1. In Pieces: Teaching Writing In, Out, and All About
__Amanda Goldrick-Jones__ Writing Centre, University of British Columbia
Presented at the
Canadian Association for the Study of Discourse and Writing May 2009

2. The Four Places / Mind-Spaces
Home turf: writing/rhetoric department
Border patrol: student writing support
Guest: client workshops
Intruder alert: English teacher “invades” business school
• Situation: establishment, development, and reception of new mandatory writing course in a school of business
• Tensions around concept of a “writing course” as a boundary object between two territories: (1) a writing/rhetoric-centred department and (2) a professional faculty which sees communication as a problem needing to be solved. ~ AG-J

3. Into the Business School . . .
Rhetorical boundary work is a rhetorical struggle to differentiate groups, to contest the legitimacy of the other. And this sort of boundary work is driven by a demarcation exigence, by the desire to distinguish one group from another that is typically seen as an imposter (Herndl & Wilson, 2007, pp. 131 – 32).

4. The Administrative Exigence . . .
Administrative demarcation of “writing course” = a SOLUTION to problems
faculty perceptions of poor writing, particularly EAL-related
employers’ perceptions that grads are not communicating clearly
stricter accreditation standards

5. The Students’ Exigence . . .
Students’ demarcation of “writing course” = a PROBLEM
“we’ve taken English already; by 3rd year we should be able to take more electives”
“only EAL writers really need this”
“it’s not relevant”
“it’s a waste of time and money”

6. The Immediate Result . . .
Partly because of these differences in groups’ perceptions of “writing course” as boundary object, instructors were caught in the middle of “a contest, controversy, and demarcation event” (Herndl & Wilson, 2007, p. 132).

7. The Business Writing Course: Future?
“Boundary objects are objects which are both plastic enough to adapt to local needs and the constraints of the several parties employing them, yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites.” (Star and Griesemer, qtd by Herndl & Wilson, p. 134).
Are these realistic goals for this course? What would constitute this “common identity”? ~AG-J
Should the boundary object be a bridge or a different entity reconstituted within the territory of business? What implications does this have for pedagogy, or for identifying the teaching of writing in terms of its usual disciplinary traditions and practices? Does this risk moving writing into a “nowhere” land? ~AG-J
“Nowhere” might mean it is scattered across social contexts rather than concentrated in one stable and identifiable place (a single department, a single course, a single set of requirements, a single style guide). ~Panelists’ prompt

8. Is Epistemic Symmetry Possible?
Methodological, or epistemic, symmetry does not challenge the epistemology or ontology of competing positions but asks for an understanding of the relationship between alternative beliefs and their sources and benefits in concrete cultural contexts (p. 148).
Territorial assumptions can fragment inquiry and diffuse critical engagement. Teaching writing in multiple places can be a means of challenging institutional assumptions about territory and disciplinary practices. ~AG-J

9. What lies ahead?
Teaching writing in multiple places can be a means of challenging institutional assumptions about territory and disciplinary practices.
Panelists’ responses:
• Critical interdisciplinarity: “reasonable accommodation” debate in QC. X-disciplinary work/epistemic symmetry requires sense of equal partners working together. But inherent problem of inequality may stem from too much sense of identification.
• “We are so determined to be helpful.” Danger of selling ourselves short! We focus on much more than the “surface” of writing, understanding that writing is more than “surface” or problems to be fixed.
• We need not just trading zones, but places of action where we work together.
• We are doing political work when we try to show that we are working on rhetoric, not just writing. Dual personality: acknowledge problems with student writing, but we risk doing a disservice to ourselves.

10. What lies ahead?
Perhaps the best strategy is to aim for “a trading zone, a temporary space of cooperation and exchange between different disciplines or subdisciplines” (p. 132).
Source Cited: Greg Wilson and Carl G. Herndl, “Boundary Objects as Rhetorical Exigence: Knowledge Mapping and Interdisciplinary Cooperation at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication 2007; 21; 129. Available at
Image Sources:
“Talking History” and “Traditional Classroom”: public domain
“Rhetorical Situation” in slides 4 and 5 from the Purdue University Online Writing Lab
All other images by A. Goldrick-Jones