Negotiating Access to New Media:
A Framework for Faculty and Other Stakeholders
Laura McGrath
Kennesaw State University
Only recently have scholars begun to provide adequately complex perspectives on the access
issues affecting teachers of new media (e.g., DeVoss, Cushman, & Grabill, 2005; Selfe, 2004;
WIDE Research Center Collective, 2005). This chapter seeks to contribute to this most necessary
conversation by addressing the ways in which faculty, administrators, program directors, faculty
development professionals, and other stakeholders might evaluate access, and approach barriers
to access, within their unique institutional contexts. The framework presented here will be
particularly useful to individuals who are negotiating access to new media within low-support
situations or broken systems in which a lack of connection among entities of support and
between these entities and faculty has stalled efforts to create a facilitative infrastructure.
First, let me offer some definitions. When I use the phrase facilitative infrastructure, I am
referring to an interconnected structure of human and physical resources that ensures access and
supports work with new media. Although infrastructure is situational and maps differently at
individual institutions, common elements of a facilitative infrastructure include strategic
partnerships between faculty and units of support (e.g., faculty development centers, technical
support, library), communicative relationships between department technology leaders and
campus decision makers (with allies and advocates present at various levels within the leadership
hierarchy), and instructional spaces that respond to and will continue to be shaped by
pedagogical needs. In order to be sustainable, a facilitative infrastructure must have long-term
McGrath • 1 of 24
buy-in from stakeholders; it must be flexible enough to withstand inevitable changes in
personnel, funding, and needs; and it must be actively maintained. By access issues, I mean the
myriad obstacles that get in the way of teaching digital composition—the barriers that stall or
subvert efforts to update curricula, to include digital genres and new rhetorical situations, and to
offer students the multimodal composing experiences advocated by expert literacy educatorsi
(e.g., Selfe, 1999; Selfe & Hawisher, 2004; Wysocki, Johnson-Eilola, Selfe, & Sirc, 2004;
Yancey, 2004). Access to appropriate tools, support, and spaces—a facilitative infrastructure—is
essential to new media teaching and composition. Without abilities and means, the design,
composition, and sharing of digital texts cannot happen.
So what is it that gets in the way? What do our experiences—which should be valued and
shared for what they tell us about efforts to negotiate access to new media—reveal about
obstacles and barriers? When reflecting on my own new media teaching experiences, first as a
graduate student and new composition teacher, next as a postdoctoral fellow, and now as a
tenure-track assistant professor, I see that when risks were encouraged, I was limited by
insufficient access to digital tools. And when digital tools were readily available, I was limited
not only by my own incomplete knowledge but also by a value structure that seemed to
discourage innovation. Post-presentation questions and answers and between-session
conversations at professional conferences reveal that others share these frustrations and can add
to the list the following: unreliable tools, unhelpful technical support, conflict between
institutional and departmental (or departmental and individual) priorities, overwhelming teaching
loads, personal fears, and tenure and promotion pressures.
While it may be relatively easy for us to name the stumbling blocks that impede progress and
limit attempts to bring composition into the twenty-first century, it is harder to get a handle on
McGrath • 2 of 24
the complex forces behind these access issues. The more closely we examine the interrelated
nature of the obstacles mentioned above, the more impossible it becomes to blame others without
implicating ourselves and vice versa. In truth, we are all part of a system that can both facilitate
and impede efforts to act in professionally responsible ways. I am thinking here of Cynthia Selfe
and Gail Hawisher’s (2004) warning that
if literacy educators continue to define literacy in terms of alphabetic practices only, in
ways that ignore, exclude, or devalue new media texts, they not only abdicate a
professional responsibility to describe the ways in which humans are now communicating
and making meaning, but they also run the risk of their curriculum no longer holding
relevance for students who are communicating in increasingly expansive networked
environments. (p. 233)
Those who accept—rather than abdicate the ―professional responsibility‖ that Selfe and
Hawisher described—emerge as agents of change within their departments. As people who teach
or value new media, we recognize that the curricular crisis so powerfully articulated by Kathleen
Blake Yancey (2004)—―Never before has the proliferation of writings outside the academy so
counterpointed the compositions inside‖ (p. 298)—is a call to action. If digital literacy and
multimodal composition remain at the margins of academe, how well are we preparing students
to become critical, rhetorically aware members of the writing public? These concerns compel
many of us to take action in our own classrooms, but how might we—as change agents—begin
to investigate the elements involved in our systems so that we can do something about the
obstacles and enact positive change on a larger scale?
