Preface
Harrison comments that, nearly two decades after this article was first written, she realizes "that the primary activities of communication theorists are to derive and synthesize" (p. 255). She recognizes not only how much of this essay was based upon other research but also that this essay was one part of an evolving communication theory that has since become "the status quo" (255).
Introduction
Most professional writing is done within the context of organizations. While the amount of writing varies in different fields, most college-educated working adults do some writing on the job.
Writing that is done on the job tends to reflect the writer's analysis of organizational policies and procedures, understanding of readers, and awareness of social and environmental constraints.
Studying writing in organizational contexts helps us to understand the relationship between how organizations work and how its members write. It might also help us to develop broader theories about the impact of social context on the act of writing. Finally, it helps students of writing to better analyze and prepare for writing in and for their organizations.
One major challenge to studying organizational writing is the necessity for interdisciplinary research. It requires an understanding of both composition theory and organization theory. This article presents several approaches to studying writing in organizational contexts.
The Nature of Context
Much of the research on writing has focused on the social aspect of writing. This includes not only studying the relationship between the writer and the reader, but also studying the environment in which the writer and reader interact. Whether an organization should be considered a rhetorical context depends upon which approach the researcher takes.
Context as Situation
In a traditional approach such as Bitzer's, rhetorical context is considered "a situation that constitutes an occasion for rhetoric" (257). The elements of audience, exigence, and constraints trigger an appropriate rhetorical response. In this approach, situations are objective and set. The people experiencing the situation are constrained by and respond to the situation.
In this approach, there is no need to analyze organizational context because rhetorical situations are isolated events that occur between individuals. However, Harrison contends that organizations do influence rhetorical situations because their unique policies, procedures, and members may limit the kinds of situations that may occur.
Context as Community
In the New Rhetoric, reality is not seen as objective. Instead, knowledge arises from rhetorical activity or social interaction; it doesn't exist outside of the knower. The knower's assumptions influence the way they view or understand an experience.
Individuals who share assumptions make up communities, and community knowledge may different depending upon the context of each community. When individuals communicate within a community, they are demonstrating that they belong or identify with others in that community. Because of shared assumptions, individuals within a community can understand each other, and that understanding further reinforces the sense of community.
While rhetorical activity can unite communities, it can also exclude other individuals. Those that don't share their knowledge or behaviors may be excluded. Because of this, shared meanings that are reinforced within communities can be analyzed.
In this approach, academic disciplines, such as science or composition, can be viewed as unique communities with specific characteristics. If this is so, then organizations too can be considered communities with unique characteristics that should be examined for rhetorical context.
Organizations as Rhetorical Contexts
From an organizational theorist's perspective, organizations are seen "as a social phenomenon constructed through the interaction of symbol-using organisms" (260). They are viewed as cultures. Therefore, a number of researchers have used ethnographic methods to study organizations just as they would different ethnic groups.
Two perspectives in particular are helpful for analyzing an organization's rhetorical context: viewing organizations "as systems of knowledge" or viewing them as "patterns of symbolic discourse" (260).
Organizations as Systems of Knowledge
One approach to studying organizational culture views it as a " 'system of cognitions or a system of knowledge and cognitions' " (260). As individuals interact in the organizational environment, they create and reinforce the beliefs around which their culture is based. In this approach, researchers attempt to understand how an organization's members create knowledge and how that knowledge is used to guide behavior.
The evolutionary model focuses on "the organizational-level processes by which knowledge is constructed" (260). It argues that organizations retain interpretations of experience that are positive or useful, and these meanings become the shared knowledge of the organization.
The social information processing model focuses on "the social processes by which knowledge is established and shared" (260). Organization members interact with each other, sharing their perspectives and attitudes about the organization. These shared ideas become a system of knowledge, referred to as a "paradigm" (260).
The basis of this approach is the belief that thinking and acting are related. Studying organizational knowledge can provide insight into members' beliefs and roles. A major challenge, however, is understanding how organizational knowledge affects the actions of individual members.
Organizations as Patterns of Symbolic Discourse
Another approach views the organization as a context for making and using symbols. Symbols may include the words and images developed around the unique actions, events, or objects of an organization. Studying the symbols that are commonly used in organizations can provide insight into the relationships between and the actions of an organization's members.
Symbols such as images and metaphors can reveal much about an organization's beliefs and even the way its members think. One example is the use of war metaphors to represent corporate takeovers.
