ABSTRACT
In the literature of writing centers, there’s a long history of debate about their marginalization. Some claim that writing centers are undervalued; others prefer the margins as places of freedom from institutional constraints; and still others proudly proclaim the writing center as cutting edge. It’s not clear whether cutting edges are in the center or on the margins or even whether such spatial conceptions clarify or muddy the issues. But in such discussions, there is usually general agreement in calling for writing center research as an answer to strengthen whatever spatial context is being put forth as the writing center’s appropriate place. Research, it is generally agreed, will give writing centers substance and weight and “centrality” in the field; writing center research will be the instrument of institutional change; writing center research will forge new paths. If arguments are to be made about writing centers as sites of substantive research, then we need to expand those discussions to include a type of writing center research—research on writing center administration—that is carried out with great frequency and effectiveness. There’s a large body of knowledge being generated by this research, but it is less visible because it often does not employ empirical research practices, is local in nature, and is usually hidden under the rubric of “service” or “administrative responsibilities.” Certainly, too many writing center directors fail to credit themselves when review time comes around for all the institutional research they do in order to run their centers well. And writing centers haven’t exactly spotlighted themselves publicly as places with intense programs of institutional research. When such inquiry is noticed in the literature of writing centers, it is more likely to be devalued as “merely justify[ing] the center’s existence to administrators” or as “responsible record keeping” (Severino, 1994, 51).
