Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

English for Specic Purposes 29 (2010) 121132

ENGLISH FOR
SPECIFIC
PURPOSES
www.elsevier.com/locate/esp

Collaborative writing: Bridging the gap between

the textbook and the workplace
Stephen Bremner *
Department of English, City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong

Abstract
A key challenge facing professional communication teachers is the need to bridge the gap between the culture of the
classroom and the reality of the workplace. One area of dierence between the two contexts is the way in which collaborative activities surrounding the construction of written text are enacted. Dierences in collaborative practices result from
factors such as the way in which hierarchies and power relationships are arranged, diering levels of knowledge and expertise, and the motives for collaboration. An understanding of this aspect of workplace writing could benet the student
writer. However, an analysis of eight currently used business communication textbooks, an important resource for ESP
teachers, suggests that collaboration is discussed only in the most general terms, and specic dierences between the
two contexts are rarely addressed. Additionally, few tasks provide students with activity-types that would help them understand and experience the kinds of collaborative interaction that they will encounter at work. This paper argues the need for
business communication textbooks to narrow the gap between the classroom and the workplace, and discusses ways in
which more authentic collaborative activities can be set up in the classroom.
2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The importance of collaborative writing is well attested. Its prevalence in the workplace was demonstrated
in early research by Faigley and Miller (1982) and Paradis, Dobrin, and Miller (1985), among others, and since
then studies in this area have ranged from attempts to describe and categorise collaborative activity (Couture
& Rymer, 1989; Debs, 1991; Ede & Lunsford, 1990; Killingsworth & Jones, 1989) to investigations of largescale collaboration (Cross, 1994, 2001). The notion of collaborative writing is extended by most researchers
beyond the simple idea of groups coming together to produce texts. Couture and Rymer, for example, see collaboration as the oral and written communication pertaining to a document during the process of planning,
drafting and revising it, and say that it may be fair to conclude that signicant writing is enveloped in talk
(1989, p. 79), a point echoed by Debs (1991) and Louhiala-Salminen (2002). The profusion of terminology that

Tel.: +852 27889608; fax: +852 27888894.

E-mail address: stephenbremner@yahoo.com

0889-4906/$- see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.esp.2009.11.001

122

S. Bremner / English for Specic Purposes 29 (2010) 121132

has emerged from the various studies is an indication of the complexity of the collaborative writing process, as
has been noted by Thompson (2001) and Lowry, Curtis, and Lowry (2004).
The majority of research into collaborative writing has been conducted in North America, although Gollins (1999) study of collaboration in an Australian workplace is a notable example of work conducted elsewhere. It should be noted that English for Specic Purposes as a eld has not addressed the area in great
detail. Bhatia suggests that language teaching, including ESP, has always treated writing as an individual
activity, and it is only recently that we have discovered that out in the world of work, professional writing
is invariably collaborative (2004, pp. 205206). It may be that ESPs primary interest in genre and text rather
than the processes surrounding their construction has led to this situation, yet in the light of its prevalence,
collaborative writing is an area that merits consideration by ESP teachers.
Gollin highlights the dierence between the workplace and the classroom in respect of collaborative writing, saying that workplace collaborative writing processes are embedded, [and] dier signicantly from the
writing processes of individuals modelled in traditional pedagogy (1999, p. 268). Indeed, this dierence in
the nature of the context is critical. A social constructionist view of writing sees genres as situated in the contexts that are constructed through social interaction (Berkenkotter & Huckin, 1995; Blyler & Thralls, 1993),
and the fundamental dierences between the workplace and the classroom in terms of context and community
two mutually linked and central factors in the collaborative construction of texts mean that a number of
key aspects of the process will dier as well (Freedman, Adam, & Smart, 1994).
Given that collaborative writing is a common feature of workplace practice, it is important that students
are made aware of the ways in which collaboration diers in classroom and professional contexts. As Gollin
says, collaborative writing is a complex activity and needs to be actively taught (1999, p. 289), a point also
made by Colen and Petelin (2004), and Dovey (2006). The latter, in the context of the new vocationalism,
cites approaches adopted at the University of Technology in Sydney (UTS): their Statement of Graduate
Attributes has a Communicative/Collaborative Domain in which the literacies described include the language and social practices involved in establishing and maintaining collaborative relationships (2000, p. 3,
cited in Dovey, 2006, p. 392).
For teachers of business communication, whether they are working with L1 or L2 learners, the question is
how to provide students with experiences that will help them understand the nature of workplace practices.
Chan (2009) notes that despite the considerable number of studies of language use in business settings, the
interface between research and pedagogy remains weak (p. 125), and this claim is borne out by her study of
the ways in which textbooks deal with business meetings. In the case of collaborative writing, the teaching
resources that address this aspect of the workplace come largely in the form of business communication textbooks from North America, where, as noted above, the bulk of research has been conducted. Such books are
also used extensively with non-native speakers outside the US, in regions such as East Asia and the Middle
East, where there are often few locally produced teaching resources available. This article examines how business communication textbooks deal with collaborative writing. It discusses the dierences between collaborative writing in the workplace and the classroom, examines how textbooks tackle this area and the extent to
which they are able to bridge the gap between the two contexts, and nally it looks at possible ways of
approaching collaborative writing in the classroom.
2. Collaborative writing the classroom and the workplace
The issue of how context aects collaborative writing processes in the classroom and the workplace is central to this paper. This section examines the way in which the two contexts dier, and discusses how this can
aect the resulting collaborative activity. Some of the dierences identied pertain to writing in general, while
others relate specically to the nature of collaborative activity. Both need to be explained as they both impact
on the way in which writing plays out in the two sites.
For the purposes of this article, it is assumed that undergraduate classrooms are the likely target for the
books under examination, in that most of the texts tackled are the basic entry-level genres of business communication (letters, e-mails, reports, etc.). It is also assumed that there will be a greater degree of homogeneity
in undergraduate student groups than might be found in older postgraduate groups, where members might
vary more in age and professional experience. It is acknowledged, though, that there will also be dierences

