by Lisa Meloncon

The impetus for this post is to only have to write something once. Taking two steps back…the Symposium for the Rhetoric of Health and Medicine 2017 generated a large number of proposals. A pretty sizeable subset of those proposals were submitted by graduate students. This makes my heart get all warm and fuzzy because it means we have a strong next generation of RHM scholars. As I usually do, I offered to give them their feedback, but as I was beginning to copy and paste the feedback from the reviewers and prepared to add additional information, I heard my good friend, T. Kenny Fountain’s voice in my head.

See Kenny and I have talked a lot about proposal writing and writing in general. He’s one of my go to resources for all sorts of things (not to mention he’s just an awesome–and funny–human being), and we have often talked about professional development issues around writing.

So when I was reading the reviews for the Symposium proposals, I kept going back to those conversations and realized that many of the proposals (and not just from the graduate students) suffered from a common proposal problem. They didn’t do what John Swales calls CARS—creating a research space, which he talks about in Chapter 8 of Academic writing for graduate students: Essential skills and strategies. 3rd Edition. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

And once you start to understand Swales CARS in relation to your specific area in the larger field, it makes writing proposals for conferences (and getting started on journal manuscripts) so much easier. You can find a short summary of it at the UMass Amherst Writing Center.

The TL;DR version:

• Establish territory
• Establish a niche
• Occupy the niche

It’s this last one—occupy—that was a major obstacle in most of the proposals. There wasn’t a clear occupation, particularly the proposal lacked a tentative answer to the “so what?” question. I get it that as graduate students or when working on a new project that you may not know really what the project is doing or what the contribution or implications may be. But, surely, you’ve read enough and designed your study thoroughly enough that you have a tentative answer to what your research question or problem will do for the field.

Reviewers really like to see the occupation, the move toward telling folks what’s important about your work.  Otherwise, reviewers are left wondering if the presentation will provide any value to participants. See, that’s a big key you have to remember. Reviewers and program chairs have a responsibility to try and provide the best program possible. Proposals are what we have to work with so it’s important as the writer of that proposal to hit all three parts of the CARS model.

(A small disclaimer: is CARS perfect? No. Absolutely, no. But if you use it, you’ll get a helluva lot closer to having something that reviewers can understand and act on.)

When you’re establishing your territory and your niche, it’s also VERY IMPORTANT to be clear about what your actual research question is or what problem you’re trying to solve. Folks need to know what’s guiding the actual research process.

So here are a couple of comments from reviewers. These—and variations of them—were written on almost every graduate student proposal (and many of the not graduate student proposals that were not accepted):

 This is an interesting idea, but the bulk of the proposal focuses on providing the background for the case with very scant discussion of what actual research related to the case will entail…the majority of the content needs to focus on the research questions to be address (which is not explicitly stated), describing eh method used, and the contribution/significance of this research in relation to RHM, which is somewhat implied but not central to this entry.

The details of the proposal are not grounded in the research in the field, and the exact nature of the approach (i.e. why certain things are bing done/proposed to be done) is ambiguous and unsupported….one cannot simply say “rhetorical analysis” and assume the reviewer knows what will be done (i.e., how the actual research and analysis will be conducted).

Keep in mind that every conference has a reviewer pool that has senior and mid-career scholars in it. That means that the reviewers can in some ways figure out what it is you’re trying to do. BUT, when your proposal is being rated against other proposals, the ones where the reviewer has to “figure it out” will surely be rated lower than the others.

It’s your job as the writer/author of the proposal to make it clear as to what you’re doing. This is where something like CARS can really come in handy. It can help you get started and also encourage you to ask critical questions of the proposal once you have it drafted.

What makes the work of organizing something like the Symposium worthwhile is being able to get an insiders view to all the great projects in process. I hope this helps y’all the next time you go to write a proposal (or start an outline of a journal article or book chapter).

Happy summer writing!

Call for Assistant Editors for Rhetoric of Health & Medicine

We seek two Assistant Editors to work with us on the new journal, Rhetoric of Health & Medicine (RHM), published by the University of Florida Press. To get a description of the journal, go to http://upf.com/rhm.asp.

