Post-Process Writing Theory: An in-Draft Literature Review
Share, Use, Add to It
Introduction
In the field of writing studies, the term post-process refers to a theoretical shift that emerged in the 1990s as a response to the earlier dominance of process pedagogy in composition. While the writing-process paradigm of the 1970s and 1980s emphasized teaching writing through general stages (prewriting, drafting, revising, editing), post-process theorists argued that writing cannot be reduced to any universal sequence of steps. Thomas Kent’s influential edited collection Post-Process Theory: Beyond the Writing-Process Paradigm (1999 — buy the cheap, used versions) encapsulated this movement’s core claim that “no codifiable or generalizable writing process exists or could exist” (Kent 1) and articulated a new set of assumptions about writing. This literature review surveys the historical development of post-process theory, its key theorists and texts, and its evolution within writing studies, including contemporary extensions of these ideas in today’s writing classrooms. In particular, I want to highlight how long-standing post-process principles—such as the situated, social nature of writing—are foundational to current conversations on writing and generative AI. By illuminating the continuity from post-process theory to modern pedagogical debates, this review serves to inform scholars outside of writing studies that today’s discussions of AI and writing rest on decades of prior scholarship — AND to share insights and sources for everyone to draw from and use. #usemystuff
Origin Story and Foundational Theory
Post-process theory began in response to the limitations of the process model, which had once been revolutionary but was increasingly seen as codified and prescriptive. Kent’s collection marked a turning point, advancing three core tenets: writing is public, interpretive, and situated. These concepts emphasized that writing is not a private act nor a linear procedure, but a rhetorical exchange shaped by audience, context, and interpretive complexity. Lee-Ann Kastman Breuch later elaborated on this in her JAC article, “Post-Process ‘Pedagogy’: A Philosophical Exercise,” arguing that instruction must reject formulaic writing methods in favor of dialogic, reflective practices (Breuch 119–150). Breuch’s work, in particular, articulates three required points: (1) writing is public; (2) it is interpretive; (3) it is situated in multiple contexts. She advocates for viewing writing as an activity characterized by its variability and context-dependence. So, there is no “mastery of the skill,” and teaching should focus on dialogic interactions, cultivating collaborative and interpretive engagements between instructors and students. Of all the post-process theorists, Breuch has influenced how I teach the most.
Gary A. Olson also contributed a key critique of the limitations of process-focused pedagogy that mirrors Breuch’s, asserting that a reliance on generalizable writing rules ignores the ideological and epistemological dimensions of writing. His essay in Kent’s anthology positions post-process theory within broader postmodern and feminist concerns. Joseph Petraglia, another contributor, provocatively asked, “Is there life after process?”—framing the question that continues to shape writing studies today.
Expanding the Paradigm
Susan Miller’s Textual Carnivals: The Politics of Composition (1991) was an early and essential work that prefigured post-process theory by critiquing the depoliticized stance of composition pedagogy. Miller argues that the act of teaching writing is inherently political and historically marginalized in academia (emphasis mine). She emphasizes the need to recognize writing as embedded in ideology, history, and power (Miller 1, 16). While she does not use the term “post-process,” her arguments align closely with its theoretical commitments, especially her rejection of depersonalized, skills-based instruction.
Raúl Sánchez’s The Function of Theory in Composition Studies (2006) builds on and pushes beyond post-process theory by arguing for writing as a knowledge-producing act, not just a medium for conveying pre-formed ideas (emphasis mine). He critiques the field’s over-reliance on externally derived theories and calls for a view of writing that acknowledges its discursive and ideological functions (Sánchez 15–17). Sánchez’s work bridges post-process principles with broader theoretical frameworks, including poststructuralism and decolonial critique.
Contemporary Relevance in the Age of AI
Today, the relevance of post-process theory is perhaps more pronounced than ever, especially in light of generative AI’s role in writing. As AI tools like ChatGPT enter classrooms, many educators express concern that students will bypass the “writing process.” But this panic often stems from an outdated understanding of writing as linear and individual. Writing in Composition Studies recently, S. Scott Graham argues that “the good news is that we already have [a robust foundation] in post-process pedagogy” to address this moment (Graham 164). He frames AI use as compatible with a recursive, interpretive, and audience-aware approach to writing—values embedded in post-process theory.
Post-process pedagogy, which emphasizes context, revision, and interaction over product, offers a roadmap for teaching writing in AI-rich environments. In fact, AI tools can support the recursive nature of writing, functioning as part of the dialogic process rather than a replacement for it. Graham points to “prompt-engineering, output curation, fact-checking, and revision” as new sites of recursive activity (Graham 166), echoing the non-linear “looping” model of post-process thinking.
John Paul Tassoni also calls for a move into “post-product” writing, urging instructors to emphasize the student’s reflective process and engagement with ideas, rather than the final essay alone (Tassoni). This shift underscores the enduring utility of post-process frameworks for contemporary writing instruction.
Post-Process in Practice for FYW
Contemporary writers also apply post-process principles in practical, student-facing contexts. For instance, Lauren Ingraham’s and my book The Writer’s Loop: A Guide to College Writing (Macmillan, 2020) embraces writing as a recursive and reflective act. The text encourages students to “pause often, reflect, and loop backwards and forwards as they revise on their way to a final draft,” reinforcing the idea that writing is a situated, non-linear, and socially embedded process. Our work exemplifies how post-process theory informs instructional design and is particularly resonant in AI-supported classrooms, where recursive prompting and reflection mirror the looping model of writing. For more on my iterative models that riff on post-process and genAI, you can check out Bits on Bots.