What we need is a framework that will enable us to conceptualize access to new media as a
managed process. Put another way, we need a model that offers a pragmatic set of steps for
McGrath • 3 of 24
assessing and identifying the places where we have agency within problematic, limiting, and/or
low-support structures. The heuristic proposed in a recent piece of scholarship serves as an
appropriate starting place. In ―Infrastructure and Composing: The When of New-Media Writing,‖
Dànielle DeVoss, Ellen Cushman, and Jeff Grabill (2005) advocated an infrastructural
framework for understanding ―the contexts that make possible and limit, shape and constrain,
and facilitate and prevent new-media composing‖ (p. 36). As DeVoss, Cushman, and Grabill
explained, their infrastructural framework ―provides a robust tool for writing teachers to navigate
and negotiate the institutional complexities that shape new-media writing‖ and ―creates space for
reflection and change within institutional structures and networks‖ (p. 14). The authors make the
important point that infrastructure—which includes material, financial, and human resources,
policies and procedures, value and support systems—―becomes visible when it breaks‖ (p. 21). If
we treat access issues as breakdowns that reveal a dysfunction (or multiple dysfunctions) within
the system, then we can begin to trace obstacles back to their sources.
A recent breakdown in my web writing course provides a useful example, although space
limitations force me to simplify what was actually a much more complex dysfunction. In order to
minimize disruption, Information Technology Services (ITS) made a scheduled update—
installation of a secure access platform—to our computer classrooms between fall and spring
semester when faculty and students were on break. Posters detailing the log-in process were
hung in the classrooms, but no other documentation was provided. Students logged in without
incident, but they soon encountered problems when they tried to work on web projects using the
new distributed (rather than installed) version of DREAMWEAVER 8 and when they tried to save
their work. An entire three-hour class session was wasted because of unforeseen challenges and a
lack of immediate access to printed, electronic, or human support resources.
McGrath • 4 of 24
ITS specializes in seamless transitions and minimally disruptive upgrades. Had this
breakdown not occurred, the technical staff and their work would have remained virtually
invisible to my students and me. Using what DeVoss, Cushman, and Grabill (2005) called an
infrastructural framework, I was able to see that legitimate yet conflicting concerns (i.e., ITS =
security/ease of deployment; faculty and students = ease of access) and mutual lack of
information sharing was at the root of the problem. Seen this way, there was room for
collaborative action and problem solving. Had I fallen into a cycle of panic, anger, and blame
laying, I would have missed this opportunity to develop a more facilitative infrastructure.
One of the main advantages of an infrastructural framework is that it prevents the unhelpful
finger pointing that occurs when access issues are oversimplified. In Sustainable Computer
Environments, Richard Selfe (2005) mapped out this ―debilitating dynamic of blame,‖ which he
described as a ―phenomenon [that] depends on the perception that technological changes,
policies and practices are controlled by others who make decisions contrary to one’s own needs‖
(p. 9). As I suggested earlier, we are part of a system that can both facilitate and impede efforts
to enact positive change. That system also includes technical support staff and systems
administrators, department chairs, deans, directors of programs and centers, vendors, students,
and all of the other people who affect and are affected by access. By attributing control to the
problematic other, the ―debilitating dynamic of blame‖ strips us of agency and oversimplifies the
complex relationship among system elements. By helping us ―navigate…institutional
complexities,‖ the infrastructural framework advocated by DeVoss, Cushman, and Grabill
(2005) restores agency.
Here is an example of what I mean: When, in the past, access limitations kept me from doing
what I wanted to with new media in my writing courses, I blamed department administrators for
McGrath • 5 of 24
not valuing digital composition or not doing enough to ensure access to appropriate tools and
support. It was much easier for me to blame administrators and justify my inaction than it was to
figure out how to negotiate access. The tendency to blame the other, as this example suggests,
may grow out of and reinforce feelings of paralysis. The more I blamed the other, the less able I
felt to effect change. It wasn’t until I began to recognize that the ability of administrators to
ensure access and value digital composition is often limited by a variety of factors, including
university-wide IT policies, budget cuts, lack of support from upper-level administration, and
inadequate knowledge of technology-related faculty needs, that I began to see how I might make
a difference. For me, the movement from paralysis to awareness took place when I was hired as a
technology specialist in 2004 and had to find ways to understand and facilitate access in my new
departmental home. At the time, I (and the many early adopters before me) had to work through
these negotiations on our own. Now, we can use DeVoss, Cushman, and Grabill’s (2005) useful
heuristic to facilitate that process.
