It’s fascinating how formulaic the process of finding new horizons is. So much effort is put into driving adults away from the five-paragraph structure they’ve been taught as kids. Yet, as rigid as formula itself is, it has room for innovation and fresh ideas. Take the scientific method: it has a rigid structure of steps, also taught to young students. Without it, however, we would have no scientific advancement, for which we associate no formula to its unpredictability.
Take, for example, Carol Barkenkotter’s Decisions and Revisions. She conducted a study in which she analyzed the revision process of Donald Murray, an experienced writer. She came to do this by realizing there was no professional study done for observing writing in natural settings – establishing a niche. Once the niche was fully determined, extensive study was taken, in which she noted Murray’s peculiar work habits. She also noted that there were some audiences that Murray was not suited for. He had varying amounts of time dedicated to certain stages depending on his intended work.
While not the comprehensive study on how humans write depending on their locale and experience, it was untreaded ground. Sure, it was mainly because it was such an out-there niche, but it was untreaded, nonetheless. Yet, it conformed to a specific structure that resembled the scientific method – this is most blatant in the headings. The “hypothesis” is formed. The method is performed. The results are taken. The results are reflected on. Rinse and repeat until the universe is solved, probably.
Writing has been a human skill for who knows how long, and we can enter so many new horizons from it – just by this method. It’s formulaic, but it’s trustworthy. Dare I say quite amazing.
Leave a Reply