Knowledge: How do technical communicators construct knowledge?

Hello,

Our class discussion this time will take a practical turn although still grounded in theory. In discussing how TC constructs knowledge, we ponder on the different methodological approaches used and we gauge their validity and reliability. Thus, while reading the scheduled articles, bear in mind those guiding questions. We will use them to moderate our class discussion:

1)What’s the author’s thesis?

2)What questions does she raise?

3)How does she answer them? What are her arguments?

4)What counter arguments does she present or can you present against her claims?

To come up with professional critical ideas -- conclusive or speculative – try also to think on commonalities and divergence in both articles

The following are excerpts from our readings which I though present central idea of the articles. Tell us in class what you think:

Blyler

Who has the privilege of determining what empowerment and emancipation mean in a given situation?

Who has the power to decide the nature and direction of social changes?

Charney

Drawing on philosophical, historical, and rhetorical studies of science, the very qualities that the critics most object to in science work are those that afford the most productive communal discussion. Conversely, the qualities that the critics most laud in subjectivist methods may also inhibit our ability to attain the intensive cooperative focus we need for defining and solving disciplinary problems.

You can also look for examples of research that you think is genuine and proves/disproves what it claims to do or else research twisted for other agendas other than those it states. Examples do not have to be academic; you can bring examples from your leisure readings or documentaries you watched.

Looking forward to starting the discussion with you,

Khouloud Khammassi

Hey folks--
I told you I would share my journal analysis. I have posted it on my blog (http://katetcrnotes.blogspot.com/2010/10/5371-journal-analysis.html) so please feel free to take a look. A warning though, I did not fix grammar (so I don't want to hear about it) and more pie graphs didn't come through. However, if you really want to see the entire product, I don't mind sending you a .pdf.

RE October 20: One Summary of Sullivan & Porter

The Classroom Interaction

After the break we decided to return and process the remaining article as one large facilitated group working initially as synchronously composing dyads.

The Actual Output

We had one final collaborative output.

Real Time Collaboration and Synthesis of Dyadic Contributions

Synopsis

The basic gist of the article is this …
Concepts such as “theory,” “practice,” and methodology are socially constructed; therefore, “research methodology should not be something we apply or select so much as something we design out of particular situations and then argue for in our studies” (301).

Defining a research method as theory or practice keeps research in the realm of “academic” (theory) or workplace (practice). The merging of these methodologies should illustrate a symbiotic relationship between the academy and industry. Method is a pattern of action based on observation of theory or context--the pragmatic aspect of life.

Research methodology is (or should be) heuristic, i.e., learning by discovery. Multi-modality serves as a partial answer because theoretically it stitches together the different methodologies in a more comprehensive and iterative research approach. The downside to this is that it can complicate the balance of theory, practice, and methodology by overemphasizing methodology; also, a multiplicity of methodologies limits one’s ability to develop the requisite familiarity for effective use.

The authors are moving away from the binary of theory and practice and instead argue for a praxis where methodology, theory, and practice are equal parts of triangulation.

Methodology itself is also considered theory and because of this it becomes problematized and researchers need to consider how methodology operates in the context of practice and theory.

All of these aspects of the triangulation model should be considered in relation to the ongoing social construction process, which me might call a heuristic. The authors provide a case study which demonstrates the dangers of privileging a specific aspect of the praxis over the other aspects.

Implications for researchers include: more flexible terms for research types or categories, be open to new/different theories of method, be self-critical of the methodologies themselves and how they are used.

Theory, practice and method should be utilized in research methodology, and that rhetoric/argumentation justify using particular methods in particular situations. They warn against leaning too far in one category or the other. They admit that the three categories should not be diametrically opposed, but rather integrated into a whole, and justified by rhetoric.

