Bremner-ESP

8/18/2019 Bremner-ESP

1/12

Collaborative writing: Bridging the gap betweenthe textbook and the workplace

Stephen Bremner *

Department of English, City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong

Abstract

A key challenge facing professional communication teachers is the need to bridge the gap between the culture of theclassroom and the reality of the workplace. One area of difference between the two contexts is the way in which collabo-rative activities surrounding the construction of written text are enacted. Differences in collaborative practices result fromfactors such as the way in which hierarchies and power relationships are arranged, differing levels of knowledge and exper-tise, and the motives for collaboration. An understanding of this aspect of workplace writing could benefit the studentwriter. However, an analysis of eight currently used business communication textbooks, an important resource for ESPteachers, suggests that collaboration is discussed only in the most general terms, and specific differences between thetwo contexts are rarely addressed. Additionally, few tasks provide students with activity-types that would help them under-stand and experience the kinds of collaborative interaction that they will encounter at work. This paper argues the need for

business communication textbooks to narrow the gap between the classroom and the workplace, and discusses ways inwhich more authentic collaborative activities can be set up in the classroom. 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The importance of collaborative writing is well attested. Its prevalence in the workplace was demonstratedin early research by Faigley and Miller (1982) and Paradis, Dobrin, and Miller (1985), among others, and sincethen studies in this area have ranged from attempts to describe and categorise collaborative activity (Couture& Rymer, 1989; Debs, 1991; Ede & Lunsford, 1990; Killingsworth & Jones, 1989 ) to investigations of large-

scale collaboration (Cross, 1994, 2001). The notion of collaborative writing is extended by most researchersbeyond the simple idea of groups coming together to produce texts. Couture and Rymer, for example, see col-laboration as the “oral and written communication pertaining to a document during the process of planning,drafting and revising it”, and say that “it may be fair to conclude that significant writing is enveloped in talk”(1989, p. 79), a point echoed by Debs (1991) and Louhiala-Salminen (2002). The profusion of terminology that

0889-4906/$- see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.esp.2009.11.001

* Tel.: +852 27889608; fax: +852 27888894.E-mail address: [email protected]

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

English for Specific Purposes 29 (2010) 121–132

www.elsevier.com/locate/esp

ENGLISH FOR SPECIFICPURPOSES

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2009.11.001mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2009.11.001


2/12

has emerged from the various studies is an indication of the complexity of the collaborative writing process, ashas been noted by Thompson (2001) and Lowry, Curtis, and Lowry (2004).

The majority of research into collaborative writing has been conducted in North America, although Gol-lin’s (1999) study of collaboration in an Australian workplace is a notable example of work conducted else-where. It should be noted that English for Specific Purposes as a field has not addressed the area in great

detail. Bhatia suggests that “

language teaching, including ESP, has always treated writing as an individualactivity, and it is only recently that we have discovered that out in the world of work, professional writingis invariably collaborative” (2004, pp. 205–206). It may be that ESP’s primary interest in genre and text ratherthan the processes surrounding their construction has led to this situation, yet in the light of its prevalence,collaborative writing is an area that merits consideration by ESP teachers.

Gollin highlights the difference between the workplace and the classroom in respect of collaborative writ-ing, saying that workplace collaborative writing processes “are embedded, [and] differ significantly from thewriting processes of individuals modelled in traditional pedagogy” (1999, p. 268). Indeed, this difference inthe nature of the context is critical. A social constructionist view of writing sees genres as situated in the con-texts that are constructed through social interaction (Berkenkotter & Huckin, 1995; Blyler & Thralls, 1993),and the fundamental differences between the workplace and the classroom in terms of context and community

– two mutually linked and central factors in the collaborative construction of texts – mean that a number of

key aspects of the process will differ as well (Freedman, Adam, & Smart, 1994).Given that collaborative writing is a common feature of workplace practice, it is important that students

are made aware of the ways in which collaboration differs in classroom and professional contexts. As Gollinsays, “collaborative writing is a complex activity and needs to be actively taught” (1999, p. 289), a point alsomade by Colen and Petelin (2004), and Dovey (2006). The latter, in the context of the “new vocationalism”,cites approaches adopted at the University of Technology in Sydney (UTS): their Statement of GraduateAttributes has a Communicative/Collaborative Domain in which the literacies described “include the lan-guage and social practices involved in establishing and maintaining collaborative relationships” (2000, p. 3,cited in Dovey, 2006, p. 392).

For teachers of business communication, whether they are working with L1 or L2 learners, the question ishow to provide students with experiences that will help them understand the nature of workplace practices.

Chan (2009) notes that despite the considerable number of studies of language use in business settings, “theinterface between research and pedagogy remains weak” (p. 125), and this claim is borne out by her study of the ways in which textbooks deal with business meetings. In the case of collaborative writing, the teachingresources that address this aspect of the workplace come largely in the form of business communication text-books from North America, where, as noted above, the bulk of research has been conducted. Such books arealso used extensively with non-native speakers outside the US, in regions such as East Asia and the MiddleEast, where there are often few locally produced teaching resources available. This article examines how busi-ness communication textbooks deal with collaborative writing. It discusses the differences between collabora-tive writing in the workplace and the classroom, examines how textbooks tackle this area and the extent towhich they are able to bridge the gap between the two contexts, and finally it looks at possible ways of approaching collaborative writing in the classroom.

