As previously noted, the first edition of the HHH was published in 1941 by Harcourt Brace and was based on the work of John C. Hodges, a professor of English at the University of
Tennessee-Knoxville (UTK). UTK is the primary physical location of the book’s origins; it was Hodges’ work at UTK that gave him the basis for the book’s content. Thus, it is important for this chapter to return to the issue of location, an important component for analysis because the location, Knoxville, Tennessee, greatly influenced the book’s content. Hodges’ work was based on the writing of students in Knoxville, so if the book been created elsewhere, the result would likely be a quite different book that reflected the grammatical errors of students in that location. In this chapter, revisiting the relevant components of the microhistory with a focus on the role of location will reveal a number of problems with Hodges’ methodology and the book’s content.
5.6.1 A Point of Clarification
At this point, it is important to be clear that I am not simply trying to say that in 1941, Hodges should have somehow been able to meet our current standards for research. As discussed in chapter three, Hodges did not have access to the research and methods that our field uses and requires today. What he did was remarkable in its original time, and many would argue that it is still the best handbook available, and it likely is. It has been noted many times that it is the book that set the standard for all handbooks that would follow. However, the book still exists based on Hodges’ initial research though the editors of the most recent editions claim this heritage when it is convenient for their rhetorical purposes while distancing the book from Hodges’ early editions when it does not suit the rhetorical purposes. For example, in the 19th edition, the most current edition, published in 2017, the Preface notes that “The Nineteenth Edition both introduces the new and keeps the best of the old” (xvii) while also noting that “The Harbrace Family of
handbooks has the longest history of any set of handbooks in the United States” (Glenn and Gray xxi).
In other parts of the Preface, the editors again turn to the positive aspects of the book’s history by spending a couple of paragraphs describing Hodges’ work. However, just a few pages prior, the Preface opens by saying that “The original Harbrace Handbook included
comprehensive, up-to-date, research-based coverage of essential topics for writers. This edition does the same. Reflecting current studies in composition and linguistics, its forty-five chapters help students at all stages of the writing process […]” (xvii). This statement does not explain exactly what “comprehensive,” “up to date,” or “research-based coverage” mean, but the implication is that the current edition follows the standards of the original, but does so based on current information. That seems an impossible balance to strike when the original is based on
information and an approach (CTR) that has since been dismissed as a meaningful, productive way to teach writing. However, the Preface marches on with its unsupported claims that the book is a timeless, reliable source for learning to write. It claims, “Like the original, this handbook has been class-tested45” (xvii). It is difficult to dispute this claim because there is no way to know what it meant the original did. (It explains how it was class-tested for the 19th edition). None of my research suggests that Hodges tested the material in class; the most reliable sources on the first edition simply say that he took papers from the freshman English classes at UTK. That hardly sounds like class-tested. Again, these details matter because if the book itself claims that it is still relying on and based on the original research conducted by Hodges, then his research and methodology are important. It is essential to know how his methodology and research align (or do not) with our current goals and standards.
5.7 Hodges’ Methodology
Hodges initially created the book because, according to Curry, he felt that the books on the market covered too much or not enough. He “concluded that most handbooks of composition included much material that was ignored and irrelevant to the teaching of composition” (Curry 86). Therefore, Hodges created a new book. The book, according to Curry, “sought to reduce and simplify the points of grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure that were the essentials of any course in Freshman English” (86). The common story of how the book came to be often looks like the one below, found in the 18th edition of the HHH:
In the 1930s, Hodges obtained federal funding to support his study of the frequency of errors in college students’ essays. He collected 20,000 papers,
45 It is unclear exactly what class-tested means.
counted and analyzed the errors in those papers, and created the taxonomy that he used to organize the original Harbrace Handbook of English. (inside cover) This story has been repeated in various editions of the book itself as well as in promotional materials published by UTK. What is more difficult to find, however, is detailed information about Hodges’ methodology for his study. One place that offers slightly more detail is the preface of the 19th edition of the HHH. It claims the following:
The Harbrace family of handbooks has the longest history of any set of handbooks in the United States. First published in 1941 by University of
Tennessee English professor John C. Hodges, The Harbrace Handbook of English was a product of Hodges’s classroom experience and his federally funded
research, which comprised an analysis of twenty thousand student papers. Sixteen English professors from various regions of the United States marked those papers; they found a number of common mistakes, including (1) misplaced commas, (2) misspelling, (3) inexact language, (4) lack of subject-verb agreement, (5)
superfluous commas, (6) shift in tense, (7) misused apostrophes, (8) omission of words, (9) wordiness, and (10) lack of standard usage. (xxi)
There is no indication as to why the 19th edition includes more detail about the text’s history, but even this additional detail raises a number of questions about the methodology Hodges
employed. The following sections address the questions raised by what we know and do not know about Hodges’ methodology.