The journal will have a robust, dynamic website and social media presence. One of the primary purposes of both is to give the journal a public-facing presence, to help connect its research to broader groups of stakeholders (e.g., practitioners, policymakers, publics) who could benefit from it. To this end, the journal’s website and social media could feature: 1) accessible overviews of the journal’s published research; 2) engaging video or podcast interviews with research authors (and perhaps participants); 2) commentaries by expert rhetoricians on timely topics. The other primary purpose of the journal’s Web presence, of course, is to promote the journal as a scholarly forum among rhetoricians and other scholars.

Working with the editors, the two assistant editors will shape RHM’s website and social media strategies and content. Initially, the assistant editors’ responsibilities will likely include:

• Marketing the journal and key content through social media outlets;
• Assisting authors in marketing their work;
• Arranging and completing video or podcast interviews with authors or other rhetoricians around topics that align with journal issues;
• Writing accessible overviews of published work and its implications for public audiences;
• Helping to coordinate the journal’s marketing with affiliate organizations;
• Helping to build the RHM community through encouraging subscriptions and submissions online and at various conferences.

We anticipate that the two assistant editors would together need to devote 3-5 hours a week with more time right before and after an issue is published.

Applications should include:

• A brief statement that summarizes your interest in the position;
• A brief description of any ideas for public-facing marketing and for collaborating with the other assistant editor;
• A cv.

Send applications by April 24, 2017 to Rhm.journal.editors@gmail.com

Initial queries or questions should be directed to either Lisa Meloncon (Meloncon@tek-ritr.com) or Blake Scott, co-editors (bscott@ucf.edu)

For those of you who are more on the composition and writing studies side of the house, the CCCCs is coming up, March 15-19, 2017 in Portland.

Mark your calendars for the following:

March 16 at 5:00: RHM happy hour at Spirit of 77, which is just a block or so from the Convention Center.

March 16 from 6:30-7:30: Medical Rhetoric SIG in B112

Related Sessions

Thanks to Lora Arduser for pulling these together and to others for adding their own sessions. Quite a bit of RHM and related activity!!

G.38 Feminist Historiography: Uncovering Rhetorical Activism
Panelists consider how religion, science, and “professionalism” both
constrain and liberate women writers.

H.36 Intuition, Empathy, and Care in Medicine and Nonprofit
Organizations
Panelists consider questions of empathy, care, and intuition in medicine and nonprofit organizations.

I.18 From STEM to STEAM: Analyzing Medical Rhetoric and
Personal Narrative in Professional Writing
This panel analyzes the movement toward narrative in medical discourse and the incorporation of the humanities in the WID classroom.

J.05 Rhetorics of Health and Medicine: A Roundtable
Examining Ways to Sustain Growth and Cultivate New
Opportunities
Sponsored by the Medical Rhetoric Standing Group
The roundtable addresses questions about how to sustain growth and cultivate new opportunities in the field of medical and health rhetoric.

B.16 Transitions and Transfers in Technical and Professional
Communities
Explorations of transfer and transitioning into the workplace.

B.36 Issues of Public Health: Strategies for Public Intellectual
Work
Various perspectives on the idea of the public intellectual.

D.22 Local and Global Demands on Technical and Professional
Communication across Contexts in Latin America
This panel examines local and global demands on communication
practices in Spanish for engineering and public health across Latin
America.

E.38 Thinking Inclusively and Cultivating Empathy: Teaching
Writing to Future Professionals
This interactive panel proposes professional writing course revisions
toward cultivating inclusivity and empathy in future professionals.

J.41 Reproductive Discourses as Sites for Rhetorical
Cultivation of Social Action
This panel considers the complex intersections between women’s
reproductive health and the discourses that mediate their bodies.

K.31 Ethics of Care and the Teaching of Technical
Communication
Four perspectives on feminist approaches to health communication.