As useful as an infrastructural framework is, it can make individual change seekers feel a
paralyzing sense of uncertainty about where to begin. The expanded framework that I advocate is
tied to an action-oriented model for assessing and negotiating access. In the following section, I
will explore first steps, the importance of team building and communal effort, and approaches to
negotiating access to the tools and support necessary to teach new media. The fact that each
change agent’s situation is unique makes it unrealistic to present a list of directives, but I can and
will offer a model of action based on the steps that I am taking in my own department.
First, some background. In 2004, I was hired as a technology specialist in a tenure-track
rhetoric and composition position. That the English department would seek such a specialist
suggests some recognition of value and need on the part of key decision makers within the
McGrath • 6 of 24
department and college. From the beginning, I understood that in addition to meeting flexible but
fairly traditional teaching, scholarship, and service expectations, I would need to work closely
with the faculty and promote electronic pedagogy. All writing courses in the department are
taught in computer classrooms, a fact that seemed to support my initial impression that key
decision makers valued work with technology and understood that students need access to the
tools of the twenty-first century writer. In many ways, my current environment is a place of
privilege and opportunity, as it has been since 1986–1987 when faculty at this university began
to enter computer classrooms on a rotating basis and use PC-WRITE and, soon after, NORTON
TEXTRA WRITER with their composition students. Our system, however, is not perfect. Access
issues limit us. Breakdowns occur. And while select faculty make new media a priority in their
courses, we have work to do when it comes to our instructional spaces, our support and value
structures, and our curriculum. But, as I have discovered, before a plan for change can be
developed, a number of evaluative steps should be taken.
Assessing Technology Use and Needs
As a new department member charged with technology-related faculty development, my first
step was to learn more about how technology was being used in the department and to identify
software, hardware, and support needs. I chose to conduct an informal, anonymous online
survey. Appendix A (WHAT IS THE STATUS?) shows the instrument that I used.ii
In hindsight, this survey was useful in that it provided me with candid faculty comments
about current access issues as well as an overview of software and hardware usage trends, but it
needed to be supplemented by observations, interviews, and the review of pedagogical materials.
These extra data sources would have given me a more complete picture of the relationship
McGrath • 7 of 24
between faculty, pedagogy, and technology—elements that play an essential role in the
framework that I am advocating. Now that I have a better understanding of the questions that
need to be asked, I plan to revisit technology use and needs within my department after seeking
the support of two particularly important stakeholders: our director of first-year composition and
the director of our National Writing Project site. These literacy educators are important allies
because they have considerable assessment experience, access to resources, and a vested interest
in our writing curriculum. A single teacher–leader cannot negotiate access alone. Change will
require, to borrow a phrase from James Inman, ―stakeholder collaboration‖ (2000, p. 62).
As a first step, then, I have learned that those involved in the evaluation of access should
identify allies and work collaboratively to conduct a full assessment of technology use, faculty
attitudes, pedagogical approaches, support needs, and available hardware and software within
their department. Any assessment of new media access and application should ask the following
questions, although many others could be added to the list:
(1) Which technologies are being used, by whom, how often, and for what purposes?
(2) What access issues have limited teaching and learning?
(3) What institutional, departmental, and personal resources have made successes
possible?
(4) What do faculty want and need in terms of technology and support?
(5) How are our practices and pedagogies benefiting students?
(6) How does technology support need to change in order to support changing practice
and pedagogy?
And because, as the WIDE Research Center Collective (2005) has suggested, ―space shapes the
work we do and the ways in which we interact with one another,‖ it is important for assessment
McGrath • 8 of 24
teams to (a) record information about lab and/or computer classroom access and scheduling
procedures and (b) compile an inventory of available hardware and software. In addition,
assessment teams should gather lab/computer-classroom layout information in order to determine
whether instructional spaces are conducive to the practice and study of digital composition.
Ongoing analysis and critique of these spaces is essential, especially as scholars work to
understand the significance of, for example, wireless, converged devices and new use practices.
Nearly two decades ago in Creating a Computer Supported Writing Facility, Cynthia Selfe
(1989) noted that ―we have not often had time as professionals to take care in the planning of
computer use and computer facilities to support English composition programs" (p. 22). We are
once again at a point where we must ―take care,‖ and the work of assessment teams must be
forward looking. Will existent spaces continue to meet the needs of teachers and learners? Are
they flexible enough to facilitate authentic learning experiences for student writers as tools and
practices change?
