Rogue Scholar

Rogue Radio Research

Rogue Communication Consultants

Beyond Rogue

About Rogue Communication

Domain Directory

    Old Dogs Can Learn New Tricks: Taking Scholarship to the Streets
    By Glen Williams

    In 1994 Western States' Convention adopted the theme "Taking It To The Streets" which emphasized the "need for communication professionals to study social problems and to devise methods for taking the dialogue . . .to audiences we don't usually reach" (p. 3). In the keynote address, Ernest Boyer amplified the theme. After noting the various problems plaguing America, he observed that higher education has the knowledge, talent, and presence to help address these problems. Boyer envisioned the differences we could make but noted, as he did in 1991, that we must give scholarship a new paradigm if we are to unleash our talents and redirect our energies where they can make a difference. Our panel revisits this theme.

    The term rogue denotes, among other things, one who is "mischievous" or of "inferior biological variation." The natural world, though, illustrates that a bit of roqueness is desirable. Harms that can befall us if we, as scholars, isolate ourselves from other populations. In the insular world of academe we become pure-bred but, as with any pure-bred stock, eventually jeopardize our hardiness. We need a little "mischief" to broaden the gene pool from time to time and to give us some street smarts (i.e., real world applications). Departmental walls isolate from within, and campus boundaries isolate us from the outside. Granted, attempts are made to traverse the walls and the periphery and perhaps even to allow the intrusion of outsiders, but we remain hesitant and cautious, and obviously we should. We need to preserve the best of our lineage but can improve upon our stock by mingling with outsiders. And we are not the sole beneficiaries of these interactions, they can benefit others as well--other scholars and the greater community.

    Clearly, an expanded view of scholarship could prove beneficial to all. In what follows I will examine definitions of scholarship, the outcomes of a broader conception of scholarship, as well as some qualifications to consider about embracing and pursuing a broadened view.

    The Scholar and the Scholarly Imperative
    In recent years scholars have begun to examine and evaluate the view of scholarship that governs higher education in America. Those who have addressed the subject define "scholar" as more than a "learned person," one who has undertaken "advanced study," or one who is an "academic"; its meaning also includes ethical and contractual dimensions. In a collection of published lectures about higher education, Wayne Booth (1988) observes that "society has agreed to reward its practitioners with academic positions" (p. 51). He surveys the history of scholarship, noting that in some instances the supporting society is "small" and "clearly defined"--for example "the monastery that supported . . . medieval monks and nuns." "More often" though, he observes, support comes from a society that is "poorly defined" and no better example than "twentieth-century America," where there exists "a larger proportion of paid scholars . . . than any other culture in history" (p. 50). Whether the funding is public or private, Booth notes that scholars must earn their keep; for the support to continue they must produce.

    What we produce and how we go about it has largely been left up to us to determine. Whereas some societies restrict the work of their scholars, Booth (1988) observes that in America scholars face relatively few constraints and are largely left to self-regulation; they are trusted by those who supply the funding (see p. 50). Even in such a relaxed climate, though, there remain some basic expectations--expectations that involve more than producing research. Booth explains: "Whether society quite knows what it wants . . . it pays us to be scholar-teachers" and "what it really seeks . . . is to keep the rational habits passionately alive in the world." He concludes: "Only if we do that job well, by the way we think, the way we teach, and the way we write, can we claim that we have honored the society that we are in and the society that is in us" (p. 74).

    We have performed satisfactorily with research but less well with teaching. As a result, in recent years America's trust of its academic community has eroded and, as Mark Buechler (1996), a research writer at the Indiana Education Policy Center observes, rightly or wrongly the public's trust "continues to plummet" due to actual and perceived neglect of undergraduate education.

