"The Steel Bible: A Case Study of 20th Century Technical Communication"

Johnson, Carol. “The Steel Bible: A Case Study of 20th Century Technical Communication.” Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 37.3 (2007): 281-303. Web.

Johnson analyzes the 'Steel Bible' (aka The Making, Shaping, and Treatment of Steel)

comparing and contrasting the 11 versions of the text published between 1919 and 1999. Through these versions, Johnson sees not only the changing steel industry, but the changing technical communication field. She notes the major changes being technological, graphic, muliple-authorship rather than an authoritative single author, and the organization of

information for easy access. These changes reflected the needs of the audience and the audience

were loyal readers and users of the reference. Once consistency throughout the evolution of the

text, however, was the absence of human/social conditions affecting the steel industry. From the 1920s labor disputes to the outsourcing and decline of steel manufacturing in the U.S. during the 1980s, the text focused only on the technical aspects of manufacturing steel.

Johnson's analysis not only chronicle an important American industry through the 'Steel

Bible' (a historical artifact for sure) but shows how the TC field has particularly adjusted to the

needs of the audience. Her explanation of audience, graphics, and authorship demonstrate how

our field has changed to what we see today.

Argumentation Theory: Perelman

I found the discussion on ethics and morals in relation to Perelman’s new rhetoric interesting in that critics find the intentional shaping of argument to convince/persuade an audience is a lesser form of argument than the “logic” based argumentation. Van Eemeren et. al. emphasize that “All arguers must decide for themselves how far they can and will go in adapting to the audience. The problem of the ethics to be employed in this regard, say Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, cannot be solved by argumentation theory”(99). In many ways, I see this being more a question of the speaker/writer/arguers ethos. This calls for more of a need for the audience’s ability to critically analyze arguments (and this goes to education). Another interesting point made in VE is in discussing Platonist perspective in relation to this idea of new rhetoric: “A reminder is appropriate here of the Platonist criticism of rhetoric that striving after approval of people, and the equation of approval with soundness are barriers in the way of the search for truth. Far from being connected with any form of cynicism, however, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s relativism spring from their firm belief…in democracy and philosophical pluralism. They most certainly care about ethics and moral standards” (120). I am interpreting the division in ideas here to be twofold: first, if “truth” is the goal, then only logic is appropriate regardless of audience make-up or motivations, and if the audience’s approval is being sought and the arguer’s goal is to frame the argument taking into account the values and motivations of the audience, then there is room for trickery and manipulation. This again goes back to my ideas above that this falls more in the realm of ethos. I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

I also wanted to look at the criticisms of the new rhetoric mentioned in VE.

First, I didn’t see many questionable concepts in Perelman in regards to argumentative structure and the use of nonanalytic arguments. (However, I do feel like I’ll need to take a look at Perelman’s New Rhetoric to get a fully grasp this theory). Rather, I understood these concepts using Rowland as a lens and looking at defining or describing such arguments as necessary in evaluating them. Criticisms seemed to focus on two things: the variance in audiences making it difficult to test new rhetoric argument schemes, and when using their “tyopology in analyzing argumentation it is rarely possible for all interpreters to arrive at the same unequivolcal interpretation” (123). I find the determinism to “measure” the effects ironic considering Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s emphasis on nonanalytic argumentation (although I understand the human need for placing empirical value on such concepts). Nevertheless, I think taking Brockreide’s emphasis of “arguments are not in statements but in people” assumption about argument to show how looking for exactness in the interpretation of argument analysis subjective based on the evaluator and/or audience will be quite difficult. I am sure once I read and evaluate more arguments/analysis of Perelman’s theory, these ideas will make more sense to me (I hope).

Argument Theory: Brockreide, O'Keefe, Rowland, and Tindale

For this post, I am focusing on the RA readings, mostly because I need to grasp the various concepts of how to and not to define argument by more closely looking at the theories next to each other. Rowland suggests that the difficulty of defining argument lies in the polarity of previous attempts to define rhetoric, where some theories look strictly at the argument made in formal argument rather than informal, real life argumentation. O’Keefe and Rowland both begin looking a “argument” by critically analyzing Brockriede’s six characteristics of argument. All authors seem to contend with Brockreide’s first element of argument which is “an inferential leap from existing beliefs to the adoption of a new belief or to the reinforcement of an old one” (10). This, to me, is the end of general consensus between the four authors.