The purpose of the technology use and needs assessment—to identify what might be
improved in terms of software, hardware, access, use, training, and support—should be shared
with faculty participants early on in order to establish the goal of the project—program
enhancement—and counter fears that the assessment might turn into a non-adopter witch hunt.
After all, negotiating access to new media should be about securing support—in Richard Selfe’s
(2005) words, ―creating a productive culture of support for the technology-rich teaching of
literacy skills and values‖ (p. xx)—not creating a hostile climate. Initially, my position as, more
or less, an in-house faculty developer allowed me to promote my survey as a tool for discovering
the ways in which I could best serve my department. When I revisit technology use, I will be
doing so as part of larger scale assessment efforts that will—in conjunction with the other efforts
McGrath • 9 of 24
described in the chapter—lead to the creation of a facilitative infrastructure that includes well-
planned faculty development opportunities that address identified needs.
The more formal, thorough kind of assessment that I am describing is particularly important
because it opens within the department a dialogue about technologies of literacy and student
learning outcomes. ―Why?‖ naturally follows ―What?‖ If, for example, a significant number of
faculty are using a particular technology with their writing students, then those in charge of
assessment would naturally want to know why this pedagogical practice has caught on. In this
way, assessment reveals not only practices but values, and identifying shared values, as I will
explain later in the chapter, is important to establishing critical mass and enacting change.
By identifying barriers, weaknesses, and strengths, assessment of resources will provide
change agents with a clearer sense of direction as well as a profile of local use and needs that can
be shared with stakeholders beyond the department. Furthermore, collected data will reveal
common practices and values. After assessment is complete, next steps might include starting
conversations, identifying resources and sources of support, and examining position statements
and policy documents.
Starting Conversations
As I have suggested, large-scale assessment efforts that include opportunities for sharing and
observation can provide a forum for starting conversations within the department. Informal
opportunities for conversations with colleagues also abound, and these informal conversations
are valuable ways of keeping the channels of communication open and sustaining productive
debates about the role of new media in the English department and/or composition program. In
McGrath • 10 of 24
this section, however, I want to focus on conversations that move change agents outside of the
department and put them in contact with other stakeholders on campus.
Let me begin by sharing my own conversation-initiating process. My role as a teacher–
scholar would surely connect me to our library, writing center, and the Kennesaw Mountain
Writing Project. And I knew that my role as an English department technology specialist would
bring me into contact with Information Technology Services, the Presentation Technology
Department, Online Learning Services, and the Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning.
It was my desire to negotiate access to new media and establish a facilitative infrastructure that
compelled me to meet with representatives from these campus entities and engage them in a
specific conversation.
To use a term from the field of change management, which views organizations as ―centers
of vital connections and life-giving potentials: relationships, partnerships, alliances, and ever-
expanding webs of knowledge that are capable of harnessing the power of combinations of
strengths‖ (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005, p. 1), these informal but purpose-driven exchanges
might be best described as inquiry conversations. When I approached representatives from the
entities listed above, my primary goal was to identify possibilities, not dwell on problems. I also
expressed interest in how the representatives defined the purpose and key strengths of their unit
or program. I wanted to know about untapped resources or programs that the representatives
thought might be of use to English department faculty who teach digital composition, about
possible opportunities for collaboration, and about specific individuals who might be willing to
support new media initiatives.
I prepared myself for the inquiry conversations by asking senior colleagues for examples of
how, for example, the Presentation Technology Department had helped them or someone they
McGrath • 11 of 24
knew. This background information helped me to start conversations on a non-threatening,
positive note (after all, most of these individuals are used to hearing only requests and
complaints from faculty) and allowed me to establish a precedent of prior cooperation between
the entity and the department.
The connections that I established during these conversations and the information that I
gathered have proven invaluable to my fledgling access negotiation efforts. Because change
agents, as I’ve said before, are working within a system, it is crucial to understand and develop a
collegial relationship with the human elements of that system. In sum, inquiry conversations are
opportunities for teacher–leaders to establish productive long-term relationships and initiate
change by encouraging key support unit representatives to recognize that they are indeed fellow
stakeholders in the access negotiation process.
Identifying Resources and Sources of Support
Inquiry conversations are an excellent way of identifying campus resources and sources of
support while forming alliances, but what happens when circumstances shift the focus from
strengths and possibilities to breakdowns and barriers? When technology-related problems arose
on the three campuses where I have taught, I discovered that, in each case, a protocol existed.
