This article argues for an activity-based theory of genre knowledge. Drawing on empirical findings from case study research emphasizing “insider knowledge” and on structuration theory, activity theory, and rhetorical studies, the authors propose five general principles for genre theory: (a) Genres are dynamic forms that mediate between the unique features of individual contexts and the features that recur across contexts; (b) genre knowledge is embedded in communicative activities of daily and professional life and is thus a form of “situated cognition”; (c) genre knowledge embraces both form and content, including a sense of rhetorical appropriateness; (d) the use of genres simultaneously constitutes and reproduces social structures; and (e) genre conventions signal a discourse community's norms, epistemology, ideology, and social ontology.

The entry of ethnography and ethnographic methods into writing research, particularly during the 1980s, has been highly productive. However, this research continues to ignore many of the doubts concerning ethnography that anthropologists themselves have been raising for a number of years. This article (a) outlines more than a decade of civil war among anthropologists, (b) considers the relevance of that debate to writing researchers working ethnographically, (c) argues for more experimental ethnographic texts in contrast to the entrenched models that currently rule the field and despite the institutional resistance that experimental texts are bound to generate, and (d) suggests in cursory fashion the fate of “postmodernist” discourse in the context of the more normative discourse of institutional life. Along the way, the article analyzes some of the rhetoric of the ethnographic work of writing researchers, including Heath's Ways With Words.

This study reworks the concept of genre from rhetorical, dialectical, and dialogic perspectives. From these perspectives, genre is redefined as a stabilized-for-now or stabilized-enough site of social and ideological action. This definition is then applied to a specific literacy practice—medical record keeping—evolving in a specific context—a veterinary college. Data were gathered during a 6-month ethnographic study of the college. The larger research project focused on the teaching and learning practices that constituted literacy, i.e., the ways of speaking, reading, writing, and listening characteristics of veterinary medicine. The project consisted of interviews, observation, and document collection. Triangulation was achieved both within and between methods. Data were analyzed using Glaser and Strauss's “grounded theory” techniques. When the concept of genre is applied to medical record keeping, the complexity of this literacy practice becomes apparent. A specific record-keeping system—the Problem Oriented Veterinary Medical Record (POVMR) system—was the site of intense controversy at the college. The system articulated a set of values that one group of faculty and clinicians espoused and another group rejected. The system itself was embedded in the exam structure of the college, and a good deal of evidence emerged that the POVMR itself was promoting certain types of literacy abilities and making others less likely.

The style of discourse underlying writing instruction in this country, which has been termed essayist literacy by Scollon and Scollon and others, is grounded historically and culturally in the development of Western civilization. This style of discourse is the register of English used in academic situations, and it also has been found to be characteristic of some educated (especially male) mainstream speakers in other contexts. Because this register often differs from the naturally acquired discourse styles of students from nonmainstream groups, many such students face difficulties in writing instruction that mainstream students do not face. Given the importance of the essayist literacy register in this society, it is important (a) to make the characteristics of this discourse style explicit in order to increase the likelihood that writing instruction will be clear and available to all students, and (b) to learn about other discourse styles that are already known and used by students from a range of communities. A conceptual framework from the ethnography of communication is presented for studying verbal performances in different cultural contexts, and two examples of persuasive oral performances from ongoing research among Mexican immigrants are analyzed within this framework.

This study explores the assumption that writing is a way to learn by examining the influence of task interpretation on writing and studying as learning aids. Forty college freshmen performed two tasks: reading-to-write and reading-to-study. Approaches to each task were categorized to test for effects of task interpretation. Students answered passage-specific comprehension questions after each task and gave think-aloud protocols as they worked. To assess learning processes, protocol transcripts were analyzed using a taxonomy of cognitive operations. Writing led to lower scores than studying on two of four comprehension measures. Writing and studying led to different patterns of cognitive operations when students worked with a fact-based source passage, but (a) these differences interacted with task interpretation, and (b) virtually no effects of task were observed on a more abstract passage. Results indicate that task interpretation and the nature of the material to be learned are important mediating variables in the relationship between writing and learning.

This essay presents a critical case study of how shifts in the style and genre of written communication both reflect and influence historical shifts in political consciousness and action. The field of study is the discourse of environmental advocacy. With increased public support for actions that would forestall environmental degradation, environmental politics has diversified. Formerly a resistance movement directed toward influencing large-scale governmental or industrial actions through the rhetoric of polemical dispute, environmentalism has evolved into several distinct approaches, including a globalist movement and a grass roots movement that share an interest in policy and procedure, the traditional topics of instrumental discourse. A new genre built upon this proactive attitude—the green how-to book—currently dominates the popular literature on environmental problem solving. Capitalizing on the document designs of technical communication, these manuals recommend courses of action ranging from fixing the Environmental Protection Agency to fixing the toilet; they are directed to audiences ranging from the President of the United States to the ordinary householder. They have in common an attempt to break the paralysis of fear associated with realizations about the scale of environmental damage. But—because the instrumental genre tends to obscure relations of agent, action, and effect—covert political agendas may pass unnoticed into the personalist politics of the new literature.

