Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol. 22, No. 2 (2025)
Affordances of Mixed-Designation Faculty and Staff Administrative Teams in the Writing Center
Kara Poe Alexander
Baylor University
kara_alexander@baylor.edu
Lauren Short
Baylor University
lauren_short@baylor.edu
Claire Seekins
Baylor University
claire_seekins@baylor.edu
Abstract
Writing center scholars have long been interested in the configuration of administrative leadership, often focusing on the roles and designations of writing center administrators (WCAs), whether faculty or staff. This article builds on existing scholarship by examining the affordances—capabilities and limitations—of a mixed-designation administrative team composed of both faculty and staff. Using our writing center as a case study, we highlight the benefits and limitations of a leadership team composed of both faculty and staff. We outline our center’s transition to a mixed-designation leadership model and use affordance theory to delineate the potentials and constraints of such teams, exploring how this configuration impacts functionality, effectiveness, and reach. Capabilities of this model include institutional visibility and legitimacy, access to information and resources, institutional reach, tutor education and training, and mentorship. Limitations include time constraints and a split focus, communication challenges, role ambiguity, and potential reinforcement of hierarchical structures. We conclude with practical recommendations for WCAs seeking to enhance their team structure or add faculty or staff administrative roles. By exploring the unique potentials and limitations of mixed-designation teams, we aim to contribute to ongoing conversations about equity, inclusion, and effective leadership structures in writing center administration.
Introduction
The configuration of administrative positions in writing centers has been a longstanding area of interest to writing center scholars (Dvorak and Rafoth; Geller and Denny; LaFrance and Nicolas, “Institutional,” “What’s”; Perdue and Driscoll). Understanding how a center is structured and who fulfills its leadership roles is of vital importance in advancing its mission and goals, enhancing diversity, and increasing operational effectiveness (Healy; Valles et al.). Writing centers often feature a mix of administrative positions, such as directors, assistant directors, coordinators, and graduate assistant directors, who collectively manage and administer a writing center (Caswell et al.; Fels et al.; Isaacs and Knight). This research has been helpful for writing center administrators (WCAs) advocating for additional positions, revising job descriptions, implementing diversity initiatives, and expanding centers.
Existing scholarship has primarily focused on human resource (HR)-designated roles and their impact on writing center operations, examining factors such as faculty versus staff designations, job security, and workload allocation (Geller and Denny; Healy; Isaacs and Knight; LaFrance and Nicolas “What’s”). Studies have highlighted the distinctions between tenure-line faculty directors and contingent faculty directors ( Lerner; Perdue and Driscoll). Other scholars have researched the demographic make-up of WCAs, considering such things as gender, age, race, HR-status, educational background, or workload percentage, or scholarly production and professional identity of WCAs (Ervin; Healy; Isaacs and Knight; LaFrance and Nicolas, “What’s”; Perdue and Driscoll). Still others have explored the affordances—or capabilities—associated with specific role configurations, such as having a tenure-line faculty, contingent faculty, or full-time staff in leadership positions (Fels et al.; Truesdell).
While this research has provided critical insights into individual roles and their implications, less attention has been paid to the dynamics of mixed-designation teams, where faculty and staff WCAs collaborate within a single leadership structure. Such an investigation is essential to understanding how these configurations influence the functionality, visibility, and reach of writing centers. Moreover, mixed-designation teams have the potential to address issues of hierarchy, equity, and workload distribution in ways that promote a more cohesive and collaborative work environment.
In this article, we—a faculty director, faculty assistant director, and staff coordinator at one writing center—extend the conversation on administrative configurations and HR-designated roles by examining the affordances, or capabilities and limitations, of mixed-designation leadership teams in writing centers. Using our own center as a case study, we explore the potentials and limitations of an administrative team made up of both faculty and staff roles. We also address the reinforcement of hierarchies within these structures, particularly the potential for inequitable dynamics between faculty and staff administrators. By centering these dynamics, we contribute to ongoing conversations about how mixed-designation teams can enhance effectiveness, promote visibility, and navigate institutional power structures.
In what follows, we situate our analysis within scholarship on position configurations and affordances. Next, we provide a detailed account of our team’s composition and present a case study of our writing center’s leadership model. We then discuss the possibilities and constraints inherent in mixed-designation teams and offer practical recommendations for WCAs seeking to develop or refine similar configurations. These insights aim to support administrators in designing leadership structures that foster equity, inclusivity, and collaboration while advancing the writing center’s goals.
Writing Center Administration Position Configuration
Writing center scholars have long examined how administrative positions are configured in writing center contexts, often focusing on HR designations and their implications. This research has illuminated the professional identities of WCAs, the material conditions and institutional contexts of WCAs, and the affordances of faculty- versus staff-designated WCA positions (Healy; Isaacs and Knight; LaFrance and Nicolas, “Institutional,” “What’s”; Perdue and Driscoll). These studies highlight how HR designations shape the work and experiences of WCAs, influencing factors like job stability, institutional autonomy, and professional trajectories.
A foundational study by Dave Healy in 1995 revealed that the majority of writing center directors hold faculty appointments (69%), are predominantly female (74%), and have a graduate degree (96%), with most trained in English/literature (66%) (30). Subsequent research by Isaacs and Knight found a smaller percentage of directors in faculty roles (54%), most of whom were non-tenure track (71%) (48). Geller and Denny categorized WCA career trajectories into three primary routes: (1) administrative professionals; (2) tenure-line faculty; and (3) non-tenure line faculty (100-1), which is consistent with others’ observations (Balester and McDonald; Perdue and Driscoll). They argued that traditional faculty positions—with their focus on research, teaching, and service—may not always align with the growth and sustainability of writing centers or the job satisfaction of WCAs (113). Similarly, Fels et al. explored the benefits (freedom, flexibility, and autonomy) and risks (instability, insecurity, and uncertainty) of contingent WCA roles, underscoring the complexities of administrative configurations in writing centers.
