This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by CLARK, G. Articles by DOHENY-FARINA, S. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Public Discourse and Personal Expression

A Case Study in Theory-Building

Brigham Young University

STEPHEN DOHENY-FARINA

Clarkson University

The authors recount their attempt to analyze a case study in terms of two conflicting rhetorics: a collectivist rhetoric that values most the contributions individuals make to an ongoing collective project and an individualist rhetoric that values most the original and autonomous voice. These two rhetorics conflict in the experience of one writer working concurrently in a literature seminar within a university English department and in the public relations office of a reproductive services agency. This conflict, centering on different rhetorical ethics, had less to do with competence than with commitment: the writer's commitment to the individualist ethics practiced in the writing she did in the literature seminar prevented her from valuing the writing she did at the agency that worked toward a collectivist end. The authors then examine how this analysis is problematized by alternative interpretations of this case that demonstrate that the collectivist rhetoric practiced by researchers and theorists of writing itself involves the interaction of conflicting individualist assertions. This analysis suggests that the most useful theoretical insights any case might provide into the question of how writing ought to be taught are embodied in the exchange of interpretations that case provokes and in the confrontation of diverse arguments that emerge from that exchange.

Written Communication, Vol. 7, No. 4, 456-481 (1990)
DOI: 10.1177/0741088390007004002


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. GEISLER, E. H. ROGERS, and C. R. HALLER Disciplining Discourse: Discourse Practice in the Affiliated Professions of Software Engineering Design Written Communication, January 1, 1998; 15(1): 3 - 24. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. PRIOR Response, Revision, Disciplinarity: A Microhistory of a Dissertation Prospectus in Sociology Written Communication, October 1, 1994; 11(4): 483 - 533. [Abstract]

				G. A. CROSS Ethnographic Research in Business and Technical Writing: Between Extremes and Margins Journal of Business and Technical Communication, January 1, 1994; 8(1): 118 - 134. [Abstract]

				D. A. WINSOR Owning Corporate Texts Journal of Business and Technical Communication, April 1, 1993; 7(2): 179 - 195. [Abstract]

				S. P. WITTE Context, Text, Intertext: Toward a Constructivist Semiotic of Writing Written Communication, April 1, 1992; 9(2): 237 - 308.

				P. Smagorinsky and M. W. Smith The Nature of Knowledge in Composition and Literary Understanding: The Question of Specificity Review of Educational Research, January 1, 1992; 62(3): 279 - 305. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. PRIOR Contextualizing Writing and Response in a Graduate Seminar Written Communication, July 1, 1991; 8(3): 267 - 310. [Abstract]