Berkenkotter & Murray Synthesis

For the sake of the improvement of efficient and better writing, researchers had been experimenting on unskilled writers in a laboratory setting with an unrealistic amount of time. Unfortunately, the results differed from what goes on in writing during a natural setting, when writers are not stressed for time and can make observations that could lead to discovery. Berkenkotter decided to create a new way of researching the process of a writer. This time, she chose a professional writer and put him in a natural, comfortable setting. She also put him in a one-hour period where he was forced to write on a subject of which he was unfamiliar. The results of an unrealistic setting and a natural setting differed. There were multiple reasons why they differed. Berkenkotter stated that he was not able to "reconceive" or "to scan and rescan in the perspective of the other reader" (223). Murray also expressed his feelings on the whole situation. He said, "I have rarely felt so completely trapped and so inadequate. I have gone through other research experiences, but in this case I felt stronger than I ever had the need to perform" (231). It could be that during this time, he shared the same fear as Lore Allen of the "Inspired Writer." The interesting part was that after the experiment, his fear of the "Inspired Writer" became different. He now feared that he was going to become the "Inspired Writer." In his lines, he expressed the words, "I worry that the experienced writer can become too glib, too slick, too professional, too polished---- can, in effect, write too well" (233). He feared that he would lose his ability of "discovery" or to lose "introspection." Berkenkotter explained that introspection occurred during pauses of composition, and in effect, discovered new insights on the writer's topic. Murray later responded to the term as "bathroom epiphanies" and he believed they should be further researched. These "discoveries" or "writing to learn" were identified by Kleine but he said that usually people who wrote for rhetorical purposes rather than to provide information were the ones who used such techniques. In Berkenkotter's analysis, it showed that he spent most of his time planning and barely any in revisions. Murray argued back that part of revisions were done in his time of planning. Lammott, however, showed to be the exact opposite. She did very little planning (by writing her first draft like a "child") and relied mostly on her revisions. The process of writers' compositions and discovery differ from writer to writer and it is too complex for a static, laboratory setting. Rather than understanding the composition of writers, Berkenkotter's experiment showed how to research a writer.