[English Version]

Écrire dans la société du savoir

Association canadienne des professeurs de rédaction technique et scientifique (ACPRTS)

York University , Toronto, Ontario, HNE 034
28 - 30 mai, 2006

Appel de propositions
Conférenciers invités
Partenaires et commanditaires
Organisateurs de la conférence
Atelier de clôture

Conférenciers invités

La conférence recevra des conférenciers de renommée internationale œuvrant dans les domaines des thèmes et des objectifs de la rencontre .

Objectif Conférenciers invités

Écrit et savoir : théorie et pratique en contexte public et professionnel

Jour 1, 28 Mai
9 h - 10 h
Salle HNE 034

Dr. Catherine Schryer
Associate Professor, Rhetoric and Professional Writing Program, English Department, and Director of Teaching Resources and Continuing Education, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Dr. Schryer's doctoral degree is in the area of Rhetoric and Composition studies. She has a general interest in issues related to advanced literacies in the professions and a specific interest in genre theory and health care communication. She is currently conducting two Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) supported studies as the principal investigator. The first explores the role of case presentations in socializing students in Medicine, Optometry, and Social Work. The second investigates the role of genres such as consult letters, reports and medical records as sites of discursive negotiation between health care professions. She is also a co-investigator with Dr. Philippa Spoel on a SSHRC supported study of the discourse of midwifery. Her publications include Contextual Literacy: Writing Across the Curriculum (Inkshed Press), "Records as Genre" in Written Communication, and "Walking a Fine Line: Writing Negative News Letters in an Insurance Company" in the Journal of Business and Technical Communication. This last article received the 2001 National Council of Teachers of English award for the best article published in scientific and technical communication. Together with Lorelei Lingard and Marlee Spafford, she has also published "Structure and Agency in Medical Case Presentations" in Writing Selves/Writing Society, and "Techne or Artful Science and the Genre of Case Presentations in Healthcare Settings" in Communication Monographs. For more information, please see Dr. Schryer's home page.

Les genres comme objets de démarcation : transformer le savoir entre les groupes

This paper brings together research in genre theory (Miller; Hyland; Schryer), classical rhetoric (Atwill), sociocultural literacy (Gee) and learning theory (Lave & Wenger; Wenger) to explore two issues: the discursive construction of expertise and the negotiation of expertise across fields of practice. The paper reports on research that investigates how some genres function as "boundary objects" or objects "that both inhabit several communities of practice and satisfy their informational requirements" (Bowker & Star, p. 297). In particular, I focus on the work that consultation letters do as boundary objects or "brokers" (Wenger, 1998, p. 105) between different healthcare professions. The research combines two sources of data-a discourse analysis of sets of letters between optometrist clinicians and physician ophthalmologists as well as interviews with both the readers and writers. The results suggest that members of both fields use specific strategies to evoke the recognition of their expertise (or techne) and thus their professional forms of identities (boundaries) while at the same time using other strategies to negotiate knowledge across fields and to create ongoing relationships. The results suggest ways that professional communication researchers can make this work of boundary negotiating less tacit and thus function themselves as 'brokers' between different fields of practice.

Écrit et savoir : théorie et pratique en contexte universitaire

Jour 2, 29 mai
9 h -10 h
Salle HNE 034

Dr. Ken Hyland
Professor of Education and Director of the Centre for Academic and Professional Literacies at the Institute of Education, University of London, United Kingdom

Professor Hyland has taught applied linguistics and English for Academic Purposes for almost 30 years, working in Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand and Hong Kong before moving to the UK in 2003. He has published over 100 articles and book chapters on language teaching and academic writing. Recent publications include Disciplinary Discourses (Longman, 2000 republished by University of Michigan Press in 2004), Teaching and researching Writing (Longman, 2002), ‘Second Language Writing’ (Cambridge University Press, 2003), Genre and second language writing (University of Michigan Press, 2004) and Metadiscourse (Continuum, 2005). An edited book on feedback with Fiona Hyland and a book on EAP are due out in early 2006. He was reviews editor of English for Specific Purposes for 5 years and is founding co-editor of the Journal of English for Academic Purposes (with Liz Hamp-Lyons). For more information, please see Dr. Hyland's home page.

Disciplines et discours : interactions sociales dans l'élaboration du savoir

It is now increasingly accepted that academic knowledge is closely related to the social practices of academic communities, and particularly to their discourses. Texts are persuasive only when they employ rhetorical conventions that colleagues find convincing, and in recent years corpus analyses have helped to underpin this social constructivist position and to reveal some of the ways this is achieved. In this paper I discuss the role of interaction in this process. Based on an analysis of 240 published research papers from eight disciplines and insider informant interviews, I explore the nature of interactive persuasion in this genre. My presentation will show the importance of interaction in academic argument, suggest some of the ways this is achieved, and indicate how these choices reflect and construct disciplinary communities. It will also suggest how this understanding can contribute to classroom instruction.

