- Oct 2020
-
Local file Local file
-
Kimball finishes reiterating the importance of teaching the future tech writers to have a broader understanding of the field, value the user, question institutional communication practices, and a lot of other things that have been emphasized throughout the course.
He later encourages the field of research to continue to look at the cultural significance of technical documentation, particularly as it arises out of organizations.
With the increased dependence on technology the documentation of technology will play a significant role in the culture even if that significance is yet to be seen.
-
The next large section reviews a manual/guidebook for creating your own sports car for cheap using salvaged parts (called Low Costs - a play on Locusts their inspiration).
Kimball repeats a lot of the same "resistance" language in relation to the project. Users are able to undermine the Fordian technocracy by making their own vehicles, etc. etc. This is taken to the next step when Kimball also reviews the history of the car that inspired this idea, the Locust 7. Which subverted British Pre-built car tax by being a kit that owners could build.
Kimball would probably emphasize that the builders of the Low Costs often documented the changes they made from the original guide and where they personalized their vehicles. Creating their own technical documents but seeing as I consider most hobby documentation to fall under technical writing already, I feel the point is irrelevant overall.
-
Kimball seems to value the humanizing of the VW Beetle and Muir's language around it. He also values the personalized touch of the language and stories Muir inserts to the text highlighting the success of the everyday man when using these methods. While I'm sure the text handle these in a very "Neighbor-to-neighbor attitude, this tactic itself has been commercialized to sell products.
My point is later enforced when Kimball praises Muir and the Volkswagen culture (really a counter-culture) for being that of reclaiming technology from a technocracy. Praising the 60-70s Beetle-owner for reclaiming it from its fascist origins, reclaiming it from the eras car culture by hand-painting/decorating, and making the car into a symbol of a movement.
Maybe at the time these things weren't institutionalized but today many of these elements would be turned into businesses.
-
"How to keep your volksagen alive!" (Muir) is one of these enthusiast "untainted" publications. It was self published and actively avoids institutional solutions to maintaining a car out of production since 1977.
One of the key differences with Muir's work compared to institutionalized writing by not just presenting ideal procedures but providing alternatives for the user. This sometimes results in the subversion or active encouragement of subversive behavior in the reader. Examples of this include telling the reader to disable a part rather than adjusting it since adjusting it can be a major pain and is irrelevant to the functioning of the vehicle.
Muir helps readers appropriate control over technology by subverting the institutional practices embodied by technological artifacts, substituting lo-fi techniques to avoid the controls embodied in higher technologies
I dislike the usage of appropriate throughout the text. I think reclaim would be more accurate. Appropriate has a very specific cultural context today that seems out of place here.
-
Kimball reviews the concept of bricolage (making-do) and how the post-industrial consumers make-new from the old or by using old techniques in new settings (i.e musicians who sample old songs and reinvent them).
This concept also operates in the linguistic and rhetorical space. The link to tech com is most significant in how it applies to narrative texts.
- Technical Documents Participate in two common narrative levels - communal and local. Traditionally technical documents embody local technological narratives of work strategies and actions by telling how machines, technologies, and processes work.
One promising site for this type of tactical technical communication for user-producers is enthusiast publications and their cultures. They are often motivated by enthusiasm for the activity rather than institutional strategies.
I'm concerned with this statement. Maybe at the micro level this makes sense. Small communities often have that level of intimacy. But, once this community expands and begins to organize it becomes institutional or becomes absorbed into an institution (see the video game community on places like Youtube).
-
Johnson's 3 concepts of users:
Users-as-practitioners = Mere tool-users or idiots.
Users-as-producers = users of knowledge derived from their experience.
Users-as-citizens = active responsible members of the technical community whom designers should ask to participate in design.
-
- Criticism of tech coms focus on organizational tech writing. and how it has kept us from appreciating/studying tech com outside (or in spite of) organizations.
Great point - but obviously that's where the money is. Are we in a position of power enough at this point to make a significant shift in that dynamic?
