LEADING  THROUGH  UNCERTAINTY:  NAVIGATING  PERSONAL  AND 
 COLLECTIVE  CRISES  AS  WRITING  PROGRAM  ADMINISTRATORS  (WPAS) 

 By 

 Ethan  Voss 

 A  THESIS 

 Submitted  to 
 Michigan  State  University 
 in  partial  fulfillment  of  the  requirements 
 for  the  degree  of 

 Rhetoric  and  Writing  —  Master  of  Arts 

 2024 

 ABSTRACT 

 Writing  program  administrators  (WPAs)  continue  to  lead  their  programs  and 

 serve  as  a  crucial  support  structure  for  their  instructors,  graduate  teaching 

 assistants,  first-year  students,  and  other  extensive  campus-community 

 stakeholders.  In  an  effort  to  better  understand  the  role  WPAs  play,  this  study 

 explores  how  WPAs,  particularly  in  times  of  personal  or  collective  crisis, 

 respond  to  and  navigate  particularly  precarious  situations  in  ways  that 

 provide  the  support  their  constituents  need  and  desire  while  also 

 maintaining  their  mental  and  emotional  well-being. 

 Introduction  ........................................................................................................................................................  1 

 TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

 Writing  Program  Administration,  Emotional  Labor,  and  Crisis  ......................................  7 

 Methods  ...............................................................................................................................................................  11 

 Results  &  Discussion  ..................................................................................................................................  25 

 Limitations  &  Future  Research  ...........................................................................................................  45 

 Conclusion  .......................................................................................................................................................  48 

 REFERENCES  .................................................................................................................................................  50 

 iii 

 Introduction 

 Writing  program  administrators  (WPAs)  continue  to  lead  their  programs  and 

 serve  as  a  crucial  support  structure  for  their  instructors,  graduate  teaching 

 assistants,  first-year  students,  and  other  extensive  campus-community 

 stakeholders.  In  an  effort  to  better  understand  the  role  WPAs  play,  I  am 

 interested  in  exploring  how  WPAs,  particularly  in  times  of  personal  or 

 collective  crisis,  respond  to  and  navigate  particularly  precarious  situations  in 

 ways  that  provide  the  support  their  constituents  need  and  desire  while  also 

 maintaining  their  mental  and  emotional  well-being.  Through  my  study,  I  aim 

 to  learn  more  about  the  processes  involved  in  leadership  development  and 

 crisis  navigation,  recognize  and  draw  attention  to  the  difficult  work  of  WPAs 

 and  campus  leaders  during  times  of  volatility  and  vulnerability,  and 

 contribute  to  burgeoning  scholarly  conversations  at  the  intersection  of 

 leadership  studies,  crisis  management,  and  writing  studies. 

 Study  Exigency 

 Throughout  my  years  as  an  undergraduate  and  now  graduate  student, 

 we—as  a  society—have  endured  several  hardships  inappropriately  dubbed 

 once-in-a-lifetime  events.  From  situations  stemming  from  political  upheaval 

 to  social,  cultural  unrest  as  a  response  to  injustice  and  inequity  to  health  crises 

 brought  about  by  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  I’ve  watched  people  across  the 

 globe  respond  to  these  situations  in  a  multitude  of  ways  as  they  look  for 

 solutions  to  these  wicked  problems  that  have  affected  so  many  in  distinct 

 1 

 and  diverse  yet  communal  ways.  From  my  perspective,  these  situations  and 

 experiences  have  culminated  in  a  general  feeling  of  instability  from  the 

 constant  disruption  to  our  standard,  often  taken-for-granted  daily  routines, 

 assumptions,  and  ways  of  being,  leaving  me  feeling  small  and  helpless  as  an 

 individual.  In  awe,  I  watch  the  people  that  step  up  in  these  moments  of 

 uncertainty,  trying  to  take  notes  and  observe  their  leadership  behaviors, 

 values,  and  ways  of  navigating  these  crisis  situations  to  best  prepare  myself  to 

 lead  in  future,  inevitable  crisis  situations  I  find  myself  and  my  community 

 facing.  Though  I’m  reminded  of  feelings  of  helplessness  in  these  moments, 

 they  serve  to  motivate  my  deserve  to  occupy  positions  in  the  future  that  put 

 me  in  direct  contact  with  my  constituents  and  stakeholders  as  a  way  for  me 

 to  check-in,  offer  support  and  genuine  care,  and  work  to  resolve—or  at  least 

 alleviate—the  difficulty,  feelings  of  helplessness,  and  volatility  of  a  given 

 situation  or  circumstance. 

 As  I  reflect  on  my  own  experiences  in  crisis  situations,  I  can’t  avoid  the 

 feelings  of  panic,  fear,  and  deep  sadness  for  the  events  of  February  13th,  2023. 

 At  Michigan  State  University,  an  active  shooter  killed  three  undergraduate 

 students  and  critically  injured  five  others.  To  my  horror,  I  quickly  realized  the 

 devastating  severity  of  the  situation  from  the  influx  of  messages  from  local 

 friends,  colleagues,  and  peers  and  friends  and  family  hundreds  of  miles  away. 

 In  the  days  that  followed,  I  expressed  my  feelings  of  sadness,  anger, 

 frustration,  and  grief  in  a  variety  of  ways,  witnessing  the  reactions  from  our 

 2 

 campus  community  at  large.  Unfortunately,  this  wasn’t  my  first  time;  for  quite 

 a  few  of  my  students  and  peers,  it  wasn’t  theirs  either.  When  I  walked  into  my 

 first-year  writing  class  on  only  our  second  day  back,  I  assumed  the  only 

 position  I  knew:  that  of  a  writing  instructor  and  a  human  being.  Throughout 

 the  rest  of  the  semester,  nothing  ever  felt  like  it  “returned  to  normal,”  nor  did 

 it  feel  like  a  “new  normal.”  Instead,  everything  constantly  felt  off.  I  did  my  best 

 that  semester  to  ensure  my  students  felt  supported,  which  required  me  to 

 consistently  step  back  and  readjust.  I  knew  my  students  were  struggling  in 

 different  ways,  so  I  couldn’t  hold  them  to  a  set  standard,  and  it  seemed 

 impossible  to  push  the  class  forward  collectively.  In  fact,  I’ve  often  said  that 

 that  semester  felt  like  teaching  twenty-four  independent  studies. 

 In  these  moments  of  uncertainty,  I  looked  to  my  teaching  circle  and 

 truly  recognized  the  importance  of  building  these  deeper  connections  with 

 other  teaching  faculty.  My  interactions  with  other  faculty  members  teaching 

 first-year  writing  helped  to  validate  my  experiences,  gave  me  opportunities  to 

 vent  my  frustrations,  and  allowed  me  to  get  advice  on  how  to  proceed  from 

 seasoned  faculty.  As  the  number  of  questions  and  concerns  I  had  for  my 

 students  spiraled,  I  couldn’t  help  but  constantly  observe,  check-in  with,  and 

 inquire  about  various  navigation  responses  from  department  and 

 institutional  leaders  as  they,  too,  struggled  to  support  their  supports,  faculty, 

 and  staff.  As  a  hopeful  WPA,  I  looked  to  Dr.  Lindquist  as  a  model  for 

 leadership,  but  I  ultimately  found  myself  asking:  What  could  Dr.  Lindquist  do? 

 3 

 Given  this  situation  and  the  countless  previous  examples,  I  started  to  imagine 

 a  future  where  I  was  the  individual  that  people  looked  to  in  these  types  of 

 situations.  Therefore,  this  study  is  wholeheartedly  inspired  by  my  desire  to 

 better  understand  the  labor  of  this  relationship  work  and  how  I  could  begin  to 

 understand  how  to  possibly  navigate  an  inevitable  future  crisis  situation  and 

 manage  the  feelings  of  frustration,  inadequacy,  fear,  etc.  associated  with 

 grappling  with  these  wicked  problems.  Of  course,  these  major  crises  (i.e. 

 global  pandemic,  mass  shooting,  etc.)  are  the  obvious  kinds,  but  other  types 

 of  crisis  and  high-stakes  situations  are  common  in  and  around  institutions, 

 too,  and  demand  attention  and  problem-solving  from  WPAs. 

 Ethan’s  Story 

 My  interest  in  writing  program  administration  has  emerged  from  my  genuine 

 love  of  first-year  writing;  my  desire  to  motivate  and  support  first-year 

 students;  and  my  dedication  to  overseeing,  guiding,  and  supporting 

 instructors.  First-year  writing,  to  me,  has  always  been  about  connecting  with 

 the  students  to  not  only  support  their  academic  progress  and  need  to 

 develop  and  hone  their  writing  skills  but  also  to  discover  their  identities  as 

 writers  and  individuals,  build  confidence  in  themselves  and  their  abilities,  and 

 establish  connections  to  their  campus  community  in  ways  that  give  them 

 space  to  grow  and  develop  as  individuals.  Beyond  the  students  themselves, 

 first-year  writing  programs  are  supported  by  a  large  population  of  adjunct  or 

 teaching-focused  faculty  who  traditionally  teach  multiple  sections  of  first-year 

 4 

 writing  throughout  a  given  academic  year.  Behind  these  individuals  is  a 

 wealth  of  knowledge  and  experiences  teaching  writing  and  supporting  a 

 majority  of  the  undergraduate  university  community.  In  an  effort  to  support 

 these  individuals,  I  want  to  devote  my  career  to  building  community  amongst 

 these  teachers,  sharing  in  their  spaces  and  offering  resources  and  support  in 

 productive  and  healthy  ways,  standing  in  their  corners  to  cheer  on  their 

 successes  and  lifting  them  up  in  times  of  need.  This,  to  me,  is  the  true  work  of 

 a  writing  program  administrator,  and  I  desire  to  do  the  work. 

 As  a  graduate  student,  I  have  experience  working  as  the  First-Year 

 Writing  (FYW)  Graduate  Assistant  at  Michigan  State  University.  In  my  role,  I 

 assist  the  Director  of  First-Year  Writing,  providing  administrative  and 

 pedagogical  support  for  our  program’s  graduate  teaching  assistants, 

 teaching-focused  faculty,  and  first-year  student  population.  This  experience, 

 coupled  with  my  previous  experience  as  an  instructor  of  record  for  our 

 first-year  writing  course,  has  immersed  me  in  the  work,  theoretical  landscape, 

 and  positionality  of  a  writing  program  administrator.  Through  these  efforts, 

 I’ve  also  explored  various  institutional  settings  to  better  understand 

 programmatic  and  institutional  structures  that  affect  the  work  of  WPAs 

 within  their  specific  contexts.  My  experience  as  a  WPA,  I  believe,  is  an  asset  for 

 my  study  because  I  am  able  to  better  connect  and  therefore  understand  my 

 participants’  experiences,  develop  collegial  rapport,  and  analyze  the  data  from 

 the  cultivation  of  a  shared  lens.  However,  as  cisgender,  white  man,  I  know  my 

 5 

 identity  affords  me  privileges  that  certainly  not  how  every  WPA  receives  or 

 experiences,  so  it’s  important  that  I  recognize  my  privilege,  purposefully  seek 

 out  and  uplift  different  experiences  and  perspectives,  and  work  to  make  WPA 

 work  and  higher-education  administration  in  general  a  more  equitable  space. 