    Boyer's Prognosis and Prescription
    Not only has there been increasing public awareness and concern, scholars likewise have criticized the current state of higher education. Most notably, Boyer (1991) examined current practices in academe and found that the emphasis upon research dominating higher education does neglect teaching, discourages community service, and--ironically--compromises the quality of research. After exploring the flaws in the present system Boyer suggested a corrective that will help academics to excel with research and with teaching and to meet their accountability to society. According to Boyer, "What we urgently need today is a more inclusive view of what it means to be a scholar--a recognition that knowledge is acquired through research, through synthesis, through practice, and through teaching" (p.24).

    Boyer (1991, pp. 15-16) explains the shortcomings of the prevailing hierarchical conception of scholarship that views "basic research" as the "first and most essential form of scholarly activity." In this view scholars are "academics who conduct research, publish, and then perhaps convey their knowledge to students or apply what they have learned. The latter functions grow out of scholarship, they are not considered to be apart of it." Boyer challenges the view, arguing that "knowledge is not necessarily developed in such a linear manner. The arrow of causality can, and frequently does, point in both directions. Theory surely leads to practice. But practice also leads to theory. And teaching, at its best, shapes both research and practice." In this manner, Boyer insists upon "amore comprehensive, more dynamic understanding of scholarship."

    Although Boyer offers a compelling vision, there is inherent resistance. Scholars, after all, usually engage what Booth (1988) describes as "sustained private inquiry" (p. 51) and, thus distanced from the greater community, often limit discussions of the findings or ideas to others similarly engaged, i.e., specialists in the area. Neither Boyer (1991) nor Booth deny the importance of specialization but both express concerns about a tendency towards intellectual isolationism. According to Booth, "Our increasing specialization seems to have led to decreasing interest in addressing our results to non-specialists" and, as a result, "much of what we publish now is both boring and unintelligible." Booth contends: "No doubt many of our new problems deserve to be discussed with specialists in specialists' language. But most of our important work deserves also to be translated into a language that will, by its very nature, teach the public that we are serious and that what we do can be important to more than a priestly cult" (p. 58).

    In our own field we have seen resistance to addressing non-specialists. In the area of public address, Martin J. Medhurst notes that an overemphasis on theory seems partially to blame. Medhurst (1989) acknowledges the usefulness of theory but believes it is "a mistake to insist that every study in public address search for over-arching explanations of how public communication functions.'" He contends that one reason why scholarship in public address has suffered is due to a focus on "general principles rather than specific applications." He prescribes: "It is now time to take what we know (which is substantial) and apply it to problems, situations, texts, and artifacts that can be more fully understood, appreciated, interpreted, analyzed, or explained through application of rhetorical methodologies" (p. 33).

    This same fixation with theory, Medhurst notes, also impedes our interactions with scholars in other disciplines. Medhurst takes on public address scholars who would confine scholarship in public address to "the building and refining of rhetorical or communication theory" and who worry about those who seem "'more interested in carrying on scholarly dialogue with American historians'" or "'cultural analysts . . . than with . . .colleagues in the field of speech communication.'" Medhurst counters: "If our scholarship really makes a difference is it not only natural that some people trained in the field will become known for their scholarship rather than for their training?" He lists several who have, including Robert Gunderson, asking if Professor Gunderson "hurt himself or the field of Speech Communication by consorting with American historians or editing the Journal of American History?" For Medhurst the answer is "obviously not"(p. 32). By expanding our dialogue, applying what we think we know, and acquainting students and the public with the value or our work, we only stand to gain.

    Working the Streets: The Outcomes of a Broader View
    Boyer (1991; 1994) is right: We do have the resources, talent, and knowledge to make significant contributions. And a discipline that studies human communication can be broadly applied. Several scholars in our field have taken their findings and expertise beyond departmental boundaries and beyond the walls of academe, with good results. For example, in health communication Professor Richard Street has helped the medical community to heighten awareness of breast cancer. As a part of these efforts Street helped author an interactive CD-ROM, "Options for Better Breast Care," that is educational, instructional, and empathetic. The work won the 1995 New Media INVISION Silver Medal Award for a CD-ROM education program.