Common words may take a unique meaning for members of an organization because of shared understanding. Examples are slogans, stories, or sagas that illustrate the beliefs and values that guide the actions of an organization.
In summary, the New Rhetoric expands the definition of rhetorical context beyond the rhetorical situation. It includes the larger environment, such as an organization, that sets the stage for rhetorical situations to occur. This consideration is necessary because an organization influences the beliefs of and symbols used by its members.
Implications for Research
One recommendation for applying these approaches is to examine the shared knowledge of an organization and how that influences the writing done by its members. The culture of an organization might influence or limit the writing methods used by members.
Researchers may also examine organization's policies regarding how to write, what to write, and who writes. Deviations from established policies might also reveal something about the individual writer's rhetorical choices.
The symbols used by an organization can be analyzed to understand the rhetorical choices that are available to an organization's members. Symbols can also be analyzed to understand how they contribute to the creation and maintenance of the organization itself.
Implications for Writing in Organizations
Writing for an organization can be challenging. Organizational writing requires that the writer learn about the culture of the organization. Without an understanding of the values, goals, and beliefs of an organization, a writer might not be able to effectively communicate with the intended audience. The organization may also have written or unwritten rules about writing that must be considered.
Considering an organization as a culture is helpful for performing audience analysis. If members of an organizations share beliefs and symbols, then the writer can better plan how to approach such an audience. The writer can also consider the characteristics of those who are not organization members and can write appropriately for that audience as well.
Analyzing an organization's culture is helpful for both new and old members. Those new to an organization can analyze its culture to better integrate into the organization and develop writing appropriate for the organization. Long-standing members of an organization can benefit from understanding the underlying beliefs of the organization and can better target the desired audience.
Finally, analyzing organizational culture can help writers of all kinds understand the social environment. Analyzing an organization's symbols as if they were text helps writers to understand the shared meanings that influence the interactions of an organization's members.
Conclusion
Both rhetorical and organizational theories can be used to understand writing in organizations. Both theories believe that discourse is based on social interaction. Discourse unites individuals with shared beliefs into communities, and the common knowledge shared by a community's members allows them to understand each other.
Writers can benefit from approaching organizations as rhetorical contexts because it allows them to better appreciate the unique beliefs and symbols used by each organization. They can understand both the shared culture of those in the organization and the differences of those outside of the organization. This is especially important for technical writers who interact with both technical specialists and the general public. It is also important for others who write for organizations because it helps them to understand assumptions, to challenge them if necessary, and to create new knowledge.
Submitted by Team 1
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
An interesting consequence of the academic focus on organizational writing over the last twenty years is the large amount of scholarship that has dealt with organizational writing intended for other members of the organization and the comparatively small amount of scholarship that has dealt with how the organizational context informs how writers write for audiences outside their organizations. Interesting, considering that most technical writers would consider the writing they do for their company's audience to be the heart of their job. Unfortunately, it's next to impossible to conduct ethnographic research that focuses on writers in organizations and their external audiences--notably because they and their audiences are not collocated.
Harrison's discussion of how rhetoric can help build identity (rather than the other way around) reminded me of an article from rhetoric class about how political agitators in Canada essentially created the idea of the quebecois. The rhetoric they used induced people to begin to identify themselves as quebecois. And a novel way of viewing themselves with respect to the rest of Canada was born.
I remember that article, David. The "inventors" of the Quebecois did use rhetoric to unite a community, although I suspect that the rhetoric was effective because these French-Canadians already were bound by community rhetoric of a more general nature. They did have a culture, a history, and most importantly, a language that tied together their common beliefs or assumptions.
It is interesting to realize how terminology and stories that are commonplace to a a community or an organization can have the effect of being both inclusive and exclusive.
Better writing is an outcome of an author's deeper understanding of the organization. Particularly the organization's values, mission, purpose and history.As the author states, a company's culture gives us clues about the audience-- and what are the best ways to approach the audience. This helps put the writing into context.
If, as Harrison says, ""rhetorical and organizational theorists agree that discourse processes are embedded in social contexts," and that "rhetorical choices made by the writer must be based upon knowledge about the nature and characteristics of the organization itself," then at what point is a writer capable of producing works that will please the audience of the organization they are writing for? Will it take months, years, to fully understand the organization's culture? Is it possible that an independent technical writer will never achieve the same success as the writer who is producing documents for a single organization?
