What is Technical Communication?

When I tell people I am pursuing my Ph.D. in Technical Communication and Rhetoric -- there is often a pause and then they ask "What is Technical Communication?". This is my definition -- still a work in progress -- but perhaps will answer the question for those inquiring minds.

In today's information age, technical communication may well be essential to success in all areas of life. While technical communication has long been linked with professional communication, today a broader and more inclusive definition is necessary to encompass the wide range of technical communication work possible. Technical communication is how the work of life gets done. This begins clearly with workplace and professional writing as well as work to support and use technology but also encompasses knowledge work that takes place in government, community, and private lives.

Many definitions of technical communication place technical communication firmly in the workplace with practical writing – which may or may not be scientific and technical. Rutter; Harrison; Sullivan & Porter; Selber; Brasseur; and Kynell & Tebeaux all connect technical communication with the workplace. Thralls and Blyler include technical communication within professional communication in “business, industry, and the professions” (p. 132). Driskill located technical communication within the business community which she uses synonymously with workplace (p. 57). Durack points out that traditionally technical communication focused on technology and science in the workplace (p. 36) however acknowledges the definition of workplace in today's world is rather loose and flexible. Durack defines the workplace as a “primary location” for “economically productive activities” which could well mean the workplace is the home (p. 41). While technical communication work certainly continues in that tradition today it has expanded to include a wide range of knowledge work – some of which is not for pay.

The old definition of technical communication did not simply limit the location of technical communication but also its scope. In the past, technical communication often seemed limited to work within a particular field, such as engineering, but that perception has changed dramatically. Newer definitions of technical communication now point to technical communication as “multidisciplinary” (Kynell & Tebeaux, p. 136) or “interdisciplinary” (Lay, p. 147). Even more important to shifting the definition of technical communication to knowledge work is understanding how the work of technical communication has changed. While Thralls & Zachry call technical communication “a shaping force” (as quoted in Kynell & Tebeaux, p. 139), Miller says in the past technical communication was often seen as only a “necessary evil” (p. 51). According to Slack, Miller, & Doak; Miller; Sullivan; and Blyler, technical communication was often seen simply as purveyor of information or sometimes as a mediator of information. However, the new definition of technical communication rearticulates the role of technical communication in society and empowers the technical communicator.

Sullivan and Blyler both argue that without this social action technical communication becomes rhetoric appropriate for slaves. Sullivan (1990) argues we must expand the scope of technical communication to include political discourse or technical communicators are powerless to make decision or take action (p. 216) – which is why he calls for making a serious commitment to technical communication as a social act (p. 217). Both Sullivan and Blyler say there is need for technical communication that solves practical problems and serves public needs which moves technical communication from a functionalist ideology to one that contributes to free and open communication while still maintaining its roots in practical rhetoric. Sullivan and Miller each argue that technical communication is more than a set of simple skills. Johnson-Eilola (1996) agrees as he makes the argument that technical communicators are expert at manipulating information and so should be central to the new information economy. He states that we have shifted from an industrial economy to an information economy and that so the model for technical communication should shift accordingly to rearticulate its emphasis from technical to communication with an emphasis on social contexts and processes. Johnson-Eilola’s new technical communicator is a symbolic-analytic worker who is highly skilled in information manipulation and abstraction as well as possesses the ability to identify, rearrange, circulate, abstract, and broker information. The symbolic-analytic worker works within and across information spaces which forever breaks technical communication free of its former confines.

However this new technical communication is not limited to the workplace. Rutter described the ideal technical communicator as a wise person “who can speak and write well” (p. 22) and “contributes usefully” to “practical endeavors” (p. 25). Rutter describes the ideal technical communicator as an “articulate citizen” who can also “accommodate technology to its users and see technology in a broader societal perspective” (p. 32). It is that broader societal perspective that gives Durack pause and ask “if it is possible to construct a single definition for technical communication that can flexibly accommodate past and future changes in the meaning and significance of work, workplace, and technology” (p. 41). Even as she links technical communication to work and technology, Durack warns against making any definition of technical communication exclusionary (p. 42).

