Notes on Doheny-Farina [SDF], "The Wired Neighborhood".
Hilary's shorthand review: This book should be compressed into a zipped file.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Monday, January 29, 2007
Travel funding (rant)
First of all, I am happy for the students in Literary and Cultural Studies who were able to present at the MLA in December. I agree that your travel should be funded. But so should mine.
Both the English Dept Travel funds and the Humanitites Dept Travel funds are exhausted by conferences in lit and cult studies like the MLA, which are scheduled for earlier in the academic year. The Travel funds are exhausted by the time I am eligible to apply for funding to attend my conference (CCCC), which is scheduled in March.
When graduate students in composition, rhetoric and tech comm present our research at conferences, we travel on our own dime. I refuse to accept that this perennial, systematic slight is a mere accident of the calendar. Rather, the lack of Travel funding for students in nonacademic writing communicates a subtle message about the value of our research and professionalization : We are second-rate.
Disclaimer: I am not claiming that the Department of English should withold Travel awards from graduate students in lit and cult studies and reserve them for comp/rhet. I am trying to suggest that our administrators and supportive faculty should acknowledge the problem as a problem and find new and other sources of Travel funding for graduate students in composition.
My professionalization is getting expensive.
Both the English Dept Travel funds and the Humanitites Dept Travel funds are exhausted by conferences in lit and cult studies like the MLA, which are scheduled for earlier in the academic year. The Travel funds are exhausted by the time I am eligible to apply for funding to attend my conference (CCCC), which is scheduled in March.
When graduate students in composition, rhetoric and tech comm present our research at conferences, we travel on our own dime. I refuse to accept that this perennial, systematic slight is a mere accident of the calendar. Rather, the lack of Travel funding for students in nonacademic writing communicates a subtle message about the value of our research and professionalization : We are second-rate.
Disclaimer: I am not claiming that the Department of English should withold Travel awards from graduate students in lit and cult studies and reserve them for comp/rhet. I am trying to suggest that our administrators and supportive faculty should acknowledge the problem as a problem and find new and other sources of Travel funding for graduate students in composition.
My professionalization is getting expensive.
reading notes
Notes on C. Barabas [CB], "Technical Writing in a Corporate Culture".
The easy questions:
When was it published?
1n 1990. It's part of a series called Writing research: Multidisciplinary Inquiries into the Nature of Writing. Marcia Farr, the series editor, thinks that the book is about “literacy”.
What group of scholars is the author addressing?
Anyone who is interested in the "burgeoning" field of research on writing. MF (ed) notes that a field is a "multidisciplinary entity" focused on a set of important questions about a central concern: in this case, literacy. A discipline shares "theoretical and methodological approaches which have a substantial tradition behind them":
"If research on writing evolves into a more unified discipline, rather than remaining a multifaceted field, much will be lost from the rich multiplicity of traditions which now contribute to it" (xvii).
So much for disciplinarity. However, Barabas notes that the work is intended for a more circumscribed "heterogenous" audience: tech writing researchers, teachers and practitioners (p. xl).
What is the genre and what type of research is the author doing? Qualitative mixed-methods research: survey, dbi, ta, context-based experimental studies. CB notes that her methods are different from most research in the field of composition because it:
1) Focuses on interrelationships of writers, texts & readers (not in isolation)
2) Content-based
3) Real-world
4) Uses indigenous criteria for effective writing
(!) We don't get to the actual research until part 3.
(!) Not lots of references to the field of tech comm.
(!) Due to corporate nondisclosure rules, CB has to "contrive" the examples for her book. She notes that this is why LatourandWoolgar and KnorCetina chose to focus on drafts of published, company-sanctioned works.
The tough questions:
What was going on in the field when the author wrote it – how does the book reflect the conversation that has been taking place in the field?
Research in comp. and literacy had started to ask questions about real-world writing and writing in context, but we still didn't know very much about it.
What aspects of knowledge does the author focus on and why does the author focus on these aspects of knowledge?
TWCC is an inquiry into "what it means to write well in a corporate setting", where criteria are unclear and ambiguous. She wants to compare this to "our most cherished assumptions about writing and good writing" to make us more aware of differences btw real-world and academic settings.
