Access a PDF version of this CWCA/ACCR Statement on Precarity & Writing Support Programming. This statement is a living and active document. It was approved on May 23, 2024 and first posted online on June 11, 2025. It was last updated on June 11, 2025.
Related statements: Statement on Writing Centres in Canada and CWCA/ACCR Statement on corporate, automated, online tutoring tools
Preamble
In recent years, long-standing issues within Canadian higher education institutions have been further complicated by declining government funding, domestic tuition fee reductions and freezes, high salaries for senior administrators at the cost of stable investment in tenure-track faculty, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the rise of increasingly precarious conditions for academic labour. Further issues continue to arise in the wake of the pandemic, such as increased operating costs due to rising inflation, U.S. tariffs, and recent and unsettled restrictions on international student study VISAs and work permits. As institutions respond to this destabilization with austerity measures, face-to-face, one-to-one programs of writing support for students (variously referred to as centres of writing, communication, and learning support) are once again coming under threat. If enacted without due caution and consultation with the larger academic community, such responses–which privilege cost savings over student learning–perpetuate the documented systemic undervaluing and under-supporting of highly qualified and experienced writing teachers and researchers (see Fels et al., 2021; Geller & Denny, 2013; McCulloch & Leonard, 2023).
Institutions are considering and enacting a range of approaches to cost savings in regards to writing support units, including restructuring to eliminate managerial and administrative support for writing programs; eliminating full-time instructional positions in favour of part time and precarious ones; monetizing writing support as an asset for sale to students and/or external community members; and eliminating in-house instructors by outsourcing writing supports to services that lack the experience, training, and the human intuition required for sound writing instruction and support. These approaches align with the university sector’s increasing dependence on precarious labour, a stable trend across the sector independent of budget shortfalls or significant extenuating circumstances (see Foster & Bauer, 2018; Pasma & Shaker, 2018). It is worth considering how a cost-savings centred approach significantly increases the risk that those providing writing instruction in a centre may struggle to participate consistently in research within Writing Studies and Writing Centres; undoubtedly, this limits the ability of these fields to grow effectively in Canadian institutions.
Statement on Precarity & the Importance of Writing Centres
The Canadian Writing Centres Association / association canadienne des centres de rédaction (CWCA/ACCR) discourages institutions from making structural changes that reduce writing support programming in response to budget cuts and austerity measures. To preserve the integrity of institutions of higher education across Canada, senior university and college administrators must value the essential contributions of writing teachers and researchers to the intellectual development and professionalization of students (see Bielinkska-Kwapisz, 2015; Hoon, 2009; Jones, 2001; Salazar, 2021; Yeats et al., 2010). Decision-making about writing centre structures and programming must be made in direct consultation with writing centre professionals with knowledge of the needs of students, instructors, and the academic institution as a whole.
The literature is clear—the value of writing support for retention (Badenhorst, 2011; Ruecker et al., 2017), the intellectual growth and academic success of students, and the professional success of graduates and alumni is well established. Writing is a central technology of critical thinking (Emig, 1977/2020; Flower & Hayes, 1981; Flower et al., 1989; Harris, 1989; McCutchen, 2000; Menary, 2007; Oatly & Djikic, 2008; Torrance et al., 2007). Writing slows thinkers down and prompts them to reconsider assumptions, explore precise terminology and logical connections, use multimodal representations to articulate insights, and supply evidence for assertions. Writing tools—pencils, word processors, mind-mapping applications—facilitate and shape this thinking, serving as significant extensions of cognition (Bray, 2013; Corso & Williamson, 1999; Ong, 1982; Overstreet, 2022; Rule, 2013; Takayoshi & Van Ittersum, 2018). The success of writing support programming depends largely on positive and productive relationships with instructors across HE institutions (Neely, 2017; Paretti, McNair, Belanger, & George, 2009; Zawacki et al., 2008). In order to refer students to writing support programming, course instructors must trust that writing support programming is reliable, accessible, inclusive, and, perhaps most of all, upholds the academic integrity of their students. It is the position of the CWCA/ACCR that this trust is fostered through strong writing program leadership that remains stable over time. It is also the position of the CWCA/ACCR that trust is undermined when writing program administrators are removed or replaced by individuals with less knowledge and experience who are unable to effectively conduct program evaluation, professional development, or collaborative relationships with faculty across disciplines. In acknowledging the success of writing support programming, the CWCA/ACCR affirms the critical support writing centre tutors and writing instructors provide and the value they bring to writing centres in Canada. Institutions jeopardize the success of writing support programming when they rely on the precarious employment of writing tutors and writing instructors (for a range of perspectives on precarious writing centre employment, refer to Efthymiou and Zea, 2023; Fels et al., 2021; Sabo et al., 2023).
