In:Language, Literacy, and Learning in STEM Education: Research Methods and Perspectives from Applied Linguistics
Edited by Mary Jane Curry and David I. Hanauer
[Language Studies, Science and Engineering 1] 2014
► pp. 67–86
Chapter 5. Writing as social practice in engineering
Views from a cross-disciplinary study
Published online: 12 June 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/lsse.1.05gim
https://doi.org/10.1075/lsse.1.05gim
This chapter reports on a collaborative study that used a range of qualitative data (interviews, observations, talk around text, and written reports) as its empirical base to examine academic and professional writing in four schools of the faculty of engineering at a British university. Findings demonstrate that writing in these schools is closely related to its context of production. As such, writing not only reflects the views on knowledge and ideologies of engineering as a discipline but also helps to reaffirm them. The findings contribute to understandings of the nature and dynamics of writing as social practice that emerged from the research efforts of a cross-disciplinary team of researchers in applied linguistics and engineering. They show that both applied linguists and engineers can inform pedagogical approaches to disciplinary writing practices so that they can become more context- and discipline-specific. The chapter concludes by suggesting avenues for further cross-disciplinary research in writing.
References (41)
Alley, M. (2000). The craft of editing: A guide for managers, scientists and engineers. New York, NY: Springer.
Bazerman, C. & Prior, P. (2003). What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices. New York, NY: Routledge.
Bracewell, R.J. & Witte, S.P. (2003). Tasks, ensembles, and activity: Linkages between text production and situation of use in the workplace. Written Communication, 20(4), 511–559.
Charmaz, K. (2005). Grounded theory in the 21st century: Applications for advancing social justice studies. In N.K. Denzin, & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 507–535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
. (2011). A constructivist grounded theory analysis of losing and regaining a valued self. In F. J. Wertz, K. Charmaz, L.M. McMullen, R. Josselson, R. Anderson, & E. McSpadden (Eds.), Five ways of doing qualitative analysis: Phenomenological psychology, grounded theory, discourse analysis, narrative research, and intuitive inquiry (pp. 165–204). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Christie, M., Ferdos, F. & Adawi, T. (2009). Cross disciplinary research in engineering and educational sciences: A Swedish case study. Proceedings of the 37th SEFI Annual Conference, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Available at [URL] (12 March 2013).
Cross, N. (1997). Descriptive models of creative design: Application to an example. Design Studies, 18(4), 427–440.
Curry, M.J. (2012). Transcending ‘traditional academic boundaries’: Designing and implementing a science communication course for science and engineering Ph.D. students. Professional and Academic Writing, 40, 4–7.
. (2014). Graphics as invention heuristics in writing for publication by academic engineers. In M. J. Curry & D. Hanauer, (Eds.), Language, literacy, and learning in STEM Education: Research methods and perspectives from applied linguistics (pp. 87–106). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Engineers’ Council for Professional Development. (1947). Canons of ethics for engineers. New York: Engineers’ Council for Professional Development.’.
Figueiredo, A.D. (2008). Toward an epistemology of engineering. Proceedings of the Workshop on Philosophy & Engineering (pp. 94–96). London: Royal Engineering Academy.
Gibson, I.S., (1998). Assessment criteria for undergraduate project work in engineering design. European Journal of Engineering Education, 23(3), 389–395.
Gimenez, J. (2008). Beyond the academic essay: Discipline-specific writing in nursing and midwifery. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(3), 151–164.
. (2012). Disciplinary epistemologies, generic attributes and undergraduate academic writing in nursing and midwifery. Higher Education, 63(4), 401–419.
Gimenez, J. & Thondhlana, J. (2012). Collaborative writing in engineering: Perspectives from research and implications for undergraduate education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 37(5), 471–487.
Gygi, K. & Zachry, M. (2010). Productive tensions and the regulatory work of genres in the development of an engineering communication workshop in a transnational corporation. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 24(3), 358–381.
Isherwood, B.F. (1863). Experimental researches in steam engineering. Philadelphia, PA: W. Hamilton.
Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Jones, A. (2009). Redisciplining generic attributes: The disciplinary context in focus. Studies in Higher Education, 34(1), 85–100.
Kim, H.C. & Severison Eklundh, K. (2001). Reviewing practices in collaborative writing. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 10(2), 247–259.
Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lillis, T. (2008). Ethnography as method, methodology, and ‘deep theorizing’. Closing the gap between text and context in academic writing research. Written Communication, 25(3), 353–388.
Luzon, M.J. (2005). Genre analysis in technical communication. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48(3), 285–295.
Nelson, S. (2000). Teaching collaborative writing and peer review techniques to engineering and technology undergraduates. Proceedings of the 30th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, S2B-1–5.
McClellan, W. (1913). A suggestion for the engineering profession. Transactions of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, 32(2), 1271–72.
Parks, S. (2001). Moving from school to the workplace: Disciplinary innovation, border crossing, and the reshaping of a written genre. Applied Linguistics, 22(4), 405–438.
Seifert, C. (2009). Writing for business: A graduate level course in problem-solving. Business Communication Quarterly, 72(2), 200–213.
Sherwin, J. (2010). An approach towards holism in science and engineering. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 19(3), 285–305.
Storch, N. & Tapper, J. (2009). The impact of an EAP course on postgraduate writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(3), 207–223.
Strauss, A.L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tenopir, C., & King, D.K. (2004). Communication patterns of engineers. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Wheeler, E. & McDonald, R. (2000). Writing in engineering courses. Journal of Engineering Education, 89(4), 481–486.
Winsor, D. (1996). Writing like an engineer: A rhetorical education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
le Roux, Kate, Malebogo Ngoepe, Corrinne Shaw & Brandon Ian Collier-Reed
Barr, Nancy
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.