Many of the readings for this week focused on the tension that exists between utility-focused approaches to teaching technical writing versus humanities-focused approaches.  The utility-focused approach to teaching technical writing is primarily concerned with the vocational aspects of writing. In other words, the utility-focused approach would value a student’s ability to produce concise, effective work. On the other hand, the humanities-focused approach to teaching technical writing is primarily concerned with the formation of the (ethical and intellectual) individual.

I found it particularly intriguing that both Miller and Rutter agreed that technical writing is ultimately about the individual, and the individual’s responsibility to society. Rutter contended that the purpose of education is to “create sensible, informed, articulate citizens” (32).  These citizens could then go on to make a positive difference in the workplace.  Rutter proposed that technical writing classes could help form such responsible citizens, especially if technical communications “return[ed] to the mainstream of rhetoric and the liberal arts,” while simultaneously continuing to teach students basic document design and grammar (31).

It is interesting that Miller framed her arguments using different terms than Rutter did.  Miller maintained that technical writing is a form of the practical. Although at first glance, it may seem that Miller is supporting the utility-focused approach to teaching technical writing, she soon makes it clear that she, like Bernstein, splits the practical into “high” and “low” senses, and that she views technical writing as “a matter of conduct rather than of production, as a matter of arguing in a prudent way toward the good of the community rather than of constructing texts” (69), the “high” practical sense.

Although I agree with both Miller and Rutter that technical writing should be firmly rooted in ethics, and should be primarily concerned with serving the community at large, these conclusions leave many unanswered questions.  How, for instance, does a technical writer balance between the need to serve the public, while continuing to serve the needs of the corporation that he or she works for?  If writing technical reports is a form of rhetoric, then whose version of reality is getting represented: is it the corporation’s version, the writer’s version, or the public’s version?  Which version is truly the “best” or most ethical?  Technical writers will have to grapple with these complex issues in the present, and I suspect, in the future.

 

Miller, Carolyn. “What’s Practical about Technical Writing?” Professional Writing and Rhetoric: Readings from the Field. Ed. Tom Peeples, 2003. 61-70. Print.

Rutter, Russell. “Toward a More Comprehensive Definition of Technical Communication.” Central Works in Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Suart A. Selber. 20-34. Print.