S. Bremner / English for Specic Purposes 29 (2010) 121132

123

among students in groups that might seem supercially homogenous: Yang (2008), for example, found dierences in approach and disagreements among Chinese-background ESL students in Canada. Dierences
among students can be attributed to factors such as language prociency, personality, culture and disciplinary
background. Such dierences among participants are also found in professional contexts, but the nature of the
workplace makes possible a wider range of dierences than might be seen in the classroom, as will be discussed
below.
An important dierence, and one which informs many other aspects of the process, is the reason why writing
takes place In the workplace, writing is instituted for pragmatic or instrumental reasons, which relate to the overall goals of the organization; in the classroom, however, it is seen essentially as a process that students engage in
with the aim of developing their writing skills, or for the display of knowledge (Freedman & Adam, 1996).
By extension, the audience for the written product and their reasons for reading it will be dierent (Wallace,
1994): texts produced in the workplace might be read by a variety of audiences (Palmeri, 2004), and for instrumental reasons. In most classroom situations, on the other hand, the audience is likely to be an instructor, who
will be reading the texts for evaluative and developmental purposes. Freedman et al. discuss this point, suggesting that in workplace writing the prime concern is for what the reader can get from the text, not for what
the writer got out of the process of writing (1994, p. 206). Writers also have to consider what the reader is
likely to know, and in this there is a clear dierence between the two contexts: the need to display understanding and knowledge can lead to students including information that would be unnecessary in a workplace context (Dovey, 2006).
In addition to these dierences relating to writing in general, there is the question of why writers collaborate. With regard to the workplace, Reither (1993) talks of motives which relate to management monitoring,
eciency and eectiveness, and of situations where a group eort is likely to be better than that of a lone writer. Another reason might be to help maintain relationships (Gollin, 1999; Paradis et al., 1985). Reither also
contends that collaborating can serve the need to develop and maintain an identity and culture for the institution itself (1993, p. 200). In the classroom, on the other hand, very often students collaborate simply
because they are asked to do so by their instructors.
A crucial dierence lies in the constitution of the community producing the texts. In the workplace there
will often be considerable diversity among the participants in terms of knowledge, disciplinary background,
work styles, experience and motives, and each will bring these to bear on the process. This notion is captured
by Dautermann in her study of a hospital community: within the writing group, each writer represented a
unit, a specialty, a hospital role, or a level of commitment to the hierarchy (1993, p. 103). Cross (2001) also
talks about how members of functional units may take dierent approaches to writing. A student group, by
contrast, is likely to be more homogenous in its make-up, with most members having similar levels of knowledge and experience; most probably they will all be focused on the same goal.
In addition there will be dierences in status and power Any institution will have what Bhatia (2004) calls
participatory mechanisms, whereby it is understood who can contribute what and when to the collaborative
writing process, a point made by Yates and Orlikowski, who investigate who is not empowered to initiate or
receive certain genres (2002, p. 17). This question of power distribution is implied by some of the collaborative congurations described by Paradis et al. (1985) and Ede and Lunsford (1990). There is less likely to be
much dierence in power and status among students.
Another aspect of the two contexts that diers markedly is the presence of intertextuality, which can be seen
as a form of collaboration. Often writers in the workplace can draw on previous examples of letters, progress
reports and action plans, a practice reported by Flowerdew and Wan (2006), and by Freedman et al., who say
that workplace writing is resonant with the discourse of colleagues and the ongoing conversation of the institution (1994, p. 210), something also noted by Louhiala-Salminen (2002). Intertextual inuences in the workplace can also be less overt, but nevertheless present: workplace documents might also incorporate ideas and
text that have been constructed elsewhere, for example organizational guidelines or templates; such inuences
can help writers, but can also act as a constraint. Witte (1992) also talks about the phenomenon of covert
collaboration, whereby writers are in eect collaborating with other writers in the organization, consciously
or otherwise. By contrast, students doing collaborative writing tasks tend to have few if any other texts to refer
to; often they are given a scenario in the form of a scripted context, and little in the way of intertextuality is
present (Bremner, 2008).

