Limitations of the Generalist Tutor

"Look Back and Say 'So What'": The Limitations of the Generalist Tutor by Jean Kiedaisch and Sue Dinitz (found on page 260 in The Longman Guide to Writing Center Theory and Practice by Robert W. Barnett and Jacob S. Blumner) questions the effectiveness of generalist tutors when working with students from various disciplines. Generalist tutors clarify ideas, guide students through the writing process, and encourage students to keep working. They often take a minimalist approach to tutoring by allowing the student to do all the writing, thinking and most of the talking. I call it an experienced peer review - in which I am a student myself, with a few years behind me. Not an expert, but an experienced student.

This article includes examples of generalist tutoring sessions that were effective and ineffective. Upper level students often know more about the conventions of writing lab reports, marketing plans, and analytical papers than their tutors. Even though the tutor is unfamiliar with the writing in a specific discipline,  Kiedaisch and Dinitz argue that generalist tutors are 70% effective in leaving the student feeling satisfied with the session because they help the knowledgeable student clarify and expand their ideas. Development over conventions.

What happens when both the student and the tutor lack knowledge about writing in a specific discipline? This article asks the question - is it the tutor's responsibility to show students how to write for specific disciplines, is it the student's responsibility, or the responsibility of the department? One complaint about knowledgeable tutors is that they take an "authoritative stance" and tutor to the product rather than to the student and do a majority of the talking and thinking for the student.

Both knowledgeable tutors and general tutors can both lead to successful sessions, but how and why and when? That is the ongoing question writing center and writing across the curriculum administration grapple with. Is it a matter of scheduling to the student's preference, should it be "the luck of the draw", or some other possibility?