It seems as if the need to define or contain the “essence” of technical communication outweighs the value of the profession itself. I believe it’s neither here nor there what the precise, concise and accurate definition of technical communications is, as long as the various job descriptions in the field make sense and are relevant.
People have a good idea of the jobs done by technical writers. But as Bemer states, because technical communication isn’t as clear-cut as medicine or law, some people may take the field for granted or totally disregard it.
Bemer quotes authors Jo Allen and Pamela S. Ecker saying because the field of technical communication is evolving and the demands of the field change with the times, so deciding on a definitive definition is quite difficult and even unnecessary. I can see where these authors have a point, as why limit the scope of achievement and research for the sake of getting “oohs” and “aahs” at cocktail parties, when someone asks, “So what do you do for a living?” Accordingly, I disagree with Bemer when she states that a definition will not “doom” the field. On the contrary, a definition will stifle the exploratory powers of the field because of the new priority of sticking to the confines of the field description. Bemer states that the definition will evolve with the evolution of the field; if so, why bother to create a definition in the first place?
I also believe that a definitive definition for technical communication may decrease the value already placed on technical writers. Many individuals are not too sure what the field entails, so they don’t go into the field, making the existing technical writers even more valuable.
Many other individuals think of technical writing as a kind of scientific writing in that it involves primarily relaying facts and logical and practical information. As Miller states that “technical writing occurs in the context of government and industry and embodies tacit commitments to bureaucratic hierarchies, corporate capitalism, and high technology.” So why does technical writing need a humanistic component? Fundamentally, what technical writing addresses is the need for instructions, information, laws, and protocols given in a concise, precise, and accurate manner. To incorporate rhetoric, that appeals to people’s emotions, or to persuade will distort the core of technical writing. I believe that a humanistic rationale for technical writing is not beneficial or relevant for the field at this point.
Dobrin’s definition of technical writing: “Technical writing is writing that accommodates technology to the user.” This sounds quite clear and matter-of-fact to me.
My questions:
What is technical rhetoric?
What is scientific rhetoric?
What is technical rhetoric?
What is scientific rhetoric?
Is there a difference between the two?
Posts
If getting "oohs" and "aahs" at a cocktail party is a good measure of a profession's worth, then you're better off being a magician.
ReplyDeleteI think you make a good point about the possibility of definitions being stifling or counter-productive. I'm not convinced either that the problem Bemer identifies is one of definition and not marketing. (Or even moreso an effect of capitalism and not merely of discourse; academics tends to see everything through the lens of discourse, and rarely account for economic forces.)
I hope I gave some reasons in class why technical writing is more than a transmission of factual information. In the broader view, the "facts" that we seek to transmit are the result of a rhetorical process of consensus-making that every profession engages in. Concision, precision, and accuracy are important goals (although, if we're trying to be concise, we might consider "accuracy" and "precision" are redundant). But these goals have to fit to the situation at hand in which people need these documents.
You're questions at the end actually made me think of the articles differently. What is "technical rhetoric" rather than "technical writing"? There is definitely a way in which you can persuade people by referencing technical information and that technology serves as a sort of model for how problems get fixed (and created). So you might say that a technical rhetoric is one affected by the existence of technology--one has to develop a rhetoric to account for a technology, a rhetoric that works within the affordances of that technology. Technology here would be defined broadly to encompass things like computers, but also organizational hierarchies and copyright law, for example. Traditionally, rhetoric is defined in relation to people, to audiences; perhaps technical rhetoric takes the technological context as its starting point. Such distinctions could really be the genesis of an academic article. ;)