Writing and communicating are still essential parts of technical communication, but more skills are required by today’s technical communication as Rutter (p. 21) and Little & McLaren (as quoted in Rutter, p. 29) point out. Now “judgment” and “problem solving” (Rutter, p. 21), “adapting to changing demands” (Little & McLaren as quoted in Rutter, p. 29), and “abstract reasoning” (Diehl et al, p. 414) are also important to technical communication. But both skill sets also require an understanding of people and the community where the communication is located. We can understand how key that knowledge is to offering “culturally based perceptions to the audience, rather than objective information and data” (Lay, p. 151), “applying broad knowledge to particular problems” (Whitburn as quoted in Rutter, p. 29), and understanding “how people communicate with each other” (Hughes & Hayhoe, p. 77). Rutter points out that “human” communication is essential to technical communication (p. 21). Perhaps it might better to say that technical communication is essential to human communication.

Diehl et al understand “writing as knowledge work” (p. 413) which they define as “analytical activity requiring problem-solving and abstract reasoning” (p. 414). This activity often utilizes advanced information technologies and involves acts of writing. Pointing out that “communities and citizens are entrenched in a knowledge society”, Diehl et al argue that citizenship is a function of knowledge work and citizen knowledge work is a “complex mix of technological and rhetorical writing tasks” (p. 431). Diet et al say “We are interested, therefore, in what knowledge work looks like, in the shape and function of writing as a type of knowledge work, and in the key differences in this activity as it is located in various domains of life” as they point out no domain of activity owns digitally mediated knowledge work” (p. 432). “Writing, as we understand it here, is essential to how work gets done as part of the everyday, but we do not think that the way writing research and teaching is typically bounded and focused enables us to see, adequately, the connections or imagine, boldly, creative and useful innovations” (p. 432).

Technical communication is interdisciplinary and multi-faceted – changing as needs and situations require to solve problems, facilitate human communication, and get the work of life done. Rhetorical skill is still an essential part of technical communication as part of the human communication, connection, and context that Miller, Rutter, and Hughes & Hayhoe describe, but also essential are judgment, abstract reasoning, and problem solving.



References

Blyler, N.R. (1998). Contesting the Objectivist Paradigm: Gender Issues in the Technical and Professional Communication Curriculum. In J. Johnson-Eilola & S. A. Selber (Eds.), Central Works in Technical Communication (illustrated edition., pp. 268-280). New York: Oxford University Press.
Brasseur, L. E. (1982). Contesting the Objectivist Paradigm: Gender Issues in the Technical and Professional Communication Curriculum. In J. Johnson-Eilola & S. A. Selber (Eds.), Central Works in Technical Communication (illustrated edition., pp. 3-19). New York: Oxford University Press.
Diehl, A., Grabill, J. T., Hart-Davidson, W., & Iyer, V. (2008). Grassroots: Supporting the Knowledge Work of Everyday Life. Technical Communication Quarterly, 17(4), 413.
Driskill, L. (1989). Understanding the Writing Context in Organizations. In J. Johnson-Eilola & S. A. Selber (Eds.), Central Works in Technical Communication (illustrated edition., pp. 55-69). New York: Oxford University Press.
Durack, K. T. (1997). Gender, Technology, and the History of Technical Communication. In J. Johnson-Eilola & S. A. Selber (Eds.), Central Works in Technical Communication (illustrated edition., pp. 35-43). New York: Oxford University Press.
Harrison, T. M. (1987). Frameworks for the Study of Writing in Organizational contexts. In J. Johnson-Eilola & S. A. Selber (Eds.), Central Works in Technical Communication (illustrated edition., pp. 255-267). New York: Oxford University Press.
Hughes, M. A., & Hayhoe, G. F. (2007). A Research Primer for Technical Communication: Methods, Exemplars, and Analyses. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Johnson-Eilola, J. (1996). Relocating the Value of Work. In J. Johnson-Eilola & S. A. Selber (Eds.), Central Works in Technical Communication (illustrated edition., pp. 175-192). New York: Oxford University Press.
Johnson-Eilola, J., & Selber, S. A. (2004). Central Works in Technical Communication (illustrated edition.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Kynell, T., & Tebeaux, E. (2009). The Association of Teachers of Technical Writing: The Emergence of Professional Identity. Technical Communication Quarterly, 18(2), 107.
Lay, M. M. (1991). Feminist Theory and the Redefinition of Technical Communication. In J. Johnson-Eilola & S. A. Selber (Eds.), Central Works in Technical Communication (illustrated edition., pp. 146-159). New York: Oxford University Press.
Miller, C. R. (1979). A Humanistic Rationale for Technical Writing. In J. Johnson-Eilola & S. A. Selber (Eds.), Central Works in Technical Communication (illustrated edition., pp. 47-54). New York: Oxford University Press.
Rutter, R. (1991). History, Rhetoric, and Humanism. In J. Johnson-Eilola & S. A. Selber (Eds.), Central Works in Technical Communication (illustrated edition., pp. 20-34). New York: Oxford University Press.
Selber, S. A. (1994). Beyond Skill Building: Challenges Facing Technical Communication Teachers in the Computer Age. In J. Johnson-Eilola & S. A. Selber (Eds.), Central Works in Technical Communication (illustrated edition., pp. 449-465). New York: Oxford University Press.
Scott, J.B., Longo, B., & Wills, K.V. (2006). Critical Power Tools: Technical Communication and Cultural Studies. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Slack, J.D., Miller, D.J., & Doak, J. (1993). In Scott, J.B., Longo, B., & Wills, K.V. (Eds.), Critical Power Tools: Technical Communication and Cultural Studies (pp. 25-46). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Sullivan, D.L. (1990). Political-Ethical Implications of Defining Technical Communication as a Practice. In J. Johnson-Eilola & S. A. Selber (Eds.), Central Works in Technical Communication (illustrated edition., pp. 211-219). New York: Oxford University Press.
Sullivan, P., & Porter, J. E. (1993). On Theory, Practice, and Method: Toward a Heuristic Research Methodology for Professional Writing. In J. Johnson-Eilola & S. A. Selber (Eds.), Central Works in Technical Communication (illustrated edition., pp. 300-313). New York: Oxford University Press.
Thralls, C., & Blyler, N. R. (1993). The Social Perspective and Professional Communication: Diversity and Directions in Research. In J. Johnson-Eilola & S. A. Selber (Eds.), Central Works in Technical Communication (illustrated edition., pp. 124-145). New York: Oxford University Press.