K.52 The Nonrational/Nonspeaking Subject: A Disability-
Studies Analysis through Narrative, Qualitative Research,
and Philosophical Inquiry

AW.12 Engaging Disability and Accessibility in Class
Assignments: Integrating Disability Studies in the Fabric
of Comp and Technical Communication Curriculum
Twelve experts in small, interactive groups train composition and
professional writing instructors to design disability- and accessibility focused assignments.

A.13 Cultivating Critical Connections: Case Studies and
Microhistories of Composition and Corporatization,
Disability and Diversity
Four studies of four very different institutional contexts will be used to connect disability services and writing programs.

A.24 Medical Narratives—Cultivating Stories, Voices, Selves,
Knowledge, Action
This interactive roundtable focuses on medical narratives as forms of creative nonfiction in composition teaching and rhetorical research.

A.37 Cultivating Accessibilty and Inclusion through Disability
Pedagogy and Universal Design
This session examines student learning environments in relation to
universal design principles and inclusive learning.

B.47 Past the Law: Moving from Legal to Just in Disability
Accommodations
Questioning ableist discourses of accommodations via new rhetoric that focuses on advocacy over obligation.

C.41 Rhetorics of Disability: Cultivating Change across
Discourse Communities and Developing Connections for
Receptivity
This panel explores disability rhetorics in popular and academic cultural arenas to bring awareness of representation and inclusivity.

D.20 Composing Activist Spaces: The Spatial Rhetorics of
Civil, Disability, and Men’s Rights Movements
This panel investigates how activists compose new meanings of space to argue for inclusion, rights, and justice.

D.43 Composing Medical Humanities: Innovative Writing
Pedagogies
This panel considers innovative approaches to composing in the spaces of interdisciplinary medical humanities outreach and instruction.

E.47 Rhetoric and Disability: Neurodiversity, Communication
Practices, and Self-Advocacy
Panelists discuss the rhetorical affordances offered by the communicative practices of neurodiverse and disabled communities.

G.46 Cultivating Change in Graduate Education: (Re)thinking
Training for Politically Progressive Community Projects
Through four snapshots of university-community partnerships, we call for more preparation for politically progressive community work.

H.05 More Than Writing through It: Self-Care, Disability, and
Rhetorical Practice
Sponsored by the Disabilities Studies Standing Group
This panel approaches care from a rhetorical disability studies perspective to challenge the normative nature of writing practices.

H.50 “Cripping” the Writing Program: Disability and Policy
beyond the Ableist Script
Panel critically examines policy documents, specifically the syllabus, as a means to move beyond the ableist script.

J.38 Remediating Cross-Disciplinary Capacities: Digital
Humanities, Social Media, Fan Studies, and Disability
Rhetoric
Cultivating capacity at the intersections of composition and the digital humanities, social media, fan studies, and disability rhetoric.

E.42 A Rhetoric of Empathy to Build Audience Accessibility to
Medical Research
The speakers will discuss the process of converting medical texts to
patient manuals to include empathy to build access to medical writing.

Session K, please consider “Discursive Agency in Illness: Empowering Everyday Writers to Cultivate Critical Communities”

Download CFP

Nearly twenty years ago, the landmark special issue on “Medical Rhetoric” was published in Technical Communication Quarterly. Since then, research in this area has flourished, with scholars publishing numerous books, articles, and special issues on the topic. The editors of that special issue, Barbara Heifferon and Stuart Brown, noted how the humanities—specifically rhetoric and technical communication—could “suggest alternative discursive practices” in healthcare workplaces (p. 247). Their goal was to reunite the disciplines of rhetoric and medicine, a split that can be dated back to Platonic times (Bell et al., 2000).

Following the lead of that TCQ special issue, editors of special issues in other journals have worked to position medical rhetoric within the broader field of the medical humanities and in relation to other healthcare fields. In 2005, the Journal of Business and Technical Communication published a special issue on “The Discourses of Medicine.” In the editor’s introduction, Ellen Barton noted the interdisciplinary breadth of the field. The discourses of medicine, she pointed out, had become a space where the humanities, the social sciences, and medicine merged. Other special issues narrowed the scope of the field by focusing on topics such as online health communication (Koerber & Stills, 2008), the relationship between writing and medicine (Haas, 2009), the importance of publics in healthcare issues (Keränen, 2014), and the centrality of communication design to health-related fields (Meloncon & Frost, 2015). These collections further refined and clarified the research scope of the field.