He questions our emphasis on teaching tech writing students to reflect the culture and goals of the institutions they are writing for but acknowledges that we haven't provided many alternatives.
Reviews a history of our historical ties to institutions and how what isn't institutional writing is hard to find given how embedded those structures are in our society.
Kimball seeks to continue this broadening but focus on spaces that aren't DEFINED by institutions.
-
Kimball examines 2 extra-institutional com. pieces surrounding the automobile industry.
Important to note - The documents are influential despite and perhaps because of their mundane and extracorporate status. Particularly to the automobile industry.
More Important to Note - Both texts are tech narratives of a person who counters a feeling of helplessness in a dominant culture by living as an independent operator.
Why?
Using the texts and building off of Longo's conception of tech comm as a human activity happening within organizations and the gaps between them, he outlines how users have appropriated technology to increase their freedom and involvement in cultural narrative about technology.
-
Despite the increase in user-centered design most Tech Com that we recognize remains rooted in corporate, government, or organizational agendas.
Further integration of technology into our daily lives results in -- More complex user interactions with institutional tech com and more tech com happening outside, between, and through institutions.
Understanding the above is an essential step in conceptualizing tech com for a post industrial world.
-
- Sep 2020
-
Local file Local file
-
Sufficient pressure has built up to force the student finally to put himself into his words, and there is usually a strong sense of desired audience response which focuses the words and thoughts.
E. Shelly Reids notion of difficulty and purpose combine with this to make the zone of proximal development.
-
He understands rhetoric as a transaction between the self and the audienc
Or self and believed audience.
-
The situation forces out into the open an important criterion for writing: one must refrain from considering these pieces of discursive prose in terms of whether the assertions make sense or are consistent, and judge them instead in terms of whether they reveal a person who holds the assertions-whatever the assertions may be.
As stated in my submission piece. Teaching students to write the truth no matter how difficult is IMPERATIVE.
-
Now this capacity to write words which contain a voice may not be every- thing. We all know students who have it and yet still write poor essays. But it is a lot. I think it is a root quality of good writing and that we should try to teach it.
This is that "thing" in The Gambler. Some people have this skill naturally, some have it in spades and cultivate it properly. Some have none of it and have to work very hard to cultivate it. Some get there and some don't.
-
Writing as Revealing the Author's Self in His Words
Persona???
-
I am advocating it would be quite natural for a class of poorly trained students to decide at some point in the middle of the course to devote the next three weeks to grammar drill. They fi- nally can see it is worth thei
Unlikely. Poll a class if they want an A and learn nothing or get a C but learn everything they will 99% of the time say A.
-
But covertly he may be saying "I'm damned if I'm going to give in and play word games according to the rules of those goddam teachers.
TRUE
-
I can well imagine a teacher say- ing his criteria are x, y, and z, and the class replying that really he uses v, w, x. However the argument ends up, every- one will learn a lot.
Teachers are much more resistant to change than the author is giving them credit for here. I can't see this going well.
-
But it is an experience that students never have. If you read only competent writing it is hard to know or feel what makes it so
Very true.
-
specially because the teacher is a repository of authority and this gets mixed up with his also being the repository of standards for excellence.
This is very important.
-
if the student's ability to judge accord- ing to his own criteria is stamped out and he is asked to start from scratch in learn- ing the teacher's criteria, he is apt to be stymied and even permanently damaged in his ability to write well.
Have a good conversation with his writing persona perhaps?
-
(People without conventional "English teacher" training might do an excellent job teach- ing this sort of class.)
what does this say about conventional "english teacher" training?