One theme that is approached is looking at whether argument needs to be productive in nature. Brockreide’s second characteristic that argument needs a perceived rationale to support [the inferential] leap” (10) is also reflected in Rowland’s definition of argument [“argumentation is discourse in which people attempt to solve problems rationally by supporting their claim with reason and evidence(83]). O’Keefe and Tindale both break from such theory. O’Keefe states that the focus on the “making of argumentation” overshadows “having the argument” in his characterization of argument. My understanding of O’Keefe’s definition of “having an argument” is informal and unproductive; however, O’Keefe contends that “having an argument” still deserves the attention of argument theory. O’Keefe explains that even a poorly made argument is still an argument and thus informal argumentation also can be analyzed using this second characteristic. Even Tindale discusses Johnson’s assertion that a poorly made argument that is not accepted by an audience cannot be classified as an argument. Thus, he is suggesting that only reasonable and accepted arguments are arguments (Is this referring more to the dialectic?) Although this belongs to the realm of “audience” Johnson makes a distinction between rhetoric (which focuses on effectiveness) and logic (looking for truth) and, Tindale claims, Johnson is putting more emphasis on rationality than effectiveness. In the defining of argument, one clear argument in the field is whether or not argument has to be rationale or persuasive (if anyone is reading this differently, please comment and let me know).

Another difference in defining/characterizing argumentation is looking at
what should lend itself to the study of argumentation. For instance, Tindale questions the distinction between formal and “casual” argumentation. Tindale questions Johnson’s claim that “an arguments is a type of discourse or text” (90) because such a distinction creates a top-down theory of argumentation where formal argumentation is more valued for analysis than “casual participants” (92). This seems to be at the root of O’Keefe’s argument as well; although I don’t remember him making the direct claim using Brockreide, his argument is clearly addressing the value of formal argument to information argument. Rowland addresses this distinction when discussing the debates between traditionalists “propositional discourse” based understanding of argument and theorists such as Willard who (and I’m paraphrasing here) sees defining argument limiting the social interactions that could/should be described as argument (81). This leads Rowland to assert that arguments are only arguments if they can be labeled as such.

Honestly there are so many dimensions to this/these arguments (I acknowledge the singular and plural because I think they could certainly be examined on a macro/micro level) that every time I go back to the text for clarification, I uncover more complexities.

Ecocomposition

Reference

Walker, P. (2010). “(Un)earthing a Vocabulary of Values: A Discourse Analysis for Ecocomposition.” Composition Studies. Vol. 38 (1). pp. 69-87.

Topic

Using discourse analysis can demonstrate to composition students how “environmental issues…are embedded in language” and that values surrounding environmental issues can be uncovered through conflict-language analysis (70-1).

Thesis

“The objective of this article is to propose an analytic method through with composition students and others might discover and understand the ecological complexities of prevailing environmental terminology that create “wicked” problems” (70).

Methodology

· Corpus: Walker uses discourse analysis to look at a number of textual artifacts (exact number was not identified) over a span of six years.

· Case Subject: The researcher examines documents from various stakeholders associated with the Arizona Snowbowl’s (Flagstaff) proposed expansion and plans to manufacture snow out of “reclaimed” water for better and longer skiing seasons. The stakeholders include The United States Forest Services (Flagstaff office), Arizona Snowbowl, Save the Peaks Coalition, and Native American Tribe Members.

· Framework: Walker uses Alfred Guttenberg’s (planning scholar) classification system for planning and language which includes indicative, optative, imperative, and indeterminative classifications. However, the researcher simplifies the model for his students, using the terminology referential, appraising, prescriptive, and optative. Using this heuristic, Walker performs a conflict-language analysis to show difference in stakeholder responses to the Executive Summary of Environmental Impact Statements.

Results

In analyzing the discourse of newspaper articles, quotes, websites, etc. with reactions to the proposal, Walker finds various differences in priorities when looking at the proposed land action:

• United States Forest Service: Saw itself as owner of the land and maintainer/overseer of land; Native American concerns seemed to be an afterthought of their plans.
• Arizona Snowbowl: Focus was on economic need and the progress of business and economy.
• Save the Peaks Coalition: Concerned with the “care for cultural and land preservation” (81).
• Native American Tribe Members: Valued land and was concerned with use of land and its connection to spirituality.

Author’s Interpretation of Results:

Value analysis can better reveal the concerns of stakeholders and vocabulary transmits such meaning. Thus, asking students to analyze language gives them a broader sense of the complexities of discussing environmental and sustainability issues.