2. Collaborative writing – the classroom and the workplace

The issue of how context affects collaborative writing processes in the classroom and the workplace is cen-tral to this paper. This section examines the way in which the two contexts differ, and discusses how this canaffect the resulting collaborative activity. Some of the differences identified pertain to writing in general, whileothers relate specifically to the nature of collaborative activity. Both need to be explained as they both impacton the way in which writing plays out in the two sites.

For the purposes of this article, it is assumed that undergraduate classrooms are the likely target for thebooks under examination, in that most of the texts tackled are the basic entry-level genres of business com-munication (letters, e-mails, reports, etc.). It is also assumed that there will be a greater degree of homogeneityin undergraduate student groups than might be found in older postgraduate groups, where members might

vary more in age and professional experience. It is acknowledged, though, that there will also be differences

122 S. Bremner / English for Specific Purposes 29 (2010) 121–132


3/12

among students in groups that might seem superficially homogenous: Yang (2008), for example, found differ-ences in approach and disagreements among Chinese-background ESL students in Canada. Differencesamong students can be attributed to factors such as language proficiency, personality, culture and disciplinarybackground. Such differences among participants are also found in professional contexts, but the nature of theworkplace makes possible a wider range of differences than might be seen in the classroom, as will be discussed

below.An important difference, and one which informs many other aspects of the process, is the reason why writingtakes place In the workplace, writing is instituted for pragmatic or instrumental reasons, which relate to the over-all goals of the organization; in the classroom, however, it is seen essentially as a process that students engage inwith the aim of developing their writing skills, or for the display of knowledge (Freedman & Adam, 1996).

By extension, the audience for the written product and their reasons for reading it will be different (Wallace,1994): texts produced in the workplace might be read by a variety of audiences (Palmeri, 2004), and for instru-mental reasons. In most classroom situations, on the other hand, the audience is likely to be an instructor, whowill be reading the texts for evaluative and developmental purposes. Freedman et al. discuss this point, sug-gesting that in workplace writing “the prime concern is for what the reader can get from the text, not for whatthe writer got out of the process of writing” (1994, p. 206). Writers also have to consider what the reader islikely to know, and in this there is a clear difference between the two contexts: the need to display understand-

ing and knowledge can lead to students’ including information that would be unnecessary in a workplace con-text (Dovey, 2006).

In addition to these differences relating to writing in general, there is the question of why writers collabo-rate. With regard to the workplace, Reither (1993) talks of motives which relate to management monitoring,efficiency and effectiveness, and of situations where a group effort is likely to be better than that of a lone wri-ter. Another reason might be to help maintain relationships ( Gollin, 1999; Paradis et al., 1985). Reither alsocontends that collaborating can serve “the need to develop and maintain an identity and culture for the insti-tution itself ” (1993, p. 200). In the classroom, on the other hand, very often students collaborate simplybecause they are asked to do so by their instructors.

A crucial difference lies in the constitution of the community producing the texts. In the workplace therewill often be considerable diversity among the participants in terms of knowledge, disciplinary background,

work styles, experience and motives, and each will bring these to bear on the process. This notion is capturedby Dautermann in her study of a hospital community: “within the writing group, each writer represented aunit, a specialty, a hospital role, or a level of commitment to the hierarchy ” (1993, p. 103). Cross (2001) alsotalks about how members of functional units may take different approaches to writing. A student group, bycontrast, is likely to be more homogenous in its make-up, with most members having similar levels of knowl-edge and experience; most probably they will all be focused on the same goal.

In addition there will be differences in status and power Any institution will have what Bhatia (2004) calls“participatory mechanisms”, whereby it is understood who can contribute what and when to the collaborativewriting process, a point made by Yates and Orlikowski, who investigate “who is not empowered to initiate orreceive certain genres” (2002, p. 17). This question of power distribution is implied by some of the collabora-tive configurations described by Paradis et al. (1985) and Ede and Lunsford (1990). There is less likely to bemuch difference in power and status among students.

Another aspect of the two contexts that differs markedly is the presence of intertextuality, which can be seenas a form of collaboration. Often writers in the workplace can draw on previous examples of letters, progressreports and action plans, a practice reported by Flowerdew and Wan (2006), and by Freedman et al., who saythat “workplace writing is resonant with the discourse of colleagues and the ongoing conversation of the insti-tution” (1994, p. 210), something also noted by Louhiala-Salminen (2002). Intertextual influences in the work-place can also be less overt, but nevertheless present: workplace documents might also incorporate ideas andtext that have been constructed elsewhere, for example organizational guidelines or templates; such influencescan help writers, but can also act as a constraint. Witte (1992) also talks about the phenomenon of “covertcollaboration”, whereby writers are in effect collaborating with other writers in the organization, consciouslyor otherwise. By contrast, students doing collaborative writing tasks tend to have few if any other texts to referto; often they are given a scenario in the form of a scripted context, and little in the way of intertextuality is

present (Bremner, 2008).

S. Bremner / English for Specific Purposes 29 (2010) 121–132 123


4/12

The differences outlined above will have a considerable impact on the types of collaboration in the two con-texts, in particular the interactions among participants and the composing processes. In the workplace, thefact of a hierarchy and the diversity of in knowledge, experience, background and so on among participantsallow for a broader range of possible collaborative configurations. Ede and Lunsford (1990), for example, talkof hierarchic and dialogic collaboration, while Killingsworth and Jones (1989) propose division-of-labor and

integrated-teams models. Paradis et al. (1985) discuss “

document cycling”

, a process whereby more experi-enced writers help others, Smart (1993) also describes cycles of workplace collaboration between writer andsupervisor, and Freedman and Adam (1996) similarly emphasise the iterative nature of drafting in professionalcontexts.

Collaborative configurations in the classroom, on the other hand, will often differ from those in the work-place: the relatively homogenous make-up of student groups gives them fewer reasons to assume particularroles, and often they simply divide up the work, with each taking responsibility for a different section. In sup-port of this, Freedman and Adam (1996) speculate that a subject in their study brought with him from uni-versity into the workplace the notion of collaboration as simply dividing up a task. Freedman et al. also reportthat the student collaboration they observed “does not at all approximate the nature or intensity of the col-laboration more commonly found in the workplace” (1994, p. 212).

A related issue is that of medium of communication. Often workplace collaborators will have a wider selec-

tion of channels available to them, such as videoconferencing and collaborative software packages. It may bethat not all of these are fully used, however, and many students are now able to call upon an increasinglysophisticated range of tools to communicate.

A final point of comparison between the workplace and the classroom relates to the role of conflict. Par-ticipants in collaboration may belong to professional or disciplinary communities that have different expecta-tions and approaches to writing and to the target texts, in addition to their varying levels of experience,knowledge, power and motives. A consequence of these differences is the possibility of conflict, discussed insome detail by Cross (1994, 2001). As Palmeri points out, though, “conflict in interprofessional collaborationis not inherently positive or negative” (2004, p. 60). On the positive side the benefits of substantive conflict arediscussed by Burnett (1993) and Wallace (1994), and Dautermann reports a study in which a writing groupbuilt up “a sense of community among themselves” (1993, p. 103) as they worked through differences. Palmeri

(2004) also mentions a set of documents that “speak persuasively to their diverse professional audiences”

(2004, p. 37) as the positive outcome of conflict within a law firm.When students collaborate, the possibility of conflict also exists: this may come about through disagreement

over workload, roles or strategies, or may be the result of personality differences. It is unlikely, however, thatthe causes of conflict in the classroom will have the same complex and diverse origins as might be seen in theworkplace.

It is clear then, that there are substantial differences in the ways that collaborative writing is enacted in theworkplace and the classroom. In general terms these relate to the reasons for writing and the nature of theaudience. The reasons for collaborating will also differ, and the presence of intertextuality is an additional fac-tor. Finally the constitution of the writing community, with its diversity of knowledge, status, motive, expec-tations and so on will affect both the types of interaction and the composing processes.

3. Research aims

In the light of the above differences, this article considers how the gap between the workplace and the class-room is dealt with in business communication textbooks, examining the extent to which they provide studentswith opportunities to experience the kinds of collaborative interactions and composing processes that can beseen at work. The study will serve as an evaluation of what is considered an important resource for teachers of workplace English, and will also provide insights into the teaching of collaborative writing. Two main researchquestions are addressed:

1. To what extent do business communication textbooks acknowledge the nature of collaborative writing inthe workplace?

2. To what extent do they provide meaningful practice of collaborative writing?



5/12

4. The study

Eight textbooks were selected for analysis. All were published within five years of this study, and can beconsidered typical in that they address – to varying degrees – genres commonly found in workplaces, suchas letters, e-mails, reports and presentations. They are listed below.

1. Fundamentals of contemporary business communication (Ober, 2004).2. Business communication for managers: An advanced approach (Penrose, Rasberry, & Myers, 2004).3. Business communication essentials (Bovee & Thill, 2006).4. Improving business communication skills (Roebuck, 2006).5. Business communication: Making connections in a digital world. (International Student Edition) (Lesikar,

Flatley, & Rentz, 2008).6. Business communication: Building critical skills (Locker & Kaczmarek, 2004).7. Essentials of business communication (Asian Edition) (Guffey & Du-Babcock, 2008).8. Managing business and professional communication (Dodd, 2004).

Only Penrose et al. (2004) specify a target audience – admittedly a broad one – saying that their book issuitable for graduate students, junior and senior undergraduates, and business practitioners. As for the otherbooks, the basic genres they deal with (letters, e-mails, reports) and in many cases the grammar and “mechan-ics” sections, imply that they are targeting entry-level learners who have little experience of real workplaces.Dodd’s comment that his students “regularly express their desire to know how things work in the real world”(2004, p. xx) supports this notion. Lesikar et al. (2008), and Guffey and Du-Babcock (2008), are “interna-tional” editions; in the case of the former there is no mention of overseas learners; the latter is aimed at “Asianstudents and professionals”, but is almost identical in aims and content to both the US and Canadian editionsof the same book. The fact that these two books are not noticeably different from other North American text-books suggests an assumption on the part of the writers that the aims of L1 and L2 learners are similar. Thisseems a reasonable assumption, although the question of whether these populations warrant differentapproaches and materials is outside the scope of this paper.

4.1. Data collection and analysis

The eight books were examined to find out how they deal with the following aspects of collaborativewriting:

1. Collaborative writing as a feature of the workplace: Do they acknowledge this? Do they talk about itsprevalence and importance?