124

S. Bremner / English for Specic Purposes 29 (2010) 121132

The dierences outlined above will have a considerable impact on the types of collaboration in the two contexts, in particular the interactions among participants and the composing processes. In the workplace, the
fact of a hierarchy and the diversity of in knowledge, experience, background and so on among participants
allow for a broader range of possible collaborative congurations. Ede and Lunsford (1990), for example, talk
of hierarchic and dialogic collaboration, while Killingsworth and Jones (1989) propose division-of-labor and
integrated-teams models. Paradis et al. (1985) discuss document cycling, a process whereby more experienced writers help others, Smart (1993) also describes cycles of workplace collaboration between writer and
supervisor, and Freedman and Adam (1996) similarly emphasise the iterative nature of drafting in professional
contexts.
Collaborative congurations in the classroom, on the other hand, will often dier from those in the workplace: the relatively homogenous make-up of student groups gives them fewer reasons to assume particular
roles, and often they simply divide up the work, with each taking responsibility for a dierent section. In support of this, Freedman and Adam (1996) speculate that a subject in their study brought with him from university into the workplace the notion of collaboration as simply dividing up a task. Freedman et al. also report
that the student collaboration they observed does not at all approximate the nature or intensity of the collaboration more commonly found in the workplace (1994, p. 212).
A related issue is that of medium of communication. Often workplace collaborators will have a wider selection of channels available to them, such as videoconferencing and collaborative software packages. It may be
that not all of these are fully used, however, and many students are now able to call upon an increasingly
sophisticated range of tools to communicate.
A nal point of comparison between the workplace and the classroom relates to the role of conict. Participants in collaboration may belong to professional or disciplinary communities that have dierent expectations and approaches to writing and to the target texts, in addition to their varying levels of experience,
knowledge, power and motives. A consequence of these dierences is the possibility of conict, discussed in
some detail by Cross (1994, 2001). As Palmeri points out, though, conict in interprofessional collaboration
is not inherently positive or negative (2004, p. 60). On the positive side the benets of substantive conict are
discussed by Burnett (1993) and Wallace (1994), and Dautermann reports a study in which a writing group
built up a sense of community among themselves (1993, p. 103) as they worked through dierences. Palmeri
(2004) also mentions a set of documents that speak persuasively to their diverse professional audiences
(2004, p. 37) as the positive outcome of conict within a law rm.
When students collaborate, the possibility of conict also exists: this may come about through disagreement
over workload, roles or strategies, or may be the result of personality dierences. It is unlikely, however, that
the causes of conict in the classroom will have the same complex and diverse origins as might be seen in the
workplace.
It is clear then, that there are substantial dierences in the ways that collaborative writing is enacted in the
workplace and the classroom. In general terms these relate to the reasons for writing and the nature of the
audience. The reasons for collaborating will also dier, and the presence of intertextuality is an additional factor. Finally the constitution of the writing community, with its diversity of knowledge, status, motive, expectations and so on will aect both the types of interaction and the composing processes.
3. Research aims
In the light of the above dierences, this article considers how the gap between the workplace and the classroom is dealt with in business communication textbooks, examining the extent to which they provide students
with opportunities to experience the kinds of collaborative interactions and composing processes that can be
seen at work. The study will serve as an evaluation of what is considered an important resource for teachers of
workplace English, and will also provide insights into the teaching of collaborative writing. Two main research
questions are addressed:
1. To what extent do business communication textbooks acknowledge the nature of collaborative writing in
the workplace?
2. To what extent do they provide meaningful practice of collaborative writing?

S. Bremner / English for Specic Purposes 29 (2010) 121132

125

4. The study
Eight textbooks were selected for analysis. All were published within ve years of this study, and can be
considered typical in that they address to varying degrees genres commonly found in workplaces, such
as letters, e-mails, reports and presentations. They are listed below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Fundamentals of contemporary business communication (Ober, 2004).

Business communication for managers: An advanced approach (Penrose, Rasberry, & Myers, 2004).
Business communication essentials (Bovee & Thill, 2006).
Improving business communication skills (Roebuck, 2006).
Business communication: Making connections in a digital world. (International Student Edition) (Lesikar,
Flatley, & Rentz, 2008).
6. Business communication: Building critical skills (Locker & Kaczmarek, 2004).
7. Essentials of business communication (Asian Edition) (Guey & Du-Babcock, 2008).
8. Managing business and professional communication (Dodd, 2004).

Only Penrose et al. (2004) specify a target audience admittedly a broad one saying that their book is
suitable for graduate students, junior and senior undergraduates, and business practitioners. As for the other
books, the basic genres they deal with (letters, e-mails, reports) and in many cases the grammar and mechanics sections, imply that they are targeting entry-level learners who have little experience of real workplaces.
Dodds comment that his students regularly express their desire to know how things work in the real world
(2004, p. xx) supports this notion. Lesikar et al. (2008), and Guey and Du-Babcock (2008), are international editions; in the case of the former there is no mention of overseas learners; the latter is aimed at Asian
students and professionals, but is almost identical in aims and content to both the US and Canadian editions
of the same book. The fact that these two books are not noticeably dierent from other North American textbooks suggests an assumption on the part of the writers that the aims of L1 and L2 learners are similar. This
seems a reasonable assumption, although the question of whether these populations warrant dierent
approaches and materials is outside the scope of this paper.
4.1. Data collection and analysis
The eight books were examined to nd out how they deal with the following aspects of collaborative
writing:
1. Collaborative writing as a feature of the workplace: Do they acknowledge this? Do they talk about its
prevalence and importance?
2. The nature of collaborative writing in the workplace: To what extent is this addressed? Which of these specic aspects are looked at?
 why writers collaborate,
 the constitution of the community,
 dierences in status and power,
 the presence of intertextuality,
 interactions and composing processes,
 the possibility of conict.
3. The workplace and the classroom: Do they explicitly address how the workplace diers from the classroom in respect of collaboration?
4. Collaborating eectively: What advice is given for working in teams and for dealing with conict?
5. Collaborative writing tasks: Do these provide useful practice?
(As the books deal with the topic in a variety of ways, references to collaborative writing or any similar
activity e.g. co-authored documents or team writing were considered.)