 6 

 Writing  Program  Administration,  Emotional  Labor,  and  Crisis 

 Writing  Program  Administrators  (WPAs)  play  a  pivotal  role  in  coordinating, 

 shaping,  and  supporting  effective  writing  programs  across  a  variety  of 

 institutional  settings.  The  origin  of  writing  program  administration  is  deeply 

 rooted  in  the  emergence  of  first-year  writing  and  the  rapid  influx  of  student 

 enrollment  in  American  colleges  and  universities  post-WW2  to  “coordinate 

 the  ever-multiplying  sections  of  freshman  English”  (McLeod,  2007,  p.  58). 

 Though  these  positions  are  “numerous  and  varied,”  depending  on  a  variety  of 

 institutional  factors,  WPAs  are  primarily  responsible  for  developing  course 

 content  and  curriculum;  supporting  instructor  pedagogical  development; 

 managing  department  budgets  and  programmatic  assessment;  and 

 handling  staffing  and  instructor  evaluations  (McLeod,  2007,  p.  4).  As  part  of 

 their  efforts  effectively  coordinate  and  lead  their  programs,  WPAs  are 

 responsible  for  “navigat[ing]  the  murky  waters  of  institutional  hierarchy  where 

 decisions  to  create  any  sort  of  change  are  seriously  constrained;  where  daily 

 existence  requires  pragmatic,  sometimes  morally  problematic  decisions,  and 

 where  one's  ability  to  act  .  .  .  is  seriously  compromised"  (Micciche,  2007,  p.  84). 

 Blackburn  (2022)  elaborates  on  this  aspect  of  the  work  by  emphasizing  the 

 difficulties  of  navigating  the  “political  work  of  defending  their  programs  and 

 sometimes  even  our  field”  from  budget  cuts  or  institutional  constraints  (p.  2). 

 As  a  means  to  negotiate  these  constraints  and  oversee  a  wide  variety  of 

 stakeholders,  including  instructors,  graduate  teaching  assistants,  first-year 

 7 

 students,  campus  officials  and  administrators,  WPAs  must  coordinate, 

 develop,  and  “sustain  their  commitments  and  programs  by  connecting  with 

 others,  approaching  administration  as  a  dynamic,  nonlinear  process” 

 (Stenberg  &  Minter,  2018,  p.  646). 

 Mastracci,  Newman,  &  Guy  (2010)  define  emotional  labor  as  “the 

 expression  of  one’s  capacity  to  manage  personal  emotions,  sense  others’ 

 emotions,  and  to  respond  appropriately”  (p.  6).  Emotional  labor  is  intricately 

 connected  to  the  relational  work  of  WPAs  as  it  “involves  [providing]  care, 

 mentoring,  or  nurturing  .  .  .  others;  .  .  .  building  and  sustaining  relationships;  .  .  . 

 resolv[ing]  conflicts;  [and]  managing  our  display  of  emotion”  (Caswell, 

 McKinney,  &  Jackson,  2016b,  p.  59).  Warnke  et  al.  (2020)  argue  that  much  of 

 the  emotional  labor  of  WPA  work  involves  “navigating  change  and  finding  the 

 fine  balance  between  respecting  and  hearing  feelings  and  concerns  related 

 to  change  .  .  .  while  still  moving  toward  innovation  and  evolving  student  and 

 program  needs,”  given  programmatic  and  institutional  constraints  (p.  44). 

 Navigating  this  balance  often  requires  WPAs  to  “take  the  emotional  hit  for  the 

 inevitable  frustration”  voiced  by  programmatic  stakeholders  around  a  variety 

 of  conditions,  ideas,  or  topics  (Warnke  et  al.,  2020,  p.  45).  As  Hochschild  (2012) 

 notes,  this  aspect  of  the  job  is  “seldom  recognized,  rarely  honored,  and  almost 

 never  taken  into  account”  (p.  153),  which  may  lead  to  burnout,  mistrust, 

 disconnectedness,  and  anxiety  in  WPAs  (Mastracci,  Guy,  &  Newman,  2014). 

 Because  of  the  intensity  of  these  working  conditions,  several  edited 

 8 

 collections  in  recent  years  have  emerged  as  a  means  to  better  recognize  the 

 emotional  labor  of  WPAs  and  offer  more  collegial  support  (Wooten,  Babb, 

 Costello,  &  Navickas,  2020;  Graziano  et  al.,  2023). 

 Because  much  of  the  work  involves  engaging  in  and  managing 

 emotional  labor,  the  concept  of  empathy  emerges  as  an  essential  tool  in 

 WPAs’  efforts  to  create  and  maintain  social  relationships  and  improve 

 attitudes  toward  other  individuals  (Artinger,  Exadaktylos,  Koppel,  and 

 Sääksvuori  ,  2014;  Riess,  2017;  Whitford  and  Emerson,  2019).  In  the  original 

 psychotherapeutic  context,  Rogers  (1951)  notes  that  being  empathetic  means 

 setting  aside  personal  views  and  feelings  to  better  understand  another's 

 perspective  without  judgment.  Within  the  study  of  composition  and 

 rhetorical  theory  specifically,  empathy  emerges  in  scholarship  addressing  the 

 use  of  empathy  as  a  rhetorical  tool  to  “help  writers  reach  audiences  different 

 from  themselves  by  imagining  .  .  .  their  audience’s  motives  .  .  .   [to]  increase 

 the  chances  that  .  .  .  [they  and  their  audience  are]  open  for  further 

 engagement,  listening,  and  learning”  (Blankenship,  2019,  p.  15-16).  According 

 to  Blankenship,  using  rhetorical  empathy  allows  individuals  to  interact  and 

 engage  with  difference  and  affects  the  way  writers  interpret  information  and 

 write,  which  posits  that  writing  is  an  emotional,  interactive  process. 

 Blankenship  extends  Rogers'  definition  and  recognizes  empathy  as  “an 

 epistemology,  a  way  of  knowing  and  understanding”  (Blankenship,  2019,  p.  7). 

 Therefore,  enacting  empathetic  praxis  involves  acknowledging  emotions  and 

 9 

 being  vulnerable  to  create  space  to  engage  the  cognitive  and  the  emotive 

 (Arnold,  2014).  It’s  important  to  note  that  empathy,  as  central  as  it  is  to  WPA 

 work,  is  a  contested  concept,  however,  with  respect  to  cultural  diversity  and 

 equity. 

 Moreover,  a  crisis  situation  “physically  affects  a  system  as  a  whole  and 

 threatens  its  basic  assumptions,  its  subjective  sense  of  self,  its  existential  core” 

 (Pauchant  &  Mitroff,  1992,  p.  15).  These  situations  often  inflict  widespread 

 physical  and  emotional  effects  that  require  unusual  procedures  or  emergent 

 responses  or  actions  to  “ensure  the  immediate  safety  and  security  of 

 students,  faculty,  and  staff  and  to  address  long-term  physical,  logistical, 

 mental,  and  emotional  needs  (Clinnin,  2021,  p.  12).  In  these  collective 

 moments  of  precarity,  WPAs  must  serve  as  "programmatic  crisis  responders 

 and  perform  [even  more]  unrecognized  emotional  labor  in  this  role"  beyond 

 the  typical  day-to-day  emotional  labor  that  the  role  requires  (Clinnin,  2020,  p. 

 133).  This  type  of  relational,  contextual  support  “vicariously  exposes  WPAs  to 

 the  traumas  of  our  students  and  faculty”  (Blackburn,  2022,  p.  2),  which 

 negatively  affects  and  overwhelms  WPAs’  efforts  to  maintain  their  own 

 personal  and  emotional  well-being  during  larger  social,  economic,  and 

 political  crises,  which  are  especially  magnified  for  WPAs  with  marginalized 

 identities  (Carter-Tod,  2020;  Perryman-Clark  &  Craig,  2019). 

 10 

 Methods 

 This  study,  approved  by  Michigan  State’s  Institutional  Review  Board 

 (STUDY00009920),  is  a  situated  examination  of  three  writing  program 

 administrators’  experiences,  backgrounds,  definitions  of  crises  and  crisis 

 situations,  and  navigational  responses  related  to  crisis  management  within 

 their  institutional  roles.  This  study  utilizes  qualitative,  narrative  inquiry  to 

 critically  examine  and  analyze  their  stories  in  recognition  of  the  notion  that 

 we  are—as  humans—innate  storytellers  who  lead  storied  lives  that  are 

 individually  and  socially  co-constructed  (Connelly  &  Clandinin,  1990).  In  an 

 effort  to  cultivate,  collect,  and  share  the  lived  experiences  of  my  research 

 participants,  I  rely  on  narrative  inquiry  as  a  means  to  understand  “the 

 meaning  people  have  constructed;  that  is,  how  people  make  sense  of  their 

 world  and  the  experiences  they  have  in  the  world”  (Merriam  &  Tisdell,  2016,  p. 

 6).  This  constructivist,  narrative  inquiry  methodological  framework  “assumes 

 that  reality  is  socially  constructed;  that  is,  there  is  no  single,  observable  reality” 

 (Merriam  &  Tisdell,  2016,  p.  3).  This  mutual  sharing  of  stories  and  experiences 

 and  guiding  methodological  framework,  therefore,  allows  for  a  more  holistic, 

 in-depth  exploration  into  the  lives  of  the  participants,  detached  from 

 theoretical  knowledge  or  guiding  assumptions,  positioning  the  participants 

 as  agents  of  their  stories  while  offering  authentic,  subjective,  and  contextual 

 insights  toward  a  nuanced  understanding  of  the  guiding  research  questions. 

 11 

 I  selected  this  interview  style  and  study  method  to  critically  examine 

 and  learn  about  the  specific  lived  experiences  of  my  participants  to  better 

 understand  the  work  of  WPAs,  the  situations  they  find  themselves  in,  and 

 how  they  best  navigate  uncertainty,  taking  into  account  their  differing 

 positionalities,  backgrounds,  identities,  and  experiences  (Connelly  & 

 Clandinin,  2006).  To  account  for  these  nuanced  differences,  my  interview 

 questions,  therefore,  were  never  meant  to  be  rigid  and  instead  were  meant  to 

 be  "guiding"  in  an  attempt  to  extrapolate  emergent  themes,  meaning,  in 

 particular,  that  some  questions  were  skipped  over  if  a  given  response  seemed 

 to  already  address  it  and  additional  follow-up  questions  and  conversations 

 emerged  in  specific  moments.  The  interviews  adhered  to  a  consistent 

 protocol  of  standard  interview  questions  while  also  permitting  conversational 

 moves  in  response  to  the  ongoing  dialogue  in  an  effort  to  trace  the  paths  of 

 the  narratives  as  they  unfolded  (Creswell,  2009). 

 Guiding  Research  Questions 

 1. 

 How  do  WPAs  respond  to  and  navigate  personal  and  collective  crises 

 affecting  their  stakeholders  1  ? 