What is the epistemological background? Huh. The shift to the reality of writing as it functions in the world of context(ie not in archives). Bazerman and Paradis also make this point. CB claims that this research cycles back to the function of writing at its origin, "ten millenia ago".
What is the argument?
Here are the shortcomings of comp: the emphasis on structure over substance, content and functions. The requirments and standards of writing in corporate settings are different, and teaching students to be "good academic writers" may inadvertently make them "poor real-world writers". Academic criteria linger in real-world writing, causing problems for (college-educated) real-world writers.
These are some strong claims here. It's nice that CB suggests that tech comm can tell comp. something. I think a consequence of the heightened specialization that defines tech comm apart from comp/rhet is that tech comm can't tell comp/rhet anything anymore -- tech comm has to stick to its own territory. Tell Ruth: This is a good argument for having resistant tech comm grad students (ie me) read in comp for the QE.
CB also clames that much other real-world writing research is based on a priori academic assumptions.
What evidence does the author bring?
A history of the interest in real-world writing, some research on sci and tech writing and the study.
What perspective does the author take?
CB is interested in the dissonance between academic and real-world writing.
What perspective is under-represented or missing?
How useful is this disctinction between academic and real-world writing? Zappen notices that scientific and technical writing have a lot in common depending on context. Can the same thing be said for academic and real-world writing?
Side Notes:
(!) "In our teaching of research and writing, we have gone a long way out of our wayb by ignoring the connection between writing and communication" (p. 5) .
B offers critiques of the 3 models from business / tech writing. (!) "What other skill-related disciplines, I wonder, have developed theories of proficiency by studying the abberant behavior of students?" (46).
(!) Students trained in the cognitive process model tend to take their writers on a "vicarious, cognitive journey". When they grow up, their real-world reports are structured inductively with extraneous info.
(!) It's hard to create meaningful nonacademic contexts when students know they're in an academic context.
(!) Writing is a context -- CB notes that a firm's upper won't streamline proposal writing practices, because the all-night cram sessions are exhilirating. Note: The middle-and-lower-level employees are NOT exhiliarated.
Most corporations need, but do not have, communication policies.
(!) This book seems to follow the cognitive model. I know what CB thought that made her write it (ie the dissonance between comp and corporate writing), the background for her model and her critique of earlier model. She might lose me before I get to the results.
(!) CB laments that the art of CYA is not covered in textbooks. Metis?
Corporate writers in some R&D organizations write "idea papers" .
In the organization studied by CB, only poor writers call their progress reports stories. This conflicts with something I read in Anderson, Brockman and Miller about stories.
CB concludes that the following shapes writing intentions:
1) General conceptions about comm, tech comm and what goes in a tech report.
2) Concepts that distinguish data, result and conclusion.
3) Awareness of general company expectations and guidelines.
4) Awareness of immediate directors' and supervisors' expectations and guidelines.
Academic tech writing traditionally only touches on 1 and 2. CB calls for guidelines in industry, real-world and direct contact between tech comm pedagogy and industry and covering stuff not usually dealt with in textbooks. She does not go so far as to suggest ways that students can uncover the tacit, organization-specific guidelines -- i.e. guerilla research techniques for figuring out the expectations.
The easy questions:
When was it published?
1n 1990. It's part of a series called Writing research: Multidisciplinary Inquiries into the Nature of Writing. Marcia Farr, the series editor, thinks that the book is about “literacy”.
What group of scholars is the author addressing?
Anyone who is interested in the "burgeoning" field of research on writing. MF (ed) notes that a field is a "multidisciplinary entity" focused on a set of important questions about a central concern: in this case, literacy. A discipline shares "theoretical and methodological approaches which have a substantial tradition behind them":
"If research on writing evolves into a more unified discipline, rather than remaining a multifaceted field, much will be lost from the rich multiplicity of traditions which now contribute to it" (xvii).
So much for disciplinarity. However, Barabas notes that the work is intended for a more circumscribed "heterogenous" audience: tech writing researchers, teachers and practitioners (p. xl).
What is the genre and what type of research is the author doing? Qualitative mixed-methods research: survey, dbi, ta, context-based experimental studies. CB notes that her methods are different from most research in the field of composition because it:
1) Focuses on interrelationships of writers, texts & readers (not in isolation)
2) Content-based
3) Real-world
4) Uses indigenous criteria for effective writing
(!) We don't get to the actual research until part 3.