126

S. Bremner / English for Specic Purposes 29 (2010) 121132

5. Findings
5.1. Collaborative writing as a feature of the workplace
All eight books make reference to this in some way. The idea of collaboration and its attendant features is
implicit in Dodds description of the workplace as a complicated mix of values and needs, relationships and
conicts, and technology and people (2004, p. xvii). Locker and Kaczmarek take a broad view, saying that
all writing is in some sense collaborative (2004, p. ix). Ober maintains that team writing is quite prevalent
in organizations (2004, p. 306), a claim echoed by Bovee and Thill (2006), and Lesikar et al. (2008). Penrose
et al. look to the future, saying that writing experts and business practitioners see collaborative writing as a
technique that will increase in value (2004, p. 125), while Roebuck is similarly forward-looking: the network, not the pyramid, will become the conceptual model for how people work together to achieve goals
(2006, p. xiv).
5.2. The nature of collaborative writing in the workplace
5.2.1. Why writers collaborate
The reasons cited for collaborating relate to the practical, the need to accommodate diverse views, and the
possible benets. On the practical side, saving time is a motive (Lesikar et al., 2008), Locker and Kaczmarek
(2004) also mention this, adding that it is unlikely that one person would have all the knowledge required to do
a task. Lesikar et al. (2008) say that the specialised knowledge of the dierent participants and their combined
talents will lead to better documents. Bovee and Thill (2006) agree, and suggest that the use of teams will boost
the likelihood that the solution will be accepted. Penrose et al. point to the potential benets of collaborating,
talking of a beautifully crafted message that is the result of team synergy, balanced abilities, a common goal
(2004, p. 124).
5.2.2. The constitution of the community; dierences in status and power
The notion of diversity in collaborative groups is recognized by several of the books, including Bovee and
Thill (2006) and Locker and Kaczmarek (2004). Penrose et al. (2004) enumerate the kinds of diversity that
might be seen in a writing team, such as dierences in approaches to writing, and in ability and knowledge,
hierarchical inuences, and the possibility of political factors. Dodd also talks about these last two when giving advice for group discussions, saying that individuals can be intimidated by leaders and others with
power (2004, p. 195), and Bovee and Thill (2006) mention hidden agendas as a potential pitfall when collaborating. While some books comment directly on this issue of diversity, the others all do so implicitly in their
discussion of conict and its causes, which are looked at later in this section.
5.2.3. The presence of intertextuality
There is no specic reference to the notion of intertextuality in any of the books, but in some, the idea that
other texts may play a part in the writing process is referred to either explicitly or implicitly. Penrose et al., for
example, consider the idea of corporate guidelines as having an inuence on layout (2004, p. 103), while
Locker and Kaczmarek discuss the inuence of boilerplate, and point out that in business old text may
be included without attribution (2004, p. 79), this ties in with Freedman et al.s (1994) observation, noted
above, that intertextual borrowing is common in the workplace. Referencing, which can be seen as a form
of collaboration in that it involves recourse to other peoples texts, is mentioned by several books, for example
Guey and Du-Babcock (2008), who address the issue of plagiarism. Thus while there is implicit discussion of
intertextual relations, this discussion is not located within the concept of collaboration.
5.2.4. Interactions and composing processes
Lesikar et al. intimate that writers will play dierent roles: even if one person has primary responsibility
for a report, he or she will often need contributions from many people (2008, p. 293). Locker and Kaczmarek
(2004) extend this idea, talking about group size, where decision-making power lies, and how responsibility
can be apportioned. Roebuck details a range of possibilities as to what collaborative writing can be, including