The different ways that theorists approach context are interesting. Is it possible to have various theoretical circumstances shaping context at one time?
I found a lot of similarities in the approach of this article to “The Social Perspective and Professional Communication: Diversity and Directions in Research” by Charlotte Thralls and Nancy Roundy Blyler, which my team, Team 6 reported on. I noted this particularly in the discussion on context as community, where Harrison states that according to the New Rhetoric, “knowledge arises from rhetorical activity or social interaction,” and that “individuals who share assumptions make up communities.” Also, “when individuals communicate within a community, they are demonstrating that they belong or identify with others in that community.” This is very similar to Thralls and Blyler’s comments on the social constructionist perspective, which views “communal entities as the sources of knowledge maintained by consensual agreement; as the repositories of discourse conventions by which communities are defined and shaped; and as the bodies to which nonmembers must—through collaboration—be acculturated.” The concept and definition of community is central to both of these approaches.
This article is supportive of contextual reading, and we were able to discuss what writing and reading without contextual knowledge and understanding leads to (example: Nazi-memos in Ethic of Expediency). I still struggle with the use of rhetoric as creating someone's identity, as it lends itself to easy abuse and manipulation of individuals. the use of rhetoric as a persuasive tool is a huge responsibility for technical writers and it should not be taken for granted.
I found in this article that I could most relate to was the context as community. I have learned at MSU that each discipline here has its own communication style and own set of philosophies. I think that people should be able to assimulate into more than one community so that they can write better for a variety of audiences.
Good summary! The article reminds me of the different jobs I have had, and the different "languages" used at each of them. At my current job, there are a number of abbreviations for terms that employees are just supposed to know. There is not a list of definitions anywhere, and you are not trained on it when you start. You just have to pick it up. We had an author come to our workplace a couple weeks ago, and he had to ask a couple times what we were referring to when someone said one of an abbreviation. Because he isn't a company employee, he isn't familiar with the terminology.
Understanding that community impacts context is critical in the process of writing. The best example, I think, is grant writing. When I was involved with school-to-work endeavors in a K-12 education system, I know I was successful in obtaining grants because I knew the goals and mission of the State's school-to-work program (community) and was able to articulate that knowledge in the grant writing application. So, as Gary indicated, knowing the the company's culture, or in my example, a community's culture, helped me write a successful document.
We have a new CEO at my company and she is attempting to change the organizational writing that is produced (and the thinking and planning that go before the writing). It is interesting to watch as those who have been at the company for a while try to transition to a new writing philosophy. Some find it challenging to change the ways things have "always" been done. Lots of frustration and grumbling by some, while others are willing and able to jump in; some find the change cumbersome while others find the process helpful and valuable. And yet, it will be important to embrace the changes if the goal is to make a favorable impression on the boss. I would find it harder to understand the reality of "organizational writing" if it wasn't so clearly an issue for me and my coworkers in my organization.
I really appreciated reading everyone’s comments to this blog. I have to agree with Lance-how long does it take for a technical communicator to learn the culture of an organization to communicate to its audience effectively? Interesting question. Probably varies from organization to organization and project to project.
I also found Lori’s comments interesting too. As I was reading, I also thought of grant writing. To write a grant proposal that you want to get accepted, it is absolutely vital to do some reader analysis and research into the culture of the organization, agency, business (whatever it might be) that you are writing the grant for (goals, ethics, etc)-the more directly you can speak to your audience, I believe the better grant proposal you will have.
Just like Dianna, I felt that this article had many parallels with our group’s essay “The Social Perspective and Professional Communication” by Thralls and Blyler. Many concepts of community, knowledge, and communication were applied to the organization in this article. I think that learning about the culture, either on the global scale or on the organizational scale, is essential. I think that organizational culture can include or exclude depending on the situation. This is another reminder to me as a future technical writer that I need to consider more than just a text…
Yikes, I felt as if I was reading an I/O Psych article there! Good job on summarizing the article!
It is absolutely crucial for the writer to know the culture of an organization if there is any plan to write about it or write for outside audiences. If one's mission statement is in direct conflict of one's organization, either the organization or the individual has created an error, either in reporting or in analysis.
Also, studying the culture of an organization leads to understanding the organization's success, which in turn leads to continued innovation and growth.
Post a Comment