Over the past two decades, studies have examined how social contexts influence the composition and production of workplace documents. But much remains to be known about what happens when writers move from one social context to another—from the academy to the workplace, for instance. This article demonstrates that students in scientific and technical communication classrooms learn what they are taught about composing. They take this knowledge with them to the workplace, where they apply it, practically and theoretically, and improve their understanding of it with repeated use.
Agar, M. H. (1986). Speaking of ethnography. In Sage University Paper Series on Qualitative Research Methods (Vol. 4, pp. 11-73). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
2.
Anson, C. M., & Forsberg, L. L. (2003). Moving beyond the academic community: Transitional stages in professional writing. In T. Peeples (Ed.),Professional writing and rhetoric: Readings from thefield (pp. 388-410).New York: Longman.
3.
Atwill, J. (1998). Rhetoric reclaimed. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
4.
Bizzell, P. (1980). Cognition, convention, and certainty: What we need to know about writing. PRE/TEXT, 3, 213-243.
5.
Berthoff, A. E. (1971). The problem of problem solving. College Composition and Communication, 22, 237-242.
6.
Burnett, R. E. (2005). Technical communication. Boston: Wadsworth.
7.
Detienne, M., & Vernant, J. (1974). Cunning intelligence in Greek culture and society (J. Lloyd, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8.
Doheny-Farina, S. (1986). Writing in an emerging organization: An ethnographic study. Written Communication, 3, 158-185.
9.
Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. (1984). Audience addressed/audience invoked: The role of audience in composition theory and pedagogy. College Composition and Communication, 35, 155-170.
10.
Enos, R. L. (2002). Literacy in Athens during the Archaic period. In J. M. Atwill & J. M. Lauer (Eds.),Perspectives on rhetorical invention (pp. 176-191). Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.
11.
Enos, R. L., & Lauer, J. (1992). The meaning of heuristic in Aristotle's Rhetoric and its implications for contemporary rhetorical theory. In S. Witte, N. Nakadate, & R. Cherry (Eds.), A rhetoric of doing: Essays on written discourse in honor of James L. Kinneavy(pp. 79-87). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
12.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). Cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication,31, 21-32.
13.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive theory process of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365-387.
14.
Glaser, B. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12, 436-445.
15.
Harrison, T. M. (2004). Frameworks for the study of writing in organizational contexts. In J. Johnson-Eilola & S. A. Selber (Eds.),Central works in technical communication(pp. 255-267). New York: Oxford University Press.
16.
Harrison, T. M., & Debs, M. B. (1998). Conceptualizing the organizational role of technical communicators: A systems approach. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 2(2), 5-21.
17.
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18.
Johnson, R. R. (1997). Audience involved: Towards a participatory theory of writing. Computers and Composition, 14, 361-376.
19.
Johnson, R. R. (1998). User-centered technology: A rhetorical theory for computers and other mundane artifacts. Albany: State University of New York Press.
20.
Johnson-Sheehan, R. (2005). Technical communication today. New York: Pearson Longman.
21.
Kolin, P. C. (2006). Successful writing at work. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
22.
Lannon, J. M. (2006). Technical communication. New York: Pearson Longman.
23.
Lauer, J. (1979). Toward a metatheory of heuristic procedures. College Composition and Communication, 30, 268-269.
24.
Lutz, J. A. (1989). Writers in organizations and how they learn the image: Theory, research, and implications. In C. B. Matalene (Ed.),Worlds of writing: Teaching and learning in discourse communities of work(pp. 113-135). New York: Random House.
25.
Mac Kinnon, J. (1993). Developing writing ability in a mature, writing-intensive organization. In R. Spilka (Ed.),Writing in the workplace: New research perspectives (pp. 41-55). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
26.
McIsaac, C., & Aschauer, A. B. (1990). Proposal writing at Atherton Jordan, Inc.: An ethnographic study. Management Communication Quarterly, 12, 527-560.
27.
Miller, C. (1985). Invention in technical and scientific discourse: A prospective study. In M. G. Moran & D. Journet (Eds.),Research in technical communication (pp. 117-156). Amityville, NY: Greenwood.
28.
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.
29.
Reep, D. C. (2006). Technical writing: Principles, strategies, and readings. New York: Pearson Longman.
30.
Searles, G. J. (2006). Workplace communications: The basics. New York: Pearson Longman.
31.
Selzer, J. (2004). The composing process of an engineer. In J. Johnson-Eilola & S. Selber (Eds.),Central works in technical communication (pp. 317-324). New York: Oxford University Press.
32.
Spilka, R. (2003). Orality and literacy in the workplace: Process-and text-based strategies for multiple-audience adaptation. In T. Peeples (Ed.),Professional writing and rhetoric: Readings from the field(pp. 146-170). New York: Longman. (Reprinted from Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 4(1), 44-67, 1990)
33.
Winsor, D. A. (1998). Rhetorical practices in technical work. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 12, 343-370.
34.
Woolever, K. R. (2005). Writing for the technical professions. New York: Pearson Longman.
35.
Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