(!) Not lots of references to the field of tech comm.
(!) Due to corporate nondisclosure rules, CB has to "contrive" the examples for her book. She notes that this is why LatourandWoolgar and KnorCetina chose to focus on drafts of published, company-sanctioned works.
The tough questions:
What was going on in the field when the author wrote it – how does the book reflect the conversation that has been taking place in the field?
Research in comp. and literacy had started to ask questions about real-world writing and writing in context, but we still didn't know very much about it.
What aspects of knowledge does the author focus on and why does the author focus on these aspects of knowledge?
TWCC is an inquiry into "what it means to write well in a corporate setting", where criteria are unclear and ambiguous. She wants to compare this to "our most cherished assumptions about writing and good writing" to make us more aware of differences btw real-world and academic settings.
What is the epistemological background? Huh. The shift to the reality of writing as it functions in the world of context(ie not in archives). Bazerman and Paradis also make this point. CB claims that this research cycles back to the function of writing at its origin, "ten millenia ago".
What is the argument?
Here are the shortcomings of comp: the emphasis on structure over substance, content and functions. The requirments and standards of writing in corporate settings are different, and teaching students to be "good academic writers" may inadvertently make them "poor real-world writers". Academic criteria linger in real-world writing, causing problems for (college-educated) real-world writers.
These are some strong claims here. It's nice that CB suggests that tech comm can tell comp. something. I think a consequence of the heightened specialization that defines tech comm apart from comp/rhet is that tech comm can't tell comp/rhet anything anymore -- tech comm has to stick to its own territory. Tell Ruth: This is a good argument for having resistant tech comm grad students (ie me) read in comp for the QE.
CB also clames that much other real-world writing research is based on a priori academic assumptions.
What evidence does the author bring?
A history of the interest in real-world writing, some research on sci and tech writing and the study.
What perspective does the author take?
CB is interested in the dissonance between academic and real-world writing.
What perspective is under-represented or missing?
How useful is this disctinction between academic and real-world writing? Zappen notices that scientific and technical writing have a lot in common depending on context. Can the same thing be said for academic and real-world writing?
Side Notes:
(!) "In our teaching of research and writing, we have gone a long way out of our wayb by ignoring the connection between writing and communication" (p. 5) .
B offers critiques of the 3 models from business / tech writing. (!) "What other skill-related disciplines, I wonder, have developed theories of proficiency by studying the abberant behavior of students?" (46).
(!) Students trained in the cognitive process model tend to take their writers on a "vicarious, cognitive journey". When they grow up, their real-world reports are structured inductively with extraneous info.
(!) It's hard to create meaningful nonacademic contexts when students know they're in an academic context.
(!) Writing is a context -- CB notes that a firm's upper won't streamline proposal writing practices, because the all-night cram sessions are exhilirating. Note: The middle-and-lower-level employees are NOT exhiliarated.
Most corporations need, but do not have, communication policies.
(!) This book seems to follow the cognitive model. I know what CB thought that made her write it (ie the dissonance between comp and corporate writing), the background for her model and her critique of earlier model. She might lose me before I get to the results.
(!) CB laments that the art of CYA is not covered in textbooks. Metis?
Corporate writers in some R&D organizations write "idea papers" .
In the organization studied by CB, only poor writers call their progress reports stories. This conflicts with something I read in Anderson, Brockman and Miller about stories.
CB concludes that the following shapes writing intentions:
1) General conceptions about comm, tech comm and what goes in a tech report.
2) Concepts that distinguish data, result and conclusion.
3) Awareness of general company expectations and guidelines.
4) Awareness of immediate directors' and supervisors' expectations and guidelines.
Academic tech writing traditionally only touches on 1 and 2. CB calls for guidelines in industry, real-world and direct contact between tech comm pedagogy and industry and covering stuff not usually dealt with in textbooks. She does not go so far as to suggest ways that students can uncover the tacit, organization-specific guidelines -- i.e. guerilla research techniques for figuring out the expectations.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
bob + goldfish
I did it: That is, I successfully composed a note replacing every "Go away! Stop bothering me!" with statements in the pattern of When you (blank) I feel (blank) because (blank).
