More Corporate University Stuff

So, how does the corporate university relate to the issue of business writing? In addition to it being my preferred area of study, it is the skill (albeit a neglected one) through which organizations inform, persuade, organize, describe, and convey corporate strength.

Out of all the research I’ve gone through so far (which – surprisingly- does not include much in terms of writing on the job), Barbara Couture’s research, as presented in the article, “Categorizing Professional Discourse: Engineering, Administrative, and Technical Writing,” has been the most informative. Her study identifies three prominent functions of written organizational discourse: Engineering Writing, Administrative Writing, and Technical/Professional Writing. Here’s a synopsis of what she says.

Engineering writing is most often used by the scientific arm of an organization to convey knowledge and scientific authority, and is constrained by two sets of opposing values: 1) scientific objectivity versus professional judgment, and 2) corporate authority versus public responsibility. According to Couture, engineering writers, in general, are guided by four moral imperatives: universalism, disinterestedness, organized skepticism, and conflict.

Administrative Writing is the most pervasive writing style because it reflects the pragmatic functions of the organization in its struggle for identity, recognition, and market share. Two constraints shape administrative prose: 1) loyal attachment to corporate identity, and 2) risk-taking drive to assert power through individual decisions. Most of the in-house communications follow the administrative form, as do some of the letters, e-mail, and other utilitarian forms of external correspondence. Couture describes administrative prose as “jargon-ridden,” “abstract,” filled with “passive constructions”, and are replete with the use of the corporate “we.”

Technical / Professional Writing is defined by career writers’ perspectives on effective written communication, and by rhetoricians’ perspectives on the role of the writer in organizational contexts; and is characterized by a writer who is highly motivated to attend to matters of effective and readable writing style, and who value the rhetorical principles of audience analysis as well as strategies of persuasion and teaching. These writers also consider expertise in language skills, grammar, and mechanics of primary importance. This group – more than any other – requires research and analytical skills, and teamwork and project management skills. It is essential to note that these writers begin employment with the requisite skills needed to perform this writing because they are expected to accommodate a variety of working situations, assess the requirements of the situations, and meet all communication needs that arise. Perhaps, it is no surprise that technical / professional writers are more willing than the other groups to identify with corporate goals by repeating the corporate “we” in written works.

The issue that resonates with me most is the idea of employee/student identity vs. corporate alignment. Couture shows the use of the “we” in business writing as a representation of the removal of employee identity. Higher Education argues that by teaching critical thinking strategies, expressive writing assignments, and other academic methods, universities produce individuals who are able to enter and change existing mindsets of various discourse communities. Both systems claim to benefit the employee/student. Yet, as far as I can tell, no research exists that examines the types of courses taught by corporate universities, nor has any information been published that investigates the pedagogy [ies] of corporate university writing instruction. My research for this class will include the beginnings of this research. I will also include a plan for researching the larger issue of identity and corporate university instruction.