Too frequently, representations of disciplinary writing foreground static notions of knowledge creation and literate practice in science and engineering. Rooted in discourse community theory, such representations present normative tropes of scientific practice that background notions of disciplinarity and obscure people’s lived experience and practice. Drawing on a case study of one woman, a civil and environmental engineer, this article argues for a lifeworld perspective of disciplinary becoming: a perspective that foregrounds notions of disciplinarity, lived experience, and literate practices as constantly mobile and in flux. The study suggests, specifically, that the woman’s work as an engineer cannot be separated from the people with whom she works, or has worked, and that her development as a writer extends beyond typical accounts of disciplinary enculturation. The author concludes by offering implications of this research for studies of disciplinarity and school science.
BazermanC.(1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.
2.
BeaufortA. (2008). College writing and beyond: A new framework for university writing instruction. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
3.
BerkenkotterC.HuckinT. N.AckermanJ. (1988). Conventions, conversations, and the writer: Case study of a student in a rhetoric Ph.D. program. Research in the Teaching of English, 22(1), 9-44.
4.
BizzellP. (1982). Cognition, convention, and certainty: What we need to know about writing. PRE/TEXT, 3, 213-243.
5.
BrandtD. (2014). The rise of writing: Redefining mass literacy. Cambridge University Press.
6.
CasanaveC. P. (2002). Writing games. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
CooperM. M. (1989). Why are we talking about discourse communities? Or, foundationalism rears its ugly head once more. In CooperM. M.HolzmanM. (Eds.), Writing as social action (pp. 202-220). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
8.
DiasP.FreedmanA.MedwayP.ParéA. (1999). Worlds apart: Acting and writing in academic and workplace contexts. New York: Routledge.
9.
EngstromY. (2009). Wildfire activities: New patterns of mobility and learning. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 1(2), 1-18.
10.
GierynT. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781-795.
11.
GrubertE. A.StillwellA. S.WebberM. E. (2014). Where does solar-aided seawater desalination make sense? A method for identifying sustainable sites. Desalination, 339, 10-17.
12.
HallidayM.A.K.MartinJ. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
13.
IrvineJ. T. (1996). Shadow conversations: The indeterminancy of participant roles. In SilversteinM.UrbanG. (Eds.), Natural histories of discourse (pp. 131-159). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
14.
KirchS. A.AmorosoM. (2016). Being and becoming scientists today. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.
15.
Knorr-CetinaK. D. (1983). The ethnographic study of a scientific work: Towards a constructivist interpretation of science. In Knorr-CetinaK.MulkayM. (Eds.), Science observed: Perspectives of the social study of science (pp. 115-140). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
16.
LatourB.WoolgarS. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
17.
MalletteJ. C. (2017). Writing and women’s retention in engineering. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 31(4), 417-442.
18.
MartinJ. R. (1993). Literacy in science: Learning to handle text as technology. Writing science: Literacy and discursive power, 166-202.
19.
MojeE. B. (2007). Developing socially just subject-matter instruction: A review of the literature on disciplinary literacy teaching. Review of Research in Education, 31(1), 1-44.
20.
MojeE. B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(2), 509-521.
21.
MojeE. B. (2015). Doing and teaching disciplinary literacy with adolescent learners. Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 254-278.
22.
MooreT. J.TankK. M.GlancyA. W.KerstenJ. A. (2015). NGSS and the landscape of engineering in K–12 state science standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(3), 296-318.
23.
MyersG. (1991). Writing biology: Texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge. Madison, WI: University of Madison Press.
24.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
25.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
26.
OchsE.JacobyS. (1997). Down to the wire: The cultural clock of physicists and the discourse of consensus. Language in Society, 26(4), 479-505.
27.
PoeM.LernerN.CraigJ. (2010). Learning to communicate in science and engineering: Case studies from MIT. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28.
PriorP. (1994). Response, revision, disciplinarity: A microhistory of a dissertation prospectus in sociology. Written Communication, 11(4), 483-533.
29.
PriorP. (1998). Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the academy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30.
PriorP. (2004). Tracing process: How text come into being. In BazermanC.PriorP. (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices (pp. 167-200). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31.
PriorP. (2016, February). Literate activity, dialogic semiotics, and disciplinarity: Tales of learning vs. trajectories of becoming. Plenary presented at the NCTEAR 2016 Midwinter Conference, Ypsilanti, MI.
32.
PriorP. (2018). How do moments add up to lives: Trajectories of semiotic becoming vs. tales of school learning in four modes. In WysockiR.SheridanM. P. (Eds.), Making future matters. Logan, UT: Computers and Composition Digital Press/Utah State University Press. Retrieved from http://ccdigitalpress.org/makingfuturematters
33.
PriorP.BilbroR. (2012). Academic enculturation: Developing literate practices and disciplinary identities. In CastellóM.DonahueC. (Eds.), University writing. Selves and texts in academic societies (pp. 19-32). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
34.
PriorP.ShipkaJ. (2003). Chronotopic lamination: Tracing the contours of literate activity. In BazermanC.RussellD. R. (Eds.), Writing selves, writing societies: Research from activity perspectives (pp. 180-238). Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse.
35.
RoozenK. (2010). Tracing trajectories of practice: Repurposing in one student’s developing disciplinary writing processes. Written Communication, 27(3), 318-354.
36.
RoozenK.EricksonJ. (2017). Expanding literate landscapes: Persons, practices, and sociohistoric perspectives of disciplinary development. Logan, UT: Computers and Composition Digital Press/Utah State University Press.
37.
ScollonR. (2001). Mediated discourse: The nexus of practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
38.
ShanahanT.ShanahanC. (2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter?Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 7-18.
39.
SmithA.PriorP. (2019). A Flat CHAT perspective on transliteracies development. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction. Advance online publication. doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.01.001
40.
SwalesJ. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
41.
WoodardR. (2015). The dialogic interplay of writing and teaching writing: Teacher-writers’ talk and textual practices across contexts. Research in the Teaching of English, 50(1), 35-59.
42.
WysockiR.SheridanM. P. (Eds.). (2018). Making future matters. Logan, UT: Computers and Composition Digital Press/Utah State University Press. Retrieved from http://ccdigitalpress.org/makingfuturematters