Furthermore, identity intersects meaningfully with the discussion of precarity. While precarity is a problem that manifests across higher education spaces (Stewart et al., 2023), because of sexism women are particularly likely to have low paying and precarious jobs (Young, 2010) and BIPOC people have a particularly high risk of precarity (Bernhardt, 2015).[1] Research on writing centres aligns with these overall trends. For instance, the majority of Writing Program Administrators (WPAs) and instructors are precariously employed white women; in addition, BIPOC WPAs and instructors are few in number compared to their white counterparts, often representing less than 9% of those represented in various surveys and are frequently precariously employed as well (Fels et al., 2021; Valles et al., 2017). In light of this long standing embeddedness of precarity in writing centre spaces, we call on administrators to live out their claims to valuing social justice: to consider the negative impacts of increasing precarity in higher education and the value in resisting it.
It is the position of the CWCA/ACCR that writing centres and writing support programs should remain freely accessible to all students as a matter of social justice and inclusion. Any actions that undermine the role of writing centres in upholding institutional commitments to inclusivity, equity, and accessibility is an act of injustice. Institutionally developed and administered writing centre supports are better suited to the institution than profit-driven, private services. This is especially true given the ways in which local writing centre and writing programs and instructors foster local academic cultures, teaching students ways in which knowledge can be responsibly created and communicated while engaging in scholarly academic integrity practices (Garwood, 2022; McCulloch & Leonard, 2024). Peer tutors and writing instructors trained in research-based pedagogical strategies for academic integrity support student writers to make informed choices about their writing, deepening their ability to think independently (Barnes, 2020; Nordlof, 2014; Rodriguez, 2020).
Moreover, the continued and enhanced investment in writing support programming is increasingly important in the wake of generative AI (Gen-AI) increasingly important in the wake of generative AI (Gen-AI) which requires foundational writing skills and critical thinking skills to be used effectively, ethically, and appropriately. Faculty and students need support in learning these tools, how they work, what they offer, and their limitations as emerging digital literacy, based on individual institutional policies and needs as well as local, regional, and national realities (McCulloch & Leonard, 2024). As scholars who study writing tools, including GenAI, writing centre tutors and writing instructors who are sufficiently resourced to address this rapidly changing field are well-positioned to advise and provide leadership on the role of Gen-AI in student learning. Leadership in this area can include guidance for responsible use and avoidance of these tools in assigned course work (see Bermingham, 2023, 2024).
[1] While gender and race are certainly not the only categories of identity that are represented in writing centres, this evidence is highlighted because of sufficient literature that indicates the connection between gender, race, and writing centre precarity. Research on disabled WPAs is underway though young, with Valles et al. (2017) finding that only 10 respondents out of 312 respondents identified as disabled. It should be noted, however, that research on the intersections between disability and the labour market generally show that when a person has a disability they are more likely to be precariously employed (Ruppel, 2024). Further research regarding the disability status and experiences of WPAs and writing instructors/tutors is needed to fully assess the impact of precarity on the employment status of disabled persons in writing centres.
The CWCA/ACCR makes the following recommendations:
- Invest in stable leadership: Recognize the importance of stable leadership within writing centres and programs. Retain knowledgeable and experienced administrators who collaborate with faculty and advocate for advanced understandings of writing to foster institutional trust, maintain the quality of writing support programming, and maximize the benefits of writing support programming for a strong intellectual culture on campus.