One wouldn’t, for example, go straight to the chief information officer with concerns about
buggy software or the layout of a computer classroom. Depending on the nature of the request or
problem, most faculty technology concerns are filtered through a department chair, a designated
college or department support person, or a helpdesk staffer (usually a student worker). These
channels and filters sometimes create access issues for teachers of new media, especially when
the designated contact person is not or does not see him or herself as a stakeholder. How can
McGrath • 12 of 24
change agents identify ways to gain access to resources and sources of support while moving
through these often rigid protocol structures? I have found that the key to navigating these
structures lies in (a) understanding the protocol structure, (b) maintaining connections
established during inquiry conversations, (c) anticipating and planning for problems, (d) sharing
needs and use information, and (e) serving on technology-related committees.
Understanding the protocol structure means knowing whom to go to with specific problems,
questions, or requests. Currently, protocol dictates that I contact my chair with requests that
require funding or reassigned time and the general tech support helpdesk (by phone or email)
with all other technology-related concerns. There are times, however, when the proper channels
either cannot help or only hinder progress. By maintaining the connections that I established
during inquiry conversations, I am able to make better decisions about when to seek help directly
from specific support units/stakeholders or break protocol and move from student worker to
supervisor.
In addition to understanding protocol structures, change agents who are evaluating access to
resources and support need to assume a leadership role in identifying potential problems and
communicating needs to the proper support units. Although anyone who works with technology
knows that it isn’t always possible to anticipate or plan for problems, some brainstorming about
possible issues can yield useful results. To return to the example of the breakdown in my web
writing course, while I could not have known the exact ways in which the secure access platform
would affect our work, I could have anticipated the need for an introduction to the system led by
an information technology specialist and some additional documentation about how the new
platform would change the way that we worked with key software (e.g., DREAMWEAVER 8
McGrath • 13 of 24
distributed across the network rather than installed on the machines) and performed specific
tasks (e.g., saving files).
After the breakdown occurred, I shared detailed information about our uses and needs with
an Information Technology Services representative. We were able to work together to address
current problems and anticipate future issues. If I had had this conversation before the crisis
occurred, then I would have done my part to foster productive, bidirectional communication—
the kind of communication that a facilitative infrastructure requires. Since campus information
technology departments cannot be expected to stay on top of the changes within our profession
and curriculum—or to recognize new needs—teachers of new media must serve as liaisons.
Reaching out and sharing information promotes collaborative problem solving between
stakeholders and is an important part of negotiating access to new media.
Serving on technology committees or sitting in on open meetings are two other ways for
change agents to identify resources and sources of support and to evaluate access. I learned a
great deal about little-advertised opportunities and initiatives by attending various campus
meetings when technology was on the agenda and representing my department on a college
technology evaluation committee and a university course-management system transition team.
The more involved teachers of new media are in the behind-the-scenes decision making that
shapes policy, facilities, resources, and options, the more agency they have within the system.
Examining Position and Policy Documents
Information technology specialists are not the only stakeholders who may not be aware of the
ways in which current scholarship is shaping our field and beginning to make digital, multimodal
composition a central concern of writing faculty as a whole (not just a small group of
McGrath • 14 of 24
specialists). Furthermore, a variety of stakeholders may be unfamiliar with the technology-
focused position and policy documents put forth by our professional organizations. For example,
as part of the assessment process, I determined that most of the members of my department’s
leadership committee were either not aware of or had not had occasion to read the Modern
Language Association’s (2000) ―Guidelines for Evaluating Work with Digital Media‖ or the
―CCCC Position Statement on Teaching, Learning, and Assessing Writing in Digital
Environments‖ (2004), two documents that recommend sound approaches to support and
evaluation issues.
As part of the dialogue initiated by the assessment process described earlier in the chapter, it
is important to take a critical look at the CCCC and MLA documents as well as messages sent
forth by a variety of cultural mediators—experts in the field, government agencies, the media,
other professional organizations, software and hardware vendors, and so forth. Examining what
these messages tell educators they should be doing with technology is important because the
values that these messages communicate shape policy, attitudes, and infrastructure. Change
agents might explore with colleagues how these values and recommendations compliment or
contradict the department and/or writing program’s values and practices.
Tenure and promotion pressures can make faculty averse to teaching digital composition and
exploring new media with students if doing so is viewed as a risk that will not be rewarded, so an
exploration of local documents such as departmental tenure and promotion guidelines and
college or university faculty handbooks is also a necessary part of evaluating access and support.