Standing on the Shoulders of Giants
I would be remiss if I didn’t include a section on the prolific scholars who have influenced the fields of writing and beyond since the 1990s. A key figure whom I must include is Andrea A. Lunsford, who has significantly contributed to the evolution of composition studies, particularly through her engagement with post-process theory and praxis. Lunsford's scholarship aligns with this perspective, advocating for collaborative and dialogic approaches to writing pedagogy that move beyond rigid process-oriented methods.
In her collaborative work with Lisa Ede, Lunsford explores the dynamics of audience in composition, proposing a nuanced understanding that balances the roles of both writer and reader. Their concept of "audience addressed" versus "audience invoked" underscores the interactive and interpretive aspects of writing, reflecting post-process notions that writing cannot be reduced to a mere sequence of steps but is instead an adaptive and situated act.
Lunsford's emphasis on collaborative writing practices exemplifies post-process pedagogy by highlighting the social construction of knowledge through discourse. She asserts that collaborative environments in writing centers and classrooms foster critical thinking and rhetorical awareness, essential components of effective writing that transcend formulaic processes.
In the broader context of literacy and composition, the contributions of scholars like James Paul Gee and the New London Group have been instrumental in reshaping pedagogical approaches, which is where I first learned of multimodal languaging. Gee's research delves into the intersections of language, learning, and technology, emphasizing the importance of understanding diverse "semiotic domains" and the "design grammars" that govern them. His work advocates for recognizing the multifaceted literacies individuals engage with in various social and cultural contexts.
The New London Group, comprising scholars including Gee, introduced the concept of "multiliteracies" to address the changing practices of communication influenced by cultural diversity and technological advancements. They argue for a pedagogy that encompasses multiple modes of literacy, acknowledging that meaning is constructed through various forms beyond traditional text, such as visual, audio, and spatial modalities.
Collectively, the works of Lunsford, Gee, and the New London Group contribute to a more expansive and inclusive understanding of writing and literacy. They challenge educators to move beyond prescriptive methodologies, advocating for pedagogies that recognize the complex interplay of social, cultural, and technological factors in the development of communicative competence.
Final Thoughts
Post-process theory marked a decisive shift in writing studies—one that rejected formulaic processes in favor of a rhetorical understanding of writing as public, interpretive, and situated. While it began as a response to the limitations of the process paradigm, it evolved into a robust theoretical foundation that continues to guide writing pedagogy. Scholars like Kent, Miller, Sánchez, and Breuch laid the groundwork for this framework, which remains vital in today’s classrooms—especially as educators confront new challenges posed by generative AI. Rather than fearing that students will skip the writing process, instructors informed by post-process theory recognize that writing has never been a straight line. It has always been recursive, contextual, and deeply human. In embracing that complexity, we prepare students not just to write well, but to write with awareness in an age of continually changing technologies.
Author’s Note: I cobbled this review from previous (older!) work I’ve done, so I know I’m missing some key voices. This article is meant to be shared and used. Please do add them in the comments. Let’s add to this document!
Works Cited
Bizzell, Patricia. "Cognition, Convention, and Certainty: What We Need to Know about Writing." PRE/TEXT, vol. 3, no. 3, 1982, pp. 213–243.
Breuch, Lee-Ann M. Kastman. “Post-Process ‘Pedagogy’: A Philosophical Exercise.” JAC, vol. 22, no. 1, 2002, pp. 119–150.
Dobrin, Sidney I., J. A. Rice, and Michael Vastola, editors. Beyond Postprocess. Utah State UP, 2011.
Gee, James Paul. "Learning in Semiotic Domains: A Social and Situated Account." What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy, Palgrave Macmillan, 2007, pp. 17–45.
Graham, S. Scott. “Post-Process but Not Post-Writing: Large Language Models and a Future for Composition Pedagogy.” Composition Studies, vol. 51, no. 1, 2023, pp. 162–168.
Ingraham, Lauren, and Jeanne Law (Bohannon). The Writer's Loop: A Guide to College Writing. Bedford/St. Martin's, 2020.
Inoue, Asao B. Labor-Based Grading Contracts: Building Equity and Inclusion in the Compassionate Writing Classroom. WAC Clearinghouse, 2022.
Kent, Thomas, editor. Post-Process Theory: Beyond the Writing-Process Paradigm. Southern Illinois UP, 1999.
Lunsford, Andrea A., and Lisa Ede. "Audience Addressed/Audience Invoked: The Role of Audience in Composition Theory and Pedagogy." College Composition and Communication, vol. 35, no. 2, 1984, pp. 155–171.
Miller, Susan. Textual Carnivals: The Politics of Composition. Southern Illinois UP, 1991.
Sánchez, Raúl. The Function of Theory in Composition Studies. SUNY Press, 2006.
Tassoni, John Paul. "Post-Product Writing in the Age of AI." Forthcoming blog series, 2024.
The New London Group. "A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures." Harvard Educational Review, vol. 66, no. 1, 1996, pp. 60–92.
My colleague Terry Underwood are using a writing situation model focused on authentic writing tasks in our AI Theory and Comp class. We definitely have some post-process vibe going.