- Support research-based writing programs: Provide the resources required for writing support programs grounded in current research-based pedagogical strategies. By incorporating evidence-based approaches to teaching and tutoring writing, these programs can effectively support student writers in developing their skills and achieving academic success.
- Resist outsourcing and commercialization: Refrain from outsourcing writing support services or treating them as assets for sale (See CWCA/ACCR Statement on corporate, automated, online tutoring tools). Such approaches may compromise the quality and accessibility of writing support programming (Hotson & Bell, 2022), undermining its effectiveness in serving the needs of students and the broader university community.
- Prioritize consultation with writing program administrators, teachers, and researchers in the field: Ensure that decisions regarding the administrative structures of writing centres and writing support programming are made in consultation with writing pedagogy experts who possess valuable insights into the needs of students, instructors, and the institution as a whole.
- Maintain free accessibility: Uphold the principle of free accessibility to writing centres and writing support programs for all students. Charging for these services is unjust, undermining inclusivity and equity within the institution. This also increases risks posed by unsanctioned writing services and tools.
- Value writing as a learning tool: Acknowledge the value of writing as a technology of critical thinking and its central role in education. Writing centre and writing support programs should be valued as essential components of intellectual growth, academic success, and professional development. Writing centres and writing support programs should also be resourced to be able to effectively address emerging areas of 21st century digital literacies and use of Gen-AI tools.
References
Barnes, J. (2020). Promoting student agency in writing. The Reading Teacher, 73(6), 789-795.
Bermingham, C. (2023, Fall). Productive and ethical: Guiding student writers in a GenAI world (part 1 of 2). Canadian Writing Centre Review, 5(1). https://cwcaaccr.com/2023/08/30/productive-and-ethical-guiding-student-writers-in-a-genai-world-part-1-of-2/
Bermingham, C. (2024, Fall). GenAI and the writing process: Guiding student writers in a GenAI world (part 2 of 2). Canadian Writing Centre Review, 5(5). https://cwcaaccr.com/2023/10/05/genai-and-the-writing-process-guiding-student-writers-in-a-genai-world-part-2-of-2/
Bernhardt, N. S. (2015). Racialized Precarious Employment and the Inadequacies of the Canadian Welfare State. SAGE Open, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015575639
Bielinska-Kwapisz, A. (2015). Impact of writing proficiency and writing center participation on academic performance. International Journal of Educational Management, 29(4), 382-394. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-05-2014-0067
Bray, N. (2013). Writing with Scrivener: A hopeful tale of disappearing tools, flatulence, and word processing redemption. Computers and Composition, 30(3), 197-210.
Corso, G. S., & Williamson, S. C. (1999). The social construct of writing and thinking: Evidence of how the expansion of writing technology affects consciousness. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 19(1), 32-45.
Emig, J. (1977/2020). Writing as a mode of learning. In Landmark essays on writing across the curriculum (pp. 89-96). Routledge.
Fels, D., Gardner, C., Herb, M. M., & Naydan, L. M. (2021). Contingent Writing Center Work. The Writing Center Journal, 39(1/2), 351-380.
Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365–387.
Flower, L. S., Schriver, K. A., Carey, L., Haas, C., & Hayes, J. R. (1989). Planning in writing: The cognition of a constructive process (Tech Rep. No. 34). Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Writing.
Foster, K., & Bauer, L.B. (2018, September). Out of the Shadows: Experiences of Contract Academic Staff. Canadian Association of University Teachers. https://www.caut.ca/sites/default/files/cas_report.pdf
Ganobcsik-Williams, L. (2011). 14 The writing centre as a locus for WiD, WAC, and whole-institution writing provision. Writing in the disciplines, 250.
Garwood, K. (2022). Supporting academic integrity in the writing centre: Perspectives of student consultants. In Academic integrity in Canada: An enduring and essential challenge (pp. 431-447). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Geller, A. E., & Denny, H. (2013). Of ladybugs, low status, and loving the job: Writing center professionals navigating their careers. Writing Center Journal, 33(1), 96–129.