    On another front, Professor David Dollar at Southwest Missouri State University has assisted law enforcement by helping to arm them with effective communication skills. Dollar understands that basic interpersonal and intercultural communication skills can protect officers and offenders alike. Texas ranger Mark Helton underscores the importance this training; Helton has worn a badge for fifteen years and credits never having to fire his gun with knowing how to "talk" with offenders. Professor Tarla Peterson, Texas A&M University, also illustrates the contributions we can make. Professor Peterson has functioned as a liaison between environmentalists, ranchers, commerce, industry, and state agencies to help them work past their disagreements. In South Texas she and her team of scholars got these groups sitting down together and listening to and talking with one another.

    Obviously we can make a number of contributions. Scholars of organizational communication are needed to keep America productive, on the cutting edge, and marked by a wholesome and fair working environment. Scholars of political communication, rhetoric and public address, and intercultural communication can help America influence the thinking and policies of other nations and to build productive and peaceful relations. In these ways and more, our scholarship is vital These involvement's can prove valuable to the community and to ourselves. Not only do we serve the greater community but we can foster healthy relations with the public and other scholars as well as provide good visibility for our field. We also can test what we think we know via application or conduct other types of research. In this manner, community service can be mutually beneficial. In addition to serving the greater community, we must not overlook that part of our community that comes to campus, an area to which I now turn.

    Teaching and Scholarship
    To do a better job with teaching requires a twofold approach. For one, we need to appreciate teaching in the manner Boyer prescribes. For another, we need to give parity to research in communication education. To begin, we must acknowledge that teaching, when done with rigor, is a scholarly endeavor. Preparation for teaching can be considered scholarly. While preparing, the teacher likely will review relevant literature and may reflect upon any issues and controversies in the literature and the implications of a particular stance. The teacher also likely will generate examples to explain concepts, contemplate how what is covered applies to the lives of students, and devise illustrations, discussion questions, exercises, assignments, and exam items that promote a mastery of the material. These are not idle activities; they can bolster the teacher's own understanding of the subject being taught and prompt new thoughts and discoveries--some of which may suggest the basis for a scholarly paper or study.

    What transpires in the classroom also can impact scholarship. Teaching is an opportunity to engage those assembled in the classroom and, as Jo Sprague (1992) observes, test theory and ideas. Having students grapple with and explain and critique material makes for an exciting and stimulating class for students and teacher alike. Comments and observations in class or in a composition can yield new insights or provocative questions, and the wording a student may use might suggest a fresh and valuable perspective. Such activity mirrors Boyer's (1991) description of effective teaching as "not only transmitting knowledge, but transforming and extending it as well" (p.24). In this environment all can be transformed--students, instructors, and the material being contemplated. Clearly, teaching can stimulate and inspire. When scholars are encouraged to teach, their research and output can benefit from the thoroughness good teaching requires. Teaching, though, has not been recognized as integral to scholarly output. Output, alone, has received the emphasis. To fixate on quantity, Booth and Boyer both contend, subverts the quality of what is produced. Booth (1996) laments the current "game" in academe that requires the "young scholar" to "produce instantly that book or article that should in fact have five more years of gestation" (p. 62). Boyer (1991) notes that this gestation can be assisted via teaching, a statement that no doubt rings true to any scholar/teacher. Teachers who research the subjects they teach see firsthand the reciprocal nature of learning and teaching that Boyer emphasizes and insists must be acknowledged and factored into the ruling conception of scholarship. John Rodden (1993) echoes this perspective and urges the academic community to value and respect, "equally," scholarship "in whatever form it may take, from the innovative new course to the well-crafted lecture to the simulating journal article"(p. 134).

    Scholarship and Pedagogical Publication
    Teaching can be a scholarly activity. Likewise, materials produced for teaching can be considered scholarly. As Steve Chaffee (1996), Chair of the Department of Communication at Stanford University observes, "Research isn't limited to journal articles, of course. It can show up in textbooks." And this quality is especially true in terms of today's texts, the best of which undergo extensive review. In addition to satisfying peers who review the work, authors must compete with top scholars who are authoring even the most basic texts, and they must incorporate the relevant literature as well as stay on top of instructional methods and technology and the latest resources for researching in the library or on the Internet.

