The importance of collaboration and consensus in the discourse production of technical communication is a significant topic in this week’s readings, regardless of the social perspective theory or view of communication theory with which we agree.  Naturally, each perspective of social theory regards the sources and functions of collaboration and consensus differently, yet the place of collaboration and consensus in technical communication is never questioned in the social view.  In “The Social Perspective and Professional Communication,” Charlotte Thralls and Nancy Roundy Blyler explain, “Because social theorists further hold that language and culture are intimately related, they share a belief in the importance of the communal” (125). Johndan Johnson-Eilola also points to the importance of collaboration in discourse production in the article “Relocating the Value of Work: Technical Communication in a Post-Industrial Age” by saying, “Collaboration helps symbolic analysts work together to solve problems while crossing complex disciplinary domains” (186).

For that reason, it is obvious why some researchers and scholars of technical communication have begun taking an interest in gender studies within technical communication because gender roles “influence how men and women relate to the demands of collaboration” (Lay 155).  Throughout her article “Feminist Theory and Redefinition,” Mary M. Lay does not argue whether or not more focus should be placed on gender roles in the field of technical communication; she simply outlines connections between distinct gender roles and collaborative demands in the workplace. Lay posits several extremely intriguing questions at the end of the article with the intent for the reader, as well as the technical communication field as a whole, to use her evidence in reflecting upon possible answers:

“In suggesting effective collaborative strategies, should technical communicators stress the similarities or differences between men and women? In doing so, can they avoid the labeling that contributes to dualistic thinking or binary opposition? Should make collaborators know that they are being encouraged to adopt what have been labeled female interpersonal traits?” (157)

In many of the readings we have already encountered this semester, scholars continue to urge us to challenge the status quo in our field.  These scholars are constantly encouraging us to challenge the norms and models that exist in the field so that technical communication can progress.  In her article “What’s Practical About Technical Writing?” Carolyn R. Miller argues, “We ought not, in other words, simply design out courses and curricula to replicate existing practices, taking them for granted and seeking to make them more efficient on their own terms, making our students ‘more valuable to industry’; we ought instead to question those practices and encourage our students to do so as well” (69).

With an understanding of Miller’s argument, I am interested in attempting the answer (or at least reflect upon) answers to Lay’s questions.  No, I don’t think it’s possible to avoid the labeling of genders if we stress either the similarities or differences between men and women in technical communication.  And no, I don’t think that we should accept the fact that collaboration favors female interpersonal traits.  By highlighting the “female traits” that are beneficial to collaboration and pointing out the “male traits” that are detrimental to collaboration, we are doing exactly what Miller urges us not to do: to recognize societal structures as they are right now and to accept, not challenge, their presence in our discipline.  Miller’s article was written several years after Lay’s, so I like to think that Miller’s argument to challenge existing technical communication practices was at least partially in response to Lay’s questions of the importance of gender roles in the field.  I’m interested to hear what others think about this topic of gender roles: “Should make collaborators know that they are being encouraged to adopt what have been labeled female interpersonal traits?” (157)

Works Cited

Johnson-Eilola, Johndan. “Relocating the Value of Work: Technical Communication in a Post-Industrial Age.” Central Works in Technical Communication. Ed. Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. pp. 176-192. Print.

Lay, Mary M. “Feminist Theory and The Redefinition of Technical Communication.” Central Works in Technical Communication. Eds. Johndan Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A. Selber. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. 146-159. 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.

Thralls, Charlotte & Blyler, Nancy Roundy. “The Social Perspective and Professional Communication: Diversity and Directions in Research.” Central Works in Technical Communication. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. pp. 125-145. Print.

 ——————————————————–

On a totally unrelated note, I have thoroughly enjoyed reading the authors’ reflective introductions to their articles in our textbook.  For example, Mary M. Lay says, “I simplified the complex thoughts if feminist scholars too greatly and certainly essentialized what I called ‘women’s concerns’” (146).  Similarly, Carolyn D. Rude notes, “If I could write it again, I would edit out some of the words, which reflect the creaking of a mind struggling to understand. The problem is more clear to me now, and I could make it more clear to readers in fewer words” (71).  The fact that even the most highly regarded scholars in technical communication look back on their work and find ways in which they could be improved, and are so open to admit that as well, is quite a testament to the ever-evolving, ever-improving nature of academic research.  We emphasize the importance of reflection in the writing process to our students but may sometimes fail to sufficiently reflect upon our own writing; seeing these scholars engage in self-reflection reminds me how important it really is.