Feedback from CCC

Ref.: Ms. No. CCCJ-D-14-00017
Victims, Rebels and Outsiders: Reconstructing Donald Murray's Literacy Narrative, Reconceiving Donald Murray
College Composition and Communication

Dear Michael Michaud: 

Thank you for sending your article Victims, Rebels and Outsiders: Reconstructing Donald Murray's Literacy Narrative, Reconceiving Donald Murray for consideration in College Composition and Communication. I have received the reviewers' comments; based on them, I ask that you revise your manuscript and resubmit it for future possible publication.

You'll note that the reviewer comments might seem split between, on one hand, inviting you to think of the piece as a memorial and, on the other, revise it as a piece more grounded in the scholarship of the field. I'd like to see you try the latter, particularly in terms of 

1. doing more to make the argument clearer
2. situating the argument and evidence in appropriate scholarship
3. elucidating the methods of the study

As to process: Should you choose to revise, I would like to see your revision within four months of the return date (which is today); and when the revised version is resubmitted, I'll ask one of the earlier reviewers and a new reviewer to provide guidance. Please also note that the revised manuscript should be no longer than 10,000 words, including works cited.

To submit a revision, go to http://cccj.edmgr.com/ and log in as an Author. You will see a menu item called Submission Needing Revision. You will find your submission record there. 

As somebody who believes very strongly in the power of a judicious review, I hope that these comments will be helpful, and I look forward to considering a revised manuscript from you. 

Cordially, 
Jonathan Alexander
Editor, College Composition and Communication
Professor of English
University of California, Irvine

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1: CCC Review: "Victims, Rebels and Outsiders: Reconstructing Donald Murray's Literacy Narrative, Reconceiving Donald Murray." (CCCJ-D-14-00017)

It was a pleasure to receive a manuscript on this topic, so first, I want to thank the writer for pursuing scholarship on this topic and, second, to thank the editorial team for sending it along to me. I have organized my review into the questions posed by the editorial team. Ultimately, I think this piece has a great deal to offer, and I really enjoyed reading it. 

Why might this article be appropriate, or not, for publication in CCC?


Strengths:
 
1. Topic is relevant and interesting. This article is appropriate for CCC because it examines an issue of importance to composition scholars (literacy narratives) and specifically Donald Murray's literacy narrative. The author ultimately argues that as a founding scholar in our field, Murray defines himself and his career through his experiences with education, schooling, and self-sponsored literate experiences. 


2. Conclusion provides keen insights on Murray's approach to literacy and what his literacy narrative allows us to learn about Murray, education, and composition teaching. 


3. Use of primary sources. The author seamlessly merges a variety of sources to help readers understand more about Murray, his life, and his approach to composition teaching. 

Weaknesses: 

1. Rationale or exigence for the study. Currently, the exigence seems to be that this research is important because of Murray's place in our field historically. While I think this point serves as an important rationale and exigence for the study, I think a better rationale/exigence would be to come at it from the literacy narrative angle. That is, I think you should contextualize your introduction within literacy narrative scholarship rather than historical/archival research because that is what I think you add to the discussion. Also, framing the article through the lens of Poe Alexander's works nicely, but we don't really get to this point until really late in the essay (page 9). I thus recommend 

beginning with literacy narratives (or adding a discussion on literacy narratives to the introduction) and make sure to explain what they are and how the author is using and defining them. 

The author could still include as a benefit the information about archival and historical work, but applying the lens of literacy narratives earlier is a better exigence than the need for historical work in the field. 

2. Methodology. The author could give More detail and clarity about the methods of the study. For instance, 

• how the author applied Poe Alexander's framework and how he/she analyzed Murray's texts are both unclear. 
• How was Poe Alexander's framework applied? 
• What method(s) did you use (grounded theory, rhetorical analysis, qualitative analysis, etc.)? 
• How did you "code" or interpret the data? 
• Which of Murray's text did you use/not use and why? 
• Why do you single out the narratives you do? 
• What were the limitations of your approach (Why, for instance, did you not use a systematic or empirical approach in your analysis?")? 
• Why did you not apply all of Poe Alexander's little narratives to your analysis (i.e., hero narrative)? 

Readers need more clarity on how you applied the frame if we are to see the approach as valid, reliable, and legitimate. 

3. Argument needs to be amplified and clarified throughout the analysis section. I appreciated how the writing was straightforward and easy to follow; however, I think the author could amplify the argument. At times, the argument got lost or buried in the Murray excerpts. I suggest that the author connect each passage from Murray's work to the overall argument to show how the evidence supports the argument. Also, each section needs additional analysis and support to connect them better to the argument. In the success section, for instance, I think you should begin with a statement about how Murray's literacy narrative does and/or does not apply this narrative and then move into an explanation of the trope itself. 

My assumption would be that the article contributes something new and/or innovative to the body of research and scholarship in the field: is this so?


Yes, the article contributes a new understanding of Donald Murray's influence on our field through the lens of his literacy narrative; how Murray's literacy narrative might differ from the college composition students that Poe Alexander studied; how Murray's literacy narrative can be added as required reading when the literacy narrative gets taught; and how Murray might be more complex and social justice driven than is typically ascribed to him.

Is the article contextualized relative to scholarship and research in the field (and, of course, that published in CCC)?

The frame of Poe Alexander is good, but the overall context could be made richer by situating the argument stronger in research on literacy narratives. The author needs to define the way he/she is using the term "literacy narrative." What is a literacy narrative and how does Murray's story of "academic struggle" equate to a literacy narrative? Is the author equating a literacy narrative to only a story of "academic struggle"? If not, how else is he/she using or applying it? 

Is the article's focus well defined and articulated?

The focus is clear about Murray and literacy narrative, but the significance of the study is less clear. What is being added? If it's learning more about literacy narratives, then this could be made clearer. 

Is the significance of the contribution signaled? 

The significance could be made more explicit. I value historical work and view that as important in and of itself, but I would like the author to amplify the significance more throughout the essay. What can composition teachers learn about literacy narratives through Murray's literacy narrative. The author brings up diversity and social justice in the conclusion, which seems a valid significance, but I wasn't prepared for this shift in focus. 

The author could also bring up the point about Murray reflecting backwards after he had lived his life and how this reflection provides a different view of literacy narratives and schooling/education/literacy than looking at student texts (like Poe Alexander did). 

Picky Things:

* I'm not sure the information on page 5 about analyzing Murray's literacy narrative and sharing it in a composition context is really necessary. I don't understand the purpose of including it here. Perhaps delete from "On the one hand, since there is nothing?" to "be kept from anyone". 

* Add an overview section to "Murray's Literacy Narrative" in which you explain your argument and give an overview of the section, a road map for readers. 

* In each section under "Murray's Literacy Narrative," lead with the argument. Don't begin with Poe Alexander's work. Lead with the result from Murray's in the topic sentence and then explain the narrative afterwards. 

* Revise the success section to highlight how the narrative does/does not conform. There seem to be some contradictions here. Also, it might make your case stronger to bring up the point that he failed and dropped out of high school, which complicates (and extends) the view of success. 

* Consult Bronwyn Williams' "Dancing with Don: Or, Waltzing with 'Expressivism'." Enculturation.

* When you write that Murray's literacy narrative should be taught alongside the others? Which one do you mean? A specific article? A book? Several articles?