    Teaching or producing quality pedagogical materials requires scholarly maturity. As Nyquist and Sprague (1992) explain, one is "socialized" when he or she acquires the expertise to interact capably with other experts and becomes "post socialized" when she or he is "able to translate and communicate even the most specialized knowledge to others outside the field and make complex concepts clear to learners new to the discipline" (p.109). In Boyer's (1991) assessment, "writing a textbook . . . can be a significant intellectual endeavor" (p. 35).

    In short, teaching and authoring pedagogical materials, when pursued with scholarly rigor, can yield good outcomes for students, teaching, and the material that is being taught. In addition, quality teaching is vital to the well-being of our discipline. As Booth notes, "Future support will depend . . . more on what we do in the classroom than on what we publish. What the senator remembers about his [or her] teachers . . . will affect his [or her] vote much more strongly than and suspect scholarly title he happens to stumble upon in a busy day" (p. 57). Given that quality teaching is vital, we must do a good job with instruction as well as equip any we place in the classroom to do a respectable job. Research in communication education and instructor training and development will assist these efforts, an area to which I now turn.

    Parity for Communication Education
    Perhaps you have read Kurt Wiesenfeld's diatribe against undergraduate apathy in a June issue of Newsweek. Wiesenfeld, a physicist who teaches at Georgia Tech, is appalled by what he describes as students' "indifference toward grades as an indication of personal effort and performance" (p. 16). Wiesenfeld acknowledges that our society is "saturated with surface values" and that in this climate the "love of knowledge for its own sake does sound eccentric." Yet he insists that it is right to "blame students for reflecting the superficial values saturating our society," and he warns: "These guys had better take themselves seriously now, because our country will be forced to take them seriously later." Students do have accountability, but they are not entirely to blame; we must own part of the problem. How "seriously," for example does the academic community take undergraduate education? Do we not seem to regard it as "superficial?" We have heard the clamourings of students, parents, the public and journalists about universities neglecting their undergraduates and merely paying lip service to education. Granted, many of these occurrences may be isolated, but they are widespread enough to warrant genuine concerns that institutions of higher learning have turned their backs on the people. People are understandably outraged when they expect an instructor who has expertise and who can effectively communicate the material being studied and instead find they have paid for an untrained novice or someone who can barely speak the language. People likewise have a right to be upset when the professor neglects the students, something my nephew experienced this past semester in basic composition class when the professor (a full professor) did not provide a syllabus, rarely showed up to teach (and when present never kept them for more than half the hour), and at the end of the semester told students to submit whatever they had written that semester.

    Whether it is an untrained novice, an unintelligible instructor, or an uncaring professor of rank, the student and society are shortchanged. Not only are the people robbed via tuition and via tax dollars but via the good that springs from the learning. And what value does this neglect place on education? What message does this neglect send students? What implications does this present if we believe education to be the cornerstone of democracy? Negligent professors (and incompetent professors--I would hope!) are the exception, not the rule. More often we face complaints about novice instructors who are ill prepared, and in these instances the department and the school can be considered negligent. Programs that rely on inexperienced instructors have the obligation to see that they are prepared. Proper preparation requires initial training sessions and a program to nurture ongoing development (See Nyquist & Sprague, 1992;Williams, 1995). The success of these programs, in turn, depend on research that assists these endeavors. For this reason we need to give parity to research in communication education and research in TA training and development. In addition to research, training and development requires time and expertise that surpasses what any faculty member can be expected to have if she or he is supposed to take on the role in addition to other duties. An adequate job requires release time and the development of specific materials. My own belief is that any program that utilizes novice instructors needs to devote one faculty line--in full or in part--to directing the course and overseeing the training and development of instructors. The faculty member also could produce research that provides insights into the training and development of instructors, research that not only would bolster performance in speech communication but throughout academe.