Of the three institutions where I have taught, only my current university’s faculty handbook
makes any reference to teaching with technology (although technology is not listed in the
document’s index). QA: CITE HANDBOOK/REFERENCES. NEED YEAR. The handbook
McGrath • 15 of 24
states that faculty are expected to incorporate ―appropriate instructional technology‖ (5.6), adapt
―instructional technology for the enhancement of teaching and learning‖ (3.13, 5.15), and use
―technology to advance educational purposes, including distance learning‖ (5.4). The
departmental tenure and promotion guidelines, however, make no mention of technology or work
with digital media.
The absence of local guidelines for the evaluation of technopedagogy and work with digital
media is problematic. I have discovered that, for a number of my colleagues, receiving
conflicting oral accounts of how work with technology will be valued and evaluated for tenure
and promotion and not having ―something in writing‖ have become significant barriers to
innovation. Seen another way, however, this situation is also an opportunity for change agents to
play an instrumental role in the development of appropriate policy documents or the revision of
current policies.
As I have suggested, before a plan for positive change can be developed, it is necessary to
assess technology needs and uses and thoroughly evaluate the institutional elements that impede
and facilitate access. An infrastructural framework reveals the complex, interrelated elements of
the system in which access is negotiated; the actions outlined above move change agents through
the process of understanding and developing a relationship with the human elements involved in
the system. The final component of the managed process that I am modeling involves building
critical mass in order to negotiate access to new media in effective, sustainable ways.
Building Critical Mass, Planning Change, and Negotiating Access
While, as my experience suggests, it is possible for a single individual to do the work described
so far, real change requires critical mass. Selfe (2005) said that ―[N]o culture of support can be
McGrath • 16 of 24
sustained for long unless it involves a team of individuals who have a stake in effective and
innovative literacy instruction in technological environments‖ (p. 28). A sustainable facilitative
infrastructure—a culture of support—requires a team of committed change agents. As always,
the work of Cynthia Selfe is particularly instructive when considering change. In her 2006
CCCC presentation, Selfe identified a number of key factors that make change possible within
institutions. Two of these are particularly relevant within the context of the current discussion:
First, institutions must be able ―to assemble a critical mass of faculty working in and shaping
digital composing environments.‖ And, second, institutions must be able to secure ―the
cooperation and active support of allies within the university community,‖ individuals whom she
called ―literacy change agents‖ (quoted with permission of author). I have already mentioned the
importance of stakeholder collaboration and argued that inquiry conversations can lay a
foundation for cooperative endeavors between faculty and units of support (i.e., ―allies within the
university community‖), and I find Selfe’s suggestion that we connect with ―faculty working in
and shaping digital composing environments‖ across the institution particularly compelling in
light of the fact that work with new media often crosses disciplinary boundaries. But, for now, I
would like to turn my attention to the power of intradepartmental alliances and the importance of
building critical mass within the department.
During my first year in my current department, I operated under the erroneous assumption
that I could initiate and coordinate the development of a facilitative infrastructure on my own.
After leading a series of moderately successful workshops, making a proposal for a new media
lab space for faculty that was well received but not supported, and trying desperately to shift
conversations away from technical glitches to pedagogy, I soon realized that what I was
attempting to create would not be sustainable if I remained the sole change agent.
McGrath • 17 of 24
There are a handful of technology leaders within my department of fifty-plus faculty
members, but there were no goal-oriented connections or shared projects to unite us and create
critical mass. And I had no budget, student support, or reassigned time to offer individuals who
might be compelled by such incentives to undertake the necessary assessment and change
planning efforts. What I did have was a good working relationship with our director of
composition. Although not a technology expert or teacher of new media herself, she does have a
professional commitment to seeing our physical resources (computer classrooms) put to good use
in the service of literacy. It is this commitment that connected my goals and her priorities to the
concerns of another important stakeholder, our university’s chief information officer.
Our plan for change, which was approved and began in the summer of 2006, developed in
this way:
1. The problem: All of our writing courses are taught in computer classrooms. Initial
assessment efforts suggest that the resources available in these rooms are underutilized.
When limited budgetary resources are distributed, scholarship is privileged over
professional development; faculty receive travel funds only for presenting at conferences.
2. The solution: After reviewing the director of composition’s request for support (see
Appendix B), the CIO agreed to provide funding for a group of faculty to attend the
Digital Media and Composition (DMAC) instituteiii and learn from experts in the field.