On a side note, I love the note. While not reflective of the kind of invertebrate moaning I am prone to mock, it is not, on the other hand, one of my classic notes that reads as though penned by a random shakespearean insult generator.
Note: I may or may not send the note, viewing the note instead as an exercise for the other thing about the un or non invitation with the dinner. Isn't that what this is really about in the first place?
...
> So if you are feeling afraid or angry and you want me to know why, you could replace "Go away! Stop bothering me!" phrases like :
"I feel (insert feeling) when you (insert action) because (insert explanation)".
> OK! I feel like you are a jerk.
"I feel (insert feeling) when you (insert action) because (insert explanation)".
> OK! I feel like you are a jerk.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
pms
For the next 2 days I am designed to be depressed, puffy and mad. It doesn't matter what is going on. I could spend all day designing an imaginary aircraft fueled by an endless supply of fries or receive a memo from Margaret that an error has been discovered in the language of my contract: I'm supposed to be paid for NOT teaching. Even chanting the facts of my real life does nothing [cw: 110, diss: going great, hair: Feb. 2, sex life: yes], and plus I have bad dreams.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
(!)
"Rhetoricians and hindus are the same in one essential regard. Hinduism holds that everyone is hindu, and rhetoricians hold that everything is rhetorical". In Dombrowski, Humanistic Aspects of Technical Communication.
section 002
Prior to teaching I feel like I will never again be in bed watching High School Musical and that, from the State Hall window, my apartment may as well be in Africa.
Monday, January 22, 2007
stick figures in history
How stick people first migrated into American technical documents:
Sir, I will thank you very much if you will get introduced onto my Draught, a Figure of a Miller standing at the Spout A. viewing the wheat as it runs from the Waggoners Bag --
stooping a little resting hiself with his left hand on the side of the Spout, with his right hand full of wheat looking attentively at it this is the Millers Business in Real Practice and in my opinion will greatly adorn the Drought and convey a Striking Idea".
I am Sir with much Esteem
Your Humble servt
Oliver Evans [1791, qtd. in Brockman, 1998]
Unzipping in Linux
$gzip -d decompresses a zipped file in linux.
There is no untar command. Do
tar -xvvf foo.tar
or
tar -xvvzf foo.tar.gz.
Comment here if this post [found in a google search] helped prevent violence against computers.
There is no untar command. Do
tar -xvvf foo.tar
or
tar -xvvzf foo.tar.gz.
Comment here if this post [found in a google search] helped prevent violence against computers.
Friday, January 19, 2007
reading notes
Notes on Markel, "Ethics in Tech Comm".
tags: BORING.
The easy questions:
When was it published?
2001, as part of ATTW studies in Technical Communication.
What group of scholars is the author addressing?
Technical communication practitioners, teachers and researchers.
What is the genre and what type of research is the author doing?
Markel calls the book "A critique and synthesis".
What was going on in the field when the author wrote it – how does the book reflect the conversation that has been taking place in the field?
Lots of people had talked about rhetoric, tech comm and ethics. But there were 3 problems:
1) Ethics is conceived so broadly that it loses its connection to the study of values and conduct.
2) Ethics is conceived as a critique of capitalism.
3) Ethics is equated with ethos.
What aspects of knowledge does the author focus on and why does the author focus on these aspects of knowledge?
To move beyond the rigid ideas suggested above, Markel sugests ways of looking at and talking about ethics -- not ethical heuristics.
What is the epistemological background?
Markel discusses the history of ethical theory as a logical, evidence-based enterprise: rights - based theories, utilitarian theories, transitional ideas and contemporary approaches. Ethics is important in rhet. (i.e. rhetoric entails action) and especially in tech. comm, when discourse is geared toward producing action.
What is the argument?
Ethics is not an abstract theory but a practical art.
Ethics is related but logically prior to rhetoric.
Values in action, the most sophisticated ethical perspective, derives from the history of philosophical ethics.
Business ethics can tell us stuff.
Ethical conversations work best in an open conversation involving all stakeholders.
What evidence does the author bring?
Markel's work is more exploratory, inviting the reader to think through case studies and hypothetical though experiments.
What perspective does the author take?