 2.   What  conditions,  circumstances,  or  institutional  structures  impede  or 

 support  their  efforts  to  lead  within  these  personal  or  collective 

 moments  of  uncertainty? 

 1   While  a  better  understanding  of  FYW’s  stakeholders  could  warrant  its  own  study,  here  I 
 define  stakeholders  as  FYW  instructors,  first-year  students,  graduate  teaching  assistants,  and 
 members  of  the  extensive  campus-community. 

 12 

 3.   How  do  WPAs  manage  their  personal  well-being  in  particularly 

 traumatic  or  urgent  situations? 

 Study  Design 

 I  crafted  a  recruitment  form  through  Microsoft  Forms  to  share  across  the 

 WritingStudies-L  listserv  in  an  attempt  to  recruit  participants  from  a  variety  of 

 institutional  backgrounds,  considering  the  size  of  the  institution,  its 

 geographical  location,  and  its  level  of  research  activity.  Participants  were 

 selected  on  a  first-come,  volunteer  basis  with  respect  to  the  above 

 consideration  on  institutional  variation.  Additionally,  the  three  participants 

 were  selected  based  on  extensive  WPA  experience.  My  study  defined  a 

 veteran  WPA  as  someone  who  had  occupied  the  director  position  or  an 

 equivalent  role  within  an  institution  for  at  least  five  years.  A  veteran  WPA  did 

 not  have  to  be  currently  occupying  said  role  to  be  considered,  nor  did  they 

 need  to  hold  a  WPA  role  at  a  singular  institution  for  the  duration  of  their 

 tenure. 

 The  interviews  were  recorded  using  Screencast,  audio  transcribed  using 

 Screencast’s  functionality,  and  uploaded  to  Microsoft  OneDrive.  Once  all  of 

 the  interviews  are  audio  transcribed,  because  of  the  potential  for  the 

 participants  to  share  sensitive,  identifiable  information,  I  shared  the  interview 

 transcripts  with  each  respective  participant,  relying  on  the  technique  of 

 member  checking,  to  ensure  credibility,  accuracy,  and  confidentiality  (Birt  et 

 al.,  2016).  Upon  participant  validation  and  my  initial  reflection  on  the  data,  I 

 13 

 then  scheduled  an  additional  hour-long,  semi-structured  and  conversational 

 interview  with  each  participant  via  Zoom  to  ensure  clarity  and  to  address 

 follow-up  questions  relating  to  their  initial  responses  in  an  effort  to  gather 

 more  in-depth  information  related  to  my  research  questions  (Creswell,  2009). 

 These  interviews  were  also  recorded  using  Screencast,  audio  transcribed 

 using  Screencast’s  functionality,  and  uploaded  to  Microsoft  OneDrive.  The 

 second  round  of  interviews  offered  additional  space  for  me  to  address 

 questions  that  emerged  from  my  prior  review  of  the  initial  transcripts, 

 allowing  my  research  to  hone  in  on  specific  moves  and  stories  that  each  WPA 

 enacted  and  experienced.  During  both  interviews,  I  offered  my  own  personal 

 accounts  of  situations  or  experiences  I’ve  had  in  my  own  leadership  roles  as  a 

 means  to  connect  to,  support,  and  validate  their  narratives,  strategic  moves, 

 and  emotions.  This  conversational  method  of  interviewing,  I  believe,  helped 

 cultivate  deeper  connections  between  me  and  my  interviewees,   prompted 

 additional  probing  questions  on  my  part  as  the  researcher,  and  even  served 

 as  a  recall  tool  of  sorts  for  the  participants  to  remember  and  therefore  offer 

 additional  information  or  thoughts  related  to  their  experiences  and  the 

 research  questions. 

 Then,  looking  at  all  of  the  transcripts,  I  coded  my  participants’ 

 responses,  emphasizing  the  non-generalizable  themes  that  emerged  from 

 the  interview  data.  In  an  effort  to  cut  down  the  amount  of  content  in  the 

 coding  process,  I  reviewed  my  handwritten  notes  and  interview  transcripts 

 14 

 and  highlighted  key  terms,  phrases,  and  shortened  responses  that  directly 

 related  to  the  research  questions.  I  recorded  each  key  term,  phrase,  or 

 shortened  response  in  a  Google  Sheets  document,  organizing  the  selected 

 responses  based  on  the  following  codes  using  a  deductive  approach  to  in-vivo 

 coding:  Definition  of  WPA  Work  &  Leadership;  Trainings  &  Mentorship; 

 Definitions  of  Crisis  and  Challenges;  Navigating  Crises  and  Challenges; 

 Maintaining  Emotional  Stability  and  Well-Being;  and  Community, 

 Connectivity,  and  Relationship  Building.  Once  I  organized  the  selected  codes 

 from  the  transcripts,  I  printed  out  each  document  and  further  color-coded 

 each  line  to  organize  my  content  around  various  subcategories  that  make-up 

 each  code.  These  subcategories  were  also  identified  by  hashtags  (e.g. 

 #HiringWoes,  #FacultyCare)  as  a  way  to  organize  similar  information  while 

 outlining  each  section  of  the  discussion  section. 

 Round  #1  Interview  Questions 

 1. 

 As  a  veteran  first-year  writing  director,  how  do  you  define  your  role  as  a 

 leader,  and  do  you  feel  like  you  have  the  space  and/or  capacity  within 

 your  role  to  successfully  /  effectively  fulfill  your  stated  responsibilities? 

 2.   What  training  and  /  or  mentorship  experiences  did  you  receive  to  help 

 prepare  you  for  your  role?  What  leadership  practices,  if  any,  were 

 modeled  for  you? 

 3.   What  are  the  gaps  between  your  training  and  /  or  mentorship 

 experiences  and  your  lived  experiences? 

 15 

 4.   How  would  you  define  what  constitutes  a  personal  or  collective  crisis  ? 

 5.   What  moves  (e.g.  sharing  campus  resources,  engaging  in  one-on-one 

 conversations  with  TAs  and  faculty,  etc.)  do  you  make  to  support  your 

 affected  stakeholders  within  personal  or  collective  moments  of 

 uncertainty? 

 6.   What  procedures,  policies,  or  structures  are  in  place  within  your 

 program,  department,  and  institution  to  navigate  crisis  situations? 

 7.   As  a  leader,  how  do  you  manage  (e.g.  meditation,  conversing  with 

 colleagues  or  friends  and  family  members  outside  of  the  academy, 

 prioritizing  time  spent  away  from  work,  etc.)  your  personal  well-being  in 

 particularly  traumatic  or  urgent  situations? 

 Commentary  on  Interview  #1  Questions 

 The  first  question  of  the  qualitative  interview  seeks  to  uncover  how  First-Year 

 Writing  Directors  define  their  role  as  a  leader  in  an  effort  to  recognize  role 

 variability  across  distinct  institution  types.  My  intention  is  to  avoid  operating 

 under  a  set  of  assumptions  that  identify  and  define  writing  program 

 administration  in  rigid,  concrete  terms  that  overlook  the  contextual  influences 

 that  heavily  influence  the  scope  and  parameters  of  the  work  across  different 

 space  and  programmatic  contexts.  This  question,  too,  enables  the  participant 

 to  identify  and  draw  what  they’ve  identified  as  the  boundaries  to  their  roles 

 and  how  they  self-identify  within  their  roles  in  an  effort  to  begin  parsing  apart 

 how  my  participants  understand  the  parameters  of  their  work  and  how  these 

 16 

 parameters  influence  their  decision-making  process(es).  These  boundaries— 

 whether  explicit  or  implicit—also  offer  a  view  of  the  institution’s  hierarchical 

 structure,  providing  insight  into  important  institutional  relationships, 

 structures,  and  policies. 

 The  added  italics  on  the  terms  “successfully”  and  “effectively”  is  a 

 purposeful  rhetorical  move  that  strives  to  situate  the  participants  and  elicit 

 their  felt  sense  of  these  larger  dynamics  at  play  that  impact  their  leadership 

 capabilities  and  decision-making  process(es)  while  creating  an  opportunity 

 for  the  participants  to  reflect  on  their  praxes  in  their  habituated  states. 

 Additionally,  because  much  of  the  literature  recognizes  that  WPA  labor  often 

 goes  unrecognized,  I  wanted  to  create  an  opportunity  for  my  participants  to 

 feel  heard  and  understood  in  their  roles,  working  to  validate  their  lived 

 experiences  and  labor-intensive  pursuits,  while  recognizing  the  often  limited 

 institutional  support  and  resource  accessibility  often  necessary  to  fulfill 

 responsibilities.  Therefore,  my  first  priority  as  a  researcher  and  interviewer  was 

 to  establish  viable  relationships  with  my  interviewees  as  a  means  to  better 

 connect  with  and  understand  my  participants’  experiences  and  establish 

 working  relationships  moving  forward.  This  particular  framing  of  the  question 

 at  the  beginning  of  the  interview  stage,  I  believe,  also  set  the  tone  for  the 

 interviews  by  offering  up  a  critical  lens  by  which  we  as  interviewer  and 

 interviewee  could  then  peel  back  some  of  the  layers. 

 17 

 The  second  and  third  question  of  the  first  interview  aimed  to  uncover 

 the  participants’  training  and  mentorship  experiences  in  an  effort  to  better 

 understand  what—if  any—guidance  or  preparation  they  received  before 

 assuming  their  respective  roles.  Through  these  questions,  I  hoped  to  examine 

 to  what  extent  the  participants  felt  prepared  to  take  on  their  respective 

 leadership  roles  to  illuminate  possible  gaps  in  their  training  or  mentorship 

 experiences.  These  gaps  are  particularly  beneficial  because  they  offer  crucial 

 suggestions  for  graduate  programs  that  look  to  identify  what  experiences  are 

 crucial  for  developing  future  WPAs  and  leaders.  Additionally,  inquiring  about 

 leadership  practices  offered  opportunities  to  identify  the  participants’  either 

 explicit  or  implicit  views  and  understandings  of  leadership,  which  connected 

 to  their  understandings  of  their  roles  and  responsibilities  as  programmatic 

 leaders  and  provided  insight  into  their  individual  professional  and  personal 

 boundaries. 

 After  gathering  some  of  the  preliminary  information  regarding  my 

 participants’  backgrounds  and  experiences,  the  fourth  question  explicitly 

 dives  into  my  participants’  working  definitions  and  understandings  of 

 personal  and  collective  crisis  situations.  By  “collective  crisis,”  this  question 

 refers  to  crisis  situations  experienced  by  all  members  of  a  given  department, 

 program,  or  institution,  whereas  what  constitutes  a  “personal”  crisis  refers  to 

 the  personal  situations  WPAs  face  that  impact  their  work  as  well  as  situations 

 that  impact  individual  instructors.  Additionally,  though  somewhat  more 

 18 

 implicit,  this  question  is  also  meant  to  surface  what  participants  don’t  define 

 as  crises,  whether  personal  or  collective,  to  establish  a  distinction  between 

 everyday  difficulties  or  challenges  and  actual  crisis  situations.  For  my 

 research,  both  aspects  of  this  question  are  particularly  important  to  develop 

 an  elaborate,  more  comprehensive  understanding  of  defining  elements  that 

 make  a  situation  a  crisis  situation  compared  to  typical  stressful  challenges 

 that  make-up  the  highly  relational  work  of  WPAs.  Though  I  am  more 

 interested  in  defining  and  identifying  crisis  situations  in  an  effort  to  explore 

 navigational  responses,  I  am  also  interested  in  these  day-to-day  stressors  as 

 well  to  better  understand  the  WPA  role  itself  more  clearly. 