2. The nature of collaborative writing in the workplace: To what extent is this addressed? Which of these spe-cific aspects are looked at? why writers collaborate,

the constitution of the community, differences in status and power, the presence of intertextuality, interactions and composing processes, the possibility of conflict.

3. The workplace and the classroom: Do they explicitly address how the workplace differs from the class-room in respect of collaboration?

4. Collaborating effectively: What advice is given for working in teams and for dealing with conflict?5. Collaborative writing tasks: Do these provide useful practice?

(As the books deal with the topic in a variety of ways, references to collaborative writing or any similaractivity e.g. “co-authored documents” or “team writing” were considered.)



6/12

5. Findings

5.1. Collaborative writing as a feature of the workplace

All eight books make reference to this in some way. The idea of collaboration and its attendant features is

implicit in Dodd’s description of the workplace as a “

complicated mix of values and needs, relationships andconflicts, and technology and people” (2004, p. xvii). Locker and Kaczmarek take a broad view, saying that“all writing is in some sense collaborative” (2004, p. ix). Ober maintains that team writing is “quite prevalentin organizations” (2004, p. 306), a claim echoed by Bovee and Thill (2006), and Lesikar et al. (2008). Penroseet al. look to the future, saying that “writing experts and business practitioners see collaborative writing as atechnique that will increase in value” (2004, p. 125), while Roebuck is similarly forward-looking: “the net-work, not the pyramid, will become the conceptual model for how people work together to achieve goals”(2006, p. xiv).

5.2. The nature of collaborative writing in the workplace

5.2.1. Why writers collaborate

The reasons cited for collaborating relate to the practical, the need to accommodate diverse views, and thepossible benefits. On the practical side, saving time is a motive (Lesikar et al., 2008), Locker and Kaczmarek(2004) also mention this, adding that it is unlikely that one person would have all the knowledge required to doa task. Lesikar et al. (2008) say that the specialised knowledge of the different participants and their combinedtalents will lead to better documents. Bovee and Thill (2006) agree, and suggest that the use of teams will boostthe likelihood that the solution will be accepted. Penrose et al. point to the potential benefits of collaborating,talking of “a beautifully crafted message that is the result of team synergy, balanced abilities, a common goal”(2004, p. 124).

5.2.2. The constitution of the community; differences in status and power

The notion of diversity in collaborative groups is recognized by several of the books, including Bovee and

Thill (2006) and Locker and Kaczmarek (2004). Penrose et al. (2004) enumerate the kinds of diversity thatmight be seen in a writing team, such as differences in approaches to writing, and in ability and knowledge,hierarchical influences, and the possibility of political factors. Dodd also talks about these last two when giv-ing advice for group discussions, saying that “individuals can be intimidated by leaders and others withpower” (2004, p. 195), and Bovee and Thill (2006) mention hidden agendas as a potential pitfall when collab-orating. While some books comment directly on this issue of diversity, the others all do so implicitly in theirdiscussion of conflict and its causes, which are looked at later in this section.

5.2.3. The presence of intertextuality

There is no specific reference to the notion of intertextuality in any of the books, but in some, the idea thatother texts may play a part in the writing process is referred to either explicitly or implicitly. Penrose et al., forexample, consider the idea of corporate guidelines as having an influence on layout ( 2004, p. 103), whileLocker and Kaczmarek discuss the influence of “boilerplate”, and point out that in business “old text maybe included without attribution” (2004, p. 79), this ties in with Freedman et al.’s (1994) observation, notedabove, that “intertextual borrowing” is common in the workplace. Referencing, which can be seen as a formof collaboration in that it involves recourse to other people’s texts, is mentioned by several books, for exampleGuffey and Du-Babcock (2008), who address the issue of plagiarism. Thus while there is implicit discussion of intertextual relations, this discussion is not located within the concept of collaboration.

5.2.4. Interactions and composing processes

Lesikar et al. intimate that writers will play different roles: “even if one person has primary responsibilityfor a report, he or she will often need contributions from many people” (2008, p. 293). Locker and Kaczmarek(2004) extend this idea, talking about group size, where decision-making power lies, and how responsibility

can be apportioned. Roebuck details a range of possibilities as to what collaborative writing can be, including



7/12

co-authoring a document, critiquing a peer’s work, individual or team planning and drafting, and researchingand drafting by an individual for editing by a supervisor (2006, p. 283). Such configurations suggest delineatedroles and responsibilities, and while other books do not specify interactive patterns, many of them consider therole of critiquing and feedback.

Dodd talks about the characteristics of small groups, describes different types of network, and explains the“

life cycle model”

(forming, storming, norming, performing, superperforming) that accounts for how collab-orative teams operate (2004, pp. 212–213). A similar model is mentioned by Roebuck (2006) in relation to vir-tual team development. The use of collaborative software is discussed in several books. Ober (2004) looks atvirtual teams, Lesikar et al. (2008) consider the possibilities of asynchronous and synchronous contributionsafforded by technology, and Guffey and Du-Babcock (2008) discuss collaborative programs that can enablemultiple contributions and exchange.

In addition to what is outlined above, beliefs about the nature of collaborative interactions and composingprocesses are also implied in the advice given for effective collaboration, which is discussed later.

