ENGL 810: Historical Debate Report: The Role of Writing Process and Post-Process Theory in Technical Communication Pedagogy, 1963-Present

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.