Recently, though, some researchers in this field have been leaving behind the title of “medical rhetoric” in order to draw a distinction between themselves and the medical humanities. They have adopted the title “Rhetoric of Health and Medicine (RHM),” which is simultaneously more specific and more expansive than medical rhetoric. In advocating for the term “RHM,” Blake, Segal, and Keränan ask scholars to engage “in programs of research that complement, but are different from, programs of research in bioethics, medical humanities, health communication, or the allied health professions” (2013, p. 2). The medical humanities, as Keränan argues, are concerned with “humane—and distinctly human—dimensions of health and medicine” (2014). To query these dimensions, medical humanities scholars traditionally use theoretical frameworks and methods from the humanities, social sciences, and the arts. Alternatively, as Blake, Segal, and Keränan argue, RHM scholars should “query medicine’s epistemology, culture, principles, practices, and discourses” with the goal of improving areas of medical practice (2013, p. 2).

In this special issue, we are looking for articles that explore the intersections and tensions between RHM and the medical humanities. At this nascent stage in the field’s development, we wonder whether separating RHM from the medical humanities might curtail opportunities for research, curriculum development, and engagement. Separating too early could have unintended ideological and practical repercussions; it could restrict research funding opportunities, and it might limit our access to political capital. Ideologically, this split risks reinforcing an outmoded but still existent two-culture division between STEM and the liberal arts, undermining the re-unification of medicine and rhetoric that Heifferon and Brown (2000) thought medical rhetoric could achieve. For practical reasons, we are concerned that such a split could also potentially cut RHM researchers off from the financial and political resources that are currently flowing into the medical humanities, which is one of the fastest growing areas in academia today, with universities like Yale, Ohio State, and Baylor adding medical humanities programs to their curriculums.

As we approach the 20-year mark from that original special issue in TCQ, we would like to turn our attention back to defining the fields of medical rhetoric, RHM, and the medical humanities. Similar to Heifferon and Brown’s (2000) goal to restore the natural connections between rhetoric and medicine, we aim to learn how two related areas—RHM and the medical humanities—can mutually inform each other. This CFP invites submissions that put these areas into conversation and engage questions like the following:
Building on Blake, Segal, and Keränan’s (2013) observation that RHM complements but is different from the medical humanities, how can RHM complement the medical humanities? How can the medical humanities complement RHM?
How can theoretical frameworks and methods used in RHM and the medical humanities intersect in ways that allow the fields to work together?
How can RHM scholars participate in and contribute to the medical humanities? Likewise, how can scholars in the medical humanities participate in RHM?
In what ways can research in the medical humanities be applied to healthcare workplaces, similar to RHM?
In what ways can RHM and medical humanities scholars make a meaningful impact on the medical field, broadly defined?
With the advent of telemedicine, the medical workplace has become distributed across time and location. How has this shift impacted RHM and the medical humanities? How can these areas contribute to understanding telemedicine?
How has RHM scholarship impacted technical communication? In what ways can the medical humanities impact technical communication? What RHM and medical humanities theoretical frameworks, methods, or findings can be imported into technical communication?

This issue is scheduled for January 2018. Please email 500-word proposals to Elizabeth Angeli (elizabeth.angeli@marquette.edu) and Richard Johnson-Sheehan (rjohnso@purdue.edu) by the deadline of January 17, 2017.  For accepted proposals, complete manuscripts will be due by July 17, 2017. In the meantime, we welcome questions via email from potential contributors.

Blake Scott and I are pleased to announce that we have a journal of our very own!

The University of Florida Press will be publishing the journal the Rhetoric of Health and Medicine with a launch date of early 2018.

So brush off those manuscripts and get ready to submit them. Details will be be forthcoming.