Research has also addressed how HR designations influence institutional roles and individual and collective work practices (Caswell et al.; Lerner; Perdue and Driscoll; Valles et al.; Webster). LaFrance and Nicolas used institutional ethnography to examine how faculty and staff WCAs develop distinct “standpoints” shaped by institutional norms and classifications (“What’s”). These standpoints bind them “to particular practices through the force of cultural norms, institutional standards, and beliefs about the value of particular types of work” (“What’s” 10). Their findings reveal that faculty WCAs tend to have higher qualifications, greater institutional autonomy, and fewer on-site responsibilities, while staff WCAs tend to engage in more task-specific duties with less institutional mobility (see also “Institutional”). This stratification within writing centers impacts the perception of workload, expertise, and the value of contributions within writing centers and to the institution (Lerner). LaFrance and Nicolas conclude that not only do HR designations shape individual roles and collective understandings of writing center mission and goals but also that WCAs must recognize the influence of institutional structures and discourses in order to foster effective administration, equity, inclusion, and a cohesive work environment (“Institutional; “What’s”).
Building on this work, Caswell et al. analyzed the diverse labor practices of WCAs through case studies of new directors. They found that administrative configurations have their own set of affordances that significantly shape professional experiences and perceptions of belonging (191). Similarly, Travis Webster examined the labor queer WCAs perform as part of their jobs. He found that queer WCAs use their identities and experiences as forms of capital to navigate and leverage their roles effectively, which emphasizes the intersection of personal identity and professional labor. He also challenges assumptions about the benefits of tenured WCA roles and advocates for more inclusive leadership and recognition of the diverse labor sustaining writing centers. Collectively, these studies underscore the nuanced affordances and constraints of various administrative configurations.
While this body of research has advanced understanding of position configuration in writing centers, gaps still remain in exploring the dynamics—or affordances—of mixed-designation leadership teams comprising both faculty and staff. LaFrance and Nicolas call for further study on how these configurations influence daily practices and institutional outcomes (“What’s” 12). Our research seeks to address this gap.
Affordance theory
Affordance theory provides a useful lens for analyzing the benefits and drawbacks of mixed-designation WCA leadership teams. Originally developed by psychologist J. J. Gibson in relation to visual perception, affordance theory was later applied by semiotician Gunther Kress to communicative modes, such as visual, aural, gestural, and alphabetic text, to emphasize their unique capabilities and constraints (“Design”; Multimodality). Kress argues that semiotic modes afford distinct possibilities and limitations for representation and engagement, which therefore facilitate and limit, enable and constrain, certain meaning-making possibilities (“Design”; see also Kress, Multimodality;). This framework has since been used to examine affordances in various contexts, including educational settings, institutional structures, technology, and physical spaces (Alexander, “Material”; “Spatial”; Cummings et al.; Garrett; Laflen; Sheffield and Hea). These broader applications have shown how affordance theory can be a useful tool to facilitate understanding of the capabilities and constraints of various compositional elements.
In the context of writing center administration, affordance theory highlights how any leadership structure presents potentials and limitations that have consequences for functionality, effectiveness, and impact. Faculty WCAs, for example, may have greater institutional influence and autonomy, enabling them to shape policies and practices, while staff WCAs often bring expertise in day-to-day operations. However, these roles also come with limitations, such as faculty WCAs being less involved in the center’s daily functioning and staff WCAs facing barriers to professional advancement. By examining these affordances and constraints, we can better understand how mixed-designation teams navigate institutional hierarchies and foster collaborative leadership. In short, this study applies affordance theory to analyze the interplay between faculty and staff roles in writing centers. By exploring the unique potentials and limitations of mixed-designation teams, we aim to contribute to ongoing conversations about equity, inclusion, and effective leadership structures in writing center administration.
Context
The Writing Center at Baylor University opened in 1983 and operated for almost 35 years with a single faculty director who received a one-course reduction per semester to direct the writing center (equivalent to 10 hours per week). Both tenured and lecturer (i.e., full-time, nontenured) faculty served in this role. The tutoring staff consisted of graduate students studying English literature who worked 20 hours per week as part of their assistantship. In 2017, Kara, a tenured faculty member, became director. With only 10 hours per week allocated to managing the writing center, she quickly recognized the need for additional administrative support to help oversee operations during the remaining 38 hours the center was open but she was not available. This need became especially urgent due to two significant changes that spurred the center’s growth: the addition of undergraduate consultants and the relocation of the writing center from the English department building to the university library. These changes dramatically increased the center’s visibility, accessibility, and reach among students and faculty, and demand for our services grew. However, this expansion also highlighted the limitations of the existing administrative structure, where a single faculty director working 10 hours per week was insufficient to effectively manage the center’s growing operations and meet the increasing needs of students and staff.
As a short-term solution, Kara internally promoted two graduate consultants to serve as Graduate Assistant Directors (GADs). These GADs worked 10 hours per week each, assisting with mentoring, outreach, and staff management. Together, the administrative staff provided 30 hours of weekly coverage. While this model worked for a couple of years, it proved unsustainable. GAD appointments depended on approval from the English graduate director, and if no students were available in a given year, then Kara would be left without any administrative support.