Noteworthy Quotes

• “We cannot just uncritically accept research methods as given to us in a ‘valid’ form by the social sciences” (312).
• “Theory alone, by its very nature as abstraction, as generalization, cannot account completely for the situational, the specific instance of practice. That is not to dismiss theory, but simply to say that it ought not be perceived as all-determining or all-explaining” (303).
• “A writer can never know precisely what the reader will bring to the communication setting. Here is the limit of theory” (303).
• “The limitation of the practice warrant is the difficulty of arguing the should from the is” (304).
• “Our study of the developing documentation writer demonstrates that we always apply some kind of rhetorical orientation or critical judgement; we always observe practice through the lens of some kind of rhetorical theory, whether we are conscious of it or not” (225)#
• “Theory itself is a type of practice and always already involved in the practices of both the researcher and writer being studied. From the other side, practice cannot be atheoretical, though it can be unconscious of its theory” (306).
• “Methodological rules are socially constructed as well as situationally adjusted as they are invoked” (308).
• “We can accept these frameworks as given by the community or we can argue to the community that one or more particular frameworks, justifiably reshaped by this situation, provide helpful filters/guides for this, and perhaps other, workplace research. Our preferred approach is the second, which we call methodology as praxis” (310).

Issues Addressed/Assertions Made

1. Traditional View
1. Theory explains practice
2. Practice is observed by methodology
2. Proposed View
1. Theory describes (organizes and generalizes) the practice.
2. Theory points to new practices.
3. Practice disciplines the theory
4. Methodology is a dynamic set of heuristic filters through which we view practice
3. Praxis is phronesis: prudential thinking, informed thinking or conscious practice.
4. Research Methodologies
1. Method-Driven Research
   Method must be problematized (choice of method and judgement of quality)
2. Problem-Driven Research
1. Practice
2. Theory
3. Problematized Research
1. Multi-modal
2. Praxis
5. Question the “validity” of accepted research forms. (312)
6. “Approach research as praxis, as a design activity involving the construction of a method worked out from the intersection of theory and situation” (312).

Making Meaning

Well folks, we ran out of time to fully digest the process and the content.

To fully realize the value of these interactions will require participants to process reflectively and post their own observations on their construction of knowledge here in the form of comments. I hope they'll all consider doing so.

References

Sullivan, P., & Porter, J. E. (2004). On Theory, Practice, and Method: Toward a Heuristic Research Methodology for Professional Writing. In J. Johnson-Eilola & S. A. Selber (Eds.), Central works in technical communication (pp. 300-316). New York: Oxford University Press.

RE October 20: Three Summaries of Harrison

The Setup

Following the initial posting, some of the class participants provided the following raw content to facilitate the group activity for the evening:

Synopsis

The basic gist of the article is this ...

a rather repetitive statement that writing is context and that the context in organizations is not the same as writing in classroom context.

Most Important Quotes

1. “Writing in organizations differs from that done in classrooms in that, as initially experienced by the writer, the organizational context is unknown” (Harrison, 2004).
2. “It appears that the process of writing in organizational contexts is quite different from what occurs in classroom contexts” (256).
3. “Studying the process of writing as it occurs in organizational life ... might establish more precisely the nature of any interrelationships between organizational processes and composing” (256).

Questions/Specific Topics for Classroom Discussion in October 20

1. How would you respond to Harrison’s own critique of her work in retrospect as to its derivative nature, then concluding, “But with the benefit of advanced age and many subsequent attempts to theorize, I realize now that the primary activities of communication theorists are to derive and synthesize” (255)?
2. What particular strategies might take Harrison’s advice by better equipping, “their students with analytic capabilities that will guide them in this particular writing context” (256)?

The Classroom Interaction

So we had three groups:

1. Real Time Collaborators. Instructed to process and compose online synchronously via GoogleDocs.
2. Bottleneck/Gatekeepers. Instructed to allow one member to type while others contributed verbally.
3. Total Freedom. No constraints on process.

The Actual Outputs

And we had three initial outputs.

Group 1: Real Time Collaborators

Writing takes place in a socially constructed milieu-- often in an organization that is a “culture-like” phenomenon. Therefore, the discipline should rhetorically analyze its exchanges in organizational contexts, using the lenses of “Organization as Systems of Knowledge” and “Organizations as Patterns of Symbolic Discourse” to inform our research, practice, and pedagogy.

... OR IN FRENCH [just for fun] ...

