Selzer and Myer

Both of this week’s readings were about the writing process. However, Selzer’s work focuses on the process of an engineer writing a project proposal, and Myer’s focus is on two scientists constructing a high stakes grant proposal. It is interesting to compare their processes not just to one another but to the process given previously in our textbook.

In his article, Selzer says that while there has been research on the subject of writing composition, little of this research has implemented in the teaching of technical writing.

Selzer decides to examine the writing process of the engineer Kenneth Nelson who works with a big company in Chicago. Nelson spends over half of his work time creating technical documents, such as proposals. Selzer gathers all of Kenneth's works throughout the process, such as jottings, notes, outlines, plans, drafts, and final work.

This is interesting because in a previous article, we saw the "ideal" breakdown of writing time. Nelson seems to spend the majority of his time preparing. However, this does not take into account his "worrying" phase or thinking. Also, revision and proofreading take a very limited amount of time. This is likely due to the intense preparation for writing.

In Myer’s article, he follows the writing process of two biologists who are applying for a high stakes grant. The scientists have a different approach, thought both consider purpose and audience. However, Nelson seems more familiar with his audience and more confident in his writing. Thus, the two biologists spend a lot more time in revision than the engineer, Nelson. This more closely follows our textbooks suggestion. They also have greater peer review and work together on a single project.