Processes: Writing Across Academic Careers
I think the text is both highly comprehensive and, at the same time, not as comprehensive as it could be. On a more specific level, I find that the particular chapters and materials for each of the general areas that are covered in the resource are quite excellent and offer a highly comprehensive treatment of writing in the covered discipline, especially insofar as each one of these general areas organizes itself around the notion of the message that practitioners as writers offer in relation to their experiences. This is a most effect way to organize and deliver the text's material, and, in my opinion, offers a solid focus for the entire section. Further, the inclusion of reflections by practitioners in the area are effective, particularly when grouped with reflections from student writing as well. The student reflection sections are one of the most impactful parts of the text, and I think that they are nicely arranged in key areas in the various larger sections of the resource. Beyond that, the inclusion of multiple drafts of professional writing in the various disciplines is also very illuminating and adds useful dimension to the text. At the more general level—that is, the level of the text itself and what professions it does and does not include—I find that the text is less comprehensive, perhaps simply due to the fact that one cannot add every single discipline that exists in a university setting. A book that ambitious would be difficult to engage with due to its excessive size. So choices have obviously been made, and I think that they are, on the most part, excellent choices. The inclusion of the nursing profession is super important, and it is also one of the strengths of the text, as this particular section demonstrates quite clearly the relevance of writing instruction in a profession that would seem, to many who are making judgements, to not need to focus on writing skills. The same thought goes along with the section on the STEM discipline. Clearly a very elemental field in academia, and so important to add to the text. As a scholar trained in writing pedagogy, philosophy, and literary theory, I was pleasantly surprised to see references to Martin Heidegger, Soren Kierkegaard, and Sigmund Freud in one of the reflections added to this section, and I think the inclusion of such interdisciplinary matter makes these modules so effective. I felt that the section focused on Writers Writing on Education as well as the section on History and Culture were more diffuse in their effects, and I wonder why some of these sections weren’t broken down into smaller sections with more focus on each one, particularly since the humanities are the most central disciplines for writing in the academic disciplines. That being said, though, I thought that these sections were nonetheless excellent in their presentation and in the materials included, particularly some of the more Cultural Studies-focused texts like film and on philosophical writing. I was happy to see that range in these sections, and I feel that it is a major strength of the resource.
While I am unfamiliar with some of the disciplinary knowledge that is presented in the book, I did not feel that there were any glaring inaccuracies. On the contrary, I found that the texts that were shared in the resource were informative, thought-provoking and super interesting. In the sections where I am more familiar with the disciplinary knowledge, I was impressed by the range and accuracy of the material. Seems like excellent work all around from a group of highly engaged scholars and colleagues who were serious about creating a solid text for their Writing in the Disciplines program at their SUNY campus.
I found the entire text to be relevant and straightforward. I also felt that the content was up-to-date and engaging. The inclusion of the reflections, many embedded into (or immediately after) another written text, as an elemental part of the text also gives the impression that the work is focused as well as in process, and that, in and of itself, provides and excellent performative dimension to the text insofar as the material in the text functions in much the same way it would in a traditional writing course, which is typically focused on process and the act of writing as a continuous undertaking. In this sense, the title “Processes” is perfect for the text. I also feel that the resource is, more or less, infinitely capable of timeliness because it is a true OER, with the capacity for ongoing revision and updating. This is demonstrated with the inclusion of both a link for others to submit Ancillary Material and also by a second link inviting Edits to the book record.
I found this to be a excellent resource in terms of clarity, especially given the fact that a number of divergent disciplines are represented in the text, which could lead to confusion. The inclusion of the Reflection narratives that accompany the more primary materials in the text go a long way toward making all of the discourses (even the more scientific and/or technical ones) clear and concise.
I found the resource to be consistent in terminology and framework. Furthermore, I felt that the overarching organizational device that the editors used to present each of the various chapters/disciplines as "Messages" was very effective and kept the feeling of consistency across a resource that is gathering, in some cases, very different discourses.
I found the text excellent in terms of its modularity. There was the inclusion of visual breaks between different parts in each item in the text (for example, an excerpt from an article) and then an accompanying Reflection. I found this approach very effective and also disarming: a user who might be expecting to be put off or confused by some of the less familiar material would be put well at ease with this organizational strategy.
As stated in the two sections about (Consistency and Modularity), I found the overall organization of the resource to be one of its strongest features. There were a lot of options that the authors might have deployed as their essential organizational strategy, and I think the one that they decided on is excellent in its range and its capacity for orienting the reader.
I found the interface excellent and the resource very easy to navigate. I chose to view the text as a pdf, and every page of the document had a marker at the bottom, letting the reader know where they were in the text. Being able to click on different items in the Table of Contents and moving directly to that item in the 200-page document also made navigating the text super easy. As for other display issues throughout the text, I found all of the tables, graphs, and other supplemental matter was clearly displayed with logical layout and clear boundaries for when it started and ended.
I found that the text was written flawlessly throughout, despite the presence of sometimes quite varying voices from scholars in quite divergent fields of study. Excellent work in this regard.
I found this resource to be culturally sensitive and fully inclusive throughout, and I appreciated the inclusion of elements like gender identity in the text.
Overall, I find this to be an excellent resource that is well-written, logically presented, and ambitiously imagined. I also like the fundamental cohesiveness of the text, which I assume to be the result of the authors engaging with a group of scholar colleagues with whom they are comfortable working and sharing. A collaborative undertaking that offers the best of the disciplines chosen to be presented, this is an outstanding text that I think colleagues at my own institution should consult when and if we embark on a Writing in the Disciplines project.