-
t means starting with skills that stu- dents do possess. It forces the student to realize that he does in fact have standards and criteria for judging writing. And it requires that he develop them. The pro- cedure should prevent a common dilem- ma in which the student becomes com- pletely disoriented; he feels he's lost all idea of what is good and what is bad; he loses all confidence in his powers of re- sponding validly to the quality of writ- ing. Perhaps students do not possess ex- actly the criteria for evaluating writing that college teachers feel are the right ones: "they prefer bad writing"; "they have bad taste!" "Good" and "bad" writ- ing, however, are not absolutes. The question is "good for what" and "bad for what." The student's best hope of learn- ing the teacher's criteria will come from enhancing and building up his oawn tal
I was really leaning away from this assignment as an idea until this point. I think the assignment itself has a ton of holes and problem. But it's aims are true and very important. There is some modification to be done on the layout of the task but the goals need to stay.
-
But there is a third model or criterion for judging the quality of writing: whether it produces the desired effect in the reader. Teachers tend to use the first two criteria, but this third is the one that people exercise, whether conscious- ly or not, from the day they begin to use language at all. Everyone learned to use language almost automatically in his first years and has learned-unless there is brain damage-to be very skilled at using words to make certain things hap- pen, i.e., to make people respond to him in certain ways. He may not consciously attend to the effects he is trying to pro- duce nor the techniques he uses for pro- ducing them; and if he is neurotic the effects may even be opposite to those he consciously desires. But the skill with language is invariably there. Writing courses need to use it and transform it for new ends-not work against it
Wow.
-
Is the writing true? does it embody good reasoning (valid inferences and ad- equate documentation) and good ideas?
AMEN!
-
Of course there are important differences between what students are naturally good at with lan- guage and what is required for college essays.
Is this the fault of the student or the scholars? Are we so disconnected from normal forms of communication, so elitist in our devotion to "higher" writing that we alienate all non-collegiate writers. Or, are common writers that lacking in skill?
It's an interesting question to think about for sure.
-
- Aug 2020
-
Local file Local file
-
“succumb to a simplistic or exclusionary [definition] that separate[s] us from one another” (76
100%! my issue with Jones revolves around this.
-
hnical writing per se, must have some logical relationship to technology
This isn't true.
-
Technical writing exists within government and industry, as well as in the intersection between private and public spheres.
This is self-evident and my major confusion with the entire piece.
-
work, workplace, and technology, but toward this end I offer the following observations.
Easy, Don't tie technical writing to work, workplace, and technology EXCLUSIVELY.
-
An irony of our focus on workplace writing is that it comes at a time when the “workplace” itself is disappearing. To define technical writing by placing it strictly within the workplace denies the historical contributions of women, but in doing so it also denies a larger past- and future-where the household is a primary location for the eco- nomically productive activities of women and men. According to Shoshana Zuboff, “home and workshop continued to be the principal centers of production as late as 1850” (227); with the increase in computer technologies, the prevalence of two-income households, and the rise of an information economy, the separation of home space and
My point exactly from earlier.
-
Defining technical writing as a type of writing geographically situated in the workplace fails to recognize the household as either a workplace or a “Setting of consequence” at all
How will work from home as a result of COVID change this mind set?
How has the prevalence of 2-income households shifted this perspective as well.
-
Such gendered scenarios as hot rod speed trials and boat races encourage readers to conceive of significant inventions as the prod- uct-and playthings-of men and discount the many instances where (for example) kitchens double as chemistry labs for female entrepre- neurs such as Bette Graham (who experimented with her formula for Liquid Paper@ in her kitchen before enlisting the aid of a chemist to standardize the formula) (Stanley xviii).
This might be a generational difference but I (and likely my peers) see someone up late at night tinkering in their kitchen/garage as inventors. Maybe thats a consequence of Iron Man and other film adaptations but nobody looks at 30 businessmen and engineers testing a a car to see if it can go 200 MPH as inventors. The engineers are inventors in that case but it isn't the first thing that comes to mind.
This is just me rambling and making a note about differences in generational mind sets. Perhaps this is evidence of changing perspectives but, who knows.
-
The popular image of Rosie the Riveter and the fact of women’s successes in all facets of industry during World War I1 testifies to women’s technological competence; their immedi- ate dismissal at the conclusion of the war punctuates the persistance of the view that a woman’s place is in the home.