S. Bremner / English for Specic Purposes 29 (2010) 121132

127

co-authoring a document, critiquing a peers work, individual or team planning and drafting, and researching
and drafting by an individual for editing by a supervisor (2006, p. 283). Such congurations suggest delineated
roles and responsibilities, and while other books do not specify interactive patterns, many of them consider the
role of critiquing and feedback.
Dodd talks about the characteristics of small groups, describes dierent types of network, and explains the
life cycle model (forming, storming, norming, performing, superperforming) that accounts for how collaborative teams operate (2004, pp. 212213). A similar model is mentioned by Roebuck (2006) in relation to virtual team development. The use of collaborative software is discussed in several books. Ober (2004) looks at
virtual teams, Lesikar et al. (2008) consider the possibilities of asynchronous and synchronous contributions
aorded by technology, and Guey and Du-Babcock (2008) discuss collaborative programs that can enable
multiple contributions and exchange.
In addition to what is outlined above, beliefs about the nature of collaborative interactions and composing
processes are also implied in the advice given for eective collaboration, which is discussed later.
5.2.5. The possibility of conict
The issue of conict is covered implicitly or explicitly by all the books. Penrose et al., for example, consider
collaborative scenarios where, often . . . the result pits writers against each other (2004, p. 124). Conict is
what group meetings are all about, says Ober (2004, p. 29), but he oers the caveat that there should be
debate about issues rather than personalities. Similarly, Dodd (2004) talks about substantive and non-substantive conict, a question considered by Burnett (1993) and Wallace (1994), as mentioned earlier. Dodd also lists
possible causes of conict, which include dierent goals, relationship dierences, unequal power distribution,
dierent values, and the need to save face (2004, pp. 108109).
5.3. The workplace and the classroom
Dierences between the workplace and the classroom tend to be implied rather than explicit. There is some
discussion of context and culture: Lesikar et al. (2008) talk about the inuence of the dierent contexts of writing organizational, professional or personal and Dodd stresses the importance of organizational culture.
Locker and Kaczmarek (2004) also discuss culture, as well as the notion of discourse community, but from the
point of view of audience analysis rather than writing.
There are also some specic references to the dierence in contexts. Locker and Kaczmarek identify areas in
which business communication diers from other school writing, including purpose, audience, information,
organization, style, document design and visuals (2004, pp. 56), although they do not mention collaboration.
Lesikar et al. hint at the disjunct between the reality of the workplace and the patterns that they prescribe: all
too often, groups experience results that vary from these patterns (2008, p. 316), while Roebuck makes the
point that team membership is often somewhat uid (2006, p. 286).
5.4. Collaborating eectively
All the books give advice for eective collaboration. Some of this is fairly general: a team must prepare
thoroughly and make assumptions, roles, procedures, standards, norms, and processes explicit, says Roebuck
(2006, p. 274), while Bovee and Thill suggest that eective teams . . . understand their purpose, communicate
openly and honestly, build consensus, think creatively, stay focused, resolve conict (2006, p. 29).
Roebuck also has more specic guidelines for working in a team setting, including allowing time to get to
know one another, developing a plan, and working towards group consensus (2006, pp. 283285). Guey
and Du-Babcock suggest approaches to what they call team writing projects, accounting for the dierent
stages of the process; for the initial phase Preparing to work together, they oer advice relating to the size
of the team, deciding how the team will be governed, and how to deal with underproductive team members
(2008, p. 253). Lesikar et al. also identify typical activities that would contribute to the production of a collaborative report: these include collectively determining the purpose in order to develop a coherent, shared
sense (2008, p. 317) of target audience and needs, assigning parts to be written, and revising
collaboratively.

128

S. Bremner / English for Specic Purposes 29 (2010) 121132

Locker and Kaczmareks (2004) advice is based on research by Burnett (1993), Locker (1991) and Ede and
Lunsford (1990). They contend that collaborative writing is most successful when the group articulates its
understanding of the documents purposes and audiences and explicitly discusses the best way to achieve these
rhetorical goals (p. 367), echoing a number of the other books. They suggest that writers take into account
the styles and commitments of other participants, and, like Roebuck (2006), they emphasise the need to allow
time for participants to get acquainted.
Lockers (1991) research is cited in Locker and Kaczmarek (2004) to describe the characteristics of successful student groups. Among her conclusions was the observation that the successful group planned revisions
as a group, saw supervisors comments as legitimate, and had a positive attitude toward revision (2004, p.
367), this group also distributed power equally, worked to soothe hard feelings, and was careful to include
all group members (2004, p. 367). A number of the other books discuss the question of role allocation in collaborative activity. Lesikar et al. talk of the need to include all major areas of specialization involved in the
work to be done (2008, p. 316), and suggest that the usual practice is to assign each person a part of the
report (p. 319). Ober, meanwhile, advises writers to divide the tasks equitably, based on each members
needs, interests, expertise, and commitment to the project (2004, p. 31).
As mentioned earlier, the idea of conict is addressed in all the books, and there is general consensus
that if handled appropriately, it can have a positive impact. Confrontation can actually create better
nal documents, say Guey and Du-Babcock (2008, p. 253), Locker and Kaczmarek (2004) venture a
similar opinion, while Roebuck (2006) suggests allowing and encouraging disagreements, rather than settling on a quick an easy answer. Dodd and others look at the communication skills needed for handling
criticism; Locker and Kaczmarek (2004) outline steps in conict resolution, as do Guey and Du-Babcock (2008).
5.5. Collaborative writing tasks
The books all give practice in a range of areas related to business communication, and this section provides
a representative selection of tasks which deal with collaborative writing.
Some tasks are aimed at sensitizing students to issues involved in collaborating. Here is a Teamwork
task from Bovee and Thill: With a classmate, attend a local community or campus meeting where you
can observe group discussion (2006, p. 43). Dodd oers a variation on this: With a team of classmates,
interview the leader of a company about the use of teams (2004, p. 225). Lesikar et al. take another
approach: Collaborative reports are better than reports written by an individual because they use many
minds rather than one. Discuss (2008, p. 322). Locker and Kaczmarek ask students to reect on the process: As you work in a collaborative writing group, keep a journal after each group meeting (2004,
p. 371).
When it comes to writing practice, again dierent approaches can be seen. Some books provide instructions simply to work together, as in this example from Ober: Working in teams of three or four, assume
the role of grievance committee of your union (2004, p. 201). Here is a task from Roebuck in a similar
vein: After you have completed your research, develop your collaboratively written report (2006, p.
217). In Guey and Du-Babcock, working together is presented as an option: Formal report: Intercultural
Communication . . . Write your report individually or in teams (2008, p. 291). Penrose et al. propose a writing task that focuses on a particular aspect of working together: Divide up a writing project . . . among
group members so that each person writes a section using the same word-processing program . . . Work
together on the same computer, edit and smooth out the ow so the document has consistent tone and
coherency (2004, p. 127).
Finally there are task types which provide more information for the writers, usually in the form of scripted
context. Here is an extract from an example from Bovee and Thill: . . . you quickly convince other members
of the food services sta to help you out. Working together, youll have all the skills necessary to organize the
event . . . With your team. . . (2006, p. 273). A similar kind of task can be found in Locker and Kaczmarek; it
involves the creation of a committee to address the poor writing habits of employees: Known throughout
management ranks for your excellent communication skills, you and your classmates have been named to this
group (2004, p. 104).

