He pulls from classical rhetoric to draw the connections between “praxis, virtue, and social action” which culminates in this paragraph:

 Let us not take this depiction of ethics and apply it to our present situation. I have tentatively decided to define technical communication as a practice; therefore I am claiming that it takes virtue to participate in technical communication. I can do this, according to Aristotelian ethics, only by agreeing that my students are developing character traits that enable them to perform their functions well. Moreover, I imply that these functions are good, that they fit in with the ideal virtue that dominates society. (215)

 I want to conclude that Sullivan is saying that by continuing to follow this cycle and by viewing technical communication as necessarily a practice, it would be ethical His path of connections, though they may make sense are  derived from a simple form of ethics, and may not be applicable for today’s society. In this I mean to say that it is even less ethical today. I was a little skeptical about what exactly his viewpoint was until the end of his paper. This was because of his use of the subjunctive tense at the beginning as he speculated.

He uses classical rhetoric to speculate and define our “present situation”. I feel, as I started in the previous paragraph, that if society still worked as it did in the time of Aristotle, things would be much simpler and that method of thought could work ethically. However, these days it does not necessarily take “virtue to participate in technical communication” and this is where is falls apart.

His main ideas revolve around his teaching technical communication and his experience with the curriculum, the students, and the discourse community. Reading between the lines, and trying to comprehend as much of this paper as I can at once, I feel the undercurrent of rebellion. Rise against the unethical and problematic current teaching of technical writing! Redefine the technical writers as purposeful and beyond the discourse of industry! Give the student the power to decide! “…We either teach politically…or we contribute to the mystification that so often in universities diverts and deadens the critical power.” (217)  This of course makes sense if we look back at what the title of this paper is.

I would like to wrap up this response with this quote from Sullivan which he got from Patricia Bizzell’s “What Is a Discourse Community”,

“Our dilemma is that we want to empower students to succeed in the dominant culture so that they can transform it from within; but we fear that if they do succeed, their thinking will be changed in such a way that they will no longer want to transform it.”

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 (pp. 211-219). New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2004.

This also applies to how I want my students who are getting in to engineering to be. If I could, I would assign them this reading. They are still young, and hopefully through what I have taught so far, they have gotten a small bit of why learning the basic writing skills I am trying to instill in them is important.

“The engine, rather than a document, is “final publication” for the engineer.” (343)

This statement, made at the beginning of Winsor’s paper, exhibits the mentality of a generalized “engineer”. This however does make sense and one can keep that in mind while reading the rest of the paper. I think that this is an interesting view to take because I have not thought of it that way. For the writer, the publication of a work is the “final product”, but for the engineer, any writing is merely part of the interpretation and the journey to get to the product, which in this case would be a more fuel efficient engine. This is understandable, however to devalue the writing that is part of the transmission of information within their field is not at all helpful. Winsor’s paper showed to some small degree that writing is of course important to an engineer and also goes to shape how they produce their work and other writing.

“Knowledge may be defined as that which most people in a discourse community are convinced of, and what a discourse community is convinced of is indicated by the texts it has accepted.” (343)

This connects directly to something we have read earlier in the semester, though at this moment I am unable to pinpoint it. The part of this reading which connects well, deals with the socially constructed understanding of a discourse or a community. Because it is socially constructed and socially accepted, it is true; and that in turn goes to shape how society thinks. It is a never ending cycle that progresses and works around within itself. For this quote from the paper, combined with other discussions within her paper, one can see the engineering knowledge world as being one that is shaped by certain ideas that currently exist as well as those already written in past engineering texts. This second, crucial idea completes Winsor’s work.

“These engineers seem to be explaining these actions to one another and most importantly to themselves so that those actions would square with their ideal notion of themselves and their work. They were, in other words, writing themselves as engineers.” (347)

Winsor, D. A. (1990). “Engineering writing/writing engineering.” In J. Johnson-Eilola & S. A. Selber (Eds.), Central works in technical communication (pp. 341–350). New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2004.