 The  fifth  and  sixth  questions  seek  to  understand  and  examine  various 

 approaches  to  crisis  management  and  navigation,  exploring  the  explicit 

 moves  of  the  WPA  for  given  crisis  situations  while  also  attempting  to 

 recognize  the  various  institutional  procedures,  policies,  and  structures  that 

 may  support  or  inhibit  one’s  crisis  response.  This  framing  shed  some 

 perspective  on  what  the  participants  articulated  as  “tried  and  true” 

 navigational  responses  versus  what  actually  played  out  in  a  given  moment  of 

 uncertainty.  Through  these  efforts  to  reexamine  their  respective 

 responsibilities,  this  question  also  purposefully  refers  to  an  ambiguous, 

 unidentified  “affected  stakeholders”  as  a  means  to  collect  information  on  who 

 the  WPA—whether  implicitly  or  explicitly—deems  their  constituent,  providing 

 further  insight  into  their  defined  role  as  well  as  articulating  who  the  bulk  of 

 19 

 their  crisis  navigation  work  directly  impacts.  This  question  also  maintains  the 

 clear  distinction  between  “personal”  and  “collective,”  recognizing  that 

 approaches  differ  based  on  whether  all  the  affected  individuals  are  facing  a 

 crisis,  a  select  few,  or  only  the  WPA  themselves.  Moreover,  the  purpose  of  the 

 latter  question  is  to  provide  additional  context,  highlight  specific  response 

 mechanisms  that  stem  from  university-wide  requirements,  and  recognize 

 that  the  hierarchy  and  therefore  power  and  authority  attributed  to  the  WPA 

 varies  widely  depending  on  the  institution  type  and  size,  the  WPAs  tenure 

 status,  etc.  Therefore,  it  was  important  for  me  to  understand  1)  how  WPAs  are 

 or  are  not  supported  by  upper-administration  in  their  specific  contexts, 

 especially  during  moments  of  large-scale  collective  crisis,  2)  what  institutional 

 guidance,  procedures,  or  policies  are  in  place  if  any,  and  3)  how  connected  the 

 WPAs  feel  to  their  larger  institutional  structures  and  department  or 

 programmatic  offices. 

 As  the  concluding  question,  the  seventh  question  asked  my  interview 

 participants  to  discuss  how  they  manage  their  personal  well-being  in 

 particularly  traumatic  or  urgent  situations.  As  a  guiding  reason  for  my  interest 

 in  this  study,  it  was  important  to  me  to  understand  how  they  manage  their 

 personal  well-being  in  an  effort  to  recognize  key  avenues  for  support  and 

 learn  how  to  better  prioritize  my  own  personal  self-care  as  a  developing  WPA. 

 Beyond  my  genuine  curiosity  embedded  in  this  question,  this  particular 

 framing  of  the  question  aims  to  recognize  the  difficult  labor  of  writing 

 20 

 program  administrators,  attempting  to  serve  as  a  reflectional  experience  for 

 my  participants  to  possibly  (re)evaluate  the  ways  in  which  they  support 

 themselves  while  also  validating  their  experiences  and  their  need  to  practice 

 self-care.  It’s  through  this  question  in  particular  that  I,  too,  felt  like  I  was  able 

 to  practice  some  of  the  relational  work  of  being  a  WPA  by  caring  about  and 

 emphasizing  their  need  to  practice  self-care,  seek  identities  outside  the 

 institution,  and  maintain  their  well-being,  building  on  and  connecting  to  my 

 participants’  active  desire  to  foster  community  through  their  active 

 participation  in  my  research  and  leadership  development. 

 Round  #2  Interview  Questions 

 1. 

 Walk  me  through  a  specific  story  related  to  crisis  management  within 

 your  role  as  a  WPA. 

 a.   What  happened?  How  did  you  know  it  was  a  crisis  ? 

 b.   What  initial  steps  did  you  take?  What  influenced  you  to  make 

 these  choices? 

 i. 

 What  does  it  mean  to  “check-in”  or  “talk  to”  your  faculty  and 

 students? 

 c.   How  do  you  gauge  whether  a  response  has  been  effective  or  not? 

 What  feedback  (formal  or  informal)  did  you  receive,  and  how  did 

 it  alter  your  response? 

 2.   What  did  you  learn  from  this  response?  (What  did  you  learn  about 

 yourself,  your  constituents,  and  /  or  the  nature  of  WPA  work?) 

 21 

 3.   In  terms  of  your  day-to-day  work,  what  shifted?  What  did  you  make 

 more  time  for  /  less  time  for? 

 4.   What’s  an  example  of  a  time  where  your  initial  crisis  response  was  /  felt 

 inadequate?  How  did  you  grapple  with  this  feeling  or  response  from 

 your  affected  stakeholders? 

 5.   Substantial  literature  exists  around  trauma  in  our  field  and  in  other 

 disciplines,  would  you  use  this  term  to  describe  anything  you’ve  told  me 

 during  our  conversations? 

 Commentary  on  Interview  #2  Questions 

 The  idea  behind  the  first  question—and  subsequent  follow-up  questions—of 

 the  second  round  of  interviews  is  to  emphasize  what’s  at  the  core  of  narrative 

 inquiry:  the  story.  Relying  on  information  gathered  in  the  first  round  of 

 interviews,  I  decided  to  have  my  participants  walk  me  through  a  particular 

 story  of  crisis,  starting  with  identifying  and  defining  the  crisis  moment  as 

 crisis  before  illustrating  their  emotions,  initial  responses,  and  navigational 

 routes  and  techniques.  When  constructing  these  follow-up  questions,  I  was 

 particularly  concerned  about  gathering  information  that  helped  me 

 understand  and  pinpoint  the  details  involved  in  navigating  an  actual  prior 

 crisis  situation.  Recognizing  the  possibility  for  vague  responses,  I  implored  my 

 participants  to  dig  further  by  asking  probing  questions  geared  toward  clearly 

 defining  moves  like  “check[ing]  in”  or  “talk[ing]  to”  faculty  and  students.  As 

 part  of  this  framing,  and  as  a  benefit  to  my  participants,  I  also  looked  to 

 22 

 develop  this  space  for  active  reflection  on  their  moves  and  experiences, 

 particularly  as  a  means  to  determine  how  time  and  space  to  reflect  on  a 

 particular  crisis  response(s)  influences  their  planning  for  possible  future 

 scenarios  while  creating  space  for  my  participants  to  surface  what 

 navigational  moves  they  made  that  didn’t  seem  to  work  effectively.  This  latter 

 component  of  the  second  interview  also  sought  to  gain  insight  into  the  ways 

 my  participants  solicit  stakeholder  feedback  and  gauge  effectiveness. 

 The  final  three  questions  of  the  second  interview  protocol  aimed  to 

 identify  the  day-to-day  shifts  in  WPAs’  work  responsibilities  and  decision- 

 making  processes  behind  said  shifts  when  WPAs  must  work  to  navigate  these 

 particularly  challenging  situations.  This  question  serves  to  recognize  the 

 adaptability  of  WPAs,  validate  WPAs’  experiences  navigating  their  working 

 conditions  and  their  decision-making  processes,  and  better  understand  what 

 tends  to  fall  away  while  WPAs  are  required  to  fully  step  into  their  service  roles. 

 Through  this  question  and  the  following  question  inquiring  about  grappling 

 with  feelings  of  inadequacy  from  a  given  response,  I  ultimately  wanted  to 

 surface  the  often  conflicting  feelings  of  needing  to  prioritize  programmatic 

 needs  over  personal  projects  while  recognizing  the  challenges  of  feeling  like  a 

 given  response  is  inefficient,  motivated  by  my  own  feelings  in  my  role(s) 

 where  I’ve  personally  felt  like  I  wasn’t  able  to  definitely  resolve  or  alleviate 

 issues.  These  questions,  I  believe,  also  helped  set  the  stage  for  deeper 

 discussions  on  the  emotional  labor  involved  within  the  role  and  the  need  for 

 23 

 WPAs  to  practice  self-care,  fostering  a  larger  conversation  on  the  topic  of 

 trauma.  This  final  question,  motivated  by  much  of  the  literature  on  writing 

 program  administration  connecting  trauma  to  the  concept  of  emotional  labor 

 and  WPA  work,  aimed  to  connect  my  study  to  previous  qualitative  studies  on 

 writing  program  administration  and  identify  how  WPAs  self-categorize  and 

 define  the  effects  of  their  work  on  their  long-term  psychological  well-being. 

 24 

 Results  &  Discussion 

 Overview  of  Participants 

 Through  my  study,  I  recruited  a  total  of  five  participants  through  the 

 WritingStudies-L  listserv,  ultimately  selecting  and  interviewing  three  veteran 

 WPAs.  These  participants  were  selected  because  they  occupy  a  wide  range  of 

 WPA  positions  across  a  variety  of  institution  types,  agreed  to  participate 

 throughout  the  entirety  of  the  data-collection  phase,  and  met  the  established 

 veteran  criteria. 

 Participant  #1:  Brad 

 Brad  is  a  program  coordinator  at  a  small  community  college  in  the  midwest. 

 In  their  role,  they  oversee  a  pool  of  roughly  13-14  adjunct  faculty  members  and 

 work  closely  with  their  dean  to  coordinate  programmatic  efforts.  Brad  has 

 approximately  ten  years  of  experience  as  a  first-year  writing  program 

 coordinator,  and  they’ve  spent  the  bulk  of  their  career  working  in  the 

 community-college  system.  In  addition  to  their  role,  they  are  also  currently 

 working  on  their  doctoral  degree. 

 Participant  #2:  Alice 

 Alice  is  a  tenured  first-year  writing  director  at  a  mid-sized  R2  university  in  the 

 northeast.  In  their  role,  supported  by  an  administrative  assistant,  they  oversee 

 scheduling;  curriculum;  professional  development;  and  assessment  efforts 

 and  support  the  efforts  of  approximately   instructors  and  graduate  teaching 

 assistants.  Alice  has  a  total  of  nine  years  of  professional  experience  as  a 

 25 

 first-year  writing  program  director  in  addition  to  their  experience  as  a 

 graduate  assistant  director. 

 Participant  #3:  Joseph 

 Joseph  is  a  retired,  former  first-year  writing  director  at  a  R2  institution  in  the 

 midwest.  In  their  role,  supported  by  an  administrative  assistant,  they  oversaw 

 assessment  and  curriculum  efforts,  professional  development  and  faculty 

 training,  and  scheduling  processes  to  support  roughly  thirty  instructors  and 

 graduate  teaching  assistants.  Joseph  has  approximately  twenty  years  of 

 experience  as  a  first-year  writing  program  director. 

