded. Us<strong>in</strong>g the exact<br />
word<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the proposal, these are listed below:<br />
1) Gather quantitative <strong>and</strong> qualitative data regard<strong>in</strong>g student <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>and</strong><br />
perceptions for a master’s degree <strong>in</strong> technical <strong>and</strong> professional writ<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
2) Consult with Employers <strong>and</strong> Current <strong>Professional</strong>s.<br />
3) Fully assess the feasibility <strong>and</strong> options of establish<strong>in</strong>g the master’s degree<br />
program.<br />
4) Draft an action plan for implement<strong>in</strong>g the master’s degree program <strong>in</strong><br />
technical <strong>and</strong> professional writ<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
There is noth<strong>in</strong>g particularly <strong>in</strong>novative about the action areas listed<br />
here; they are appropriate steps for assess<strong>in</strong>g the feasibility of any academic program,<br />
<strong>and</strong> all are <strong>in</strong> l<strong>in</strong>e with what the RFP outl<strong>in</strong>ed as fundable activities.<br />
how th<strong>in</strong>gs st<strong>and</strong><br />
And funded they were: the proposal was submitted on time, <strong>and</strong> a few<br />
months later I learned that CGS had awarded us the grant. For a good part of<br />
a semester <strong>and</strong> much of the summer break, I have been carry<strong>in</strong>g out what was<br />
promised <strong>in</strong> the proposal: wide consultation with students, faculty, technical<br />
writ<strong>in</strong>g practitioners, <strong>and</strong> employers <strong>in</strong> order to establish the need for the MA<br />
<strong>and</strong> beg<strong>in</strong> consider<strong>in</strong>g the shape it might take. For me, as a “new” faculty member,<br />
I have been able to make <strong>in</strong>valuable contacts both on our campus <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> the<br />
surround<strong>in</strong>g bus<strong>in</strong>ess community <strong>and</strong> have been amazed at how all sorts of folks<br />
will pay attention when I mention that our project is “supported by funds from<br />
the Ford Foundation.” I also now have a thorough underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g of the campus<br />
clearance process for faculty go<strong>in</strong>g after external fund<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
Which is a good th<strong>in</strong>g, s<strong>in</strong>ce the process is about to start all over aga<strong>in</strong>.<br />
CGS has <strong>in</strong>vited us to submit an implementation proposal: a report of the grant’s<br />
activities thus far as well as a detailed description of how we would like to set up<br />
the program. In fact, as soon as I complete the manuscript of this very article <strong>and</strong><br />
email it to the editors of this volume, I plan to jump upon draft<strong>in</strong>g that proposal<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>itiat<strong>in</strong>g the clearance <strong>and</strong> support-letter gather<strong>in</strong>g processes. I am glad to<br />
say that I have allowed a bit more time to f<strong>in</strong>ish this one; the deadl<strong>in</strong>e is once<br />
50