As part of the agreement, team members agreed to assume the role of scholar-teacher
leaders and provide pedagogy-focused faculty development workshops and a summer
institute that will lead to enhanced use of available resources.
McGrath • 18 of 24
I share this example to show how identifying and collaborating with a departmental change agent
enabled me to achieve critical mass (a six-person team of scholar-teacher leaders) and develop a
realistic plan for change.
Once the leadership group received training, the team was ready to share knowledge and
expertise with departmental colleagues. Any dissemination obligations that are connected to
funding should be approached strategically. As I envision it, our strategic plan involves four key
actions: (a) disseminating our pedagogical knowledge, (b) enhancing our visibility within the
department and on campus, (c) engaging stakeholders in goal-oriented conversations about
digital media, and (d) establishing and sustaining relationships with change agents. What follows
is a summary of our approach thus far.
In fulfillment of key actions a, c, and d, team member Linda Stewart, in collaboration with
our director of composition, organized an in-house conference—Integrating Technology into the
Writing Classroom—for fall 2006 (see Appendix C). In the morning sessions, faculty who teach
first-year composition presented on such topics as Digital Moviemaking, Blogging the
Audiosphere, and Digital Literacy. In the afternoon, members of the technology leadership team
offered pedagogy-focused technology workshops. In fulfillment of key actions b and d, we
invited our dean and campus technology leaders and videotaped the event for interested parties
who could not attend.
An in-house conference provides a no-cost opportunity to disseminate pedagogical
knowledge while continuing to identify leaders, build critical mass, and win the attention and
support of campus change agents. Furthermore, an in-house conference serves as a forum for
discussing what makes innovation possible. How are presenters bringing digital media into the
classroom? What resources did they draw on as they developed these activities or projects? What
McGrath • 19 of 24
do participants (and faculty in general) need in order to integrate some of these practices into
their own classrooms?
Our second major initiative, a Maymester technology mini-institute for composition faculty,
is still in the early stages of planning. The Maymester, which connects with all four key
actions—disseminating knowledge, enhancing visibility, engaging stakeholders, and establishing
and sustaining relationships—will prepare faculty to integrate digital media into their courses in
practical and pedagogically effective ways.
Composition committee meetings provide an opportunity to further our mission between the
fall in-house conference and the Maymester sessions. The director of composition agreed to
devote a meeting or two to the development of a technology core values statement that will be
appended to the current guidelines for teachers of first-year composition, and I offered to
facilitate the process. Discussions about pedagogy, learning objectives, resources, and relevant
scholarship will lead to a collaboratively written statement about the role of digital media in first-
year composition.
Involving faculty in the creation of such a statement engages stakeholders in goal-oriented
conversations about digital media (key action c) and creates solidarity. If faculty can reach
consensus on the role that digital media should play in the twenty-first century writing
curriculum and establish related technical, critical, and rhetorical learning objectives (see Selber,
2004), then a much-needed set of common goals and a vision for the future will emerge.
Importantly, a goals and vision statement that appears on an official guidance document can
provide leverage in future access negotiations by tying requests for training, support, space,
equipment and/or software to established programmatic needs and requirements.
McGrath • 20 of 24
Finally, if all goes as planned, our department will have sent another group to the 2007
DMAC institute, a step that will further contribute to the development of a sustainable
facilitative infrastructure. This will have a positive effect on future efforts to negotiate access to
new media for a number of reasons. First, it demonstrates that support for work with digital
media exists on both the departmental and university level; this support suggests that the value of
such work is recognized by multiple stakeholders. Second, it establishes a precedent of
collaboration and information exchange between English department faculty and top-level
decision makers in Information Technology Services. And, finally, it makes digital composition
visible in ways that promote dialogue, inquiry, and shared commitment to identifying and
addressing access issues.
Although each institution and department is unique, our strategies can be adapted to suit site-
specific needs. As the examples in this chapter illustrate, strategic actions can initiate a change
process within low-support situations and/or systems in which a lack of connection among
entities has stalled efforts to create a facilitative infrastructure.
Conclusion: Taking Action within Broken Systems
Access matters for teachers of digital composition. Because appropriate tools, spaces, technical
support, resources, and development opportunities are essential to the work that we do with new
media and the opportunities that we offer our students, access issues challenge us to take a
leadership role in planning change and negotiating access. In order to be successful in this
process, change agents need to understand the system that supports or fails to support digital
composition and how the elements of this system work together to facilitate or interfere with the
teaching of new media.
