12/8 discussion notes

Hi all! Hope you're excited for the end of the semester. I feel like the train is going 90 miles an hour with about 50 feet of track left, and I know I'm not the only one who feels like that.

I struggled to connect the two readings. One discusses sci-fi and TC, and the other discusses the value of TC in the information age. Both readings dealt with the goals of TC, and how our goals may need to change to shape the field. Here are some general questions to throw into the air, with possibly no effect.

What are other TC myths and goals? What are other sci-fi myths and goals? How have those ideas shaped the field? How do they inform the works we read?

What is the difference between how technology communicates with a user and the technical artifact itself?

How does considering the broader social purposes and contexts of a user reframe the role of a technical communicator?

Who wants cookies?

We will be looking through some science fiction and some job postings as opposite ends of the fantasy/reality spectrum of TC.

Job sites:

http://jobs.stc.org/c/search_results.cfm?site_id=360

http://www.techwritingjobs.com/tech-writing-jobs.php

As we look over these jobs, think about them in terms of Johnson-Eilola's classifications of routine service workers, in-person service workers, and symbolic-analytic workers. What kinds of jobs are most common and what does this mean in a larger context?

Finally, we'll talk about a few more sci-fi myths and how they might inform the field. I want to briefly discuss Neuromancer and Little Brother. Feel free to reference any sci-fi work that you're a fan of. This discussion may or may not digress into quoting scenes from Logan's Run. Does Killingsworth's essay about using sci-fi as a testing ground for theory help TC as a field? Does sci-fi relocate the value of TC work?

Thanks and enjoy the last day of classes!

Another article I have read that someone else wants to know about

As per Dan's request, here is the citation for the article that I mentioned in class. I'll add the link later.

Graves, H. B., & Graves, R. (1998). Masters, slaves, and infant
mortality: Language challenges for technical editing.
Technical Communication Quarterly, 7(4), 389-415.

Also, for those who don't want to read the article to see if they want to read the article, below is an annotation given by Erika Bronson, a former classmate with whom I collaborated on a bibliographic resource project last winter/spring.

"Graves and Graves explore the numerous, often unnoticed
and sometimes offensive, occurrences of figurative language
in technical and scientific writing. Citing research in linguistic
theory and the rhetoric of science, they argue that the way
we use language helps to shape our understanding of reality.
Because technical writing is often viewed as 'objective' and
value-free, one responsibility for technical editors is to challenge
unquestioned, metaphorically-derived language choices in the
documents they edit. By initiating these discussions, technical
communicators, both in the workplace and the classroom, can
start to 'uncover assumptions embedded in a document that
we, as a society, may want to reconsider and change' (410).
As such, this article is an invaluable read for comprehensive
technical editors." (annotation by Erika Bronson, March 2009)

I'm sure I got the attribution wrong somehow but at least I'm giving her credit.

Screen-Based Text and Interfaces

Hi all-

Even though these two articles for today are quite outdated, we can still apply the ideas in them to the 21st century and the current technologies that exist today. We can use the ideas and notions in each article to look at screen-based text and computer interfaces that exist today. And in the spirit of previous classes, we'll have some group interaction time that will directly apply these ideas to these existing technologies.

Depending on the number of people in class tonight and personal preferences, we can have either 2 or 3 groups. Each group will take on the role of investigating one of these current technologies: Facebook, Microsoft Word, The Apple Website, or another site of personal preference.

We will use the ideas present in each article as tools to investigate these technologies, texts, and interfaces. With that in mind, we will look at how the technologies display the screen-based text through Bernhardt's nine dimensions of variance. We will also use Selfe and Selfe's article to investigate how the technologies, texts, and interfaces construct mappings and structures of privilege through a variety of means. Then at the end of the investigation we'll come back together in one group and discuss our findings and see if these ideas on screen-based text and computer interfaces are still valid in today's technologies.

A couple of general questions and expected random tangents will lead the rest of discussion tonight:

Bernhardt

1. Considering this article was written in 1993, how do you think text has been shaped since then? What changes have occurred in the way we present screen-based text and what impact do these new technologies have on our understanding of the text on screen?

2. Bernhardt states that screen based text is “tightly embedded in the context of situation; it is more likely to be bound up as a part of ongoing activities.” Does this hold true today? If so how does screen based text function this way? Can’t we read screen-based text independent from our situation now, much like paper text? Has technology changed this?

3. Bernhardt says that reading situationally embedded text is more like using text instead of reading it. What do you think he means by this? Are we users of text instead of readers of text?

4. Bernhardt takes issue with the modularity of screen-based text, especially when one has to scroll down to continue reading. Is this still a problem in today’s screen-based text?

