Debbie Davy's Rhetorical Theory Course Blog: PhD Issues and Concerns for Students: A Review of the Literature

PhD Issues and Concerns for Students: A Review of the Literature (Debbie Davy and Newton Buliva)

PhD Issues and Concerns for Students: A Review of the Literature

(By Debbie Davy and Newton Buliva)

The pursuit of the PhD terminal degree in the humanities discipline, in particular Texas Tech’s unique online/onsite Technical Communication and Rhetoric program, is available to only about  2 of every 10 students that apply.  As each PhD student requires extensive faculty and other support for a minimum of four years, ensuring the success of these chosen few is a goal, and a concern, for the program, the English Department that houses the program, the School of Graduate Studies, and the University.

In addition to support from these academic bodies, to be successful PhD students need to have an equal awareness of the risks and rewards of their chosen path.  From a review of the literature, we found that PhD students will experience financial challenges, lack of work-life balance, and mental and physical fatigue and its associated physical symptoms.  They will need to persevere through many years of study with dubious benefit at the end of the process.  And they will be challenged to find meaningful and financially rewarding work once they have graduated. 

The following is a report produced by Debbie Davy and Newton Buliva for Dr. Tommy Barker's Fall 2011 Rhetoric of Risk class at Texas Tech University. Enjoy.

Introduction

The following research on PhD risk is the result of a collaborative literature review between Texas Tech University graduate students Debbie Davy and Newton Buliva, and leverages colloquia and wiki posts from the ENLG 5377 Risk Communication in Public Health online class.  Davy and Buliva reviewed survey results, websites, and academic journal articles that addressed the risk of the PhD program with a focus on its impact on humanities students.  The methodology included a high-level quantitative and qualitative analysis of these primary and secondary sources. It is anticipated that this literature review will inform the Communications Plan for PhD Risk being written by the students of ENGL 5377 and presented to the Technical Communication and Rhetoric program chair at Texas Tech University.

Just How Useful is a PhD in the Humanities: Some Factors to Consider

In the Economist magazine’s December 16, 2010 article on doctorate degrees, the author bemoans a tragic fall of the value and importance of a PhD in today’s society. The article begins with a history lesson of how analogous to Martin Luther’s thesis of 1517 a PhD of today is, and asserts that the PhD does not buy the graduate into a place of wealth or importance. What is said is that the PhD candidate’s position has become one of a ‘slave’ (as an assistant to the professor) or to a misguided idealism that the doctorate route will give the student a position or secure job. What the author(s) further reveal is that doctorate degrees, once for only privileged students, have become common place and are not geared for industry. The challenge pointed out in the article is in the philosophy behind the degree: not that it has no value, but rather that the strain on students that arises from spending significant amounts of money and time and doing research that has little bearing on the real world. The author(s) do accept the value of the degree; however, their concern is for the disposable academic. What the article stands to say has merit. The ‘profession’ of getting an academic degree should have closer relevance for today’s industrialized global market. Academia needs to approach this question with students in mind. Students should not be led down a difficult path only to find themselves suffering from the pressure of an antiquated system. This article highlights some very basic yet important issues that need further study in order to determine a more current option for today’s society. (The disposable academic: Why doing a PhD is often a waste of time. Dec 16th 2010)

In the article Graduate School in Humanities: Just Don’t Go written in 2009, the author warns readers not to attend graduate school claiming that higher education does not care for the interests of PhD students. The authors claim that most prospective graduate students have not though much about what will happen to them after completion of their doctorates. Employing inflammatory rhetoric, the article says that doctoral education in humanities encourages idealism and teachers naive people that life outside of academe is personal failure. It also explores the power divide that education is intended to bridge, hinting that such doctoral studies merely bamboozles students into thinking that they are joining the ranks of the elite. 

Caveat Emptor! The True Cost of a PhD and its Financial Commitment 

The financial implications for PhD study play a central role in decisions on whether to enrol in such program or not. In their article for the organization, the PhD Project, Martinez and Blancero (2010) caution prospective students that they have to first decide if they can financially afford enrolling in a PhD program before they start their studies. Financial considerations will also determine if they want to attend full-time or part-time since students’ earnings decline while they are in doctoral programs. 