This is a great example
-
(such as horti- culture, cooking, and childcare) in the standard indices of technology.
Would they find them in specific histories? The field of child development, horticulture, and culinary studies, SHOULD have these things well documented and celebrated. We can debate if they should be listed in the "standard" all day like literature professors trying to determine what should be considered Core in the Western Cannon but if women's significant contributes to specific fields aren't acknowledged by the fields themselves, that's where the real problem lies.
-
Furthermore, technologies that pertain specifically to women’s biological functions and social roles have been essentially ignored by historians of technology. “The indices to the standard histories of technology . . . do not contain a single reference . . . to such a signifi- cant cultural artifact as the baby bottle,” a technology that Cowan asserts has “revolutionized a basic biological process, transformed a fundamental human experience for vast numbers of infants and mothers, and been one of the more controversial exports of Western technology to underdeveloped countries” (“From Virginia Dare” 248).
This is like comparing the Aglet to the Model T and saying "Wow this one invention has forever changed how we live our daily lives how is it not revered in the same way as the Model T!?"
Should the baby bottle get more credit? Perhaps, its an amazing invention. Is it life altering? Yes at the individual level. But often time only technologies that impact the culture/species significantly receive high levels of notoriety. I have no read the indices of the standard histories of technology, perhaps it goes indepth into all major inventions, and in that case the baby bottle should be there (if it's creation is a feat as claimed). But, her reference to the text makes it feel like that work should be common knowledge. MOST, if not nearly all inventions and their histories are not common knowledge.
-
1970s librarians “did not even use Women inventors as a category for filing information
I'd be careful with this example. The implication here seems to be that librarians didn't classify women inventors because there weren't any or weren't enough to create their own classification but in reality the situation is more likely that ALL inventors were listed together and advances in the feminist movement of the 70s wanted to carve out women's spaces specifically for all fields, thus inspiring librarians to divide categories into Male and Female.
-
ncluding women and women’s work in a history of technical writing requires that we contest two assumptions that lead to their exclusion from our disciplinary story: First, (the assumption of agency) that women are not significant originators of technical, scientific, or medical achievement; and second, (the assumption of technological significance) that women’s tools are not sufficiently technical, nor their work sufficiently important, to warrant study of their supporting texts
Who made these assumptions? I have never read anyone explicitly or implicitly stating any of this.
-
great men-Aristotle, Leonard0 da Vinci, Galileo, Albert Einstein
This is a list of some of the brightest minds in the history of humankind. Male or female. Why shouldn't they be included where necessary?
-
his-stgr itself is “deeply gendered” and “presented as a universal human story exemplified by the lives of men” (Scott 18; see Barber, Cowan, and Stanley as well)
I very much despise this implication. his-story discredits the idea of History rather than attacking the historians, writers, and fields that contributed to the marginalization of varied perspectives being recorded and analyzed. As we've seen in other language matters and by labeling history "his-story" you're attacking and re-framing the conversation around the word/idea ITSELF. Very dangerous.
-
that technology, work, and workplace are gender-neutral terms
They are.
-
It follows then, that “what counts” as technical writing is derived from what is considered technology, what we consider work, and where we understand the workplace to be.
This is another reason I disagree with that definition.
-
“writing that accommodates technology to the user”
I very much disagree with this description. I think that is a result of the fields purpose not the purpose itself.
-
Rivers in his 1994
This must be some foundational piece that I have not read that details the history of Tech Comm extensively.
-
subsumed, lost, or overlooked
This is a more accurate assessment of the field. It's one thing to say "wHY aReN'T tHere aNY wOMen?" vs. There have been plenty of women with solid work but due to the nature of the field they have been long overshadowed, underappreciated, and potentially lost.
-
There are a few notable exceptions from a handful of scholars: Elizabeth Tebeaux’s work on Renaissance technical writing (see “Technical Writing” and sections of “Visual Language”), Tebeaux and Mary Lay’s “Images of Women in Technical Books from the English Renaissance,” Kathryn Neeley’s “Women as Mediatrix: Women as Writers on Science and Technology in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries,” a chapter on sewing machines in R. John Brockmann’s From MiUwrights to Shigwrights, and my own article on document design innovations in home sewing patterns (“Patterns for Success”).