 “You  Need  to  be  the  Switchboard”:  Defining  the  First-Year  Writing  Director 

 Role 

 All  three  of  my  participants  acknowledged  several  responsibilities  associated 

 with  their  roles.  Notably,  each  participant  articulated  staffing  and  scheduling 

 as  their  main  responsibilities.  As  part  of  this  work,  all  three  noted  that  they 

 must  account  for  and  adapt  to  course  additions  or  cancellations  in  response 

 to  fluctuating  enrollments  and  schedule  changes  based  on  instructor 

 preferences  and  availability.  In  addition  to  course  scheduling  and  staffing, 

 Brad,  Alice,  and  Joseph  also  are  responsible  for  meeting  with  instructors 

 about  student  complaints,  developing  and  teaching  curriculum,  negotiate 

 and  adhere  to  university  policy,  foster  a  legitimate  shared  purpose  and 

 teaching  community,  advocate  for  writing  on  campus,  and  manage 

 programmatic  assessment  and  annual  evaluations.  To  effectively  serve  in 

 26 

 their  roles,  therefore,  Joseph  noted  that  their  main  overarching  goal  is  to 

 “listen  and  step  back  and  get  input  from  all  the  stakeholders  in  my  program” 

 in  an  effort  to  “articulate  and  balance”  best  practices.  Brad  furthers  this 

 sentiment  by  acknowledging  that  they  recognize  the  position  requires  them 

 to  “figure  out  how  to  do  things”  and  “know  how  to  work  within  the  system”  to 

 effectively  lead,  coordinate,  and  facilitate  their  programs  and  the  teaching  of 

 first-year  writing  across  campus. 

 Throughout  my  interactions  with  my  participants,  similar  to  classroom 

 teaching,  contextuality  emerged  as  a  defining  characteristic  or  theme  of  the 

 work  of  writing  program  administrators.  While  Alice  and  Joseph  serve  in  more 

 traditional  director  roles  at  their  respective  institutions,  Brad  notably 

 acknowledged  a  distinction  between  their  current  position  as  a  program 

 coordinator  in  comparison  to  a  more  traditional  director  role.  While  Brad  still 

 holds  the  coordinator  position,  Brad  noted  that  they  weren’t  considered  a 

 “supervisor.”  Because  of  this  positioning,  Brad  noted  that  they  had  a  lack  of 

 power  and  authority,  underlining  the  difficulty  of  having  responsibility 

 without  power.  Instead,  in  their  role,  they  serve  to  support  their  peers  and 

 offer  advice  while  encouraging  their  peers  to  check-in  with  other 

 authoritative  figures,  namely  the  dean.  This  lack  of  power,  coupled  with  the 

 fact  that  Brad’s  coordinator  position  is  also  not  responsible  for  facilitating 

 instructor  professional  development,  highlights  a  distinction  between  WPAs 

 serving  in  community-college  settings  compared  to  their  university 

 27 

 counterparts.  This  understanding  of  Brad’s  role  particularly  stands  out 

 because  it  offers  a  better  understanding  of  the  types  of  possible  WPAs  roles 

 that  exist,  which  can  support  our  training  and  mentorship  efforts  for 

 emerging  programmatic  leaders. 

 Notably,  all  three  of  my  participants  made  a  deliberate  effort  to  clarify 

 that  they  do,  despite  the  challenges  and  frustrations  associated  with  their 

 respective  roles,  enjoy  serving  as  WPAs:  “I  do  want  to  say,  like,  as  frustrating  as 

 it  is,  I  do  love  being  a  WPA.”  This  deliberate  emphasis  from  my  participants   to 

 remind  me—and  possibly  themselves—that  they  do  enjoy  their  work 

 emphasizes  the  intensity  of  the  role  and  highlights  my  participants’ 

 motivating  desire  to  support  their  colleagues  and  function  as  servant  leaders. 

 The  overarching  themes  of  adaptability  and  maintaining  balance  and 

 productivity  underscored  the  day-to-day  work  of  my  three  participants  and 

 their  intentional  efforts  to  serve  a  “switchboard”  that  receives,  organizes, 

 synthesizes,  and  communicates  information  filtered  through  institutional  and 

 programmatic  policies  and  decisions  and  field-specific  guidance  and 

 theoretical  frameworks. 

 “A  Lot  of  Trial  By  Fire”:  WPA  Training  &  Critical  Mentorship 

 Throughout  this  section  of  my  interviews,  my  participants  articulated  a  wide 

 range  of  training  and  mentorship  experiences.  Noticeably,  all  three  of  my 

 participants  noted  that  they  received  little  training  throughout  their 

 experiences  in  graduate  school.  Brad,  as  a  current  graduate  student,  noted 

 28 

 the  most  training  throughout  their  graduate  studies,  completing  a  course 

 dedicated  to  writing  program  administration.  Throughout  their  degree,  Brad 

 has  gained  experience  as  a  teaching  assistant  in  conjunction  with  their  work 

 experience  as  an  adjunct  faculty  member  at  their  community  college.  While 

 they  were  able  to  study  writing  program  administration  in  one  of  their 

 graduate  seminars,  they  gained  practical  experience  working  as  a  writing 

 program  coordinator  under  the  direction  of  the  previous  WPA  in  their 

 position  who  had  occupied  the  writing  program  coordinator  role  for  fifteen 

 years.  They  shared  the  position  responsibilities  Brad’s  first  two  years  as  a 

 writing  program  administrator,  which  offered  valuable  guidance  and 

 mentorship.  However,  Brad  argued  that  much  of  their  learning  was  “a  lot  of 

 trial  by  fire  just  learning  on  the  job.” 

 Unlike  Brad,  Alice  also  emphasized  that  while  they  gained  experience 

 as  a  graduate  assistant,  they  did  not  receive  any  coursework  in  administrative 

 work.  However,  Alice  also  gained  practical  experience  before  stepping  into  the 

 WPA  role  as  a  faculty  member.  During  their  graduate  coursework,  Alice 

 served  as  the  graduate  assistant  director  of  the  first-year  writing  program. 

 Specifically,  in  their  role,  they  received  both  training  and  practice  in 

 facilitating  the  pedagogical  development  of  the  instructors  within  her 

 program;  however,  Alice  noted  that  they  did  not  get  any  training  on  more  of 

 the  logistical  work  of  being  a  writing  program  administrator:  “I  did  not  get  any 

 training  on  doing  things  like  how  do  you  schedule?  How  do  you  deal  with 

 29 

 fluctuating  enrollments?”  Though  Alice  acknowledged  the  difficulty  of 

 providing  this  type  of  training  for  hopeful  writing  program  administrators,  like 

 Brad,  they  noted  the  difficulty  of  developing  these  skills  and  responding 

 effectively  to  these  needs,  recognizing  that  a  majority  of  this  training  comes 

 from  experiencing  these  needs  first-hand  in  the  role.  These  various  needs, 

 along  with  the  inconsistency  of  changing  leadership,  are  largely  contextual 

 factors  that  make-up  the  bulk  of  the  work  of  a  writing  program  administrator, 

 yet  because  there's  little  to  no  active  training  in  these  areas,  it  heavily  impacts 

 the  ability  and  effectiveness  of  new  and  incoming  WPAs. 

 Joseph  voiced  many  of  the  same  background  and  training  experiences 

 as  Brad  and  Alice;  however,  they  did  not  serve  as  the  graduate  assistant 

 during  their  graduate  studies,  nor  did  they  take  coursework  in  administrative 

 work.  Instead,  Joseph  gained  experience  as  a  writing  program  administrator 

 before  formally  stepping  into  a  WPA  rolen  at  a  larger  institution  by  working  at 

 a  small  college  where  the  role  was  traded  off  between  department  faculty. 

 Through  this  experience,  Joseph  relied  heavily  on  their  predecessor  who 

 served  as  their  mentor  and  role  model.  Recognizing  their  need  for  additional 

 training,  Joseph  requested  the  opportunity  to  go  to  the  WPA  Workshop, 

 which  they  described  as  a  “boot  camp  for  WPA  .  .  .  [that]  gets  you  up  to  speed 

 with  what  the  issues  are  and  how  to  deal  with  them.”  In  fact,  all  three 

 participants  spoke  at  length  about  the  impact  of  their  informal  and  formal 

 relationships  with  other  WPAs  and  community-oriented  spaces  as  the 

 30 

 sources  of  the  bulk  of  their  on-the-job  training.  The  participants  highlighted 

 their  active  membership  in  the  Council  of  Writing  Program  Administrators 

 (CWPA),  the  WPA  listserv,  and  the  Conference  on  College  Composition  and 

 Communication  (CCCC)  as  crucial  spaces  for  training  and  support  from  other 

 WPAs. 

 While  my  participants  articulated  a  wide  range  of  training  and 

 mentorship  experiences,  emphasizing  the  lack  of  a  consistent  training 

 curriculum  for  emerging  WPAs,  they  also  divulged  what  they  wished  they 

 had  learned  or  trained  for  before  entering  their  respective  roles.  Notably,  all 

 three  of  my  participants  discussed  many  of  the  personnel  issues  related  to 

 their  roles  and  responsibilities,  noting  the  difficulty  of  effectively  dealing  and 

 interacting  with  faculty,  programmatic  staff,  university  administrators,  and 

 graduate  assistants.  However,  Joseph  in  particular  recognized  the  difficulty  of 

 developing  these  training  materials,  suggesting  that  “nothing  really  prepares 

 you  for  personnel  issues.”  Alice  elaborated  on  the  difficulties  of  researching 

 and  understanding  much  of  the  contextual  information  related  to 

 programmatic,  departmental,  and  institutional  policies  and  operating 

 procedures,  including  conducting  annual  reviews  for  faculty  based  on  varying 

 definitions  of  teaching  excellence;  understanding  contract  language,  union 

 policy,  and  department  seniority;  and  comprehending  consistent  and 

 emerging  department  needs. 

 31 

 “A  Fire  We  Have  to  Put  Out”:  Defining  Crisis  Situations 

 Throughout  my  conversations  with  my  participants,  they  regularly  defined 

 crisis  situations  as  complex,  multifaceted  issues  that  require  constant 

 adaptation  and  an  immediate  response  that  is  acute  and  time-bound.  As  a 

 defining  component,  as  Alice  noted,  these  crisis  situations  are  usually 

 “intimately  linked  to  tragedy”  and  constitute  an  “overthrow  of  what’s  going 

 on”  with  no  clear  sense  of  how  the  situation  is  going  to  play  out  or  how  to 

 control  and  mitigate  the  possible  consequences.  Because  these  crisis 

 situations  often  happen  suddenly—students  or  faculty  members  get  sick  or 

 pass  away,  campus  shooting  incidents  occur,  COVID-19  pandemic  shuts  down 

 the  world—they  lack  clear  and  consistent  warning  signs  and  therefore  time  to 

 prepare  and  plan  ahead.  Joseph  elaborates  on  this  understanding  by  adding 

 that  the  effects  of  these  crisis  situations  are  “something  that  affects  you 

 emotionally  and  psychologically  to  the  point  where  you  cannot  either  do  your 

 job  efficiently  or  live  your  life  fulfillingly.” 