Rédaction a lieu dans un milieu socialement construit - souvent dans une organisation qui est une «culture comme" phénomène. Par conséquent, la discipline devrait rhétorique analyser ses échanges dans des contextes organisationnels, en utilisant des lentilles de "Organisation des systèmes de connaissances et les organisations comme des modèles de discours symbolique" d'informer notre recherche, la pratique et la pédagogie.

Group 2: Gatekeeper/Bottleneck

Context as situation: rhetorical situation doesn’t incorporate what the organization is about

Context as community: encompassing dynamics and rituals and discourse of organization.

Organization as systems knowledge and symbolic patterns

1. Systems of knowledge: evolutionary and social information processing
2. Evolutionary: idea of organization as whole not focused on individual
3. Social Information processing: thinking is linked to action, Analysis of what they think is how they act.

Patterns of symbolic discourse: part of organizations have a defined way of talking about things.

Implications for research: we need to think about organizations when doing research on communication: i.e. don’t look at the document, look at people behind it.

Group 3: Total Freedom

Organizations present specialized contexts different from the classroom. They can be analyzed in terms of culture and rhetorical contexts. Analyzing organizations in this way can illuminate “constructed realities” both in organizations and other social communities. Organizations are rhetorical contexts with their own discourse and epistemologies which are mediated by the culture of the organization. Analyzing organizations also helps writers assign meaning within the context of the organization. Teachers should emphasize the audience and culture within organizational contexts and that (by extension) the analysis is a valuable rhetorical asset to understanding writing in these contexts.

Making Meaning

By comparing and contrasting the processes utilized in and content created by the different composition groups, we sought to thoughtfully analyze and become aware of our own variations in standards of discourse and the implications of these variations in our individual and collective meaning-making processes.

To fully realize the value of these interactions will require participants to process reflectively and post their own observations on their construction of knowledge here in the form of comments. I hope they'll all consider doing so.

References

Harrison, T. M. (2004). Frameworks for the Study of Writing in Organizational Contexts. In J. Johnson-Eilola & S. A. Selber (Eds.), Central works in technical communication (pp. 255-267). New York: Oxford University Press.

October 20 Discussion Guide: Knowledge: How do technical communicators construct knowledge?

For October 20, we are reviewing only two articles (see the full references below).

The learning objective for this class focuses us on exploring the construction of knowledge, particularly as this is done by technical communicators. The question we are exploring is,

"How do technical communicators construct knowledge?"

This question specifically targets the knowledge construction of technical communicators, which may be difficult without first examining the human process of constructing knowledge. Before we are able to discuss or even see clearly what our authors are saying, it seems that a broader initial approach may be valuable. As an educator whose students previous experiences have been (generally) akin to swallowing someone else's knowledge whole, I relish every opportunity to help them learn how to chew, savor, and fully digest knowledge on their own.

This is one of my favorite topics and I hope you will fully engage in and enjoy the process we're using this week to learn about knowledge construction through a collective analysis and composition experience, followed by our classroom discussion. So here's the plan:

1. Spend 00:04:30 watching an online commentary on undergraduate learning through collaborative composition: http://youtu.be/dGCJ46vyR9o
   
2. Spend 00:04:34 watching an online summary video on how our digital composition, organization, and distribution mechanisms are fundamentally changing the ways in which we communicate, compose, and collaborate: http://youtu.be/NLlGopyXT_g
3. Spend 00:02:51 watching an online video about what GoogleDocs is and the fundamental ways of how it works: http://youtu.be/eRqUE6IHTEA
4. Participate actively in the following GoogleDocs
• Collaborative Review of Sullivan & Porter Article
• Collaborative Review of Harrison Article
5. Come prepared to enjoy the ensuing discussion.
6. Watch the keynote referenced below, beginning at 00:13:10 and consider Wesch's triangle of knowledge-ability versus Sullivan & Porter's triangle of praxis in research.
7. Comment here to continue the interaction and extend our class beyond its typical time/space constraints.

References

Harrison, T. M. (2004). Frameworks for the Study of Writing in Organizational Contexts. In J. Johnson-Eilola & S. A. Selber (Eds.), Central works in technical communication (pp. 255-267). New York: Oxford University Press.

Sullivan, P., & Porter, J. E. (2004). On Theory, Practice, and Method: Toward a Heuristic Research Methodology for Professional Writing. In J. Johnson-Eilola & S. A. Selber (Eds.), Central works in technical communication (pp. 300-316). New York: Oxford University Press.