To me, a map was just something that I sometimes looked on Google for, or browsed or bought at a rest stop driving through a state; something charted and printed to help me get somewhere I needed to go. I did not, however, consciously consider the authority that that map holds; the power and the trust that I give it. Thinking further, with the aid of explications from Barton and Barton, one becomes aware of a certain scientific-ness about the map. There is a strong analysis possible within the different parts. Cartography is not quite an art, not quire a geography, not quite archaeology, not quite science. However, the making of a map can be a very technical thing and as this paper suggests, imparts upon the cartographer many choices, both implicit and explicit. The broadest of these “choices” being whatever social, economic, and cultural influences are being made for the creation of the map.

Barton and Barton bring up many specific examples of these influential factors, but I can see it all revolves around ones awareness of the self and the other, and an overall awareness of the social economic, and cultural influences when a map is being viewed or created. Where is the power being exerted?

“This ‘omphalos syndrome’ where a people believe themselves to be divinely appointed to the centre of the universe, can be traced in maps widely separated in time and space.” (237) Where we, this inclusive “we”, draw maps where “our” country, or our primary city is at the central point. The center is the focal point; it speaks of dominance and importance.

I also found some details explicated within the section titled “Repression of the Act of Production” particularly interesting. The beginning of this section described how maps had progressed from the first medieval maps, which focused on itineraries, distances caluculated by walking time, and important cities at which to stop, to the maps created by the 17th Century which “colonized space”. An important aspect of maps and the political nature of them is for what purpose they were created. The type of map in medieval time frames was (of course) connected to the main life focus at the time. This included pilgrimages and other important journeys to be made on foot. There was a slot less long-distance travel and when maps were needed and long distance was expected, it was much more serious than it is today.

Connections:

To tie in these concepts with some topics previously discussed in this class, we can make the connection to the professional and technical writer. If we consider the cartographer as a professional, or more pointedly, a technical writer, “writing” directions or instructions to the land, then we must question his identity. Is her merely a channel through which the land is explained? Does he merely translate, draw out, and label what is described to him? Or is he a key factor, a key contributor to the shape, the culture, and the implications of the map? Barton & Barton might argue for the latter with the cast conceptions that influences the map.

Barton B.B. & Barton M.S. (1993). Ideology and the map: Toward a postmodern visual design practice. In J. Johnson-Eilola and S.A. Selber (Eds.), Central works in technical communication (pp. 232-252). New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2004.

I think that this textbook does well to cover a wide range of topics within technical communications in a very organized and procedural way. As Mike Markel states in his introduction to the textbook, “Technical Communication remains a thorough, accessible introduction to planning, drafting, and designing technical documents.” (iii)

This textbook does make ethics a major part of both its message and each of the individual chapters. This is explained in the introduction to this textbook as being a conscious addition to this edition because of the “increased emphasis on ethics” in the field of technical communication and technical communication education. Along with this addition, the author also noted an increased focus on “electronic communication tools” in that there is a need for understanding of these tools in this freshly electronic technological world.

With a new edition of this textbook, Mike Markel also specifies that “it makes more explicit connection between technical communication in the academy and …in the workplace.” (iii) I find this interesting as the field of technical communication progresses. It could lend insight into the development of agency and utility within technical communication education.

Writing Process:

I feel that the whole text does well to address the writing process both in a chapter specifically pertaining to “understanding the writing process”, “drafting and revising,” and through the progression of each section and the applications of technical communication. (xvi, xviii) In fact, within the “Introduction to Writers”, it states that the book is “organized into six parts, highlighting the importance of the writing process in technical communication…” (ix) The overall concept of the textbook also moves in such a way; from the introduction to technical communication in the classroom and also the workplace, to planning the documents, developing the elements, and being able to apply them, this book focuses a lot on the idea of process.

