Lorelei Blackburn

Yours, Mine, and Ours:
Developing Collaborative Relationships in the Academic Sphere

By Lorelei Blackburn and Melanie Yergeau

Current pedagogical theories within our field—English / Rhetoric and Composition—emphasize both the utility and necessity of collaboration. Our professors and our readings, as well as the sessions we attend on the conference circuit, all stress dialectic, a two-heads-are-better-than-one mantra. As we teach English Composition and think about teaching English Composition, group work and social construction are frequent talking points. Andrea Lunsford and Lisa Ede, scholars within our field, have long written about the values of peer-to-peer knowledge-making, and they have also long practiced what they have preached. Lunsford and Ede collaboratively study collaboration, collaboratively write about collaboration, collaboratively bemoan the academy’s ironic embrace of and dismay toward collaborative scholarship. It seems that the stress our field places on collaboration—like other fields, we’re sure—is as often valued as it is discarded: epistemology is social, yet only individual work is rewarded with job offers, tenure, and praise. And, as two graduate students just beginning our work as teacher-scholars, collaboration has held a very conflictual place on our paths toward professional development.

We first began our individual journeys as graduate students in DePaul University’s Master’s in Writing program. At the time, Lorelei was a first-year student in the program, and Melanie was in her second year. We both knew we wanted to work toward the Ph.D. eventually, yet neither of us had much of an idea as to where we should begin. There were and continue to be so many unknowns: how do we present at conferences? Why should we? And how many presentations is enough? And what about technological literacy—how does, will, and should this factor into our development as teacher-scholars? Approaching these issues is daunting, and we feel there aren’t any clear-cut answers—certainly nothing that a two-hour or even two-week orientation can prep one for. Our experiences with academic conferences and technological literacy acquisition have their happiest moments in the context of peer exchange, moments that the academy doesn’t emphasize or encourage enough.

In our classes on composition theory and writing center theory and practice, we frequently read essays detailing the values of collaborative knowledge-making. In theory, these essays were heralded as the foundation for all learning: students supposedly learn best when teacher-student power dynamics are acknowledged and reversed, when ideological values are made known and questioned, when every individual in the classroom recognizes and interrogates their places within a larger social fabric. And yet, as graduate students aiming to enter the professional/academic sphere, we couldn’t quite pin ourselves into this social fabric. Lorelei, a non-traditional student who spent nearly a decade in the professional workforce prior to graduate work, struggled with the politics of academia, as well as academic discourse and a complete unfamiliarity with “the system.” She also lagged ten years behind in the technological revolution: prior to grad work, she didn’t know what blogs or iPods were. Melanie, who has a high-functioning form of autism known as Asperger’s Syndrome, likewise found herself failing to grasp the unwritten social conventions necessary to succeeding in graduate work. While our professors have always been incredibly helpful and available individuals, there was only so much advice that they could impart to us, especially in our large department (which boasted nearly 300 graduate students at the time). Consequently, we sought—and continue to seek—support from one another.

For this chapter, we will present a two-pronged approach to issues surrounding collaboration. First, we propose to share our real experiences—both positive and negative, horrifying and hilarious—that transpired when we attempted to move from theory into practice.  Furthermore, we will examine the merits of collaboration amongst graduate students, especially for graduate students who feel they do not fit the “traditional” mold—those with disabilities (like Melanie) and non-traditional graduate students (like Lorelei) are the ones we propose to focus on specifically (though our focus certainly extends to issues of race, gender, class, religion, and/or sexual orientation). Our relationship has been one of cross-pollination, of rotating between mentor and mentored. Collaboration might seem an obvious tool for navigating the rocky waters that constitute graduate education—but we propose that collaborative inquiry is not so obvious, not so easy, and not so visibly rewarded. We hope that this do-it-yourself, competitive attitude that is so prevalent in the grad sphere might die out soon, but we’re not so optimistic.

We will offer anecdotes that illustrate the many forms collaboration can take, and we will also describe situations in which collaboration has enabled us to better position ourselves as emerging teacher-scholars. Melanie, for instance, cannot read most facial expressions or interpret nonverbal nuance, and recalls one of the orientation sessions for graduate teaching assistants during her first-year as a Ph.D. student: a staff member jokingly claimed that the next session would involve wrestling with ideas and that grad students should come prepared, in wrestling costume, to duke things out. Melanie took this quip about physical wrestling very literally, and found herself quite embarrassed when she approached a program director with her concern about sports in the classroom. Her email and phone conversations with Lorelei, however, have helped her to avoid other potentially embarrassing situations, and these conversations have also directly influenced the direction of her graduate research: she is now investigating rhetorical constructions of autism and ways to make the English composition classroom more equitable and accessible for those on the autism spectrum.

Fresh from the corporate world, Lorelei was far more comfortable in a boardroom than in a classroom, and she sometimes asked questions for which the answers were obvious—especially for those well versed in academic discourse.  She quickly discovered that verbalizing these questions was detrimental to her ethos.  However, Melanie, was able to help her navigate potential minefields—both political and lexical, thus allowing her to retain her dignity and construct her identity as a serious academic.  She now shares that knowledge with her students in an attempt to help them avoid the same mistakes.

Since DePaul, we have embarked on different programmatic ventures—Melanie is in a Ph.D. program, and Lorelei has been adjuncting and applying to Ph.D. programs. We still collaborate via email, instant messenger, webcam, and telephone. Though we have presented on panels together and have collaborated on other academic projects, this is our first attempt at collaborative writing for the public academic sphere. In our essay, we will conclude on a meta note, commenting on the process and pressures of co-composing this piece.