5. How can we use Bernhardt’s nine dimensions of variance between paper text and screen-based text to understand how we view screen-based text as it appears today? Are these dimensions still relevant, and if so, how? Also, have any new variances been created by the creation of new technologies such as e-readers, e-books, online sites like scribd and online databases?

Selfe and Selfe

1. Again, considering this article was written in 1994, how have interfaces changed since then? Is this article still relevant to the way we view and understand the intersection between computer interfaces and power/privilege?

2. Selfe and Selfe are concern with how computer interfaces create structures and maps of power that privilege certain people and certain classes over others. They trace theses mappings of privilege through notions of capitalism and class, discursive modes and practices, and rational and logical thinking. Can you think of how these mappings are reflected in today’s computer interfaces? Have we made progress in decolonizing the computer interface, or are these structures and maps still prevalent today?

3. Selfe and Selfe also provide suggestions on how to remove these mappings of privilege in computer interfaces. Do you find their suggestions applicable and workable? One suggestion is to become a technology critic that is critically aware of these mappings and structures of privilege through being educated about these technologies. Do most Universities and sites of teaching train their teachers to use these technologies and provide instruction on issues with the technology and how they “touch on educational projects” or “on the growing body of scholarship and research?”

4. How can we use Selfe and Selfe’s article to understand how computer interface’s mappings and structures of power privilege people today? Also, by understanding these issues of privilege in these interfaces, how can we overcome or resist these forces today? What changes need to be made to overcome this?

Reports and Electronic Copyright

Unfortunately, these two articles did not provide a whole lot of overlap, so we'll be working with two very different topics during class. The following are not meant as lecture notes or discussion questions (sorry), but prompts for class activities.

How many articles on ethnography used as a methodology to study corporate culture in technical communication and rhetoric are there in JSTOR from January 2005 to November 2010?

*Please take detailed notes during your group’s data retrieval and report discussion.
JSTOR: www.jstor.org

Questions for the group:
1. How did you retrieve the data? What knowledge about the database did you have to learn before/while you were running the report?
2. What process did you use to select data for use in your report?
3. What rhetorical decisions, specifically, did your group discuss when composing your report?

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Electronic Copyright:

Each group take a scenario. Read the original scenario and the author’s response and note the problems/complications or strengths of the interpretation. Then, skim the “Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998” (only section pertinent to your scenario):

http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf. Does the DMCA clarify copyright laws for the scenario? How so (or how not)?

I look forward to seeing you in class tonight.

Kate

11/10 Discussion (Class Overview)

1. Survey (15 minutes). This essay comes from:
   

   Dragga, Sam. “"Is This Ethical?": A Survey of Opinion on Principles and Practices of Document Design.” Technical Communication 43.3 (1996): 255-265. Print.
   



2. Small group discussion/ Discussion of survey and ethical implications (2 groups of four) – (15 minutes)


3. Go over survey results (10 minutes)


4. Contextual questions about readings– (30 minutes)
   
   
   
   • How are these two works in conversation with each other?
   
   
   • What are/where are the fundamental frictions?
   
   
   • Are these readings different from others that broach the subject of ethics? If so, how?
   
   
   • What is/are the envisioned role(s) of technical communicators in Katz and Dragga and Voss? (Transmitter, Translator, Articulator?)
   
   
5. Close reading questions – (15 minutes)
   
   
   
   • Katz – Erin:
     
     
     
     • As far as the Holocaust document being a “nearly perfect document” in terms of technical communication, do you agree that the style of the document promotes a shift in responsibility from the writer and reader to the ethos of the organization “whose voice they now speak with”? This is window-pane, transmission style of technical communication – upon reading the framework of ethics (in regard to the Holocaust) as provided by Katz in this article – is “Just” still to blame?
     
     
     • What, then, is an ethos of expediency in Katz’s terms? Where do we draw the line? Where is the line between humanism and getting things done in organizations? Do ethics only matter when they concern themselves with possible loss of life (i.e. Ford Pintos, Pan Am Flight 103, the Challenger explosion, the Holocaust)?
     
     
     
     
   
   
   • Voss and Dragga – Andrea:
     
     
     
     • How was TC ethics approached before this article? What did it involve?
     
     
     • Are these pies "cruel"? How? What might be a conflicting stance?
     