A newsletter by the Council of Graduate Studies (CGS) raises these concerns through data it collected. According to the CGS, nearly one-third of all doctoral students and 44% of all master’s-level students took out loans in 2007-08 for their studies and this cumulative loan debt has become a concern. The study by the organization found that men received higher aid for PhD program than women and that Hispanics receive the largest share in comparison to other ethnic groups. “Nearly one-third (31.7%) of all doctoral students in 2007-08 received loans. Stafford loans were the most common Private commercial or alternative loans were received by 7.2% of doctoral students. Small percentages of doctoral students received graduate PLUS loans (3.5%) and Perkins loans (1.7%)” the document reveals. The report finds that a large percentage of doctoral students (63%) received financial support from their institutions in 2007-2008, 27% of them received fellowships and about 22 % of students received tuition and fee waivers from their institutions. In addition institutions continued to support the students financially with about 13% of all doctoral students received financial support from their employers.

The disconnect between the number of PhD graduates and the number of academic positions available is further explored by Huysden (2007) who reports on a conference of deans of graduate schools in 2005. They recommend that graduate schools do more to tailor degrees to fit requirements of marketplace therefore making their graduates more marketable outside of shrinking opportunities in academia.

The November 2010 issue of the CGS Communicator reports on a scientific analyses of data of a 2009 survey of graduate students. It reports that numbers of both part-time and full-time enrolees increased over the past two decades. The increase in full-time enrolment also seems counterintuitive given the increase in the numbers of non- traditional graduate students in recent years. For example, the number of graduate students 40 years  and over increased 87% between fall 1987 and fall 2007, compared with a 58% overall increase in graduate enrolment in the same time period (Bell, 2009). Since older graduate students are more likely to be enrolled part-time than their younger peers (Redd, 2007), the increase in the share of students who are non-traditional in terms of age seems contradictory to the increase in full-time enrolment over the past two decades.

The study further found that, since international students on F-1 visas are required to study full-time, an increase in the share of graduate students who are international, could have led to an overall increase in the share of graduate students who are full-time. Indeed, there was a slight increase in international graduate students between fall 1989 and fall 2009, with non-U.S. citizens on temporary visas increasing from 14.4% of all graduate students to 15.5% (Council of Graduate Schools, 2010). 

However, this increase can explain only a small portion of the overall increase in full-time enrolment over the past two decades. Women have driven much of the increase in full-time enrolment, and that the fields of business, education, and health and medical sciences have contributed to much of the gain.

The time to complete a PhD degree course also directly contributes to its costs. The CGS Communicator, in its March 2010 issue, using data from the annual Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED), examines time-to-degree by broad field and demographics, and presents data on the overall improvement in time-to-degree over the past two decades. However, the article points out that there are disparities and difficulties in interpreting data collected from the survey of students completing doctoral programs. While time-to-degree data provide an important benchmark, the data does not account for students who fail to complete their doctoral programs; and while time-to-degree is important, it needs to be examined in combination with completion data to ensure that students who enter doctoral programs actually complete those programs and that they do so in a timely manner.

The April 2010 issue of the CGS Communicator also compares the trends in graduate studies between USA and Canada. It found that while the size of graduate education in the U.S. dwarfs that of Canada, both countries have similar percentages of international students and similar trends in the participation of women in graduate education. Canada and the U.S. have, also, both experienced an increase in graduate enrolment over the past decade.

In comparison to other PhD disciplines, Brass, et al (2010) conducted an analysis of students in MD-PhD programs in various universities tracking their demographics and rates of completion of the PhD program. They found that the average medical training program for MD-PhD has 90 students enrolled. They regularly require 8 years to complete training, with an attrition rate of 10%. Most of them (81%) were employed in academia, research institutions or industry, demonstrating availability of wider career options.

Quo Vadis? PhD Current and Future Trends  

Bell’s study of data (2011) found that advanced degrees do not guarantee higher wages, but they are often the pathway to occupations with greater economic rewards. This may point to the direction where future trends of doctoral studies are headed. Analyzing data from the Current Population Survey, Bell also concludes that higher education may lead to higher income but it does not eliminate disparities in income between gender, race and ethnicity.