    And parity for communication education, in general, also is important. As Sprague (1993) notes: "How enriched both our teaching and theorizing would be if all scholars agreed to contribute to the literature of this area [communication education] from time to time, to read it often and to respond to it as critically as they would to work in their own areas of specialization" (p. 114). Such activity would refine our knowledge of the subject plus provide insights and strategies to help all of us make our teaching more meaningful to our students and to ourselves.

    Forging Ahead
    Thus far I have contemplated the thoughts of scholars who conclude that in addition to producing quality research we must improve service to the greater community and improve undergraduate instruction. These scholars would have us to recognize how service and teaching can be scholarly endeavors and can assist our research, and how we need to reward them accordingly. Should we proceed as they recommend, a few assurances can help point the way as well as subdue concerns.

    Assurance #1: Broadening what we recognize as scholarly does not mean compromising standards.
    Research would remain a central enterprise and we would need to continue to perform well with it in order to meet our debt to society and, depending on our appointment, our accountability to our program. As Chaffee (1996) explains, professors who have accepted a position in which they are expected to research have an "obligation" to do so. Chaffee simplifies the matter: "It is unethical to take money for something that you then do not do." Furthermore, he notes, colleagues who do not produce research do not deserve "a raise or promotion to tenure" and any who have accepted tenure who then "go dormant insofar as research is concerned . . . ought to feel ashamed." In this view, scholarly pursuits are not undertaken for self-enhancement; promotion and tenure are a by-product of one's research.

    Assurance #2: Broadening our conceptions of what is scholarly does not demand less from would-be scholars.
    Research would remain central to one's credentials as a scholar. As Boyer (1991) emphasized, "every scholar must . . . demonstrate the capacity to do original research, study a serious intellectual problem, and present to colleagues the results"--a capacity that is demonstrated in a dissertation or "a comparable piece of creative work" (p. 27). As the scholar continues to produce research, service and teaching would not weaken it but, on the contrary, could strengthen it.

    Assurance #3: Our identity will remain intact.
    A unique perspective requires specialization, internal dialogue, and an appreciation of theory and theory building. For this reason, a number of works would continue to display a theoretical bent to ensure that the strength and specific contributions of our field remain recognizable. While some publications would probe the theoretical realm others, written in a more accessible form, would examine the dynamics within a particular case, allowing theory to operate quietly in the background as we established a communication perspective about what was being studied.

    Assurance #4: The scholarly landscape will remain recognizable and respectable.
    As a result of assurance #3, what we currently recognize as scholarly research would not disappear or receive less recognition; such works simply would not be overemphasized, as they now often appear to be, to the detriment of other, needed research (see Sprague, 1993). We simply would give parity to other research and activity that is undertaken with scholarly rigor, including applying what we think we know in service to the community, as well as conducting research in communication education and instructor training and development, and producing research-based pedagogical materials. As a result, the quality of these publications could only improve and more scholars likely would find such pursuits attractive. Ironically, as it now stands, large programs that rely on teaching assistants seem most prone to snub the research that would assist those efforts. And it is these programs, given the numbers and talent involved, that might be best positioned to yield important insights and data.

    To give parity to research in communication education, research in training and development, and quality pedagogical materials is to recognize that these tasks cannot be taken lightly. What we do in the classroom and what we present in textbooks not only educate the masses and acquaint them with the merits of our discipline, but they also provide the foundation for those who will pursue graduate study. Need we remind ourselves that every level of education is important to society and each is interlocked? Need we a reminder that just as we depend upon high schools to prepare students for college we must nurture the knowledge, ability, and insights required for our students to perform well in a career or in a graduate program? Research and graduate education both are vital to our national interests and well-being, but so is the general education of our citizenry. Most of our students will stop with the undergraduate degree; we need to offer a quality education at the undergraduate level. We need to give parity to undergraduate education and to the research that would help to improve undergraduate education, i.e., research in communication education and instructor/TA training and development.

