In a 2012 chapter, Tim Peeples & I offered a means to reason about the interesections between PW & the “broader” field of Rhetoric & Composition. We suggested two sets of categories that might be useful: 1) the core ideas we value related to writing and rhetoric (as they might show up as important aspects of our teaching and research), and 2) the institutional visibility of our field, as in where and how others might encounter “us” within the places we work. The map here shows the argument we made in the chapter, which we framed in the form of a question. Perhaps it is best to think of PW as the “broader field” and R/C as something rather more focused, narrow (though no less valuable). We arrived at that argument by assigning some less-than-systematic numerical values to each of the criteria on the “clock” above. Someone might be more systematic about this at some point; mapping numbers of presentations in CCCC programs on these topics, for example, might yield a snapshot that would be interesting and might challenge ours shown above.
But today, I want to offer this as a means to reason about the relationship at issue in our Town Hall: Computers & Writing and PW. If you play the believing game with me with regard to these categories, we can perhaps discuss how much we have in common and where one or the other areas might complement the other. If you prefer, you could diverge and suggest the categories aren’t quite right, and that would be fine too. In either case, I’m curious what you think. How do our values and institutional visibility overlap? How might we complement and/or learn from one another?