Getting to “How Do You Know?” Rather Than “So What?” From “What's New?”

REFERENCES

• Burnett, R. (1996). “Some people weren't able to contribute anything but their technical knowledge”: The anatomy of a dysfunctional team. In A. H. Duin & C. J. Hansen (Eds.), Nonacademic writing: Social theory and technology (pp. 123–156). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Charney, D. (2002). Experimental & quasi-experimental research. In L. Gurak & M. Lay (Eds.), Research in technical communication (pp. 111–130). Westport, CT: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Kaufer, D. & Geisler, G. (1989). Novelty in academic writing. Written Communication, 6, 286–311.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rude, C. D. (2009). Mapping the research questions in technical communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 23, 174–215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, S. (1997). The genre of the end comment: Conventions in teacher responses to student writing. College Composition and Communication, 48, 249–268.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, S. (2003a). The role of technical expertise in engineering and writing teachers' evaluations of students' writing. Written Communication, 20, 37–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, S. (2003b). What is “good” technical communication? A comparison of the standards of writing and engineering instructors. Technical Communication Quarterly, 12, 7–24.
   Google Scholar
• Spinuzzi, C. (2003). Tracing genres through organizations: A sociocultural approach to information design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Spinuzzi, C. (2007). Accessibility scans and institutional activity: An activity theory analysis. College English, 70, 189–201.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spinuzzi, C. (2008). Network: Theorizing knowledge work in telecommunications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Spinuzzi, C. (2010). Secret sauce and snake oil: Writing monthly reports in a highly contingent environment. Written Communication, 27, 363–409.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spinuzzi, C. (2011). Losing by expanding: Or, corralling the runaway object. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 25, 449–486.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spinuzzi, C. (2012). Working alone, together: Coworking as emergent collaborative activity. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 26, 399–441.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, S. S. (2006). Assessment in client-based technical writing classes: Evolution of teacher and client standards. Technical Communication Quarterly, 15, 111–139.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, S. S. (2007). Comments on lab reports by mechanical engineering teaching assistants: Typical practices and effects of using a grading rubric. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 21, 402–424.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, S. S. (2011). “I really don't know what he meant by that”: How well do engineering students understand teachers' comments on their writing? Technical Communication Quarterly, 20, 139–166.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, S. S. & Patton, M. D. (2006). Ten engineers reading: Disjunctions between preference and practice in civil engineering faculty responses. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 36, 253–271.
   Google Scholar
• Teston, C. B. (2012). Considering confidentiality in research design: Developing heuristics to chart the un-chartable. In P. Takayoshi & K. Powell (Eds.), Practicing research in writing studies: Reflections on ethically responsible research (pp. 303–326). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
   Google Scholar
• Walsh, L. (2009). Marking territory: Legislated genres, stakeholder beliefs, and the possibilities for common ground in the Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project. Written Communication, 26, 115–153.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walsh, L. (2013). Resistance and common ground as functions of mis/aligned attitudes: A filter-theory analysis of ranchers' writings about the Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project. Written Communication, 30, 458–487.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winsor, D. A. (1988). Communication failures contributing to the Challenger accident: An example for technical communicators. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 31, 101–107.
   Google Scholar
• Winsor, D. A. (1990). The construction of knowledge in organizations: Asking the right questions about the Challenger. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 4, 7–20.
   Google Scholar