nsjsjdjejwidisisiisLv1

8 Mar 2024

• guidelines: The following questions on Elizabeth Wardle's "Identity, Authority, and Learning to Write in New Workplaces" are meant to get you thinking about how to comprehend the text and how valuable it is. Please respond to them. How has study in composition and rhetoric altered our understanding of the nature of communication, according to Wardle? In light of Wardle's essay, how would you define "identity"? In light of Wardle's essay, how would you characterise "authority"? How does Alan's tale make it easier for you to understand how to establish authority in a brand-new discourse community? Why do you think reading this will help you better understand writing, and how can you use this essay to help you write a formal essay?
•  
• here is the reading 
•  
• 
  Research in rhetoric and composition focuses on the complexities of learning to write in new workplaces, emphasizing the importance of conforming to workplace conventions and the influence of identity and authority on writing. Understanding these factors is crucial for preparing students for workplace writing and addressing criticisms about language use clarity. Socio-historic theories highlight the relationship between identity and writing in workplaces, considering the workplace's impact on subject formation. Activity theory and communities of practice theories provide frameworks for understanding how individuals negotiate their identities through their engagement with writing genres in new workplace environments.

 

• Individuals need to align with new communities they join to find belonging but this can lead to a loss of identity. Newcomers must participate in community practices, including writing, to shape their identities within the group. Authority and identity are negotiated within communities of practice, where speech and actions influence acceptance and trust. Learning to write in new ways in a workplace involves understanding and adapting to the community's values and conventions, impacting one's authority and identity.

 

• Alan, a computer support specialist in an academic humanities department, struggled to align with the community's conventions and was perceived more as a tool than a fledging member. He held a high view of his authority and did not follow departmental email conventions, leading to a disconnect with department members and hindering positive engagement.

 

• Alan, a newbie in the institution, struggled to adhere to the department's grammar standards in email communication, leading to a loss of authority and eventual departure. His refusal to adapt his writing style undermined his institutional standing and led to marginalization. Despite the potential for positive change through communication breakdowns, lack of negotiation and adaptation resulted in a breakdown in work processes. Alan's resistance to conforming to accepted communication norms stemmed from a mismatch in perceived authority and a desire to assert his envisioned identity.

 

• Alan is not fully integrated into a community of practice, serving as a tool for others instead. He resists conformity to the community's expectations, asserting his individuality. Alan's actions highlight the complexities of learning to write in new environments and challenge notions of enculturation theories.

 

• Various authors have contributed to the study of language, writing, and communication, exploring topics such as genre, activity theory, and writing instruction. Key works include Russell's analysis of genre, Smart's examination of genre within community invention, and Spinuzzi's discussion of professional writing instruction. Wardle also delves into the contradictions and constraints in writing, while Wenger focuses on communities of practice. Winsor discusses the role of documentation in engineering activity systems. Thompson and Rubin provide introductions to the study of language and symbolic power.