McGrath • 21 of 24
Breakdowns, as DeVoss, Cushman, and Grabill (2005) have suggested, make infrastructure
visible, but thinking about access in terms of breakdowns presupposes that a functioning system
once existed. Whether those who value digital composition find themselves working within
broken systems, teaching in low-support situations in which multiple access issues limit what is
possible in the classroom, or starting from scratch with regard to new media, the challenge is the
same: to establish and sustain a facilitative infrastructure.
In this chapter, I have provided an expanded framework for thought and action that treats the
negotiation of access as a managed process. As my own experience suggests, this process
includes
Assessing technology needs and uses within a department.
Compiling an inventory of available tools.
Evaluating the spaces in which we teach.
Identifying stakeholders and initiating inquiry conversations.
Understanding how protocol affects efforts to identify resources and sources of support.
Maintaining and developing relationships.
Anticipating and planning for problems.
Sharing and gathering information.
Examining position statements and policy documents.
Building critical mass.
Acknowledging that each situation is unique and complex, this framework focuses on elements
that are essential to the creation of a sustainable facilitative infrastructure and offers scholar-
teacher leaders a way to plan for change and negotiate access. Having access to digital tools is,
of course, essential, but rooms filled with computers are not enough. Negotiating access begins
McGrath • 22 of 24
with building critical mass, obtaining buy-in from stakeholders, and securing support from
change agents. This initial focus on human resources is essential because it takes dedicated
people and strategic relationships to establish and grow a digital media program.
References
CCCC Committee on Teaching, Learning, and Assessing Writing in Digital Environments.
(2004, February). CCCC position statement on teaching, learning, and assessing writing
in digital environments. Retrieved January 10, 2006, from
http://www.ncte.org/cccc/resources/positions/123773.htm
Cooperrider, David L., & Whitney, Diana. (2005). Appreciative inquiry: A positive revolution in
change. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
DeVoss, Dànielle Nicole; Cushman, Ellen; & Grabill, Jeffrey T. (2005). Infrastructure and
composing: The when of new-media writing. College Composition and Communication,
57(1), 14–44.
Inman, James A. (2000). The importance of innovation: Diffusion theory and technological
progress in writing centers. The Writing Center Journal, 21(1), 49–66.
Modern Language Association. (2000, May). Guidelines for evaluating work with digital media
in the modern languages. Retrieved January 10, 2006, from http://www.mla.org/
guidelines_evaluation_digital
Selfe, Cynthia. (1989). Creating a computer supported writing facility: A blueprint for action.
Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Selfe, Cynthia. (1999). Technology and literacy in the twenty-first century: The importance of
paying attention. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
McGrath • 23 of 24
Selfe, Cynthia. (2006, March QA: DATE). Composing women in the digital age. Presentation at
the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Chicago, IL.
Selfe, Cynthia, & Hawisher, Gail. (2004). Literate lives in the information age. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Selfe, Richard. (2004). Sustainable computer environments: Cultures of support in English
studies and language arts. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Writing in Digital Environments (WIDE) Research Center Collective. (2005). Why teach digital
writing? Kairos: Rhetoric, Technology, Pedagogy, 10(1). Retrieved February 8, 2006,
from http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/10.1/binder2.html?coverweb/wide/index.html
Wysocki, Anne Frances; Johnson-Eilola, Johndan; Selfe, Cynthia; & Sirc, Geoffrey. (2004).
Writing new media: Theory and applications for expanding the teaching of composition.
Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.
Yancey, Kathleen Blake. (2004). Made not only in words: Composition in a new key. College
Composition and Communication, 56(2), 297–328.
Notes
i
When I use the term multimodal, I am using modes as Cheryl Ball (2004) did in ―Show, Not Tell: The Value of
New Media Scholarship,‖ to refer to ―the semiotic elements such as video, graphics, written text, audio, and so on
that a designer uses to compose multimodal or new media texts‖ (p. 405).
ii
I regret that I cannot share the survey results. Unfortunately, thinking that the survey would be for my eyes only, I
did not obtain Institutional Review Board approval. Within the context of this chapter, however, the process is more
important than my findings.
iii
The DMAC institute, hosted by Cynthia Selfe and Scott DeWitt at The Ohio State University, is an intensive,
two-week workshop where participants learn theoretical and pedagogical applications of digital media in writing-
intensive classrooms.
McGrath • 24 of 24