     
     • How effective (or expedient) do you think are the proposed approaches are? "There might not be an appropriate graphic or text/ graphic solution for every case of an inhumane illustration. It is therefore also important to keep in mind that, though technical communicators are typically encouraged to incorporate visuals, using no graphics would be clearly superior to displaying cruel graphics" (272). See Weather.com | iCasualties
     
     
     
     
   
   
6. Transitional question – “The question for us is: do we, as teachers and writers and scholars, contribute to this ethos by our writing theory, pedagogy, and practice when we consider techniques of document design, audience adaptation, argumentation, and style without also considering ethics?” “Do our methods, for the sake of expediency, themselves embody and impart the ethic of expediency?” (10 minutes)


7. STC Code of Ethics (30 minutes)


8. What does all this mean for us as future teachers of tech com? (5 minutes)
   
   

Cruel Pies and the Humanistic Approach in Technical Communication

Reading the news as I usually like to do when I get tired, I came across this article that explains how it is beneficial not to take a daily shower.
What intrigued me most is the point the author makes about cosmetic industry pushing us to believe that a daily shower is important but indeed they want us to buy their products.
There are a couple of charts that illustrate what Andrea is talking about this evening. I leave room for interpretation open for you all.
I apologize for the article is in French. Please do have a look and use good translate.

I mentioned three articles last night. Here they are if you are interested in further reading. I've also read quite a bit of articles, so if want other sources for other stuff, just let me know.

The ethics article:

Allen, L., & Voss, D. (1998). Ethics for editors: An analytical decision-making process. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 41(1), 58-65.

The rose diagrams (and it's recent!):
Brasseur, L. (2005). Florence Nightingale's Visual Rhetoric in the Rose Diagrams. Technical Communication Quarterly 14(2), 161-182.

And here's Ong:
Ong, W. (1982). Print, Space and Closure. In Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word, (117-138). London: Routledge.

Let me know if any of these links don't work. And let me know if I can't post that Ong link, even thought it is for academic purposes. It's available through the library, so it should be fine. In any case, the citations are correct (enough) to get you to the right stuff if the links aren't functioning properly.

Roles and Power

We've talked a lot about TC roles in the classroom and in industry. As you think about Slack, Miller, and Doak and Barton and Barton, think back on the ideas we've gleaned from other readings and how they might apply. If you have the time, it might be helpful to pull a line or two that you underlined or noted before as we try to connect that to the new readings and expand upon them.
Some questions to consider:

• How do we create our roles and how do we normalize them?
• Who is empowered by our roles and our creation of them? Who has a say in that creation?

And one I'm sure you all want to see again...

• What is technical communication?

We won't necessarily discuss these questions, but it would be helpful to review them. Take a quick look at your notes/the course schedule and decide who answers these questions and how they give us a foundation for understanding roles, power, knowledge construction, identity, and definition as we see them in the two articles for tomorrow.

Here's hoping that somebody actually reads this.

Knowledge: How do technical communicators construct knowledge?

Hello,

Our class discussion this time will take a practical turn although still grounded in theory. In discussing how TC constructs knowledge, we ponder on the different methodological approaches used and we gauge their validity and reliability. Thus, while reading the scheduled articles, bear in mind those guiding questions. We will use them to moderate our class discussion:

1)What’s the author’s thesis?

2)What questions does she raise?

3)How does she answer them? What are her arguments?

4)What counter arguments does she present or can you present against her claims?

To come up with professional critical ideas -- conclusive or speculative – try also to think on commonalities and divergence in both articles

The following are excerpts from our readings which I though present central idea of the articles. Tell us in class what you think:

Blyler

Who has the privilege of determining what empowerment and emancipation mean in a given situation?

Who has the power to decide the nature and direction of social changes?

Charney

Drawing on philosophical, historical, and rhetorical studies of science, the very qualities that the critics most object to in science work are those that afford the most productive communal discussion. Conversely, the qualities that the critics most laud in subjectivist methods may also inhibit our ability to attain the intensive cooperative focus we need for defining and solving disciplinary problems.

You can also look for examples of research that you think is genuine and proves/disproves what it claims to do or else research twisted for other agendas other than those it states. Examples do not have to be academic; you can bring examples from your leisure readings or documentaries you watched.

Looking forward to starting the discussion with you,

Khouloud Khammassi

Hey folks--
I told you I would share my journal analysis. I have posted it on my blog (http://katetcrnotes.blogspot.com/2010/10/5371-journal-analysis.html) so please feel free to take a look. A warning though, I did not fix grammar (so I don't want to hear about it) and more pie graphs didn't come through. However, if you really want to see the entire product, I don't mind sending you a .pdf.

RE October 20: One Summary of Sullivan & Porter

The Classroom Interaction

After the break we decided to return and process the remaining article as one large facilitated group working initially as synchronously composing dyads.

The Actual Output

We had one final collaborative output.