Thus, in March 2019, just one month after relocating to the library, Kara submitted a hiring proposal for two new administrative positions: (1) a faculty assistant director who would split their duties between writing center administration (50%) and teaching as a lecturer—a non-contingent role at our university—and (2) a full-time administrative assistant. To inform this proposal, Kara researched writing center staffing models at other universities, consulted with writing center directors, and reviewed discussions on the Wcenter listserv. The proposal outlined the background, need, and rationale for both positions and emphasized what would be lost if the positions were not filled. It also included a list of job duties (see Appendix A for an abridged version of proposal).
In the end, only the faculty assistant director was approved. Following a year-long national search, Lauren was hired. The updated staffing model now entailed one faculty director (10 hours per week), one faculty assistant director (20 hours per week), and 1-2 GADs (10 hours per week each), totaling 40-50 hours of weekly coverage. This new configuration enabled the center to meet demand, improve coverage, and maintain operations. However, Kara and Lauren found they lacked the time, energy, and resources to expand services, implement long-term visions, or develop strategic initiatives. The situation worsened during Lauren’s first year when they learned that GADs would no longer be assigned to the writing center.
Recognizing the continued need for additional staff, Kara and Lauren drafted a second proposal, this time for a “coordinator” position. This full-time staff role required a master’s degree and experience working in writing centers (see Appendix B for an abridged version of proposal). In the proposal, they emphasized the urgent need for a full-time staff presence in the writing center and outlined the potential crisis in services if the position remained unfilled. They also appealed to the university’s history of supporting the writing center’s growth. Ultimately, the coordinator position was approved, and after another national search, Claire was hired, joining the team a little over two years after Lauren. With the addition of Claire, the newly formed “Leadership Team” now had 70 hours per week collectively dedicated to the writing center.
Potentials of Mixed-Designation Faculty and Staff Administrative Teams
We have experienced many benefits of having a mixed-designation staffing model in our writing center, both institutionally and internally. The distinct roles of faculty and staff administrators have enhanced our access to resources, institutional capital, and reach. Internally, this staffing diversity has fostered collaboration, problem-solving, and innovation by leveraging individual talents, perspectives, and knowledge to the benefit of the team and, thereby, our writing center. In this section, we elaborate on these opportunities.
Institutional Visibility and Legitimacy
One key advantage of having both faculty and staff WCAs is the increased legitimacy it lends to the writing center within the university. In higher education, a PhD and faculty status often symbolize expertise and authority, conferring professional cachet when interacting with the institutional community (Geller and Denny; Truesdell). A terminal degree and faculty status signal that expertise in the field of writing studies and on writing instruction. Consequently, the presence of faculty in a writing center communicates that the writing center is a place for rigorous collaborative learning and instruction, with a structure and pedagogy rooted in scholarship and expertise. While many writing centers also have staff administrators with terminal degrees, the differing roles and expectations associated with faculty and staff positions often influence visibility, perception, and influence (LaFrance and Nicolas, “Institutional”). Although internally we try to limit these traditional views of what counts as legitimate, this institutional perception helps attract attention, support, and resources from stakeholders.
Faculty, however, are not the sole contributors to legitimacy and visibility; affordance theory emphasizes that staff are, too. The addition of a full-time staff position, such as our coordinator role, has further enhanced our credibility; it has also improved our status and influence within the institution. Other campus centers, institutes, and programs commonly have full-time administrative staff who provide crucial support, management, and supervision. Before hiring our coordinator, administrative functions were handled by English department staff unfamiliar with our specific operations or needs. With Claire’s hiring, though, we internalized critical tasks such as hiring student worker positions, managing our budget, reviewing timecards, and ordering supplies. This restructuring streamlined processes, improved efficiency, and strengthened the writing center’s professionalism. These changes have also made the center more visible and aligned it with institutional norms, which demonstrates our self-sufficiency and positions us even more as a legitimate campus service. Our experiences echo Lerner’s observation that “[a] writing center director who is in a full-time staff position can be just as influential in an institution as can a tenured faculty member” (44). Claire’s full-time presence has provided the stability that signals our legitimacy institutionally.
Access to Information and Resources
Another advantage of having a WCA team comprising both faculty and staff is expanded access to institutional information and resources. Faculty and staff often operate within distinct networks in the institution and receive targeted communications that address their respective roles. At our institution, for instance, faculty receive communications from the Provost’s Office and deans that focus on academic policies, research opportunities, and curriculum development. In contrast, staff receive communications that center on administrative procedures, operational logistics, and institutional protocols. By sharing this information with each other, our team gains insights into areas that would typically be inaccessible to us individually, which is valuable for understanding the institutional perspective. This cross-role exchange of information enhances our ability to make informed decisions and strategically plan for the writing center.
Furthermore, the mixed designations of our administrative team give us greater insight into institutional resource allocation, which has proven beneficial as we have advocated for additional funding or support for special programs. Faculty members often have access to research funding, departmental resources, and academic initiatives tied to strategic planning, while staff members are well-versed in budgetary processes, financial allocations, and administrative funding streams. By combining these perspectives, we can identify the best person to address specific challenges or engage with key stakeholders. This integrated approach allows our team to more effectively advocate for and allocate resources, ensuring the writing center has the support needed to thrive and pursue all available avenues for finding and accessing institutional resources.
Institutional Reach
A mixed HR-designation has also enhanced our institutional reach by broadening our professional networks. Individually, we are embedded in institutional communities that, alongside our writing center roles, shape our unique professional identities and contribute to the success of the writing center. Maintaining these identities and participating in these communities is crucial to sustaining and further developing the center, as its success is somewhat interdependent on institutional support brought on by “programmatic collaboration, or working with offices and individuals across campus” (Garrett). As insiders to these specific communities, we can gain access to more spaces and conversations and amplify the writing center’s visibility and impact. One practical form this collaboration takes is the ability to participate in university-wide and college-specific faculty- and staff-specific meetings, luncheons, and trainings. These HR-designation-specific networking opportunities allow us to connect with colleagues who share similar professional contexts and goals. For example, faculty team members Kara and Lauren can connect with colleagues in their home department and with other faculty through invited class presentations, participation on university committees, and academic meetings where they can advocate for the writing center. Similarly, staff member Claire develops relationships with administrative staff in the College of Arts and Sciences Dean’s Office and other departments, leveraging her consistent presence at staff-only events to promote the writing center.
