A note from a "non-academic" workplace:
While I agree with the thrust of your comments, Anthony, I'd quibble with the notion that, in general terms, student writing "is epistemic (primarily to do with knowledge-making), and largely concerned with individual growth (writing to learn, writing to know), whereas [workplace writing] is instrumental (oriented to action) . . ."
I reckon that in most research, high-tech, and / or knowledge-intensive businesses, a lot of writing is epistemic (*as well as* "instrumental") in nature. I would also note a significant instrumental / transactional aspect to most student writing - - for many students much of the time, the sole purpose in writing is the obtaining of a satisfactory mark (and from the prof's point of view, the transaction is: "You give me writing; I give you grade").
To Roger, I say that the "construction of knowledge" mentioned in the Newman book needs to be carefully considered. Professors' expectations (often tacit, sometimes explicit) at the undergrad level are usually for the re-creation or reiteration of existing knowledge.
Deeply epistemic writing - - writing that advances knowledge by posing new problems, by posing old problems in newly fruitful ways, and by proposing innovative responses to problems, takes place (in felicitous moments) in grad schools as well as the workplace.
All this to say, I'm leery of a presumed epistemic / instrumental dichotomy, and of conflating workplace / school with "authentic" / inauthentic.
To leave the list, send a SIGNOFF CASLL command to
[log in to unmask] or, if you experience difficulties,
write to Russ Hunt at [log in to unmask]
For the list archives and information about the organization,
its newsletter, and the annual conference, go to