Real Time Collaboration and Synthesis of Dyadic Contributions

Synopsis

The basic gist of the article is this …
Concepts such as “theory,” “practice,” and methodology are socially constructed; therefore, “research methodology should not be something we apply or select so much as something we design out of particular situations and then argue for in our studies” (301).

Defining a research method as theory or practice keeps research in the realm of “academic” (theory) or workplace (practice). The merging of these methodologies should illustrate a symbiotic relationship between the academy and industry. Method is a pattern of action based on observation of theory or context--the pragmatic aspect of life.

Research methodology is (or should be) heuristic, i.e., learning by discovery. Multi-modality serves as a partial answer because theoretically it stitches together the different methodologies in a more comprehensive and iterative research approach. The downside to this is that it can complicate the balance of theory, practice, and methodology by overemphasizing methodology; also, a multiplicity of methodologies limits one’s ability to develop the requisite familiarity for effective use.

The authors are moving away from the binary of theory and practice and instead argue for a praxis where methodology, theory, and practice are equal parts of triangulation.

Methodology itself is also considered theory and because of this it becomes problematized and researchers need to consider how methodology operates in the context of practice and theory.

All of these aspects of the triangulation model should be considered in relation to the ongoing social construction process, which me might call a heuristic. The authors provide a case study which demonstrates the dangers of privileging a specific aspect of the praxis over the other aspects.

Implications for researchers include: more flexible terms for research types or categories, be open to new/different theories of method, be self-critical of the methodologies themselves and how they are used.

Theory, practice and method should be utilized in research methodology, and that rhetoric/argumentation justify using particular methods in particular situations. They warn against leaning too far in one category or the other. They admit that the three categories should not be diametrically opposed, but rather integrated into a whole, and justified by rhetoric.

Noteworthy Quotes

• “We cannot just uncritically accept research methods as given to us in a ‘valid’ form by the social sciences” (312).
• “Theory alone, by its very nature as abstraction, as generalization, cannot account completely for the situational, the specific instance of practice. That is not to dismiss theory, but simply to say that it ought not be perceived as all-determining or all-explaining” (303).
• “A writer can never know precisely what the reader will bring to the communication setting. Here is the limit of theory” (303).
• “The limitation of the practice warrant is the difficulty of arguing the should from the is” (304).
• “Our study of the developing documentation writer demonstrates that we always apply some kind of rhetorical orientation or critical judgement; we always observe practice through the lens of some kind of rhetorical theory, whether we are conscious of it or not” (225)#
• “Theory itself is a type of practice and always already involved in the practices of both the researcher and writer being studied. From the other side, practice cannot be atheoretical, though it can be unconscious of its theory” (306).
• “Methodological rules are socially constructed as well as situationally adjusted as they are invoked” (308).
• “We can accept these frameworks as given by the community or we can argue to the community that one or more particular frameworks, justifiably reshaped by this situation, provide helpful filters/guides for this, and perhaps other, workplace research. Our preferred approach is the second, which we call methodology as praxis” (310).

Issues Addressed/Assertions Made

1. Traditional View
1. Theory explains practice
2. Practice is observed by methodology
2. Proposed View
1. Theory describes (organizes and generalizes) the practice.
2. Theory points to new practices.
3. Practice disciplines the theory
4. Methodology is a dynamic set of heuristic filters through which we view practice
3. Praxis is phronesis: prudential thinking, informed thinking or conscious practice.
4. Research Methodologies
1. Method-Driven Research
   Method must be problematized (choice of method and judgement of quality)
2. Problem-Driven Research
1. Practice
2. Theory
3. Problematized Research
1. Multi-modal
2. Praxis
5. Question the “validity” of accepted research forms. (312)
6. “Approach research as praxis, as a design activity involving the construction of a method worked out from the intersection of theory and situation” (312).

Making Meaning

Well folks, we ran out of time to fully digest the process and the content.

To fully realize the value of these interactions will require participants to process reflectively and post their own observations on their construction of knowledge here in the form of comments. I hope they'll all consider doing so.

References

Sullivan, P., & Porter, J. E. (2004). On Theory, Practice, and Method: Toward a Heuristic Research Methodology for Professional Writing. In J. Johnson-Eilola & S. A. Selber (Eds.), Central works in technical communication (pp. 300-316). New York: Oxford University Press.

RE October 20: Three Summaries of Harrison

The Setup

Following the initial posting, some of the class participants provided the following raw content to facilitate the group activity for the evening:

Synopsis

The basic gist of the article is this ...

a rather repetitive statement that writing is context and that the context in organizations is not the same as writing in classroom context.

