Communicating Rhetoric: Rhet/Comp, Comm Studies, and What We Can Learn From Each

I am addicted to school. As someone who has been in school about 4 years too long, I can readily admit that I want to stay in the warmth and safety of the academy for as long as possible. There was an embarrassing number of moments during my Master's program that I forgot I was working towards graduation, and just wanted to bebop around until someone told me I couldn't be there anymore.

And yet, dear reader, I found a loophole: a PhD program—at the same wonderful university, in the same wonderful town...hurrah!

...And in a different discipline.

Both degrees were, as a former art teacher would say, "happy accidents." I applied for the Master's in English because I was having a post-graduation crisis, figured I liked school well enough, and heard that rhet/comp had the most jobs in English. I had the best two years of my life. I applied for the PhD in Comm Studies because my outside committee member told me my scholarship fit, and that they had EVEN MORE jobs. I just finished my first semester, and while I am mentally exhausted and ready to be in my pajamas for three straight weeks, I can safely say I have found a home (and a career) in Comm Studies.

I have written some variation of "how to survive grad school" for two years, most of which comes down to "do your work while still remaining human, get some sleep, and eat your veggies." What I haven't talked about is choosing the grad program you will have to subsequently survive.

I've noticed two patterns this semester: people want to know what the switch from English to Comm is like, and there seems to be a subtle, unspoken suspicion across fields. Both patterns never really made much sense to me, as it felt like the two disciplines weren't that different (especially coming from Rhet/Comp), and that the departments could facilitate some productive collaborations. So, like any scholar, I did some reflecting, read some syllabi, and compiled notes about each discipline. And while I do think there could be some rich collaborations between departments, I have noticed quite a few differences. Had I undergone a more traditional graduate program search, I would have liked to get this kind of information, so I thought I would share.

But first, a disclaimer: I can only speak to my specific experiences at CSU, and am aware that other programs run quite differently. That being said, I have looked through numerous syllabi across universities in both Rhet/Comp and Comm Studies, and have identified some overarching trends. Furthermore, I'm not trying to disparage either program, or deem one superior. I have faced obstacles and had positive experiences in both departments, and am aware of the wildly subjective nature of the graduate school experience.

Okay, now that we've gotten out of the way, I will address both content and departmental differences, and what we can learn from each.

CONTENT

Rhetoric and Composition is a bit of an anomaly because of the constant balance between theory (rhetoric) and pedagogy (composition). While this balance will largely be informed by the individual professor, I have noticed a lot of emphasis being placed on composition. It is common to tie theoretical discussions to the question "how can we use this information to better reach our students?". I have read about cultural difference in both disciplines, but in rhet/comp, this notion of difference connects to understandings of multiliteracies. Essentially, one group may value the oral tradition over writing, so maybe we should rethink how we as educators teach writing. We reflect on our own positionalities in order to identify biases in our pedagogy, and use our writing processes as models from which to teach our students. 

Theories of composition are usually categorized into the 3 camps of expressivism, cognitivism (AKA "formalism"), and social constructionism. I won't bore you too much with unnecessary detail (or spoilers!), but expressivism essentially argues that writing is the discovery of the author's truth, and is solely about the author. Cognitivism, on the other hand, argues that writing is comprised of mechanical meaning-making. It takes a narrow look at the written product itself, with no regard for either the author's intent, or the audience's reception. Social constructionism, the most "in vogue" theory to date, pulls from Lloyd Bitzer's rhetorical situation and emphasizes the various ideologies both the author and the reader hold going into a text. The social constructionist views writing as a social activity that is largely motivated by social change.

The Rhetorical Situation

We can see just how much theory influences pedagogy, as we frequently use the above model in College Composition. As an instructor, I often joked that my students would be dreaming of triangles and circles by the end of the semester. I know I certainly did. 

This is a complex field to briefly explain, but I'll briefly explain it anyway. To overly simplify, rhet/comp is about writing: teaching writing, examining the writing process, writing about writing. So, in a sense, I am writing about writing about writing. 

Okay, enough. For the visual learners out there, I have compiled some key words that I feel best exemplify the field as a whole:

Some key scholars that (in my opinion) best represent rhet/comp are Mary Louise Pratt, Lloyd Bitzer, Linda Flower, and Peter Elbow.

Communication studies is far more broad than rhet/comp, so I will give another disclaimer by stating that I'm coming at this largely from a media and rhetoric studies standpoint. There is a lot more internal debate among comm studies scholars about the "right way" to study a text because of the competing methodologies—all of which has led me into a scholarly existential crisis because what is a PhD program without one of those?

Like rhet/comp, comm studies has divided itself into 3 "camps" (when in doubt, go by the rule of 3): media studies, rhetoric, and relational/organizational communication. Media (studying industry) and rhetoric (studying text) are often in conversation with each other, whereas relational/org is off doing its own thing. The latter focuses on social scientific research, which I know approximately zero things about. But I hear they're doing some nifty things with AI and mindfulness in relationships, which is pretty darn cool. These camps often inform our identities as researchers, rather than instructors.