The research report; At Cross Purposes: What the experiences of today’s doctoral students reveal about doctoral education, examines doctoral studies through the eyes of students.  It finds that American doctoral education has evolved over the twentieth century, often in response to circumstances and priorities that had already changed. Accordingly, doctoral education has been the subject of many criticisms, calls for change and reform initiatives. This attention has come from both within and outside academia.  Current reports on this topic represent the views of higher education organizations and their leaders, including the National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Board, the Association of American Universities, and a number of professional associations. Although they looked broadly at the educational system, none took the point of view of students as their starting point. Looking at doctoral education through the eyes of students provides a different vantage point. The Survey on Doctoral Education and Career Preparation provides such data. It is a national survey of doctoral students with results that present a snapshot of the experiences of today’s arts and sciences doctoral students.

Another study by the Council of Graduate Studies in 2010 reported that despite a gloomy job market (because of recession), more than two-thirds (69%) of doctorate recipients in 2007-08 reported definite commitments for employment or postdoctoral study.  The report showed that doctorate recipients in humanities (64%) and engineering (65%) were least likely to report definite commitments, while those in education (73%) and ‘other fields’ (76%) were most likely to report definite commitments for employment or postdoctoral study.

Men were slightly more like than women to report definite commitments for employment or postdoctoral study – 70% vs. 68%. U.S. citizens and permanent residents were more likely than temporary visa holders to report definite commitments for employment or postdoctoral study – 70% vs. 66%. And American Indian (74%) and white doctorate recipients (72%) were more likely to have definite commitments than Hispanic (66%), Black (64%), and Asian (62%) doctorate recipients.

Among doctorate recipients with definite commitments, 64% had offers of employment and 36% planned to pursue postdoctoral study. By broad field, doctorate recipients in education (95%), ‘other fields’ (93%), and humanities (86%) were most likely to have commitments for employment, while those in life sciences (66%), physical sciences (53%), and social sciences (33%) were most likely to have commitments for postdoctoral study. 

The 2010 survey of 505 US colleges offering masters and PhD courses was launched by the Council of Graduate Students seeking to determine the top pressing issues for graduate colleges. It found that graduate students were most likely to identify financial support as their top pressing issue. It found that 53% of the students, or half the respondents identified this as their most pressing issue. 

As graduate schools continue to feel the effects of the economic recession, deans will likely remain concerned about providing appropriate and adequate financial support to graduate students, as well as recruiting and enrolling high-quality students and operating the graduate school with a limited budget. 

Apart from financial risks inherent in a graduate program, one study found that risks of sexual harassment can play a significant part in completion of graduate studies. In her study Lee (1998) analyzed previously un-researched dynamics of sexual harassment in cross-gender, one-to-one PhD supervision in a UK social science faculty education department. The author discusses two women research students’ reactions on their supervisory relationships with a sexually harassing male supervisor, including the processes of obtaining a supervisor and the establishment or curtailment of the relationship. When students decide whether or not to be supervised by a particular individual there is a tension between personal compatibility and relevant research expertise. Once the relationship is established there is a further tension because the boundaries between discussions about academic work and personal life are so easily blurred. In particular, it is suggested that the sexually harassing male supervisor cannot simply be viewed as an aberration, for his exploits reveal a strategic exploitation of conditions which are actually integral and arguably necessary to this distinctive academic relationship.

 Bell (2010) also compares graduate enrolment between universities in the US and Canada. Through the paper, the article examines the similarities between Canada and the U.S. with regards to their enrolment of women and international students in Graduate Education. It does so effectively, and is easy to evaluate and understand when context is taken into account of the wider scope of issues surrounding the studied accounts.

Other studies have found that incorporating innovating learning methods can ease PhD studies. Schacham and Cohen (2009) found that students can avoid isolation and benefit from greater levels of external support by participating in collective doctoral research training programs, which enable the facilitation of informal forms of interaction between research students and networks of support. Research presented in this article focused on the learning characteristics of PhD students, incorporating communities of practice both during their studies and beyond completion of their PhD, and drawing on theories of adult learning and lifelong learning. It shows how professional discourse enhances academic discourse through student engagement in lifelong learning, and how PhD ‘learners as field experts’ turn into researchers beyond their PhD, influencing their environment and contributing to academic culture and society. The authors present these insights as a model of adult learning and professional development.

The Goals of PhD Program Goals and How These Impact You

A timely graduation for students is one of the goals of a successful PhD program. In a study of graduation time for Economics PhD students, Stock et al (2009), found that only 27% of students completed their degrees within 5 years. They found that students often required more than 5 years to graduate and that there are various penalties for staying in school longer. They also determined that top-ranked schools (tier 1) have a higher probability of graduating students on time unlike lower ranked PhD economics programs.