S. Bremner / English for Specic Purposes 29 (2010) 121132

129

6. Discussion
In summary, this survey of eight business communication textbooks shows that all acknowledge the role of
collaboration in the workplace writing process. The exact nature of collaborative writing is dealt with in different ways, and while there is some implicit discussion of how the workplace diers from the classroom, there
is nevertheless room for a more explicit account of how the two contexts dier. All recognize the possibility of
conict, and oer advice relating to team-building and conict management.
However, what emerges most strongly from this investigation is that the task types across the eight books
appear to provide few if any opportunities that would expose students to the realities of collaboration. In
other words, the activities engendered by these tasks would not resemble very closely the kinds of activity seen
in the workplace. Three points relate to this. Firstly, in the books, teamwork, for the most part, simply
means working together, and the tasks are likely to foster group activity in which roles are not dierentiated.
Indeed, although some books in their task sections distinguish between individual and group activities,
there is often little obvious basis for this distinction. Suggesting that students simply divide up a task equally
and this practice was noted in several books, as indicated above only serves to emphasise the lack of delineation in roles.
The second point is that much of the advice given regarding working in team settings seems to be predicated
on idealized visions of teamwork, where the writing proceeds in a controllable order. It also implies an equality among participants that may not necessarily be found in the workplace. This is understandable, given that
in the classroom students tend to be of similar status, as mentioned earlier. However, what this means is that
students will not be able to experience the kinds of group congurations and interactions that are seen in the
workplace. To provide such opportunities is of course a challenge, and this will be discussed in the nal section
of this article.
The third point relating to task provision is that quite a number of tasks are overscripted, in the sense that
students are given a context and often told what they think and exactly what they have to do. Such tasks allow
little leeway for dierent points of view, and thereby reduce the possibility of conict, which, as most of the
books note, is an important element in collaborative activity.
It has been shown, then, that there is a disjunct between what the books say about the nature of collaborative writing and the actual collaborative tasks that are provided. Why this is the case is open to question.
It may be that the books do not see it as their role to deal with this aspect of workplace writing. Penrose et al.
(2004), for example, in their discussion of writing proposals and reports, are focused on the writing and the
texts rather than the involvement of other people in these processes. Meanwhile Lesikar et al. are clear about
where their focus lies: although a discussion of group development and processes is beyond the scope of this
book, you might want to consult one of the many references on the subject (2008, pp. 316317).
The other possible explanation is that the books see the provision of workplace-like tasks in the classroom
as unfeasible, that the dierences between the two contexts are pedagogically insurmountable. Indeed, there
has been much debate about whether the workplace can be recreated in the classroom. Mabrito is doubtful:
we will never be able to exactly duplicate in our classrooms many of the constraints and pressures that writers
experience in the workplace (1999, p. 105), he says, citing the dierent types of relationships found in the two
contexts, a point echoed by Debs (1991).
However, accepting the idea that there is a divide between the workplace and the classroom should not discourage teachers from attempting to give their students a sense of how collaborative writing operates at work.
With this aim in mind researchers talk about the need to provide a social context and community in the classroom (Doheny-Farina, 1986; Gollin, 1999), opportunities for students to interact (Couture & Rymer, 1989)
and play multiple roles (Dias, Freedman, Medway, & Pare, 1999). Beaufort goes further in suggesting that
we should capitalize on social motives for writing (2000, p. 218), and that we should adopt collaborative
models for writing rather than competitive ones. Schneider and Andre (2005) also talk of the need to provide
collaborative opportunities, as do Pare and Smart, who contend that students need to engage with a set of
texts, the composing processes involved in creating these texts . . . and the social roles played by writers and
readers (1994, p. 147). Wallace (1994) suggests that an increased understanding of audience and social context can result from collaborative activity, while Palmeri calls for pedagogical models for merging discourses
in interprofessional communication (2004, p. 61).