Given what we've read so far in this class I highly doubt these are the only notable examples of women writing in the field. I want to see where she goes with this but the historical context of the class thus far does not support this entrypoint into the work.
-
omen are largely absent from our recorded disciplinary past, whether as technical writers, as scientists, or as inventors or W users of technology.
Sada Harbarger was just cited (1920s) in Kynell's work. Did all the women in the field just vanish after that for several years?
-
-
s3.amazonaws.com s3.amazonaws.com
-
what educa-tors didn't consider was the humanistic stem implicit in technicalcommunication. To write about technology for users presupposed ahuman link
(see point about "more human") YES EXACTLY THANK YOU KYNELL!
-
Should English education serve to humanize theengineer?
This was an elitist sentiment often echoed by my peers in undergraduate studies. That the liberal arts make its students "more human" by improving empathy and understanding. While the goal here is admirable the sentiment that Engineers or similarly "robotic" fields need to be "humanized" by us superior English student is problematic at best and dangerous at its worst.
-
English faculty still usuallyobtained degrees in literature and many of diem still perceived theservice course engineering English as little more than drudgery
I wonder how true this is. I feel like there has been a noticeable shift in my own lifetime. The data would be interesting.
-
that they may bask in the sunshine of pure culture in some other morecongenial department"
Amazing how little some things change. I laughed far too loud at this.
-
translating the conceptual into writing andunderstanding the audience for whom a document is intended.
There is your Tech Comm Identity. Once again -- how does it differentiate itself from Rhetoric and Composition? Tough to say. But if those are your two foundational points for Rhet/Com. What third and/or fourth points can you add to truly differentiate the field? More on this later in the class (hopefully).
-
Borrowing from the rhetorical modes, specifically description, Earlereconceived the standard description paper into a mechanism orproduct description
reminds me of Darwin's utilization of Art/Science to relay information.
-
Technical Communication Quarterly 1471. the ability to put into words an abstract thought2. the ability to describe, in writing, an object not present3. the ability to write for different audiences4. the ability to give a concept full treatment by demonstratingunderstanding in writing (37
How many of these rules remain today (even if they have shifted slightly) and how many have been added?
Rude's work on research questions on the impact of carving out space would be interesting to apply here.
-
Second, English instruction should be less focusedon literature and the compositional modes and more focused on theactual writing engineers might face in their professional lives.
Amazing that this idea is being formulated in 1911 and Literature as a way of teaching English still remains prominent.
-
"One cannot," he continued, "simply glide into a classroom and greeta class of engineers with a sweet schoolgirl smile and 'my is not this abeautiful spring morning'" (Creek 301). English, in either form,simply wasn't working well either to ed
Hahahahaha
-
The concern over English instruction wasrelated to the near illiteracy of many graduating engineers, furthercomplicating lingering status concerns.
Amazing how literacy/English (or main language of the country) has long been liked with perceived intelligence. I see there very often in my line of work. Software Engineers with immense technical skill be passed up for a position because english is their second language.
-
Technical Communication Quarterly 145educated per se. Second, the "tag" of vocationalism, once established,took hold and was difficult to excise. Early impressions often linger,and the perception of "training for a trade" was slow to disappear. Inorder to counter the often negative perceptions of the profession ofengineering, educators embarked on curricular revision as one meansto elevate the social status of engineers.
I love Kynell's usage of these historical nuggets. The early stages of Engineering as a field struggling to carve out its own space are oddly similar to that of Tech Comm. Obviously the two fields are directly related historically but I would not be surprised if similar histories exist across most fields of study. This challenges my original belief that Tech Comm would be better off having its elements absorbed into Rhetoric or other related fields. It does not surpass it to the point where I believe the opposite but it does set a good foundation for a shift in my thinking.
