Genre

Solving Problems in Technical Communication defines genre as, patterned, situationspecific responses to the recurring communication needs found in technical
communication workplaces.1 The chapter explains how understanding the social and
rhetorical characteristics of genre can help the writer respond to communication needs
creatively and effectively. They offer technical writers choices to vary their approach to a
certain communication situation as the writer adapts genres for strategic purposes.
Within the Parents Initiative, Neilom Engineering for Social Change, and CLIF Bar
Familiy foundation grant proposals, Rachel applies both similar and different document
characteristics to each as a rhetorical strategy to appeal to the donors vision and win the
grant.
Analyzing the similarities between each genre shows how the genre template allows
Rachel to recycle certain information between documents. Rachel begins all three grant
proposals with the farms mission statement and history, all of which are identical
paragraphs. The statement is as follows:
[The farm] is the [universitys] sustainable farming operation dedicated to growing
produce for the campus community, offering educational opportunities to students, and
providing food to those in our community experiencing food hardship. [The farm] is
managed by [the universitys] [dining services department] and operates collaboratively
with the universitys College of Agriculture and Natural Resources as well as the
universitys [sustainability department]. [The farm] helps fulfill [dining services
departments] Sustainable Food Commitment, a goal of 20% local and sustainably
sourced food by 2020, while providing other benefits to the campus and community.
Underlining all of [the farms] efforts are our goals of environmental, social, and
economic sustainability.
It is not necessary for Rachel to change the mission statement and overview of the farm
between grant proposals because this information remains unchanged regardless of the
request for the proposal. This also demonstrates that Rachel is ethical when requesting
funds for the farm because she does not try to adjust its mission to meet the goals of the
organization she is soliciting. In her interview, Rachel emphasized this by stating, We
look for the right fit rather than just look for money to do anything. If we are saying we
are going to do something with the funds, then we are obligated to follow through, so we
dont want to go so far out of the scope that we cant pull it off. The donors must have the
same values as us. Rachel works collaboratively with another colleague to ensure the
farm is the right fit for the funder in question. They then use the following proceedings to
determine whether the funder is a good match for the farm:
1. Look on the funders website to see what has previously been funded
2. Colleague calls the funder and talks about their priorities
3. Have conversations about what we envision they are looking for
When they encounter a funder whose vision is in accordance with the farms mission,
then Rachel goes about writing the proposal.

Another similar aspect of all three grant proposals that Rachel includes is that student
involvement and activism is at the center of the farm. In the Parents Initiative grant, she
puts this information under the target population section. In the Neilom Engineering
and CLIF Bar grant, she puts this information under the what makes your approach
unique section. The reasoning for this may be because the grants ask for specific
formats. Student involvement is an important aspect of the farm that Rachel felt the need
to include, so she identified a section within each of the given formats that that
information would fit under.
Another similarity between the grant proposals exists between the Neilom Engineering
and CLIF Bar grants because they seek funding for the same purpose. Rachel again uses
identical wording to express how the funds will be used. She writes how educational
outreach will be promoted by using the funding to hire two semester inters, purchasing
new tools and expanding workshops, and working with other organizations to teach them
more about sustainable agriculture. The paragraphs following this information go on to
emphasize how student involvement allows students to meaningfully contribute to the
farming operation. For the Neilom Engineering proposal, Rachel adds one additional
sentence that states, Without funding to support student staff/interns and to purchase
more tools, we will not be able to expand the reach of our educational program and
welcome more students and community members to the farm. Rachel may have added
this information for two reasons: either because she thought this information highlighted
a specific vision of the Neilom Engineering for Social Change, or because this proposal
was written after the CLIF Bar proposal, and she felt it added something to the
persuasiveness of the document.
In her interview, Rachel explained how information like background, accomplishments,
and goals of the farm can be recycled because that information remains unchanged.
Certain information is identical because it is pulled from existing content, and
information that is relatively similar is, pulled from pieces of information that we can
build off of an can repackage. Though the genre allows these types of information to be
repurposed, information specific to the request must be original content and therefore
differs between each proposal.
In her interview, Rachel stated that the main differences involve, how you describe what
you are doing in terms of the donors values and vision of what they want their funds
used for. This is exemplified in the three grants.
The first grant is for the Parents Initiative and seeks $5,000 for organizing a fall Harvest
Festival on the farm. The Parents Initiatives Fund seeks to facilitate programs and
services that enhance the student experience at the university.2 This grant provided a
specific format for Rachel to follow, which explains why she included the sections she
did. In the descriptions, Rachel used the goals of the Parents Initiative to explain how
the Harvest Festival supports these goals. For instance, she explains how the festival will
inspire student pride in the university by honoring how the school began as a land grant