Within the application section, the book moves from the more basic technical communications to the more complex ones. Also within this section, at the beginning of every applications section, there is a diagram outlining the process of creating the document that is detailed within the chapter.

Rhetoric and Persuasion

There is an entire chapter on communicating persuasively which covers the basic arguments, using evidence, and presenting yourself and your communication effectively. This chapter is heavy on ethics, knowing your constraints, being responsible with how you appeal to people, and “using the right kinds of evidence.” (159)

There is also an underlying theme of rhetoric and persuasion through a chapter regarding understanding your audience, understanding legal and ethical considerations, and through some of the application chapters referring to how to write/communicate persuasively within certain genres of technical communication and why it is important.

Style and Tone

There does not seem to be a lot of explicit instruction regarding style and tone. There are little notes in certain sections such as “use the appropriate level of formality,” but instructions of style and tone are worked in throughout the entire “writing process” within this textbook. It is implied. For example, each type of application obviously has a certain style in which it is written and the tone is derived from how formal informal or professional it is meant to be. There are also certain “tech tips” which pertain to document design and a certain type of electronic “styling”.

Document Design

I believe that document design is a large part of the textbook’s focus. First, within the second part of the book, it discusses the planning and organizing of information; within the third and fourth parts, the books discusses writing and designing the documents both in textual and visual elements. Within the fifth part, dealing with all of the different applications for technical communication, document design emerges a lot within each chapter. For each type of document or communication discussed, there are descriptions and activities based on how each text is designed.

Visuals and Oral communication

As this is a technical communications textbook, it does not just contain technical writing instruction. There is a whole section (part 4) on “Developing the Visual Elements” which consists of chapters about designing these visual pieces and creating the graphics or “pictures” within this visual category.

Another interesting chapter in this textbook is on the application of the oral presentation. The final chapter in the book, it covers knowing your audience, organizing and designing the presentation itself using visual and written elements, how to effectively present yourself, and even a section on answering questions after your presentation.

Research and writing technologies

As I stated in my introduction, it was noted that this edition of the textbook was expanded to include the emphasis on electronic tools for technical communication. Included in this is a companion website that has many activities and tools that can work alongside the information in the book. This is called “TechComm” and each chapter has a discussion that correlates with it. Along with this, there are also “Tech Tips” within each chapter that instruct students on certain tools within their electronic technologies that can aid them in certain topics.

In terms of Research, there is one chapter regarding this subject. Situated within the planning part of the textbook, it discusses the differences between research for academic and the workplace as well as research methods, understanding the research, and conducting primary and secondary research. Research is referenced in a few other places, but not expanded upon besides within that chapter pertaining to it.

Markel, Mike. (2007). Technical Communication (8^th ed.). Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Drawing mainly from George’s “From Analysis to Design Visual Communication on the Teaching of Writing”, I find it interesting the range of what can be considered “visual”. Indeed within the context of a composition class, you may think of pictures, advertisements, or videos, but George makes a note that in fact there is more to visual than that. From the fact that letters and words are in fact a visual thing, symbols representing something to us and conveying meaning, to the overall design and layout of a webpage, a document, or a piece of art, visual can cover many different aspects of communication.

While discussing a little of the history of the use of visuals in classrooms, George comments several times on the fact that including visuals in text affects the range of the audience that can perhaps understand it. She comments on how visuals added to the Writing with Purpose textbook were viewed by some as a “dumbing down” based on “lowered evaluation of its audience abilities.” (George, 19) In some ways I can agree with this, in that an image might be easier for a more diverse audience to grasp because it transcends the use of one particular language as well as any level of descriptive words that might not be known to all readers. A picture or even something visual such as a graph is designed to communicate by literally showing rather than telling. I feel it might be in some ways offensive to label a textbook with more images as “dumbed down” for the masses not as eloquent in language. While the images paired with the text do make it more visual appealing to students, the pictures, graphs, or charts can supplement the text with an organization that cannot always be gained by linearity. Not everyone can understand things in a linear or “telling” with words type of way. In some instances, those who cannot read or focus on the block of words may not be as intelligent, but this goes much deeper than that. George also writes that “…assignments linked to images carried with them a call for relevance, the need to make this dull required class more interesting, and the suggestion that less verbal students would perhaps succeed with picture where they could not with words.” (George, 21)