Beyond Skill Building

Notes on Stuart A. Selber's "Beyond Skill Building":

Too many courses decontextualize computer skills

Trying to characterize the kind of student we should be trying to develop

Literacies = Functional, critical, rhetorical

Humanistic goals call for critical and rhetorical as well as technical skills

Feminist Theory and the Redefinition of Technical Communications

Reflections on Mary M. Lay's "Feminist Theory and the Redefinition of Technical Communications":

Characteristics of Feminist Theory:
1. Celebration of difference
2. Theory activating social change
3. Acknowledgement of scholars' backgrounds and values
4. Inclusion of women's experiences
5. Study of gaps and silences in traditional scholarship
6. New sources of knowledge

Issues in Feminist Theory:
1. Emphasize similarities or differences?
2. Differences located in cultural or biological traits?
3. Should these issues promote or displace binary opposite?

In affiliating with scientific positivism and objectivey, traditional technical communication ranks higher than subjective types of writing, engages in dualistic thinking and maintains closeness with patriarchy -- and resists redefinition

Interdisciplinary, collaborative nature of technical communication will lead field in direction of feminist theory

Gender, Technology, and the History of Technical Communication

Reflections on Katherine T. Durack's "Gender, Technology, and the History of Technical Communication"

Women largely absent from history due to cultural blinders

What is technical writing?
1. Close relationship with technology (as either subject or function)
2. Associated with work and workplace

David Dobrin - writing that accommodates technology to the user

Killingsworth - technical writing exists to help readers achieve work-related goals -- to perform work, to solve problems in a work context

Inclusive definitions challenge dualistic thinking
- public vs. private
- household vs. industry
- masculine vs. feminine

Technical writing is social action, exists to accomplish something

Technical writing's close relationship to technology (knowledge, action, tools) -- not just inventions but innovations and implementations

Technical writing makes tacit knowledge explicitly

History, Rhetoric, and Humanism

My reflections on Russell Rutter's "History, Rhetoric, and Humanism":

Points out technical communication is most known for its emphasis on workplace practicality