institution. This highlights the Parents Initiatives goals of enhancing student experience
because university pride is a central part of college experience.
The second grant is for The Neilom Engineering for Social Change Fund and seeks
$10,000 for hiring two interns, purchasing tools and equipment, and inviting other
organizations to learn from the farms sustainability model. The Neilom Foundation
works to support programs that allow students to experience developing a vision for
social change.3 Rachel explains how the farm meets this goal by including a Major
Accomplishments section in the grant. The section emphasizes how social
sustainability is a core part of [the farms] mission an goals. Rachel points out how
student involvement with the farm allows them to experience a vision for social change
by introducing them to sustainable practices like, using minimal resource inputs,
reduced-water irrigation techniques, and natural pollinators.
The third grant is for the CLIF Bar Family Foundation, and seeks $14,055 for the same
purposes as the Neilom Engineering grant. The CLIF Bar Family Foundation funds
grants that support their priorities, which include the following:
1. Protect Earths beauty and bounty.
2. Create a robust, healthy food system.
3. Increase opportunities for outdoor activity.
4. Reduce environmental health hazards.
5. Build stronger communities5
Rachel addresses these criteria in several places with the grant. For instance, in the What
is the purpose of this project section, Rachel includes that the farm as a resources can
provide meaningful outdoor experiences to community members who live in an urban
area, which directly correlates to number three. Also, under the How do the proposed
activities bring about positive change section, Rachel explains how the farm builds
stronger comminutes (correlating to number five) via the proposed wider-community
engagement activities. She writes, Master Gardeners share knowledge with their
communities; connecting with this group to promote sustainability means that many more
home and hobby gardeners will learn about and possibly introduce sustainability into
their own gardens. This aspect also meets criteria three and two since encouraging the
creation of home gardens increases outdoor activity and adds to healthy food systems by
encouraging people to grow their own produce.
In her interview, we asked Rachel about how she decides how to appeal to the
organizations vision. She stated, I have to think critically about how to pitch the grant. I
look up their priorities and use grants they have accepted as examples. Rachel also
explained that her efforts are not entirely independent as she reaches out to others both
within and outside the department for input. She also has others give her feedback on her
draft write-ups to see if they think she her pitch is effective.
Each of the genres serves the same basic function of requesting money for the farm, but
they request different amounts for different purposes and to different organizations. Since
the farms background information, mission statement, and accomplishments are

constant; they are either used verbatim in each proposal or repackaged to fit the
organizations grant criteria. Rachel refers to past documents when including this type of
information in the grant proposals. The information that differs between the proposals
involves the requested amount of funds, what the funds will be used for, and any
additional information that the specific grant requests or that Rachel thinks will appeal to
the organization. As stated in Solving Problems in Technical Communication, [Genre]
conventions enable [the writer] by supplying templates, genres, and topics which can be
useful to the writer at all stages of the writing process.1 By analyzing these conventions,
we can see how genres shape and develop Rachels writing process for writing grant
proposals.

References
1 Johnson-Eilola, J., & Selber, S. (2013). Genre. In Solving problems in technical
communication (pp. 337-361). Chicago and London: The University of Chicago
Press.
2 Parents Initiatives Fund Grants. (2015). Retrieved November 23, 2015, from
http://terpparent.umd.edu/parents-initiatives-fund-grants
3 The Neilom Foundation. (2015). Retrieved November 23, 2015, from
http://www.neilom.org
4 CLIF Bar Family Foundation. (2015). Retrieved November 23, 2015, from
http://clifbarfamilyfoundation.org/Grants-Programs