Suggested Further Research:

None Reported

Critique:

Walker presented a great idea for students to explore the multidimensional nature of language and the importance of analyzing such language when examining environmental issues. However, in terms of research, the author has fundamental problems with his methods. First, Walker does not make clear if he is demonstrating an original case study, or if this case study has been developed by his students. This is problematic in understanding the depth to which the research has gone and the overall focus of his goal as well as the nature of cross-checking methods. The author tends to switch terminology and does not clearly identify his source material for the case study (the exact documents reviewed are not made clear). Furthermore, Walker has missing citations which further questions the ethos of his research. Perhaps my biggest criticism is that Walker does not clearly define which case study is the focal point for this thesis: the case study of his students working with this ‘ecocomposition’ schema or his example of discourse analysis. Overall, there seems to be a lack of critical consideration of audience and the need for clarity in research methods.

Research Networks for Graduate Students

Reference

Eyman, D., Sheffield, S., & DeVoss, D. N. (2009). Developing Sustainable Research Networks in Graduate Education. Computers and Composition, 26(1), 49-57. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2008.11.001

Topic

The authors provide a framework for establishing a research network by studying the Rhet.net research network at Michigan State University.

Research Question

The research question was stated as a thesis: “As we see them, research networks tap into the affordances of both networks (in the material and systemic senses) and communities of practice, but in order to be open to emergent possibilities and also sustainable over time, the community of researchers connected through a commitment to advancement of field-specific practices must acknowledge and explicitly construct itself as situated within an ecology of disciplinary, institutional, and social networks” (51).

Methodology

The author’s study Michigan State University Rhet.net research network which manifested from a 2004 course called “Digital Rhetoric.” The author’s look at the history of the network and analyze the stages of the its evolution to provide a working framework for the development of other research networks.

Results

The authors identify a “three-fold framework” for developing a research network

(following is quoted directly from the text):

1. Building a community of practice

2. Engaging critically

3. Applying skills in practical ways (54-55)

Authors’ Interpretation of Results

The authors see research networks as breaking from the model of individualistic work to collaborative work, moving towards “student-centered and critical pedagogies” (56). Furthermore, framing courses as “small-scale research networks” helps move research beyond coursework and creates a community of researchers (56).

Suggested Further Research

Eyman et. al. suggests that “the framework…can serve a springboard for thinking through curricular changes that may help to bring graduate education in rhetoric and composition into a productive dialogue with the collaborative activities that mark the professional work of the field” (56).

Critique

The authors do a fine job in breaking down a successful model and suggesting a framework for other departments to create a research network that will engage its students. However, the run through of the case study was brief and its methodology for developing its framework was unclear.

Coursework Across Terms

Reference

Anson, C. M., & Miller-Cochran, S. K. (2009). Contrails of Learning: Using New Technologies for Vertical Knowledge-building. Computers and Composition, 26(1), 38-48. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2008.11.002

Topic

Inspired by The Responsive Ph.D: Innovations in Doctoral Education from the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, Anson and Miller-Cochran use a constructivist model of education to create a “Vertical Model of Course Articulation and Progress,” where students collaborate beyond space and time.

Research Question

The research question is presented as a thesis: “we argue that the vertical model in Figure 2 is well suited to graduate education which provides and for the kinds of experimentation and innovation necessary to realize the outcomes called in The Responsive Ph.D” (40).

Methodology

Anson and Miller-Cochran frame their study in their “Technologies and Pedagogies in the Communication Arts” course at North Carolina State University. Anson taught the course in fall and Miller-Cochran taught the course in the spring. Anson developed a wiki for the course, which Miller-Cochran continued using the next term. Students were asked to contribute, alter, revise the course wiki throughout the term to add and create new knowledge to the course, thus creating a collaboration beyond space and time.

Results

Anson observed that students hesitated to post, alter, or add content to the wiki. Miller-Cochran at first felt uncomfortable changing the format of the wiki from what Anson established in the fall and also noticed that students were hesitate to engage with the wiki.

Authors’ Interpretation of Results

Anson and Miller-Cochran theorize that the lack of engagement with the wiki could be the result of power dynamics; just because the course utilized technology does not mean that “the power dynamics” were not present (45). The professors also asked students to change their notion of learning which is deep rooted (i.e. objectivist vs. constructivist). It is suggested that students may need to have more specific “guidelines about how to contribute to the wiki,” but this of course reemphasize the power structure. Questions about ownership may also contribute to the hesitancy of collaboration.

