reading notes

Notes on Allen, "The Case Against Defining Technical Writing".

The easy questions:

When was it published?

1990 in JBTC.

What group of scholars is the author addressing?

Technical writing scholars (primary, I think) and practitioners (secondary, I think).

What is the genre and what type of research is the author doing?

It's almost anti-prescriptive: let's not define technical writing, because no definition will adequately describe what tech writing is. Allen focuses more on describing what definitions do -- and the impact of definition questions on tech writing -- than on describing what tech writers do.

Coming soon: The Tough Questions

Right after I have my twix bar.

What was going on in the field when the author wrote it, and how does the article reflect that conversation?

Allen's article is about what wasn't going on: No definition of tech writing had emerged as universally acceptable, despite a history of foiled attempts to create one. (!) So the STC relegated the definition problem to its academic branch c 1990.

What aspects of knowledge does the author focus on and why does the author focus on these aspects of knowledge?

Given the historical thread on defining tech. writing, Allen focuses on the thrills and perils of definitions in general and definitions of tech writing in particular.

What is the epistemological background?

A graveyard of failed definitions, from Britton and Lay's "One meaning and only one meaning"(unrealistic!) to Dobrin's "writing that accomodates technology to the user" (circular!).

What is the argument?

No definition will adequately describe technical writing: "Perhaps we should get over our embarassment at not having a definition for technical writing and abandon the search altogether".

What evidence does the author bring?

Here's why we've been trying to come up with that definition:

1) Clarify disciplinary boundaries.
2)Identify appropriate topics for research.
3) Reflect professional values (helps w/professional status).

Definition problems:

1) Inflection problem -- content-dependent definitions have to say what is technical and what is not, style-dependent definitions don't exclude, for example, Hemingway and put a devious emphasis on clarity.

2) Do we define tech writing by what it is or by what it should be -- how to assess goodness or badness of tech writing against the definition?

3) The false inform / persuade binary.

Case against defining:

Tech writing definitions reinforce:
1) False and blurry lines.
2) The science / humanities split.
3) Existing practices (can't anticipate the future, esp. of new media).

We're doing fine without a definition: our "impressionistic, experience-based" ideas of what tech writing is will suffice to keep the field intact: it would be hard to make up a definition as functional as our good, flexible and fuzzy ideas about tech writing.

What perspective does the author take?

Tacit knowledge is fine.

What perspective is missing?

With no definition, how do tech comm scholars and practitioners represent our field to interdisciplinary colleagues, prospective employers and funding agencies?

Interesting notes:

(!) The STC doesn't think that cookbooks constitute technical writing, but Allen beleives that they do. CF Gorgias, rhetoric = cookery.

(!) Bleeding-edge technical writing practices tend to forge a bridge between the sciences and humanities, even as tech. writing defintions try to enforce a two-culture split.