Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Intradisciplinary
Intradisciplinary
Intradisciplinary
Writing
William McKenna and Michael Bizzaco
University of Rhode Island
In order to bridge the gap between scholarly texts and non-scholars who are academically
unequipped to access such texts, this work uncovers the distinction between
intradisciplinary and interdisciplinary audiences. Furthermore, this piece explores the
ways in which scholars compose for online journals, in addition to the methods by which
institutions administer and engage students with scholarly texts.
a model imposes on the writer. Not only must scholars labor to find ways to make their
text easier to grasp, theyre challenged with separating inventive writing from
explanatory writing.
Our original focus was on the remediation of scholarly publications for
subordinates; the idea that scholars should revise the language and approach of their own
texts to suit a generalized awareness of multiple audiences. Revision in this manner
would primarily focus on the timing and delivery of certain textual elements. Examples
of these types of remediation may include: the writer taking time to follow challenging
terminology with complete definitions and examples of these terms in action;
multilayered concepts and theories being broken down into step-by-step form,
chronicled in a straightforward, non-allusive fashion; text blurbs being placed throughout
multiple points in an article to command reader-awareness at key moments in throughout
the text (Remember this concept from the beginning of the passage? What other
writers can you think of that share these same ideas?) The contents of an esotericist,
scholarly publication like College Composition and Communication would feature the
type of rhetorical lexicon and complex exchange of ideas expected of the academic
journal, in addition to these new, re-mediated author edits which explain the authors
rhetorical choices. This simplification of the scholars prose certainly leaves less critical
evaluation to the reader, moving past academic lingo and arrangement, and straight to the
heart of the writers ideas. However, such a process of textual reworking seems unfair to
the writer. Scholars would be tasked with upholding their own credibility as advanced
writers, theorists, and instructors, but also while taking the time to consider sections of
their own work that they believe requires further reinforcement, based on their
forced to blatantly enunciate their particular reasons for response, while providing an
engaging history on the nature of this ESL conversation, all the while looming under the
ominous awareness that their audience may fail to comprehend the depth of conversation
to which the texts references pertain. Of course, a certain amount of history is revisited
in most scholarly articles, but the delivery of this historical information requires preexisting knowledge to some extent. In order to meet the needs of subordinate audiences,
scholars, then, must dilute their work. However, such remediation by nature may fail to
satisfy members of the authors direct discourse community, creating a fundamental
shortcoming within the scholars text; such a shortcoming arising from the imbalance
between primary and subordinate audiences.
By means of encouraging ubiquitous scholarly-level composition in academic
journals thats suited to ideally shock the seasoned palates of like-minded scholars, we
propose that scholars redefine their exigency as one that demands scholarship in its purest
form, despite the fact that this ideal excludes multiple audiences and subordinates.
Scrupulously studied phenomena are the cognitive processes leading up to composition.
Specifically, the many metaphysical concepts that delve into the writers connections to
idea development, which have long intrigued noted academics. Linda Flower, in her
essay, Writer Based Prose: A Cognitive Basis for Problems in Writing, offers an
engaging look at the unique egocentrism that defines writer-based prose.
...[Writer-based prose] may even be closely related to normal verbal
thought. It is clearly, a natural, less cognitively demanding mode of
thought and one which explains why people, who can express themselves
This unique production-style of prose, from which the writers ideas originate,
cannot simply be captured by the essence of early writer-focused composition; the
scholars production of complex and challenging texts, rather, may be linked to a much
less-grounded, non-textual plain of ethereal awareness, a field of thinking and creation
where words and images are only the most superficial aspects of fruitful cognition.