Suggested Further Research

The authors suggest that students may understand the nature of the wiki if they discussed the role of using the wiki/collaboration in their pedagogies. Furthermore, Anson and Miller-Cochran suggest that the wiki could become a public forum for academics and professional outside of the course.

Critique

The observations of graduate student collaboration was interesting and the authors’ acknowledge interesting variable for why their wiki project saw resistance from students. However, it would have been interesting if the students had been directly surveyed or interviewed for their impressions and reactions to the wiki. The lack of engagement may have been a misunderstanding of purpose, time management, or discomfort using the technology. Without the “user” responses, it is hard to pin down the motivation, or lack of motivation, of graduate students using this technology for collaboration.

The PhD and Civic Responsibility

Reference

Knievel, M., & Sheridan-Rabideau, M. P. (2009). Articulating “Responsivity” in Context: Re-

making the M.A. in Composition and Rhetoric for the Electronic Age. Computers and

Composition, 26(1), 24-37. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2008.11.003

Topic

Knievel and Sheridan-Rabideau discuss the importance of focusing on new media instruction in their department at the University of Wyoming to meet the needs of the State of Wyoming, the university, their department, and their program.

Research Question

The research question is stated in thesis form: “Given the unique character of our university and department, as well as the needs of our state, we see new media as a cornerstone for writing studies as it is formulated locally. This privileging of new media has direct implications not only for our program development but also, we believe, for the future of writing studies itself” (25).

Methodology

Knievel and Sheridan-Rabideau take a case study approach to looking at the importance of new media/multimodal composition in their curriculum. They break down their research into two focal points: first, “examining context, examining stakeholders” and second, “positioning new media” (25 & 31). They apply each of these focus areas to the various organizations which have a stake in university education: the State of Wyoming, the university, the English department, and the writing program. The authors discuss how the shift in emphasis (or additional emphasis) will impact the work of each sector. They use historical and speeches from their departments as data for their case study as well as using theoretical texts to apply to their findings.

Results

Knievel and Sheridan-Rabideau indicate that resituating writing studies will provide their program (and assumingly the field in general) will “assert our [UW Writing Program] independence from long-held notions about composition and writing studies’ role in the local departmental and institutional context—in order to insert writing studies into the broader conversation and innovation and responsivity in the university” (36). Furthermore, looking at writing studies through this new lens positions writing studies in the forefront of local and global contexts for students, citizens, and institutions outside the academy.

Authors Interpretation of Results

The authors’ interpretations were the results of the case study.

Suggested Further Research

The author’s indicate that research into other institutions and departments local context may also show the need to incorporate new media into their curriculum.

Critique

The author’s focus is on the specific context of the University of Wyoming, which provides an interesting case of how the work in the university directly impacts the constituents in the state. Knievel and Sheirdan-Rabideau use various types of data to support their work and keep their data set narrowly defined. This creates a well rounded analysis of their departments and its position in the larger framework of Wyoming’s state economy.

Professional Development in Multimodal Teaching and Research

Reference

Graupner, M., Nickoson-Massey, L., & Blair, K. (2009). Remediating Knowledge-Making Spaces in the Graduate Curriculum: Developing and Sustaining Multimodal Teaching and Research. Computers and Composition, 26(1), 13-23. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2008.11.005

Topic

The authors emphasize the importance of providing graduate students with a framework for how to use digital technologies for teaching, research, and professional development.

Research Questions

The research question is stated in thesis format: “In response to the need for professionalizing graduate students who are likely to work in a range of spaces, including digital environments, it is only fitting that programs take a multimodal approach to teaching and research” (13).

Methodology

The author’s provide a case study of the work they do at Bowling Green State University, mostly focusing on the digital tools used by co-author and doctoral student, Meredith Graupner, in course work and teaching assignments. In addition, the authors draw from current scholarly research to provide a critical analysis of the state of multimodal composition/writing in teaching and research contexts.

Results

The authors provide five benchmarks for creating and maintaining “multimodal teaching and research” (21) [the following benchmarks are quoted directly from the text]:

• Developing technological learning outcomes
• Establishing an online professional identity
• Identifying site-specific opportunities to develop and sustain technological learning outcomes
• Technological mentoring and the dissertation committee
• Continued support for graduate faculty (21)

Author’s Interpretation of Results

As a field, composition and rhetoric programs need to begin utilizing new digital technologies to create space for “formal and informal collaborative knowledge-making” where there is “shared [expertise and power] among and between students and faculty” (22).

Suggested Further Research

No further research was suggested by the authors.

