FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2006349746> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2006349746 endingPage "286" @default.
• W2006349746 startingPage "276" @default.
• W2006349746 abstract "Last year, I was invited to speak at a conference whose theme was the feminization of composition.2 This topic coincided with another discussion I had been following in our journals: the emergence of Rhetoric and Composition as a scholarly field. In preparing my talk, I began to raise several questions like: What is meant by feminization in these discussions? Can we assume that composition is feminized? Are the discourses on disciplinary formation and on feminization already woven together? If not, should they be? This essay explores these questions, making distinctions and telling stories that offer an alternative perspective. Let me begin with the feminization of composition. My rereading of many of these discussions3 leads me to conclude that their statements about feminization apply largely to composition instruction, not to Rhetoric and Composition as a scholarly field.4 The two reasons generally advanced are the numerical predominance of women and the nature of composition pedagogy. Accounts agree that women do most of the teaching of writing from the university level to elementary school as either full- or part-time instructors. Many descriptions of recent pedagogies maintain that instructional practices, particularly of expressive and critical pedagogies, are marks of feminization because they are collaborative, student centered, and nurturing. A few, however, dissent. Susan Jarratt and Evelyn Ashton-Jones, for example, problematize collaboration as a desirable feminine pedagogy. Lil Brannon contends that the expressivists and people like Giroux, Shor, Freire, and Rose are reinscribing patriarchy by invoking masculine heroic narratives of conquest as traditional male Romantic heroes who, like the rugged individual in the Dead Poet's Society, work against all odds to make a difference. Some historical accounts of nineteenth-century composition position it as feminized in contrast to rhetorical instruction and the emerging professionalization of English Studies. Robert Connors argues that the demise of agonistic rhetorical instruction in persuasive public discourse, which he contends had largely characterized male education up through 1850, was related to the entrance of significant numbers of women into higher education in the nineteenth century. These women were excluded from taking oral rhetoric and assigned to a more appropriate course called composition. He" @default.
• W2006349746 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2006349746 creator A5054768033 @default.
• W2006349746 date "1995-03-01" @default.
• W2006349746 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2006349746 title "The feminization of rhetoric and composition studies?1" @default.
• W2006349746 cites W112490896 @default.
• W2006349746 cites W180552255 @default.
• W2006349746 cites W1965331944 @default.
• W2006349746 cites W1983902595 @default.
• W2006349746 cites W1991879706 @default.
• W2006349746 cites W2000426037 @default.
• W2006349746 cites W2041159452 @default.
• W2006349746 cites W2079547156 @default.
• W2006349746 cites W2081079884 @default.
• W2006349746 cites W2567464340 @default.
• W2006349746 cites W2725869666 @default.
• W2006349746 cites W2769990146 @default.
• W2006349746 cites W2795585184 @default.
• W2006349746 cites W333054621 @default.
• W2006349746 cites W4247461529 @default.
• W2006349746 doi "https://doi.org/10.1080/07350199509359187" @default.
• W2006349746 hasPublicationYear "1995" @default.
• W2006349746 type Work @default.
• W2006349746 sameAs 2006349746 @default.
• W2006349746 citedByCount "9" @default.
• W2006349746 countsByYear W20063497462013 @default.
• W2006349746 countsByYear W20063497462014 @default.
• W2006349746 countsByYear W20063497462016 @default.
• W2006349746 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2006349746 hasAuthorship W2006349746A5054768033 @default.
• W2006349746 hasConcept C107993555 @default.
• W2006349746 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W2006349746 hasConcept C1370556 @default.
• W2006349746 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2006349746 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W2006349746 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2006349746 hasConcept C2777789624 @default.
• W2006349746 hasConcept C2780588134 @default.
• W2006349746 hasConcept C40231798 @default.
• W2006349746 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2006349746 hasConceptScore W2006349746C107993555 @default.
• W2006349746 hasConceptScore W2006349746C124952713 @default.
• W2006349746 hasConceptScore W2006349746C1370556 @default.
• W2006349746 hasConceptScore W2006349746C138885662 @default.
• W2006349746 hasConceptScore W2006349746C142362112 @default.
• W2006349746 hasConceptScore W2006349746C144024400 @default.
• W2006349746 hasConceptScore W2006349746C2777789624 @default.
• W2006349746 hasConceptScore W2006349746C2780588134 @default.
• W2006349746 hasConceptScore W2006349746C40231798 @default.
• W2006349746 hasConceptScore W2006349746C41895202 @default.
• W2006349746 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2006349746 hasLocation W20063497461 @default.
• W2006349746 hasOpenAccess W2006349746 @default.
• W2006349746 hasPrimaryLocation W20063497461 @default.
• W2006349746 hasRelatedWork W126003530 @default.
• W2006349746 hasRelatedWork W1547998037 @default.
• W2006349746 hasRelatedWork W2006349746 @default.
• W2006349746 hasRelatedWork W2041489351 @default.
• W2006349746 hasRelatedWork W2165533688 @default.
• W2006349746 hasRelatedWork W2184836728 @default.
• W2006349746 hasRelatedWork W2513801573 @default.
• W2006349746 hasRelatedWork W2610226601 @default.
• W2006349746 hasRelatedWork W330827136 @default.
• W2006349746 hasRelatedWork W567112703 @default.
• W2006349746 hasVolume "13" @default.
• W2006349746 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2006349746 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2006349746 magId "2006349746" @default.
• W2006349746 workType "article" @default.