Sondra Perl, in her essay, Understanding Composing, examines the mystique surrounding
this high level of cognition. In her study of say aloud cognition, Perl closely examines
the phenomenon of non-linear recursive-writing as it occurs amongst a group of
teachers in a basic-writing course. This recursive type of composition may best be
defined as short successions of steps that yield results on which the writer draws in
taking the next set of steps (Perl 364). Explaining the types of writing-mannerisms
associated with recursive composition, Perl alludes to philosopher, Eugene Gendlins,
concept of felt sense as, ...Feelings or non-verbalized perceptions that surround the
words, or to what the words already present evoke in the writer (365). Furthering Perls
dissemination of metaphysical cognition, Linda Flower and Christina Haas, in their essay,
Rhetorical Reading Strategies and the Construction of Meaning allude to the
implications and appearance of recognized felt sense considering both writers and
readers in their theory. Readers and writers mental representations are not limited to
verbally well-informed ideas and plans, but may include information coded as visual
images, or as emotions, or as linguistic propositions that exist just above the level of
specific words (Haas, Flower 169).
We believe that scholars, during woodworking stages of composition, may best
allocate themselves to this strictly individualized realm of thinking and understanding,
one governed by less-grounded non-textual cues that will inevitably bring these writers
closer to the ideas they wish to convey. The scholars connections to this felt sense of
composition (... Just above the level of specific words) is later transformed into a
grounded type of prose that primary discourse-readers may communicate with (Haas,
Flower). Scholars, drawing upon higher-levels of metaphysical cognition, are able to use
their felt sense to construct the framework for an academic essay; then, the framework
is broken down into a navigable text for members of the scholars intradisciplinary
community. Above all, we wish to impart that the scholastic writers processes of
cognition (which later translates to composition) is a deeply involved, yet unique
experience for any writer; but for scholars, the bar is raised even higher. Responsible for
maintaining their own academic credibility, while upholding and expanding their
discipline, scholarly cognition must yield the best results; metaphysical attachments to
words and phrases must be appropriately transformed into readable and workable texts,
complete with expansive ideas for the discourse. With these rigorous demands in place, it
seems largely unfair for scholars to also consider the needs of interdisciplinary audiences,
while dealing with such exclusive academic-efforts.
We acknowledge Reiff and Selzers conception that multiple audiences exist, but
we now believe that when scholars make textual choices that grant subordinate access to
their texts, they are progressively diluting their work, which may inhibit deeper cognition
and exploration. Scholars, when writing in academic journals that further their discipline,
should write and structure their texts according to the needs of their discourse
community, because the exigency of their texts is to expand knowledge within their
discipline, not to acculturate subordinate audiences. Scholars who practice as such will
reinforce their unique lexicology, challenge their equals, and reach deeper levels of
cognition, which may fulfill their exigency. Such an exclusive writing style may have
their interaction with these elements, in addition to their interaction with the authors
concepts. Such academic feedback exchange lends authoring academics the sort of
reader participation that Johnson prompts. When the author receives feedback from the
journal community, their revise their own rhetoric according to their responders
message. The realistic likelihood of user centered responsorial consideration by
writers, buttresses the claim that academic conversation contain elements of Johnsons
involved audience (Johnson.)
As discussed above, and stemming from our own chronicling of the involved
audience interactions that permeate academic journals, it became apparent that such a
forum produces knowledge and encourages further study through involved conversation
between scholars dedicated to furthering discourse. However, the level of academia in
which the journal requires will most likely exclude subordinates. In their response to
Downs and Wardles ideas on writing studies as a part of first-year composition
curriculum, Libby Miles et al. argue that the immersion of freshmen students into
scholarly discourse at such an early stage may be too cumbersome; and in fact, a focus on
the study of writing concepts may ultimately dissuade first-year students from joining the
writing discourse (Miles et al.) Like Miles, we welcome the idea of writing studies
through a progressive approach. We propose, as a companion piece to classroom
instruction on such theories and practices, the creation of an interdisciplinary writing
forum; one where students can be introduced to scholarly texts in a planned fashion, and
converse with community members in an involved audience manner, similar to a
scholarly journal/publication.
Works Cited