Wesch, M. (2010, June 24). Knowledge-able. Opening Plenary presented at the STLHE Annual Conference 2010, Ryerson University. Retrieved from http://j.mp/wesch_at_ryersonon_2010-jun-24. Skip to 13:10 for beginning of actual presentation.

Maylath, Bruce, Jeff Grabill, and Laura Gurak. “Intellectual Fit and Programmatic Power: Organizational Profiles of Four Professional/Technical/Scientific Communication Programs.” Technical Communication Quarterly 19.3 (2010): 262-280. Web.

Article looks at UWisc-Stout, Michigan State, UMinn, and ND State U.

Authors' Abstract:

Do programs in technical communication thrive when administered in English departments or in other configurations of administrative units? This article examines the variations in professional, technical, and scientific communication programs at four universities across the north central U.S. The first three programs have histories that led them to be housed at increasing distances from their universities' English departments. The fourth is a nascent program emerging in its university's English department.

Columbia University Professor Email

Columbia Writing Professor Sends World's Haughtiest Email to Former Students

http://gawker.com/5651154/columbia-writing-professor-sends-worlds-haughtiest-email-to-former-students

CFP: Research Network Forum at CCCC

I strongly recommend applying for this, especially if you don't yet have any conference experience. Scholars of all levels participate, but it's a particularly nice entrée into the conference world for newbies -- a (more) gentle way to present your ideas-in-progress and get feedback, while also getting a line on your CV. I participated as a grad student one year, and last year I took part in the Journal Editor presentations and talked to participants about submission guidelines and recommendations for TheJUMP. Ask me if you have questions.

Research Network Forum 2011 in Atlanta
Wednesday, 6 April 2011

The October 31st deadline to propose a Work-in-Progress Presentation
at the Research Network Forum is quickly approaching.

Don’t miss out on the excellent opportunities to network with other
researchers in your area, to discuss your ideas with fellow scholars,
and to learn from our plenary speakers Kathleen Blake Yancey and Mike
Palmquist.

In order to participate as a Work-in-Progress Presenter, Discussion
Leader (established scholars), and/or Journal Editor please go to
http://www.rnfonline.com/blog/.  Once there, please fill out the
Participation Form, and for those participating as a Work-in-Progress
Presenter also fill out the Proposal Form.

Participation in the RNF is free to all registrants of CCCC, and you
may have a speaking role at RNF in addition to one at CCCC.

Most attendees present or discussion lead in both the morning and
afternoon sessions.  If you are only able to attend one session,
please make sure you let us know when you fill out the e-form so we
can schedule people correctly.  We are happy to accommodate people so
that they may attend a 1/2 day workshop in the morning or afternoon
and spend the rest of the day with RNF.

If you have any questions, please contact us at chairs@rnfonline.com.

We are looking forward to seeing you in April!

Risa Gorelick and Gina Merys
Chairs, RNF at CCCC 2011

Inventing the Election: Civic Participation and Presidential Candidates' Websites"

Kate Crane

I realize this seems a bit different from the rest of your focus on articles for the week, but I thought it would be interesting to look at how Technical Communication contributes to the study of informal/civic discourse (one of my interests).

Dadas, Caroline E. “Inventing the Election: Civic Participation and Presidential Candidates’ Websites.” Computers and Compositions. 25.4 (2008): 416-431.

Dadas looks at the extent to which websites from the 2008 presidential election helped to engage voters in civic discourse. She examines each website by the level of participation each allows its users. She breaks these levels down into three categories: Robust, Moderate, and Superficial. Dadas examines three websites from April 15, 2007 to January 6, 2008: Barack Obama’s presidential campaign website, John McCain’s presidential campaign website, and Mitt Romney’s campaign website. Her findings are as follows. Barack Obama’s website was robust in that it allowed users to be “creator, planners, producers, and designers” (424). Participants could create their own webpages from the site, plan events, and connect to social networking tools, thus giving them agency within the campaign. John McCain’s site was evaluated as moderate. Users of the site were given opportunity to take surveys and post questions/responses to the campaign thus giving the campaign feedback from constituents; however, the site did not provide users with the same control over the technology as Obama’s site did. Mitt Romney’s website was evaluated as superficial. User’s did not have the opportunity to create or personalize the site to meet their needs; rather “the Romney website seems more focused on maintaining a carefully crafted image” (428). This analysis provides a leading discussion not only to how digital rhetoric and electronic media can create agency in civic discourse, but Dadas also concludes that having students use such a schema prepares them to begin engaging in civic discourse.

