Jeremy Huston
Allen, J. "The Case Against Defining Technical Writing." Journal of Business and Technical Communication 4 (1990): 68-77.
In her article, Allen argues defining the discipline of technical communication is both practical and problematic. Allen analyzes definitions of tech comm (Dobrin included) and states that these definitions are limited by their narrow scopes. She claims that defining tech comm delimits a dynamic discipline that will grow in unforeseen directions. Ultimately, Allen contends that defining tech comm is itself futile; however, if she is wrong and we find a definition we agree upon, she posits that definition would be more expansive, inclusive, malleable, and theoretical than the ones we turn to now. Allen is dissonant to some of what we’ve read this week, lending a different perspective to the discussion. Instead of setting inflexible boundaries, it might be more beneficial to examine tech comm with more openness, based on what we naturally value in the discipline at a theoretical level. Her cookbook example alone makes the article worth reading.
Jeremy-- ok, the cookbook comment is intriguing. However, I see a problem with Allen's claims (I don't know whether she addresses this in the article): without at least an attempt at definition, at placing some type of boundaries of is/is not around meaning, doesn't the term become meaningless? I can agree that it is difficult to find an all-inclusive definition (this is back to the issues of language itself), but I would question whether it is futile. If there are not at least an agreed-upon "essence" (I know I'm sounding dangerously Platonic here) of what constitutes tech comm, how is it not lit crit or creative writing or basket-weaving? Does Allen say anything about this?
ReplyDelete--Andrea
I agree with Andrea that Tech Comm needs at least a loose definition, so it gives people in the field direction for research, and promotes a sense of togetherness, community.
ReplyDeleteI also don't think that Tech Comm is any more ill-defined than other fields of study like "biology" or "chemistry." And just because something is defined, it doesn't mean that new discoveries in the field suddenly don't belong to the field. If a chemist makes a new discovery about amino acids, she or he isn't going to suddenly stop their research because the findings overlap with biology. It's equally as faulty to assume that a definition of tech comm is going to limit future discoveries in the field, at least IMO. Granted, I haven't actually *read* the article. I'm just responding to your posting :)
'Futile' is a more powerful and less objective word than I would have liked. I was trying to keep things under the 150-word limit. Sorry for that.
ReplyDeleteBut to respond to both posts, I think it is fairest to say that Allen states that we should stop searching for a single definition and move towards a broader theoretical basis of what tech comm could possibly be; that is, she is advocating a descriptive definition as opposed to a prescriptive definition.