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.
I've really liked what Miller I've read so far. As technical communicators, we feel pressured to define our field so we can explain to other disciplines what we're doing. However, I think that Miller might argue that a definition might limit the scope of the field and pigeonhole practitioners into narrow and unimaginative roles. Often, communication is perceived as an after-the-fact event. One party does something and then informs all others. When communities and organizations operate like this, the results are often disastrous. I view our duty as technical communicators is to prevent this from happening using technology and communication. This sounds like the higher sense of practical that Miller advocates for tech comm in her article.
ReplyDelete