Bemer, Amanda Metz. "Technically, It’s All Communication: Defining the Field of Technical Communication." Orange Journal of Technical Communication and Information Design 6.2 (2006).
Daniel Reifsnider
In this article Bemer discusses the need for a definition for the field of technical communication, while at the same time pointing out the problems that arise when a definition is placed on the field. Bemer argues that the “schism between practitioners and academics truly exists” and that this “binary structure” lies at the heart for our need for a definition. Working through the Jo Allen article, “The Case Against Defining Technical Writing,” Bemer structures her articles first with a section on the limitations and problems that arise when attempting to define the field: limitations such as the “evolving nature of communication makes defining our work a foolhardy task and that the field is simply too broad and complex to dare limit.” Bemer then moves on to discuss the purposes for a definition, the methods than can be used to come to a definition, and lastly a call to the field to seek out a definition for itself.
While this article doesn’t necessarily come to any sort of conclusion or offer up a definition of itself, it does help to realize the importance and the purposes for a definition. Even though Bemer is “a graduate student and relative newcomer to the field,” her argument for a definition for the field is persuasive and it helps emphasize the need for one. Also, this article is helpful by acknowledging the criticism from those who see a definition for the field as hopeless, and are arguing against it. Ultimately, Bemer sees the need for a definition through the schism that has occurred, and she is fighting for a definition that will cast aside that schism and unite us under one banner. While this does seem corny I think most of her reasons are valid and just. However, there are the occasional places in the article where it seems she is just arguing for a definition so that she’ll have something to tell people when they ask her what technical communications is. Overall though, this is a helpful article in seeing the need for a definition for the field, and the methods that she puts forth can be helpful in eventually coming to an agreed definition.
One of Bemer's reasons for tech comm needing a definition of is the divide between academic and professional writing. I understand that the two camps often develop in different directions, but I wonder why Bemer chose to say that the divide is "binary?" Is this a rhetorical move? Because in my naive understanding of the field, I don't understand why a piece can't be both academic and professional simultaneously. Then again, corporations often guard their research as a trade secret. I wonder if that's one of the reasons for the divide.
ReplyDeleteThe argument that communication is constantly changing and therefore impossible to define is highly ironic to me. A communication field should be able to communicate its purpose and its goals. It may be a constantly changing definition, and it may not be easy, but it is necessary to at least try to establish one.
On a practical level, however, practitioners in the field communicate for such different reasons that a universal definition may be impossible, especially in the face of globalization, etc.
The versatility and diversity that has broadened the field of technical communication to being more than just explaining technical or scientific stuff to people is contributing to all of this consternation over coming up with an all inclusive definition. Isn't it ironic that the aspects of technical communication that make it what it is, and that makes it so attractive to certain kinds of people, are the very things that make it so difficult to define?
ReplyDeleteDaniel, I read this article, too (I thought about using it as my annotation and then found another I liked a bit better). In regard to your statement -- "However, there are the occasional places in the article where it seems she is just arguing for a definition so that she’ll have something to tell people when they ask her what technical communications is" -- while I completely understand what you're saying with that, I sometimes feel like this is one of the main reasons I want a solidified definition, too (no matter how rudimentary this reason might seem). If I can't tell my family, other professionals, and the outside world what it is I'm studying, what contribution can I make to any body of knowledge? Actually, to break it down in a even more simplified manner, what will I talk about at the Thanksgiving dinner table when my third-cousin asks me what I'm doing with my life? Sometimes I think it might just be that easy: I need a definition so I know what to say. I know the broad, expansive body of scholarship I'm studying -- but I think we all need a way to say it succinctly, if only for the sake of being able to tell others and/or broadcast the many things we do to the outside world.
ReplyDelete