I've never been much of a revolutionary person, but comm studies has made me far more aware of social justice issues and the dangers of capitalism. Thus far, there have been Marxist undertones (or overtones) in each class I've taken. I have been reflective in both fields, but the content of said reflection has been wildly different. In rhet/comp, I reflected on who I was as an academic, writer, and instructor. In comm studies, I'm reflective about who I am as a consumer—both of media, and of material goods. 

Media studies places emphasis on industry, audience reception, and modes of production. While audience comes up in both fields, the emphasis here is how an audience receives media, rather than how we write to audiences. While I have yet to take a rhetoric class in the department, it seems to focus more on the text itself. Some emphases in rhetoric include speech communication; political rhetoric; and space, place, and memory. 

Prominent scholars in comm studies include John Fiske, Michel Foucault, Stuart Hall, and Kenneth Burke. 

PROGRAM

Unlike the content, program differences vary wildly depending on the program that you choose. But to make these observations a teeny bit more fair, I have included patterns I've noticed between Penn State's (my undergrad university) and CSU's English departments. With comm studies, you'll just have to take my word for it, like any good researcher. 

Rhet/comp is highly specialized. Not just from literature, english ed, TEFL, and creative writing, but internally as well. The professors will often cultivate their scholarly identities from deep knowledge of 2-3 subjects. Core classes might look extremely different depending on who's teaching them. The program is also tiny. Depending on how many GTA's are funded in the entire English department, there might be 5-7 folks in rhet/comp. In my own cohort, there were 3 GTAs and 2 part-time students. While I interacted with all 19 GTAs from English during my pedagogy course, I largely stuck with those from my specialty, and others did the same. 

CSU does not offer a PhD program in English, so in that sense, it was kind of nice not to have that perceived hierarchy among students. 

One thing that I really appreciated about rhet/comp (at least rhet/comp at CSU) was its openness and accommodating nature to non-traditional students. While the program was rigorous, the schedule intentionally accommodated working parents and non-local commuters. One downside of that openness to part-time non-GTAs was potential alienation when discussion the application of theory to pedagogy. Having spoken with those who applied for but did not get GTA positions, I know that created a fair amount of discomfort and feelings of competition.

Because the program was so small, I got a chance to really get to know my cohort, as well as the professors. Departmental culture was relatively casual, so I was on a first-name basis with all of my professors, and felt that they knew me deeply as a person (read: I overshared. A lot). We often had wine and cheese at a professor's house at the end of each semester, or coffee with another professor who prioritized breaking boundaries between "expert" and "novice." 

Just as comm studies is broader in content, it is bigger in size. One of the biggest draws of CSU's comm studies program is its interdisciplinary nature, so there are very few lines drawn between grad students. We all share the same office, take the same core classes, and are all GTAs (during our first year, we all teach public speaking, but then PhD students move on to teach other classes). We are introduced to and encouraged to get to know all of the faculty. The head of the department frequents the offices with a bowl of candy, which I feel is a perfect visualization of the culture of comm studies. 

Because we are all GTAs, there is less potential for feelings of alienation. At the same time, there is a clear sense that we are full-time. We teach when the department needs us to teach, and we take our core classes whenever they are offered. We take 5 classes our first semester, and are expected to attend most, if not all, departmental events. As such, it is difficult to accommodate non-traditional students. Most of us are between the ages of 22-27. 

One of the starkest differences between programs is the sociality, part of which comes from the age range and our full-time status. This is a highly social program. We have a group chat, yearly traditions, and frequent gatherings. Many of us know we won't get any work done in the office, but go there to catch up with friends (much to the chagrin of the instructors who are grading 90+ papers). Where the formality begins, however, is with the faculty. While the faculty are lovely, supportive folks who are happy to chat scholarship over coffee, the boundaries are far more firm. You address everyone as "Dr." until invited otherwise. You do not share personal information. They are not your therapists. They want to see you succeed, but if you come crying to class because your boyfriend dumped you (who me? Never!), they will recommend that you go to the counseling center. 

Both programs are exceptional at laying out a wide variety of career options, and supporting students regardless of the path they choose. I have seen great strides to make alt-ac options known, and to offer stories about working at different kinds of colleges and universities. It sometimes gets a little depressing to hear about the horrors of adjuncting, but knowing that they won't sugarcoat anything, we can see positive information as all the more promising. 

There are far more observations I've made (and will likely make in the next 3.5 years), so a part II may be on the horizon. Both departments have helped me grow exponentially as a teacher and a scholar, and have solidifed my love of academia. In terms of choosing a program, my biggest piece of advice would be to talk to the people in the department—not just the admissions counselors and the faculty, but the students as well. You can tell a lot about a department simply by walking into the graduate student office. 

Regardless of the discipline you choose, grad school is a surreal, wonderful, painful growing experience. Chances are when you graduate, you'll look back and go "did I really do that?" but also, "hell yeah, I did that!" It is a special kind of hell and nirvana all wrapped into one. But mostly, like life, it's what you make of it. 

Until next time, folks.