Additionally, the writing center’s physical position in the library extends our institutional reach. Claire’s regular presence in the writing center enables her to build strong relationships with library staff, including the facilities coordinator, research librarians, marketing staff, and security personnel. These connections have proven instrumental in advancing our center’s goals. Her full-time commitment also allows her to attend campus resource fairs during summer, spring, and winter breaks, where she has made connections and built partnerships with other student support services such as the tutoring center, counseling center, career center, and international student services. If our team were limited to a single HR designation, we would miss out on many of these networking opportunities. By leveraging the unique advantages of both faculty and staff roles, we expand the writing center’s network and promote its mission more broadly throughout the institution.
Operational Consistency and Efficiency
Another advantage of having both faculty- and staff-designated positions within a writing center is the enhanced operational consistency and efficiency these roles afford. Prior to the approval of the coordinator position, our writing center relied solely on faculty-designated positions. Kara and Lauren collectively provided 30 hours of coverage for a center operating 48 hours weekly. Faculty obligations, such as meetings, committee work, presentations, and conferences, frequently disrupted this schedule, resulting in a hodgepodge approach to coverage. However, the addition of Claire as a full-time coordinator has ensured greater consistency, benefiting both our student staff and those who depend on the center’s services throughout the year.
A consistent managerial presence year-round also has enabled significant operational expansion. Prior to hiring a coordinator, the writing center operated only during the spring, fall, and summer semesters and was closed during “off-periods” (i.e., December/January, May, August). With Kara and Lauren on 10-month contracts, supervising student workers over the summer required unpaid labor or creative off-campus solutions. In contrast, Claire’s 12-month contract and presence year-round allows the writing center to remain operational during these off-periods, offering consultations over winter break and through mid-August. This continuity ensures adequate supervision of student employees and even supported our center’s transition into an independent department.
Another capability of a full-time staff presence enables the center to pilot new operational strategies and complete projects during slower periods. Claire leverages these times to pilot technologies, analyze data, update organizational documents, and conduct research for special initiatives. Consequently, Kara and Lauren can focus on other essential tasks that were previously neglected due to limited coverage. For instance, they have been able to add and adequately supervise a dedicated student social media coordinator position and a writing center intern. Faculty directors also have more time to guide student workers in creating additional writing resources, such as handouts, class presentations, and videos. Moreover, the faculty assistant director has used some of her renegotiated time to establish an official “Outreach Team,” a group of student staff trained to deliver in-class presentations and workshops. Likewise, the faculty director has focused on larger initiatives, such as merging the writing center with the Graduate Writing Center, conducting research on a Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) Program, and securing additional funding for graduate consultants. The coordinator’s consistent presence also fosters mentorship opportunities for student staff, which builds relationships and cultivates trust. In short, this capability of greater operational consistency and efficiency provided by adding a staff member enhances our operations and provides a consistent presence in our writing center.
Tutor Education and Training
Another possibility of having both faculty and staff WCAs is the ability to offer a credit-bearing tutor education course. While both faculty and staff in writing centers inherently engage in daily consultant training—as is true in ours—a faculty designation has made it possible to recruit and train undergraduate consultants through a semester-long, for-credit course. Having faculty directors who teach a credit-bearing tutor education class has enhanced our tutor education program and made it more sustainable. This course allows future undergraduate consultants to learn about writing center theory and practice while also apprenticing in the writing center, developing skills within the context of theory. This comprehensive training model bolsters the credibility of peer consultants and reinforces their image as capable, skilled, and knowledgeable professionals. This perception also contributes to a positive ethos and further legitimizes our writing center. Although our university does allow credentialed staff to teach courses, such teaching is considered adjunct work and falls outside the regular workload and annual evaluations. As a result, if Claire were to teach a course, she would have to do it on her own time—outside of her regular workload—without it being recognized in her annual review.
While faculty contributions enhance the academic aspects of tutor education, Claire’s staff role provides complementary benefits. Because Claire is on-site more often than Kara or Lauren, she often builds stronger relationships with consultants, who frequently seek her guidance on challenging sessions or employment concerns. Her accessibility benefits tutor education, as she can sometimes better understand emerging needs and propose relevant topics for staff meetings. This blend of both faculty- and staff-designated positions enriches our tutor education program through diverse learning opportunities and fosters staff camaraderie.
Mentorship
The mixed-designation WCA model we employ also fosters robust opportunities for mentorship and professional development among leadership team members and student staff. Each member of our leadership team brings unique perspectives and institutional knowledge shaped by our HR designation, educational and professional experiences, and institutional identities. This diversity enhances collaboration and innovation within the team. For example, Claire has benefited from mentorship and advice from Kara during her annual review, while Kara has learned from Claire about processes such as purchasing, hiring, and event planning, which inform strategic planning, budgeting, and recruitment efforts. Similarly, Lauren and Claire have gained insights from Kara on integrating research into their roles. Through collaborative efforts like drafting this article, Lauren and Claire have deepened their understanding of writing center research, collaborative writing, and academic publication.