Critique

The authors analyze and utilize textual scholarship on digital composition adequately to support the thesis that more training and opportunity is needed to develop effective digital spaces for professional development and pedagogical development for graduate students. However, empirical data is scant as only one graduate students’ work is analyzed for the purpose of this article. The author could have provided more analysis or evidence of how digital identity could or does benefit graduate students when they become faculty. Furthermore, the emphasis on discussing the importance of Electronic Thesis and Dissertations is interesting, especially in discussing the format ETDs take on (i.e. pdf texts). However, the author’s do not explore the complexities of housing more sophisticated ETDs in the academy. Overall, the interpretation of the current state of graduate education in composition and rhetoric was interesting, but more research that showed the benefits to students and programs would have strengthened this study.

Yancey "Remixing" Comp/Rhet

Reference

Yancey, K. B. (2009). Re-designing Graduate Education in Composition and Rhetoric: The Use of Remix as Concept, Material, and Method. Computers and Composition, 26(1), 4-12. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2008.11.004

Topic

In this article, Yancey focuses on how Florida State University “remixed,” or redesigned, their graduate program in composition and rhetoric to focus more on multimodal composition models and opportunities. The emphasis of this change is not in ‘reinventing the wheel’, but updating it to respect traditional scholarship and values and adjusting them to address new generational developments, needs, and uses.

Research Questions

There is not a definitive research question stated. However, through a historical lens, Yancey implies that the need to reinvent the program was largely due to a stall in enrollment and recruitment of graduate students and faculty.

Methodology

Again, a specific methodology was not presented. Yancey looks at the history of her program and outlines the changes and decisions made to reinvent FSU’s Rhetoric and Composition program. She begins this historical narrative in 2005, briefly looking back at the events a couple years prior, and noting the developments of the program through 2007. Occasionally Yancey provides anecdotes from her own or her colleagues’ pedagogical choices and even describes student projects that were characteristic of the “remix” notion of the program. However, how she chose to collect this information (whether by document analysis, interview, or observation) is not provided.

Results

Yancey finds that her program has become more successful because new technologies were introduced within the original framework of composition and rhetorical studies (rather than off sets or as new, unrelated knowledge) giving graduate students the opportunity to use traditional frameworks to try new multimodal approaches.

Author’s Interpretation of Results

Yancey notes that the current changes can inform program development in three ways: first, the “program has benefited …from programs that have come before”; second, the programs “specific emphasis on technology, culture, and literacy as also benefiting from earlier generations” whom “developed computer classroom pedagogy course that help contextualize and forecast” their focus; and third, they “will need to change as [they] become one of the earlier generations” and contemplating how to “build that consideration into existing models” (11). Thus “re-seeing” and “remixing” needs to be built “into the model” (11).

Suggested Further Research

Specific to FSU’s program, Yancey provides questions to be considered in upcoming years [the following are quoted directly]:

• Do we review program components annually and make incremental changes?
• Dow we stage a retreat when the entire program is reviewed and changes are suggested?
• Do we do both?
• In each case, what do we need? Who will be involved and why? (11)

Critique

Yancey does a fine job in explaining the evolution of FSU’s Rhetoric and Composition program between 2005 and 2007. However, this research could have been much more concrete had there been information about the change in enrollment, quantitative research showing how many theses and dissertations approached rhetoric and composition using digital tools or emphases, or interviewing students about if the opportunity to incorporate such technology into scholarship was a deciding factor in their choice to study at FSU. Perhaps this is an opportunity for future study when more time has passed and a larger sample can be studied.

Furthermore, considering this article was submitted to a journal intended for students and faculty studying composition and, seemingly, digital components, I would have expected Yancey to discuss more overtly the implications for graduate study in Rhetoric and Composition on a larger scale. A reader could certainly make such leaps, but comparing and contrasting graduate curricula could have been an interesting study in how the field is working with new developments in computers, rhetoric, and composition, and how to prepare graduate students for ongoing change.

History and Technical Communication

Dillon, W. T. “The New Historicism and Studies in the History of Business and Technical Writing.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication 11.1 (1997): 60-73. Web.

Dillon argues that, despite the academy’s push for research that can be directly applied to student outcomes, research in Business and Technical Writing should use a new historicist lens. New historicism, which takes a step further from historicism by shining a light on how historical texts have a direct impact (or legacy) in our present practices. Thus, part of learning history (according to new historicism) is understanding how it has shaped the present. Such theory is traditionally applied in literary theory, but Dillon claims that studying/examining Business and Technical writing through this lens not only shows “that their [students’] writing continues a rich, complex, and very old cultural tradition…but also [enables] them to frame more usefully the writing they produce and receive in terms of power, authority, culture, and economic necessity” (72).

