It seems like a big problem facing technical communication,
as a field, is one of definition, both in terms of what technical communicators
do, and, more broadly, what they are in relation to other workers in their
fields. Johndan Johnson-Eilola, in “Relocating the Value of Work: Technical
Communication in a Post-Industrial Age”, writes that “we live and work in an
increasingly post-industrial age, where information is fast becoming the more
valuable product” (573). This is at the core of many of technical communication’s
insecurities, since, according to Johnson-Eilola, many industries use old,
obsolete industrial models to define technical communication.
The Problem
The main issue lies, according to Johnson-Eilola, in how
technical communicators define themselves (and are defined by others):
“Technical communication has traditionally occupied a support position in both
academic and corporate spheres…The difficulty here is that real work easily
becomes defined in reductive, context-independent ways: small, decontextualized
functional tasks rather than large, messy, ‘real world’ projects” (574). This
leaves teachers of technical communication relegated to the role of “technical
trainers rather than educators” (575) and harms technical communicators by
disempowering them in their institutions, and limiting the ways in which they
can think about and interact with technology. This also disempowers users by
ignoring the “constructive role that users play in the process [of
technological development]” (577).
The Solution
Rather than locate technical communication in a “Support
Model” of service oriented training, where “the value is located in a discrete,
technological product” (576), Johnson-Eilola proposes that technical
communicators approach their craft as “symbolic-analytic work.” In defining
this new method, he draws upon Reich’s three primary areas of service work:
·
Routine Production: “Technical communicators
fall into routine production in cases where their work becomes defined soley in
terms of routine manual writing” (581).
·
In-Person Service: In-person service workers are
those who deal directly with people. “As most technical communicators have
discovered, many users refuse to read printed or online documentation…In
essence, these workers read documentation to users unwilling to do so on their
own.”
· Symbolic-Analytic Workers: These are the workers
who “deal with situations not easily addressed by routine solutions” (582)
which requires more than just service-oriented knowledge, but a deeper
understanding of the technical systems – and the rhetorics behind them.
The last category, according to Johnson-Eilola, is the best
suited to navigate technical communication in a post-industrial age:
“post-industrial work inverts the relationship between technical product and
knowledge product: symbolic analysts make it clear – to themselves, to their
employers, to the public – that in an age of ubiquitous technology and
information, knowledge attains primary value” (583).
In order to rearticulate technical communication, Johnson
Eilola argues that teachers of technical communication must emphasize:
·
Experimentation: Where we see technology not in
terms of usability according to linear, non-situated designs, but in
contextually situated, variable uses (585).
·
Collaboration: Where we “learn from and change
existing collaborative practices” and thus “position ourselves and our students
as socially responsible experts – in other words, we help students learn to be
both effective participants and responsible community members” (586)
·
Abstraction: Where we encourage students not to
memorize information relating to specific programs, but to “learn to discern
patterns, relationships, and hierarchies in large masses of information” (587).
·
System Thinking: Where we encourage our students
to “recognize and construct relationships and connections in extremely broad,
often apparently unrelated domains” (587). Or, put another way, to see how
technical artifacts interconnect with one another and inform the social
situations surrounding them.
Finally, he defines five “key projects” that theorists of
technical communication should strive for.
1.
Connect education to work
2.
Question educational goals
3.
Question educational processes and
infrastructures
4.
Build meta-knowledge, network knowledge, and
self-reflective practices
5.
Rethink interdisciplinarity
In questioning, examining, and crossing disciplinary
boundaries, Johnson-Eilola argues technical communication can, in turn,
redefine how work is viewed in a post-industrial age, and empower communicators
to better examine, and influence, technological development and dissemination.
Connections
Like many of the readings from this chapter, I saw several
connections to Johnson’s “user-centered” technologies. Especially prominent is
the notion of users and technical communicators having both power and
responsibility over the course of technological development. Johnson-Eilola
calls for us to train our students to become “socially responsible experts” in
technology (586). Similarly, in “Educating Technical Communicators to Make
Better Decisions” Cezar Ornatowski argues that “in a society increasingly
driven by technology, the technical communicator is becoming an important voice
in determining how the issues involving technology…are framed and approached”
(597). In “Teaching for Change, Vision, and Responsibility” Stephen Bernhardt
also echoes this idea of the user-centered technological rhetor as an agent of
positive change: “the rhetoric of technical communication encourages
individuals to consider those imperatives for acting in the common good
entailed in the pursuit of individual or corporate goals” (605). This question
of disciplinary identity is raised in other aspects of the field as well.
Lee-Ann Breuch calls for a unified framework to approach the concept of
technical communication, arguing that “The strength of this framework would not
be in finding consensus about key issues of technological literacy…but rather
in identifying key issues presented in this literature” (483). Similarly,
questions of gender raised by Mary Lay, and economic access by Cynthia Selfe
and Gail Hawisher all tie into this question of defining the discipline.
Johnson Eilola writes that critical insights about feminism and other fields of
socially oriented research can provide opportunity for critical insight into
systems of technological and human interaction (588). Increasingly,
technological rhetoric is moving towards a “user-centered” pedagogy that
concerns itself with issues of access, awareness, and context regarding
technology in wider systems. Johnson Eilola argues that, as teachers of
technical communication, this is important to keep in mind if we are to serve
the public good and identify ourselves as educators rather than mere training
specialists.
Question
Johnson-Eilola argues that instructors need to “question
educational processes and infrastructures” citing the example of distance
education as one of the processes worth critically examining. He writes that,
despite the possibilities created by online education, “in the long run, some
forms of distance learning may tend to isolate learners… We need to make it
clear what the benefits are of residence learning; we need to insist on
defining education in broad terms that include more than just seat time and
test scores. At the same time, we need to understand ways that networked
communication can positively affect education and work and to create additional
positive environments” (590). However, as Hawisher and Selfe point out, access
to technologies tend to skew unevenly along poverty lines. This applies as much to distance education as to
residence learning, especially when technology makes its way into the
classroom.
My question, then, is what do we as instructors do when the
technological needs of the students conflict with the infrastructural needs of
the university? Without naming specific programs (though the one I’m thinking
of rhymes with “z-shmortfolio”), I’ve noticed that the standardized
technological tools provided to students tend to favor the research and
financial needs of the University over those of the students. This is
especially troubling when one considers how the extra costs of certain programs
or devices (laptop rentals, etc.) may mean the difference between a student
being able to take a class or not. Or what if, for example, a student is able
to utilize the reflective, systemic thinking Johnson-Eilola extolls in ways
that circumvent institutional systems (such as pirating a digital copy of an
expensive textbook and collaborating with his or her peers by sharing it with
them)? Where do our loyalties lie when we find ourselves on the receiving end
of this questioning?
Thanks for sharing a nice blog.
ReplyDeleteTWB_ provides #Product, #Learning & #Marketing #content specific for Life sciences, healthcare & pharmaceutical, and corporations for them to create and manage content from different departments, business lines & divisions. A lot of this content is procedural and regulatory. TWB_ has a deep understanding of domain and helps these companies to create differentiation, provide consistency and reuse, or minimize translation and publishing costs.Technical and Marketing Documentation Service Provider.