 Notably,  Alice  extends  their  definition  and  understanding  of  crisis 

 situations  by  drawing  a  clear  distinction  between  crises  situations  and 

 everyday  challenges  or  “high-stakes  situations”  associated  with  WPA  work. 

 These  challenges,  like  struggling  for  resources,  finding  qualified  instructors, 

 ensuring  other  instructors’  classes  run,  and  handling  negative  student 

 evaluations,  while  “endemic  to  WPAing,”  are  distinct  from  shocking,  often 

 tragic  crisis  situations  in  scope  and  severity  because,  unlike  actual  crisis 

 32 

 situations,  they  are  expected  challenges  that  have  clearly  laid  out  processes  or 

 planned  procedures  to  guide  navigation  and  response  efforts.  As  Alice  asserts, 

 “It’s  not  a  crisis  [if]  it  happens  every  year.”  In  making  this  distinction,  Alice 

 recognizes  that  universities  regularly  rely  on  crisis  rhetorics  to  “justify  all  sorts 

 of  bad  decision  making  .  .  .  that  seems  to  run  against  the  values  of  the 

 university,”  acknowledging  that  these  attempts  to  rationalize  drastic,  often 

 alarming  changes  have  become  standard  operating  procedure. 

 “You  Can’t  Ignore  a  Crisis”:  Navigating  Crisis  Situations  as  WPAs 

 The  goal  of  crisis  navigation  for  WPAs  is  to  recognize  and  respond  to  the 

 pressing  needs  of  the  individuals  within  their  collective  programs.  Joseph 

 summarizes  this  overall  aim  by  suggesting  that  his  ultimate  priority  is  to  “get 

 [instructors]  into  a  position  where  they  can  start  to  think  about  how  their 

 students  are  going  to  be.”  As  part  of  these  efforts,  Brad,  Alice,  and  Joseph 

 noted  the  importance  of  relaying  information  clearly  and  effectively,  offering 

 clear  expectations  and  updates  to  policy  changes,  and  collecting  as  much 

 input  and  information  as  possible  to  make  informed  decisions  that  effectively 

 support  their  stakeholders.  To  gather  necessary  information,  all  three 

 participants  spent  extra  time  in  office  hours,  responded  to  emails,  scheduled 

 additional  meetings  and  one-on-ones,  and  visited  faculty  offices  to  get  a 

 pulse  on  student  needs  and  responses.  Because  this  work  is  difficult, 

 dynamic,  and  ever  evolving,  all  three  participants  also  highlighted  the 

 importance  of  avoiding  positioning  themselves  as  therapists  and  being 

 33 

 honest  about  their  limitations  and  inability  to  immediately  resolve  or 

 eradicate  a  particular  crisis  situation,  acknowledging  that  they,  too,  can  be 

 “freaked  out”  and  require  time  to  process  their  emotions  and  focus  on  their 

 wellbeing. 

 As  guiding  moves,  Brad,  Alice,  and  Joseph  emphasized  the  importance 

 of  recognizing  that  one  must  act,  relying  on  past  experiences  to  guide  a 

 particular  crisis  response  in  addition  to  the  information  received  from 

 university  officials  and  program  leaders  and  stakeholders.  Through  their 

 efforts  to  collect  and  decipher  specific  information  related  to  a  crisis  situation, 

 Alice  notes  that  the  challenge  becomes  determining  what  to  say  to  faculty, 

 what  to  say  to  students,  and  what  support  to  offer  in  a  timely  manner, 

 knowing  everyone  is  impacted  in  different  ways.  This  need  to  effectively  and 

 efficiently  communicate  with  faculty,  students,  and  staff,  Alice  adds,  requires 

 a  reliance  on  one’s  rhetorical  skills  and  an  awareness  of  one’s  “overall  tone   .  .  . 

 [to  cultivate]  ethos  or  respect  or  leeway.”  Beyond  these  programmatic 

 communications,  Brad,  Alice,  and  Joseph  also  emphasized  acknowledging 

 people’s  trauma,  sharing  counseling  resources  and  services,  hosting  faculty 

 development  sessions  that  support  trauma-informed  teaching  guidelines 

 and  principles,  and  creating  space  for  programmatic  reflection,  reminding 

 faculty  that  they  ultimately  have  to  make  the  best  decision(s)  for  them  and 

 their  students. 

 34 

 In  response  to  these  crisis  situations,  all  three  of  my  participants 

 articulated  their  desire  to  first  seek  out  additional  support  from  friends,  family, 

 and  department  or  programmatic  staff  to  effectively  navigate  and  respond  to 

 these  situations.  Ranging  from  conversations  with  their  dean,  department 

 chair,  and  their  assistant  director  or  program  coordinator  to  their  interactions 

 with  various   instructors  and  students  in  their  program,  Brad,  Alice,  and 

 Joseph  acknowledged  the  importance  of  collectively  workshopping  and 

 brainstorming  strategies  and  plans  to  move  forward.  In  developing  their 

 programmatic  response(s),  my  participants,  in  their  respective  moments  of 

 crisis,  enacted  and  shared  various  institutional  policy  changes  and  procedural 

 updates  from  their  university,  which  typically  emerged  in  the  wake  of  a 

 current  or  prior  crisis  experience,  citing  a  lack  of  pre-prepared  materials  and 

 plans.  Beyond  their  campus  communities,  my  participants  also  relied  heavily 

 on  their  connections  to  other  WPAs  in  the  field,  particularly  those  that  had 

 experienced  or  navigated  similar  crisis  situations  within  their  own  specific 

 contexts. 

 “The  Show  Must  Go  On”:  Maintaining  Emotional  Stability  and  Personal 

 Well-Being  as  WPAs 

 WPAs  must  grapple  with  a  variety  of  programmatic  and  relational  needs 

 while  also  attempting  to  maintain  their  own  emotional  stability  and  personal 

 well-being.  From  situations  that  range  from  losing  faculty  suddenly  to 

 receiving  “really,  really  mean  emails”  from  faculty,  WPAs  are  often  expected  to 

 35 

 shoulder  much  of  the  emotional  labor  and  move  through  collective  or 

 personal  crises  or  challenges  quickly,  often  lacking  time  or  space  to 

 adequately  process  their  emotions,  manage  their  own  well-being,  and  focus 

 on  personal  matters.  All  three  of  my  participants,  for  example,  discussed  the 

 difficulty  of  finding  adequate  time  to  pursue  research  opportunities  and 

 complete  other  necessary  work,  like  developing  classroom  curriculum  and 

 responding  to  student  writing,  within  their  respective  roles.  Therefore,  as  a 

 defining  characteristics  of  WPA  work,  based  on  my  interactions  with  my  three 

 participants,  it  seems  the  work  of  a  WPA  is  always  necessarily  unfinished;  it’s 

 been  normalized  to  an  extent  to  perpetually  find  yourself  in  a  constant  state 

 of  behindedness,  which  forces  WPAs  to  find  clever  ways  to  adapt  to  the 

 challenges  associated  with  their  roles  to  effectively  complete  and  manage 

 their  respective  responsibilities.  As  part  of  these  efforts,  WPAs  must  seek 

 alternative  avenues  to  support  their  well-being,  develop  resilience,  and 

 prioritize  efficient  workarounds  to  meet  their  urgent  day-to-day  demands. 

 Interestingly,  while  my  participants  recognized  the  importance  of  practicing 

 self-care  themselves,  even  encouraging  me  to  find  various  avenues  of 

 support,  they  noted  that  they,  too,  find  it  difficult  to  prioritize  their  well-being, 

 given  the  pressing  demands  of  the  job.  In  fact,  Alice  shared  that  they,  too,  are 

 still  learning  how  to  take  care  of  themselves  though  they’ve  occupied  their 

 role  for  almost  ten  years.  This  confession,  of  sorts,  indicates  that  many 

 individuals  that  pursue  these  various  roles  are  driven  by  a  motivation  to 

 36 

 support  others,  even  at  the  expense  of  their  own  well-being.  Therefore, 

 because  the  demands  of  the  job  are  intense,  one  needs  to  be  dedicated  to 

 practicing  and  maintaining  their  well-being  to  succeed  in  their  WPA  role.  As 

 Joseph  acknowledged,  “First  .  .  .  [you]  take  care  of  yourself  to  the  point  where 

 you  can  act.” 

 In  an  effort  to  practice  self-care,  my  participants  acknowledged  relying 

 on  their  relationships  with  colleagues,  assistants,  fellow  WPAs,  and  other 

 professional  organizations  as  well  as  making  time  to  see  and  talk  with  friends, 

 family,  and  other  members  of  their  community  outside  of  higher  education. 

 Beyond  these  crucial  relationships,  my  participants  articulated  a  range  of 

 interests  they  enjoy  in  an  effort  to  explore  and  emphasize  alternative  facets  of 

 their  identities  and  take  meaningful  breaks  from  their  professional  lives. 

 including  doing  yoga  and  meditations,  getting  out  in  nature,  using  breathing 

 techniques,  exercising,  repeating  personal  mantras,  spending  time  reading, 

 cooking  for  friends  and  family,  and  planting  in  their  garden.  Joseph  also 

 acknowledged  their  decision  to  regularly  meet  with  a  counselor  to  address 

 their  personal  trauma  while  working  to  forge  ahead  and  support  their 

 constituents  and  stakeholders.  Notably,  each  participant  also  acknowledged 

 that  they  typically  turn  some  of  the  issues  they’re  grappling  with  into  writing 

 projects  or  publications,  which  stems  from  their  desire  to  reflect  on  and  move 

 through  issues  in  effective  ways  and  pursue  tenure  possibilities  while  also 

 demonstrating  their  desire  to  share  their  experiences  with  other  WPAs. 

 37 

 Through  this  understanding  of  their  work  as  difficult  and  labor 

 intensive,  my  participants  also  recognized  and  highlighted  key  insights  linked 

 to  effectively  serving  in  their  respective  capacities  while  maintaining  their 

 personal  well-being  and  emotional  stability.  For  example,  Alice  noted  that 

 they’ve  worked  over  the  years  to  establish  simple,  consistent  approaches  to 

 feedback  and  labor-based  grading  practices  to  withstand  an  inevitable  loss  of 

 time  due  to  their  WPA  role,  which  Alice  argued  has  resulted  in  fewer  emails 

 from  their  students  and  removed  weekly  logistical  emails  from  their  to-do  list. 

 Though  streamlining  various  structures  in  an  effort  to  reduce  these  often 

 intense  feelings  of  falling  behind  can  be  useful,  they  also  take  time, 

 experience,  and  practice  to  develop.  Therefore,  to  best  navigate  these 

 situations  and  fulfill  one’s  obligations  efficiently  and  effectively,  WPAs  must 

 adapt  quickly,  recognize  there  are  things  they  can  and  cannot  control,  be 

 honest  about  their  limitations,  let  things  go,  and  “figure  out  what’s  being 

 done  because  it  matters  versus  what’s  being  done  because  it  feels  like  it  has 

 to  be  done.” 

 As  part  of  maintaining  their  emotional  stability  and  well-being,  all  three 

 of  my  participants  voiced  the  importance  of  allowing  oneself  to  express  their 

 feelings  and  emotions  related  to  their  work  experiences  and  personal  lives. 