Moreover, Lauren contributes valuable perspectives from her experiences at multiple writing centers, and she has been able to offer Kara and Claire a range of insights on writing center operations, tutor training, and outreach. Her expertise in areas such as generative AI further enriches team discussions and strategic planning. Additionally, Kara and Lauren alternate teaching the tutoring writing course, and they reflect together on successes and areas for improvement, thereby enhancing the course’s quality over time. This mentorship is not top-down or monodirectional; rather, it is multidirectional and reciprocal, with each member contributing valuable knowledge and support.
Our leadership structure also serves as a model for our student staff by exposing them to diverse forms of writing center leadership and various professional pathways. This exposure helps students understand the multifaceted roles and varied career trajectories available in writing center leadership, which is an important perspective given the lack of standardized paths to these roles. Even for individuals not pursuing writing center leadership, witnessing collaborative and reciprocal mentorship within the team provides valuable insights into effective teamwork and professional growth. By adopting a mixed-designation leadership model, we contribute to the holistic development of both professional staff and student employees.
Limitations of Mixed-Designation Faculty and Staff Administrative Teams
While the mixed faculty- and staff-designated model offers many benefits, it also presents challenges. These include time constraints and split focus, role ambiguity, communication challenges, and reinforcing hierarchical structures.
Time Constraints and Split Focus
One drawback of mixed-designation WCA teams is differing operational expectations between faculty and staff positions. Faculty WCAs often manage commitments outside of the writing center, such as teaching, advising, committee work, and scholarship (Truesdell 2), while staff positions typically have more consistent responsibilities and presence. The multiple commitments of faculty positions can divert attention from the day-to-day operations of the writing center. In our center, Kara and Lauren balance faculty responsibilities alongside their writing center duties, which can make it hard for them to know what to prioritize. Research is fifty percent of Kara’s job, but administrative and teaching responsibilities often take precedence. Lauren must carefully plan her time to address her various faculty duties. This balancing act can leave faculty WCAs stretched thin as they navigate diverse demands (LaFrance and Nicolas, “What’s”).This split focus can also limit a faculty leader’s firsthand understanding of daily activities and operations in the writing center. Faculty WCAs, at least those who are part-time in the writing center, may have less awareness of consultant sessions, employee issues, and operational concerns compared to staff. This lack of awareness can lead to delays in addressing important matters, which can be time-consuming and frustrating for staff.
In contrast, having a full-time staff member ensures continuity and responsiveness to urgent matters. For instance, Claire effectively handles urgent issues like staff absences to prevent disruptions such as missed shifts or cancelled appointments. Previously, when faculty directors were off-site, student staff managed alone, often scrambling to cover shifts or cancel appointments. Additionally, Claire’s consistent availability supports faculty who drop by the center. Before, when a faculty member dropped by and faculty directors were not present, they observed only student staff in the writing center, and if they needed something they had to send an email later. With a dedicated staff member, the writing center is able to resolve issues immediately and maintain a positive image of the writing center. In short, a staff member benefits the writing center by managing employee issues promptly, maintaining professionalism, and supporting faculty needs immediately.
Communication Challenges
Effective communication within a mixed-designation team can also be challenging due to the varying and sometimes inconsistent on-site presence of faculty WCAs. While Lauren and Kara strive for regular hours in the writing center each semester, inevitably, their schedules are often disrupted due to unexpected meetings, speaking engagements and conferences, and service obligations. These often immediate and unforeseen changes can disrupt team expectations and coordination. Additionally, faculty WCAs may be less available for timely email or text communication due to their competing responsibilities. This fragmented communication hinders timely consensus and problem-solving, delaying responses to urgent issues within the writing center.
To mitigate these constraints, our leadership team prioritizes consistent communication. We meet weekly for 90 minutes to update each other on our individual work, plan for upcoming meetings, and to resolve issues. When immediate issues arise and we cannot meet in person, we use email, Teams messaging, texts, and phone calls to stay connected. Following Dvorak and Rafoth’s advice, we prioritize ongoing communication, understand each other’s communication styles, and adapt “to meet ever-changing writing center dynamics” (185).
Role Ambiguity
Role ambiguity is another constraint of a mixed-designation WCA team. Each WCA in our writing center specializes in specific areas but participates in decision-making collaboratively, leading to an overlap in roles. This intentional overlap can make it difficult to precisely define each role. For instance, Lauren has faced challenges in annual review processes to differentiate her contributions from Kara and Claire. This ambiguity of roles can contribute to frustration and feelings of imposter syndrome. To address this challenge, we have begun codifying our roles and processes in handbooks, which helps ensure that knowledge and procedures are readily available, especially during leaves or transitions. For example, we have created job descriptions and a list of duties for each position, which guides each of us in our individual role and can be helpful when talking with others about what each position entails. We have also created a coordinator handbook that outlines processes and procedures and serves as a point of reference if someone needs to take on a task with which they are unfamiliar. By delineating duties, expectations, and processes, we have been able to clarify individual roles and responsibilities and enhance promotion and review processes.
Reinforcement of Hierarchical Structures
One last limitation of mixed-designation faculty and staff leadership teams is their potential to reinforce outdated hierarchical structures. LaFrance and Nicolas observe “a tiered or stratified system” (“What’s” 12), which can result in some faculty and upper-level administrators preferring to interact solely with faculty WCAs. For instance, despite Kara’s efforts to involve Lauren and Claire in meetings with the Dean or other administrators, their participation has sometimes been deemed unnecessary. This pattern reflects a broader issue, where Claire’s extensive expertise—including a master’s degree in the field, years of writing center experience, and leadership roles in graduate school—may not be acknowledged by faculty or administrators unfamiliar with her background. While such instances have been rare in our experience, we acknowledge the potential for these dynamics to surface in environments that prioritize or reinforce hierarchical structures.
