Processes: Writing Across Academic Careers

Reviewed by Linda Belau, Professor, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley on 5/14/24

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

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.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

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.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

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.

Clarity rating: 5

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.

Consistency rating: 5

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.

Modularity rating: 5

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.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

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.

Interface rating: 5

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.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

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.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

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.

Comments

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.

Reviewed by Cindy Johanek, Writing Faculty, North Hennepin Community College on 6/14/23

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

It might be impossible for a book about WAC/WID to be truly “comprehensive.” After all, the editors cannot possibly share writings and reflections from all disciplines. However, the range of disciplines presented in four sections here (Nursing, STEM and Health Sciences, Writing and Education, History and Culture) gives us a strong sampling of the epistemological, methodological, and rhetorical similarities and differences among writers in fields representing the sciences, social sciences, and humanities. Faculty reading this book could be inspired to create their own collections of samples from within their own disciplines.

Tying the 28 works together in this collection are the reflections included by the authors—students, instructors, published authors—of each sample. The reflections bring to life the title and purpose of the book and, by extension, provide a “comprehensive” look at WAC and WID. For instance, a student reflecting on writing an essay about a novel shares a personal connection to the main character but also describes the process of library research to enhance her claims and her own knowledge. In a reflection on a published scientific study, another author reflects on the role of audience awareness in making some decisions and considers the influence of his own teaching experiences on his writing style.

Of course, the range of disciplines here requires that a range of style manuals will also make appearances. Readings that focused on literature, of course, use MLA documentation. Other readings use APA or CMS as appropriate. While students (and, admittedly, a lot of faculty) find the many style guides a frustrating part of a writer’s work, it is a reality that disciplines have adopted these different styles. I appreciate that they are visible here. Most first-year writing classes teach MLA, but how can writing instructors introduce (or, at least, acknowledge) this range of styles? A mere introduction is not enough, of course, as it is incumbent upon those in other disciplines to teach the style expected in their disciplines as a part of the rhetoric, format, and language that form the conventions of their fields. This book contains exemplars in that regard.

I don’t see an Index or Glossary.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

I appreciate the range of content in a book like this. Here, we see 28 sample texts from writers in several disciplines plus a sustained examination of the writing process via reflections from the writers themselves. We can trust, I think, the accuracy of sample texts published in peer reviewed journals or assessed by instructors of these students’ courses. In the end, however, the greatest strength of this book comes from these writers’ reflections on their own writing processes, so “accuracy” is not the big question. In these reflections, writers usually shared their starting points, next steps, obstacles, [many!] emotions, research, thinking, and other elements in the process of producing the sample texts shared in this book. Each one, of course, is different and reflects the individuality we see among writers, but we see common threads emerge, too.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

This collection can easily be updated or supplemented over time. The excerpts from published articles seem to be recent and even as current as this year (2023!), but it is difficult to tell when the student samples were written. I don’t find this to be a significant weakness, but it would be nice to see the dates included in each sample text, whether a publication date or the semester/year of a student assignment.

That said, the true relevance of the texts in this collection is tied to reflections on the writing process, and readers would be hard-pressed to consider the individuals who not only contributed sample texts, but also wrote reflections on their writing process(es) as “outdated” somehow. It might be interesting to be in contact with the same authors, say, 5-10 years from now, to track how their writing processes change over time or against the demands of a new text, etc. But this text will remain relevant for quite some time.

Clarity rating: 5

The introductory segments are very inviting to readers and are written in casual, accessible prose. The two most important introductions frame the purpose and structure of the remaining sections of the book. First, Christopher Iverson helps readers understand the differences (and similarities) between Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) and Writing in the Disciplines (WID) by borrowing definitions provided by the WAC Clearinghouse at Colorado State (a favorite resource of mine, too). WAC is meant to support student learning in all disciplines and encourages faculty to “use writing more deliberately and more often” (WAC Clearinghouse). In contrast, WID involves challenging students to learn the genres and conventions of a specific discipline or profession. On my own campus, I have worked with Paralegal students writing legal briefs, for example, and psychology students writing an IRB Protocol.
A second introductory segment, “Writers on Writing” by John Nader, sets the reflective tone of the remaining work and supports the focus on PROCESSES. Nader, with those inviting pronouns of “you” and “us,” describes his writing process and the connections between writing and thinking, between readers and writers. He ends the piece with a playful joke about getting lost in thought while writing this very piece, causing him to be late to a meeting. (My own train of thought while writing this review has been repeatedly interrupted by a needy dog!)
When it comes to jargon/terminology in the remaining text, we should actually expect to see jargon and discipline-specific terminology that we won’t understand. This is a part of the point. As I read a published essay on the reproductive processes of fungi, for example, I had no idea what “the fusion of two compatible haploid nuclei to form a diploid zygote and its subsequent division by meiosis” (Adair) means, but that’s OK. When we write within our disciplines, especially when publishing that writing, we should assume our readers know the jargon and should not need “dictionary definitions” of field-specific terms. As we help our students transition from “student writing” to “scholarly/professional writing,” especially in audience awareness, the student habits of defining all of our terms must be left behind. So, yes, readers will encounter jargon/terminology they might not understand, but we are invited to discuss what that means, why it happens, and that it’s OK.