Quotes a project manager who says technical writing
- 1/3 writing proficiency
- 1/3 problem solving
- 1/3 ability to work with people

TC more than profiency in writing, more than facts

TC training should not simulate corporate training but produce competent communicators and effective problem solvers

Bruffee -- Civilization, society, conversation place people and knowledge ahead of systems and activities

Quintilian - being precedes doing

Humanist tradition - What a person knows and is determines what that person will do and how well he or she will do it

TC rhetorical above all

Writing creates its own reality then convinces readers to accept its version of reality

TC not a closed system but dynamic

Its task not to serve technology in abstract but to produce writing that can accommodate technology to the user

Technical communicators are rhetoricians

People in professional and technical occupations spend more than one day in five writing

Technical communicators must know how to do more than write
- adapt to changing demands
- function in collaborative context of workplace

Discourse community knowledge is key

Technical communicators are not channels of information but senders, not just shape medium but also matter of message

Can accommodate technology to user and see technology in broad social perspective

The Rise of Technical Writing Instruction in America

My reflections on Robert J. Connors "The Rise of Technical Writing Instruction in America":

While the Civil War and the two Morrill Acts changed the status of the technical fields, it was World War II that gave birth to the field of technical writing. For the first time it was more than an adjunct function of some other activity. The focus moved from engineering to technology.

Mills and Walter 1954 survey of 300 technical writing situations yielded two important assumptions:

1. Rhetorical approach (rather than types of reports) was a better approach to technical writing instruction

2. The only good criterion -- does it work -- the writer-reader relationship is the most important aspect

1965 Britton - technical writing defined by effort of the author to convey one meaning and only one meaning in what he says

A Humanistic Rationale For Technical Writing

My reflections and take-aways for Carolyn R. Miller's "A Humanistic Rationale For Technical Writing":

Positivist view of science puts science (objective facts) and rhetoric (emotional language/symbols) at opposition. The old stuff vs. fluff dichotomy. This relegates technical writing to a skills course which causes a myriad of problems for both instructors and students as well as field in general. I see this as a problem that not only holds true for technical writing but all writing courses (with the exception of creative writing).

The new (well in 1979 anyway) epistemology makes human knowledge thoroughly relative and science fundamentally rhetorical -- what we know of reality is created by individual action and communal assent.

Miller asserts that good technical writing becomes, rather than the revelation of absolute reality, a persuasive version of experience.

Sociological and rhetorical truism -- communication takes place in communities.

Technical writing should not be taught as a set of techniques but as a way to participate in a community; not just a set of skills but also an understanding of one's own activity within that community.

I agree with this wholeheartedly but I also happen to believe this is the way to teach writing in general -- so what separates a general writing course from a technical writing course then?

Status Report and Plans

I have IRB approval from both TTU and MSU and have started gathering data. Already have a lot but expect it to continue for another year before I'm done.

I've started working on my reading list and think it may be good to send off to committee soon.

Hope to begin drafting pre-proposal following submission of reading list.

Have to decide on strategy for dealing with stacks of reading material around my office. Have to decide on strategy for dealing with all this data.

One more class to go and then quals in the Spring. Whew!

What do I mean?

As the channels for communication continue to increase then so does the importance of our understanding of writing and communication. Negotiation is key to technical communication today. Not so much for the intransitive form it is so often taken to be, conferring to arrive at a settlement, but for the transitive form, which is to bring about through conference, discussion, and compromise. Negotiated writing is simply writing, created either by a single author or in collaboration, which is shared with a group which offers both discussion and feedback. While this form of writing support has proven effective when writers are situated in a class or workshop setting, we know little about whether or not writers can recreate negotiated writing for their personal and professional writing purposes after leaving the class or workshop.

Negotiating the dissertation question

Negotiated writing

Negotiated meaning making

Negotiating in writing workshop

If we want what we teach in writing classes/workshops to promote self-sponsored learning (transfer/self efficacy) we must teach writers the art of "negotiated writing"/"negotiated rhetoric".

Writers can have a transformative experience in a writing class/workshop but the key is to help them transfer those skills into new writing situations - learn how to create a support system/network as well as how to use that system.

Wikipedia -- Negotiation

Negotiation all too often focuses on setting disputes but the reason I'm attracted to this word is this definition:

to craft outcomes to satisfy various interests. It is the primary method of alternative dispute resolution.

