Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This paper presents the findings of a thirty-month case study of how one busi ness writer made decisions concerning audience. The primary objective of this study was to determine if audience theory adequately describes the writing that takes place in non-academic settings.

Findings suggest that audience theory does not adequately describe the cognitive and social decisions that writers make in real-world professional contexts. Findings suggest that assumptions about the needs of the primary reader being most important and the needs of the external client who is paying for the report being more important than the needs of the internal audience do not necessarily approximate what takes place when professionals write.

Professionals who write do not necessarily view the needs of the primary reader as most important. Intrinsic internal factors such as a writer's sense of his/her own and the firm's credibility, financial rewards, and promotions may affect decisions concerning audience more than the external client's specific need for the report.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Barabas, C. (1990). Technical writing in a corporate culture: A study of the nature of information. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Brooke, R. , & Hendricks, J. (1989). Audience expectations and teacher demands . Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Cross, G.A. (1990). A bakhtinian exploration of factors affecting the collaborative writing of an executive letter of an annual report. Research in the Teaching of English, 24, 173-204.

Cross, G.A. (1993). Genre, context, and process. In R. Spilka (Ed.), Writing in the workplace: New research perspectives (pp. 141-152). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press .

Dauterman, J. (1993). Negotiating meaning in a hospital discourse community . In R. Spilka (Ed.), Writing in the workplace: New research perspectives (p. 99). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press .

Denzin, N.K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociolinguistic methods (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Doheny-Farina, S. (1984). Writing in an emergent business organization: An ethnographic study. (Doctoral dissertation, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1984). Dissertation Abstracts International , 45, 3337A.

Doheny-Farina, S. (1986). Writing in an emerging organization: An ethnographic case study. Written Communication, 3, 158-185.

Ede, L. , & Lunsford, A. (1984). Audience addressed/audience invoked: The role of audience in composition theory and pedagogy. College Composition and Communication, 35, 155-171.

10.

Forsberg, C.L. (1987). Who's out there anyway? Bringing awareness of multiple audiences into the business writing class. Iowa State Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 1(2), 45-69.

11.

Halpern, J.W. , Kilborn, J.M. , & Lockke, A.M. (1988). Business writing strategies and samples . New York: Macmillan.

12.

Huettman, E. (1990). Writing for the unknown reader:An ethnographic case study in a business setting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN .

13.

Kirsch, G. , & Roen, D. (1990). A sense of audience in written communication . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

14.

Lauer, J. , Montague, G. , Lunsford, A. , & Emig, J. (1991). Four worlds of writing (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

15.

Mirel, B. (1993). Beyond the monkey house: Audience analyses in computerized workplaces. In R. Spilka (Ed.), Writing in the workplace: New research perspectives (pp. 21-40). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

16.

Mitchell, R. , & Taylor, M. (1979). The integrating perspective: An audience-response model for writing. College English, 41, 247-271.

17.

Odell, L. (1985). Beyond the text: Relations between writing and social context. In L. Odell & D. Goswami (Eds.), Writing in nonacademic settings (pp.255-259). New York: Guilford.

18.

Pfister, F.R. , & Petrik, J.F. (1980). A heuristic model for creating a writer's audience . College Composition and Communication , 31, 213-220.

19.

Redish, J.C. , & Selzer, J. (1985). The place of readability formulas in technical communication. Technical Communication , 4, 46-52.

20.

Roberts, D. , & Sullivan, P. (1984). Beyond the static audience construct: Reading protocols in the technical writing class. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 14 , 143-153.

21.

Selzer, J. (1983). The composing process of an engineer. College Composition and Communication, 34, 178-187.

22.

Simpson, M. (1989). Shaping computer documentation for multiple audiences: An ethnographic study. (Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, 1989). Dissertation Abstracts International, 901-8906.

23.

Smeltzer, L.R. (1993). Emerging questions and research paradigms in business communication research. The Journal of Business Communication , 30, 181-198.

24.

Spilka, R. (1988). Adapting discourse to multiple audiences: Invention strategies of seven corporate engineers. (Doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, 1988). Dissertation Abstracts International , 890-5261.

25.

Suchan, J. , & Dulek, R. (1988). Toward a better understanding of reader analysis . The Journal of Business Communication , 25, 29-46.

26.

Spradley, J.P. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

27.

Thralls, C. , Blyer, N.R. , & Ewald, H.R. (1988). Real readers, implied readers, and professional writers: Suggested research. The Journal of Business Communication , 25, 47-65.

28.

Willey, R.J. (1990). Pre-classical roots of the addressed/invoked dichotomy of audience. In E. Kirsch & D. H. Koen (Eds), A sense of audience in written communication (pp. 26-27). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Writing for Multiple Audiences: An Examination of Audience Concerns in a Hospitality Consulting Firm

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References