5.2.5. The possibility of conflict

The issue of conflict is covered implicitly or explicitly by all the books. Penrose et al., for example, considercollaborative scenarios where, “often . . . the result pits writers against each other” (2004, p. 124). “Conflict is

what group meetings are all about”, says Ober (2004, p. 29), but he offers the caveat that there should bedebate about issues rather than personalities. Similarly, Dodd (2004) talks about substantive and non-substan-tive conflict, a question considered by Burnett (1993) and Wallace (1994), as mentioned earlier. Dodd also listspossible causes of conflict, which include different goals, relationship differences, unequal power distribution,different values, and the need to save face (2004, pp. 108–109).

5.3. The workplace and the classroom

Differences between the workplace and the classroom tend to be implied rather than explicit. There is somediscussion of context and culture: Lesikar et al. (2008) talk about the influence of the different contexts of writ-ing – organizational, professional or personal – and Dodd stresses the importance of organizational culture.

Locker and Kaczmarek (2004) also discuss culture, as well as the notion of discourse community, but from thepoint of view of audience analysis rather than writing.

There are also some specific references to the difference in contexts. Locker and Kaczmarek identify areas inwhich business communication differs from other school writing, including purpose, audience, information,organization, style, document design and visuals (2004, pp. 5–6), although they do not mention collaboration.Lesikar et al. hint at the disjunct between the reality of the workplace and the patterns that they prescribe: “alltoo often, groups experience results that vary from these patterns” (2008, p. 316), while Roebuck makes thepoint that team membership is often “somewhat fluid” (2006, p. 286).

5.4. Collaborating effectively

All the books give advice for effective collaboration. Some of this is fairly general: “a team must preparethoroughly and make assumptions, roles, procedures, standards, norms, and processes explicit”, says Roebuck(2006, p. 274), while Bovee and Thill suggest that “effective teams . . . understand their purpose, communicateopenly and honestly, build consensus, think creatively, stay focused, resolve conflict” (2006, p. 29).

Roebuck also has more specific guidelines for working in a team setting, including allowing time to get toknow one another, developing a plan, and working towards group consensus (2006, pp. 283–285). Guffeyand Du-Babcock suggest approaches to what they call “team writing projects”, accounting for the differentstages of the process; for the initial phase “Preparing to work together”, they offer advice relating to the sizeof the team, deciding how the team will be governed, and how to deal with underproductive team members(2008, p. 253). Lesikar et al. also identify typical activities that would contribute to the production of a col-laborative report: these include collectively determining the purpose in order to develop “a coherent, sharedsense” (2008, p. 317) of target audience and needs, assigning parts to be written, and revising

collaboratively.



8/12

Locker and Kaczmarek’s (2004) advice is based on research by Burnett (1993), Locker (1991) and Ede andLunsford (1990). They contend that collaborative writing is “most successful when the group articulates itsunderstanding of the document’s purposes and audiences and explicitly discusses the best way to achieve theserhetorical goals” (p. 367), echoing a number of the other books. They suggest that writers take into accountthe styles and commitments of other participants, and, like Roebuck (2006), they emphasise the need to allow

time for participants to get acquainted.Locker’s (1991) research is cited in Locker and Kaczmarek (2004) to describe the characteristics of success-ful student groups. Among her conclusions was the observation that the successful group “planned revisionsas a group, saw supervisors’ comments as legitimate, and had a positive attitude toward revision” (2004, p.367), this group also “distributed power equally, worked to soothe hard feelings, and was careful to includeall group members” (2004, p. 367). A number of the other books discuss the question of role allocation in col-laborative activity. Lesikar et al. talk of “the need to include all major areas of specialization involved in thework to be done” (2008, p. 316), and suggest that “the usual practice is to assign each person a part of thereport” (p. 319). Ober, meanwhile, advises writers to “divide the tasks equitably, based on each member’sneeds, interests, expertise, and commitment to the project” (2004, p. 31).

As mentioned earlier, the idea of conflict is addressed in all the books, and there is general consensusthat if handled appropriately, it can have a positive impact. “Confrontation can actually create better

final documents”, say Guffey and Du-Babcock (2008, p. 253), Locker and Kaczmarek (2004) venture asimilar opinion, while Roebuck (2006) suggests allowing and encouraging disagreements, rather than set-tling on a quick an easy answer. Dodd and others look at the communication skills needed for handlingcriticism; Locker and Kaczmarek (2004) outline steps in conflict resolution, as do Guffey and Du-Bab-cock (2008).

5.5. Collaborative writing tasks

The books all give practice in a range of areas related to business communication, and this section providesa representative selection of tasks which deal with collaborative writing.

Some tasks are aimed at sensitizing students to issues involved in collaborating. Here is a “Teamwork”

task from Bovee and Thill: “With a classmate, attend a local community or campus meeting where youcan observe group discussion” (2006, p. 43). Dodd offers a variation on this: “With a team of classmates,interview the leader of a company about the use of teams” (2004, p. 225). Lesikar et al. take anotherapproach: “Collaborative reports are better than reports written by an individual because they use manyminds rather than one. Discuss” (2008, p. 322). Locker and Kaczmarek ask students to reflect on the pro-cess: “As you work in a collaborative writing group, keep a journal after each group meeting” (2004,p. 371).

When it comes to writing practice, again different approaches can be seen. Some books provide instruc-tions simply to work together, as in this example from Ober: “Working in teams of three or four, assumethe role of grievance committee of your union” (2004, p. 201). Here is a task from Roebuck in a similarvein: “After you have completed your research, develop your collaboratively written report” (2006, p.217). In Guffey and Du-Babcock, working together is presented as an option: “Formal report: InterculturalCommunication

. . . Write your report individually or in teams” (2008, p. 291). Penrose et al. propose a writ-

ing task that focuses on a particular aspect of working together: “Divide up a writing project . . . amonggroup members so that each person writes a section using the same word-processing program . . . Worktogether on the same computer, edit and smooth out the flow so the document has consistent tone andcoherency” (2004, p. 127).

Finally there are task types which provide more information for the writers, usually in the form of scriptedcontext. Here is an extract from an example from Bovee and Thill: “ . . . you quickly convince other membersof the food services staff to help you out. Working together, you’ll have all the skills necessary to organize theevent . . . With your team. . .” (2006, p. 273). A similar kind of task can be found in Locker and Kaczmarek; itinvolves the creation of a committee to address the poor writing habits of employees: “Known throughoutmanagement ranks for your excellent communication skills, you and your classmates have been named to this

group” (2004, p. 104).



9/12

6. Discussion

In summary, this survey of eight business communication textbooks shows that all acknowledge the role of collaboration in the workplace writing process. The exact nature of collaborative writing is dealt with in dif-ferent ways, and while there is some implicit discussion of how the workplace differs from the classroom, there

is nevertheless room for a more explicit account of how the two contexts differ. All recognize the possibility of conflict, and offer advice relating to team-building and conflict management.However, what emerges most strongly from this investigation is that the task types across the eight books

appear to provide few if any opportunities that would expose students to the realities of collaboration. Inother words, the activities engendered by these tasks would not resemble very closely the kinds of activity seenin the workplace. Three points relate to this. Firstly, in the books, “teamwork”, for the most part, simplymeans working together, and the tasks are likely to foster group activity in which roles are not differentiated.Indeed, although some books in their task sections distinguish between “individual” and “group” activities,there is often little obvious basis for this distinction. Suggesting that students simply divide up a task equally

– and this practice was noted in several books, as indicated above – only serves to emphasise the lack of delin-eation in roles.

The second point is that much of the advice given regarding working in team settings seems to be predicated

on idealized visions of teamwork, where the writing proceeds in a controllable order. It also implies an equal-ity among participants that may not necessarily be found in the workplace. This is understandable, given thatin the classroom students tend to be of similar status, as mentioned earlier. However, what this means is thatstudents will not be able to experience the kinds of group configurations and interactions that are seen in theworkplace. To provide such opportunities is of course a challenge, and this will be discussed in the final sectionof this article.

The third point relating to task provision is that quite a number of tasks are overscripted, in the sense thatstudents are given a context and often told what they think and exactly what they have to do. Such tasks allowlittle leeway for different points of view, and thereby reduce the possibility of conflict, which, as most of thebooks note, is an important element in collaborative activity.

It has been shown, then, that there is a disjunct between what the books say about the nature of collabo-

rative writing and the actual “collaborative”

tasks that are provided. Why this is the case is open to question.It may be that the books do not see it as their role to deal with this aspect of workplace writing. Penrose et al.(2004), for example, in their discussion of writing proposals and reports, are focused on the writing and thetexts rather than the involvement of other people in these processes. Meanwhile Lesikar et al. are clear aboutwhere their focus lies: “although a discussion of group development and processes is beyond the scope of thisbook, you might want to consult one of the many references on the subject” (2008, pp. 316–317).

The other possible explanation is that the books see the provision of workplace-like tasks in the classroomas unfeasible, that the differences between the two contexts are pedagogically insurmountable. Indeed, therehas been much debate about whether the workplace can be recreated in the classroom. Mabrito is doubtful:“we will never be able to exactly duplicate in our classrooms many of the constraints and pressures that writersexperience in the workplace” (1999, p. 105), he says, citing the different types of relationships found in the twocontexts, a point echoed by Debs (1991).

However, accepting the idea that there is a divide between the workplace and the classroom should not dis-courage teachers from attempting to give their students a sense of how collaborative writing operates at work.With this aim in mind researchers talk about the need to provide a social context and community in the class-room (Doheny-Farina, 1986; Gollin, 1999), opportunities for students to interact (Couture & Rymer, 1989)and play multiple roles (Dias, Freedman, Medway, & Paré, 1999). Beaufort goes further in suggesting thatwe should “capitalize on social motives for writing” (2000, p. 218), and that we should adopt collaborativemodels for writing rather than competitive ones. Schneider and Andre (2005) also talk of the need to providecollaborative opportunities, as do Paré and Smart, who contend that students need to engage with “a set of texts, the composing processes involved in creating these texts . . . and the social roles played by writers andreaders” (1994, p. 147). Wallace (1994) suggests that an increased understanding of audience and social con-text can result from collaborative activity, while Palmeri calls for pedagogical models “for merging discourses

in interprofessional communication” (2004, p. 61).



10/12

Essentially what we see in the business communication textbooks is an explanation (partial in someinstances) of how collaboration functions in the workplace, yet the accompanying tasks do not provide theopportunity to understand or experience this. Such an approach is akin to explaining a grammatical structurewithout giving any opportunities for communicative practice. Thus, following on from the calls enumerated inthe previous paragraph, it would seem that the task of the teacher attempting to prepare students for the real-

ity of the workplace is to help students in a number of ways: firstly, to help them see that collaborative writingis not the somewhat idealised activity that is hinted at in textbooks; secondly, to help them understand thefactors that affect collaborative writing and the potential problems these can cause; and thirdly, to providethem with opportunities to experience the kinds of interaction and potential for conflict that they mightencounter in the workplace.