For those of you interested in Technical Communication pedagogy, this is an article worth reading. How might we incorporate such examination in our classrooms? Where do students have the opportunity to deconstruct texts and look at it in theoretical ways or should this be the role of Tech-Com at all? These are some questions I’ve been pondering as I conceive of how to teach students both practical instruction of technical writing, but also providing a contextual framework for the work they do in our field.

Defining TC Annotations

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. Science Direct. Web. 5 Sept. 2010.

Knievel traces the history of how scholars in computers and writing have argued for the field to be recognized as humanistic and a necessary component of the Humanities and specifically to English. He suggests that this debate goes back to post-World War II distinctions between the humanities and the sciences (which were better funded). This created a dichotomy where the two areas of scholarship were distinctly different and humanities thought of this distinction as “self-preservation” (94). As new technologies began permeating English studies, they were looked at by non-computers and writing scholars as a threat to the study of humanity (languages, art, literature, culture, etc.); specifically, the fear of stifling creativity, critical thinking, and active learning was the concern of traditional humanities scholars. Knievel explains that computers and writing had to begin forming an understanding of the field by closely aligning the use and study of technology in relation to writing and rhetoric with the values of the English humanities. However, since the turn of the century, computers and writing has begun to assert that the teaching and studying of multiliteracies is indeed a core component to humanities due to the nature of the social engagement and knowledge creating/sharing in online environments. Thus, not only is computers and writing advancing in the humanities for these studies, but English studies needs to begin looking at the field through this lens if they want to remain sustainable in higher education.

Knievel’s argument provides an excellent history of the definition of computers in writing in the sphere of humanities and the various forms in which computers and writing scholars have protected the humanistic nature of the field. In many ways, Knievel shows how important incorporating the humanistic approach is in the defining of the field.

Scott, T. “Writing work, technology, and pedagogy in the era of late capitalism.” Computers and Composition 23.2 (2006): 228-243. Web. Science Direct. 10 Sept. 2010.

Scott observes two camps of technical communication pedagogy. The first camp, “capitalism hope,” believes students in TC will enter the field and make core changes in their positions that in turn will encourage “late capitalism” to be “more humane and ethical” (230). This camp aims at making technical writers critical of technology and their role in the production and distribution of technology so as to avoid mishandling of technology and destruction that can occur due to this mishandling (for instance, Scotts cites Bhopal, Chernobyl, and the Challenger as potential points where such pedagogy, ideally, could eliminate human loss). The second camp however, believes technical communication should prepare students to thrive in the marketplace without pushing the need for influencing ideological changes in the workplace (230). This camp looks to position technical writers so they can be successful within the confines of the new economy [Scott coins this “tactics of survival”] (232). The reasoning behind this pedagogy is that technical writers gain agency in the composition of the work, rather than being “a mere copyeditor/proofreader” (232). Foregrounding with these definitions, Scott argues that “[p]reparing students for writing work in the contemporary economy requires that we account for both the characteristics of this economy and the role that technologies play within it” (235). This does create a paradox between the needs of business versus the role of the academy. Pedagogies must include teaching skills necessary to perform TC duties; however, in the post-industrial economy, TC’s role as a humanistic field must also take into consideration the influence of the new economy on a civic level as well.

This is a very complex article bringing in Reich’s post-industrial categorization of the labor force, technical communicator theorists, and writers looking at the ever changing economy and the role of technology in the new economy; however, by weaving together such ideas, Scott shows the difficulty of defining the position of the technical communicator given the idealist notions of the academy and the demands of the marketplace. For those of us teaching technical communication, this is an important article for looking at how to approach both the practical and theoretical framework of TC education.

Introduction to the Blog

My TCR blog attempts to document the research, projects, comments, and responses that I have while navigating through my PhD program at Texas Tech University in Technical Communication and Rhetoric. What you will find here are reading annotations, class notes/responses, projects, and drafts that show the work I've been doing and the progression of my knowledge building in TCR. Currently, I am a doctoral fellow in my first year of PhD work. Please take this into consideration as you read my posts, as I am trying to find my way not only in the field, but in the program as well. I am indecisive as the form of this blog: it may contain various forms of information and discourse such as annotations, notes, freewriting/brainstorming, responses to reading or concepts, etc. But, please feel welcome to post comments and points for discussion on these various works. Thanks for visiting my blog!