Two-part framework for thinking through ethics:
Determine the most ethical course of action [abstract]
Determine the most available ethical course of action [concrete]
Use discourse ethics to hold the conversation and the utility-rights-justice-care model to evaluate alternatives. [note: the urjc model will be applied differently by different stakeholders and lead to conflicted results].
What perspective is under-represented or missing?
Why not look at ethics as an inventional art -- take a step back and look at how people generate alternative courses of action, rather than just think through the available options?
tags: BORING.
The easy questions:
When was it published?
2001, as part of ATTW studies in Technical Communication.
What group of scholars is the author addressing?
Technical communication practitioners, teachers and researchers.
What is the genre and what type of research is the author doing?
Markel calls the book "A critique and synthesis".
What was going on in the field when the author wrote it – how does the book reflect the conversation that has been taking place in the field?
Lots of people had talked about rhetoric, tech comm and ethics. But there were 3 problems:
1) Ethics is conceived so broadly that it loses its connection to the study of values and conduct.
2) Ethics is conceived as a critique of capitalism.
3) Ethics is equated with ethos.
What aspects of knowledge does the author focus on and why does the author focus on these aspects of knowledge?
To move beyond the rigid ideas suggested above, Markel sugests ways of looking at and talking about ethics -- not ethical heuristics.
What is the epistemological background?
Markel discusses the history of ethical theory as a logical, evidence-based enterprise: rights - based theories, utilitarian theories, transitional ideas and contemporary approaches. Ethics is important in rhet. (i.e. rhetoric entails action) and especially in tech. comm, when discourse is geared toward producing action.
What is the argument?
Ethics is not an abstract theory but a practical art.
Ethics is related but logically prior to rhetoric.
Values in action, the most sophisticated ethical perspective, derives from the history of philosophical ethics.
Business ethics can tell us stuff.
Ethical conversations work best in an open conversation involving all stakeholders.
What evidence does the author bring?
Markel's work is more exploratory, inviting the reader to think through case studies and hypothetical though experiments.
What perspective does the author take?
Two-part framework for thinking through ethics:
Determine the most ethical course of action [abstract]
Determine the most available ethical course of action [concrete]
Use discourse ethics to hold the conversation and the utility-rights-justice-care model to evaluate alternatives. [note: the urjc model will be applied differently by different stakeholders and lead to conflicted results].
What perspective is under-represented or missing?
Why not look at ethics as an inventional art -- take a step back and look at how people generate alternative courses of action, rather than just think through the available options?
reading notes
Notes on Markel, "Ethics in Tech Comm".
tags: BORING.
The easy questions:
When was it published?
2001, as part of ATTW studies in Technical Communication.
What group of scholars is the author addressing?
Technical communication practitioners, teachers and researchers.
What is the genre and what type of research is the author doing?
Markel calls the book "A critique and synthesis".
What was going on in the field when the author wrote it – how does the book reflect the conversation that has been taking place in the field?
Lots of people had talked about rhetoric, tech comm and ethics. But there were 3 problems:
1) Ethics is conceived so broadly that it loses its connection to the study of values and conduct.
2) Ethics is conceived as a critique of capitalism.
3) Ethics is equated with ethos.
What aspects of knowledge does the author focus on and why does the author focus on these aspects of knowledge?
To move beyond the rigid ideas suggested above, Markel sugests ways of looking at and talking about ethics -- not ethical heuristics.
What is the epistemological background?
Markel discusses the history of ethical theory as a logical, evidence-based enterprise: rights - based theories, utilitarian theories, transitional ideas and contemporary approaches. Ethics is important in rhet. (i.e. rhetoric entails action) and especially in tech. comm, when discourse is geared toward producing action.
What is the argument?
Ethics is not an abstract theory but a practical art.
Ethics is related but logically prior to rhetoric.
Values in action, the most sophisticated ethical perspective, derives from the history of philosophical ethics.
Business ethics can tell us stuff.
Ethical conversations work best in an open conversation involving all stakeholders.
What evidence does the author bring?
Markel's work is more exploratory, inviting the reader to think through case studies and hypothetical though experiments.
What perspective does the author take?
Two-part framework for thinking through ethics:
Determine the most ethical course of action [abstract]
Determine the most available ethical course of action [concrete]
Use discourse ethics to hold the conversation and the utility-rights-justice-care model to evaluate alternatives. [note: the urjc model will be applied differently by different stakeholders and lead to conflicted results].
