Research in Higher Education

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 147–163 | Cite as

Writing method and productivity of science and engineering faculty

  • Ronald T. Kellogg


The present study aimed to describe the methods of writing used by university faculty and to explore relationships between method and productivity in writing. The survey reported here examined the cognitive strategies, tools, work scheduling, environment, and rituals used by 121 science and engineering faculty members in writing technical documents such as journal articles. The most commonly reported methods (e.g., the cognitive strategy of mentally planning large units of text structure and selecting a pen or pencil for a tool) were uncorrelated with reported productivity. Selecting a quiet work environment was the only typical habit that was associated with high productivity. Three other aspects of writing method were also related to high productivity, but they were not widely employed. These were using a dictation machine, preparing detailed written outlines before beginning a first draft, and the ritual of exercising vigorously before or during a writing session.


Faculty Member Work Environment Education Research Journal Article Technical Document 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bell, P. A., Fisher, J. D., Loomis, R. J. (1978).Environmental Psychology Philadelphia: Saunders.Google Scholar
  2. Boice, R. (1982). Increasing the writing productivity of “blocked” academicians.Behavior Research and Therapy 20: 197–207.Google Scholar
  3. Boice, R., and Johnson, K. (1984). Perception and practice of writing for publication by faculty at a doctoral-granting university.Research in Higher Education 21: 33–43.Google Scholar
  4. Bridwell, L. S., Nancarrow, P. R., and Cross, D. (1984). The writing process and the writing machine: current research on word processors relevant to the teaching of composition. In R. Beach and L. S. Bridwell (eds.),New Directions in Composition Research pp. 381–398. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  5. Cowley, M. (1959).Writers at Work, the Paris Review Interviews. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  6. Daiute, C. A. (1984). Performance limits on writers. In R. Beach and L. S. Bridwell (eds.),New Directions in Composition Research pp. 205–224. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  7. Elbow, P. (1981).Writing with Power. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Emig, J. (1971). The composing processes of twelfth graders. National Council of Teachers of English Research Report No. 13. Urbana, IL.Google Scholar
  9. Erickson, M. H. (1972). A special inquiry with Aldous Huxley into the nature and character of various states of consciousness. In Charles T. Tart (ed.),Altered States of Consciousness. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  10. Ewing, E. D. (1974).Writing for Results. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Flower, L., and Hayes, J. R. (1980). The dynamics of composing: making plans and juggling constraints. In Lee W. Gregg and Erwin R. Steinberg (eds.),Cognitive Processes in Writing. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Glynn, S. M., Britton, B. K., Muth, D., and Dogan, N. (1982). Writing and revising persuasive documents: cognitive demands.Journal of Educational Psychology 74: 557–567.Google Scholar
  13. Gould, J. D. (1980). Experiments on composing letters: some facts, some myths, and some observations. In Lee W. Gragg and Erwin R. Steinberg (eds.),Cognitive Processes in Writing pp. 97–128. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Gould, J. D., Conti, J., and Hovanyecz, T. (1983). Composing letters with a simulated listening typewriter.Communications of the ACM 26: 295–308.Google Scholar
  15. Hartley, J., ed. (1980).The Psychology of Written Communication. London: Nichols.Google Scholar
  16. Hartley, J., and Knapper, C. K. (1984). Academics and their writing.Studies in Higher Education 9: 151–167.Google Scholar
  17. Lowenthal, D., and Wason, P. C. (1977). Academics and their writing.London Times Literary Supplement, June 24, p. 782.Google Scholar
  18. Moran, C. (1983). Word processing and the teaching of writing.Electronic Media, March, pp. 113–115.Google Scholar
  19. Pelz, D. C., and Andrews, F. M. (1976).Scientists in Organizations Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  20. Plimpton, G. (1963).Writers at Work, the Paris Review Interviews. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  21. Stein, M. I. (1974).Stimulating Creativity, Vol. 1. Individual Procedures. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  22. Tebeaux, E. (1983). Keeping technical writing relevant (or, how to become a dictator).College English 45: 174–183.Google Scholar
  23. Zinsser, W. (1983).Writing with a Word Processor. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Agathon Press, Inc. 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronald T. Kellogg
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Missouri-RollaRolla

Personalised recommendations