My readings from Teaching
Technical Communication this week include “Complicating Technology:
Interdisciplinary Methods, the Burden of Comprehension, and the Ethical Space
of the Technical Communicator” by Robert Johnson, “Myths about Instrumental
Discourse: A Response to Robert R. Johnson” by Patrick Moore, and the aptly
titled “Johnson Responds” by Robert Johnson. The three articles represent an
extended disciplinary argument (“brawl” might be a better categorization in
some instances) about the place of theoretical discourse in the field of
technical communication. Essentially, both authors seek to answer the questions
that is likely to haunt us as we enter the classroom: is technical
communication an art, a science, or a rhetorical philosophy? Are we teaching a
set of marketable skills, or a new way of viewing technology and the world
around it? Are we doing theory or practice?
Johnson’s Argument
The Problem: Johnson sums up the problem plaguing the field
of technical communication as one of focus within the larger scope of academia.
He writes that “To define, narrowly, the theoretical disposition of [technical
writing] as ‘instrumental’ is to become defensively monodisciplinary…and thus
risk becoming subservient to disciplines that occupy the other side, usually
the power-side, of the binaries” (25). This, he argues, reduces technology to
mere artifacts, and the technical communicator to “a mere scribe.” This makes
it impossible to think critically about how people use technology, which
prevents the “user centered approach” he advocates, and could even lead to
disasters like Chernobyl or the Challenger, which he characterizes as resulting
from failures of communication about technology rather than the devices
themselves (25).
The Solution: A large part of this problem stems from “the
difficulties we face as we cross disciplinary boundaries” (as illustrated by
the Sokal affair). These miscommunications across the disciplines stem, in
turn, from a fundamental lack of respect and reciprocity between the
humanities. To solve these problems and establish a better rapport between the
disciplines, Johnson argues that we, as scholars, need to develop a better
understanding of the methodologies by which other specializations approach
technology in order to better “understand the contexts, values and methods of
those from whom we borrow” (28), what he calls fulfilling our responsibility to
the “burden of comprehension.”
In an effort to practice what he preaches, Johnson, in a
manner similar to the more extended approach he took in User Centered Technology categorizes the different approaches taken
by the disciplines of History, Sociology, and Philosophy, outlining the history
and evolution of their methods and discussing what scholars of rhetoric may
take from them. Overall, Johnson’s solution hinges on finding a way to approach
the discipline of technical writing from a variety of perspectives: “Problems
of citizenship, ethics, and disciplinary relationships paint brightly colored
illustrations of how technology can be questioned, yet preserved” (40). But
that to properly communicate across the disciplinary boundaries, scholars of
technical communication must foster trust and open-mindedness and a willingness
to learn and reciprocate. He closes by arguing that “Without reciprocity, or
the attempt to carry it out, we remain voiceless, passive observers, peering
into the disciplinary windows” (41) and that “we must practice patience to
comprehend what we borrow” (43).
Moore’s Argument
The Problem: Moore writes, in an aggressive response to
Johnson, that the problem is not one of narrow focus. Instead, he argues that
the marginalization and subservience of which Johnson complains stems from an
overemphasis on theory at the cost of practice. He writes that “How academics
define technical communication is crucial because definitions influence
curriculum design, classroom teaching strategies, financial expenditures,
students’ preparation for the workplace, and the heuristic power of theory. If
technical communication is defined exclusively as rhetoric, then rhetoricians
control the curriculum” (46). This, he argues, is part of “an academic power
game which some faculty use to advance their political agendas within the
profession and within their academic departments” (47). The consequences of
this, he argues, is a devaluing of technical communication as a discipline,
since, according to Moore, the focus on theory at the expense of practical
communication skills leaves students ill-prepared for the demands of the job
market which, in turn, harms the reputation of Technical Communication
departments, further marginalizing them and harming students.
The Solution: Moore blames scholars like Johnson for perpetuating the six
“myths” about instrumental discourse. Moore responds to these “myths” over six
segments, ultimately coming to the conclusion that the disrespect of technical communication as a
field is self-inflicted, stemming from a lack of utility, stemming from
material concerns. To solve this, he writes that, “Where Johnson appears to be
defensively multidisciplinary, I advocate an approach that combines an
awareness of the disciplines that impact communication with a sensitivity to
the needs of users…we should base our theories on what users need, not on
theories from other academic specialties that are distantly related or
unrelated to technical communication” (51) and that rather than borrow from "totalizing
rhetoricians," Johnson should be borrowing from “the everyday Joes
and Janes who have to apply technology to solving their problems…[who] do not
want technology complicated. They want it integrated more effectively into
their workplaces and their lives” (54).
Questions
In his rebuttal, Johnson first argues that he and Moore both
want, essentially, the same thing: an approach to technological studies that is
“user centered” (58). He argues, however, that Moore is mistaken, first in his
definition of “instrumental discourse”, stating that “most disciplines perceive
the term ‘instrumental’ as, at best, a very narrow view of technology, and, at
worst, a view of technology that is simplistic to the point of being outright
dangerous” (59). The goal to Johnson is not to complicate technology for the
sake of complication, but to move away from a discourse that takes utterances
at face value. He argues that “users should be part of the communication from
the beginning to the end of development cycles” (60) and that scientists like
Moore, not rhetoricians, are the ones guilty of overreach: “I have had such a
hard time imagining a place where the discipline of rhetoric is so powerful that
it controls the nature of students, curricula, public institutions,
governmental agencies, and private corporations” (61).
Despite the hostility and sarcasm present in Moore’s attack
and Johnson’s rebuttal, I do think that this argument does raise some important
questions about how we, as technical communications experts, negotiate the
assumptions and prejudices of our students, our interdisciplinary colleagues,
and the larger world of material concerns.
My question, then, is how do we take Johnson’s method of
accepting the “burden of comprehension” for other disciplines and apply it to
the needs of our students and their future employers? Moore writes that “Many
practicing technical communication professionals are acutely aware that
academic theorizing…takes important class time away from studying the
fundamentals of writing and editing communication products” (49). Though this,
and his other assumptions about the humanities are clearly reductive and
hostile, the perception of these stereotypes does not exist in a vacuum. How,
then, can we use Johnson’s methodology of comprehension and reciprocity to
better help our students and strike up more productive (and less hostile!)
conversations with our colleagues in the fields of business and the sciences?
It seems that in these, and in much of the other readings throughout the book, the discipline of Technical Writing butts heads against both other humanistic fields and against the sciences. Throughout questions of definition, technical writing experts seem eager to divorce themselves of accusations of positivism and instrumentalist thinking. Must
Instrumental Discourse be antagonistic to Humanistic Discourse? Do technical communicators need to maintain distance from hard-liners like Moore in order to be taken seriously? Can't we all just get along?
Thanks for doing such a great job with these articles this week. You provide a really great summary here, and your in-class presentation really helped to give us the argument in a very clear back-and-forth kind of way. I am curious if you see connections between these two and the other readings for the week (though the connections between them were plenty!). Even though Moore kind of loses this battle it seems, I do think that instrumental discourse doesn't always need to be antagonistic to humanistic discourse (as you ask). I do think there is a way we can play well together, and in fact reasons we often should. AND I think Moore is right on some fronts, that instrumental DOES often include discursive awareness, so it's not just rote scribes. Anyhow, thanks for your thoughts and your great presentation.
ReplyDelete