This study evaluated a method for teaching writers to anticipate readers' comprehension needs. The method, called reader-protocol teaching, involves asking writers to predict readers' problems with a text and then providing them with detailed readers' responses (in the form of think-aloud protocol transcripts) to illustrate how readers construct an understanding of the text. Writers in five experimental classes critiqued a set of ten poorly written instructional texts and then analyzed the protocol transcripts of readers struggling to comprehend these texts. Writers in five control classes were taught to anticipate the reader's needs through a variety of audience-analysis heuristics and collaborative peer-response methods. Pretests and posttests were used to assess improvements in experimental and control writers' ability to anticipate and diagnose readers' comprehension problems. Pretest and posttest materials were expository science texts. Writers taught with the reader-protocol teaching method improved significantly more than did writers in control classes in the number of readers' problems they accurately predicted. In addition, in contrast to writers in control classes, writers taught with the reader-protocol method significantly increased in their ability to (a) diagnose readers' problems caused by textual omissions, (b) characterize problems from the reader's perspective, and (c) attend to global-text problems. Moreover, writers' knowledge of audience acquired in one domain (instructional text) transferred to another (expository science text).

This article, based on a year-long project in an urban K/1 classroom offers a case study of a young child who used school writing activities to perform rather than simply to communicate. A performer differs from a mere communicator in both the nature of language produced and in the kind of stance taken toward an audience. Although the child's language resources contributed to his success with written language, they did not always fit comfortably into the “writing workshop” used in his classroom; in fact, his assumptions about written language and texts conflicted in revealing ways with those undergirding a workshop approach. Thus, the study helps make explicit many unexamined assumptions of current written language pedagogies, particularly those involving the nature of literary sense, the relationship between writers' “audience” and their “helpers,” and most important, the links between oral performance, literacy pedagogy, and the use of the explicit, analytic language valued in school.

This Qualitative study sought to determine whether four high- and four low-apprehensive first-year college writers responded differently as peer evaluators of writing in a face-to-face group versus a group that communicated via an electronic-mail network. An analysis of recorded group “conversations” revealed that high apprehensives exhibited different strategies than low apprehensives for informing group members about writing during both face-to-face and e-mail sessions. Furthermore, high apprehensives during e-mail sessions participated more and offered more directions for revision than during face-to-face meetings. When revising subsequent to group meetings, high apprehensives reported relying more on group comments received during e-mail sessions than group comments received during face-to-face sessions.

Through the use of case study portraits, this article examines naturally occurring one-to-one writing conference conversations between a ninth-grade English teacher and three students in his class. Suggesting a broadened model of effective writing conference instruction, the article considers composing processes that appear to be privileged in the conference context when different students are learning to write. The focus is on the dialogic nature of markedly contrasting conversations, demonstrating that while dialogue wears many guises and while the give and take between teacher and student can be fleeting and “forgettable,” the conversational context contributes to a deliberative process critical to the process of composing. Methodology for the research on which this article is based drew on ethnographic techniques combined with discourse analysis of writing conference conversation.

The authors recount their attempt to analyze a case study in terms of two conflicting rhetorics: a collectivist rhetoric that values most the contributions individuals make to an ongoing collective project and an individualist rhetoric that values most the original and autonomous voice. These two rhetorics conflict in the experience of one writer working concurrently in a literature seminar within a university English department and in the public relations office of a reproductive services agency. This conflict, centering on different rhetorical ethics, had less to do with competence than with commitment: the writer's commitment to the individualist ethics practiced in the writing she did in the literature seminar prevented her from valuing the writing she did at the agency that worked toward a collectivist end. The authors then examine how this analysis is problematized by alternative interpretations of this case that demonstrate that the collectivist rhetoric practiced by researchers and theorists of writing itself involves the interaction of conflicting individualist assertions. This analysis suggests that the most useful theoretical insights any case might provide into the question of how writing ought to be taught are embodied in the exchange of interpretations that case provokes and in the confrontation of diverse arguments that emerge from that exchange.

This qualitative study examined the transitions that writers make when moving from academic to professional discourse communities. Subjects were six university seniors enrolled in a special “writing internship course” in which they discussed and analyzed the writing they were doing in 12-week professional internships at corporations, small businesses, and public service agencies in a major metropolitan area. Participant-observer and case-study data included drafts and final copies of all writing that the interns produced on the job (including texts and suggested revisions by other employees), an ethnographic log of data and speculations arising from the group discussions, written course journals from each intern, transcriptions of taped, discourse-based and general interviews with the interns, and a final 15-page retrospective analysis of each intern's writing on the job. Results showed a remarkably consistent pattern of expectation, frustration, and accommodation as the interns adjusted to their new writing communities. The results have important implications for the lateral and vertical transfer of writing skills across different communicative contexts.

