Skip to content
2018
Volume 72, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 0010-096X
  • E-ISSN: 1939-9006

Abstract

This article argues composition researchers should make replicating previous research a greater priority because replication is a valuable tool that facilitates invention, collaboration, transparency, and revision, and its overwhelming absence in composition studies narrows the generalizability of writing research. I posit a replication agenda to encourage scholars to replicate and reproduce results by building disciplinary and institutional spaces for the practice to thrive.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.58680/ccc202131162
2021-02-01
2024-02-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anderson Christopher J. Štčpàn Bahnàk Michael Barnett-Cowan “Response to Comment on ‘Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science.” Science 351 6277 2016https://science.sciencemag.org/ content/351/6277/1037.3
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Anson Chris “The Intelligent Design of Writing Programs: Reliance on Belief or a Future of Evidence.” Writing Program Administration 32 1 2008 1136
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aschwanden Christie “Psychology’s Replication Crisis Has Made the Field Better.” FiveThirtyEight 6 Dec 2018https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ psychologys-replication-crisis-has-made-the-field-better/
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Barton Ellen “More Methodological Matters: Against Negative Argumentation.” College Composition and Communication 51 1 2000 399416
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Baumann James F. Judith K. Serra “The Frequency and Placement of Main Ideas in Children’s Social Studies Textbooks: A Modified Replication of Braddock’s Research on Topic Sentences.” Reading Empirical Research Studies: The Rhetoric of Research John R. Hayes Richard E. Young Michele L. Matchett Maggie McCaffrey Cynthia Cochran Thomas Hajduk Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 1992 231246
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Berkenkotter Carol “Paradigm Debates, Turf Wars, and the Conduct of Socio-cognitive Inquiry in Composition.” College Composition and Communication 42 2 1991 151169
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Berlin James “Rhetoric and Ideology in the Writing Class.” College English 50 5 1988 47794
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bizzell Patricia “Thomas Kuhn, Scientism, and English Studies.” College English 40 7 1979 764771
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Blackwell-Starnes Katt Janice R. Walker “Reports from the LILAC Project: Designing a Translocal Study.” Points of Departure: Rethinking Student Source Use and Writing Studies Research Methods Tricia Serviss Sandra Jamieson University Press of Colorado 2017 6282
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Braddock Richard “The Frequency and Placement of Topic Sentences in Expository Prose.” Reading Empirical Research Studies: The Rhetoric of Research John R. Hayes Richard E. Young Michele L. Matchett Maggie McCaffrey Cynthia Cochran Thomas Hajduk Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 1992 214227
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Braddock Richard Research in Written Composition National Council of Teachers of English 1963
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Carey Benedict “Many Psychology Findings not as Strong as Claimed, Study Says.” The New York Times 27 Aug 2015https://www.nytimes.com/ 2015/08/28/science/many-social-science-findings-not-as-strong-as-claimed-study-says.html
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Charney Davida “Empiricism is not a Four-letter Word.” College Composition and Communication 47 4 567593
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Charney Davida “From Logocentrism to Ethnocentrism: Historicizing Critiques of Writing Research.” Technical Communication Quarterly 7 1 1998 932
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Connors Robert J “Composition Studies and Science.” College English 45 1 1983 120
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Connors Robert J. Andrea J. Lunsford “Frequency of Formal Errors in Current College Writing, or Ma and Pa Kettle do Research” College Composition and Communication 39 4 1988 395409
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Engber Daniel “Is Science Broken? Or is it Self-Correcting?” Slate 21 Aug 2017https://slate.com/technology/2017/ 08/science-is-not-self-correcting-science-is-broken.html
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Flower Linda “Cognition, Context, and Theory Building.” College Composition and Communication 40 3 1989 282311
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Flynn Elizabeth A “Feminism and Scientism.” College Composition and Communication 46 3 1995 353368
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Gertler Paul Sebastian Galiani Mauricio Romero “How to Make Replication the Norm.” Nature 21 February 2019,https://www.nature.com/ articles/d41586-018-02108-9
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Gilbert Daniel T. Gary King Stephen Pettigrew Timothy D. Wilson “Commenting on ‘Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science.’” Science 351 6277 2016https://science.sciencemag.org/ content/351/6277/1037.2
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Haswell Richard H “NCTE/CCCC’s Recent War on Scholarship.” Written Communication 22 2 2005 198223
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hayes John R. Richard E. Young Michele L. Matchett Maggie McCaffrey Cynthia Cochran Thomas Hajduk “Replicating Braddock.” Reading Empirical Research Studies: The Rhetoric of Research Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 1992 229230
