Skip to main content

Adjusting Target Figures Downwards: On the Collaborative Writing of Policy Documents in the Dutch Government

  • Chapter
The New Writing Environment

Abstract

In current writing research, collaboration1 is considered an important feature of writing in professional settings (Couture & Rymer, 1989; Ede & Lunsford, 1990). Collaboration often means negotiating and reaching consensus about issues at stake with parties involved. Establishing consensus goes on, to a large extent, by means of text: (parts of) documents are written and revised in order to satisfy the participants. Writers of such ‘compromise texts’ have to mould, so to speak, the text until consensus has been reached on a final version of the document at hand.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Allen, N. J. (1991). Collaborative voices: rhetorical and textual features of collaboratively written reports. (PhD dissertation.) Purdue University. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination, trans. C. Emerson and M. Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics, ed. and trans. C. Emerson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergh, H. van den and Meuffels, B. (1993). ‘Schrijfvaardigheid (Writing proficiency)’, in A. Braet and J. van de Gein (eds), Taalbeheersing als tekstwetenschap: terreinen en trends. Dordrecht: ICG Publications, 177–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blakeslee, A. M. (1993). ‘Readers and authors: fictonalized constructs or dynamic collaborations?’. Technical Communication Quarterly2, 1, 23–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnett, R. E. and Hill Duin, A. (1993). ‘Collaboration in technical communication: a research continuum’. Technical Communication Quarterly2, 1, 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, K. and Holquist, M. (1984). Mikhail Bakhtin. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Couture, B. and Rymer, J. (1989). ‘Interactive writing on the job. Definitions and implications of “collaboration”’, in M. Kogen (ed.), Writing in the business professions. Urbana: NCTE, 73–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Couture, B. and Rymer, J. (1991). ‘Discourse interaction between writer and supervisor: a primary collaboration in workplace writing’, in M. M. Lay and W. M. Karis (eds), Collaborative writing in industry: investigations in theory and practice. Amityville, NY: Baywood, 87–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, G. A. (1990). ‘A Bakhtinian exploration of factors affecting the collaborative writing of an executive letter of an annual report’. Research in the Teaching of English24, 2, 173–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ducrot, O. (1984). Le dire et le dit. Paris: Editions Minuit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ede, L. and Lunsford, A. (1990). Singular texts/plural authors. Perspectives on collaborative writing. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flower, L. (1989). ‘Cognition, context and theory building’. College Composition and Communication40, 283–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forman, J. (ed.) (1992). New visions on collaborative writing. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, D. M. L. (1991). Schrijven aan beleidsnota’s; schrijfprocessen van beleidsambtenaren emipirisch-kwalitatief onderzocht(Writing policy issue papers; an empirical-qualitative study into writing processes of governmental policy designers). Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, D. and Schilperoord, J. (1992). ‘Policy writing and functional text quality’, in H. Pander Maat and M. Steehouder (eds), Studies of functional text quality. Utrecht Studies in Language and Communication. Volume 1. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Editions Rodopi, 73–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, D. and van der Mast, N. (1994). ‘Onderzoek naar collaboratieve tekstproduktie: over de integratie van tekst, context en cognities (Research into collaborative text production: on the integration of text, context and cognitions)’. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing 16,3,183–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellogg, R. (1994). The psychology of writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lay, M. M. and Karis, W. M. (eds) (1991). Collaborative writing in industry: investigations in theory and practice. Amityville, NY: Baywood.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nickels Shirk, H. (1991). ‘Collaborative editing: a combination of peer and hierarchical editing techniques’, in M. M. Lay and W. M. Karis (eds), Collaborative writing in industry: investigations in theory and practice. Amityville, NY: Baywood, 242–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nolke, H. (1992). ‘Semantic constraints on argumentation: from polyphonic micro-structure to argumentative macro-structure’, in F. van Eemeren et al. (eds), Argumentation Illuminated. Amsterdam: Sicsat, 189–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paradis, J., Dobrin, D. and Miller, R. (1985). ‘Writing at Exxon ITD: notes on the writing environment of an R&D organization’, in L. Odell and D. Goswami (eds), Writing in nonacademic settings. New York: Guilford, 281–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plowman, L. (1992). ‘Talking and writing in a group writing task: a sociocognitive perspective’. Collaborative Writing Research Group, Paper 5. Brighton: University of Sussex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plowman, L. (1993). ‘Tracing the evolution of a co-authored text’. Language and Communication 13,3,149–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plowman, L., Sharpies, M. and Goodlet, J. (1993). ‘The development of a cognitive model for computer support of collaborative writing: end of project report’. Collaborative Writing Reserach Group, Paper 9. Brighton: University of Sussex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spilka, R. (1993). Writing in the workplace. New research perspectives. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamor L. and Bond, J. T. (1983). ‘Text analysis: inferring process from product’, in P. Mosenthal, L. Tamor and S. A. Walmsley (eds), Research on writing. Principles and methods. New York: Longman, 99–138.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1996 Springer-Verlag London Limited

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

van der Mast, N.P. (1996). Adjusting Target Figures Downwards: On the Collaborative Writing of Policy Documents in the Dutch Government. In: Sharples, M., van der Geest, T. (eds) The New Writing Environment. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-1482-6_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-1482-6_4

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-76011-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-1482-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics