History Bump

Thanks for this, Ty.
It doesn't sound like you're proposing archival research, but rather secondary research and textual analysis. Crucial question will be what you mean by "how the stories of the creation of modern composition programs are narrated." You're going to be piecing together the narratives themselves and comparing them with each other ("the events that have been plotted"). That's secondary research—synthesizing and critiquing others' scholarship. And you are going to look (via analyses such as that which Hayden White models) at how they ground and rationalize their narratives ("how they are framed"). That's textual analysis or rhetorical analysis. You'll need to select your texts very carefully, so as to not let this project get out of control. Also, I'd urge you to bracket, until after this course when you know more about the field of comp studies, the reflection on " oward a greater understanding of how these two offshoots of English Departments work through similar issues as they seek to define themselves within the university." That's your dissertation target. Don't jump at it prematurely; that might close off your thinking. Stay as exploratory, analytical, and descriptive as possible.
John Trimbur and Diana George have done a landmark article on your topic: you'll want to consult George, Diana, and John Trimbur. "The 'Communication Battle,' or Whatever Happened to the 4th C?" College Composition and Communication 50.4 (June 1999): 682-698. It will be interesting, too, to see what you find in the speech comm. literature. I'm assuming you've turned to Kendall for advice with this?

I will be talking with Kendall about this on Wednesday during our weekly meeting for my independent study on Foucault. (Aside: Check out The Passion of Michel Foucault by James Miller; you had mentioned you were interested in learning a bit more about Foucault, and it's a gripping and informative biographical study). Anyhow, I will look for that article. Thanks!

One of the things I've been thinking about, which we might ought to have a conversation about, is the fact that most of the histories of comp that I've come in contact with position themselves as subversive narratives (e.g. Crowley's history for the purpose of undermining and arguing against universally required f-y comp classes). The histories that I've encountered so far also position comp as the rented mule of the university (which isn't to argue that comp hasn't gotten the short shrift) but I would really like to have at least one history that puts a different spin on it, even if the authors admit that comp is not the most revered academic discipline. (One chapter into Connors hasn't let me know where he stands on either of these).