Most Important Quotes

1. “Writing in organizations differs from that done in classrooms in that, as initially experienced by the writer, the organizational context is unknown” (Harrison, 2004).
2. “It appears that the process of writing in organizational contexts is quite different from what occurs in classroom contexts” (256).
3. “Studying the process of writing as it occurs in organizational life ... might establish more precisely the nature of any interrelationships between organizational processes and composing” (256).

Questions/Specific Topics for Classroom Discussion in October 20

1. How would you respond to Harrison’s own critique of her work in retrospect as to its derivative nature, then concluding, “But with the benefit of advanced age and many subsequent attempts to theorize, I realize now that the primary activities of communication theorists are to derive and synthesize” (255)?
2. What particular strategies might take Harrison’s advice by better equipping, “their students with analytic capabilities that will guide them in this particular writing context” (256)?

The Classroom Interaction

So we had three groups:

1. Real Time Collaborators. Instructed to process and compose online synchronously via GoogleDocs.
2. Bottleneck/Gatekeepers. Instructed to allow one member to type while others contributed verbally.
3. Total Freedom. No constraints on process.

The Actual Outputs

And we had three initial outputs.

Group 1: Real Time Collaborators

Writing takes place in a socially constructed milieu-- often in an organization that is a “culture-like” phenomenon. Therefore, the discipline should rhetorically analyze its exchanges in organizational contexts, using the lenses of “Organization as Systems of Knowledge” and “Organizations as Patterns of Symbolic Discourse” to inform our research, practice, and pedagogy.

... OR IN FRENCH [just for fun] ...

Rédaction a lieu dans un milieu socialement construit - souvent dans une organisation qui est une «culture comme" phénomène. Par conséquent, la discipline devrait rhétorique analyser ses échanges dans des contextes organisationnels, en utilisant des lentilles de "Organisation des systèmes de connaissances et les organisations comme des modèles de discours symbolique" d'informer notre recherche, la pratique et la pédagogie.

Group 2: Gatekeeper/Bottleneck

Context as situation: rhetorical situation doesn’t incorporate what the organization is about

Context as community: encompassing dynamics and rituals and discourse of organization.

Organization as systems knowledge and symbolic patterns

1. Systems of knowledge: evolutionary and social information processing
2. Evolutionary: idea of organization as whole not focused on individual
3. Social Information processing: thinking is linked to action, Analysis of what they think is how they act.

Patterns of symbolic discourse: part of organizations have a defined way of talking about things.

Implications for research: we need to think about organizations when doing research on communication: i.e. don’t look at the document, look at people behind it.

Group 3: Total Freedom

Organizations present specialized contexts different from the classroom. They can be analyzed in terms of culture and rhetorical contexts. Analyzing organizations in this way can illuminate “constructed realities” both in organizations and other social communities. Organizations are rhetorical contexts with their own discourse and epistemologies which are mediated by the culture of the organization. Analyzing organizations also helps writers assign meaning within the context of the organization. Teachers should emphasize the audience and culture within organizational contexts and that (by extension) the analysis is a valuable rhetorical asset to understanding writing in these contexts.

Making Meaning

By comparing and contrasting the processes utilized in and content created by the different composition groups, we sought to thoughtfully analyze and become aware of our own variations in standards of discourse and the implications of these variations in our individual and collective meaning-making processes.

To fully realize the value of these interactions will require participants to process reflectively and post their own observations on their construction of knowledge here in the form of comments. I hope they'll all consider doing so.

References

Harrison, T. M. (2004). Frameworks for the Study of Writing in Organizational Contexts. In J. Johnson-Eilola & S. A. Selber (Eds.), Central works in technical communication (pp. 255-267). New York: Oxford University Press.

October 20 Discussion Guide: Knowledge: How do technical communicators construct knowledge?

For October 20, we are reviewing only two articles (see the full references below).

The learning objective for this class focuses us on exploring the construction of knowledge, particularly as this is done by technical communicators. The question we are exploring is,

"How do technical communicators construct knowledge?"

This question specifically targets the knowledge construction of technical communicators, which may be difficult without first examining the human process of constructing knowledge. Before we are able to discuss or even see clearly what our authors are saying, it seems that a broader initial approach may be valuable. As an educator whose students previous experiences have been (generally) akin to swallowing someone else's knowledge whole, I relish every opportunity to help them learn how to chew, savor, and fully digest knowledge on their own.