What perspective is under-represented or missing?
tags: BORING.
The easy questions:
When was it published?
2001, as part of ATTW studies in Technical Communication.
What group of scholars is the author addressing?
Technical communication practitioners, teachers and researchers.
What is the genre and what type of research is the author doing?
Markel calls the book "A critique and synthesis".
What was going on in the field when the author wrote it – how does the book reflect the conversation that has been taking place in the field?
Lots of people had talked about rhetoric, tech comm and ethics. But there were 3 problems:
1) Ethics is conceived so broadly that it loses its connection to the study of values and conduct.
2) Ethics is conceived as a critique of capitalism.
3) Ethics is equated with ethos.
What aspects of knowledge does the author focus on and why does the author focus on these aspects of knowledge?
To move beyond the rigid ideas suggested above, Markel sugests ways of looking at and talking about ethics -- not ethical heuristics.
What is the epistemological background?
Markel discusses the history of ethical theory as a logical, evidence-based enterprise: rights - based theories, utilitarian theories, transitional ideas and contemporary approaches. Ethics is important in rhet. (i.e. rhetoric entails action) and especially in tech. comm, when discourse is geared toward producing action.
What is the argument?
Ethics is not an abstract theory but a practical art.
Ethics is related but logically prior to rhetoric.
Values in action, the most sophisticated ethical perspective, derives from the history of philosophical ethics.
Business ethics can tell us stuff.
Ethical conversations work best in an open conversation involving all stakeholders.
What evidence does the author bring?
Markel's work is more exploratory, inviting the reader to think through case studies and hypothetical though experiments.
What perspective does the author take?
Two-part framework for thinking through ethics:
Determine the most ethical course of action [abstract]
Determine the most available ethical course of action [concrete]
Use discourse ethics to hold the conversation and the utility-rights-justice-care model to evaluate alternatives. [note: the urjc model will be applied differently by different stakeholders and lead to conflicted results].
What perspective is under-represented or missing?
2007 ATTW Acceptance Letter
Dear Hilary Ward:
On behalf of the ATTW, I am happy to invite you to present the panel titled "The Work of Anti-Discourse through Technology Use: From the Virtual to the Professional and the Mundane" at the 10th annual conference in New York City on Wednesday, March 21, 2007. Ultimately, fewer than 50% of proposals could be accepted this year.
Now that your proposal has been selected, you will have to prepare a conference paper on a topic in which you are no longer interested. Upon completion of the conference paper you will either: 1) go on an airplane to NY with Francie and Jessica or 2) go on a road trip to NY with Francie and Jessica. Har! Ellen may also be on the plane.
Please don't kill yourself. It looks bad to the ATTW when a funded student dies in her first semester of candidacy status.
Sincerely,
2007 ATTW Program Chair
On behalf of the ATTW, I am happy to invite you to present the panel titled "The Work of Anti-Discourse through Technology Use: From the Virtual to the Professional and the Mundane" at the 10th annual conference in New York City on Wednesday, March 21, 2007. Ultimately, fewer than 50% of proposals could be accepted this year.
Now that your proposal has been selected, you will have to prepare a conference paper on a topic in which you are no longer interested. Upon completion of the conference paper you will either: 1) go on an airplane to NY with Francie and Jessica or 2) go on a road trip to NY with Francie and Jessica. Har! Ellen may also be on the plane.
Please don't kill yourself. It looks bad to the ATTW when a funded student dies in her first semester of candidacy status.
Sincerely,
2007 ATTW Program Chair
Thursday, January 18, 2007
reading notes
Notes on Faber, "Professional Identities: What's professional about professional communication?"
The Easy Questions.
When and where was it published?
2002 in JBTC.
What group of scholars is the author addressing?
The readers of JBTC, or researchers (and teachers) who are interested in what Duin and Hansen would call "nonacademic writing". I wouldn't say that the article's primary audience is "just professional communication scholars / practitioners", because 1) It's too fuzzy of a field and 2) "Professional communicators" do not exist as a separate profession.
What is the genre and what type of research is the author doing?
Hmm. I'd call it "A critical discussion of professional identity". That's what Faber calls it. Is a "discussion" a valid genre of research?
