This volume of 14 essays plus an Introduction by the editors continues this publisher's outstanding record producing books of merit in the field of composition studies. It is also the second successful effort by Rose and Weiser to put together information useful to those of us responsible for writing programs, their first being the 1999 The Writing Program Administrator as Researcher.

The current collection offers many approaches to (as the sub-title states) "Making Knowledge Work." A diverse group of writers from universities across the nation, with varying degrees of experience as WPAs, articulate a fascinating array of opinions on just how to put theory into practice. One of the editors' strengths is that they have a broad understanding of who does the work of writing program administration-writing center directors, writing-across-the-curriculum coordinators, administrators of first-year-composition programs, et al.-and insist that their contributors address the whole group and not only one sub-group.

Rose and Weiser also appear to demand a clear articulation of purpose from all writers, so that most essays include statements along the lines of that made by Ruth M. Mirtz and Roxanne M. Cullen in their contribution, "Beyond Postmodernism"-i.e., "[W]e suggest that a style of leadership based on a Rogerian theory of listening, affirming, and negotiating can help WPAs produce change [. . .]" Theory can be heady stuff, but these writers have done their best to succinctly make their key points and use case examples to exemplify their arguments. Some are more successful than others, but all make the attempt.

After reading all the essays, the two sections into which the book is divided make less sense than they did when introduced by the editors, and I don't believe anything is gained by distinguishing theorizing "writing programs" from theorizing "writing program administration." When Susan Popham et al. argue that WPAs should use George Hillocks's ideas about reflective practice to guide their work, they sound not unlike Joseph Janangelo arguing that "the concept of auteurism in film direction" can prove helpful as a guide to practice; yet the two pieces are found in different sections. Since writing programs are the site at which the work of WPAs gets done, trying to separate the one from the other seems needlessly artificial.

But my quibble is a small one. Taken as a whole, the collection gives us a multitude of intriguing ideas to consider in our own situations. Terry Eagleton's work on ideology influences Jeanne Gunner's thoughts, while an interest in phenomenology drives Tom Hemmeter. Karen Bishop shows us how the scholarly practice of archivists can inspire our documentation practices, and Tim Peeples demonstrates how the field of planning might teach us a new way to conceive of our work.

Without reviewing each essay, let me conclude by drawing attention to two that particularly struck me. William Lalicker ends his discussion of the importance of sound composition theory at the base of every writing course with twelve practical suggestions for accomplishing the goal of "building [a] theory-savvy faculty." These ideas from his own practice at West Chester University can motivate change in our habitual modes of operation. Consider the revolutionary character of his first suggestion: "Make a secondary specialty in composition a requirement for every entry-level tenure-track hire-in literature or in any field of English." If West Chester has done it, maybe others can, too.

Possibly because I am fond of grids myself, I found Duane Roen et al.'s contribution personally inspiring. They cross-referenced Ernest Boyer's four categories of scholarship (discovery, integration, application, and teaching) with six criteria for assessing scholarship developed by Charles Glassick, Mary Huber, and Gene Maeroff (clear goals, adequate preparation, appropriate methods, significant results, effective presentation, and reflective critique). I have just begun to develop a program evaluation plan for our writing center, and this simple grid helps me visualize both my own work as administrator and the work of our center as a place for scholarship.
In closing, I recommend that both of Rose and Weiser's books (WPAs as theorists and as researchers) be purchased and made available to the people responsible for writing programs at our institutions. Current WPAs should have these books on their shelves, and future WPAs should have access to them through our libraries. The collected essays are a powerful reminder that theorizing and researching are central to writing program administration and that attending committee meetings and filing annual reports, while necessary, are peripheral to our mission of providing a rhetorical education to our students.

Mary Alm,
UNC Asheville