With this letter, Gail and I are pleased to introduce the first special issue of Computers and Composition. This important issue is co-sponsored by Gallaudet University, the New York Institute of Technology, and the University of Minnesota; it is guest edited by Marshall Kremers, of the New York Institute of Technology, and Joy Kreeft Peyton, of Gallaudet University. The idea for the project grew out of the exciting Fifth Computers and Writing Conference at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. At that meeting, in May 1989, Gail and I both remarked on the increasing sophistication of the papers we heard on networked computer communication--these papers, for the first time, were informed by theory and challenged teachers to think critically about their role in networked exchanges.

And we were not the only ones who noticed the quality of these papers. Marshall Kremers and Joy Kreeft Peyton accepted a challenge to collect and re-shape these papers for a special edition of Computers and Composition; their commitment to the project has resulted in the fine collection you now have before you.

Why is such a collection so important for our profession? Quite simply, because it represents a new benchmark of maturity about our thinking on computer networks and the communication that takes place on them. With this introductory essay, which is longer than our usual letter, we hope to explain why such thinking is so crucial to our profession's coming of age.

A full decade has now passed since computers first entered English classrooms, programs, and departments, and since our profession began speculating about whether this new technology could help students improve the quality of their writing (Duling, 1985; King, Birnbaum, and Wageman, 1984); their stylistic presentation (Neuwirth, Kaufer, and Geisler, 1984; Reid and Findlay, 1986); their grammar (Holdstein, 1983; Falk, 1985) or their spelling problems (Zimmer, 1985; Harris and Cheek, 1984).

With the perspective of time, however, computers-and-composition specialists have come to recognize that many of these early questions, focusing as they did on how technology affected written products and individual's writing processes may have been even too narrowly conceived (Herrmann, 1989), may have underestimated the effects of computers on the broader social and political structures within writing classrooms and our profession.

Now, teachers and researchers working within the field of computers and composition are also asking more sophisticated questions, questions about how computers affect the social interactions among writers, the social and political structures of our writing classrooms, or the ways in which academic discourse communities change and endure. This recent emphasis grows, at least in part, out of the work of scholars like Paul Olson (1987), Richard Ohmann (1985), and Cheris Kramarae (1988) who help teachers of English recognize that technology can play an important role as a social and political catalyst within our educational system. [1]

Given this work, computers-and-composition specialists have also come to hope that the study of this new technology will have an even broader impact, that it will change our profession, help us and our more traditionally minded colleagues see even old pedagogies and concepts from new vantage points and, hence, become a central area of exploration and intellectual debate within our profession.

But, as editors, we can see that success in terms of this broader impact is by no means guaranteed, or even feasible given our specialty's particular position within the profession of English studies. A full decade after the birth of computers and composition studies, specialists in this area are, indeed, part of an exciting intellectual debate; we are discovering fascinating relationships among computers, writers, and teachers of writing. But we are not having a generalized effect on our profession; we are not necessarily leading the thinking that goes on; we are not always a focus of professional debate or even curiosity. We are a group of scholars who attend each others presentations, but seldom hear our ideas echoed in more general intellectual exchanges. We exist, if you will, on the margin of English studies.

As editors of this journal, we contend that such an existence on the margin of the profession is, at least in part, healthy--it allows a freedom from convention that encourages new and divergent thinking, it gives a certain perspective not available from the center of the pack, it makes for some strange and wonderful electronic collegiality. But there are also drawbacks to living and thinking only on the margin. There is the danger, for instance, of taking refuge in isolation and ceasing to test ideas against the best thinking of colleagues in other areas, the danger of accepting as unchanging those perspectives that seem to separate computer-using teachers from other teachers of English. Perhaps most importantly, there is the danger that our best ideas, our best thinking may never reach other scholars. Mainstream professional publications, College Composition and Communication and Research in the Teaching of English, for example, have published only a small fraction of the best scholarship produced in the area of computers and composition, College English, even less.

Exploring why computers-and-composition specialists exist on the margin can help us identify both the advantages and the disadvantages of our position. Because we have seen a broad range of work within our field, Gail and I can identify two characteristics common to the work of computers-and-composition specialists that may be contributing in important ways to the marginal status of computers-and-composition studies. First, it is clear that publications and presentations on computers in composition classrooms and programs are characterized by visionary images of technology--what computer-using teachers want technology to be like in our classrooms, and not on the reality of technology, how it is really working in the majority of classrooms in the United States. Second, our work is still marked by a lack of sophistication in its theoretical base. For the rest of this essay, we will focus on these two claims.