Originally, I worried about the objectivity of this analysis; however, Dadas does a nice job of defining the criteria for which she would evaluate the website. This article inspires me to think about and look for other ways that we could engage people in public discourse using these new tools. Many people have claimed that one of the reasons Obama won the presidency was because of his ability to use the web, social networking, etc., to build a support base from younger generations. By using the web, a new demographic was reached and inspired. How might we use technology to bring more people back into the realm of civic discourse to discuss important issues in our society?

Sex Differences in Online Navigation

Stenstrom, E., Stenstrom, P., Saad, G, & Cheikhrouhou, S. (2008). Online hunting and gathering: an evolutionary perspective on sex differences in website preferences and navigation. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 51(2), 155-168.

Annotation by Harrison Ownbey

This article examines the different cognitive systems men and women use to locate information. It uses a Darwinian perspective to explain how each sex navigates space. It hypothesizes that each sex applies their evolutionary psychology to digital and online spaces as well, then it tested that hypothesis with a mock website.

Darwinian models for psychology assume that men primarily hunted while women primarily gathered, and each sex evolved distinct navigational habits for managing their tasks. Males tracked their prey across long distances and then had to find the most direct route home, whereas females collected various foods close to home. Thus, males navigate more using their “internal compass” whereas women navigate using landmarks. The authors use the hunter/gatherer paradigm to explain more phenomena, such as why females have superior object location recall, why males talk less (remaining silent during the hunt), why females perceive color more accurately (avoiding poison plants), and why males have better 3-D object rotation (throwing spears).

The results of their study show that males prefer “deeper” websites (websites with more sublevels). Results are inconclusive about what females prefer. “Wide” websites (websites with all data laid out at once) delayed both male and female task completion time.

I’m skeptical about many aspects of this article, but I’m particularly unsure that online navigation parallels physical navigation.

Where is our discipline being formed, and what affects does that have?

Reflections on Technical Communication Quarterly, 1991-2003: The Manuscript Review Process
Mary M. Lay (University of Minnesota)
Technical Communication Quarterly.13(1). 109-119. 2004. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

“Reflections on Technical Communication quarterly, 1991-2003: The manuscript Review Process” by M. M. Lay reports the history of establishing the journal of Technical Communication Quarterly. Lay reports that the Association of Teachers of Technical Writing (ATTW) has changed its official journal from the “Technical Writing Teacher” into “Technical Communication Quarterly” to reflect the changes in the Association and the field itself. According to Lay, ATTW members are not only interested in academic writing but also in speaking and visual design; thus, the journal should touch on such details and even update its own design. As Technical Communication has been shaping up as its own discipline, the content of the journal representative of ATTW (which has altered from The Technical Writing Teacher to Technical Communication Quarterly) changed to cover more pragmatic application of Technical Communication. Therefore, one can find materials about advertising, marketing, computers, medical applications, etc. In other words one can conclude that Technical Communication has made a jump into different fields that require communications at different level. It is also possible to say that other disciplines have had recourse to Technical Communication to survive (As Tech Comm is by definition interdisciplinary). Such alteration are documented even by the reviw process. In dealing with the editorial reviews which is the focus of this article, Lay emphasizes the interest of TCQ’s editorial on research and empirical support for the writer’s arguments. This speaks for the exactness of the field especially that it draws on all disciplines’ research strategies and findings.

I have tried in this post to highlight the change in Tech Comm through TCQ because I felt that it is an accurate mirror of the change that the field from being writing-based to being more open to other disciplines and applications in real life.

What's Practical about Technical Writing?