Watts (2009) seeks to put perspective on the problems faced by the student who is a professional in his field and enrols in a PhD program. He examines stresses and problems that an experienced professional undergoes while studying for a PhD program. He concludes by requesting graduate program supervisors to be understanding towards their students in consideration of their conflicted transition from professional to student.

Some Other Things to Consider

If the number and variety of blog and discussion posts in the Chronicle of Higher Education website are anything to go by, it would seem that universities are increasingly acknowledging risk to the student in embarking on the terminal degree; however, it is not clear from the posts, and our research, what if anything universities are doing to mitigate this risk.  PhD students generally expect that they will benefit from career advancement once they complete the degree, however much of the literature we surveyed here would indicate the opposite result.  PhD students expect that tenure track positions at four year institutions will be available to them

 PhD students fall prey to unanticipated risks once they are enrolled in their programs that could include stress (possibly depression), financial hardship (arising from fee increases, unexpected life events, etc.), and hard-to-measure opportunity cost because of the long time it takes to complete the degrees. At the end, PhD graduates may not be able to recoup their investment; the 2010-2011 American Association of University Professors (AAUP) Report on the Economic Status of the Profession in particular notes the disappearance of tenure track lines, however studies by the Council of Graduate Studies (2010) would dispute this statement. The economic reality, however, is that PhD graduates who remain in academia may take a long time to reach upper pay grade levels and may never achieve parity with colleagues in industry.

In Conclusion

From our analysis of the current literature, a PhD Humanities degree would seem to have little relevance in the “real world”, and its graduates appear to be underpaid and overworked virtual slaves to institutions of higher learning. Financing the PhD is a concern for most students, and our research showed that while a timely graduation for students is a key goal more than three quarters of PhD students took longer than five years to complete the degree. PhD students invest considerable time and resources to its acquisition for little, if any, reward from institutions that don’t care about them. PhD students appear to be naive scholars who have been brainwashed to think they are joining an elite group of thought leaders, when in reality they are being trained to do academic grunt work that has no practical purpose.  For the nebulous benefit of increasing their knowledge, growing their career, and promoting their ethos, they invest their time and money at the expense of their work life balance—as well as mental and physical health.  Despite the risks and negativity, and perhaps because of the economic downturn, there is no shortage of PhD students today.  However, those embarking on the terminal degree would be well advised to thoroughly research the risks and apply these against their own personal filters to make an effectibe, informed decision.   

Bibliography

Bell, N. (2010). Findings from the 2010 CGS International Graduate Admissions Survey, Phase III: Final Offers of Admission and Enrollment. Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools.

Bell, N. (2009). Data Sources: Results from the 2009 CGS Pressing Issues Survey.  The Communicator. Washington, DC.  Council of Graduate Schools. Retrieved 9/14/2011 from http://www.cgsnet.org/portals/0/pdf/DataSources_2009_06.pdf

Bell, N. (2009). Data Sources: Non-Traditional Students in Graduate Education. CGS Communicator 42(10):6-8. Retrieved 9/14/2011 from http://www.cgsnet.org/portals/0/pdf/DataSources_2010_11.pdf

Bell, N. (2010). Data Sources: Employment Trends among New Doctorate Recipients. The  Communicator. Washing, DC. Council of Graduate Studies. Retrieved 9/14/2010 from http://www.cgsnet.org/portals/0/pdf/DataSources_2010_07.pdf

Bell, N. 2009. “Data Sources: Results from the 2009 CGS Pressing Issues Survey.” The Communicator. Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools.

Benton, T. (2009). Graduate School in the Humanities: Just Don’t Go. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 9/17/2011 from http://chronicle.com/article/Graduate-School-in-the/44846/

Brass, L., et al (2010). Are MD–PhD Programs Meeting Their Goals? An Analysis of Career Choices Made by Graduates of 24 MD–PhD Programs. Academic Medicine, Vol. 85, No. 4

Cho, C., et al (2006). Chinese students in US accounting and business PhD programs: Educational, political and social considerations. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 19 (2008) 199–216. Retrieved9/15/2011 from http://www.mendeley.com/research/chinese-students-accounting-business-phd-programs-educational-political-social-considerations/ 

Huysen, D (2007). A Response to the “Responsive PhD”.   Academe, Vol. 93, No. 3 (May - Jun., 2007), pp. 49-51

Lee, D. (1998): Sexual Harassment in PhD Supervision. Gender and Education, 10:3, 299-312

Martinez, P. & Blancero, M. (n.d.) Graduate Degree Costs and Benefits. Retrieved 9/20/2011 from http://www.phdproject.org/inthenews_costs.html

Niskode, A., et al. (2007). Questions and Concerns About Pursuing a Doctoral Degree: Perspectives from Five Graduate Students and New Professionals.