Understanding the effects of readers on writing development requires prior conceptualization of the relationship between writers and readers. Recently two major schools of thought have emerged concerning this relationship: social constructionism and social interactionism. Influenced by Saussure's structuralist concept of la langue as a set of language norms and Durkheim's concept of social fact, social constructionists emphasize normal, standard discourse: Their key principle is empirical consensus, their unit of analysis is the canon, and their level of social analysis is the community. By contrast, social interactionists, following Bakhtin, focus directly on situated, heteroglossic discourse and seek to characterize la parole, or language use, in useful terms: Their key principle is reciprocity between conversants, and their unit of analysis, as well as their level of social analysis, is the communicational dyad (writer-reader pairs; speaker-listener pairs). Because they focus on whole writer-reader communities, social constructionists deal with the effects of readers on writers in general terms, and they typically reify readers into “the Reader” when dealing with individual cases. By contrast, social interactionists, who concern themselves with describing actual, individual writers and readers, often in ethnographic studies, must articulate a principled analysis of writers and readers without analytic access recourse to group norms. This article first contrasts social constructionist and social interactionist approaches to the problem of discourse and then examines recent social interactionist studies concerning the effects of readers on writers' development, including investigations of word-segmentation skills, peer conferencing, and instructional discourse.

Linguists and philosophers have traditionally argued that definite constructions presuppose familiarity on the part of the addressee. This article examines empirically the question of what kind of familiarity, in the context of newspaper editorials, this might be. A significant issue, articulated by literacy theorist Walter Ong, is the nature of the reader and whether a writer can know what a reader is familiar with. Taking a case study approach, the author examines definite constructions in 15 editorial articles from the Christian Science Monitor. These constructions are classified, following Brown and Yule (1983), as either re-evoking, new, or inferrable. It is argued that for purposes of studying the writer-reader relationship, the inferrables are most interesting since they indicate what the writer believes the reader is capable of inferring. Ultimately both the new and the inferrable show that writers use definite constructions in accord with genre conventions. The author concludes that such conventions make communication efficient.

The environmental impact statement (EIS) was created by the National Environmental Policy Act in 1969 as a means of ensuring careful study of possible effects on the environment of projects involving public lands and as an aid to effective decisions regarding such projects. This article presents a case study involving the reading of several EISs produced by one government agency, the Bureau of Land Management. An analysis of these documents reveals that, to answer the leading question of rhetoricians in the field of technical writing—Is the document effective?—we must consider the social and cultural context of the EIS as well as the characteristics of the text, its organization and style. Simple notions of purpose and audience are ruled out. We must account for pragmatics as well as syntactics and semantics. The very category of “effectiveness” is conditioned by the historical and political forces that shape the EIS. An approach through genre theory is recommended.

Donald Graves has achieved wide recognition for propounding a method for teaching elementary students how to write that stresses unstructured expression of personal experiences. He uses his case study of sixteen New Hampshire children as a research base providing proof of the efficacy of this method. However, his observations from this study qualify as reportage more than research. The work of the Graves team in New Hampshire represents a demonstration of teaching ideas that work well under favorable circumstances. Because he never considers negative evidence for the hypotheses he is testing, his work does not constitute research.

This essay examines narrative choices in experimental (interpretive) and traditional (analytical) ethnographies. The material covered includes probability in quantitative and qualitative research; ethnographic narratives as ways of knowing and telling about the world; perspective as a consequence of both narrative stance and narrative voice; and the economics of producing interpretations and analyses in academic prose. Underlying the argument is the assumption that decisions ethnographers make about what to tell and how to tell it are influenced by to whom they plan to tell it and under what circumstances. Hence the ethnographer's narrative dilemma glosses over the epistomological crisis that authorship raises for the social sciences, namely, whether the researcher or the research method is telling the story.

This article presents a rationale for studying collaborative writing and evidence that coauthors can learn about the writing process from each other. Collaborative writing is explored as an instructional activity that can help students expand their repertoire of writing strategies and their mastery of written communication skills. Collaborative writing activities also offer researchers new insights into the writing process. This discussion about collaborative writing is followed by a case study of two coauthors in the fourth grade who represent general findings from a larger study of 43 fourth- and fifth-grade writers. Detailed analyses of the composing sessions, individual texts, collaborative texts, and interviews indicate that coauthors share creative input, evaluative perspectives, composing strategies, and notions about “good writing” when they work together. Collaborative writing, thus, can complement instruction because it is a direct—albeit subtle—form of learning.

Many researchers in composition instruction assume that free and journal writing exclusively and necessarily produce “meaningful” writing. This is not substantiated in their limited case study research, or in the research of anyone else. We need to establish a precise definition of “meaningful” writing, determine its place in the curriculum, and determine better means of designing instruction that produces writing that is both meaningful and of high quality. The meta-analysis of Hillocks (1984) indicates that structured composition assignments produce better writing than nondirectional writing experiences. This article explores the reasons for this, and establishes hypotheses based on these reasons for developing a theory of composition instruction. The hypotheses support a need for structured instruction, rather than student-generated direction.

A critical area in the advancement of literacy is the production of textbooks that reflect recent insights on language and discourse. However, this project is problematic within the established procedures whereby textbooks are reviewed and approved. This article presents an ethnography of one author's experience and suggests some guidelines whereby rational criteria might be widely established.