Ecker, P.S. (1995). Why Define Technical Communication at All? (Symposium Pt. II). Technical Communication, 42(4), 570-2.
Annotation by Erin Trauth
In her 1995 article, Ecker asserts that efforts to define the technical communication field are essentially wasteful. As opposed to spending time discussing definitions, she posits that both scholars and practitioners should “simply acknowledge that all communication…is multidisciplinary and constantly evolving. Then we should simply get on with our work” (570).
Ecker questions whether technical communicators perform multidisciplinary versus “undisciplinary” (570) work. Due to the difficulty of defining a multidisciplinary field, she advises those in the professional setting to essentially ignore the debate altogether. Ecker also posits that ignoring the definition issue in academia is problematic, but affirms that some can still “dare to be flagrantly multidisciplinary” (571).
Though this article is 15 years old, Ecker’s concept of the impossibility of defining the field still holds relevance. Ecker ultimately asks readers to consider a change in our questioning of the field:
I don't think we need to answer the question "How can we define technical communication in a nontraditional way?" Instead, I think a more pertinent question is "How can those who already view technical communication in nontraditional ways assist and challenge those who continue to view technical communication in a traditional way, no matter what the 'tradition' may be?" (572).
There are still many questions surrounding the true definition of technical communication, and the future of the field depends on generating answers. However, if we follow Ecker’s lead and – rather than focus on the answers – consider a modification of the query itself, the task of “defining” technical communication may prove less difficult and ultimately more productive.
In many ways there seems to be a disconnect between how TC tries to define itself (in terms of discipline), and what TC does or accomplishes. Perhaps this is because, traditionally, disciplines focus on a central theory or vision that they grow out of; but, TC was an offset of writing. Thus, TC has had to create a niche for itself out of a traditional framework (such as in an English department--not judging here, I'm just observing. Jeremy and I were talking recently about how the University of Washington has separated TC into its own department and calls is Human Centered Design & Engineering. This covers user center design, global technology and communication, and technical writing and editing. I think this is interesting because the UW program has defined itself as a separate humanistic department that focuses on the technical aspects. Which is most effective? What would the benefits of this be? It is interesting to think about.
ReplyDeleteWhat I find interesting about this is that the shift is slow, but it does happen. For example, it has taken a long time to shift from "technical writing" to "technical communication," but this shift demonstrates that within the field there is a consensus of sorts as to the scope of the work. In this sense, Ecker may have a precedent for her disciplinary Darwinism. Still, I'm troubled by the shoulder-shrugging "oh well" articles, because they appear to dismiss the reasons (both theoretical and practical) that a field needs to be somehow defined/confined by language.
ReplyDeleteAndrea, I'm not in love with the "oh well" articles, either -- which is why I had to make sure I read this one to get that point-of-view I'm clearly lacking/disagreeing with. I find it particularly disturbing when authors essentially advise us to "ignore" anything; in my opinion, we should not ignore anything that is essential -- and a definition of the field, no matter how problematic it is to create, is essential...
ReplyDeleteSuddenly I realize that I'm not the only one who is reading more articles than are assigned for the week. Earlier today (yesterday) Jeremy remarked that this was an interesting use of my time.
ReplyDeleteHmmm....
Graduate students going beyond the requirements and actually discussing from a desire to learn through interaction with the body of knowledge and with one another ... sounds like Booher is doing her job, eh? :)
Naah, Josh, I'm just in it for the money.
ReplyDeleteBwaaaaahaaaaa!