oa (Re)Considering Centrality: A Bibliometric Network Analysis of College Composition and Communication, 1950–2022

References

1. Adler-Kassner Linda, and Wardle Elizabeth, editors. Naming What We Know, Classroom Edition: Threshold Concepts of Writing Studies. Utah State UP 2016.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Barabási Albert-László. Linked: How Everything Is Connected to Everything Else and What It Means for Business, Science, and Everyday Life. Plume 2003.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Barabási Albert-László. Network Science. Cambridge UP 2016.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Barabási Albert-László, and Albert Réka. “Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks.” Science, vol. 286, no. 5439 1999, pp 509-12. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.286.5439.509.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Bastian Mathieu, et al. “Gephi: An Open Source Software for Exploring and Manipu-lating Networks” 2009, https://gephi.org/.
6. Bazerman Charles. “The Case for Writing Studies as a Major Discipline.” Rhetoric and Composition as Intellectual Work, edited byOlson Gary A., Southern Illinois UP 2002.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Berlin James A.Rhetoric and Reality: Writing Instruction in American Colleges, 1900-1985. Southern Illinois UP 1987.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Braddock Richard, et al.Research in Written Composition. National Council of Teachers of English 1963.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Brooke Collin Gifford. “Discipline and Publish: Reading and Writing the Scholarly Network.” Ecology, Writing Theory, and New Media, Routledge 2011.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Canagarajah A. Suresh. “The Place of World Englishes in Composition: Pluralization Continued.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 57, no. 4 2006, pp 586-619.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Chen Chen. “From 1993 to 2017: Exploring ‘A Giant Cache of (Disciplinary) Lore’ on WPA-L.” Composition and Big Data, edited byLicastro Amanda and Miller Benjamin, U of Pittsburgh P 2021, pp 138-58.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Committee on CCCC Language Statement. “Students’ Right to Their Own Language.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 25, no. 3 1974, pp 1-32. https://doi.org/10.2307/356219.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Connors Robert. Composition-Rhetoric: Backgrounds, Theory, and Pedagogy. U of Pittsburgh P 1997.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Connors Robert. “Journals in Composition Studies.” College English, vol. 46, no. 4 1984, pp 348-65. https://doi.org/10.2307/376941.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Crowley Sharon. “Composition Is Not Rhetoric.” Enculturation, vol. 5, no. 1 2003, http://enculturation.net/5_1/crowley.html.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Davis Matthew, and Taczak Kara. “Editors’ Introduction: Gatekeeping, Complexity, and Connection.” College Composition & Communication, vol. 76, no. 4 2025, pp 484-93. https://doi.org/10.58680/ccc2025764484.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Detweiler Eric. “‘/’ ‘And’ ‘-’?: An Empirical Consideration of the Relationship Between ‘Rhetoric’ and ‘Composition.’” enculturation. 27Oct 2015, https://enculturation.net/an-empirical-consideration.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Diallo Saikou Y., et al. “Identifying Key Papers within a Journal via Network Centrality Measures.” Scientometrics, vol. 107, no. 3 2016, pp 1005-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1891-8.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Dryer Dylan B. “Divided by Primes: Competing Meanings among Writing Studies’ Keywords.” College English, vol. 81, no. 3 2019, pp 214-55. https://doi.org/10.58680/ce201929959.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Emig Janet. “Writing as a Mode of Learning.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 28, no. 2 1977, pp 122–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/356095.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Enoch Jessica. “College English as Archive.” College English, vol. 75, no. 4 2013, pp 430-36.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Enos Theresa. “Gender and Journals, Conservers or Innovators.” PRE/TEXT, vol. 9 1988, pp 209-14.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Enos Theresa. “Gender and Publishing.” PRE/TEXT, vol. 11, no. 3-4 1990, pp 312-16.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Flower Linda, and Hayes John R.. “A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 32, no. 4 1981, pp 365-87. https://doi.org/10.2307/356600.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Flower Linda, and Hayes John R.. “The Cognition of Discovery: Defining a Rhetorical Problem.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 31, no. 1 1980, pp 21-32. https://doi.org/10.2307/356630.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Flynn Elizabeth A. “Composing as a Woman.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 39, no. 4 1988, pp 423-35. https://doi.org/10.2307/357697.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Fraiberg Steven. “Composition 2.0: Toward a Multilingual and Multimodal Framework.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 62, no. 1 2010, pp 100-26.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Gallagher John R., et al. “Analyses of Seven Writing Studies Journals, 2000-2019, Part I: Statistical Trends in References Cited and Lexical Diversity.” Computers and Composition, vol. 67 2023, pp 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2023.102755.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Gillies Donald. How Should Research Be Organised?College Publications 2008.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Goggin Maureen Daly. Authoring a Discipline: Scholarly Journals and the PostWorld War II Emergence of Rhetoric and Composition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 2000.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Goggin Maureen Daly. “Composing a Discipline: The Role of Scholarly Journals in the Disciplinary Emergence of Rhetoric and Composition since 1950.” Rhetoric Review, vol. 15, no. 2 1997, pp 322-48. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350199709359222.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Hairston Maxine. “The Winds of Change: Thomas Kuhn and the Revolution in the Teaching of Writing.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 33, no. 1 1982, pp 76-88. https://doi.org/10.2307/357846.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Harris Joseph. A Teaching Subject: Composition Since 1966. New edition, Utah State UP 2012.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Harris Joseph. “The Idea of Community in the Study of Writing.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 40, no. 1 1989, pp 11-22. https://doi.org/10.2307/358177.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Haswell Richard H. “NCTE/CCCC’s Recent War on Scholarship.” Written Communication, vol. 22, no. 2 2005, pp 198-223. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088305275367.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Hesse Douglas. “Journals in Composition Studies, Thirty-Five Years After.” College English, vol. 81, no. 4 2019, pp 367-96. https://doi.org/10.58680/ce201930085.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Holcomb Chris, and Buell Duncan A.. “A Corpus of First-Year Composition: Exploring Stylistic Complexity in Student Writing.” Composition and Big Data, edited byLicastro Amanda and Miller Benjamin, U of Pittsburgh P 2021, pp 35-51.
