Abstract
A study of forty current business/technical/professional writing textbooks suggests that little disciplinary agreement exists about what proposals are and how they differ from some kinds of reports; how the various types of proposals should be classified; and what structural features characterize the genre. Though many texts blur the distinction between proposals and internal recommendation reports, the two are never the same. The textbooks present a bewildering array of classification systems, often failing to distinguish between situation and function. A function-based system could divide all proposals into two categories-analytic (research proposals, R&D proposals, and consulting proposals) and service/product, with bids representing a special case. The lack of disciplinary agreement also makes it difficult for textbook users to internalize a generic structure that will serve for all proposal-writing tasks. Such a structure would include the following: situation, objectives, methods, qualifications, costs, and benefits. The major advantages of such a generic structure are its slots, which make it like a schema; its event sequence, which makes it like a script; and its ability to help writers and teachers understand the relationship among the macropropositions that exist explicitly or implicitly in all proposals.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.