Reviewing Michael Carter's "Ways of Knowing, Doing and Writing in the Disciplines"

This week, as part of my class on qualitative research methods, I read this wonderful article by Michael Carter. First some basic information about the piece:

Where you can find it: CCC 58.3 (Feb 2007)

Audience: Composition scholars and professionals

Genre: a mix of (informal) qualitative research, rhetorical analysis, and argument

General focus: writing as a way of knowing in disciplines besides English; Writing in the Disciplines; genres and metagenres

Carter's argument (in 100 words or fewer): Writing is a way of knowing for all disciplines, something that is clear in outcomes statements from departments across the university; because writing is a way of knowing, it is less useful to think of discrete disciplines; instead we should look at disciplinary writing as part of one of four metagenres based on four reasons that students are asked to write: problem solving, empirical inquiry, research from sources, and/or performance.

Lenses/theories at work: Carter's work here is grounded (generally speaking) in 3 arenas/histories/theories: the disciplinary development of Writing Across the Curriculum and Writing in the Disciplines in Rhet/Comp; Carter's personal experience and problem solving at his own institutions; genre theory.

3 important quotes:

• "Because professors typically learn to write in their disciplines not by any direct instruction but by a process of slow acculturation through various apprenticeship discourses, they are unable to see that writing itself is specific to the discipline" (385).
• "Though the research conventions of microbiology and political science differ in significant ways, the faculty in both fields point to similar ways of doing: identifying questions related to the field, establishing a hypothesis for answers to the questions, testing the hypothesis by gathering data based on observations, and drawing conclusions about the hypothesis from the data. The responses to this situation are generally the same" (397).
• "Faculty come to understand that what counts as good writing is writing that meets the expectations of faculty in their disciplines. It’s also beneficial that all this takes place on their own turf. It is not the writing professional who is telling them what counts as good writing in their fields. The faculty themselves are the experts. And as experts, they also take responsibility for students’ writing in their disciplines” (408).

Carter's article seeks to challenge not only the disciplines' view of writing and how students learn to write but the very concept of disciplines as disparate, discrete bodies of knowledge. Carter points out, through his discussion of genre theory, the complexity of the writing situations students encounter outside of FYC and suggests that viewing writing situations across the disciplines as answering one of four major purposes, writing professionals might better work with faculty (attempting to include writing in their courses without feeling like they're responsible for something outside their purview) and students (attempting to navigate the myriad expectations of teachers across disciplines and genres).

The time Carter spends analyzing outcomes statements and connecting them to genres and purposes is particularly helpful, though the lack of either quatitative analysis of his data (He mentions assessment plans from 51 programs throughout the university but gives us little else in the way of numerical data about those programs or the content of the assessment plans.) or qualitative case studies that address specific situations/cases or individuals weakens his discussion somewhat. It's also a bit troubling that he doesn't include the voices of researchers, scholars, or professors from outside our own disciplinary literature though those groups are the focus of his discussion.

As someone working in a WID context (with business professors and students) I find his discussion of the connections between disciplines useful and his admonition that, even in matters of writing, disciplinary professors are still experts. If we position ourselves as teacher-scholars in Rhet/Comp alongside teacher-scholars of other disciplines, WID programs might be met with a bit less mistrust and skepticism.