Expressivism

I would also like to comment on the comment George made about how this sort of method of teaching with both verbal and visual elements uses “expressive pedagogies” which I believe people sometimes take less seriously. (George, 22) In implying that a mode of teaching follows an expressivist path, I feel like people automatically devalue it. This stems from the cultural norm that the analytical and scientific mind takes precedence. Visual communication or for example, art which communicates a message, is devalued for its personal or self-expressive nature.

I think that visual communication and teaching with visuals has come a long way and yet has not even begun to push at the boundaries of what is possible with the developing technologies. From what was possible in design on a computer screen 20 years ago to the design today, there is no comparison. I am skeptical again at what I see as a binary between what is right and what is not right, visual communication vs. verbal/written communication.

I would like to conclude with a very conclusive sounding quote from George in which I believe she makes it clear her view on visual communication as a whole:“Certainly there is the message in much of this work that images may be useful…but they are no substitute for the complexity of language.” (George, 22)

Works Cited

George, Diana. (2002) “From Analysis to Design Visual Communication on the Teaching of Writing”. CCC, 54(1), 11-39. PDF.

 The physical text and the electronic text are two very different yet interconnected things… they share common goals and derivatives. It is hard to tell how far the electronic book will develop from the physical book or how it will affect how our minds think and develop in the future. However it does appear to be inevitable that these technologies will be a large part of everything we read or interact with. Awareness of how the physical text and the electronic text are alike and different, and how this affects the way we process the information we are seeing, will have a large influence on how well we adapt to growing technologies in a productive way. (Robinson, 6)

I really think that this connects well with the topic at hand this week. What I need to connect all of this to, is the major overall themes and issues for this week. How are these texts shaped? Who “owns” Electronic texts?” And who holds the power?

The first thing I noted about some of our readings were the dates they were written, and that the authors made most of this in their pre-words. I think that this is an important viewpoint to remember as we read and consider the digital text because of how quickly everything digital is evolving. As (I originally thought that) Bernhardt talks about the inability for the digital screen to mimic the colors, texts, and how the text is mapped (though it turns out I was mistaken, I must have read that elsewhere), however these days that is hardly an issue. Digital no longer means that it is just the word-text that is digitalized. With PDFs, scans, and the vast amount of design that takes place within the infinite digital world, these concerns are almost nonexistent.

I think this also works well into discussing the value of this text and how we use it. Within his section on the interactivity of the physical and electronic text, Bernhardt writes about the interactivity of reading on a computer or other electronic screen. You are always reading something on a webpage. Whether it’s the Forward and Back buttons for navigation, the Play button on a video, or the name of the webpage itself, you are engaging in an interactive reading/functioning process. The same goes with the vast amount of writing that people do these days without even realizing it. They type text messages, they type emails, they type their name and address into forms. (Though this could be debating whether that is “writing” or not). But what is the value of that digital writing? What is the value of that reading and how we are no longer aware of it? While bringing an amazing amount of awareness about an infinite amount of topics, the Digital Age has made us unaware of a great deal of things.

In particular, I believe that the digital “revolution” is very important in the field of professional and technical writing. Not only are there that many more digital and technical things to write about, there is a mass dissemination of information in the professional and technical fields. Saying that these texts are shaped and influenced versus less professional or technical communication is tricky. I think that a good place to start within these readings is narrowing down from “text” to “professional text”.

Works Referenced

Bernhardt, Stephen A. “The Shape of Text to Come.” Central Works in Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eiola and Stuart A. Selber. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. 410-427. Print.