The article has an empirical section about the meaning of professional communication in JBTC, JBWC and TCQ.
The Tough Questions
What was going on in the field when the author wrote it – how does the article reflect the conversation that has been taking place in the field?
Professional communication was a catchall phrase for workplace/business writing, and did not focus on or explore interesting issues like professional status and the process of professionalization.
What aspects of knowledge does the author focus on and why does the author focus on these aspects of knowledge?
Faber focuses on:
1) How researchers have used the term "professional communication" to describe the rhet. of professionals who communicate.
2) Institutional and content conflicts between rhetorical scholarship and professional powers.
3) Current issues: deprofessionalization and proletariatization.
The above focii help us to more deeply investigate the concept of professionalization.
What is the epistemological background?
What is the argument?
If professional communication research and teaching are going to be viable, professional communication scholars need to be aware of the conceputal underpinnings of professional work.
What evidence does the author bring?
Articles suggesting that professional communicators are distinct from workplace writers in their special relationship w/ a specific and known audience, social responsibility and self-reflexive ethical awareness.
What perspective does the author take?
What perspective is under-represented or missing?
The Easy Questions.
When and where was it published?
2002 in JBTC.
What group of scholars is the author addressing?
The readers of JBTC, or researchers (and teachers) who are interested in what Duin and Hansen would call "nonacademic writing". I wouldn't say that the article's primary audience is "just professional communication scholars / practitioners", because 1) It's too fuzzy of a field and 2) "Professional communicators" do not exist as a separate profession.
What is the genre and what type of research is the author doing?
Hmm. I'd call it "A critical discussion of professional identity". That's what Faber calls it. Is a "discussion" a valid genre of research?
The article has an empirical section about the meaning of professional communication in JBTC, JBWC and TCQ.
The Tough Questions
What was going on in the field when the author wrote it – how does the article reflect the conversation that has been taking place in the field?
Professional communication was a catchall phrase for workplace/business writing, and did not focus on or explore interesting issues like professional status and the process of professionalization.
What aspects of knowledge does the author focus on and why does the author focus on these aspects of knowledge?
Faber focuses on:
1) How researchers have used the term "professional communication" to describe the rhet. of professionals who communicate.
2) Institutional and content conflicts between rhetorical scholarship and professional powers.
3) Current issues: deprofessionalization and proletariatization.
The above focii help us to more deeply investigate the concept of professionalization.
What is the epistemological background?
What is the argument?
If professional communication research and teaching are going to be viable, professional communication scholars need to be aware of the conceputal underpinnings of professional work.
What evidence does the author bring?
Articles suggesting that professional communicators are distinct from workplace writers in their special relationship w/ a specific and known audience, social responsibility and self-reflexive ethical awareness.
What perspective does the author take?
What perspective is under-represented or missing?
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.
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.
reading notes
Notes on Miller, "A humanistic rationale for tech writing".
The easy questions:
When was it written and published?
1979 in College English -- but is anthologized and cited all over the place.
What group of scholars is the author addressing?
Technical communication teachers as well as a wider audience of general people (especially comp. people) in college English departments.
What is the genre and what kind of research is the author doing?
The genre is prescriptive : Miller wants to trade a positivist perspective on tech writing for an overt consensualist one. It's also critical -- the tech comm view of science and technology doesn't match the science and technology view of science and technology.
The hard questions
What was taking place in the field when the author wrote it, and how does Miller's essay reflect the conversation that was taking place in the field?
Miller grounds her essay in a local event -- an English dept. debate about whether tech. writing satisfies a humanities requirement. But surely this debate was not isolated. By 1979, technical writing had moved from engineering departments to the English departments in which tech writing programs are now most often housed. English departments were struggling to figure out how tech writing fit in and to determine its value. Likewise, tech writing was aspiring to "disciplinary respectability" (Miller -- I would call it legitimacy) and aimed to move beyond its status as a skills course.
What aspects of knowledge does the author focus on and why does the author focus on these aspects of knowledge?
Miller focuses on aspects of technical communication that have humanistic value and aligns these aspects of tech comm with the New Rhetoric. This helps tech comm claim legitimacy w/in English departments and social centrality as a field -- tech writing is equivalent to, and participates in, the work of technology and science.
What is the epistemological background?
