Criticizing Emig’s study would be easier than putting socks on the right feet; after all, her sample is miniscule, the time spent with her subjects is inadequate, and the design of the study itself is highly artificial. What’s more, there seems to be a certain hubris to Emig’s Introduction and Conclusion. Despite a problematic research design—Emig herself admits that “the data are not full enough to substantiate any generalizations”—Emig does not hesitate, a few sentences later, to claim that the results imply a complete overhaul of composition teaching and teacher training (4).
Easy to criticize. However, despite its flaws, much remains in Emig’s study that deserves praise, not to mention contemporary reconsideration.
1. Notwithstanding the hubris that imbues the pages of The Composing Processes, Emig freely admits that the study of writing, as a physical and psychological phenomenon, remains in the dark ages. Thus, her work should not be judged according to the highest standards of social science. The study of writing processes was (and still is) in the “watch and see what happens” stage, and that’s precisely what Emig does: she watches and records what happens. She is like Galileo recording the wanderings of the planets, like Newton watching alchemic reactions; no theory guides her because no one has developed a theory.
1.5. We may disagree with the basic premise of Emig’s study, that a human writing process can be observed, modeled, and generally described. However, if we disagree with that premise, we shouldn’t criticize the naiveté of the study, or of any writing process studies. No matter how refined the methods of such studies become, we will never be satisfied with their results if we disagree with their underlying presupposition.
1.5.5. Emig’s is a pioneering study, showing one possible way to begin studying the writing process empirically. Pointing out flaws in the study is only helpful if we then move toward remedying those flaws in the next study.
2. The most problematic issue with the research design is the artificiality of asking students to “compose aloud” or to “recall” what they had thought while composing (30). The design is a classic case of changing an observable behavior simply by observing it. However, this is a problem encountered by researchers in many disciplines. In theoretical physics, for example, this problem has been canonized as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: a researcher can never precisely determine both the momentum and the location of a subatomic particle because the act of measuring the particle’s momentum affects its location, and vice versa. In my mind, then, the artificiality of Emig’s observation, while problematic, is not a sufficient reason to reject the study in toto. Rather, we should determine what remains valuable despite the artificiality of the observation.
3. Emig’s Dimensions of the Composing Process (34-35) seems completely adequate as an early categorizing schema. Of course, as Emig herself notes, the schema is “linear and single layered” even though the writing process is doubtlessly “laminated and recursive” (33). However, the point of the schema (the point of any schema in the sciences or social sciences) is to model a phenomenon in analyzable terms and categories. Just as Chomsky’s syntactic trees are not meant to be exact pictures of mental linguistic processes, Emig’s Dimensions is not an exact picture of the writing process; it is a simplified model of the process, which allows her to reduce the complexity of that process, temporarily, in the interest of observation and analysis.
3.5. I’d be interested in using and expanding the “Composing Aloud” and “Reformulation” sections in Emig’s Dimensions schema. Although I’m highly skeptical that a human writing process can be modeled and generalized, I’m not skeptical enough to relegate the project to the dustbin of history (the way the rest of the field has done, unfortunately). After all, every neurotypical human who writes, writes using the same brain. Why shouldn’t there be some generalizable phenomena, at least across writing systems (alphabets, syllabaries, logograms, Braille)? In addition to newer psycholinguistic methods, using the categories in the “Composing Aloud” and “Reformulation” sections might be a fruitful way to continue looking at a generalizable, observable writing process . . .
3.5.5. The categories in the sections seem to be drawn from a functional view of language use. That is, Emig is categorizing the real-time choices made by the writers and how those choices affect later and prior choices. This seems to be a very productive and granular way to view the writing process: as a series of choices unfolding in time, each choice constraining further choices, and possibly opening up pathways for reformulating past choices. In this functional framework, the writing process becomes a series of probabilities. For example, if I begin a sentence with “There is,” I have chosen to enter into the language system via the declarative mood, which automatically constrains further choices, pushing me toward certain probable choices in the next instance. Recording these unfolding probabilities, these constrained choices emanating from the language system, might be a valuable way to observe the writing processes of students. The germ of this idea is contained in Emig’s study. It’s a simple matter of extrapolating it and using it to improve further studies.
1.5 & 1.5.5. Precisely since it was the first of its kind, I feel we should treat it as somewhat of a launching pad. I can’t really get mad at Thomas Edison’s light bulb for not giving me a Jersey Shore style tan. *shrug* However at the same time, it is not above reproach. It is necessary to keep Emig’s foibles in mind when crafting our own research. It’s corny but true. I believe that this is a valuable research site and that a lot could be gleaned from this type of research but honestly I am skeptical of all results. I just feel like the composing process may be a bit too complicated and for lack of a better word… phenomenal to be simplified.