Robinson, Tatiana. The Physical Text versus the Electronic Text. 24 Apr. 2012. Final Paper.

I think that Bosley makes some very enlightening points regarding the mentality of the “Euro-North American” versus that of the “non-Euro-North American”. The Euro-North American’s focus on the individual, the competition involved in reaching a goal, and “the emphasis on achievement” appears faulty and superficial compared to Bosley’s non-European-North American who focuses on cooperative learning, recognition of achievement based on contribution to the whole of the group, and the importance of “quality and aesthetic” as opposed to the quantification of our virtues. (Bosely, 469)
Within the section discussing decision making, one can see the emphasis on the extroverted personality type in the Euro-North American culture. “Euro-North Americans, with their emphasis on individuality, highly regard people who make their own decisions…Americans believe they should be their own source of opinions and solve their own problems.” (Bosley, 470) To draw back to my introduction, I believe this sometimes-blindness to the Other can be a major problem within the Professional and Technical writing fields. There is a lack of awareness of how other cultures process information, how they make decisions, think, and communicate which can decrease the efficiency of a professional writing text.

In order to successfully write professionally or technically, one must be able to communicate cross-culturally. With the growth of electronic technology, there is no limit to or for whom you might be writing. The Euro-North American “world” supposes itself to be particularly social. Social networks, websites that combine all of your social media, emails sent to all corners of the globe, yet the Euro-North American is less aware of how they and “that” (^^) fits into the social structure. With this I mean that they see themselves as an individual fitting in to “The Social Network” versus how their communications over the social network might affect the network itself. I drew these tenuous conclusions from Edward C. Stewart’s thoughts on this. “Many of the actions of people in non-Western cultures can be understood as directed toward preserving and enhancing their particular position within the social structure, whereas consideration about tangible progress and improvement are secondary in importance, if present at all.” (qtd in Bosley, 469) Obviously this generalization would not stretch to every single individual within the Euro-North American world, but I wished to examine how the Euro-North American generalized culture might be arranged for this particular point.

This viewpoint is interesting however, when compared to Greg Wilson’s discussion on “Technical Communication and Late Capitalism…”. At first, I connected these two readings as similar in that they are both reaching for the awareness of the student. Though Wilson does not address cross-cultural issues, he is striving for the education of the student in such a way that the instructor can “instill agency in [their] students that fosters more flexible careers.” (Wilson, 79)

In his view, it appears he is pushing for that individualistic mode of thinking for training professional and technical communicators. I feel that he sees this as a more survival oriented approach to being a professional and technical communicator in the workplace today. “By attuning the students to the ways that modernist conception might hem their agency, we can empower them by helping them intervene  in corporate structures.” (Wilson, 78) In what ways are these “corporate structures” related to the type of collaboration Bosley refers to? How can we reach outside of the pedagogical sphere of group work in a professional/technical writing classroom to the workplace?

Wilson’s view is slightly more confined than Bosley’s, in that he is focusing mainly on technical communication and communicators. The definition of a technical communicator versus the professional communicator gathered from the English 305 PWE guide made this more clear for me; the idea that technical writing focuses on explication while professional writing is more determined to persuade. (305-2011, 1.3)  The technical writer is a more specific occupation from the more general (to me) idea of professional writer/professional communicator.

In short, I wished to examine the idea of collaboration cross-culturally through Bosley as well as consider how the awareness of others and the awareness of how we fit together contributes to the social structure or collaboration.

Bosley, Deborah S. “Cross-Cultural Collaboration” Central Works in Technical Communication. Ed. Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. pp. 466-474. Print.

PWE guides for teaching ENGL 304 & 305. (2011)

Wilson, Greg. “Technical Communication and Late Capitalism: Considering a Postmodern Technical Communication Pedagogy.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication. 15.1 (2001): 72-99. Web.