 Grappling  with  and  being  in  touch  with  one’s  emotions,  especially  for  WPAs 

 doing  this  type  of  highly  relational  work,  can  serve  to  remind  WPAs  to  take 

 some  time  to  collect  themselves  and  revisit  a  given  issue  at  a  later  time, 

 38 

 which  can  help  WPAs  avoid  miscommunication  and  other  interpersonal 

 issues.  This  recognition  that  “you  shouldn’t  not  be  human”  also  serves  to 

 remind  my  participants  that  they,  too,  are  “fallible”  individuals  who  aren’t 

 always  going  to  know  or  make  the  right  decisions  or  have  “nerves  of  steel”  in 

 particularly  difficult  situations.  Reminding  oneself  of  one’s  limited  humanity 

 seems  to  function  as  a  means  for  my  participants  to  maintain  their  stability  in 

 particularly  challenging  situations,  helping  to  curb  some  of  the  difficult 

 feelings  of  inadequacy  in  their  respective  roles.  In  fact,  as  my  participants 

 suggest,  in  particularly  intense  situations,  though  it  can  stem  from  feelings  of 

 helplessness,  recognizing  that  you  can’t  position  yourself  as  anything  other 

 than  a  writing  instructor  or  writing  program  administrator  can  be  freeing. 

 “We  Are  All  Working  Together”:  Community,  Connectivity,  and  Relationship 

 Building 

 As  an  overarching  theme  of  my  research,  the  role  of  a  WPA  is  highly  relational, 

 community-oriented,  and  devoted  to  establishing  and  maintaining  functional 

 interpersonal  relationships.  As  a  supportive  role,  my  participants  identified  as 

 their  core  responsibility  the  need  to  be  “a  champion  of  the  department  and 

 champion  of  the  faculty”  and  “do  what’s  best  for  the  students  and  .  .  . 

 advocate.”  Their  strong  desire  to  establish  and  play  an  active  role  in  their 

 community,  embracing  their  collective  identities  as  writing  program 

 administrators,  is  cultivated  through  their  personal  recognition  of  themselves 

 as  beneficiaries  of  community  as  well  as  their  desire  to  recognize  their 

 39 

 stakeholders  and  constituents  as  humans  deserving  of  empathy  and  a 

 supportive  community.  As  Brad  noted: 

 “  .  .  .  we’re  not  just  putting  warm  bodies  in  a  room;  we’re  not  just 

 staffing.  We’re  not  just  dealing  with,  you  know,  issues.  We’re  building 

 relationships.  We  are  working  together.  We’re  trying  to  support  people 

 through  very  difficult  times.”  (Brad) 

 This  particular  attention  to  care  is  demonstrated  through  their  efforts  to 

 maintain  “camaraderie”  and  faculty  well-being  within  their  respective 

 programs  and  department  spaces.  As  leaders,  all  three  participants  voiced  a 

 strong  desire  to  support,  maintain  positive  relationships  with,  and  “do  what’s 

 right”  by  their  programmatic  faculty.  From  visiting  their  colleagues’  offices  to 

 reaching  out  to  share  what’s  going  on  in  each  others’  classes  to  providing 

 professional  development  support,  WPAs  actively  enact  and  serve  as  crucial 

 support  structures  and  strive  to  embody  faculty  care,  ensure  well-being, 

 encourage  their  faculties'  interests,  and  enact  coalitional  support.  In  terms  of 

 scheduling,  my  participants  recognized  the  difficulty  of  teaching  as  an 

 adjunct  faculty  member,  working  to  develop  appropriate  schedules  that  “fit 

 their  needs,”  offer  enough  sections  to  make  it  “worthwhile,”  and  allow  them 

 to  occupy  teaching  positions  in  other  spaces.  As  Brad  noted,  they  ensured 

 their  adjunct  faculty  “worked  two  days  a  week  as  opposed  to  every  day  that 

 way  they  could  maintain  positions  elsewhere.”  Coupled  with  a  considerable 

 amount  of  attention  to  course  scheduling  preferences,  my  participants  also 

 40 

 emphasized  the  importance  of  planning  and  leading  effective  training  for 

 their  instructors  to  ensure  they  feel  supported  and  “have  the  information  and 

 knowledge  and  tools  they  need  to  teach  their  classes”  while  knowing  they 

 can  turn  to  the  WPA  as  a  crucial  support  structure. 

 However,  Brad  notes  that  this  camaraderie  has  waned  in  recent  years 

 since  the  COVID  pandemic,  given  the  rise  in  online  instruction  and  remote  or 

 hybrid  work  environments.  As  a  lasting  effect  of  the  pandemic,  though  WPAs 

 seek  to  remain  connected  to  the  members  of  their  respective  programs,  Brad 

 in  particular  articulated  feelings  of  “disconnect”  because  fewer  members  of 

 the  department  are  physically  present  on  campus.  Going  further,  Alice  also 

 noted  the  difficulty  of  serving  in  an  “asymmetrical”  role  as  WPA,  recognizing 

 the  “teeny  tiny  wall  built  between  me  and  [my  colleagues].”  This  power 

 imbalance  effectively  separates  the  WPA  from  their  instructors  in  the 

 program,  leaving  the  WPA  often  feeling  siloed  within  their  respective  role, 

 which  serves  to  cultivate  their  desire  to  engage  with  other  WPAs  in 

 meaningful  ways  to  support  their  programmatic,  identity,  and  leadership 

 development.  While  the  highlights  of  this  highly  relational  work  are  the 

 opportunities  to  engage  with  “all  the  wonderful  people  that  teach  first-year 

 writing,”  individuals  in  the  WPA  role  must  also  grapple  with  the  difficulty  of 

 losing  faculty  to  better  offers  or,  in  intense  situations,  illnesses  or  death. 

 Besides  the  individuals  that  teach  within  the  respective  programs, 

 WPAs  seek  out  the  support  from  their  chairs  and  deans  to  different  degrees, 

 41 

 primarily  dependent  on  the  hierarchical  structure  of  the  given  institution. 

 Brad,  for  example,  as  a  program  coordinator  in  a  community-college 

 environment,  noted  more  direct  interactions  with  their  dean,  given  the 

 limited  hierarchical  structure  that  exists  between  their  coordinator  role  and 

 upper  administration.  Alice  and  Joseph,  however,  discussed  at  length  their 

 reliance  on  their  assistant  directors.   In  fact,  Joseph  referred  to  their  assistant 

 directors  as  their  “left  and  right  arm”  and  articulated  that  they  “never  made 

 any  difficult  decision  without  consulting  two  people”  in  their  program. 

 Moreover,  Alice  emphasized  that  they  rely  on  their  assistant  director  or 

 program  coordinator  as  a  means  to  collect  information  from  the  instructors 

 themselves,  given  the  hierarchical  nature  of  their  positionality.  They  noted 

 that  their  instructors  are  “more  likely  to  be  candid”  with  the  program 

 coordinator  or  assistant  because  “they  see  the  program  coordinator  as  one  of 

 their  own.” 

 Furthermore,  my  participants  highlighted  the  importance  of 

 supporting  and  training  emerging  leaders  and  WPAs  in  their  respective 

 capacities  and  establishing  connections  across  a  variety  of  spaces  as  a  means 

 to  seek  out  guidance,  mentorship,  and  scholarship;  support  for  pressing 

 personnel,  curriculum,  or  policy  issues;  and  reflect  on  their  values,  work,  and 

 experiences.  Notably,  for  example,  as  a  response  to  their  own  campus 

 shooting  crisis,  Joseph  relied  heavily  on  their  WPA  community  by  reaching 

 out  on  WPA-oriented  listservs  as  a  “lifeline,”  receiving  “hundreds  of  responses” 

 42 

 from  around  the  world  offering  support  and  advice  on  how  to  navigate  the 

 crisis  situation.  In  addition  to  relying  on  other  WPAs  as  a  means  to  navigate 

 crisis  situations  and  challenges  associated  with  the  role,  my  participants 

 indicated  their  active  participation  in  CWPA  and  CCCCs  as  a  productive  form 

 of  support  and  as  spaces  to  build  relationships  with  other  WPAs.  Additionally, 

 these  spaces  provided  valuable  moments  for  my  participants  to  “articulate  .  .  . 

 and  balance”  the  input  from  their  stakeholders  with  the  field’s  best  practices 

 and  maintain  well-being  through  “sanity  checks”  and  opportunities  to  vent. 

 As  a  core  motivation,  Brad  also  articulated  the  importance  of  using  their 

 “networks  to  make  [them]  better  able  to  serve  those  around  [them].” 

 The  active  relational  component  of  WPA  work  emphasizes  the 

 importance  of  establishing  and  maintaining  these  community  spaces  and 

 relationships  while  also  recognizing  a  need  for  WPAs  to  actively  collaborate, 

 seek  out  joint  solutions,  and  create  opportunities  to  process  and  reflect  on 

 their  experiences  and  the  emotional  labor  associated  with  their  role.  As  part 

 of  the  relational  aspect  of  this  work,  I  was  positively  struck  by  my  participants’ 

 desire  to  actively  reflect  on  and  share  their  experiences  with  me,  a  newcomer 

 to  the  role  and  field,  which  further  highlights  the  importance  of  relationship 

 building  in  this  role.  From  Alice  offering  a  quick  “welcome  to  the  field”  to  all 

 three  participants  talking  about  the  joy  they’ve  experienced  in  their  roles,  my 

 participants  encouraged  my  decision  to  actively  engage  in  these 

 conversations,  spaces,  and  scholarship,  working  to  share  the  difficulties 

 43 

 associated  with  the  role  in  an  attempt  to  inform  and  better  prepare  me  for 

 these  roles  but  not  deter  me. 

 44 

 Limitations  &  Future  Research 

 Though  focusing  on  these  three  specific  interviews  has  allowed  me  to 

 critically  examine  the  stories  of  my  participants  in  meaningful  ways,  my 

 methodology  and  study  design  also  functions  as  a  limitation  as  the  scope  of 

 my  project  is  narrowed  to  only  three  veteran  WPAs  whose  experiences  cannot 

 account  for  the  vast  experiences  of  all  WPAs  across  varying  institutions. 

 Additionally,  though  this  study  has  offered  key  insights  into  the  work  of  WPAs, 

 it’s  crucial  to  note  that  none  of  my  participants  identified  as  someone  with  a 

 marginalized  identity.  WPAs  with  marginalized  identities  have  historically 

 indicated  how  their  positionalities  impact  their  work  and  their  ability  to 

 navigate  through  and  around  institutional  structures,  which  can  negatively 

 impact  one's  ability  to  serve  in  their  respective  roles,  shifting  how  they  identify 

 within  the  role  itself  and  altering  the  way  they  opt  to  navigate  personal  and/or 

 collective  crises  and  institutional  structures  (Perryman-Clark  &  Craig,  2019). 