It is fair to say that the exact conditions of the workplace cannot be recreated. However, some efforts can bemade to provide students with opportunities beyond merely working together. Perhaps the most problematicaspect of such attempts is the fact that student groups, especially at undergraduate level, are often homoge-nous in their make-up, their members more likely to be similar in age, status, knowledge, and motive. A keyfactor noted earlier is that collaborative groups in the workplace tend to be more diverse in their make-up, andit is this diversity that can lead to the kind of dynamic that is usually absent from student collaboration. Sut-ton, having acknowledged these various differences, says that in his writing class he tries “carefully to design

the collaborative groups, working to combine students with complementary skills . . .

and corresponding workstyles” (2007, p. 103). However, in so doing the teacher runs the risk of creating a dynamic that does notresemble the workplace. An alternative approach, suggested below, would be to capitalize on the possibilityof difference rather than attempt to remove it from the mix.

The task for the teacher, then, would be to consider ways in which the element of difference can be incor-porated into student activity. Take a report writing task for example. Rather than simply asking students towork in teams and write a report, the students could be grouped according to a putative function they play inthe workplace, each group representing a different department and interest in an organization e.g. Finance,Marketing, Production, Distribution. Each group would then be given certain information that their depart-ment would expect to hold, such as knowledge about the market situation, production costs and so on. In thisway an information gap would be created. Groups would then prepare their respective positions, each having

to discuss what their motives and aims are, areas where they believe they are qualified or not qualified to con-tribute, which part(s) of the document they will write, what they do or do not want to see in the document, theconcessions they are prepared to make, how they would like the final document to look, and what their strat-egies will be for achieving their aims. Once this is done, the groups are reorganized so that each new group hasone representative from each of the original departmental groups. The group now works together “in charac-ter” to produce the target text. In this way a need to negotiate, and to deal with potential conflict has beencreated, and the results of these interactions will be seen in the shape and content of the final document. Thisis in some ways similar to the “role-based approach to revising and editing” advocated by Colen and Petelin(2004, p. 141). Finally there should be an opportunity after the report has been written for students to reflecton the process and the strategies they used to deal with conflict and other problems. An additional elementcould be to provide a set of texts to draw on as they work out their roles and create their target document:as explained above, the presence of other texts can act as both a resource and a constraint but is representativeof the “covert collaboration” that Witte (1992) talks about.

7. Conclusion

The business communication textbooks in this study explain to some degree how collaborative writingfunctions in the workplace, yet the activities they provide fail to give students a sense of the realities theydescribe. Collaboration is not necessarily cooperative in the way that is anticipated in the classroom and inthe way that these tasks seem to suggest – often it involves contestation and the negotiation of diversity. Whileit is not possible to replicate the exact conditions of the workplace, there are nevertheless aspects of this con-text that students can be made aware of. Indeed, if teachers can – with the help of business communicationtextbook materials – set up contexts for writing that are rich with the types of interactions, motives and con-

cerns, and even the unpredictability and frustration, that feature in the workplace, they may be able to provide



11/12

students with experiences and skills that will help them when they take up their place in the real world of work.Tasks which exploit the idea of difference as described above require more thought and preparation, but theyare surely a better alternative to activities which barely attempt to bridge the gap between the classroom andthe reality of the workplace.

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my thanks to Professor Diane Belcher for her helpful comments and observations,and the two anonymous reviewers for their feedback and suggestions on an earlier draft of this paper.

References

Beaufort, A. (2000). Learning the trade: A social apprenticeship model for gaining writing expertise . Written Communication, 17 (2),185–223.

Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power. New Jersey, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Blyler, N., & Thralls, C. (Eds.). (1993). Professional communication: The social perspective. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Bhatia, V. (2004). Worlds of written discourse: A genre-based view. London: Continuum.

Bovee, C., & Thill, J. (2006). Business communication essentials (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Bremner, S. (2008). Intertextuality and business communication textbooks: Why students need more textual support. English for Specific

Purposes, 27 (3), 306–321.Burnett, R. (1993). Conflict in collaborative decision-making. In N. Blyler & C. Thralls (Eds.), Professional communication: The social

perspective (pp. 145–163). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Chan, C. (2009). Forging a link between research and pedagogy: A holistic framework for evaluating business English materials. English

for Specific Purposes, 28(2), 125–136.Colen, K., & Petelin, R. (2004). Challenges in collaborative writing in the contemporary corporation. Corporate Communications, 9(2),

136–145.Couture, B., & Rymer, J. (1989). Interactive writing on the job: Definitions and implications of “collaboration”. In M. Kogan (Ed.),

Writing in the business professions (pp. 73–93). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English and Association for BusinessCommunication.

Cross, G. (1994). Collaboration and conflict: A contextual exploration of group writing and positive emphasis . Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press,Inc.

Cross, G. (2001). Forming the collective mind: A contextual exploration of large-scale collaborative writing in industry. Cresskill, NJ:Hampton Press Inc.

