Defining Genres

Spinuzzi, Clay. 2004. "Four Ways to Investigate Assemblages of Texts: Genre Sets, Systems, Repertoires, and Ecologies." SIGDOC. AMC 10–13 Oct. Memphis, Tennessee.


How should we assemble genres? Spinuzzi, in this head-spinning article, suggests four ways to group genres:

1. Sets
2. Systems
3. Repertoire
4. Ecology (110)

Showing the difference in each definition proves tricky—there are so many abstract concepts at work. So Spinuzzi runs a helpful illustration to develop concrete examples of the differences. He presents "Ralph," a fictional character at a telecommunications company. He described all the genres that Ralph used in a simple phone conversation. The illustration bothered me at first, because I'm used to a more firm definition of what a genre can and can't be, provided by Carolyn Miller. But Spinuzzi accepts every post-it note, scribbled pencil mark, and calendar annotation as a separate genre (111). After reading his definitions, though, it made more sense.

It seems as though he builds a framework for understanding "unofficial" genres like those notes. To find the layers of genre definition, he suggests looking through several lenses:

• Model of Action
• Agency
• Foregrounded Genres
• Perspective
• Relationship between Genres (111)

Through these prisms, the genre sets focus only on the product of the work from an individual perspective (111–112); the genre systems work along textual pathways to comprise social activity (here Yates and Orlikowski are cited—I recognize them!); the genre repertoires (again Yates and Orlikowski) "emphasize individual and group communicative performances," but the emphasis is still on communication. Spinuzzi gets to the genre ecologies, which seems to be his preferred assemblage. 

Genre ecologies "emphasize genre as collective achievements that act just as much as they are acted upon" (114). This is based in a theory of distributed cognition. Genre ecologies take into account what Spinuzzi calls "mediating artifacts" such as checklists, calendars, and notes. In this assemblage of genres, none of the artifacts or genres stand alone, they interact (114). The framework seems much more like biology—it's messy and not easily defined. Spinuzzi mentions "The emphasis is on how several genres are simultaneously (or nearly simultaneously) brought to bear on a problem" (115). Together, the genres and artifact something unique together—not as one piece of communication.

Pretty wild, but pretty messy.

Article: Conservation Writing

Johnson-Sheehan, Richard and Lawrence Morgan. "Conservation Writing: An Emerging Field in Technical Communication." Technical Communication Quarterly. 18(1) 9-27. 2009.


This article argues for a new category of genre in technical communications. Because of the past writing and the future need, the authors argue that conservation writing should be taught in technical communications departments as a form of technical writing. 


As technology continues to become more advanced, studies on the environment continue to become more detailed and intertwined with other aspects of ecology and global urban life. I can see how the authors expect this form of writing to advance. Indeed, many of us need a concise, simple description of the advanced, detailed environmental problems, such as climate change, because they—or their study methods and implications—are too detailed for us to understand.


The authors lay out their argument through a literary study. They make a quick case in the introduction for how conservation writing shoots the hole surrounding emotional nature writing and ultra-logical science writing. Conservation writing does both, they argue, but never so much as to be extreme or leave out emotional impact. 


They seek to convince the audience through a dense literature review of past conservation writers and new genres which have emerged. The lists are not complete lists, but good examples from different eras.


However, they offer no theory to back their claim of new genres. In fact, I believe Caroline Miller dismissed one of their claimed genres (the environmental impact statement) on the claims that the content was just too diverse, I can't recall the specific article, but I think it was in the early 1990s. 


Also, should we in the technical communications field look to create curricula when the jobs aren't present to support the finished degree? What good is it to engage 200 students in a genre, have them graduate only to find they have to hold a degree in biology in order to get a job with the company (or government agency) that disseminates the genre? The authors make no attempt to discuss these questions, they only suggest we start teaching before technical communications misses the bus.


Here's a breakdown of the article.


Introduction 


The authors show why much of the public has a new, pro-conservation attitude about the environment. They state their three goals:

1. "Offer a history of conservation writing in order to define it as a field of technical communication."
2. "Describe the most common genres and conventions in this emerging field."
3. "Offer strategies for bringing conservation writing into the technical communication classroom and building new curricula around it" (10).

Context 

• History of Conservation Writing. "Conservation writing is an umbrella term for a range of writing about ecology, biology, the outdoors, and environmental policies and ethics" (10). Although conservation writing shares concern for ecology as nature writing does, and shares emphasis on evidence as science writing does, it differs from both in that it is pragmatic and calls the audience to action.
• The authors provide a quote from Luke Wallin's book, Conservation Writing, which mentions audience awareness. 
• History
• Early 1800s: Gilbert White, William Bartram, John James Audubon, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Henry David Thoreau. While not all the works by these authors can be considered conservation writing, several should be, such as Nature and Selected Essays by Emerson and Walking and Walden by Thoreau; because they argue for a change in the way we act toward the environment.
• Late 1800s: George Perkins Marsh, John Burroughs, and John Muir. These authors expressed "concerns about the environmental destruction caused by rapid expansion into the Western United States and the industrialization of the Eastern United States" (13).
• Early 1900s: Conservation Clubs, President Theodore Roosevelt, and the Antiquities Act. The clubs promoted conservation writing in their pages, President Roosevelt wrote a book promoting conservation, and the Antiquities Act created new conservation genres, "such as natural histories and technical descriptions" (14). Soon colleges created extension services and more conservation writing ensued.
• Mid 1900s: Aldo Leopold and Rachel Carson. These two writers made strong cases for ethical use of land and pest treatments. They both wrote with care for the ecology and a core of knowledge about the environment.
• Current: Federal Conservation Writing and Contemporary Conservation Writing. While the government demands many types of writing today, other authors such as Terry Tempest Williams and John McPhee have continued to open the genre Carson and Leopold made more popular. Even Albert Gore got in on the action.
• Genres of Conservation Writing
• Natural Histories
• Feature Articles and Essays
• Analytical Reports
• Technical Descriptions
• Environmental Impact Statements
• Grants
• Brochures, Handouts, Websites
• Newsletters
• Natural Resource Inventories
• Environmental Management Plans
• ISO 14000 Environmental Management Systems

Teaching Conservation Writing

• The authors outline what they can do to "prepare students for this emerging field" (21).
• Learn about biotechnology and conservation issues.
• Practice writing in the genres.
• Learn conservation laws.
• Create service-learning projects.
• Learn about other writers in conservation and politics.

Conclusion

The authors conclude by mentioning again that the field of conservation writing will only increase. They stress how important it will be for students to connect clear information with a variety of audiences.