Consistency rating: 5

The text offers samples from a range of disciplines, and those disciplines present their own conventions, terminology, and topics. Such is the nature of a collection of works. Reflections on the writing process, provided with each piece, will tie the works together and provide a solid, consistent framework, maintaining the WAC/WID focus of the book and enhancing its purpose to explore PROCESSES.

Modularity rating: 5

Each text is short and is supplemented by a reflection from the author of that text. Texts come from a range of students, faculty, and published authors. In some cases of longer published articles, a shorter excerpt was provided instead of the whole text. The Table of Contents lists each text clearly, and clicking on any specific link will bring readers directly to the text they would like to see.

If an instructor assigned readings in a classroom, we could easily “pick and choose” from among the readings presented here if desired. I’m not sure I would use the whole book in a class. In fact, I see great value of this book for faculty wanting to understand WAC/WID and wanting to enhance student learning by incorporating more writing into their classrooms. If I had an opportunity to teach a workshop for faculty, I would share this book as a discussion-starter and as a range of good examples to consider for classroom use.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

Readers can easily navigate this well-organized book. After introductory remarks exploring how and why we write, explaining the purpose and impetus of the book, and distinguishing between WAC and WID, the four main sections clearly identify the sample disciplines the editors include: Nursing, STEM and Health Science, Writing and Education, and History and Culture. Individual readings can be selected directly from the Table of Contents. Readers can easily focus on a few chosen samples or a particular section (or the entire book) as they wish. Individual titles make clear the type of sample text readers will see: reflections on the writing process, experiments or research in a particular field, discussions on pedagogy. While the whole book provides valuable contributions, it is also the kind of book readers can “read around in” and explore the sections most relevant or interesting to them.

Interface rating: 5

I saw no interface issues. Some readings include images or charts, but I found them to be readable and clear without distortion. For articles that included a writer’s reflection, the original text and the reflection are clearly identifiable and are kept together in the same link.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

I did not see any grammatical errors. Readers will notice, however, that the range of sample texts come from students, faculty, and published authors. This range results in varied levels of sophistication, but this is one of the strong features of the book. Because each sample text is accompanied by a reflection, it’s interesting to note the differences in formality and voice between the “formal” text sample and the same writer’s reflection. After all, genre can influence such things.

Cultural Relevance rating: 4

I did not identify anything that would be overtly insensitive or offensive. It’s unclear how inclusive the text is regarding race, ethnicity, backgrounds, etc., as identities of authors are not always clear, and topics range from scientific study to literature. Surely, the authors represent a range of disciplines, and some texts explore topics that could be in support of diversity issues, such as an essay on a novel by Mexican-American author Sandra Cisneros and an op-ed piece about re-gendered words. Inclusivity and diversity can be discussed in many ways after reading these sample texts, however. For instance, as I read a brief excerpt about the history of accounting regulations in the U.S., I began wishing that the authors would acknowledge that the developments they mention from the late 1700’s, through the 1800’s, occurred in a time of slavery, or that the development of railroads relied in part on mistreated Chinese laborers. I accept, however, that the focus of the authors was to explain the development of accounting regulations, but inviting students to explore “what’s missing?” can prompt fantastic discussions and research about how truncated presentations of any field can lead to exclusion and, by extension, histories that overlook inequality of many kinds, unfair labor practices, and the political power of the elite.

Comments

I have recommended to a colleague that we use this text to design a WAC/WID workshop for faculty on our campus. We do not have a formal WAC program and hope to start one.