Dautermann, J. (1993). Negotiating meaning in a hospital discourse community. In R. Spilka (Ed.), Writing in the workplace. New research perspectives (pp. 98–111). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Debs, M. (1991). Recent research on collaborative writing in industry. Technical Communication (Fourth Quarter), 476–484.Dias, P., Freedman, A., Medway, P., & Paré, A. (1999). Worlds apart: Acting and writing in academic and workplace contexts. Mahwah,

NJ: Erlbaum.Dodd, C. (2004). Managing business and professional communication. Boston, MA: Pearson.Doheny-Farina, S. (1986). Writing in an emerging organization: An ethnographic study . Written Communication, 3(2), 158–185.Dovey, T. (2006). What purposes, specifically? Re-thinking purposes and specificity in the context of the ‘new vocationalism’ . English for

Specific Purposes, 25, 387–402.Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. (1990). Singular texts/plural authors: Perspectives on collaborative writing . Carbondale: Southern Illinois

University Press.

Faigley, L., & Miller, T. (1982). What we learn from writing on the job. College English, 44(6), 557–569.Flowerdew, J., & Wan, A. (2006). Genre analysis of tax computation letters: How and why tax accountants write the way they do. English

for Specific Purposes, 25(2), 133–153.Freedman, A., & Adam, C. (1996). Learning to write professionally: “Situated learning” and the transition from university to professional

discourse. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 10(4), 395–427.Freedman, A., Adam, C., & Smart, G. (1994). Wearing suits to class: Simulating genres and simulations as genres. Written

Communication, 11(2), 193–226.Gollin, S. (1999). ‘Why? I thought we’d talked about it before’: Collaborative writing in a professional workplace setting. In C. Candlin &

K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 267–290). London, England: Longman.Guffey, M., & Du-Babcock, B. (2008). Essentials of business communication (Asian ed.). Singapore: Thomson.Killingsworth, M., & Jones, B. (1989). Division of labor or integrated teams: A crux in the management of technical communication?.

Technical Communication 36 (3), 210–221.Lesikar, R., Flatley, M., & Rentz, K. (2008). Business communication: Making connections in a digital world (11th ed.). New York, NY:

McGraw-Hill Irwin.



12/12

Locker, K. (1991). What makes a collaborative writing team successful? A case study of lawyers and social service workers in a stateagency. In J. Forman (Ed.), New visions of collaborative writing (pp. 37–52). Portsmouth, NJ: Boynton.

Locker, K., & Kaczmarek, S. K. (2004). Business communication: Building critical skills (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.Louhiala-Salminen, L. (2002). The fly’s perspective: Discourse in the daily routine of a business manager . English for Specific Purposes, 21,

211–231.Lowry, P., Curtis, A., & Lowry, M. (2004). Building a taxonomy and nomenclature of collaborative writing to improve interdisciplinary

research and practice. Journal of Business Communication, 41(1), 66–99.Mabrito, M. (1999). From workplace to classroom: Teaching professional writing. Business Communication Quarterly, 62(3), 101–104.Ober, S. (2004). Fundamentals of contemporary business communication. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.Palmeri, J. (2004). When discourses collide: A case study of interprofessional collaborative writing in a medically oriented law firm. Journal

of Business Communication, 41(1), 37–65.Paradis, J., Dobrin, D., & Miller, R. (1985). Writing at Exxon: Notes on the writing environment of an R&D organization. In L. Odell &

D. Goswami (Eds.), Writing in non-academic settings (pp. 281–308). New York, NY: Guilford.Paré, A., & Smart, G. (1994). Observing genres in action: Towards a research methodology . In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Genre

and the new rhetoric (pp. 146–154). London, England: Taylor & Francis.Penrose, J., Rasberry, R., & Myers, J. (2004). Business communication for managers: An advanced approach. Mason, OH: Thomson/South-

Western.Reither, J. (1993). Scenic motives for collaborative writing in workplace and school. In R. Spilka (Ed.), Writing in the workplace. New

research perspectives (pp. 195–206). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Roebuck, D. (2006). Improving business communication skills (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Prentice Hall.

Schneider, B., & Andre, J. (2005). University preparation for workplace writing: An exploratory study of the perceptions of students inthree disciplines. Journal of Business Communication, 42(2), 195–218.

Smart, G. (1993). Genre as a community invention: A central bank’s response to its executives’ expectations as readers . In R. Spilka (Ed.),Writing in the workplace. New research perspectives (pp. 124–140). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Sutton, M. (2007). English 4090: Collaborative writing at work. Composition Studies, 35(2), 101–109.Thompson, I. (2001). Collaboration in technical communication: A qualitative content analysis of journal articles, 1990–1999. IEEE

Transactions on Professional Communication, 44(3), 161–173.Wallace, D. L. (1994). Collaborative planning and transforming knowledge. Journal of Business Communication, 3(1), 41–60.Witte, S. (1992). Context, text, intertext: Toward a constructivist semiotic of writing. Written Communication, 9(2), 237–308.Yang, L. (2008). From group talk to group writing. In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), The oral-literate connection: Perspectives on L2

speaking, writing and other media interactions (pp. 139–167). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.Yates, J., & Orlikowski, W. (2002). Genre systems: Structuring interaction through communicative norms. Journal of Business

Communication, 39(1), 13–35.

Stephen Bremner works in the Department of English at City University of Hong Kong, where he teaches courses related to professionalwriting. His main research interest is writing, in particular the ways in which texts are constructed in workplace settings.


Documents

Bremner-ESP