This is one of my favorite topics and I hope you will fully engage in and enjoy the process we're using this week to learn about knowledge construction through a collective analysis and composition experience, followed by our classroom discussion. So here's the plan:

1. Spend 00:04:30 watching an online commentary on undergraduate learning through collaborative composition: http://youtu.be/dGCJ46vyR9o
   
2. Spend 00:04:34 watching an online summary video on how our digital composition, organization, and distribution mechanisms are fundamentally changing the ways in which we communicate, compose, and collaborate: http://youtu.be/NLlGopyXT_g
3. Spend 00:02:51 watching an online video about what GoogleDocs is and the fundamental ways of how it works: http://youtu.be/eRqUE6IHTEA
4. Participate actively in the following GoogleDocs
• Collaborative Review of Sullivan & Porter Article
• Collaborative Review of Harrison Article
5. Come prepared to enjoy the ensuing discussion.
6. Watch the keynote referenced below, beginning at 00:13:10 and consider Wesch's triangle of knowledge-ability versus Sullivan & Porter's triangle of praxis in research.
7. Comment here to continue the interaction and extend our class beyond its typical time/space constraints.

References

Harrison, T. M. (2004). Frameworks for the Study of Writing in Organizational Contexts. In J. Johnson-Eilola & S. A. Selber (Eds.), Central works in technical communication (pp. 255-267). New York: Oxford University Press.

Sullivan, P., & Porter, J. E. (2004). On Theory, Practice, and Method: Toward a Heuristic Research Methodology for Professional Writing. In J. Johnson-Eilola & S. A. Selber (Eds.), Central works in technical communication (pp. 300-316). New York: Oxford University Press.

Wesch, M. (2010, June 24). Knowledge-able. Opening Plenary presented at the STLHE Annual Conference 2010, Ryerson University. Retrieved from http://j.mp/wesch_at_ryersonon_2010-jun-24. Skip to 13:10 for beginning of actual presentation.

Maylath, Bruce, Jeff Grabill, and Laura Gurak. “Intellectual Fit and Programmatic Power: Organizational Profiles of Four Professional/Technical/Scientific Communication Programs.” Technical Communication Quarterly 19.3 (2010): 262-280. Web.

Article looks at UWisc-Stout, Michigan State, UMinn, and ND State U.

Authors' Abstract:

Do programs in technical communication thrive when administered in English departments or in other configurations of administrative units? This article examines the variations in professional, technical, and scientific communication programs at four universities across the north central U.S. The first three programs have histories that led them to be housed at increasing distances from their universities' English departments. The fourth is a nascent program emerging in its university's English department.

Columbia University Professor Email

Columbia Writing Professor Sends World's Haughtiest Email to Former Students

http://gawker.com/5651154/columbia-writing-professor-sends-worlds-haughtiest-email-to-former-students

CFP: Research Network Forum at CCCC

I strongly recommend applying for this, especially if you don't yet have any conference experience. Scholars of all levels participate, but it's a particularly nice entrée into the conference world for newbies -- a (more) gentle way to present your ideas-in-progress and get feedback, while also getting a line on your CV. I participated as a grad student one year, and last year I took part in the Journal Editor presentations and talked to participants about submission guidelines and recommendations for TheJUMP. Ask me if you have questions.

Research Network Forum 2011 in Atlanta
Wednesday, 6 April 2011

The October 31st deadline to propose a Work-in-Progress Presentation
at the Research Network Forum is quickly approaching.

Don’t miss out on the excellent opportunities to network with other
researchers in your area, to discuss your ideas with fellow scholars,
and to learn from our plenary speakers Kathleen Blake Yancey and Mike
Palmquist.

In order to participate as a Work-in-Progress Presenter, Discussion
Leader (established scholars), and/or Journal Editor please go to
http://www.rnfonline.com/blog/.  Once there, please fill out the
Participation Form, and for those participating as a Work-in-Progress
Presenter also fill out the Proposal Form.

Participation in the RNF is free to all registrants of CCCC, and you
may have a speaking role at RNF in addition to one at CCCC.

Most attendees present or discussion lead in both the morning and
afternoon sessions.  If you are only able to attend one session,
please make sure you let us know when you fill out the e-form so we
can schedule people correctly.  We are happy to accommodate people so
that they may attend a 1/2 day workshop in the morning or afternoon
and spend the rest of the day with RNF.

If you have any questions, please contact us at chairs@rnfonline.com.

We are looking forward to seeing you in April!

Risa Gorelick and Gina Merys
Chairs, RNF at CCCC 2011

Inventing the Election: Civic Participation and Presidential Candidates' Websites"

Kate Crane

I realize this seems a bit different from the rest of your focus on articles for the week, but I thought it would be interesting to look at how Technical Communication contributes to the study of informal/civic discourse (one of my interests).