Linda Gilmore

Carolyn R. Miller, "What's Practical about Technical Writing?" Technical Writing Theory and Practice (1989):  15-27

In 1979 Carolyn R. Miller wrote the article, "A Humanistic Rationale for Technical Writing," in which she challenged the purely scientific perspective of technical writing; a perspective she calls the "positivist view of science" (p. 49).  This perception of technical writing is one devoid of emotion, purely objective, and ultimately utilitarian.  In an effort to persuade her audience that technical writing has the potential to be considered for Humanities credit at her university, Miller argues that technical writing contributes to the understanding of a community, and should be viewed through the lens of a new epistemology, "...based on modern developments in cultural anthropology, cognitive psychology, and sociology" (p. 51).

Ten years later Miller is still arguing for a broader perception (definition?) of technical writing in her article, "What's Practical about Technical Writing?"  This time, however, her focus is the very definition of the word "practical" and how this definition influences technical writing.  According to Miller, there is a low and high sense of practical.  The low sense implies, "The practical man... who knows how to get along in the rough and tumble of the world" (p. 15).  The high sense, however, "concerns human conduct in those activities that maintain the life of the community" (p. 15).  By its very nature, technical writing is more closely associated with the low sense of practical; a useful tool with which to get the job done.  However, Miller argues that technical writing can also be associated with the high sense of practical, "Understanding practical rhetoric as a matter of conduct rather than of production, as a matter of arguing in a prudent way toward the good of the community, rather than constructing texts..." (p. 23).  Ultimately, Miller is still advocating a broader perspective of technical writing; one that encompasses both techne and praxis, both knowing-how and knowing-that.

Usable Pedagogies

Schneider, Stephen. "Usable Pedagogies: Usability, Rhetoric, and Sociocultural Pedagogy in the Technical Writing Classroom." Technical Communication Quarterly 14.4 (2005): 447-467.

Daniel Reifsnider [sorry for the long post!]

In this article, Schneider examines existing sociocultural pedagogies within the technical writing classrooms, and offers a new sociocultural pedagogy that should be incorporated as well: usability pedagogy. Building upon the work of scholars such as Steven Katz, Carolyn Miller, Thralls and Blyler, and Kelli Cargile Cook, Schneider claims that a shift in technical communication pedagogy must now include sociocultural concerns that must be placed “at the center of our teaching,” and that their work, “have led to the foregrounding of sociocultural concerns within the field of technical communication.” Using this work of sociocultural pedagogy in the classroom, Schneider offers the discourse of usability as “another potent vehicle for approaching sociocultural issues in the technical writing classroom.” By incorporating usability theory within the sociocultural pedagogy of technical communication, Schneider argues that usability theory will offer new ways to look at social and political aspects of technical documentation and design, as well as provide a pedagogical framework that is specific to the field.

Schneider focuses on two approaches of usability: user-centered design and distributed usability. He defines user-centered design as, “the idea that the best product-design principles are those that support user needs and expectations,” and distributed usability as, “a design approach that creates an open physical and organizational space where designers, engineers, users and usability professionals meet and work alongside each other.” He places these two approaches next to each other because he argues that the conversation between the two grounds discussions of technology and technical communication. He then goes on to demonstrate how each approach can be used to explore and critique the design and function of classroom technologies, specifically “A New Global Environment for Learning”, which is Penn State University’s course management system.

Through this exploration and critique, Schneider shows how, particularly the distributed usability approach, can enrich the technical writing classroom by allowing teachers to foreground the networks that exist within technical communications. These networks consist of human actors and also technical systems and artifacts, “that support the goals and activities of a given network.” Schneider then argues that by placing such importance on the communication and relationships within technical communication, distributed usability models foreground the ecological aspects of technical communication as well. It is precisely these ecological aspects, he argues, that provide technical communication instructors, “the means to approach communication as a practice that emerges from various political, cultural, technical, institutional, and economic contexts.”

I think this article is interesting because it displays how our technical writing classrooms are a function of sociocultural pedagogies that allow us to learn within the social, political, and economic contexts that surround the field. I believe it is always important to consider the framework that surrounds the field, because it allows us to view the field as a part of the greater world and not just a static entity separated from the world around it. Pertaining to the topic of the week, these sociocultural pedagogies, especially the pedagogy of usability, helps demonstrate where the field is being developed, and the effects that it has on both the field and the world around it.

