Letter to the Editors

Dear Paul: Those are reasonable questions, that writing specialists ought to answer for you. But experts, of course, disagree. The co-editors of this journal do not entirely agree. And talk about “proofs” is much less fashionable among writing specialists than it used to be. Still, some of us who do writing-across-the-disciplines consider a proof in “our discipline” to be a proof in “your discipline.” That is, some rhetoricians and some linguists study proofs in other disciplines/ situations, asking, “What criteria do people in those disciplines/situations use to evaluate proofs?” “What counts as a valid proof in chemistry? In history? In psychology? In feminist research?” Broadly speaking, rhetoricians and linguists often focus on the language and practices of mature practitioners in the disciplines, and identify themselves with writing-in-the-disciplines or “WID.” Compositionists seldom use the word “proof.” They focus on students and on their whole composing process, broadly conceived. Compositionists are more closely associated with writing-across-the-curriculum, or “WAC,” and are often very interested in social and educational reform. These are the extreme positions—most interesting research and practice is carried on in sites which employ some complex configuration of these elements.