It’s addressed in almost every composition instruction textbook:
prewriting, writing, and rewriting. The ubiquitous writing process would appear
to be one of the few concepts in English studies where teachers and scholars
agree, but the reverse has been true since its inception in the 60s. Initial
scholars developed a stage model, but later researchers argued that it only
revealed the developmental stages of the text itself, failing to address what
the writer experienced. Cognitive Process theory attempted to explore the writer’s
process, tracking thoughts and decisions along the way. As this form of
research gained popularity in the 80s, studies began to branch in different
directions: the composing processes of high school writers, developmental
writers, technical writers, etc. In the 90s, post-process theory emerged as a
rejection of process, arguing that writing cannot be taught; one learns writing
tacitly through continued exposure to audiences and contexts. Whether it can or
not, the need for good writing is strong, particularly in the sciences, so
technical communication scholars today turn to postmodern pedagogy, steeped in
audience and context analysis, to develop their approaches. The writing process
is still a staple chapter in virtually every technical communication textbook,
but current scholars and teachers tend to subordinate it to a situational
approach; however, it remains unclear whether this situational approach,
informed by workplace studies, causes technical writing instruction to be more
vocational and less critical, placing the goals of the job market above those
of the academy.
The writing process first entered composition pedagogy conversations in the
early 1960s as the “Pre-Write/Write/Re-Write” model by Gordon Rohman and the
“Conception/Incubation/Production” model by James Britton et al. (Flower and
Hayes 275). Originally referred to as the stage process model, “this familiar metaphor
. . . describes the composing process as a linear series of stages, separated
in time, and characterized by the gradual development of the written product”
(Flower and Hayes 275). Later cognitive process theorists would criticize this
model as too linear and too narrowly focused on the product: “the problem with
stage descriptions of writing is that they model the growth of the written
product, not the inner process of the person producing it” (Flower and Hayes 275).
Such models were an attempt to answer what was, at the time, a call for “more
research on writing itself,” but “Janet Emig’s The Composing Processes of Twelfth Graders was the first
significant answer to [this] call” (Villanueva 2).
Emig’s seminal piece was a groundbreaking catalyst for a branch of
writing process studies called cognitive process theory. Earl Buxton of the
Committee on Research at the National Council for Teachers of English called it
“an expedition into new territory, an investigation of the writing process” (qtd. in Emig v). As Buxton notes,
stage model approaches “by and large have focused their attention upon the written product” (qtd. in Emig v;
emphasis his). According to Emig, these attempts were “highly unsatisfactory,”
causing the teaching of composition to be little more than a “neurotic
activity” (7 and 99). Using humanistic data from a case study method that
explored what students were experiencing throughout their writing processes,
Emig hoped to raise composition to the “status of science as well as art” (Emig
5).
Emig’s work gave way to further research in cognitive process theory in
the early 80s, leading to several influential projects by Linda Flower and John
R. Hayes. In 1981, “A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing” was intended as a
direct response to the stage process model, pushing the focus again away from
the product and toward the writer, arguing for a recursive rather than linear
model: “common sense and research tell us that writers are constantly planning
(pre-writing) and revising (re-writing) as they compose (write), not in
clean-cut stages” (Flower and Hayes 275). Additionally, their cognitive process
theory held that (1) the process is hierarchical and embedded, always changing
and blending into other processes; (2) composing is goal-directed, casting the
writer as problem-solver; and (3) writers constantly generate goals based on
purpose and reactions to the process (Flower and Hayes 274-275). The Flower and
Hayes iteration of the writing process highlights the role of the writer as an
adaptive problem-solver, constantly assessing audience, purpose, and the text
he/she is developing. For Flower and Hayes, “good writers . . . seem to have
greater conscious control over their own process than the poorer writers,” an
observation that implies the importance of research in process theory (286).
Cognitive process research was
“the rage in composition studies” in the 80s, so technical communication, as a
related branch of composition studies, naturally followed suit (Selzer 317).
Jack Selzer admits he was “not the only one wondering” how technical writers
composed when he published his results of an ethnographic case study of one
Chicago engineer (Selzer 317); however, “little work [had] been done on the
composing strategies of people who call themselves engineers or scientists”
(Selzer 318). Selzer found that “the writing process of engineers [is] more
linear than recursive,” contradicting previous studies like those of Flower and
Hayes, and he underscores implications for pedagogy: “it may . . . be
appropriate in teaching prospective engineers to . . . regard revision as the
least important activity in the engineer’s writing process” (Selzer 323). For
Selzer, the composing process, as defined by Flower and Hayes, could not be
directly applied to advanced, professional writers.
In the 90s, this debate over the
linear or recursive nature of the writing process mattered less. Scholars in
the 90s introduced “the question of whether ‘process’ has overshadowed other
concerns with writing. This comes to be called ‘post-process theory’”
(Villanueva 2). Influenced by postmodern and anti-foundationalist sentiments,
post-process theorists hold that “process (prewriting, writing, rewriting) is
no longer an adequate explanation of the writing act” (Kastman Breuch 97). What,
then, is an adequate explanation of writing? According to Thomas Kent, writing
is “an indeterminate and interpretive activity [and it simply] ‘cannot be
taught for nothing exists to teach’” (qtd. in Kastman Breuch 99). Post-process
theory, therefore, “[resists] pedagogical application,” so those who agree to
reject process theory turn to postmodern pedagogical approaches to, at the very
least, continue teaching composition despite Kent’s bleak declaration. According
to Kastman Breuch, these approaches assume a dialogic rather than transmission
model of teaching, using “social-process rhetorical inquiry” that focuses on
audience and context instead of the composition alone (102-103).
