Jeremy Huston
Bushnell, Jack. "A Contrary View of the Technical Writing Classroom: Notes Toward Future Discussion." Technical Communication Quarterly 8 (1999): 175-88.
Since Thayer had an opinion on Allen that I didn't find completely accurate, I decided to see how well he characterized Bushnell, seeing how I was interested in his definition of TC. So here we go.
In this article, Bushnell advocates for a separation between corporate interests and TC practices as they are taught in the classroom, pushing for a change that includes what is effective in the workplace as opposed to the hegemony of “what the boss wants” that is often taught in the classroom. Speaking from his experience in the industry, he details how the hegemony is perpetuated through scholarly work and states that a better model would be one that recognizes TC documents not as neutral manifestations of truth, but as structured, value-laden artifacts of a specific discourse community. He argues that we should teach students to question these paradigms so that they will not just learn how to belong to a discourse community, but “how to shape that community” (184, emphasis in original).
Contrary to Thayer’s commentary, I think Bushnell is not just trying to define TC at industry’s expense; Bushnell’s admits that a radical separation from the corporation is not completely possible because of the demands, exigencies, and expectations of academia, the professional world, and students. Rather, I think that Bushnell is pushing for a different definition of TC so that students can function better in the workplace by being able to recognize, question, and manipulate paradigms in the workplace. I also think he even advocates for a critical pedagogy that might even advance future evolution of the field in case the structure changes around that definition. I don’t think Thayer gives Bushnell enough credit. And I know I just commented on my own annotation, but I think it was justified, given that this is a primary source that we have already read about.
Sorry about the missing hyperlink. I’ll fix that soon. Also, please forgive any wacky formatting. I am trying to learn HTML for another class and am using this as an additional trying ground.
First, I like your style. It is readable and inviting ... personable. I found this to be so true that I was actually enticed to go and find the article, just so I could read it more closely myself. Thanks for that.
ReplyDeleteImplicit in Bushnell's argument is the position that successful Technical Communicators in the corporate world will operate as professionals who communicate; their writing/communication is a supporting mechanism that facilitates their primary business purpose. This stands in opposition to the concept of those who may work primarily as professional communicators whose writing/communication (artifact) is their product.
Based on our class discussion last week, I believe this distinction is an important one. Certainly I agree that the university has an obligation to develop critical thinking, reasoning, and ethical decision-making in the students with whom the public has entrusted it. Even so, I have yet to understand how a professional communicator can be practically successful if she/he is regularly editorializing a communication work using a personal value system that may stray from the values of the corporate institution. In the case of these individuals, I lean toward a position that supports their professional success by training them to produce the most excellent and effective corporate 'hegemony.'
In contrast, the communicating professional seems much more prone to benefit from the type of "subversive" teaching described by Bushnell. In one's role as a professional who actively leads, directs, and personifies the corporate values, the subsversively trained professional will be equipped with communication processes and practices that will cleverly and strategically shape the corporation to achieve its own best health and longevity. Indeed, this is precisely what professionals are ideally hired to do: to even suppress their own personal best interest (or personal values) for the longer-term good of the corporate entity.
Our classroom discussion touched momentarily on the differences between TC as a certificate, as an associates' degree, bachelors' program, or as a research-oriented doctorate. Such a discussion seems particularly germane to an understanding of the larger discipline; it may be useful and appropriate to expect (or even engineer) a university's TC programs to produce graduates whose competencies (and their resulting professional trajectories) move up the spectrum from 'professional communicator' toward 'communicating professional' as their academic achievement moves from certificate toward PhD.
Thanks for the complement. Unless it is an ironic statement of undying malice for drawing you into reading something you didn't have time for. In that case, my bad.
ReplyDeleteSeriously though, I have the same trouble reconciling the goals and values of the academy and the institution. It seems to me (and PLEASE correct me if I'm getting this wrong) that you are saying that the level of education is what determines how theoretically we instruct/define TC in the institution. This idea (even if it is nothing more than my faulty interpretation of your idea) leads then to the corporate construction of TC where the BAs learn how to be cogs, whereas the PhDs become the ones who lead the way and break new ground. The MAs fall somewhere in between. Maybe managers, I don't know. I would like to see how to theorize this further because, heaven forbid, any of us might design a TC program at a university based on this discussion. Now, I'm not trying to say that this is bad or good, I'm just saying that this model is one that must be considered based on our discussions, readings, and what we know of the field. Do you think the current academic model endorses this view of professional communicator to communicating professional? Maybe you could spin that into your program analysis, too. So, in short, I think you're on to something and thanks for the compliment.
LOL ...
ReplyDeleteSO true about the availability of time (and about my own time management skills). No malice intended, at least not the undying type. ;)
As for the "model" we're discussing, I don't know either (about it being good or bad) ... which raises more questions for me:
1. Is reconciling these parts even possible?
2. Is reconciliation of these conflicting aims even the goal for which we should be aiming?
3. What might it look like to move beyond ... toward integration and synthesis?
4. Does this line of thinking make any sense?
5. If so, surely we're not the only ones who have distilled the conversation like this ... are we?
Where learning outcomes are some operationalized variable that differ between the TCR degree program levels, I do think they (the outcomes and levels) might provide valuable structure and content for a comparative analysis of programs. Thanks for the suggestion ... I'd not yet thought that far forward.