Shacham, M. & Cohen, Y. (2009): Rethinking PhD learning incorporating communities of practice, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46:3, 279-292.

The Economist. (2010). The Disposable Academic: Why Doing a PhD is Often a Waste of Time. The Economist. Retrieved 9/16/2011 from http://www.economist.com/node/17723223

Watts, J. (2009): From professional to PhD student: challenges of status transition. Teaching in Higher Education, 14:6, 687-691

Webster, D. & Skinner, T. (1996). Rating PhD Programs: What the NRC Report Says...and Doesn't Say. Change, Vol. 28, No. 3 (May - Jun., 1996), pp. 22-32, 34-44. Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Retrieved 9/16/2011 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40165441.

Go20 Earth Climate Press Release

Hi everyone...this is a friendly message from my daughter's karate dojo
to everyone to raise awareness for specific events. Please read these
and spread them around if you can.

Go2o Earth Climate Rally Press Release

Canada, a country known for its variety of wildlife, and wind expanses
of wilderness, now bears the title of the “world’s worst polluter” on
its shoulders, mainly due to the tar sands. But this is not a title we
want—200-1000 students, families, Canadians—will be in attendance of
the Go2o Rally on September 26th to lend their voice and support to
bringing change to the way oil companies, and governments look at our
climate, and treat our Earth. For more information on the event please
contact the Go2o organizers through the Classical Martial Arts Centre
at 905-817-0453. Our website is go2o.ca. And we are located at: 1010
Dream Crest Road Unit 8, Mississauga, ON L5V 3A4.
Give the Oceans a Break – First Annual Charity Art Show

Finding a way to help preserve the ocean’s dwindling wildlife has
become a challenge that many want to address directly. Aiding the
ongoing efforts of different organizations, the Classical Martial Arts
Centre is hosting an art show dedicated towards stopping the illegal
hunting of wild dolphins in Japan, and with the intent to raise
awareness of the overfishing, and slaughter of the ocean’s wildlife.
An evening event, featuring original artwork by five local artists as
part of a silent auction, will be held at the Classical Martial Arts
Centre at 1010 Dream Crest Road, Unit # 8, in Mississauga, Ontario, on
Saturday, October 15th from 4pm to 7pm. All proceeds go to our cause
in support of the protection of dolphins in Taiji and the conservation
efforts of Sea Shepherd. All are welcome, and invited to attend.
Refreshments will be served. Please help us raise awareness for those
who cannot.
The Classical Martial Arts Centre of Mississauga (Yume Da Po Dojo)
offers classes in Goju Ryu Karate-Do, Kobudo (weapons), and Tai-Chi.
It is run by Sensei Jason Bassels. Our contact information is
available on our website: cmacdapo.com. Or we can be reached by phone
at (905) 817-0453. For more information regarding the Event please
contact: artistfortheocean@gmail.com.

The way is in the training.

--
Davy

The Last Post

Each time I take a course towards the TCR PhD, I experience a paradigm shift in thinking and am inspired to learn more about the subject, and the too-soon ending ENGL 5060 is no exception.  Not having experience as a composition teacher, I came into the class with a preconceived prejudice against English instruction that quickly evaporated.  In its place, I found a deep desire to contribute to the solving of the English-instruction-is-in-a-rut problem that we discussed in our final wiki exam. The collaborative nature of our classroom allowed us to practice the theory that we learned. And the sharing of experiences from those of us who were practicing composition teachers enriched everyone.