    [Google Scholar]
38. “Journal Profile.” Journal Citation Reports, 17Sept 2024, https://journalcitationreports.zendesk.com/hc/en-gb/articles/28351430970001-Journal-Profile.
    [Google Scholar]
39. “Journal Self-Citation in the Journal Citation Reports.” Clarivate 2002, https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/essays/journal-self-citation-jcr/.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Kinney Kelly, et al. “The Third Turn Toward the Social: Nancy Welch’s Living Room, Tony Scott’s Dangerous Writing, and Rhetoric and Composition’s Turn toward Grassroots Political Activism.” Composition Forum, vol. 21, Spring 2010, https://compositionforum.com/issue/21/third-turn-social.php.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Kuhn Thomas S.The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed., U of Chicago P 1996.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Lauer Janice M. “Composition Studies: Dappled Discipline.” Rhetoric Review, vol. 3, no. 1 1984, pp 20-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350198409359074.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Lerner Neal, and Oddis Kyle. “The Social Lives of Citations: How and Why ‘Writing Center Journal’ Authors Cite Sources.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 36, no. 2 2017, pp 235-62. https://doi.org/10.7771/2832-9414.1833.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Lewis Lynn C. “Introduction.” Pivotal Strategies: Claiming Writing Studies as Discipline, edited byLewis Lynn C., Utah State UP 2024, pp 3-17.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Leydesdorff Loet. “Betweenness Centrality as an Indicator of the Interdisciplinarity of Scientific Journals.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 58, no. 9 2007, pp 1303-19. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20614.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Li-chun Yin, et al. “Connection and Stratification in Research Collaboration: An Analysis of the COLLNET Network.” Information Processing & Management, vol. 42, no. 6 2006, pp 1599-613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2006.03.021.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Lloyd-Jones Richard. “A View from the Center.” Views from the Center: The CCCC Chairs’ Addresses 1977-2005, edited byRoen Duane, Bedford/St. Martin’s 2006, pp 45-53.
    [Google Scholar]
48. Love Heather. “Close Reading and Thin Description.” Public Culture, vol. 25, no. 3 (71) 2013, pp 401-34. https://doi.org/10.1215/08992363-2144688.
    [Google Scholar]
49. Lucas Brad E., and Loewe Drew M.. “Coordinating Citations and the Cartography of Knowledge: Finding True North in Five Scholarly Journals.” The Changing of Knowledge in Composition: Contemporary Perspectives, edited byMassey Lance and Gebhardt Richard C., Utah State UP 2011, pp 264-82.
    [Google Scholar]
50. Lunsford Andrea A. “Composing Ourselves: Politics, Commitment, and the Teaching of Writing.” Views from the Center: The CCCC Chairs’ Addresses 1977-2005, edited byRoen Duane, Bedford/St. Martin’s 2006, pp 185-200.
    [Google Scholar]
51. Miller Benjamin. Distant Readings of Disciplinarity: Knowing and Doing in Composition/Rhetoric Dissertations. Utah State UP 2022.
    [Google Scholar]
52. Miller Benjamin. “Mapping the Methods of Composition/Rhetoric Dissertations: A ‘Landscape Plotted and Pieced.’” College Composition and Communication, vol. 66, no. 1 2014, pp 145-76. https://doi.org/10.58680/ccc201426114.
    [Google Scholar]
53. Miller Benjamin, et al.Writing Studies Tree. https://writingstudiestree.org/live/. Accessed 5 Sept. 2025.
    [Google Scholar]
54. Moore Kristen, et al. “Afterword: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion through Citational Practice.” Keywords in Technical and Professional Communication, edited byYu Han and Buehl Jonathan 2023, pp 327-34. https://doi.org/10.37514/TPC-B.2023.1923.3.2.