Dadas, Caroline E. “Inventing the Election: Civic Participation and Presidential Candidates’ Websites.” Computers and Compositions. 25.4 (2008): 416-431.

Dadas looks at the extent to which websites from the 2008 presidential election helped to engage voters in civic discourse. She examines each website by the level of participation each allows its users. She breaks these levels down into three categories: Robust, Moderate, and Superficial. Dadas examines three websites from April 15, 2007 to January 6, 2008: Barack Obama’s presidential campaign website, John McCain’s presidential campaign website, and Mitt Romney’s campaign website. Her findings are as follows. Barack Obama’s website was robust in that it allowed users to be “creator, planners, producers, and designers” (424). Participants could create their own webpages from the site, plan events, and connect to social networking tools, thus giving them agency within the campaign. John McCain’s site was evaluated as moderate. Users of the site were given opportunity to take surveys and post questions/responses to the campaign thus giving the campaign feedback from constituents; however, the site did not provide users with the same control over the technology as Obama’s site did. Mitt Romney’s website was evaluated as superficial. User’s did not have the opportunity to create or personalize the site to meet their needs; rather “the Romney website seems more focused on maintaining a carefully crafted image” (428). This analysis provides a leading discussion not only to how digital rhetoric and electronic media can create agency in civic discourse, but Dadas also concludes that having students use such a schema prepares them to begin engaging in civic discourse.

Originally, I worried about the objectivity of this analysis; however, Dadas does a nice job of defining the criteria for which she would evaluate the website. This article inspires me to think about and look for other ways that we could engage people in public discourse using these new tools. Many people have claimed that one of the reasons Obama won the presidency was because of his ability to use the web, social networking, etc., to build a support base from younger generations. By using the web, a new demographic was reached and inspired. How might we use technology to bring more people back into the realm of civic discourse to discuss important issues in our society?

Sex Differences in Online Navigation

Stenstrom, E., Stenstrom, P., Saad, G, & Cheikhrouhou, S. (2008). Online hunting and gathering: an evolutionary perspective on sex differences in website preferences and navigation. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 51(2), 155-168.

Annotation by Harrison Ownbey

This article examines the different cognitive systems men and women use to locate information. It uses a Darwinian perspective to explain how each sex navigates space. It hypothesizes that each sex applies their evolutionary psychology to digital and online spaces as well, then it tested that hypothesis with a mock website.

Darwinian models for psychology assume that men primarily hunted while women primarily gathered, and each sex evolved distinct navigational habits for managing their tasks. Males tracked their prey across long distances and then had to find the most direct route home, whereas females collected various foods close to home. Thus, males navigate more using their “internal compass” whereas women navigate using landmarks. The authors use the hunter/gatherer paradigm to explain more phenomena, such as why females have superior object location recall, why males talk less (remaining silent during the hunt), why females perceive color more accurately (avoiding poison plants), and why males have better 3-D object rotation (throwing spears).

The results of their study show that males prefer “deeper” websites (websites with more sublevels). Results are inconclusive about what females prefer. “Wide” websites (websites with all data laid out at once) delayed both male and female task completion time.

I’m skeptical about many aspects of this article, but I’m particularly unsure that online navigation parallels physical navigation.

Where is our discipline being formed, and what affects does that have?

Reflections on Technical Communication Quarterly, 1991-2003: The Manuscript Review Process
Mary M. Lay (University of Minnesota)
Technical Communication Quarterly.13(1). 109-119. 2004. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

“Reflections on Technical Communication quarterly, 1991-2003: The manuscript Review Process” by M. M. Lay reports the history of establishing the journal of Technical Communication Quarterly. Lay reports that the Association of Teachers of Technical Writing (ATTW) has changed its official journal from the “Technical Writing Teacher” into “Technical Communication Quarterly” to reflect the changes in the Association and the field itself. According to Lay, ATTW members are not only interested in academic writing but also in speaking and visual design; thus, the journal should touch on such details and even update its own design. As Technical Communication has been shaping up as its own discipline, the content of the journal representative of ATTW (which has altered from The Technical Writing Teacher to Technical Communication Quarterly) changed to cover more pragmatic application of Technical Communication. Therefore, one can find materials about advertising, marketing, computers, medical applications, etc. In other words one can conclude that Technical Communication has made a jump into different fields that require communications at different level. It is also possible to say that other disciplines have had recourse to Technical Communication to survive (As Tech Comm is by definition interdisciplinary). Such alteration are documented even by the reviw process. In dealing with the editorial reviews which is the focus of this article, Lay emphasizes the interest of TCQ’s editorial on research and empirical support for the writer’s arguments. This speaks for the exactness of the field especially that it draws on all disciplines’ research strategies and findings.