There are so many people to thank that made this all happen, but we want to take a moment to highlight a few of them here. Big thanks to Linda Bathgate who was a huge supporter of this project from the beginning and instrumental in making it happen; Judy Segal and Barbara Heifferon who held up the “medrhet” flag for so long almost single-handedly; to Lisa Keranen who was not afraid to hang out with folks outside of Comm; to Susan Well who is such a fierce advocate and makes you believe that an idea is good; and to those attendees at the first symposium (especially Amy Koerber and Celeste Condit who agreed to be featured) who took a chance on a crazy idea.

Most of all, to each of you in this community for sharing your work and ideas and passion. This is what made others believe there was critical mass for this sort of venture.

So we have arrived, and I cannot think a better community to be a part of as we move into the next chapter.

If you have questions, feel free to contact Lisa.

Join the Rhetoric of Health and Medicine/Flux community for informal chats that are focused on a specific topic of interest to members of the community.

Download a summary (*.pdf) of this information so you can have it at the ready!

November 17

In our first chat on Nov. 17, we’ll be discussing strategies for self-care related to professional goals and personal experiences with research in the rhetoric of health and medicine.

Structure

The chats are mostly informal and are open to any student, faculty member, researcher, or professional who might be interested. There will be a facilitator that will introduce the topic and keep the conversations moving forward, but these chats are meant to give us a time and space to connect outside of the various and dispersed conferences we attend. In some cases, the facilitator may ask a person or two to be there that may have special expertise and experience in the topic. We’ll tweak the format as we go based on feedback and participation.

Time (3:00 PM – 4:00 PM)

When we say our chats start at 3:00pm, you’ll notice that we haven’t specified a time zone. That’s because the chats will stay open for 3 hours to accommodate our varied schedules! Third Thursdays are designed to run for an hour, but if you only have 30 minutes, feel free to join for the time that you do have.

We’ll begin at 3:00 pm EST, but then for those of you in the central time zone, you log on at 3:00 your time, and the same goes for those of you in the mountain time zone. (Sorry Pacific folks that we don’t have a time just for you. But we felt going 4 hours pushed us beyond our planning and organizing limits.) If you’re not available at 3pm in your own time zone, but can join for one of the other two, then figure out what time that will be for you, and join us then!

Facilitators

The role of the facilitator is to be certain that someone is there at the top of every 3:00pm hour and to keep the conversation moving. In some cases, the facilitator(s) may have specific expertise on a topic, which is why they volunteered (or were asked). In other cases, it’s just someone who wants to see the Flux community be vital and grow. So don’t hesitate to contact one of us and volunteer!! (See Questions below for contact information.)

Log in information for all Third Thursdays at 3:00

JOIN WEBEX MEETING

https://ucincinnati.webex.com/join/melonclk | 647-435-383

JOIN BY PHONE

+1-415-655-0002 US Toll

Access code: 647 435 383

IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please note that this WebEx service allows audio and other information sent during the session to be recorded, which may be discoverable in a legal matter. By joining this session, you automatically consent to such recordings. If you do not consent to being recorded, discuss your concerns with the host or do not join the session.

Topics

Here’s a list of topics for the first few Third Thursdays at 3:00pm

Questions, Suggestions, and How to Volunteer

Feel free to email Lisa (Meloncon@tek-ritr.com), Lori Beth (dehertlb@jmu.edu), Rachel (rachel.bloom25@gmail.com) or Sarah (sasinger@live.unc.edu) if you have any questions, suggestions for a topic, or if you want to help facilitate a conversation.

All those working in the rhetoric and health and medicine and closely related fields are welcome to attend and/or facilitate! Follow @medrhet on Twitter or join the Flux Facebook group for updates. Invite your friends or colleagues who might be interested, and keep the conversation going by tagging related tweets with #medrhet.