-
"Why not call a chemical laboratory a medicine shop?"
This is a powerful example of how important language can be to shaping public perception and discourse.
-
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, founded in1824 as "Rensselaer School," the first private institution to offerengineering training in America (Reynolds 463).
Some incredible young men and women at this institution still to this day.
-
Certainly there were exceptions,namely West Point, "the earliest college-level institution to offerengineering training"
Did not know this. That's pretty cool.
-
engineering environment out of which technical writing may haveultimately emerged
Similar process to Jones, "Use the past to understand the future" I appreciate Kynell's methodology being explicitly stated. Especially when compared to Jones' mostly anecdotal evidence.
-
Recently, a number of articles on both pedagogical and theoreti-cal applications in technical communication have arguedthat teachers should be as least as concerned with teaching theethical, social, and political ramifications of the discipline as they arewith teaching the forms and models associated with the discipline. Infact, Gerald Savage, in his 1996 "Redefining the Responsibilities
Seeing a trend here from the first readings (duh). But, this was published 7 years prior to Jones' work. Her stance continues to confuse me.
-
-
s3.amazonaws.com s3.amazonaws.com
-
owever, the programmatic approach will notprovide the editor the scope required for consideringeach editorial situation individually
duh
-
Programmatic or rule-following editorial proce-dures are necessary and basic for acceptable editorialquality.
duh
-
Thus, the technical editor should be concerned aboutrhetoric because rhetoric, being situational, offers a coher-ent framework in which the editor can rationally approachthe different individual situations that make up his or herwork.
True, but once again. Why isn't this part of the technical writing field as a whole not a separate entity?
-
ments of what may be called the rhetorical situation: thespeaker or writer, the message to be communicated,the purpose of the message, and the person for whom themessage is intended.
Great definition
-
why should the technical editor be concerned with rheto-ric?
This seems self evident. But I'm coming at it from a rhetorical perspective and have a warped perception of the term. Who is her audience here if not technical editors/technical writers. She shouldn't have to make this distinction if her audience is already well aware of rhetoric publicly vs. academically.
-
technical editor from those of technical communicators(especially technical writers
Carving out a space for technical editing to separate from technical writers. Aren't both skills needed for both fields? Why do these need to be separated?
-
are directed to the technical writer rather thanthe technical editor
Interesting distinction that i had not thought of before.
-
-
Local file Local file
-
No one else pays such close attention to texts used to get workdone, particularly work that requires specialized knowledge.
Once again, this "work" related texts needs work. I think other researchers (particularly in the legal, political, and rhetorical fields) would heavily contend with this point. This point forces you into the conversation about work and its definition (shown perfectly by her follow up lines). It is a weak hill for TC to build a fort on. I wonder what other definitions peers would come up with to replace work here or redefine work properly in this context.
-
The overlap of these related fields is inev-itable and even good because different perspectives on issues reveal newinsights
Good to the point where the other fields don't swallow TC as a whole into themselves. Once again bringing forward the point that TC can be reactive and collaborative as much as it wants but the need for a semi-permanent set of legs to stand on it's own is vital to the long term growth of the field.
-
In universities, resources do not usually expand, only shift; gainin one area means loss in another.
The increased tuition costs, expanded student pools, and administrative bloat would like a word with this point.
-
Academics, however, resist a curriculumdefined by tool knowledge. Tools prepare one for production rather than for
is this a bad thing? Personally I would prefer a curriculum focused in research and writing but I wouldn't fault a student for wanting to get an education on the tools of the trade especially as a practical application for recently learned theory.
-
Methods mustaccommodate the assumption that writing is a social activity, oftenproduced collaboratively but also influenced by and influencing the con-text
This is a sentiment that is echoed in the Rhetorical space as well. Intentionally or not, Rude does an exceptional job highlighting how challenging it is for TC (and surrounding fields) to differentiate themselves.
-
‘put it on the map’’
Dorpenyo uses similar language to create space for rhetorical-cultural analysis.