Thomas Miller’s work, which was
published in the 90s along with other post-process discussions, suggests there
are many elements of post-process theory at work in debates over technical
communication. For Miller, cognitive process theorists “assume that knowledge
is itself technical and can be reduced to rule-governed procedures that can be
applied to a situation” (Miller 65). Instead, he believes that “writing cannot
be reduced to a formula because every problem requires a solution that suits
the particular situation and audience” (58). And when it comes to teaching
students to prepare for these situations and audiences, they will “absorb the
practical knowledge of the community . . ., but they often do so tacitly”
(Miller 58).
Instead of accepting a tacit model of learning, other technical
communication scholars today are expressing an interest in postmodern pedagogy
that highlights social-process rhetorical inquiry. Carolyn Rude points out that
“before the 1980s, . . . context might have been [an] unlikely [term] in a
central research question” for technical communication pedagogy (182). Today,
however, this term is central to a core belief in technical communication:
“writing is a social activity, often produced collaboratively but also
influenced by and influencing the context” (Rude 192). The writing process is
still a staple in technical writing textbooks, but scholars argue that it
oversimplifies a complicated practice. Too many textbooks and “too many
corporate seminars focus on checklists such as 10 things you can do today to
improve your technical writing” (Wilson 75). As a result, “contemporary texts
and teachers have moved away from mechanistic models and emphasize the need to
size up the social nature of the communication process” (Wilson 77). Doing so
entails paying closer attention to common workplace situations, for better or
for worse. According to Bowden, it’s important to make “an effort in not only
allowing our work and priorities to be influenced by workplaces but also
actively attempting to shape the material practices carried out there though
intervention, particularly via new collaborative . . . teaching methods” (222).
However, when electing to adopt a pedagogical approach that is situational and
informed by workplace studies and practices, one must be cautious: “does using
industry as a model and bending communication theories and pedagogies to fit
the needs of industry put our loyalties too much on the side of industry?”
(Wilson 78). This complicated connection between the writing process, workplace
studies, and technical communication continues to be debated today.
Technical communication pedagogy has always struggled to balance the
objectives of the university with those of the workplace. Instructors hope to
imbue students with the skills that will serve them on the job, while grooming
them to become critical writers, aware of the ethical implications of the work
they do. This difficult balance is seen at work in the debate over process and
post-process theory. Today’s teachers and scholars seem unsatisfied with
post-process theory’s response, yet they remain hesitant to reject process
entirely. While the writing process may always be a part of technical writing
textbooks, current scholars and teachers feel it oversimplifies the complicated
work of technical communication; however, the attempt to incorporate elements
like audience and context leads to pedagogy that smacks of on-the-job training.
Current discussions reveal a cautious leaning toward situational approaches to
teaching technical writing that address, but don’t highlight, the writing
process.
Works Cited
Bowdon, Melody. "A Practical Ethics for Professional and Technical
Writing Teachers, Or a Miller's Tale." Technical Communication
Quarterly 11.2 (2002): 222. Education Research Complete. Web. 2 Nov.
2012.
Emig, Janet. “The Composing Processes of Twelfth-Graders.” NCTE Research
Report No. 13. Urbana, Il: NCTE, 1971. Print.
Flower, Linda and John R. Hayes. “A Cognitive Process Theory of
Writing.” Cross Talk in Comp Theory: A
Reader. 2nd ed. Ed. Victor Villanueva. Urbana, Il: NCTE, 2003. 273-297.
Print.
Kastmann Breuch, Lee-Ann M. “Post-Process ‘Pedagogy’: A Philosophical
Exercise.” Cross Talk in Comp Theory: A
Reader. 2nd ed. Ed. Victor Villanueva. Urbana, Il: NCTE, 2003. 97-125.
Print.
Miller, Thomas P. “Treating Professional Writing as Social Praxis.” Journal of Advanced Composition 11.1
(1991): 57-72. Web. 29 Oct. 2012. < www.jaconlinejournal.com/archives/vol11.1/miller-treating.pdf>.
Rude, Carolyn. “Mapping the Research Questions in Technical Communication.”
Journal of Business and Technical
Communication 23.2 (2009): Education
Research Complete. Web. 30 Oct. 2012.
Selzer, Jack. “The Composing Processes of an Engineer.” Central Works in Technical Communication.
Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber. NewYork: Oxford University
Press, 2004. 317-324. Print.
Villanueva, Victor. “The Givens in Our Conversations: The Writing
Process.” Cross Talk in Comp Theory: A
Reader. 2nd ed. Ed. Victor Villanueva. Urbana, Il: NCTE, 2003. 1-2. Print.
Wilson, Greg. “Technical Communication and Late Capitalism: Considering
a Postmodern Technical Communication Pedagogy.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication 15.1 (2001): 72-99.
Sage Journals. Web. 2 Nov. 2012.