22 July 2016 by Lisa Meloncon

In what follows I briefly describe the process that we took in reviewing proposals for the proposed volume The Rhetoric of Health and Medicine As/Is: Theories and Concepts for an Emerging Field. Since the editors (Scott Graham, Jenell Johnson, John Lynch, Cynthia Ryan, and me) come from across Communication Studies and English Studies (including tech comm and composition), we went into the project know that we would have to negotiate a lot to end up with a group of contributors and a structure that we all could get behind. Most of you know, it’s hard enough to get two academics to agree on something, much less five 🙂

Fortunately, we did know something about each other and had the opportunity to meet and discuss the vision of the volume as proposals were coming in. But, then a good thing happened. We received a lot of proposals, and we were in the position that the vast majority of them met the objectives of the call.

So that meant, we needed a process to review them as  fairly as possible. The process we ended up on was

• ranking every proposal on both quality as a stand alone proposal and it’s adherence to the CFP
• discussing  on the original scores and the establishment of tentative sections based on the proposals with the highest scores
• re-ranking individually (that is each editor took another go at ranking) a large number of the top proposals again and then placing them into section categories
• reviewing of all proposals again to determine if we missed a series of strong proposals around specific topics
• placing consistently highly ranked proposals into the final section lists
• deliberating on that list and making adjustments

At each stage of the process, every editor weighed in with a score and/or an opinion. I was the one who collated all the scores and information and redistributed it. Several parts of the process we made sure we deliberated alone so that all the perspectives could be heard and then a consensus formed. All in all we talked and sorted and ranked and talked some more for a month (takes into consideration time given for folks to do the work and then reconvene). The point here is that it wasn’t a process we took lightly nor one that was easy. The multi-stage process helped us to get a better vision of what the book could and should do, as well as gave us the opportunity to see proposals in different ways.

When it’s laid out like this, it seemed like an easy, fluid process, but I can assure there were lots of wrangling. It’s hard to take a large number of proposals that all have some merit and narrow those down to 13 selections that incorporated important multiple concepts and then also had some conversations between them. Having already discussed this project with a press, we consistently had their guidance and advice in mind as well. (For the younger scholars out there, it’s a tricky process this publishing with lots and lots of variables. All of which make the process for edited collections a little harder to do. IMO.)

We ended with authors from across the rhetoric of health and medicine to include communication, composition, writing studies, rhetoric, and technical and professional communication. We also run the gamut from graduate students to senior scholars in the field.

In the end, we landed on a volume that took our own CFP seriously and includes a series of concepts that are vital to understanding the emerging (or emerged) field of the rhetoric of health and medicine. And one that we feel can be used in our scholarship and our teaching.

If you have any questions about the process or (really anything), please feel free to get in touch with me.

As we’re moving through the summer, the social media crew (Maria Novotny, Lori Beth De Hertogh, and Rachel Bloom-Polar) have been posting some intriguing topics on twitter and the Flux Facebook group. We’re working toward having some additional content appear here to intersect with those topics.

Last week the topic was how to negotiate the job market with a #medrhet focus. Since summer is the perfect time to be working on job market materials and doing some hard thinking about that process, this topic was the perfect one to expand.

The job market is tricky, and it’s getting tighter. While good jobs are still possible in composition/rhetoric, that area is now overproducing graduates or for those who want to immediately disagree, I’ll go as far as to say that it’s bordering on that. The numbers of graduate programs 90+ and the number of jobs, around 200 tell their own story. My number of jobs separate out the technical and professional communication jobs because my own research and close attention to the job market in that area has shown that many TPC jobs will go unfilled rather than fill them with someone who doesn’t fit. (Read another way,  rather than fill them with someone who has no work in the area and only a composition degree.) In TPC, the number of jobs with specializations preferred and the number of graduates are still at a mis-match, which means in TPC the best candidates are experiencing a buyer’s market.

There are a number of job search types, such as  a wide net search (applying for all jobs that you feel you are qualified for all across the country); a limited search (targeting just the jobs that you are ideally qualified for in specific locations or specific types of institutions); a geographically limited search (usually based on you or your partner’s inability to move from the region you currently live in); alt-ac positions (those positions that alternative to traditional academic jobs, which normally starts with a position within higher ed but traditional tenure-track faculty); or jobs in industry. In every case, you need to decide on a couple of things first

• who you are as a candidate
• what you want out of the job

Who you are as a candidate means you need to know what skills and expertise you have that can complement the place you’re applying. What you want out the job is a bigger question that hinges on other life factors (e.g., your partner and their job or knowing that you don’t want to do research all the time, etc.). Neither one of these things are easy to figure out, but both are essential to having a successful job search.