The first claim is that the work of computers-and-composition specialists does not always differentiate between a visionary image of technology--what we want technology to do--and observations of technological reality--how technology is being used in the majority of classrooms in this country. As editors, indeed, we can say that there is a distinctive rhetoric of technology that characterizes many presentations and articles on computer use in classrooms. This rhetoric is one of hope, vision, persuasion, and it is the

primary voice present in most of the work that we see coming out of this particular field. When, for instance, computers-and- composition specialists talk about the topic of this particular issue, networks, they generally focus on what such linked systems can and should be like, not necessarily what they are like.

The distinction represents a primary feature of the rhetoric of technology that we mentioned before. Given our profession's enthusiasm about computers, and our hopes for its use in our classrooms, computer-using teachers and researchers often adopt a subjective, uncritical voice in their writing and in their exploration of various strategies of computer use. They dwell on the best parts, tell stories about the best moments of our experiences with networked conferences, and feature the most positive results of studies. In these papers, then, our specialty describes an essentially reformist vision of computer-supported classrooms--one in which students are active, engaged, central, and one in which technology is helping teachers address racism, sexism, in equitable access to education and other disturbing political / social problems now operative in our educational system.

Much work that comes out of the computers-and-composition field, in other words, is couched in terms of hope and change. The rhetoric of technology generally gives short shrift to the less positive elements, the possibilities for failure the high costs of such networks; the fact that they can, and often do, support instruction that is as repressive and lockstep as any that we have seen; the notion that they may actually be used to dampen creativity, writing, intellectual exchanges, rather than to encourage them. Computer-using teachers and researchers seldom talk, for example, about the instructors who are using networks to deliver drill-and-practice software exercises to students.

As editors, we suggest that the first problem with the rhetoric of technology lies in the refusal of computer-using teachers and researchers to acknowledge the purpose of this rhetoric; they do not call it by name; they seldom choose to identify their work as reformist, visionary, political, pedagogical--refuse, in other words to value what they do. The work that comes to Computers and Composition, for example, often comes in a kind of intellectual drag--it has at its heart the political motives of the rhetoric of technology, but it is disguised in the objective rhetoric of research or observation. Its authors veil narratives about the best moments and the best characteristics of electronic applications, in references to research, experimental support, empiricism. Often these pieces

never acknowledge their central political disagreements with the current educational system or talk in terms of using technology to effect educational reform.

A second problem with the rhetoric of technology is that it may set computer-using teachers apart from many non-computer-using colleagues. Even worse, computers-and-composition specialists occasionally lapse into a satisfaction with this separation, take comfort in it. And yet such isolation can serve to cut our specialty off from many of the most exciting colleagues and their ideas. As editors of this journal, we suspect that, if the computers-and-composition group is to be a healthy community and one that reaches out from the margin, it will have to support a multiplicity of discourses about technology use. Computer-using teachers and researchers will have to learn to value both the persuasive, rhetorical, visionary descriptions of electronic classrooms as well as the more critical, objective, descriptions of experiences.

The word "critical" brings up a second claim about the work of our profession, that is it remains, for the most part, theoretically unsophisticated. In one way, this characteristic represents one of our specialization's primary strengths: computer-using teachers have chosen, for the most part, to focus our attention on pedagogical and practical applications of technology, on the writing classroom, on teachers of writing, and students of writing. And such a focus is a positive one, indeed. But, if this is all we do, we are cheating ourselves as teachers. "Theory," as Marilyn Cooper (1987) points out, "is prior to, and essential to, good practice." (p. 1)

It is, after all, our profession's theoretical work that will help us achieve those political aims mentioned previously. One of the primary roles of theory is to establish a critical and contextual vision of a field, especially within a social, political, or historical framework. As Cary Nelson (1987) notes, it is only within a "theorized discipline" that is actively engaged in "self-criticism" that scholars can establish "a site for a general social critique" (p. 48) and, hence, change.

This claim about theoretical sophistication grows out of a critical examination of our own personal work as editors, teachers, and researchers, but it is one certainly supported by other papers presented at conferences and submitted to Computers and Composition. For evidence, readers can turn again to the topic of discussion in this special issue.