130

S. Bremner / English for Specic Purposes 29 (2010) 121132

Essentially what we see in the business communication textbooks is an explanation (partial in some
instances) of how collaboration functions in the workplace, yet the accompanying tasks do not provide the
opportunity to understand or experience this. Such an approach is akin to explaining a grammatical structure
without giving any opportunities for communicative practice. Thus, following on from the calls enumerated in
the previous paragraph, it would seem that the task of the teacher attempting to prepare students for the reality of the workplace is to help students in a number of ways: rstly, to help them see that collaborative writing
is not the somewhat idealised activity that is hinted at in textbooks; secondly, to help them understand the
factors that aect collaborative writing and the potential problems these can cause; and thirdly, to provide
them with opportunities to experience the kinds of interaction and potential for conict that they might
encounter in the workplace.
It is fair to say that the exact conditions of the workplace cannot be recreated. However, some eorts can be
made to provide students with opportunities beyond merely working together. Perhaps the most problematic
aspect of such attempts is the fact that student groups, especially at undergraduate level, are often homogenous in their make-up, their members more likely to be similar in age, status, knowledge, and motive. A key
factor noted earlier is that collaborative groups in the workplace tend to be more diverse in their make-up, and
it is this diversity that can lead to the kind of dynamic that is usually absent from student collaboration. Sutton, having acknowledged these various dierences, says that in his writing class he tries carefully to design
the collaborative groups, working to combine students with complementary skills . . . and corresponding work
styles (2007, p. 103). However, in so doing the teacher runs the risk of creating a dynamic that does not
resemble the workplace. An alternative approach, suggested below, would be to capitalize on the possibility
of dierence rather than attempt to remove it from the mix.
The task for the teacher, then, would be to consider ways in which the element of dierence can be incorporated into student activity. Take a report writing task for example. Rather than simply asking students to
work in teams and write a report, the students could be grouped according to a putative function they play in
the workplace, each group representing a dierent department and interest in an organization e.g. Finance,
Marketing, Production, Distribution. Each group would then be given certain information that their department would expect to hold, such as knowledge about the market situation, production costs and so on. In this
way an information gap would be created. Groups would then prepare their respective positions, each having
to discuss what their motives and aims are, areas where they believe they are qualied or not qualied to contribute, which part(s) of the document they will write, what they do or do not want to see in the document, the
concessions they are prepared to make, how they would like the nal document to look, and what their strategies will be for achieving their aims. Once this is done, the groups are reorganized so that each new group has
one representative from each of the original departmental groups. The group now works together in character to produce the target text. In this way a need to negotiate, and to deal with potential conict has been
created, and the results of these interactions will be seen in the shape and content of the nal document. This
is in some ways similar to the role-based approach to revising and editing advocated by Colen and Petelin
(2004, p. 141). Finally there should be an opportunity after the report has been written for students to reect
on the process and the strategies they used to deal with conict and other problems. An additional element
could be to provide a set of texts to draw on as they work out their roles and create their target document:
as explained above, the presence of other texts can act as both a resource and a constraint but is representative
of the covert collaboration that Witte (1992) talks about.
7. Conclusion
The business communication textbooks in this study explain to some degree how collaborative writing
functions in the workplace, yet the activities they provide fail to give students a sense of the realities they
describe. Collaboration is not necessarily cooperative in the way that is anticipated in the classroom and in
the way that these tasks seem to suggest often it involves contestation and the negotiation of diversity. While
it is not possible to replicate the exact conditions of the workplace, there are nevertheless aspects of this context that students can be made aware of. Indeed, if teachers can with the help of business communication
textbook materials set up contexts for writing that are rich with the types of interactions, motives and concerns, and even the unpredictability and frustration, that feature in the workplace, they may be able to provide

S. Bremner / English for Specic Purposes 29 (2010) 121132

131

students with experiences and skills that will help them when they take up their place in the real world of work.
Tasks which exploit the idea of dierence as described above require more thought and preparation, but they
are surely a better alternative to activities which barely attempt to bridge the gap between the classroom and
the reality of the workplace.
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my thanks to Professor Diane Belcher for her helpful comments and observations,
and the two anonymous reviewers for their feedback and suggestions on an earlier draft of this paper.
References
Beaufort, A. (2000). Learning the trade: A social apprenticeship model for gaining writing expertise. Written Communication, 17(2),
185223.
Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power. New Jersey, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Blyler, N., & Thralls, C. (Eds.). (1993). Professional communication: The social perspective. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Bhatia, V. (2004). Worlds of written discourse: A genre-based view. London: Continuum.
Bovee, C., & Thill, J. (2006). Business communication essentials (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Bremner, S. (2008). Intertextuality and business communication textbooks: Why students need more textual support. English for Specic
Purposes, 27(3), 306321.
Burnett, R. (1993). Conict in collaborative decision-making. In N. Blyler & C. Thralls (Eds.), Professional communication: The social
perspective (pp. 145163). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Chan, C. (2009). Forging a link between research and pedagogy: A holistic framework for evaluating business English materials. English
for Specic Purposes, 28(2), 125136.
Colen, K., & Petelin, R. (2004). Challenges in collaborative writing in the contemporary corporation. Corporate Communications, 9(2),
136145.
Couture, B., & Rymer, J. (1989). Interactive writing on the job: Denitions and implications of collaboration. In M. Kogan (Ed.),
Writing in the business professions (pp. 7393). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English and Association for Business
Communication.
Cross, G. (1994). Collaboration and conict: A contextual exploration of group writing and positive emphasis. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press,
Inc.
Cross, G. (2001). Forming the collective mind: A contextual exploration of large-scale collaborative writing in industry. Cresskill, NJ:
Hampton Press Inc.
Dautermann, J. (1993). Negotiating meaning in a hospital discourse community. In R. Spilka (Ed.), Writing in the workplace. New research
perspectives (pp. 98111). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Debs, M. (1991). Recent research on collaborative writing in industry. Technical Communication (Fourth Quarter), 476484.
Dias, P., Freedman, A., Medway, P., & Pare, A. (1999). Worlds apart: Acting and writing in academic and workplace contexts. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Dodd, C. (2004). Managing business and professional communication. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Doheny-Farina, S. (1986). Writing in an emerging organization: An ethnographic study. Written Communication, 3(2), 158185.
Dovey, T. (2006). What purposes, specically? Re-thinking purposes and specicity in the context of the new vocationalism. English for
Specic Purposes, 25, 387402.
Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. (1990). Singular texts/plural authors: Perspectives on collaborative writing. Carbondale: Southern Illinois
University Press.
Faigley, L., & Miller, T. (1982). What we learn from writing on the job. College English, 44(6), 557569.
Flowerdew, J., & Wan, A. (2006). Genre analysis of tax computation letters: How and why tax accountants write the way they do. English
for Specic Purposes, 25(2), 133153.
Freedman, A., & Adam, C. (1996). Learning to write professionally: Situated learning and the transition from university to professional
discourse. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 10(4), 395427.
Freedman, A., Adam, C., & Smart, G. (1994). Wearing suits to class: Simulating genres and simulations as genres. Written
Communication, 11(2), 193226.
Gollin, S. (1999). Why? I thought wed talked about it before: Collaborative writing in a professional workplace setting. In C. Candlin &
K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 267290). London, England: Longman.
Guey, M., & Du-Babcock, B. (2008). Essentials of business communication (Asian ed.). Singapore: Thomson.
Killingsworth, M., & Jones, B. (1989). Division of labor or integrated teams: A crux in the management of technical communication?.
Technical Communication 36(3), 210221.
Lesikar, R., Flatley, M., & Rentz, K. (2008). Business communication: Making connections in a digital world (11th ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill Irwin.