    Assurance #5: Engaging the popular audience does not cheapen our work or our standing
    In addition to producing scholarly works, works that apply what we think we know, and works to enhance education, we might also showcase our work in popular publications. There is some precedent for doing so. Radio and television stations and newspapers often call upon our professors to size up a campaign or a debate or to shed light on the meaning of a national holiday that commemorates a leader, such as the Reverend Martin Luther King. Rather than wait for the phone to ring we might, when warranted, submit a brief article to a popular magazine or newspaper. In these instances we might produce dual works, one for a scholarly journal and its nonacademic counterpart for a popular outlet. For example, in my study of leadership in the basic course (Williams, 1995), I found an article in a business magazine assessing the value of mission statements whose author (Krohe, 1995) doubts their efficacy because "no one can prove that mission statements have a direct effect on the bottom line" (p. 18). Someone needs to point out that the author's judgment, however, rests on mission statements that are handed down from above, and his focus on external results ignores internal functions. It could be clarified that external effects likely are difficult to link to a mission statement, but internal effects may be more discernible and reason enough to devise a mission statement, especially if it is established collaboratively (see Williams, 1995; Weyer, 1994; Covey, 1990).

    When we encounter such misconceptions, faulty reasoning, or invalid information, might we have the ability and sense of audience to reply effectively? On these occasions might we provide valuable insights? To author a piece for a popular publication will display our involvement, expertise, and real world applications and our desire to serve the greater community. This is not to advocate, of course, that these publications comprise the main thrust of one's publication nor be awarded undue prestige, but if done with scholarly rigor and in conjunction with other scholarly activity they might count for something.

    Assurance #6: Broadening our conception of what is scholarly could be good for the soul.
    Broadening our conception of what is scholarly would require some humbleness. We know that our talent and knowledge can be put to good use, and an enthusiasm to serve merits praise. At the same time, though, we cannot assume that we know it all. As Lessl (1989) noted, one's expertise is not infallible, and as Foucalt (1980) suggested, we can learn from a variety of voices. We have the responsibility to search out the various voices, process them open-mindedly yet critically, and acknowledge them(when appropriate) in our discourse. Scholars who grossly misunderstand, underestimate, or fail to appreciate the greater community cannot benefit the greater community. This is akin to Thomas Paine's (1776/1967) insistence that representatives cannot afford to become insulated from their constituents (see p. 71). Academics need to know people outside of academe. I recall a professor who did not understand the people whom he thought needed to be enlightened. "We are the intelligentsia," he told me, and "our mission is to enlighten 'the people.'" His idea of the common person, though, seemed severely limited; whenever he made reference to the average citizen he would refer to the custodian of the building. This professor needed a larger sampling; he needed to get out some and really interact with people. In a much-cited passage, Kenneth Burke (1941/1957) describes the drama of life as an "'unending conversation'" (p. 94) with many participants. But the prevailing view of scholarship seems to have restricted the participation. Might we listen and encourage participation--not exclude? Perhaps it would be healthy to adopt a credo akin to the Quakers' conception of everyone being equipped with an inner light. We might, as our panelists may show, learn something from bikers, micro-broadcasters, students with disabilities, and citizens concerned about diversity.

    A number of impressive scholars have contemplated what it means to be a scholar and what obligations it entails. They criticize the current emphasis in academe where application and teaching are deemed second rate activities, not as acts that contribute to what we know. They would have us acknowledge that it is not by research alone that we discover, test and refine what we know, but we also can do so via application as we attempt to serve the greater community and via teaching when we take teaching seriously. They emphasize that research, teaching, and service each are important and interrelated, and none should be emphasized to the detriment of the other.