Caught up with the fever of social constructivism and collaboration, many computer-using teachers and researchers, for instance, have noted that computer networks and electronic conversations encourage social interaction and engagement, cooperative discourse, intellectual exchanges, and the formation of discourse communities that are student-centered rather than teacher-centered (Selfe, 1988; Eldred, 1989; Faigley, 1989). These teacher/researchers have cited the work of Bizzell (1982, 1986, 1988), Bartholomae (1985), and Brodkey (1989) among others to validate their thinking on this topic.

What computer-using teachers and scholars have not done, however (and here, we include our own personal work as examples), is to seek out theoretical perspectives that might help us oppose this thinking, call it into question, make us re-think and revise our positions. We have not, in other words, acknowledged that, theoretically speaking, electronic conferences can also encourage none of those positive things in our classrooms.

As teacher/researchers, we have not acknowledged or explored the fact, for example, that these electronic spaces can be used as "disciplinary" (Foucault, 1979, p. 197) technologies, through which teachers control students and their discourse in the most traditional sense. [2] And yet, as many readers of this journal know from first-hand observation, there are teachers who use networks and conferences as a type of disciplinary mechanism for observing students' intellectual progress within written discussions. Under certain conditions, without carefully thinking out the theoretical consequences, these computer-using teachers enter conferences to read and keep tabs on students' conversations without revealing themselves as readers or as evaluators. As teachers ourselves, we also know know that electronic conferences are, in some ways, spaces open to public scrutiny, places where individuals with the power of control over technology can observe the conversations of students without being seen and without contributing. We can also, as teachers, appreciate that taking samples from network discussions into our classrooms and using these as positive or negative examples--an activity many of us do in perfectly good faith--may involve us in using conferences to discipline, to shape the conversations and the academic discourse of our students.

Such a theoretical perspective could remind computers-and-composition teachers that electronic spaces, like any other learning spaces, are constructed within contextual and political frameworks of cultural values. Constructing such spaces so that they can provide room for positive activities or learning, for the resistant discourse characteristic of students thinking across the grain of convention, for marginalized students' voices--requires a sophisticated understanding of power and its reflection in architectural terms.

On a practical level, this theoretical perspective might convince computer-using teachers, to indicate their presence in a conference every time they enter such conferences--to leave a visible trail of involvement; that teachers should not enter some conferences if they want students to be learning and talking without a disciplinary focus; or that grading conferences at all may be counter productive to the goals of a networked conversation.

Such a perspective might also help computer-using teachers and researchers to think about what should go on in conferences, how these spaces must be constructed for discourse that promote more positive kinds of learning and exchange. Foucault (1979), for instance, also offers Julius' metaphor from antiquity of the forum and the "spectacle" in which a group of participant/spectators observe a common set of "objects" or activities and form "for a moment a single...body" (p. 216), a community of people considering and constructing a shared "conversation." An understanding of these metaphors, both technologies of power, would enrich the thinking about networked exchanges, and perhaps even allow computer-using teachers and researchers to think in different ways--to step aside from the politically committed stance that computer work generally takes and see some new angles.

As editors of this journal, we are not unhappy with our specialty's position on the margin of the composition profession. Politically and intellectually, we think the margin is the right place to be. In this position, computers-and-composition specialists can be both political and scholarly. We can also take our time; we can think about our work carefully; and we can acknowledge the value of multiple discourses--not only objective, logocentric discourse that describes how computers are affecting the reality of our classrooms, but also that rhetoric which is visionary. We can work toward understandings that are theoretically sophisticated enough to force us to see flaws in our current practices.

This journal may never move from the margin. Its editors have no plans for such a move. It's exciting out here on the frontier; but, unless we, as computers-and-composition specialists want to isolate ourselves from the rest of the profession, we also have to keep building bridges that allow us to venture into the center. Such journeys will help us recognize and value our own politically active work, and enrich this work with theoretical perspectives that we now lack.

The following collection, in our opinion, will help computer-using teachers and researchers move in the right direction. As you read through these five excellent essays on networked-based communication, consider the challenges we have ahead of us in the next decade and your role in our adventure.

1. Adrienne Rich notes that women (and, we can add, other marginal groups) will find their voices when "they begin to move out toward what the feminist philosopher Mary Daly terms a 'new space' on the boundaries of patriarchy." (1979, p. 49). Computers and composition studies may now be such a space. In these spaces, as Carol Gilligan's notes, marginal groups can learn the importance of "different truths" (1982, p. 156). In these spaces, we may be able to gain perspective on English studies as a whole.
   