Spanning the ancient Greek philosophers to the extremely logical positivism of the early 20th century, scientists held a positivist view of science (Aristotle, Whitehead and Russell, Korzybski). Now scientists hold a consensualist view of science (Kuhn, etc -- Miller calls this the "new epistemology"). So it would be cool for tech. writing to adopt the consentualist perspective.
What is the argument?
Tech writing has humanistic value, and pedagogy can throw this value into sharp releif by trading the positivist perspective for a consensualist one.
What evidence does the author bring?
The positivist view has put some holes in tech. writing as a discipline, leaving only "self-deprecation" at the center:
Unsystematized definitions of tech writing, emphasis on form and style at the expense of invention, insistence on certain characteristics of tone and analysis of audience in terms of "level".
Each of these holes creates problems that can be redressed with the consensualist view. I'm too tired to explain.
What perspective does the author take?
A consensualist view of tech writing.
What perspective is under-represented or missing?
Miller notes that the positivist view of tech writing is still held by scientists and technology people in industry. If tech writing teachers adopt a consensualist perspective, what conflicts might arise as tech writers enter the workforce -- and what are some strategies for reconciling these 2 perspectives so that people can write their documents in peace?
Interesting notes:
According to Miller, scientific and technical writing are different because they're associated with different and differently-structured communities: overlapping disciplinary (science) and i/o beaurocratic (technology).
I seem to remember that some other guy takes issue with this idea-- but who? And why?
The easy questions:
When was it written and published?
1979 in College English -- but is anthologized and cited all over the place.
What group of scholars is the author addressing?
Technical communication teachers as well as a wider audience of general people (especially comp. people) in college English departments.
What is the genre and what kind of research is the author doing?
The genre is prescriptive : Miller wants to trade a positivist perspective on tech writing for an overt consensualist one. It's also critical -- the tech comm view of science and technology doesn't match the science and technology view of science and technology.
The hard questions
What was taking place in the field when the author wrote it, and how does Miller's essay reflect the conversation that was taking place in the field?
Miller grounds her essay in a local event -- an English dept. debate about whether tech. writing satisfies a humanities requirement. But surely this debate was not isolated. By 1979, technical writing had moved from engineering departments to the English departments in which tech writing programs are now most often housed. English departments were struggling to figure out how tech writing fit in and to determine its value. Likewise, tech writing was aspiring to "disciplinary respectability" (Miller -- I would call it legitimacy) and aimed to move beyond its status as a skills course.
What aspects of knowledge does the author focus on and why does the author focus on these aspects of knowledge?
Miller focuses on aspects of technical communication that have humanistic value and aligns these aspects of tech comm with the New Rhetoric. This helps tech comm claim legitimacy w/in English departments and social centrality as a field -- tech writing is equivalent to, and participates in, the work of technology and science.
What is the epistemological background?
Spanning the ancient Greek philosophers to the extremely logical positivism of the early 20th century, scientists held a positivist view of science (Aristotle, Whitehead and Russell, Korzybski). Now scientists hold a consensualist view of science (Kuhn, etc -- Miller calls this the "new epistemology"). So it would be cool for tech. writing to adopt the consentualist perspective.
What is the argument?
Tech writing has humanistic value, and pedagogy can throw this value into sharp releif by trading the positivist perspective for a consensualist one.
What evidence does the author bring?
The positivist view has put some holes in tech. writing as a discipline, leaving only "self-deprecation" at the center:
Unsystematized definitions of tech writing, emphasis on form and style at the expense of invention, insistence on certain characteristics of tone and analysis of audience in terms of "level".
Each of these holes creates problems that can be redressed with the consensualist view. I'm too tired to explain.
What perspective does the author take?
A consensualist view of tech writing.
What perspective is under-represented or missing?
Miller notes that the positivist view of tech writing is still held by scientists and technology people in industry. If tech writing teachers adopt a consensualist perspective, what conflicts might arise as tech writers enter the workforce -- and what are some strategies for reconciling these 2 perspectives so that people can write their documents in peace?
Interesting notes:
According to Miller, scientific and technical writing are different because they're associated with different and differently-structured communities: overlapping disciplinary (science) and i/o beaurocratic (technology).
I seem to remember that some other guy takes issue with this idea-- but who? And why?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)