    [Google Scholar]
55. Moretti Franco. “Conjectures on World Literature.” New Left Review, no. 1, Jan./Feb 2000, pp 54-68. https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii1/articles/franco-moretti-conjectures-on-world-literature.
    [Google Scholar]
56. Moretti Franco. Graphs, Maps, Trees: Abstract Models for Literary History. Paperback edition, Verso 2007.
    [Google Scholar]
57. Mueller Derek. “Grasping Rhetoric and Composition by Its Long Tail: What Graphs Can Tell Us about the Field’s Changing Shape.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 64, no. 1 2012, pp 195-223. https://doi.org/10.58680/ccc201220866.
    [Google Scholar]
58. Mueller Derek. Network Sense. The WAC Clearinghouse 2019.
    [Google Scholar]
59. North Stephen M.The Making of Knowledge in Composition: Portrait of an Emerging Field. Boynton/Cook Publishers 1987.
    [Google Scholar]
60. Ostergaard Lori, and Nugent Jim. “‘Other Stories to Tell’: Scholarly Journal Editors as Archivists.” College English, vol. 81, no. 4 2019, pp 297-313. https://doi.org/10.58680/ce201930082.
    [Google Scholar]
61. Palmeri Jason, and McCorkle Ben. “A Distant View of English Journal, 1912–2012.” Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy, vol. 2, no. 2 2017, https://kairos.technorhetoric.net/22.2/topoi/palmeri-mccorkle/methodology.html.
    [Google Scholar]
62. Paul Danette. “In Citing Chaos: A Study of the Rhetorical Use of Citations.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication: JBTC, vol. 14, no. 2 2000, pp 185-222. https://doi.org/10.1177/105065190001400202.
    [Google Scholar]
63. Phelps Louise Wetherbee. “The Domain of Composition.” Rhetoric Review, vol. 4, no. 2 1986, pp 182-95. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350198609359122.
    [Google Scholar]
64. Phelps Louise Wetherbee, and Ackerman John M.. “Making the Case for Disciplinarity in Rhetoric, Composition, and Writing Studies: The Visibility Project.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 62, no. 1 2010, pp 180-215. https://doi.org/10.58680/ccc201011665.
    [Google Scholar]
65. Phillips Donna Burns, et al. “College Composition and Communication: Chronicling a Discipline’s Genesis.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 44, no. 4 1993, pp 443-65. https://doi.org/10.2307/358381.
    [Google Scholar]
66. Rhodes Jacqueline, and Alexander Jonathan. “Reimagining the Social Turn: New Work from the Field.” College English, vol. 76, no. 6 2014, pp 481-87. https://doi.org/10.58680/ce201425458.
    [Google Scholar]
67. Roberts Charles, editor. “Front Matter.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 1, no. 1 1950, pp 1-2.
    [Google Scholar]
68. Rohman D. Gordon. “Pre-Writing the Stage of Discovery in the Writing Process.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 16, no. 2 1965, pp 106-12. https://doi.org/10.2307/354885.
    [Google Scholar]
69. Sommers Nancy. “Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 31, no. 4 1980, pp 378-88. https://doi.org/10.2307/356588.
    [Google Scholar]
70. Sparks Summar C. “From Gatekeepers to Facilitators: Understanding the Role of the Journal Editor.” College English, vol. 77, no. 2 2014, pp 153-57.
    [Google Scholar]
71. Toulmin Stephen. Human Understanding: The Collective Use and Evolution of Concepts. Princeton UP 1977.
    [Google Scholar]
72. Wang Xinyi, et al. “Gendered Citation Practices in the Field of Communication.” Annals of the International Communication Association, vol. 45, no. 2 2021, pp 134-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2021.1960180.
    [Google Scholar]
73. West William W. “Written Composition.” Review of Educational Research, vol. 37, no. 2 1967, pp 159-67, https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543037002159.
    [Google Scholar]
74. Yan Erjia, and Ding Ying. “Applying Centrality Measures to Impact Analysis: A Coauthorship Network Analysis.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 60, no. 10 2009, pp 2107-18. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21128.
    [Google Scholar]
75. Yancey Kathleen Blake. “Mapping the Turn to Disciplinarity: A Historical Analysis of Composition’s Trajectory and Its Current Moment.” Composition, Rhetoric, and Disciplinarity, edited byMalenczyk Rita et al., Utah State UP 2018, pp 15-35.
    [Google Scholar]
76. Young Richard. “Paradigms and Problems: Needed Research in Rhetorical Invention.” Research on Composing: Points of Departure, edited byCooper Charles Raymond and Odell Lee, National Council of Teachers of English 1978, pp 29-39.
    [Google Scholar]