• What can we learn about negotiated writing from online writing workshop?
◦ Can negotiated (as in crafting outcomes to satisfy various interests) writing experience extend beyond the workshop/class for knowledge transfer and self efficacy?

I'm still working things through but it seems I might be getting there with these questions. I think they address the questions my committee raised. Perhaps enough to be able to write my IRB. Maybe.

Writing a dissertation question is messy

Then we met with my full committee (Fred Kemp and Becky Rickly) and that is when things got really messy.


Problems:
~ Writing workshop has been done a lot (even online writing workshop)
~ Community is problematic (not accurate, overused)
~ Knowledge doesn't transfer or contribute to self-efficacy

Solutions:
~ Look at the "why" workshop does (or does not work) in specific context
~ Look at how we can create a "community" (need to find a new term) that extends beyond the finite context (of a class) to promote transfer and self-efficacy

Some points to think about:
~ What can make the lessons/benefits of writing workshop longterm and sustainable?
~ What can help writers create their own writing "communities"?
~ What can motivate writers to continue with this work on their own (self motivation)?
~ Self-sponsored learning is transfer
~ How can this work contribute to tc?

The evolution of a dissertation question

Clearly, that was too much and too unfocused so we distilled it down to:

What is the role of community in developing transfer and self-efficacy in writers?

Where I started...

My chair, Brian Still, suggested I come to May Seminar with a list of possible questions/topics and so this is where I started:

• Do writers prefer face-to-face or online writing workshop? Why?
• Do writers develop a sense of community through online workshop?
• Does face-to-face interaction change that? How so?
• How long does it take writers (of differing ages and backgrounds) to feel comfortable with online workshop?
• Does online workshop help writers improve? In what ways?
• Is technology a bridge or wall for communication/community?
• How can online workshop be supported and facilitated to be more effective?
• Does the type of writing matter? (for a class or not)

The Last Crazy Semester?

Things are heating up as the end of the semester nears.

Have to wrap up projects and write papers for both classes but no finals -- whew! Still have much to do to make sense of collaborative grading from two different perspectives but have made plans for use of this project in the future for publications. Not sure how far away that is and how much I will have to do for further research.

Of course my real job is wrapping up too with grading and planning for Summer Institute as well as final site visits etc.

I'm already thinking about a research project for this summer -- am I crazy for starting another? Should I focus on finishing up collaborative grading? I know how hard it is to juggle multiple projects but this really interests me. Note: Sent in usability revision and still waiting to hear about digital networking chapter.

Anyway I want to look at writing self efficacy and writing workshop (online writing workshop in particular). Likely tools include pre and post surveys, forum archives for workshops, interviews, writing reflections?

This is likely to be the last really crazy semester though. No more two classes at a time. I think this summer I will only need to take document design during the May Seminar and then this summer I can focus on Summer Institute, wrapping up research, and starting preproposal and reading list. In the fall I will have my last class -- and with only one class I should be able to continue work on research, preproposal and reading list. My goal is to take exam over MSU Spring Break. We'll see if I make it!

I have a committee

I have a committee and it is the one I wanted!

I'm so glad after months of agonizing over this decision that everyone I asked said yes and we all feel good about this team. I think it is a good team with the right mix of knowledge, talent, and coaching traits I need to get the job done well.

Chair: Brian Still
Committee: Rebecca Rickly and Fred Kemp

Looking Backward and Forward

Whew! I managed to survive the Fall Semester but it was a rough one. Too many new challenges all at once. The Spring Semester should be no less busy but hopefully I have learned from those terrible fall experiences how to manage the spring.

This semester I'm coordinating my research projects and my classes so they will complement each other rather than conflict (and cause mucho stress). I'm also working on a better balance with my writing project work -- we'll see how that works out.

This semester I am taking Field Methods of Research and Data Mining.

I also started my collaborative grading project at Morehead -- and plan to use that work for Field Methods.

Julie, Tisha and I are working on a joint project, Digital Connections and Learning Styles, that will come to a head this semester but I'm hoping to use that for Data Mining.

Still mulling my choices for my Committee -- might be getting closer to a decision but then I've thought that before!