Annotation by Harrison Ownbey
Longo, B. (1998). An Approach for applying cultural study theory to technical writing research. Technical Communication Quarterly, 7(1)
In this article, Longo reiterates many of the points that Miller and Dobrin made in their articles, and argues that technical writing studies should be approached using techniques applied in cultural studies. Longo lists five specific methods for studying technical writing as an object:
1. Technical writing as discourse
2. Technical writing as practiced within a cultural context
3. Technical writing as practiced within an historical context
4. Technical writing as ordered by language
5. Technical writing in relation to the researcher.
In forming these subcategories, Longo makes several assumptions, which she discusses later in her article. She asserts, “good technical writing is so clear that it is invisible” and technical writing is “often characterized as a collaborative effort in which writers mediate technology for users.” Dobrin would agree with the latter statement, but Miller would disagree with the former, stating that the-tech-writing-as-windowpane analogy is inadequate.
Longo’s main point is that study methods centered around the scientific method are not as well suited for studying technical writing as study methods rooted in cultural studies. Overall, I thought this article lacked an original perspective compared to other readings we’ve done in the class.
The methods you have suggested through the article to study technical communication are very helpful. They delineate some approaches to deal with the field being extensively multi-discipinaary.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about the ideas shared in the article. There is no one right way of "doing" technical communication; so one shouldn't fall in such "overgeneralization". Doing so is such an academic "suicidal".
Harrison, I think you pinpoint a real gap in Longo's argument. While she claims this is social constructionist/ cultural study theory, a blanket statement like "good technical writing is so clear that it is invisible" seems to me to be an assumption that comes out of her bias/culture/expectations. Cultural studies, I would think, would still need to acknowledge values (and conflicts, such as defining TC) within the culture and not make blanket statements. I don't know if she's unoriginal (the piece is at the 12 year mark, so it may be representative of its time, though I agree probably not innovative for its time), but from the context you've provided us I don't know whether she is practicing what she preaches.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Andrea on the blanket statement issue. I'm curious to know how she contextualizes the five methods you've listed here, especially "technical writing as discourse." Some of us are looking at the meaning of "discourse" in another class right now, and I'd be interested to see how this relates to our discussions. Thus far, we've defined discourse as a broad usage of written or spoken language (it encompasses a lot, obviously, and there's more to it than that, but that's a very general sense). Does this author posit technical writing as a seperate language or conversation between certain cultures?
ReplyDeleteP.S. "She" in my second sentence there refers to the author of the article. Sorry for the vague pronoun usage (tsk, tsk)!
ReplyDelete