All jobs are not the same, and you have to prepare yourself and your materials for the type of job you want. That means you really need to know who you are as a scholar and a teacher. A big part of that is situating your identity as a #medrhet scholar and teacher into the overall landscape. If you’re reading this, it’s likely you’re doing from rhetoric and composition, TPC, or Comm studies with a rhetorical bent. That means you’re probably looking at jobs in those areas. For the purpose of the job market those are your primary areas (however you define yourself) and then #medrhet is a specialization (and then the area you study within it is a further away to define yourself).

For example, no one would dispute that I identify as a TPC scholar. I’m definitely a generalist in TPC because of my background and what I research, but I do have some areas where I have strengths such as my ability to teach any of the technology heavy courses (such as web design or information design or content management) and I know a lot of method/ologies. This latter point bridges TPC with who I am as a #medrhet scholar. I also intersect with my research in #medrhet that looks at the impact of technology on health communication and literacy. I usually don’t use myself as an example, but in this case, it’s apt because you should be able to see from my description how I would position myself in the job market.

See how specific that is and how I can then look at job ads to see where I may be a better fit than others. I need to match what the ads say to what type of job that I want. In the storify embedded below, Kristin Krondlik makes EXCELLENT points about figuring out how your work and interests can fit in with a  teaching school. In TPC, the majority of programs are at regional universities, and applying for those jobs is quite different from applying for an R1 research job. IF you don’t understand those differences, then reach out and ask someone. We have  a wide network of folks that work at those types of schools who would be happy to answer questions about their jobs and what it’s like to work there.

A big key to your job materials is to be sure to take time to show how your work and expertise can fit the school to which you are applying.  Sometimes it doesn’t make sense to customize a letter to every school, but you may want to consider writing custom letters to your top five or ten schools based on the other demands on your time during job market season. While your work is fabulous, job search committees want to see how it connects to their department and institution, that is, how you can make them better. Right now many universities, big and small, are emphasizing work around health and medicine. It’s important to try to understand some of this initiatives–particularly at the campus visit stage–and how you can contribute.

While the majority of job seekers will stick to typical jobs, the alt-ac scene or jobs in other locations are a bit more open to #medrhet scholars because of our diverse and truly interdisciplinary backgrounds. If this is more of your style, look at job listings within the university job portals or do a more non-anademic search and look at ads from other national organizations such as American Medical Writers, American Public Health Association, federal and state level jobs in health/medical related departments, and at organizations (such as large hospital or insurance systems) for jobs that may suit your strengths and interests.

No matter what type of job you’re looking for, work diligently on being able to

• talk about what you do AND why it’s important in a way that any non-specialist will understand
• highlight your skills and expertise that match the job ad
• show how you can contribute in positive ways to the department and/or the institution
• demonstrate your knowledge of the broad area to which you identify, as well as your #medrhet area

Scan through the storify for more details.

Use the summer to be working on your materials, and don’t be shy about reaching out for help with questions or for someone to read your materials. The #medrhet community is a thriving and more so, it is generous.

Per our by-laws we’re set to elect an Associate Chair and Member-at-Large this year.

Those of you who identify as a scholar of the rhetoric of health and medicine and are also members of the CCCCs are eligible to vote. (We’re on the honor system here 🙂

As out going Associate Chair, one of my duties to run the elections and provide a slate of candidates that represent our membership. I am particularly proud of the diversity of institution types represented. I would be thrilled for any of the candidates to be elected and lead our Standing Group.

Good luck to all of the candidates! Now, members, go and vote!

Here is the link for the election: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/D6X38RG (opens in new tab)

Voting is open for one week and will close on May 3 at 5:00 pm EDT.

