Specialization vs. Generalization: The Professional Writer’s Debate
Lauer and Sanchez’s article, “Visuospatial Thinking in the Professional Writing Classroom,” brought me to consider a few points in my professional writing and education, what kind of writer I am, the impacts it has on my career, and how curriculum can become extremely varied for professional writers, depending on what career path he or she chooses to take.
As a student in today’s society, we are somehow forced into this realm of choosing specializations, but also having general knowledge that expands well beyond what we consider to be a part of our field/curriculum/etc. We learn that the more specialized we are on a topic, the more we know about it, the higher we will be paid, we’ll be able to find jobs because companies are looking for specialists and will higher someone with more specialized knowledge than general knowledge because often times it will require less training. However, at the same time, we have to be marketable. We have to know how to write, edit, compile, design, layout, rhetorically analyze, project manage, utilize social media, promote, create, etc. We need to know how to use all of these technologies just so that companies know we have the knowledge should the situation ever arise to use such a program. So then, how do we as students and educators teach ourselves and others to be specialized in one area when spreading ourselves thin so that we can make sure we at least know a significant amount in all areas?
Sanchez and Lauer’s article really brought to my attention how much graphic work professional writer’s and editors do, and what surprised me the most is that those who were better visually were also better verbally. I have also thought if someone was better visually, generally their verbal was not as strong, and vice versa. However, this is not at all the case. Those students who are able to concisely and effectively present ideas visually are able to do the same verbally. As an English major, I honestly feel that at times because of page length requirements, we are not taught how to present our thoughts in the most effective way, often becoming redundant in our writing. At least when writing for a non-technically knowledgeable audience, simplicity is best, and I think Sanchez and Lauer make that point clear. I can honestly say that in my office, there is a significant difference in the works I produce versus what students in Public Relations and Advertising produce. Their posters are always much more visual and mine much more verbal. They have most definitely taught me how to cut down on my word counts and utilize image more, but I still struggle with creating documents appropriate for audiences without using my writing ability. However, if professional writers are expected to produce these documents, shouldn’t they be more of a focus in our curriculum, or do we have to figure out a career path early enough to decide?
If a student is specializing in say, technical writing for chemical engineering, it makes sense that he or she would probably not need as much general knowledge of social media or graphic design to be successful. An understanding of the verbage and processes used in the field would make him or her a much more viable candidate for the position. However, for a person going into let’s say, working in the communications department of a company, a more generalized knowledge would be looked at favorably. The more well-rounded the person, the better as he or she could hop into any roll immediately working in a fast paced environment. Does that mean then, that we should know exactly what we want to do to adjust our curriculum to suit our future career needs?
It almost seems as if curriculum plans need to be adjusted depending on students’ goals. For those looking for more specialized knowledge, take science courses, technical writing courses, etc. For those who need more generalized courses, take design classes – rhetoric is applied as heavily in these as it is in our PWE courses. This calls then, for a much more interdisciplinary approach to learning – an allowance for more course hours outside of one college within a university and the ability to choose a more appropriate course load depending on student needs. By keeping students grouped together and forcing this specialization vs. generalization conflict, it might be that departments are actually inhibiting the learning necessary for more successful futures.
Lauer, C. & Sanchez, C. A. (2011). “Visuospatial Thinking in the Professional Writing Classroom.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 25(2), 184–218.