Furthermore, while it has not been our collective experience, we recognize that hierarchical reinforcement is not limited to interactions outside the writing center but can also manifest between faculty and staff leadership, and even between tenure-line and non-tenure line faculty, within the team itself. Within academia, scholars have investigated “hierarchical microaggressions,” which refer to “the everyday slights found in higher education that communicate systemic valuing (or devaluing) of a person because of the institutional role held by that person in the institution” (Young, et al. 66). These everyday slights include insults or invalidations such as devaluing one based on their role and ignoring, excluding, interrupting, or expressing surprise at one’s knowledge or expertise (Young, et al. 66-68). For mixed-designation leadership teams, this dynamic can lead to staff members feeling undervalued, ignored, excluded, and/or diminished and to observing different treatment, prestige, or visibility than faculty leaders, despite the expertise and knowledge they bring to the position. The fact that staff generally take on a majority of the essential but more tedious and less glamorous duties like scheduling and checking timecards, while faculty receive promotions, raises, and travel funds, can exacerbate feelings of inequity. This disparity can contribute to issues of diminished job satisfaction for staff or non-tenure track faculty administrators, echoing Healy’s findings that tenure-line WCAs—who are better paid, work fewer total hours, and work fewer hours in the writing center—tend to have the highest level of job satisfaction (35).
Further research into this phenomenon within writing centers would add greatly to the literature. As scholars of hierarchical microaggressions have suggested, an intersectional approach investigating how one’s status as a staff member interacts with other identity markers, such as race and gender identification, would provide a richer understanding for how these hierarchies are reinforced (Brewer and di Gennaro; Young, et al.). Furthermore, acknowledging that these hierarchies persist despite conscious efforts to dismantle them is crucial. It serves both as validation for staff members and a reminder for faculty to strive for equity and inclusion in the management of their mixed-designation teams.
Discussion and Recommendations for Mixed-Designation WCA Teams
This case study, though centered on one writing center, sheds light on the complex dynamics of mixed-designation leadership structures in university writing centers. Healy states that “if we are to understand the issue of professional status among the people who run writing centers, we need to know more about who they are and how they conceive of their own roles” (27). By examining the affordances of teams comprising both faculty and staff, this research underscores how HR-designated roles impact writing center effectiveness and individual WCAs. Affordance theory highlights both the potentials and limitations of such teams. Potentials include institutional visibility and legitimacy, access to information and resources, institutional reach, operational consistency and efficiency, tutor education and training, and mentorship. These advantages foster a collaborative environment where diverse institutional standpoints can lead to innovation and create a unified, cohesive team.
However, mixed-designation teams also have some constraints. Faculty members may struggle to balance administrative duties with other academic commitments, thus limiting their direct involvement in and firsthand knowledge of daily writing center operations. Additionally, role ambiguity may emerge within mixed-designation teams, posing challenges in defining duties and responsibilities and potential frustration. Furthermore, varying schedules and responsibilities among team members can hinder effective communication, delay decision-making, and disrupt writing center operations. Finally, the potential reinforcement of hierarchical structures can impede collaboration and innovation, particularly when faculty members are favored in interactions or inequity persists.
Despite these challenges, WCAs can successfully navigate these complexities of mixed-designation teams by emphasizing the potentials and downplaying the limitations. By fostering open communication, clarifying roles, and advocating for equity within the team, WCAs can create a more effective and collaborative writing center environment.
We conclude by offering recommendations for WCAs to better navigate the affordances of a mixed-designation faculty and staff leadership model.
1. Foster clear and open communication and meet regularly.
To ensure alignment on writing center issues, we recommend open communication and regular meetings. Holly Ryan notes that “speaking and engaging with other directors is an essential part of what directors need to be successful in their positions,” and we believe that extends to interpersonal team relationships as well. The weekly in-person 90-minute meetings allow us to touch base, share concerns, and make decisions. We also make it a regular habit of checking in with administrative staff who are present when we arrive in the writing center for the day. Regular communication fosters trust on a mixed-designation team, which makes it easier to share when we are facing personal or professional commitments or challenges that may require us to ask for additional assistance. This type of support can help to balance previously discussed factors that could contribute to job dissatisfaction, such as the potential for inequity or discrimination induced by hierarchical structures. If pressing concerns arise, we all keep backup times open to chat, even if briefly. We also prioritize communicating via Zoom, Teams, phone, or text. While regular check-ins can be time-intensive for larger leadership teams, it has proven essential for ours. Despite the challenges, open, frequent communication between team members can make large impacts when it comes to job satisfaction and retention.
2. Listen well and respect each other. Recognize that everyone brings expertise.
As a team that values collaboration, we make it a priority to listen to the input of each person before moving forward with a decision. We respect the knowledge and expertise each person brings and value each person’s unique standpoint. We also make sure that everyone has input on decisions so that all voices feel appreciated. Clearly, there are day-to-day responsibilities that do not require a sign-off from the whole group, but our team has gotten a feel for those moderately impactful decisions that could benefit from input from the whole team. Because of our differing on-site hours, institutional knowledge, and HR-designated roles, we find it beneficial to check in to see if one of us has insight into how to move toward a solution before starting from scratch on our own. This level of collaboration ultimately leads to better decisions and demonstrates confidence and trust in each team member.
As opportunities arise to expand a writing center’s leadership staff, consider other credentials, achievements, or experiences being privileged and challenge any underlying biases. Although this article focuses on WCA HR-designations and the affordances of mixed-designation teams, additional factors that may be limiting the center’s potential should also be considered. Future research could consider the affordances of interdisciplinary writing center leadership teams. By modeling for early-career administrators, graduate administrators, and even undergraduate tutors how diversity (of race, sex, class, discipline, experience, etc.) is actively valued in the writing center, we can begin to recruit a more diverse generation of WCAs.
3. Codify rules and responsibilities in handbooks.
To improve clarity and efficiency, we recommend that writing centers with mixed-designation leadership teams formalize job descriptions, roles, and duties in handbooks or position descriptions. This documentation serves a reference for team members, reduces ambiguity, and ensures consistency, even when a team member is unavailable. Codified roles also support discussions during tenure and promotion review committees and annual evaluations. Clearly defined responsibilities ultimately enhance accountability, streamline decision-making, and promote a fair division of labor.
4. When building a mixed-designation team, set ambitious goals and avoid self-editing.
Building a mixed-designation team often involves navigating limited resources, bureaucracy, and institutional politics. As Caswell et al. note, “Change is slow and tedious and nearly entirely dependent on others” (197); thus, WCAs should articulate an idealized vision for their writing center and persist in advocating for it. It took two separate proposals and five years to develop our team; we would like to expand our team even more in the future. We recommend that WCAs consider what they would like their center to be able to do and decide on a team make-up that can best execute that vision. With consistent university budget cuts, it can be all too tempting to assume that upper administration will deny any request to expand a leadership team. We advocate asking anyway, especially when accompanied by evidence of growth, usage, retention, and need. Much like students, upper administrators and HR professionals do not always have a full understanding of what a writing center is or does. Those outside of the greater writing center community frequently overlook the fact that writing center studies is a unique discipline with a decades-long history of scholarship and practice. Being able to articulate a center’s mission and impact in terms that upper administrators value—such as usage, retention, graduate rates, and engagement data—can help align the center’s needs with larger institutional goals. While requests for expansion may still be denied (as many WCAs know all too well), advocating boldly ensures that the writing center’s mission and potential remain visible and allowing them to deliver the decision avoids preemptively ruling out possibilities.
5. To enhance faculty-led leadership teams, consider advocating for staff-led roles to allocate more time for vision-casting.
Our writing center operated for decades under the leadership of only one faculty member. Four and a half years ago, a second faculty administrator joined the team. Our on-site supervision was still limited due to the faculty-designated roles that meant Kara and Lauren juggled administrative duties with teaching, research, and service responsibilities. The addition of a staff member brought increased operational support, enhanced supervision, and provided a consistent on-site presence, thus enabling our center to expand in significant and unexpected ways. This consistency improved consultant experiences, elevated the writing center’s credibility, and freed up faculty directors to focus on strategic planning and long-term growth initiatives. It also helped challenge problematic hierarchical structures that persist in academia. As Valles et al. point out, “Directors do not hire themselves, so they are not responsible for the current state of leadership. Moreover, directors can take actions to help move writing center spaces forward as new leaders enter the field.”
6. Foster equity and inclusion by addressing the hierarchical structures that can marginalize staff WCAs.
To foster equity and inclusion in mixed-designation leadership teams, tenured WCAs should actively address the hierarchical structures that can marginalize staff members and non-tenure track faculty. One suggestion is to promote transparent and equitable decision-making processes that explicitly value the expertise and contributions of all team members, regardless of their institutional designation. This includes involving staff leaders in high-level administrative meetings and decision-making discussions, which ensures their voices are heard and their expertise is recognized. Furthermore, having staff members be the first to speak in meetings can empower them to take on greater autonomy and ownership of writing center functions. Additionally, faculty WCAs might reevaluate task distribution by taking on tasks they don’t normally complete as part of their role, such as volunteering for resource fairs, visiting classes, picking up food and drink for events, or helping with scheduling. Sharing responsibilities among all team members can prevent the overburdening of staff with less prestigious tasks and build camaraderie and goodwill among the team. Additionally, faculty WCAs could advocate for professional development funding for staff WCAs so that they can attend (or even present at) conferences and grow in their roles. This would even enhance satisfaction and engagement in their role. Finally, ongoing education about hierarchical microaggressions—both within the team and in interactions with external administrators—can help identify and mitigate patterns of exclusion or inequity. A conscious effort to acknowledge and disrupt these dynamics will strengthen team cohesion, enhance morale, and better align leadership practices with writing center values of collaboration and inclusion.
In conclusion, examining the affordances of a mixed-designation WCA model highlights a range of potentials and limitations that other writing center teams can consider when they are looking to enhance or modify their team. The mix of roles, designations, and standpoints of a mixed-designation team allows for the best of a staff-only team and a faculty-only team. While challenges still exist, addressing them head-on and leveraging the unique capabilities of both faculty and staff designations, WCAs can navigate the complexities of collaborative leadership teams effectively. Moving forward, it is imperative to continue refining and documenting processes, fostering open communication, and advocating for the necessary resources to support the growth and development of writing center leadership teams. With a shared vision, commitment to collaboration, and clearly defined roles, writing center administrators can thrive in their mission to support students and promote writing excellence within their institutions.
Works Cited
Alexander, Kara Poe. “Material Affordances: The Potential of Scrapbooks in the Composition Classroom.” Composition Forum, vol. 27, Spring 2013, https://compositionforum.com/issue/27/material-affordances.php
---. “Spatial Affordances as a Tool for Assessing Pedagogical Places, Spaces, and Locations.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 75, no. 3, 2024, pp. 585-612.
Balester, Valerie, and James C. McDonald. “A View of Status and Working Conditions: Relations between Writing Program and Writing Center Directors.” Writing Program Administration, vol. 24, no. 3, 2001, pp. 59-82.