What the researchers are striving for is this ability to translate these types of visual depictions of process. In order to be useful to other writers, there must be apparent certain patterns and similarities that can be studied and replicated. This struck me as an effort to take a more qualitative method and merge it with a quantitative one. By becoming more quantitative, these types of studies could be replicated more easily by others and provide more useful information for individual writers.

From how they seem to be approaching it, I think they are thinking about it in a very real way. One specification they include for how to approach the visualization is data driven; “depicting practice in a detailed and accurate way with enough regularity to permit the emergence of visible patterns that are meaningful for understanding and, in some cases, acting strategically to change these patterns for the better.” (75) If this was successful, there could be a way to standardize the visualizations and how they are perceived. The “emergence of visible patterns” would allow for these standards to be created and allow for a more standard key of labels and assumptions for these visualizations.

In establishing categories that are both explicit and flexible, they are reaching for a better way for these patterns to be clear to both the writers who created them, and those who want to replicate them. This ability to replicate ties in well with the idea of a more-quantitative qualitative method. Perhaps they are just reaching for a better qualitative method rather than merging the two (as I would hope so that this connection could be valid), however I still find these points interesting.

Works cited:

Hart-Davidson, William, Clay Spinuzzi, and Mark Zachry. “Visualizing Writing Activity as Knowledge Work: Challenges & Opportunities.” ACM SIGDOC. (2006): 70-77. PDF.

However, I struggle with what to respond to this week. With a brief summary of each reading from this week in my head, I am still having problems tying these discussions of research methods, methodology, social constructivism, and critiques of scientists and compositionists into the effects they have on professional writing, writers, and communicators. I guess I can say that I am still finding my place within this idea of professional writing.

I think something to focus on would be How will this discussion of these readings contribute to what we are learning in a class titled “Professional Writing Theory”. What questions, comments, thoughts can I generate that will contribute to this discussion. I can obviously see the connections made within the readings and what they are discussing at great length, but i struggle to organize it in my head. I hope that this is not too informal. I am addressing you, my audience, with my concerns. Since this has to do with studying methods of studying writing, communicating, and other such technical writing studies, it feels very meta- to me. Writing about studying writing and using writing methods to describe methodology of studying professional fields of writing and communication. What exactly are these methods applied to? What are they studying? (Beyond the case study within our reading and the studies and responses read in various technical and professional writing journals up to this point…)

Attempting connections:

Within Charney’s essay on “Empiricism is not a four-letter word,” there is a connection between Theodore Porter’s study of objective methods and Kent’s idea of the discourse community. “Formalized procedures and language, including quantification, overcome physical and temporal distance, disparities of experience and background, and absence of a shared natural language.” (Charney, 288) We, as professional or technical writers (whichever we can figure out best) must be able to write and use methods of study that communicate effectively to our audience or users.

There continues the underlying theme of everything we read, this striving for better communication, better connections between those with the knowledge and those who need the knowledge, and the too-binary-struggle for power between the science and the humanity studies. This is continued into the second book reading this week, Sullivan and J.E. Porter’s “On Theory, Practice, and Method,” in that we need to find a balance, a praxis of these concepts, ideals, and fields.

Influential Works:

Charney, Davida. “Empiricism is not a Four-Letter Word.” Central Works in Technical Communication. Ed. Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. pp. 282-297. Print.

Kent, Thomas. “Paralogic Hermeneutics and the Possibilities of Rhetoric.” Rhetoric Review 8.1 (1989): 24-42. JSTOR. Web. 27 Aug. 2012. PDF.

Koerber, Amy and Lonie McMichael. “Qualitative Sampling Methods: A Primer for Techical Communicators.” Journal of Business and Technical Communications. Vol. 22, No. 4, October 2008, pp. 454-473. PDF.

Sullivan, Patrician, and James Porter. “On Theory, Practice, and Method: Toward a Heuristic Research Methodology for Professional Writing.” Central Works in Technical Communication. Ed. Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. 300-313. Print.