Of most profound impact on me was Horner’s exploration of the roots of modern writing instruction, Parker’s iconic analysis of where English departments come from, and Brereton’s Shaugnessy-dedicated history of the origins of composition studies in the American college. In hindsight, I think it would have helped me to have had the knowledge from these important thinkers as I suffered through the current traditional (formalist) instruction popular in Canadian high schools in the late 1970’s as my children suffered a few years ago. I feel like we’ve been frozen in time ever since the decisions of the Committee of Ten in 1892 enshrined English instruction in stone, as it were.  The maverick research from Shaughnessy and the Khunian revolution prophesied by Hairston have yet to be adapted decades after they were proposed.  If the development of computer technology had proceeded at this pace we would still be using manual typewriters.

While I don’t think there is anything wrong with enforcing good grammar, teaching literary criticism, or even the introduction of journalistic style (as I’ve observed recently in my children’s English education), I do think we should also support the study of argumentation, forensics, and rhetoric. In this way, we bring up a well-rounded student who can communicate his ideas clearly and effectively.

...some thoughts on the role of the teacher...

The Durst article tells us that since the 1990’s, scholars have increasingly argued that the teacher needs to be more and more concerned with a broad array of social, cultural, political, and economic factors. Numerous pedagogical studies, articles, and books have constructed the classroom as a political space in which the teacher has as a primary responsibility the task of introducing students to larger social issues.”

I was immediately reminded of Muriel Spark’s iconic Miss Jean Brodie and her encouragement and promotion of fascism to her special students (that had disastrous results, both for her and the students).  And it also occurred to me that any attempt by teachers to get their students interested in those larger social issues that are outside of the composition classroom is at once a form of service delivery scope creep--and job protection. 

In adopting a mentorship role, composition teachers are exceeding the requirements of the job they are paid to do: teaching students how to write. While this is not necessarily a bad thing for the students who are thus getting a richer experience and who often could benefit from shifting their paradigms, it makes the teachers that much more valuable to their institutions.  For example, I can contribute as a copywriter or as an author…the copywriter role is limiting and can be done by anyone who can  be trained to do so, the author role is not and the sphere of the rarefied few.

Durst’s conclusion, however, is that composition teachers are “in something of a rut” and clingers-on to orthodoxy.  In our exam discussion, we’ve discussed the reasons for this and have come up, collectively, with possible solutions.  One of these is better public relations, which I fully support.  But how to achieve this in the short term? (in the long term, presumably, the conservative element will naturally atrophy). The old adage about catching more flies with honey comes to mind…composition teachers and scholars have, as we’ve seen in our readings, focused on rules, grammar, and punishment.  The new generation of composition teachers need to move away from this model (like Shaughnessy suggested over 40 years ago) and make writing a desirable and fun thing. And perhaps this paradigm shift is coming sooner than we think because of the blogging tools which put creative writing in the hands of the everyman.    

...some useful lessons from the past

Winsor’s 1994 article on invention in technical communication could have been written today, in 2011: nothing has changed!  Like Winsor, I sometimes have the opportunity to observe the interaction between engineers and technical communicators (and I deliberately use the modern technical communicator in place of the legacy technical writer, with its negative connotation, here). The writing up of technical work that Winsor reports as a final step of the process is still the norm…knowledge creation is certainly separate from “its formulation in words”.  The writing task unfortunately records the knowledge and doesn’t create it. What is different, though, are the recording tools that are available to us today.  These include:

• Shouldn’t it be the goal of all educated people to communicate effectively with their audience? 
• Isn’t some information lost when translated from subject matter expert to technical communicator?

With these recording tools, the specialized role of technical communicator is expanded to include any who invent technical content.  I personally do not believe that you can separate “writing” from “invention”…all subject matter experts should be able to articulate and communicate their thoughts, not just technical communications.  Surely, some subject matter experts are less skilled in doing so than others…and for them, the recording tools are a godsend, for they no longer have to rely on the “technical communicator” middleman.

Before I get vilified for denigrating our technical communication profession and stating my non-politically correct opinion, let me offer these points in my defense for your consideration:

• Social media tools such as wikis, blogs, and SharePoint sites (in corporate environments), and 
• Content creation tools such as more powerful and intuitive word processors (e.g. Word, Pages), thought capture software (e.g. Comapping, BizAgi), etc.

If these points are true, then it logically follows that subject matter experts should be ultimately responsible for invention and recording of their desired communication. My opinion is actually a utopian one: everyone, no matter their subject matter expertise, should be an effective communicator.  Today, with the tools at our disposal, and innovative instruction, there should be no excuse that the basic skill of communication is not mastered.