Brewer, Meaghan and Kristen di Gennaro. “Naming What We Feel: Hierarchical Microaggressions and the Relationship between Composition and English Studies.” Composition Studies, vol. 46, no. 2, 2019, pp. 15-34.
Caswell, Nicole, et al. The Working Lives of New Writing Center Directors. Utah State UP, 2016.
Cummings, Robert E., et al. “Generative AI in First-Year Writing: An Early Analysis of Affordances, Limitations, and a Framework for the Future.” Computers and Composition, vol. 71, 2024, pp. 1-11.
Dvorak, Kevin, and Ben Rafoth. “Examining Writing Center Director-Assistant Director Relationships.” The Writing Center Director’s Resource Book, edited by Christina Murphy and Byron Stay, Routledge, 2006, pp. 179-186.
Ervin, Christopher. “The Writing Centers Research Project Survey Results, AY 2000-2001.” The Writing Centers Research Project. http://coldfusion.louisville.edu/webs/a-s/wcrp
Fels, Dawn, et al. “Contingent Writing Center Work: Benefits, Risks, and the Need for Equity and Institutional Change.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 39, no. 1-2, pp. 351-380.
Garrett, Bre. “Hacking the Curriculum, Disabling Composition Pedagogy: The Affordances of Writing Studio Design.” Composition Forum, vol. 39, 2018, https://compositionforum.com/issue/39/hacking.php
Geller, Anne Ellen, and Harry Denny. “Of Ladybugs, Low Status, and Loving the Job: Writing Center Professionals Navigating Their Careers.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 33, no. 1, 2013, pp. 96-129.
Gibson, James J. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Houghton Mifflin, 1979.
Gladstein, Jill M. and Dara R. Regaignon. Writing Program Administration at Small Liberal Arts Colleges. Parlor Press, 2012.
Griffin, Jo Ann, et al. “Local Practices, National Consequences: Surveying and (Re)Constructing Writer Center Identities.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, 2006, pp. 3-21.
Healy, Dave. “Writing Center Directors: An Emerging Portrait of the Profession.” WPA: Writing Program Administration, vol. 18, no. 3, 1995, pp. 26-43.
Isaacs, Emily, and Melinda Knight. “A Bird’s Eye View of Writing Centers: Institutional Infrastructure, Scope and Programmatic Issues, Reported Practices.” WPA: Writing Program Administration, vol. 27, no. 2, 2014, pp. 36-67.
Kress, Gunther. “Design and Transformation: New Theories of Meaning.” Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures, edited by Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis, Routledge, 2000, pp. 153-161.
---. Multimodality. A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. Routledge, 2010.
Laflen, Angela. “Exploring How Response Technologies Shape Instructor Feedback: : A Comparison of Canvas Speedgrader, Google Docs, and Turnitin GradeMark.” Computers and Composition, vol. 68, 2023, pp. 1-17.
LaFrance, Michelle. “An Institutional Ethnography of Information Literacy: Critical Challenges for a First Year Writing Program.” Journal of Writing Program Administration, vol. 39, no. 2, 2016, pp. 105-22.
LaFrance, Michelle, and Melissa Nicolas. “Institutional Ethnography as Materialist Framework for Writing Program Research and the Faculty-Staff Work Standpoints Project.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 64, no. 1, 2012, pp. 130-150.
---. “What’s Your Frequency?: Preliminary Results of a Survey on Faculty and Staff Perspectives on Their Work in Writing Centers.” Writing Lab Newsletter, vol. 38, no. 5-6, 2013, pp. 10-13.
Lerner, Neal. “Confessions of a First-Time Writing Center Director.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 21, no. 1, 2000, pp. 29-48.
McBride, Maureen, and Molly Rentscher. “The Importance of Intention: A Review of Mentoring for Writing Center Professionals.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, vol. 17, no. 3, 2020, pp. 74-85.
Perdue, Sherry Wynn, and Dana Lynn Driscoll. “Context Matters: Centering Writing Center Administrators’ Institutional Status and Scholarly Identity.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 36, no. 1, 2017, pp. 185-214.
Ryan, Holly. “First Things First: An Introduction to Administration at a New Directors’ Retreat.” How We Teach Writing Tutors: A WLN Digital Edited Collection, edited by Karen Gabrielle Johnson and Ted Roggenbuck, 2019. https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/wln/dec1/Ryan.html
Sheffield, Jenna Pack, and Amy C. Kimme Hea. “Leveraging the Methodological Affordances of Facebook: Social Networking Strategies in Longitudinal Writing Research.” Composition Forum, vol. 33, Spring 2016, compositionforum.com/issue/33/methodological-affordances.php.
Truesdell, Tom. “Don’t Forget Us: The Impact of Director Presence on Tutors.” Writing Lab Newsletter, vol. 29, no. 3, 2004, pp. 1-4.
Webster, Travis. Queerly Centered: LGBTQA Writing Center Directors Navigate the Workplace. UP of Colorado and Utah State UP, 2021, pp. 3-27.
Valles, Sarah, Banschbach, et al. “Writing Center Administrators and Diversity: A Survey.” The Peer Review, vol. 1, no. 1, 2017. https://thepeerreview-iwca.org/issues/issue-1/writing-center-administrators-and-diversity-a-survey/
Young, Kathryn, et al. “Hierarchical Microaggressions in Higher Education.” Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, vol. 8, no. 1, 2015, pp. 61-71.
Acknowledgements
We would like to express appreciation to Praxis editors Jacqueline Rhodes, Ali Gunnells, and Sam Turner and to two anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback on this article. We also wish to extend appreciation to each other for the friendship, support, and satisfaction of working and growing together. Finally, we are grateful to the student staff at the University Writing Center who make working on a mixed-designation administrative team a rewarding experience.