I have tried in this post to highlight the change in Tech Comm through TCQ because I felt that it is an accurate mirror of the change that the field from being writing-based to being more open to other disciplines and applications in real life.

What's Practical about Technical Writing?

Linda Gilmore

Carolyn R. Miller, "What's Practical about Technical Writing?" Technical Writing Theory and Practice (1989):  15-27

In 1979 Carolyn R. Miller wrote the article, "A Humanistic Rationale for Technical Writing," in which she challenged the purely scientific perspective of technical writing; a perspective she calls the "positivist view of science" (p. 49).  This perception of technical writing is one devoid of emotion, purely objective, and ultimately utilitarian.  In an effort to persuade her audience that technical writing has the potential to be considered for Humanities credit at her university, Miller argues that technical writing contributes to the understanding of a community, and should be viewed through the lens of a new epistemology, "...based on modern developments in cultural anthropology, cognitive psychology, and sociology" (p. 51).

Ten years later Miller is still arguing for a broader perception (definition?) of technical writing in her article, "What's Practical about Technical Writing?"  This time, however, her focus is the very definition of the word "practical" and how this definition influences technical writing.  According to Miller, there is a low and high sense of practical.  The low sense implies, "The practical man... who knows how to get along in the rough and tumble of the world" (p. 15).  The high sense, however, "concerns human conduct in those activities that maintain the life of the community" (p. 15).  By its very nature, technical writing is more closely associated with the low sense of practical; a useful tool with which to get the job done.  However, Miller argues that technical writing can also be associated with the high sense of practical, "Understanding practical rhetoric as a matter of conduct rather than of production, as a matter of arguing in a prudent way toward the good of the community, rather than constructing texts..." (p. 23).  Ultimately, Miller is still advocating a broader perspective of technical writing; one that encompasses both techne and praxis, both knowing-how and knowing-that.

Usable Pedagogies

Schneider, Stephen. "Usable Pedagogies: Usability, Rhetoric, and Sociocultural Pedagogy in the Technical Writing Classroom." Technical Communication Quarterly 14.4 (2005): 447-467.

Daniel Reifsnider [sorry for the long post!]

In this article, Schneider examines existing sociocultural pedagogies within the technical writing classrooms, and offers a new sociocultural pedagogy that should be incorporated as well: usability pedagogy. Building upon the work of scholars such as Steven Katz, Carolyn Miller, Thralls and Blyler, and Kelli Cargile Cook, Schneider claims that a shift in technical communication pedagogy must now include sociocultural concerns that must be placed “at the center of our teaching,” and that their work, “have led to the foregrounding of sociocultural concerns within the field of technical communication.” Using this work of sociocultural pedagogy in the classroom, Schneider offers the discourse of usability as “another potent vehicle for approaching sociocultural issues in the technical writing classroom.” By incorporating usability theory within the sociocultural pedagogy of technical communication, Schneider argues that usability theory will offer new ways to look at social and political aspects of technical documentation and design, as well as provide a pedagogical framework that is specific to the field.

Schneider focuses on two approaches of usability: user-centered design and distributed usability. He defines user-centered design as, “the idea that the best product-design principles are those that support user needs and expectations,” and distributed usability as, “a design approach that creates an open physical and organizational space where designers, engineers, users and usability professionals meet and work alongside each other.” He places these two approaches next to each other because he argues that the conversation between the two grounds discussions of technology and technical communication. He then goes on to demonstrate how each approach can be used to explore and critique the design and function of classroom technologies, specifically “A New Global Environment for Learning”, which is Penn State University’s course management system.

Through this exploration and critique, Schneider shows how, particularly the distributed usability approach, can enrich the technical writing classroom by allowing teachers to foreground the networks that exist within technical communications. These networks consist of human actors and also technical systems and artifacts, “that support the goals and activities of a given network.” Schneider then argues that by placing such importance on the communication and relationships within technical communication, distributed usability models foreground the ecological aspects of technical communication as well. It is precisely these ecological aspects, he argues, that provide technical communication instructors, “the means to approach communication as a practice that emerges from various political, cultural, technical, institutional, and economic contexts.”

I think this article is interesting because it displays how our technical writing classrooms are a function of sociocultural pedagogies that allow us to learn within the social, political, and economic contexts that surround the field. I believe it is always important to consider the framework that surrounds the field, because it allows us to view the field as a part of the greater world and not just a static entity separated from the world around it. Pertaining to the topic of the week, these sociocultural pedagogies, especially the pedagogy of usability, helps demonstrate where the field is being developed, and the effects that it has on both the field and the world around it.