This article discusses a longitudinal case study of a novice engineer who has successfully challenged a workplace genre. The study shows that a combination of the novice’s family background, a university engineering communication course, and workplace experiences helped him achieve success. It also provides evidence that, even though genres may differ from workplace to workplace, experienced professionals do recognize and accept superior communication practices imported from elsewhere. Thus, best practices may be taught apart from local contexts. The case study allows technical communication instructors and researchers to refine current understanding of what mastering genres means and indicates directions for the development of new pedagogies.
(Reprinted from Written Communication, 7, 200-231, 1990)
2.
Archer, M. (2002). The problem of agency. Journal of Critical Realism, 5, 11-20.
3.
Artemeva, N. (2000, September/October). Beyond the language barrier: Teaching communication skills. Engineering Dimensions, 40-42.
4.
Artemeva, N. (2003a). Taking a risk: The role of timing and agency in exercising engineering genre knowledge. Carleton Papers in Applied Language Studies, XX, 69-102.
5.
Artemeva, N. (2003b, Spring). Traveling in space and time: A study of learning trajectories in student acquisition of engineering communication strategies. Inkshed, 20(2), 10-15. Retrieved April 14, 2003, from http://www.stu.ca/inkshed/nlett403/artemeva.htm
6.
Artemeva, N. (2003c, March). Traveling through time and space: A study of learning trajectories in student acquisition of engineering communication strategies. Paper presented at the annual Conference on College Composition and Communication, New York.
7.
Artemeva, N. (2004). [From page to stage: A study of learning trajectories in student acquisition of domain-specific communication strategies. Rebecca’s case]. Unpublished raw data.
8.
Artemeva, N., & Fox, J. (1999, Summer). Through the looking glass: Identifying causes of the Alice-syndrome in undergraduate engineering writers. Inkshed, 17(2), 8-11.
9.
Artemeva, N., & Freedman, A. (2001). “Just the boys playing on computers”: An activity theory analysis of differences in the cultures of two engineering firms. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 15, 164-194.
10.
Artemeva, N., & Logie, S. (2002). Introducing engineering students to intellectual team-work: The teaching and practice of peer feedback in the professional communication classroom. Language and Learning Across the Disciplines, 6(1), 62-85.
11.
Artemeva, N., Logie, S., & St-Martin, J. (1999). From page to stage: How theories of genre and situated learning help introduce engineering students to discipline-specific communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 8, 301-316.
12.
Austin, J. L. (1994). How to do things with words: The William James lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1962)
13.
Bawarshi, A. (2000). The genre function. College English, 62, 335-360.
14.
Bazerman, C. (1994). Systems of genres and the enactment of social intentions. In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 79-101). London: Taylor & Francis.
15.
Bazerman, C. (1997). The life of genres, the life in the classroom. In W. Bishop & H. Ostrom (Eds.), Genre and writing: Issues, arguments, alternatives (pp. 19-26). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
16.
Bazerman, C. (1999). Introduction: Changing regularities of genre. IEEE Transactions of Professional Communication, 42(1), 1-2.
17.
Bitzer, L. (1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1(1), 1-14.
18.
Bourdieu, P. (1972). Outline of a theory of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
19.
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20.
Communication matters. (2004, Spring). Ingenious, p. 5.
21.
Consigny, S. (1974). Rhetoric and its situations. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 7, 175-186.
22.
Devitt, A. J. (1996). Genre, genres, and the teaching of genre. College Composition and Communication, 47, 605-615.
23.
Devitt, A. J. (2000). Integrating rhetorical and literary theories of genre. College English, 62, 696-717.
24.
Dias, P., Freedman, A., Medway, P., & Paré, A. (1999). Worlds apart: Acting and writing in academic and workplace contexts. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25.
Dias, P., & Paré, A. (2000). (Eds). Transitions: Writing in academic and workplace settings. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
26.
Fox, J., Artemeva, N., & Frise, P. (1999). Engineering writing: School to workplace. In B. Lindemann & V. Meerkamm (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Engineering Design: Vol. 2 (pp. 357-359). Munich, Germany: International Conference on Engineering Design.
27.
Freadman, A. (1994). Anyone for tennis? In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 43-66). London: Taylor and Francis. (Original work published 1987)
28.
Freadman, A. (2001). Uptake. In R. M. Coe, L. Lingard, & T. Teslenko (Eds.), The rhetoric and ideology of genre: Strategies for stability and change (pp. 39-53). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
29.
Freedman, A. (1999). Beyond the text: Towards understanding the teaching and learning of genres. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 764-767.
30.
Freedman, A. (2001, May). Catching the wave: Rhetorical genre studies in 2001. Paper presented at the international, interdisciplinary conference Genre 2001: Genres and Discourses in Education, Work and Cultural Life: Encounters of Academic Disciplines on Theories and Practices, Oslo, Norway.
31.
Freedman, A. (2003a). Interactions between theory and research: RGS and a study of students and professionals working “in computers.”Carleton Papers in Applied Language Studies, XX, 40-53.
32.
Freedman, A. (2003b). Pushing the envelope: Expanding the model of RGS theory. Carleton Papers in Applied Language Studies, XX, 54-68.
33.
Freedman, A., & Adam, C. (2000a). Bridging the gap: University-based writing that is more than simulation. In P. Dias & A. Paré (Eds.), Transitions: Writing in academic and workplace settings (pp. 129-144). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
34.
Freedman, A., & Adam, C. (2000b). Write where you are: Situating learning to write in university and workplace settings. In P. Dias & A. Paré (Eds.), Transitions: Writing in academic and workplace settings (pp. 31-60). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
35.
Freedman, A., Adam, C., & Smart, G. (1994). Wearing suits to class: Simulating genres and simulations as genre. Written Communication, 11, 193-226.
36.
Freedman, A., & Artemeva, N. (1998). Learning to teach writing to engineers. Technostyle, 14(1), 1-20.
37.
Freedman, A., & Medway, P. (Eds.). (1994a). Genre and the new rhetoric. London: Taylor & Francis.
38.
Freedman, A., & Medway, P. (Eds.). (1994b). Learning and teaching genre. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
39.
Geisler, C. (1994). Academic literacy and the nature of expertise: Reading, writing, and knowing in academic philosophy. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
40.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
41.
Glover, C. W. (1990). Kairos and composition: Modern perspectives on an ancient idea. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY.
42.
Holland, D., Lachicotte, W., Jr., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
43.
Houp, K. W., Pearsall, T. E., Tebeaux, E., Cody, S., Boyd, A., & Sarris, F. (1998). Reporting technical information (2nd Canadian ed.). Scarborough, Canada: Allyn & Bacon.
44.
Katz, S. M. (1998). The dynamics of writing review: Opportunities for growth and change in the workplace. Stamford, CT: Ablex.
45.
Kinneavy, J. L. (1986). Kairos: A neglected concept in classical rhetoric. In J. D. Moss (Ed.), Rhetoric and praxis: The contribution of classical rhetoric to practical reasoning (pp. 79-105). Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press.
46.
Kinneavy, J. L. (2002). Kairos in classical and modern rhetorical theory. In P. Sipiora & J. S. Baumlin (Eds.), Rhetoric and kairos: Essays in history, theory and praxis (pp. 58-76). New York: State University of New York Press.
47.
Krause, S. D. (1996). The immediacy of rhetoric: Definitions, illustrations, and implications. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH. Retrieved October 16, 2003, from http://www.emunix.emich.edu/%7Ekrause/Diss/
48.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
49.
(Reprinted from Writing in the workplace: New research perspectives, pp. 41-55, by R. Spilka, Ed., 1993, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press)
50.
Miller, C. (1992). Kairos in the rhetoric of science. In S. P. Witte, N. Nakadate, & R. D. Cherry (Eds.), A rhetoric of doing: Essays on written discourse in honor of James L. Kinneavy (pp. 310-327). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
51.
Miller, C. (1994). Genre as social action. In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 23-42). London: Taylor & Francis. (Original work published 1984)
52.
Miller, C. (2002). Foreword. In P. Sipiora & J. S. Baumlin (Eds.), Rhetoric and kairos: Essays in history, theory and praxis (pp. xi-xiii). New York: State University of New York Press.
53.
Paré, A. (2001). Genre and identity: Individuals, institutions and ideology. In R. M. Coe, L. Lingard, & T. Teslenko (Eds.), The rhetoric and ideology of genre: Strategies for stability and change (pp. 57-71). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
54.
Russell, D. (1997). Rethinking genre in school and society: An activity theory analysis. Written Communication, 14, 504-554.
55.
Schryer, C. F. (1995, May). Advocacy communication: A case study of ideology, power, and culture. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Canadian Association of Teachers of Technical Writing, Montreal, Canada.
56.
Schryer, C. F. (2000). Walking a fine line: Writing negative letters in an insurance company. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 14, 445-497.
57.
Schryer, C. F. (2001). Genre and power: Achronotopic analysis. In R. M. Coe, L. Lingard, & T. Teslenko (Eds.), The rhetoric and ideology of genre: Strategies for stability and change (pp. 73-102). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
58.
Schryer, C. F. (2003, March). Genre and techne in medical case presentations. Paper presented at the Conference of College Composition and Communication, New York.
59.
Schryer, C. F. (2005, April). Genre and professional identity formation in healthcare settings: A behind-the-scenes exploration of a genre-based research program. Paper presented at the seminar in Applied Language Studies, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
60.
Schryer, C. F., Lingard, L., Spafford, M., & Garwood, K. (2002). Structure and agency in medical case presentations. In C. Bazerman & D. R. Russell (Eds.), Writing selves/writing societies: Research from activity perspectives. Fort Collins, CO: The WAC Clearinghouse and Mind, Culture, and Activity. Retrieved September 24, 2003, from http://wac.colostate.edu/books/selves%25SFsocieties/
61.
Selber, S. A. (1998). The social formation of technical communication studies. College Composition and Communication, 50, 263-276.
62.
Sipiora, P. (2002). Introduction: The ancient concept of kairos. In P. Sipiora, & J. S. Baumlin (Eds.), Rhetoric and kairos: Essays in history, theory and praxis (pp. 1-22). New York: State University of New York Press.
63.
Stephenson, H. (2003, November). Kairos: Inside and outside of the prison house of language. Paper presented a tthe seminar in Applied Language Studies, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
64.
Swales, J. (1993). Genre and engagement. Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire, 71, 687-698.
65.
Vatz, R. E. (1973). The myth of rhetorical situation. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 6, 154-161.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
68.
Winsor, D. (1996). Writing like an engineer: A rhetorical education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
69.
Winsor, D. (2003). Writing power: Communication in an engineering center. Albany: State University of New York Press.
70.
Yates, J., & Orlikowski, W. (2002). Genre systems: Chronos and kairos in communicative interaction. In R. M. Coe, L. Lingard, & T. Teslenko (Eds.), The rhetoric and ideology of genre: Strategies for stability and change (pp. 103-121). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