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Inoue Asao B. Maya Poe “Racial Formations in Two Writing Assessments: Revisiting White and Thomas’ Findings on the English Placement Test After 30 Years.” Writing Assessment in the 21st Century Norbert Elliot Les Perelman Hampton Press Inc 2012 343362
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Jamieson Sandra Rebecca Moore Howard “Sentence Mining: Uncovering the Amount of Reading and Reading Comprehension in College Writers’ Researched Writing.” The New Digital Scholar: Exploring and Enriching the Research and Writing Practices of NextGen Students Randall McClure James Purdy 109132
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Lazere Donald “Reaffirming Critical Composition Studies as an Antidote to Trumpian Authoritarianism” College Composition and Communication 71 2 2019 296329
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Lunsford Andrea A. Karen Lunsford. “‘Mistakes are a Face of Life’: A National Comparative Study.” College Composition and Communication 59 4 2008 781806
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Lunsford Karen “Foreword.” Points of Departure: Rethinking Student Source Use and Writing Studies Research Methods Tricia Serviss Sandra Jamieson University Press of Colorado 2017 xiiixx
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Mu Congjun Pal Kei Matsuda “Replication in L2 Writing Research: Journal of Second Language Writing Authors’ Perceptions.” TESOL Quarterly 50 1 2016 201219
    [Google Scholar]
  30. North Stephen. The Making of Knowledge in Composition: Portrait of an Emerging Field Boynton/Cook Publishers 1987
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Open Science Collaboration. “Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science.” Science 349 6251 2015https://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Patil Prasad Roger D. Peng Jeffrey Leek. T “What We Should Expect When we Replicate: A Statistical View of Replicability in Psychological Science.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 11 4 2017 539544
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Porte Graeme Keith Richards “Replication in Second Language Writing Research.” Journal of Second Language Writing 21 3 2012 284293
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Purves Alan “In Search of an Internationally-Valid Scheme for Scoring Compositions.” College Composition and Communication 35 4 1984 426438
    [Google Scholar]
  35. “Reproducibility and Replicability in Science.” National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019 https://sites.nationalacademies.org/sites/reproducibility-in-science/index.htm
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Resnick Brian “What Psychology’s Crisis Means for the Future of Science.” Vox 25 Mar 2016
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Schickore Jutta “What Does History Matter to the Philosophy of Science? The Concept of Replication and the Methodology of Experiments.” Journal of the Philosophy of History 5 3 2011 513533
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Schmidt Stefan “Shall We Do it Again: The Powerful Concept of Replication is Neglected in the Social Sciences.” Review of General Psychology 13 2 2009 90100
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Schneider Barbara “Building a Scientific Community: The Need for Replication.” Teachers College Record 106 7 2004 14711483
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Serviss Tricia “The Rise of RAD Research Methods for Writing Studies: Transcontexual Ways Forward.” Points of Departure: Rethinking Student Source Use and Writing Studies Research Methods Tricia Serviss Sandra Jamieson University Press of Colorado 2017 324
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Serviss Tricia Sandra Jamieson “Interchapter 1: What Do We Mean by Transcontextual RAD Research?” Points of Departure: Rethinking Student Source Use and Writing Studies Research Methods University Press of Colorado 2017 2532
    [Google Scholar]
  42. “Points of Departure 1: Replication and the Need to Build on and Expand Local and Pilot Studies.” Points of Departure: Rethinking Student Source Use and Writing Studies Research Methods Tricia Serviss Sandra Jamieson University Press of Colorado 2017 8390
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Shapin Steven Simon Schaffer Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life Princeton University Press 1985
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Shumway David “Science, Theory, and the Politics of Empirical Studies in the English Department.” Writing Theory and Critical Theory John Clifford John Schilb Modern Language Association of America 1994 148158
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Simons Daniel “The Value of Direct Replication.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 9 1 2014 7680
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Stern Lesa A. Amanda Solomon “Effective Faculty Feedback: The Road Less Traveled Assessing Writing 11 2006 2241
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Voss Ralph F “Composition and the Empirical Imperative.” Journal of Advanced Composition 4 1983 512
    [Google Scholar]
  48. White Edward M. Leon L. Thomas “Racial Minorities and Writing Skills Assessment in the California State University and Colleges.” College English 43 3 1981 276283
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Yong Ed. “Psychology’s Replication Crisis Is Running out of Excuses.” The Atlantic 19 Nov 2018 https://www.theatlantic.com/science/ archive/2018/11/psychologys-replica tion-crisis-real/576223/
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.58680/ccc202131162
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error