An Awaited Introduction to the Theory
Last Tuesday, before our class meeting ended, Dr. Jones asked everyone if they’d had the chance to ask any questions they had about professional/technical writing, rhetoric, or anything else pertaining to the material that would be covered in this course. I chose not to speak up, thinking that my question – which was “what, exactly, is technical writing?” – was somewhat silly. I assumed the texts we would be reading during the upcoming week would answer the question.
Unfortunately, there seemed to be few explicit definitions of technical writing to gather from the assigned articles. A potential definition was found in “The Rise of Technical Writing Instruction in America”. That definition proved problematic, though; when Robert J. Connors cites W. Earl Britton’s definition of technical writing, one of the three essential aspects of rhetorical situation, audience, is missing. Before I continue, I think it is important to note that Connors does not at any point endorse Britton’s definition as applicable to this day and age’s field of technical communication. The reason why this definition is still curious is because Russell Rutter, who considers technical writing the domain of rhetoric, lists “audience” as one of the vital parts of a course on rhetoric (31). With such discrepancies between the articles in the consideration of a technical document’s audience, one might assume that the inclusion of rhetoric into a definition of technical writing is not essential. I was able to find a suitable definition at some point, though. Carolyn R. Miller’s claim that “technical writing is the rhetoric of ‘the world of work’” served as the most encompassing, and discrete, definition provided of all the articles, and it even had the word “rhetoric” included (70).
There at least seemed to be some common threads woven amongst the articles. One of those threads was the concept of binaries. Miller provided a list of binaries common to many discussions of technical writing in her article “What’s Practical about Technical Writing?” (67). Patricia Sullivan questioned the validity of a binary presumably existing in technical writing pedagogical history that supposedly materialized following World War I. Connors mentions many binary factions that opposed each other during the development of the field.
Another common thread was the harshness of the language characterizing the camps entangled in those binaries. Those who viewed technical writing in a utilitarian fashion, according to Miller’s analysis of Connor’s historical work, considered the pursuit of literary study a form of “leisure” (65) and “idle speculation” (67). The word “genteel”, which its high-minded connotations, litters Sullivan’s article (206, 208, 218). English professors suffered the indignity of sexist remarks from their more practically minded students (Connors).
Though it took me a while to find the answer to my question from last week, I did find myself enjoying this week’s reading material, and greatly anticipate reading more critiques of the field. Rutter and Miller’s focus on the ethics of technical communication fascinated me, as ethics is a topic that’s essential to any field, particularly one that consists of so much rhetorical theory. Rutter’s implication of the failings of technical communication in the Challenger explosion really piqued my interest. Furthermore, the readings I’d done prior to the semester, some of which were taken from the textbook because I had received it in the mail the week before classes, not only gave me a fuzzy idea of what technical writing might be, but got me excited about the broadness of the field: Technical writing, which oftentimes includes instructional materials, could, surprisingly, even include arts and crafts instructions (Durack)!
Works Cited
Connors, Robert J. “The Rise of Technical Writing in America.” Central Works in Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eiola and Stuart A. Selber. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. pp. 4-19. Print.
Durack, Katherine T. “Gender, Technology, and the History of Technical Communication”. Central Works in Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eiola and Stuart A. Selber. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. pp. 35-43. Print.
Miller, Carolyn R. “What’s Practical about Technical Writing?” Professional Writing and Rhetoric: Readings from the Field. Ed. Tim Peeples. New York: Longman, 2003. PDF.
Rutter, Russell. “History, Rhetoric, and Humanism: Toward a More Comprehensive Definition of Technical Writing.” Central Works in Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eiola and Stuart A. Selber. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. pp. 20-34. Print.
Sullivan, Patricia. “After the Great War: Utility, Humanities, and Tracings From a Technical Writing Class in the 1920s.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication 26.2 (2012): 202-228. PDF.
In a previous course, discussion of where Professional Writing/Composition and Rhetoric belonged in the university happened on a weekly basis. Each of us had to lead a class discussion during the course, so I went with a different approach. To better understand the argument of where it belonged and why, I had the class members pretend that they were part of a university board and came from different backgrounds so that they could discuss it more practically than theoretically. They first had to decide what they thought was important to teach, what to call the course, and what department if it belonged in, possibly its own. What I learned from this exercise is that as professional writers and lovers of composition and rhetoric, even we can’t decide where we most appropriately “belong.”
How do we as professional writers define ourselves and our purpose and our need? How do use rhetoric to explain rhetoric to others? Every form of writing is a persuasion. Therefore, every person needs to be informed on how to professionally communicate and persuade others to believe that their writing has purpose and is true. Professional writing and Rhet/Comp belong in absolutely every part of the university because the skills are necessary in every trade. They are practical skills, valuable in some way in all career paths.
“For the most part, the channels these mechanisms create are one-way: influence flows primarily from nonacademic practices to the academy. The gradient is reflected in the language at the industry-university interface, which includes, on the one hand, “demand,” “need,” “value” and, on the other, “re- sponse,” “service,” “utility,” (Miller 66). So then, all departments in a university need to have these courses offered. They need to be teaching their students these skills. Unfortunately, too many students are coming out of the university setting not understanding the rhetoric is not just something politicians use, it’s a way of making other people believe in their work. It’s a way for doctors to write about clinical trials and persuade other doctors about using new methods. It’s about writing articles that present real issues in a way that others can’t ignore. It’s everywhere, and it belongs everywhere. We just happen to be the specialists, whatever that actually means.
“A liberal education makes a person more-not less- useful in a professional setting because it teaches that person to value ideas more than facts and systems and because it confers powers of persuasion and empathy without which cooperative endeavors remain impossible,” (Rutter 24). If we as the specialists and teachers, could help others understand the importance of this part of communication, we could give students the skills they need to be creating the future. We teach essay format, we try to help them with proper grammar, we explain ethos, pathos, and logos with some success, but how do they apply these ideas to their own practical needs?
I do believe that everyone is rhetorician. Each simple sentence contains something that is persuasive. It may seem extreme, but our body language, our tone of voice, our word choice is all based upon an audience and what we’re trying to get them to understand. Therefore, it seems that professional writing and rhet/comp should be a major part of every individual’s communication. It’s how we learn and how we grow – by believing in new ideas.
Miller, Carolyn R. “What’s Practical about Technical Writing?” Professional Writing and Rhetoric: Readings from the Field. Ed. Tim Peeples. New York: Longman, 2003. PDF.
Rutter, Russell. “History, Rhetoric, and Humanism: Toward a More Comprehensive Definition of Technical Writing.” Central Works in Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eiola and Stuart A. Selber. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. pp. 20-34. Print.
Will, I have also been searching for explicit definitions of technical writing to share with my students. Even the textbook I’m using doesn’t provide a definition; although the textbook is titled Technical Communication, the first chapter uses the term “workplace writing.”
I did find a helpful article in the departmental guide for new 305 instructors. In “Will Professional Communication Be the Death of Business Communication?”, Locker argues that “professional communication” is blurring the distinction between business and technical communication.
This is how she defines technical communication: “The archetypical problem in technical communication is represented by blinking 12:00s on VCRS across America. People want to record programs, but they don’t know how to set the time. So technical writing attempts to explain. Technical communication focuses on exposition. One assumes a motivated but ignorant and perhaps impatient audience. How can one make information clear?” (129).
Hope this helps.
Locker, Kitty O. “Will Professional Communication Be the Death of Business Communication?” Business Communication Quarterly 66.3 (2003): 118-132. Communication and Mass Media Complete. Web. 27 Aug. 2012.