Something that I find very interesting is how every field that I have studied and all the classes I have taken have been meshing and emerging in every other subject and field that I study. As an undergraduate I studied both English Editing and Psychology, including research methods and statistics for psychology, as well as various philosophies, literature, and art. These recent readings this week really walked the borders of all of these fields. Combining the research methods and ethnography aspects of psychology and the new idea (for me) of the technical or professional side to writing, these readings pull from many different sides of my brain.

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.