Écrit et savoir : théorie et pratique dans l'univers numérique

Jour 3, 30 mai
9 h - 10
Salle HNE 034

Panel de conférenciers :Dr. Jeff Grabill, Dr. Bill-Heart-Davidson, Dr. James Porter
Co-Directors, Research Centre for Writing in Digital Environments (WIDE), Michigan State University

Jeff Grabill is an Associate Professor of Rhetoric and Professional Writing and Co-Director of the Writing in Digital Environments (WIDE) Research Center. His research focuses how to communicate with diverse audiences with respect to technical and scientific issues. He works at the intersection of professional and technical writing, rhetorical theory, and literacy theory and is interested in the literate and technological practices of citizens, users, workers, students, and other such people within complex institutional contexts. Grabill has published a book on community literacy programs and articles in journals like College Composition and Communication, Technical Communication Quarterly, Computers and Composition, and English Education. For that work, he was won the Richard Braddock Memorial Award, for best article published in College Composition and Communication (2001), the Ellen Nold Award for best article published in computers and composition studies (1999), and the Nell Ann Picket Award for best article published in Technical Communication Quarterly (1998). For more information, please see Dr. Grabill's home page.

L'écrit ou le travail du savoir dans l'économie de l'information

Definitions of knowledge work generally focus on people who can analyze, synthesize, and evaluate information, who can work with ideas, solve problems, and make decisions (e.g. Mirel, Spinuzzi & Zachry, Spinuzzi) . While I agree with these definitions, I understand much of the activity of knowledge work as communicative work - mainly writing. Writing is an especially important component of knowledge work because it is the way knowledge becomes valuable, persistent, transportable, and usable across time and space (Starr, Harper & Sellen, Dourish). I define writing broadly as communicative performance across genres, media, and situations and view it as central to creating and sustaining value and facilitating action within all organizations (e.g., Grabill). This paper will focus on helping individuals, organizations, and communities better understand how writing functions in digital environments and to enable individual, organizational, and community change.

  Bill Hart-Davidson is an Assistant Professor in the Writing, Rhetoric, and American Cultures Department at MSU and a co-director of the Writing in Digital Environments Research Center. His research interests lie at the intersection of Technical Communication and Human-Computer Interaction in such areas as visualizing knowledge work processes, and information and user experience design. Bill is working on several projects in the WIDE center that involve the design and development of new software tools for writers in both workplace and community contexts. Bill has recently published articles in edited collections on content management and on the relevance of the rhetorical tradition to information systems design. He has also published articles in journals such as Technical Communication, Computers and Composition, and the Journal of Software Documentation.

Writing and/as Knowledge Work in the Information Economy: Part II, Visualizing Knowledge Work

The fragmented and distributed nature of writing makes it a difficult activity to understand, teach and learn, particularly in the genres and situations that comprise technical communication. The pressures of a knowledge economy make these problems more emphatic, as more people must become users and producers of technical communication genres. That much of this work takes place in digital environments poses additional challenges; but digital environments may also provide affordances for addressing these difficulties, such as the ability to visualize the complex work of writing. I ask how have researchers attempted to visualize technical communication processes & practices and to what extent do any of these attempts deal with the nature of writing as a distributed, fragmented activity? What, furthermore, might be desirable to visualize that hasn't been done so far? I will draw from process-era research in writing studies (e.g. Flower & Hayes, Berkenkotter, Prior, Prior & Shipka), from workplace studies in technical and professional writing (e.g. Odell, Spilka, Cross, Winsor), and from information systems research in technical communication (e.g. Mirel, Spinuzzi & Zachry, Spinuzzi) and computer-supported cooperative work (e.g. Starr, Harper & Sellen, Dourish) as well as from ongoing research.

  James E. Porter is Professor of Writing, Rhetoric, & American Cultures, where he also serves as Co-Director of the WIDE Research Center (Writing in Digital Environments) and as Special Adviser on Writing in the College of Arts & Letters. Porter's areas of research and teaching include rhetoric theory and history, digital rhetoric, and professional/technical communication. Recent research projects focus on digital research ethics (e.g., how rhetoric can be productively helpful in addressing issues in digital research ethics) and digital composing practices (particularly the ethics of copying, downloading, and file sharing). Porter has published four books, including Rhetorical Ethics and Internetworked Writing (which won the 1998 Computers & Writing award for "Distinguished Book") and Professional Writing Online (a web-based professional writing textbook). As part of his current administrative assignment, Porter is working on developing an institutional and administrative model for supporting writing instruction across the university and on articulating the role of writing in an overall liberal arts curriculum. For more information, please see Dr. Porter's home page.

Writing and/as Knowledge Work in the Information Economy: Part III Intellectual Property

In response to perceived acts of Internet "piracy," public policy makers, legislators, and media conglomerates are cracking down on copying and downloading to an extent that is worrisome because it impinges on Fair Use and on the public's right to benefit from information and knowledge available on the Internet (see Gurak; Logie). There are deep problems and implications for understanding and fostering knowledge work, however, namely that the "chilling effects" (Porter) of these policies limit innovation, writing, and ultimately, the productivity of knowledge work. We are entering a time where technical communicators will have to address this problem. What will be our position, our rhetorical philosophy, regarding technical information? Do we generally hold to a position where wide public distribution of information is seen as desirable? I will argue in this presentation that we need to develop a better sense of the politics and economics of our writing practices. We must develop political positions on important questions pertaining to information access and ownership and address questions such as Where do technical communicators stand on questions of information distribution? On questions of digital copyright? On the question of the nature of the Web? Answers to these questions have significant implications for writing as a form of knowledge work.