Physical Shift to New Building: Searching for the "World-class Writing Center"
Sitting in cubicles in what used to be a basketball court, the TANK (and thus the writing center), looks forward. The university has promised us a new building, and we are integral to its conception and ultimate physical construction. Suddenly, the conceptual shifts the writing center has undergone have a physical, concrete aspect: What physical face does the writing center want to create within the TANK and the wider university community? How do we express who we are through our physical space?
In this second kairotic moment, we were tasked with preparing for a physical move to a newly constructed student services hub. In the spirit of (re)framing, we viewed this physical move as a second moment where our writing center practiced constrained agency to develop our goals and reframe our vision for a collaborative learning environment. With this move, we were given an opportunity to apply and embody our conceptualizations to/in a new space. The visions for this space began as early as the summer of 2011, when TANK staff were asked to define their ideal spaces. As part of this process, the staff researched comprehensive learning spaces, visiting local campuses to view multiple examples of "new" learning spaces to explore the potential and possibilities for our learning center. Writing center GAs were asked to review research and examine the web sites of similar entities such as the TANK to determine what constitutes a "world-class writing center" within these integrated spaces. In December 2011 and early January 2012, the THINK TANK Leadership Team discussed and brainstormed desires for the new space. We positioned ourselves within this vision for the new writing center space by creating a second activist map.
When asked about how the WC fits into the TANK overall, THINK TANK director Dorothy Briggs responded with the following:
At the start of the transformation process the charge. . . was: Develop a student support model for Student Affairs that prioritizes student needs, makes the best use of resources and eliminates unnecessary duplication. The question posed was "How can we streamline and enhance our existing academic support services?" The solution was to take the best practices of current support models and deliver them in a modified, centralized and comprehensive format to all students. The notion of consolidating learning support in various academic hubs that concentrate services arose. The dialogue in the early conversations was about existing programs. . . The Writing Center was not involved.
However, at that same time the English department faced looming budget cuts and the Writing Program director proposed the idea of handing over the management and funding of the "Writing Center" to Student Affairs. I put Writing Center in quotes because the Writing Center isn't something tangible. It is a concept that lives through practice and procedure. From that point forward, the Writing Center was included as an element of the centralized academic support service unit.
In my opinion the timing was right. The Writing Center added the critical support piece that would have been missing in the new unit. The Writing Center has enabled us to be the comprehensive support unit from the beginning. (Hamel-Brown, personal communication, March 6, 2013)
The TANK was also undergoing its own conceptual shift early in its development, opening its vision of what constituted comprehensive student services to include a unit that was not simply a collection of tutors or a "service," but rather something "that lives through practice and procedure." Once the merger happened and we were all living and working together to manifest this vision, both the TANK and the writing center chose to (re)frame our narratives of each other, even if we did not identify this action as such at the time. At the time, we were simply finding a way to coexist peacefully and thus stay focused on what really mattered: supporting students.
This plan for our new physical space, however, has prodded us to more concretely define and articulate our reframing and to overtly examine the narratives that (we let) define the writing center. When asked to share her vision of an ideal writing center space without limits, Chris, the writing specialist, felt free to do exactly that. Instead of feeling the constraints of the service narrative, she envisioned a space that embodies the "practice and procedure" character (Briggs, email correspondence) that the TANK had come to accept as critical to the writing center's being and effectiveness. She described a physical space that grows from a vision of the WC as a campus-wide catalyst that is more than a building. The writing center is a space where literacy is defined and redefined, a space that brings the university community together (literally or figuratively) to determine what matters regarding communicative practices. The concept of measuring the impact the WC has on the campus writing climate was proposed as a way to assess what we do, rather than relying wholly on student visit counts to represent our work and success. Buoyed and encouraged by the energy of the positive outcomes from our first kairotic moment within the TANK, we made a commitment to push for a new narrative, manifested through our space: We are a multiliteracy center, a space that not only tutors students across disciplines and in many genres, but also reaches out to faculty as a critical voice in the university conversation about literacy, student learning, and the expression of critical-thinking abilities.
Shifting the Narratives
Those conversations that began in our first kairotic moment planted seeds that are now bearing surprising and positive fruit. Not only were the writing specialist's proposals for our new space welcomed with open arms, but those proposals and the underlying narrative that supported them became a critical part of the conversation about how the TANK conceptualized its space as a reflection of its mission. When the writing center stopped seeing itself as limited by the "service" narrative and its position as an auxillary unit on campus, the narratives shifted—both the ones we told ourselves and those told about us by others.
When asked about the potential infrastructural implications and unavoidable limitations of our impending physical space changes, such as budget and physical availability of ground to build on, Briggs revealed just how profoundly those narratives have changed:
I have never felt that space is a limiting factor. Our programs are NOT limited by our space. Space can create opportunity, but it doesn't limit opportunity. We can seek outside. . . space for programming needs.
Instead, our limitation is our own inability to envision fantastic programs and bring them to fruition. . . The success and image of the Writing Center has little to do with whether it was housed in Bear Down Gym mice infested space, Nugent thoroughfare space, or a boxy classroom in temporary Bear Down Gym space. The success and image are ours to determine.
The space does not create the program. We do.
[However, while] space does not limit us, it does add value. I do not feel limited in any way as a result of this process. The fact that we are being heard [by higher administrators who control budget and space priorities] and our opinions about space and use of space are being listened to is very affirming and empowering. We are not moving backwards, but forwards. I don't find that limiting at all. We will run with the opportunities presented to us as we move ahead. . . [O]ur only limitation is our inability to envision and move to fruition. (Hamel-Brown, personal communication, March 6, 2013)
This flexible vision of the writing center and its space—conceptually as well as physically—demonstrates how profoundly the writing center's reframing of its own narratives has affected its overall community and the educational vision of this student support unit. In its accidental way, the WC's response to the kairotic moments of our merger with the TANK, and now this expression of the physical space we want and deserve to reflect our mission and character, have allowed for a new dynamic between the TANK and the writing center, such that we can together develop a fuller, more effective support space for our university community.
Introduction - Top | Kairos Part 1 | Kairos Part 2 | Conclusion | Activist Mapping | References