-
Afield that has a sense of itself through its research questions is also a moresustainable field than is one in which the research is ad hoc andopportunistic.
Agreed. Focusing on the proactive rather than the reactive is essential to carving out a long term space for TC (or any field for that matter).
-
-
Local file Local file
-
Table 1.Tenets of inclusive work.PositionalityPrivilegePowerFoundationaldescriptionUnderstanding identity ascomplex, dynamic, andcontextual.Positionality that confersunearned advantages.Distributed relative to privilegeand positionality. Considersabuses such as domination,exploitation, and subjectivity.Appliedconsiderations forinclusive researchWays that the researcher’s andothers’subjectivity is shaped byand shapes the research project.Ways that unearned advantagesand disadvantages shaperesearchers’and others’assumptions and experiencesrelevant to the research project.Ways that power is wielded inthe research project.Reflection questionsto inform andguide inclusiveresearch●How do aspects of my identityshape the way I think aboutresearch: what it is? what is itfor? who does it? how to do itwell?●In what ways do aspects ofparticipants’identities informtheir perspectives of theresearch phenomena and theprocesses used to study it?●What unearned advantagesare at play in interactionsamong stakeholders (includingmyself) in the researchenvironment?●What disadvantages exist as adirect result of stakeholders’positionality (including myown)?●How do I acknowledge a mul-tiplicity of perspectives?●What potential harms (e.g.,blind spots, assumptions,discourtesies, offenses)might the unquestioned,unacknowledged wieldingof my power cause?●Who is silenced in myresearch?●Who is given voice in myresearch?●How do I promote agency inmy research?●How do I act as an advocatein my research?
Everything you could ever want to know about the desired outcomes from this work are well organized here. The author's want to see this shift in thinking in TPC research and social moments.
-
In considering power as a central tenet of inclusive work
This is very Foucaultian. Leaning heavily on Foucault is understandable but creates a weak point in the argument considering the ever-ongoing debate regarding his power-centric worldview.
-
This future-oriented sense making is necessaryfor scholars in the field to move beyond diversity, through social justice, toward inclusiveresearch and pedagogy in TPC. This is the promise of antenarrative.
I once again feel that the term antenarrative struggles to find a place in this piece. If anything, the authors are calling for the broadening of the "narrative" of the field and increasing the visibility of this broadened field publicly. This work is doing just that by contextualizing what may have once been fringe works by contributing to the narrative of the field. This may just be a semantic obsession on my part but for some reason this concept does not feel right throughout the piece.
-
encouraged scholars and teachers in TPC to“think about how power and privilegecould impede accessibility and accommodation”(p. 273)
A great point to be made, especially given the current conversation around quarantine and remote learning.
-
Palmeri’s work (2006) allows TPC scholars to reenvision technicalcommunication through the lens of universal design and adapt“social discourses and materialenvironments to ensure participation for citizens of diverse abilities”(p. 50). And because everyone’sabilities fluctuate, everyone is and will be disabled in various ways, extents, and contexts (Jarrett,Redish, & Summers,2013; Pass,2013).
This is an admirable goal as technology continues to expand in functionality. The ideal user centered design would be flexible enough to account for any user. In a perfect world there would be a one size fits all situation. These universal truths are unlikely in the short term. We do have some evidence of specific communication targeted to the user from sources that have intimate knowledge of user preferences and behaviors. Some of these sources are (justifiably) criticized for their immoral acquisition of this information.
-
ableist agenda
Once again Jones falls back labeling things as widespread. It is unfair to label utilitarian solutions as attempting to promote an agenda of any kind. The TPC community is not actively attempting to exclude members of a disabled community but instead provide solutions to their immediate audience. While this (inevitably) leaves some marginalized, this is not the intention of the scholars by any means and should be communicated by Jones as an understandable oversight rather than an "embrace" as she describes it.