    Their collective vision merits widespread attention. With this model of scholarship in operation, everyone wins. With the current emphasis, we all lose. Not only does research actually suffer as well as the service we could provide, but the limited view of scholarship also produces disparity in our educational system. Buechler (1996) and his associates at Indiana University's Center for Educational Policy find it terribly ironic that we require extensive teacher training and certification for grades K through 12 but standards are incredibly lax for those who teach the "13th grade" and beyond. Perhaps the lack of seriousness which we afford undergraduate education is partly responsible for the indifference and apathy that Wiesenfeld finds alarming. I share Wiesenfeld's alarm; indifference and apathy troubles me. I want students, parents, legislators, society at large and academics in particular to be concerned about undergraduate education and also about service to the community. And I desire them to be angry and loud when the transgressions are great. Perhaps it is time that we got mad, too, about the disparity. As a friend's grandmother used to assert (wisdom, no doubt shared by Webb's biker buddies): "It's better to be pissed off than pissed on." If we don't take action, we're liable to get soaked, and we'll deserve it. And more than faculty governance is as stake; as Booth (1988) portends: "The scholar who is paid for her [or his] scholarship must either find ways to teach its value to the world--whether the world consists of students or senators--or be prepared for the day in which California's Proposition 13 will be remembered as a mere hint of the drought to come" (p. 58).

    To cut to the chase: The real rogues are those who perpetuate the narrow vision of scholarship that would keep us kenneled within the confines of our departments and the walls of academe. They are old dogs who must learn new tricks, be it taking to the streets or to the classroom. How we define scholarship has weighty consequences for ourselves and our nation. It determines our conduct as well as the vitality of our research, teaching, and service, each of which keeps America on the upswing and the scholarly community well-bred, fed, and thriving.

    Booth, W.C. (1988). The vocation of a teacher: Rhetorical occasions, 1967-1988. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press

    Boyer, E.L. (1994). Making Academics Relevant. Keynote address to the sixty-fifth annual meeting of the Western States Communication Association. San Jose, CA.

    Boyer, E.L. (1991). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Lawrenceville, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Buechler, M. (1996). Research writer at the Indiana Education Policy Center at Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. Personal interview. 12 December 1996.

    Burke, K. (1957). The philosophy of literary form: Studies in symbolic action. New York, NY: Random House. (Original work published 1941).

    Chaffee, S. (1996). Personal communication via e-mail. 6 December 1996.

    Covey, S.R. (1989). The seven habits of highly effective people: Restoring the character ethic. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings: 1972-1977. Colin Gordon,, (Trans.). Colin Gordon (Ed.).New York: Pantheon, 1980, pp. 50-51.

    Krohe, J. (1995). Do you really need a mission statement? Across the Board (July/August), 16-20.

    Lessl, T.M. (1989). The priestly voice. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 75,183-197.

    Medhurst, M.J. (1989). Public address and significant scholarship: Four challenges to the rhetorical renaissance. In M.C. Leff & F.J. Kauffeld, Texts in context: Critical dialogues on significant episodes in American political rhetoric. (pp. 29-42) Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press.

    Nyquist, J.D., & Sprague, J. (1992). Developmental stages of TAs. In J.D. Nyquist & D.H. Wulff (Eds.), Preparing teaching assistants for instructional roles: Supervising TAs in communication (pp. 100-113).Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.

    [Paine, T.] (1967). Common sense. In M.D. Conway (Ed.), The writings of Thomas Paine, vol. 1. (pp. 67-120) New York: AMS Press, Inc. (Original work published 1776).

    Rodden, J. (1993). Field of Dreams. Western Journal of Communication, 57, 111-138.

    Sprague, J. (1992). The challenges of TA supervision: Viewpoint of a course supervisor. In Preparing teaching assistants for instructional roles: Supervising TAs in communication (pp. 2-15). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.

    Sprague, J. (1993). Retrieving the research agenda for communication education: Asking the pedagogical questions that are "embarrassments to theory." Communication Education, 42, 106-120.

    Western States Communication Association (1994). WSCA Convention Program 1994.

    Weyer, M.V. (1994). Mission improvable. Management Today (September), 66-68.

    Wiesenfeld, K. (1996). Making the grade: Many students wheedle for a degree as if it were a freebie T shirt. Newsweek (June 17), 16.

    Williams, G. (1995). TA training beyond the first week: A leadership perspective. Basic Communication Course Annual, 7, 59-82.