Winsor also posited that “writing might sometimes have a negative impact on thought”.  In this, as well, I agree with her.  Let me share an example, similar to the qualitative analysis of note taking reported in her article.  Writer A on a technical communication writing team I led would diligently attempt to write down everything that was discussed at the first stage planning meeting (where the direction is decided). Concentrated on capturing absolutely everything that was discussed at the meeting, for fear of missing something important, Writer A either missed key business decisions or spent several hours trying to re-create his notes.  Writer B, on the other hand, made very few notes.  In fact, Writer B would sum up the business direction in a 15 word “elevator speech”.  The output from Writer B was near-perfect text from the first and the output from Writer A, the opposite. In this case, Writer B was certainly more successful because he listened and tried to understand, at a high level, the business direction for the proposal.  For him, it was easy to drill down into the “trees” once he understood where he was going.  In the meantime, Writer A was often so inundated with information he could not see the “forest”.

What I find painful is the slow rate of change in how writing and communication are perceived.  Winsor wrote her article 17 years ago in 1994, and in it reflected on 20 years’ prior research on the writing process.  Today, writing is still recursive.  Perhaps, though, as teachers of the next generation of communicators, we should encourage “generating knowledge in order to produce prose” instead of “generating knowledge as a result of producing prose”.

...why can't we all just get along?...sighhh

Can we teach writing based on the myth of collaborative learning? John Trimbur presents us with two perspectives:

1.            Consensus stifles learning by oppressing individual thought, and

2.            Knowledge is socially constructed, so consensus is a natural tool.

Collaboration, teamwork, consensus building, and similar terms are euphemisms for the pejorative “group think” that Trimbur warns about[1]. However, like Trimbur I think there is a place for collaborative learning, but I believe that collaborative learning should remain a conceptual rather than functional framework.

In the corporate world, collaboration and teamwork are commonly held precepts of success. From the first interview, job candidates are assessed on their team experience and capability. On the job, collaboration within teams, departmental or cross-functional, is strongly encouraged--and evaluated. However, where does innovation come from if the corporate organism only supports the average?  And if we believe this rhetoric of “average”, how would maverick leaders such as Steve Jobs be able to contribute their special brand of innovation? 

Organizational behavior theory would tell us that we’re smarter as a group.  Years ago, I attended a corporate “retreat” that had us engage in a table top game to prove that group decisions are better.  We were divided into small groups of participants and given the following scenario:

Your plane has just crashed in the Amazon.  Your team has survived and has to trek through the jungle to a settlement to be rescued. There are 20 items available for you to help you on this journey, but you are only able to take 10 of them.

We were first asked to develop the list of 10 items we’d take individually. Then, we did the same exercise as a team.  At the end, most of the groups decided that the 10 items they chose together were more valuable than the 10 items chosen individually.

I thought about this example for many years trying to find a hole in the logic, as it goes against my independent nature, and I think I’ve found the rationale for why the group’s consensus was thought to be more successful. It is this: individually, I make all of the decisions and I am able to take more risks, being accountable only to myself for my success or failure.  In a group situation, I must consider the needs of others in addition to myself. In the former, it is easy to be innovative, imaginative, creative, etc. because there is no one to stop me.  In the former, I’m not so lucky.

In the education world, teamwork has been accepted practice for decades. I remember working in groups from my earliest years.  But while this was a great learning experience on how to get along with others (a good thing!), the output was the average not the innovative. When I worked alone, however, I was able to take risks and come up with truly creative solutions. Not all of these solutions were successful, but the effort provided a richer learning experience than that received from teamwork.

Another function of successful teamwork not mentioned in our readings but which I believe is fundamental is that team members must have mutual respect for each other, and this only comes through shared experience obtained over time.  For a current example of a successful cross-disciplinary team, consider the fictional forensics team on the popular television show Bones. The team members are multi-degreed scientists, an artist and computer aficionado, an administrator, and a police officer.  The t4eam works to solve crimes because everyone respects each other. In the case of a classroom team, the participants are not known to each other yet are required to function cohesively.  This forced teamwork doesn’t always work.

My preference is evident: if I work independently, then I have control over the output and I can be as conservative or outlandish with my solutions.  Within a team, not so much.

---

[1] John Trimbur. Consensus and Difference in Collaborative Learning. College English. Vol. 51, No. 6 (Oct., 1989), pp. 602-616. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/377955