-
User advocacy is not fully enacted by merely making objects easy to use but also includesrespecting users enough to convey effects of use so they can make informed decisions (Johnson,1998). Because user advocacy is central to our work, it is correspondingly foundational to ourmethods: for example, using participatory design to enable a better understanding of users’tacitknowledge (Moore & Elliott,2016; Spinuzzi,2005) and engaging in methods specifically suited toinclusive design, such as feminist-informed narrative inquiry (Jones,2016a) and decolonial meth-odologies (Agboka,2014).
Here Jones begins to lay out her desired shift for user advocacy's definition. It is self explanatory and doesn't seem to offer anything new. But that might be because this is the commonly accepted definition now and I was out of the loop prior to this shift.
-
focus on the space between cultures (Matsuda & Atkinson,2008)●involve conducting multilevel analyses considering nation, region, organization, and individual(Thatcher,2006; Walton,2013b)●transcend national contexts to investigate global phenomena and transcultural communities(Ding,2013; Starke-Meyerring,2005)
Similar goals are likely required of race and ethnicity conversation. I would say that these outcomes in hindsight align with expected growth of a field of study rather than brave divergences from a traditional path or "narrative." Biologists didn't study mitochondria, cell membranes, and the behaviors of the nucleus before making general observations of the cell. While we are dealing with people in TPC and do run the risk of marginalization, broad stroke studies are inherently lacking in nuance. This risks problematic generalizations that we should do what we can to avoid. However, they are necessary steps for future researchers to dive into the gaps (antenarratives?) and further the breadth of the field.
-
(his)stor
Why are parentheses here? I might be missing a point?
-
But the dominant narratives of efficiency,technological expertise, and innovative infrastructure too often dominate the field and researchprojects where inclusion sits at the heart of the project.
I would like to see the authors dive into this a bit more. By spelling out why they think this is the case, it might garner more support for the dichotomy they're creating between the antenarrative and dominant narrative.
-
In the spirit of full disclosure, we write this article because it is the article we need when we writeabout our own inclusive work. When Jones writes about the Innocence Project (Jones,2016), orMoore (2016) writes about public engagement in public planning projects, or Walton (2016) writesabout field research in the Global South, each needs a foundational piece to point to that commits tothe field a view of technical communication and its inclusive efforts. The struggle to justify our workas TPC scholarship derails our arguments, causes unnecessary throat clearing, and is just plainfrustrating. We see scholars across the field who are committed to broadening opportunities for
I appreciate the honesty.
-
Antenarratives open up a space that invites reinterpretation of the past so as to suggest—andenable—different possibilities for the future.
I celebrate her desire to expand the field but I struggle buying into the antenarrative/dominant narrative dichotomy. Even Rude (quoted earlier) writes about how difficult it can be to create an overarching identity for the field (vs. her personal research interests which are easier for her to speak on). With that in mind, is there truly a "dominant" narrative?Jones is labeling the lack of inclusivity focused scholarship into a narrative when the scholars within that "narrative" are likely as different from each other as she is to them.
-
f we accept that inclusivity is an integral part of our field’s history, how can or should weproceed?
Inclusivity being an integral piece of the fields history is not a prerequisite for the field proceeding. It is in a field of studies very nature to expand in focus/scope over time.
-
communication is most concerned with objective, apolitical, acultural practices, theories, andpedagogies. The official narrative of our field indicates that TPC is about practical problem solving
Practical problem solving is by very nature exclusive. The utilitarian approach to solutions often leaves the individual out of the equation entirely. Jones' desire to carve a space for TPC with social justice and inclusivity in mind is well-timed. It's important to note that she is not advocating for the removal of utilitarian practical problem solving but encouraging multiple fields of focus being explored by scholars simultaneously.
-
Part methodology and part practice, an antenarra-tive allows the work of the field to be reseen, forges new paths forward, andemboldens the field’s objectives to unabashedly embrace social justice andinclusivity as part of its core narrative
Core objective of the piece: Jones and Moore seek to begin to rethink professional communication with social justice and inclusively as a core component.
-