Jonathan Alexander

Chancellor's Professor of English and Gender & Sexuality Studies, University of California, Irvine
University of California, Irvine

Jonathan’s research areas include Writing Studies, Composition/Rhetoric, New Media Studies, and Sexuality Studies.

His scholarly work focuses primarily on the use of emerging communications technologies in the teaching of writing and in shifting conceptions of what writing, composing, and authoring mean.

Jonathan also works at the intersection of the fields of writing studies and sexuality studies, where he explores what theories of sexuality, particularly queer theory, have to teach us about literacy and literate practice in pluralistic democracies.

Jonathan’s books include “Writing Youth: Young Adult Fiction as Literacy Sponsorship” (Rowman & Littlefield, 2017), “On Multimodality: New Media in Composition Studies” (with Jacqueline Rhodes, CCC Studies in Writing & Rhetoric, 2014), “Understanding Rhetoric: A Graphic Guide to Writing” (with Elizabeth Losh, Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2013), “Bisexuality and Queer Theory” (edited with Serena Anderlini-D’Onofrio, Routledge, 2011), “Finding Out: An Introduction to LGBT Studies” (with Deborah Meem and Michelle Gibson, Sage, 2010) and “Literacy, Sexuality, Pedagogy: Theory and Practice for Composition Studies” (Utah State University Press, 2008).

From this contributor

Explore more from The Transmitter

Tick on a leaf raises its forelegs.

Neuro’s ark: Spying on the secret sensory world of ticks

Carola Städele, a self-proclaimed “tick magnet,” studies the arachnids’ sensory neurobiology—in other words, how these tiny parasites zero in on their next meal.

By Calli McMurray
3 March 2026 | 6 min read
Research image of mice brains.

Autism in old age, and more

Here is a roundup of autism-related news and research spotted around the web for the week of 2 March.

By Jill Adams
3 March 2026 | 1 min read
Sheet of paper with a red pencil struck through it.

Lack of reviewers threatens robustness of neuroscience literature

Simple math suggests that small groups of scientists can significantly bias peer review.

By Jakob Voigts
2 March 2026 | 14 min read

privacy consent banner

Privacy Preference

We use cookies to provide you with the best online experience. By clicking “Accept All,” you help us understand how our site is used and enhance its performance. You can change your choice at any time. To learn more, please visit our Privacy Policy.