In the reading 'Technically it's all Communication...' the topic of why technical communication has no formal definition, or at least no definition that seems to encompass everything included in technical communication, is hashed out. When the writer of this article tries to explain to others outside her field what her major includes, they look at her confused or ask more questions such as, what are you going to do with that degree. The writer points out that this is a problem, not only for academe but also for those who become professional technical communicators.
The writer shows that without a specific definition, technical communicators may have issues with the amount of respect they recieve at the work place. They also could be given odd jobs that have nothing to do with technical communication, simply because no one is sure what technical communicators are supposed to do. The problem springs from the fact that technical communicator's jobs change and evolve with the progression of technology, so the definition must also evole. Also, technical communicators do many different things so it is hard to pinpoint in a short, clear definition all the different areas of technical communication.
However, despite these problems it seems necessary, and in the best interest of technical communicators, to agree upon a defintion for their field. The definition must be broad not vague and easily understood. It must also be updated as technology progresses, but as the writer points out, who would be better to continuously update the defintion of a technical communicator other than technical communicators themselves.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Someone should tell Bemer that if she thinks it's difficult explaining to someone what a technical communicator does, she should try getting a degree in rhetoric and composition(my field). I think half of the resistance to such degrees is the same thing that English majors in general get regarding the types of jobs available for them, and why such a smart person wouldn't seek a high-paying job as a lawyer.
ReplyDeleteI think there's an interesting thing you point out about the technical communicator. They are seen as performing an odd assortment of jobs, in some cases; the work does change and evolve (although all fields do this). I think the dynamic at work here is that technical writers accomodate themselves to the situation they are faced with, whereas many professionals accomodate the situation to themselves.
For example, a pastry chef doesn't go into a restaurant and figure out what the patrons want (which could be a meat dish). They go in and offer pastries that they think the audience will like. Perhaps this a tension between being a specialist and a generalist. Perhaps doctors and lawyers are seen as specialists in a specialized field, while technical communicators are seen as generalists without specialized knowledge. The same dynamic works within professions such as law and mediciine (and teaching): specialists are valued more highly than generalists.
I thnk you're right that the definition of technical communication needs to be free to change, but I would be careful thinking of this change as evolution or progress (which somewhat assumes a steady improvement toward some ideal goal). Such changes will be hotly contested, if not downright vicious sometimes. One author I mentioned tonight, Thomas Kuhn, has written that science changes both by refinement of past thinking, as well as sharp breaks from past thinking. Technical communication may need to do the same at times.