If you have questions or concerns or encounter any problems voting, please email Lisa Meloncon,Associate Chair (for one more week 🙂

Deadline extended due to lots of questions and requests for extensions.  New due date for proposals is June 15, 2016

Please consider submitting to the following. We are especially interested in a wide variety of voices and innovative proposals. This is your chance to help shape the foundation and direction of the field!!

We look forward to seeing all the great ideas and proposals!!

The Rhetoric of Health and Medicine as/is: Theories and Concepts for an Emerging Field

Editors: Lisa Meloncon, Scott Graham, Jenell Johnson, John Lynch, and Cynthia Ryan

Descriptive Rationale for Volume

The rhetoric of health and medicine is a growing and vibrant discipline that has emerged out of the rhetoric of science (Meloncon & Frost, 2015; Scott et al, 2013) and incorporates scholars from a number of fields—most notably, communication, technical and professional communication, composition, and linguistics. Accordingly, the overarching goal of this volume is to identify the key concepts that ground the rhetoric of health and medicine, as a field of inquiry. In so doing, this volume will explore how scholars in the rhetoric of health and medicine use rhetoric in theoretical and practical ways to examine the discourses of health and medicine and how those discourses create meaning within a wide variety of scientific, technical, practical, and political sites.

The growing body of work (see Condit et al, 2012; Meloncon & Frost, 2015), however, lacks the critical apparatus necessary to help place it within a broader context that is accessible to a wide range of scholars within and outside of the field. That is, at present we have many exemplars of scholarship that do not have/lack clearly articulated field-wide theoretical and methodological foundations. The health of our discipline relies in part on scholars ability to identify and share these foundational underpinnings.

Thus, the central concepts of the volume will be presented in terms of rhetoric of health and medicine’s’ dual perspectives: both “as” and “is.” First the discipline can be seen as a theoretical construct that guides research and thinking in the field. Additionally, the concepts can be explored in the is stance as a way to define the boundaries of the field. Both orientations are necessary to any scholarly field. Both allow a diversity of approaches while also ensuring a common core. For example, let’s take the concept that is part of the field’s name, “rhetoric.” For many years, scholars in rhetorical studies and rhetoric and composition have argued that rhetoric is way of analyzing existing discourse as well as providing a framework for creating it. As provides us an entryway into thinking about different concepts as theoretical underpinnings. Is provides us an entryway into thinking about how theories can potentially be applied in practice. We definitely want to nudge and even push scholars in the rhetoric of health and medicine to appraise what it is that we do and examine what sets us apart from other related fields. This endeavor means taking a critical stance to determine what is at stake when we say that we are rhetoricians of health and medicine.

Call to Action

Starting with a series of terms participants at the Discourses of Health Medicine 2015 (www.medicalrhetoric.com/symposium2015) felt were vital for a conceptual understanding of the field, we challenge scholars to continue the participatory nature of this collection and propose innovative chapters that incorporate the following terms.

We strongly encourage collaboration between scholars from across institutions and more importantly, across fields and disciplines. Your chapter proposal should bring two or more of the terms/concepts into conversation and speak directly to the as/is theme. You are welcome to propose new terms or concepts in addition to these.

We also encourage cluster proposals. That is, if a group of scholars believes that particular chapters might work together nicely, you can propose them as a cluster. Think of this option as similar to proposing a panel at a conference or a section in a book.

We are leaving this call more open than most because we do want the overall volume to be shaped by the contributions. In other words, we truly are embracing participation and innovation.

A university press has invited a full proposal on this project and once proposals are received and acceptance decisions made, we will be forwarding a full prospectus to them.

If you want to discuss your idea or if you have questions, please contact Lisa Meloncon@tek-ritr.com or Scott grahams@uwm.edu

Submissions

Chapter proposals should be from 750-1000 words (give or take and excluding citations). Include a cover page with all of the authors’ contact information, a list of the terms your chapter (or cluster of chapters) addresses, and a short c.v. for each author.

Submit proposals as PDF or Word files to rohm_asis@medicalrhetoric.com

Proposals due: June 15, 2016 UPDATED

Proposal decision: June 30, 2016 (or soon thereafter 🙂

Final chapters of 6000-7000 words: December 30, 2016