Harris, R. (1989). How does writing restructure thought? Language & Communication, 9(2-3), 99-106.
Hoon, T. B. (2009). Assessing the efficacy of writing centres: A review of selected evaluation studies. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 17(2), 47-54.
Hotson, B., & Bell, S. (2022). Friends don’t let friends Studiosity (without reading the fine print). CWCR/RCCR, 4(1). https://cwcaaccr.com/2022/09/01/friends-dont-let-friends-studiosity/
Jones, C. (2001). The relationship between writing centers and improvement in writing ability: An assessment of the literature. Education, 122(1).
McCulloch, S., & Leonard, J. (2024). Hidden impacts of precarity on teaching: Effects on student support and feedback on academic writing. Teaching in Higher Education, 29(3), 772-788.
McCutchen, D. (2000). Knowledge, processing, and working memory: Implications for a theory of writing. Educational Psychologist, 35, 13–23.
Menary, R. (2007). Writing as thinking. Language sciences, 29(5), 621-632.
Neely, M. E. (2017). Faculty beliefs in successful writing fellow partnerships: How do faculty understand teaching, learning, and writing. Across the Disciplines, 14(2), 1-22.
Nordlof, J. (2014). Vygotsky, scaffolding, and the role of theory in writing center work. The Writing Center Journal, 34(1). 45-64.
Oatley, K., & Djikic, M. (2008). Writing as thinking. Review of General Psychology, 12(1), 9-27.
Ong, W. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. New York: Methuen.
Overstreet, M. (2022). Writing as extended mind: Recentering cognition, rethinking tool use. Computers and Composition, 63, 102700, 1-12.
Paretti, M., McNair, L., Belanger, K., & George, D. (2009). Reformist Possibilities? Exploring Writing Program Cross-Campus Partnerships. WPA: Writing Program Administration-Journal of the Council of Writing Program Administrators, 33.
Pasma, C., & Shaker, E. (2018, October). Contract U. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National%20Office/2018/11/Contract%20U.pdf
Rodriguez, R. (2020). Agency in the writing center: Examining the importance of student autonomy in higher education. Aresty Rutgers Undergraduate Research Journal, 1(1). 1-12. https://doi.org/10.14713/arestyrurj.v1i1.139
Ruecker, T., Shepherd, D., Estrem, H., & Brunk-Chavez, B. (Eds.). (2017). Retention, persistence, and writing programs. University Press of Colorado.
Rule, H. J. (2013). Composing assemblages: Toward a theory of material embodied process (Doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati).
Ruppel, E. H. (2024). Disability and the State Production of Precarity. Work and Occupations, 51(4), 510–549. https://doi.org/10.1177/07308884231207773
Salazar, J. J. (2021). The meaningful and significant impact of writing center visits on college writing performance. The Writing Center Journal, 39(1/2), 55-96.
Stewart, N. K., Adams, P. R., & Bin Quader, S. (2024). “We are disposable”: precarity, mobility, and inequity in higher education’s gig academy. Communication, Culture & Critique, 17(1), 64–71. https://doi.org/10.1093/ccc/tcad030
Takayoshi, P., & Van Ittersum, D. (2018). The material, embodied practices of composing with technologies. In The Routledge handbook of digital writing and rhetoric (pp. 84-94). Routledge
Torrance, M., Van Waes, L., & Galbraith, D. (Eds.). (2007). Writing and Cognition (Vol. 20). Brill.
Yeats, R., Reddy, P., Wheeler, A., Senior, C. and Murray, J. (2010), What a difference a writing centre makes: A small scale study. Education + Training, 52(6/7), 499-507. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400911011068450
Young, M. C. (2010). Gender Differences in Precarious Work Settings. Relations Industrielles (Québec, Québec), 65(1), 74–97. https://doi.org/10.7202/039528ar
Zawacki, T. M., Antram, A., Price, A., Ray, K., & Koucheravy, T. (2008). Writing Fellows as WAC Change Agents: Changing What? Changing Whom? Changing How?. Across the Disciplines, 5. https://wac.colostate.edu/atd/fellows/zawacki.cfm