Shaw et al., "Analyzing Narratives," in Strickland and Gunner _The Writing Program Interrupted_

Shaw et al. "analyze the narratives of three writing program administrators (WPAs) of different rank and gender from the same institution who all held the same job. [...] Together, [their] narratives provide an institutional narrative about the program itself, a narrative that highlights the ways in which a writing program garners resources, support, and institutional prestige and status, while at the same time retaining many of the problems it has always enjoyed" (155). Winter was the first WPA--untenured, part-time for part of it, underpaid, advocating for a full-fledged writing program and a tenure-track WPA. Shaw was next, tenure-track, no budget, small support staff, still fighting for prestige, advocating the hiring of a senior professor. Then came Huot, professor in rank, larger budget and more support, greater hiring/firing privileges, greater curricular responsibility. The authors then analyze the narratives and draw several conclusions, such as the necessity of seizing upon institutional kairotic moments to make changes.

Response: This piece illustrates the power of narrative to represent a larger trend, and fits very well with the broader historical overviews I've read. It's the story not only of the people, but of an institution that began by exploiting its workers and viewing the WPA (and a writing program) as an afterthought to having a better job description and program. Yet the WPAs had to fight for every step. A chilling part of this article is that no one in the institution comes off as particularly "evil," just disengaged. I think this is probably much realer than a picture of a school where the administration and other faculty are anti-writing or anti-WPA; instead, they just don't care or think about it very much.

Uses: This is one of the best articles I've read for humanizing the process of professionalization of the WPA.