Previous research on the writing process in the workplace has given inadequate attention to the collaborative nature of work in an organization. Examination of the processes an engineer goes through as he writes a routine and a non-routine document shows that those processes are strongly affected by the degree to which his company has previously accepted the claims he makes as given or as knowledge. Claims are established as knowledge in an organization by being “inscribed,” that is, by having a series of increasingly general symbolic representations assigned to them by a series of writers at work. The inscribing process both resembles the writing process and affects it.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bazerman, C.
(1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
2.
Broadhead, G. J.
, & Freed, R. C. (1986). The variables of composition: Process and product in a business setting. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
3.
Doheny-Farina, S.
(1986). Writing in an emerging organization. Written Communication, 3, 158-185.
4.
Emig, J.
(1971). The composing process of twelfth graders. Urbana: NCTE.
5.
Hairston, M.
(1986). Different products, different processes: A theory about writing. College Composition and Communication, 37, 442-452.
6.
Knorr-Cetina, K.
(1980). The social process of scientific investigation. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
7.
LaRoche, M.
, & Pearson, S. (1985). Rhetoric and rational enterprises: Reassessing discourse in organizations. Written Communication, 2, 246-268.
8.
Latour, B.
, & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
9.
LeFevre, K.
(1987). Invention as a social act. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
10.
Myers, G.
(1985). Text as knowledge claims: The social construction of two biology articles. Social Studies of Science, 15, 593-630.
11.
Odell, L.
, Goswami, D., Herrington, A., & Quick, D. (1983). Studying writing in non-academic settings. In P. Anderson, R. Brockmann, & C. Miller (Eds.), New essays in technical and scientific communication: Research, theory, practice (pp. 17-40). Farmingdale, NY: Baywood.
12.
Paradis, J.
, Dobrin, D., & Miller, R. (1985). Writing at Exxon ITD: Notes on the writing environment of an R&D organization. In L. Odell & D. Goswami (Eds.), Writing in nonacademic settings (pp. 281-307). New York: Guilford.
13.
Perelman, C.
(1982). The realm of rhetoric. (W. Kluback, Trans.). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. (Original work published 1977).
14.
Perl, S.
(1980). Understanding composing. College Composition and Communication, 31, 363-369.
15.
Pianko, S.
(1979). A description of the composing processes of college freshman writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 5-22.
16.
Polanyi, M.
(1962). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17.
Roundy, N.
, & Mair, D. (1982). The composing process of technical writers: A preliminary study. Journal of Advanced Composition, 3, 89-101.
18.
Selzer, J.
(1983). The composing processes of an engineer. College Composition and Communication, 34, 178-187.
19.
Selzer, J.
, & Miller, C. (1985). Special topics of argument in engineering reports. In L. Odell and D. Goswami (Eds.), Writing in nonacademic settings (pp. 309-341). New York: Guilford.
20.
Sommers, N.
(1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. College Composition and Communication, 31, 378-388.
21.
Toulmin, S.
(1972). Human understanding: The collective use and evolution of concepts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