Knievel: "What is Humanistic about Computers and Writing?"

Since Erin claimed my choice, I'll claim this one...

Knievel, Michael. “What is Humanistic about Computers and Writing? Historical Patterns and Contemporary Possibilities for the Field.” Computers and Composition 26.2 (2009): 92-106. Web.

---

While we have focused much on technical communication as communicating about a technology, we haven't considered how the technology influences the communication. The union of computers and writing has seriously complicated conceptions of consumption, textual and cultural permanence, ethics, and authorship (94-95). This article charts three historical phases of response to the question "What is humanistic about computers and writing?" during the discipline's history:

• "fear and loathing" (1975-1992): working to overcome the anti-technology stereotype; often supporting the computer's place in the humanities, but with qualifications.
• "moving the social turn online" (1990-2000): recognizing the immense possibilities afforded by networked environments, providing empowerment to both author and consumer as text becomes decentralized and nonlinear. Furthermore, although the field is often constrained by the literary studies model (the "passive reception of immutable truths/texts" [102]), many in the field explore the ethical dimensions of computers and writing.
• "digital literacy and action" (2000 to present): the field is no longer "pattern-matching" with literary studies; instead, new focus is on such issues as digital literacy, and the power and responsibility of being both a critical consumer and producer of knowledge. Knievel (citing Selber) notes, "Successful participation in civil society and the workplace, then, seems to require a fusion of literacies to develop in students a technologized rhetorical agility, rendering them capable of both consuming and producing text in an era characterized by shifting notions of text and evolving media forms" (100)-- and this is intrinsic to the humanities.

Knievel concludes his piece by admonishing:

Computers and writing’s recognition of the need for an active, productive humanities that develops citizen-rhetors capable of thinking and composing within the logic of the media of the day suggests the possibility of a growing legitimacy that may, interestingly, more readily find validation outside the academy. (104)

I find that this piece offers interesting intersections with Herndl's article, which was originally published in 1993, when the field was "moving the social turn online." Much of what Herndl is calling for in TC has been manifesting, according to Knievel, since 2000. Computers and writing has, effectively, grown out of ideological resistance; it is still often in conflict with the ideologies often categorized under "literary studies." As noted above, computers and writing complicates many assumed foundations-- authorship, ethics, etc.--thereby providing opportunities to engage in a critical questioning and, hopefully, heighten awareness.

"Writing work, technology, and pedagogy in the era of late capitalism"

Scott, Tony. (2006). “Writing work, technology, and pedagogy in the era of late capitalism.” Computers and Composition, 23(2), 228-243. 

Annotation by Erin Trauth

Scott examines how the technical writing course presents technologies and the terms of work in the context of the complex forces of the late-capitalist working world. He claims that, more than any other field, technical writing concerns itself with “integrating humanities education with occupational realities.” He states that this position is often problematic, as critical theories can directly subvert the tenants surrounding a pedagogy usually grounded in practice and skills.

After examining current bodies of scholarship which promote either a “capitalism hope” or a “wholesale adjustment” to the late-capitalist terms of work, Scott promotes a pedagogy which stimulates “ideologically diverse discussions in our curriculums that more critically examine the terms of work in late capitalism – from a civic and labor, rather than exclusively a managerial, perspective.” He asserts that this type of exploration will allows students to become informed and critical without particularly aligning themselves with any certain ideology.

In essence, Scott argues that “a pedagogy can be dedicated both to helping students get along in the world as they find and recognizing theoretical/analytical perspectives that critical of the terms of work and the broad, grim effects of late capitalism. Our pedagogies cannot abandon a commitment to civic/social responsibility, and they also need not rely on unrealistic images of, and false hopes about, the future organizational power of writers or the amenability of global capitalism to social responsible practices.”

Scott does acknowledge the difficulties of advocating such a pedagogy, but then offers some insight to how this type of curriculum might be established. This article is helpful in examining pedagogical stances and theories presented in the technical writing classroom. It also paints a picture of the current state of work in the technical writing field and serves to highlight the issues of capitalism within corporate structures for students and practitioners of technical writing.