2. We are most grateful to Vicki Byard for opening our eyes to such thinking. In her insightful paper, "Power Play: The Use and Abuse of Power Relationships in Peer Critiquing," she suggested that even those technologies we use with the most liberating intentions may well prove disciplinary in nature.
   
   

Bartholomae, D. (1985). Inventing the university. In Mike Rose (Ed.), When a writer can't write (pp. 134-135). New York: Guilford Press.

Batson, T. (1988, Feb./March). The ENFI Project: A networked classroom approach to writing instruction. Academic Computing, 32-33.

Bizzell, P. (1988). Arguing about literacy. College English, 50, 141-153.

Bizzell, P. (1982). Cognition, convention, and certainty: What we need to know about writing. Pre/text, 3, 213-244.

Bizzell, P. (1986). What happens when basic writers come to college? College Composition and Communication, 37, 294-301.

Brodkey, L. (1989). On the subjects of class and gender in 'The Literacy Letters.' College English, 51, 125-41.

Byard, V. (1989). Power play: The use and abuse of power relationships in peer critiquing. A paper presented to the annual Conference on College Composition and Communication, Seattle, WA.

Cooper, M. (1987). Theory and practice: The case of technical communication programs. An unpublished manuscript. Houghton, MI: Michigan Technological University.

Cooper, M. and Selfe, C. (1989). Computer conferences and learning: Authority, resistance, and internally persuasive discourse. An unpublished manuscript. Houghton, MI: Michigan Technological University.

Duling, R. (1985). Word processors and student writing: A study of their impact on revision, fluency, and the quality of writing. (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University. Dissertation Abstracts International, 46 3535A.

Eldred, J. (1989). Computers, composition pedagogy, and the pocial view. In Gail Hawisher & Cynthia Selfe (Eds.), Critical perspectives on computers and composition instruction (pp. 201-218). New York: Teachers College Press.

Faigley, L. (1989). Subverting the electronic workbook: Teaching writing using computers. An unpublished manuscript. Austin, TX : The University of Texas at Austin.

Falk, C. (1985). English skills tutorials for sentence combining practice. Computers and Composition, 2(3), 2-4.

Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Tr. Alan Sheridan. New York: Vintage Books.

Foucault, M. (1984). The Foucault reader. Ed. Paul Rabinow. New York: Pantheon Books.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women 's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Harris, M, & Cheek, M. (1984). Computers across the curriculum: Using Writer's Workbench for supplementary instruction. Computers and Composition, 1(2), 3.

Herrmann, A. W. (1989). Computers and the public schools: Are we being realistic. In Gail Hawisher & Cynthia Selfe (Eds.), Critical perspectives on computers and composition instruction. New York: Teachers College Press.

Holdstein, D. (1983). The WRlTEWELL Series. Computers and Composition, 1(1), 7.

Hiltz, S. R. (1986). The 'virtual classroom': Using computer-mediated communication for university teaching. Journal of Communication, 36(2), 95-104.

King, B.; Birnbaum, J.; & Wageman, J. (1984). Word processing and the basic college writer. In T. Martinez (Ed.), The written word and the word processor. Philadelphia, PA: Delaware Valley Writing Council, 1984.

Kramare, C. (1988). Technology and women's voices keeping in touch. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Marling, W. (1983). The grader and the reader. Computers and Composition, 1(1), 6.

Nelson, C. (1987). Against English: Theory and the limits of the discipline. Profession 87, 46-52.

Neuwirth, C., Kaufer, D., & Geisler, C. (1984). What is EPISTLE? Computers and Composition, 1(4), 1-2.

Ohmann, R. (1985). Literacy, technology, and monopoly capitalism. College English, 47, 675-689.

Olson, C. P. (1987). Who computes? In D. Livingstone (Ed.), Critical pedagogy and cultural power (pp. 179-204). MA: Bergin & Garvey.

Rich, A. (1979). On lies, secrets, and silences: Selected prose, 1966-78. New York: Norton.

Reid, S. & Findlay, G. (1986). Writer's Workbench analysis of holistically scored essays. Computers and Composition, 3(2), 7-32.

Selfe, C. L. (1988). Technology as a catalyst for educational reform in English classes: Computer-supported writers' conferences. MLA Right to Literacy Conference, Columbus, OH.

Spitzer, M. (1986). Writing style in computer conferences. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communications PC 29, 19-22.

Zimmer, J. (1985). The continuing challenge: Computers and writing. Computers and Composition, 2(3), 4-6.