2. This was definitely my introduction to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. However, I see why you used it. I’ll try to include that in my lecture tomorrow. Lol! Again, I give Emig somewhat of a pass on this, especially since I still cannot really conceptualize how I would get at similar data. However, it is also hard for me to place myself in the students’ shoes. Even as a doctoral student, I do not think that I would have the ability to verbalize my composing process. We have talked about this process in Patrick’s and maybe in Steve’s classes and each time I found myself struggling to remember what the hell I did in order to craft my last masterpiece. If someone asked me while I was “composing,” they would probably be met with a stream of profanities that would then end the research all together. I’m joking. Kinda. “Even (my) silence can be characterized.” Are we serious?
3 & 3.5 This is where I feel that you give Emig more of a pass than I would necessarily on her attempt at simplifying phenomena, which I have to admit I have somewhat of a mental block against. However, it’s good to see that you seem as dubious about how “fruitful,” such an endeavor is (I think I detect Seth sarcasm). Personally, I just do not see how composing out loud is helpful in understanding anyone’s writing process. If we do believe writing is a recursive process, I could possibly understand the reformulation method following the old “hindsight is 20/20” adage, which would suggest that students have a better understanding of their composing process after its finished. Even though, I guess I could call myself a professional writer. Yet I can’t tell you much about my process. That may be Emig’s job/project though…
3.5.5. Exactly! When I read this section, I thought about writing the good ole term paper (thinking more rhetoric than social sciences but both work), where you may come up with thoughtful and profound research questions. Then after performing your analysis and into writing your conclusion/discussion you realize that you have stumbled upon more intriguing territory, which forces you to alter research questions. These conscious or perhaps subconscious choices have changed the scoop of the whole paper. Through working with the data, you are able to determine what truly makes your study “’fruitful.” I think this is one of those nuggets that you can take from Emig’s piece.
Posted by sethedavis | January 30, 2012, 4:34 amI may be wrong here, Seth 1, but I’m thinking that our artistic sensibilities definitely make us skeptical toward the idea of “composing aloud” (before or after the fact) as a valuable window into a student’s writing process. Novelists, poets, lyricists . . . they’re all pretty unanimous, across cultural lines, about how to describe their writing processes: We Have No F—ing Idea. I can’t remember who it was, but I know of one author who admitted to a journalist, “If I tell you about how I write, I’ll just be lying to you.”
I think the more time a writer spends on creative pursuits (as I think you and I do, or once did), the more s/he becomes confronted with the complexity, contradictions, and same-but-different recursions of the writing process; thus confronted, the creative writer comes to understand that, no indeed, s/he has no f—ing idea about his/her writing process. If we can’t know our own, how could we possibly generalize about other peoples’?
Posted by sdlong | January 30, 2012, 5:46 pmResponse to 3.5
Seth I think you’re right to question the possibility of generalizing the human writing process. It makes me wonder if we can’t establish more limited, reasonable goals for empirical research on the writing process though. For instance, is it really the best goal to be aiming for results that can be generalized to describe some take on “THE” writing process? (not that I think you’re arguing that here) As if such a universal generalization is ever possible. But, I wonder if it might be possible to imagine a more carefully done case study that simply illuminated particular aspects of the writing process of a specific group of students (in a specific time and at a specific place). The insights from this study certainly wouldn’t be any ultimate truth about the writing process, but rather insights into particular cases of writing that may or may not be useful to particular people writing.
I guess I’m only suggesting that it’s possible to imagine reasonable and limited goals that make empirical research on the writing process more useful and believable.
Posted by Kate Navickas | January 30, 2012, 5:07 pmKate, I agree 100% that, as compositionists and humanities-based teachers of writing, our empirical research should be conducted with the goal of illuminating particular aspects of the writing process with particular groups of students. And I like the humility of admitting that the results of such studies “may or may not be useful” beyond the cases or populations studied. It’s like, Here’s what we found out about these students; try it out, see if it works for you. That may sound unscientific, but hey, insofar as we’re humanists, we don’t have to be scientific.
Now, I still do think that, maybe, there is something like “A Human Writing Process” in terms of brain function, gross and fine motor movement, and psycholinguistic operations. However, studying “the” writing process through these more scientific lenses would provide results that may be useless to the teacher of writing. To describe the writing process through such “terministic screens” would provide fascinating information, but its value to teachers of writing would probably be limited . . . . Just like all the kinesiological knowledge in the world won’t necessarily inspire people to get off the couch, start exercising, and keep exercising. That takes a coach who possesses a different type of knowledge and skill.
Posted by sdlong | January 30, 2012, 5:37 pm“A human writing process”! I am intrigued!!
Posted by ippandey | January 30, 2012, 8:14 pmThoughtful discussion here, too. I also liked that Tim mentioned this post while responding to LaToya’s comment. More later!
Posted by ippandey | January 30, 2012, 8:08 pm