Opening Up Contested Spaces: Interdisciplinary Writing at an HBCU




interdisciplinary studies, academic writing, HBCU


Inequalities in academic writing are not uncommon in higher education and become more complex when we look at the landscape of historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs), which serve a large number of first-generation Black students. HBCUs serve minority students and provide them a cultural connection that they often do not achieve at predominantly white institutions. Such first-generation students face a range of challenges and graduate at lower rates than other student. In terms of academic writing, such students often struggle to develop an academic identity and voice. At Johnson C. Smith University, an HBCU in the heart of Charlotte, North Carolina, all students, regardless of major, are required to complete a senior investigative paper. Many students struggle with this graduation requirement for a variety of reasons, ranging from inexperience with academic writing, lack of interest in the topic, and poor writing mechanics skills A goal specifically in the Interdisciplinary Studies Department is to have students develop a topic they find interesting and engaging. Many IDS students choose topics that address inequalities they have encountered and endured in their life or ones that are specific to their demographic (age, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc). When students are able to research and write about topics they are passionate about, their writing shows marked improvement as they develop a writing voice. As Bean (2011) notes, sometimes it is beneficial to set aside the formal academic writing expectations and focus on the content and context of a paper. This provides students with the message that what they are researching is valuable and they gain confidence in their research skills and thus their critical thinking skills. Bean also notes that when we focus on content rather than sentence-level correctness, the result is often a well-written paper, or one that is improved from the previous drafts. This article focuses on specific lessons learned from our experience working with HBCU seniors and how to apply the practices of content feedback to promote academic writing to help close the gap of academic inequality that many students experience.


Bean, J.C. (2011). Engaging ideas: The professor’s guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Butler, J. (1997). The psychic life of power: Theories in subjection. Stanford University Press.

Cogie, J. (2011). Breaking the silence on racism through agency within a conflicted field. In Greenfield, L., and Rowan, K. (Eds.), Writing centers and the new racism: A call for sustainable dialogue and change. (pp. 228-252). Utah State University Press. 10.2307/j.ctt4cgk6s.15

Davila, B. (2016). The inevitability of “Standard” English: Discursive constructions of standard language ideologies. Written Communication, 33(2), 127-148.

Donaldson, A., Ward, N., & Bradley, S. (2010). Mess among disciplines: Interdisciplinarity in environmental research. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space. 42(7).

Engle, J., & Tinto, V. (2008). Moving beyond access: College success for low-income, first-generation students. Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education.

Grabowski, C., et. al (2016). Today's non-traditional student: Challenges to academic success and degree completion. Inquiries Journal/Student Pulse, 8(03). Retrieved from

Greenfield, L. (2011). The "Standard English" fairy tale: A rhetorical analysis of racist pedagogies and commonplace assumptions about language diversity. In Greenfield, L., and Rowan, K. (Eds.), Writing centers and the new racism: A call for sustainable dialogue and change. (pp. 33-60). Utah State University Press. 10.2307/j.ctt4cgk6s.6

Johnson C. Smith University. (2021). 2021-2022 University Catalog.

Lippi-Green, R. (2012). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge.

McSwan, J. (2020). Academic English as standard language ideology: A renewed research agenda for asset-based language education. Language Teaching Research, 24(1), 28-36.

Milroy, L. (1999). Standard English and language ideology in Britain and the United States. In T. Bex & R.J. Watts (Eds.), Standard English: The widening debate (pp.173-206). London, UK: Routledge.

Mitchell, K. L., & Randolph, R. E. (2019). A page from our book: Social justice lessons from the HBCU writing center. The Writing Center Journal, 37(2), 21–42.

Pessoa, S., Mitchell, T.D., & Reilly, B. (2019). Scaffolding the writing of argumentative essays in history: A functional approach. History Teacher, 52(3), pp. 411-440.

Poe, M. (2022, in press). Learning to unlearn the teaching and assessment of academic writing. Discourse and Writing/Rédactologie, 32(2022).

Rauch, M.J. (2020). Perception of academic writing from first generation non-traditional students. PhD Dissertation. University of Mississippi. Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 1850.

Soria, K. M. and Stebleton, M. J. (2012). First-generation students' academic engagement and retention, Teaching in Higher Education, 17(6), pp. 673-685, doi: 10.1080/13562517.2012.666735

Tagg, J. (2003). The learning paradigm college. Boston, MA: Anker.

Young, V.A. (2011). Should writers use they own English? In Greenfield, L., and Rowan, K. (Eds.), Writing centers and the new racism: A call for sustainable dialogue and change. (pp. 62-72). Utah State University Press. 10.2307/j.ctt4cgk6s.15




How to Cite

Miklaucic, S., & DiCesare, E. (2022). Opening Up Contested Spaces: Interdisciplinary Writing at an HBCU. Discourse and Writing/Rédactologie, 32, 313–334.



Special: Rethinking the Structures of Academic Writing