 This  “limitation”  opens  up  the  possibility  of  a  couple  of  follow-up 

 research  projects  oriented  around  writing-program  administration,  leadership 

 development,  and  crisis  management  within  university  contexts,  focusing  on 

 a  more  large-scale  study  of  first-year  writing  directors  across  a  multitude  of 

 institutions,  WPAs  with  marginalized  identities,  or  WPAs  more  broadly, 

 including  writing  center  directors,  writing  across  the  curriculum  coordinators, 

 etc.  In  addition  to  different  adaptations  of  this  research  study,  future  lines  of 

 inquiry  include: 

 45 

 ● 

 How  can  newly  appointed  faculty  and  graduate  students  studying  to 

 work  as  WPAs  and/or  campus  administrators  best  prepare  themselves 

 academically  and  professionally  to  navigate  these  precarious  situations 

 as  leaders?  Specifically,  how  can  we  train  emerging  WPAs  on  personnel 

 matters? 

 ● 

 Throughout  my  efforts  to  investigate  terms  and  definitions  related  to 

 crisis  response,  management,  and  navigation,  it  seems  it  would  be 

 helpful  to  develop  models  for  communicating  with  stakeholders  and 

 constituents  as  writing  program  administrators  based  on  how 

 experienced  WPAs  have  dealt  with  similar  situations  or  issues. 

 ● 

 Echoing  Clinnin  (2021),  it’s  crucial  that  WPAs  work  to  establish  crisis 

 management  procedures  and  processes  to  effectively  navigate  these 

 situations  with  their  campus  stakeholders:  What  procedures  are  most 

 useful  for  WPAs  to  adopt  and/or  create?  How  can  WPAs  cultivate 

 crisis-management  resources  and  programmatic  plans  to  mitigate  the 

 negative  effects  of  emergent  crisis  situations? 

 ● 

 Additionally,  to  further  stimulate  connections  between  current  and 

 experienced  WPAs,  how  can  professional  organizations  like  CWPA, 

 WPA-GO,  or  CCCCs  better  facilitate  mentorship  opportunities  between 

 emerging  and  experienced  WPAs? 

 46 

 ● 

 Who  are  the  defining  stakeholders  and  constituents  associated  with 

 first-year  writing  programs?  What  are  their  needs  and  perceptions  of 

 first-year  writing? 

 47 

 Conclusion 

 Because  writing  program  administrators  (WPAs)  continue  to  lead  their 

 programs  and  serve  as  a  crucial  support  structures  for  their  constituents,  to 

 better  understand  the  situations  WPAs  find  themselves  in,  it’s  important  to 

 explore  how  WPAs  respond  to  and  navigate  particularly  precarious  situations 

 in  ways  that  provide  the  support  their  constituents  need  and  desire  while  also 

 fully  recognizing  their  own  limited  humanity.  Through  this  study,  I’ve 

 interviewed  three  veteran  WPAs  with  a  range  of  institutional  experiences, 

 learning  more  about  the  processes  involved  in  leadership  development  and 

 crisis  navigation;  the  interpersonal,  relational  work  of  writing  program 

 administration;  and  the  work  of  maintaining  emotional  stability  and 

 well-being.  This  study  has  the  potential  to  inform  the  development  of  current 

 graduate  students  and  new  and  emerging  WPAs  in  the  field  while 

 acknowledging  and  validating  the  difficult,  sometimes  impossible  situations 

 WPAs  find  themselves  in  while  also  offering  insights  into  the  ways  other 

 WPAs  have  navigated  similar  situations. 

 As  I  look  to  my  future  post-Michigan  State  University,  I  am  especially 

 grateful  for  the  support  I’ve  received  from  my  committee  members  and  the 

 opportunities  to  engage  in  the  day-to-day  work  of  writing  program 

 administration.  I’ve  enjoyed  the  opportunities  to  observe  and  learn  from  Dr. 

 Lindquist,  and  I’ve  appreciated  all  the  opportunities  to  grow  as  a 

 programmatic  leader  through  efforts  to  lead  and  participate  in  hiring, 

 48 

 pedagogical  development  and  critical  mentorship,  and  assessment  efforts 

 while  working  with  some  incredible  people.  My  work  throughout  the  past 

 year  as  the  graduate  assistant  for  first-year  writing,  my  interactions  with  my 

 interview  participants,  and  my  experiences  in  community  spaces  like 

 WPA-GO  have  affirmed  my  desire  and  decision  to  pursue  this  type  of  work, 

 and  I  am  eager  to  continue  to  learn  more  about  writing  program 

 administration,  leadership  development,  and  crisis  navigation. 

 49 

 REFERENCES 

 Arnold,  K.  (2014).  Behind  the  mirror:  Reflective  listening  and  its  tain  in  the 

 work  of  Carl  Rogers.  The  Humanistic  Psychologist,  42(4),  pp.  354-369. 
 doi:10.1080/08873267.2014.913247 

 Artinger,  F.,  Exadaktylos,  F.,  Koppel,  H.,  &  Sääksvuori,  L.  (2014).  In  others'  shoes: 

 Do  individual  differences  in  empathy  and  theory  of  mind  shape  social 
 preferences?  PLoS  One  ,  9  (4),  e92844.  doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0092844 

 Birt,  L.,  Scott,  S.,  Cavers,  D.,  Campbell,  C.,  &  Walter,  F.  (2016).  Member  checking: 
 A  tool  to  enhance  trustworthiness  or  merely  a  nod  t  o  validation. 
 Qualitative  Health  Researc  h,  26(13),  pp.  1802-1811. 

 Blackburn,  J.  (2022).  Writing  program  administration  embodied:  Public-facing 

 performativity  in  times  of  trauma.  Composition  Forum  ,  50. 

 Blankenship,  L.  (2019).  Changing  the  subject:  A  theory  of  rhetorical  empathy  . 

 University  Press  of  Colorado. 

 Carter-Tod,  S.  (2020).  Administrating  while  black:  Negotiating  the  emotional 

 labor  of  an  African-American  female  WPA.  In  Wooten,  C.  A.,  Babb,  J., 
 Costello,  K.  M.,  &  Navickas,  K.  (Eds.),  The  things  we  carry:  Strategies  for 
 recognizing  and  negotiating  emotional  labor  in  writing  program 
 administration  (pp.  197–214).  Utah  State  University  Press. 

 Caswell,  N.  I.,  McKinney,  J.  G.,  &  Jackson,  R.  (2016).  The  working  lives  of  new 

 writing  center  directors.  University  Press  of  Colorado. 

 Clinnin,  K.  (2020).  And  so  I  respond:  The  emotional  labor  of  writing  program 
 administration  in  crisis  response.  In  Wooten,  C.  A.,  Babb,  J.,  Costello,  K. 
 M.,  &  Navickas,  K.  (Eds.),  The  things  we  carry:  Strategies  for  recognizing 
 and  negotiating  emotional  labor  in  writing  program  administration 
 (pp.  129-144).  Utah  State  University  Press. 

 Clinnin,  K.  (2021).  In  the  event  of  an  emergency:  Crisis  management  for  WPAs. 
 Journal  of  the  Council  of  Writing  Program  Administrators  ,  45(1),  pp. 
 9–30. 

 Connelly,  F.  M.  &  Clandinin,  D.  J.  (1990).  Stories  of  experience  and  narrative 

 inquiry.  Educational  Researcher,  19(5),  pp.  2-14. 

 50 

 Connelly,  F.  M.  &  Clandinin,  D.  J.  (2006).  Narrative  inquiry.  In  J.  Green,  G.  Camilli, 
 &  P.  Elmore  (Eds.),  Handbook  of  Complementary  Methods  in  Education 
 Research  (pp.  375-385).  Mahwah,  NJ:  Lawrence  Erlbaum. 

 Creswell,  J.  W.  (2009).  Research  design:  Qualitative,  quantitative,  and  mixed 

 methods  approaches.  Third  edition.  SAGE  Publications. 

 Graziano,  L.,  Halasek,  K.,  Hudgins,  R.,  Miller-Cochran,  S.,  Napolitano,  F.,  & 

 Szymanski,  N.  (Eds.).  (2023).  Making  administrative  work  visible  : 
 Data-driven  advocacy  for  understanding  the  labor  of  writing  program 
 administration  .  Utah  State  University  Press. 

 Hochschild,  A.  R.  (2012).  The  managed  heart:  Commercialization  of  human 

 feeling.  University  of  California  Press. 

 Mastracci,  S.  H.,  Guy,  M.E.,  &  Newman,  M.A.  (2014).  Emotional  labor  and  crisis 

 response:  Working  on  the  razor’s  edge.  Routledge. 

 Mastracci,  S.  H.,  Newman,  M.  A.,  &  Guy,  M.E.  (2010).  Emotional  labor:  Why  and 

 how  to  teach  it.  Journal  of  Public  Affairs  Education  ,  16(2),  pp.  123–141. 

 McLeod,  S.  H.  (2007).  Writing  program  administration.  Parlor  Press. 

 Merriam,  S.  B.  &  Tisdell,  E.  J.  (2016).  Qualitative  research:  A  guide  to  design  and 

 implementation  (4th  ed.).  Jossey  Bass. 

 Micciche,  L.  (2007).  Doing  emotion:  Rhetoric,  writing,  teaching.  Boynton/Cook 

 Publishers. 

 Pauchant,  T.C.,  &  Mitroff,  I.I.  (1992).  Transforming  the  crisis-prone  organization: 

 Preventing  individual,  organizational,  and  environmental  tragedies. 
 Jossey-Bass. 

 Perryman-Clark,  S.  M.,  &  Craig,  C.  L.  (2019).  Black  matters:  Writing  program 
 administration  in  twenty-first-century  higher  education.  Black 
 perspectives  in  writing  program  administration:  From  the  margins  to 
 the  center  ,  pp.  1-27. 

 Rogers,  C.  R.  (1951).  Client-centered  therapy,  its  current  practice,  implications, 

 and  theory.  Houghton  Mifflin. 

 Stenberg,  S.,  &  Minter,  D.  (2018).  “Always  up  against”:  A  study  of  veteran  WPAs 
 and  social  resilience.  College  Composition  &  Communication  ,  69(4),  pp. 
 642-668. 

 51 

 Warnke,  A.,  Higgins,  K.,  Sims,  M.,  &  Sherman,  I.  (2020).  You  lost  me  at 

 “administrator”:  Vulnerability  and  transformation  in  WPA  work  at  the 
 two-year  college.  In  Wooten,  C.  A.,  Babb,  J.,  Costello,  K.  M.,  &  Navickas,  K. 
 (Eds.),  The  things  we  carry:  Strategies  for  recognizing  and  negotiating 
 emotional  labor  in  writing  program  administration  (pp.  37-55).  Utah 
 State  University  Press. 

 Whitford,  D.  K.,  &  Emerson,  A.  M.  (2019).  Empathy  intervention  to  reduce 

 implicit  bias  in  pre-service  teachers.  Psychological  Reports  ,  122  (2),  pp. 
 670–688.  doi:10.1177/0033294118767435 

 Wooten,  C.  A.,  Babb,  J.,  Costello,  K.  M.,  &  Navickas,  K.  (Eds.).  (2020)  The  things 

 we  carry  :  Strategies  for  recognizing  and  negotiating  emotional  labor  in 
 writing  program  administration  .  Utah  State  University  Press. 

 52