132

S. Bremner / English for Specic Purposes 29 (2010) 121132

Locker, K. (1991). What makes a collaborative writing team successful? A case study of lawyers and social service workers in a state
agency. In J. Forman (Ed.), New visions of collaborative writing (pp. 3752). Portsmouth, NJ: Boynton.
Locker, K., & Kaczmarek, S. K. (2004). Business communication: Building critical skills (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Louhiala-Salminen, L. (2002). The ys perspective: Discourse in the daily routine of a business manager. English for Specic Purposes, 21,
211231.
Lowry, P., Curtis, A., & Lowry, M. (2004). Building a taxonomy and nomenclature of collaborative writing to improve interdisciplinary
research and practice. Journal of Business Communication, 41(1), 6699.
Mabrito, M. (1999). From workplace to classroom: Teaching professional writing. Business Communication Quarterly, 62(3), 101104.
Ober, S. (2004). Fundamentals of contemporary business communication. Boston, MA: Houghton Miin Company.
Palmeri, J. (2004). When discourses collide: A case study of interprofessional collaborative writing in a medically oriented law rm. Journal
of Business Communication, 41(1), 3765.
Paradis, J., Dobrin, D., & Miller, R. (1985). Writing at Exxon: Notes on the writing environment of an R&D organization. In L. Odell &
D. Goswami (Eds.), Writing in non-academic settings (pp. 281308). New York, NY: Guilford.
Pare, A., & Smart, G. (1994). Observing genres in action: Towards a research methodology. In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Genre
and the new rhetoric (pp. 146154). London, England: Taylor & Francis.
Penrose, J., Rasberry, R., & Myers, J. (2004). Business communication for managers: An advanced approach. Mason, OH: Thomson/SouthWestern.
Reither, J. (1993). Scenic motives for collaborative writing in workplace and school. In R. Spilka (Ed.), Writing in the workplace. New
research perspectives (pp. 195206). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Roebuck, D. (2006). Improving business communication skills (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Prentice Hall.
Schneider, B., & Andre, J. (2005). University preparation for workplace writing: An exploratory study of the perceptions of students in
three disciplines. Journal of Business Communication, 42(2), 195218.
Smart, G. (1993). Genre as a community invention: A central banks response to its executives expectations as readers. In R. Spilka (Ed.),
Writing in the workplace. New research perspectives (pp. 124140). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Sutton, M. (2007). English 4090: Collaborative writing at work. Composition Studies, 35(2), 101109.
Thompson, I. (2001). Collaboration in technical communication: A qualitative content analysis of journal articles, 19901999. IEEE
Transactions on Professional Communication, 44(3), 161173.
Wallace, D. L. (1994). Collaborative planning and transforming knowledge. Journal of Business Communication, 3(1), 4160.
Witte, S. (1992). Context, text, intertext: Toward a constructivist semiotic of writing. Written Communication, 9(2), 237308.
Yang, L. (2008). From group talk to group writing. In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), The oral-literate connection: Perspectives on L2
speaking, writing and other media interactions (pp. 139167). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Yates, J., & Orlikowski, W. (2002). Genre systems: Structuring interaction through communicative norms. Journal of Business
Communication, 39(1), 1335.
Stephen Bremner works in the Department of English at City University of Hong Kong, where he teaches courses related to professional
writing. His main research interest is writing, in particular the ways in which texts are constructed in workplace settings.