Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Stop, Collaborate, and Listen: A Look at "What do Technical Communicators Need to Know about Collaboration?"

Introduction
The problem presented in this article is very straightforward: being able to successfully collaborate in technical communication is crucial, especially now, but there are definite dangers and "pitfalls" (Burnett et al. 454) to avoid. Unsurprisingly, the authors plan on presenting a heuristic to help the reader navigate collaborative projects effectively. In this chapter, they apply this heuristic to Cassandra and her work environment. Cassandra is the technical communicator for a five-person team working to produce recruitment brochures, tracking forms, and informational sheets for bilingual (English/Korean), female patients with breast cancer. The goal is to pair women who have been recently diagnosed with volunteer breast cancer survivors. The authors present the team as working effectively together, but Cassandra notes that communication strategies will have to change based on who she is interacting with and the potential conflict of being friends with her boss.


Literature Review
The authors cite studies that show that between 75 and 85% of writing in the workplace is collaborative. They also outline 3 assumptions about collaboration (457).

1. Collaboration is rhetorical = consider context
2. Collaboration is a process = dual responsibility
3. Collaboration is multimodal = must understand forms

They aver that collaboration is more than writing different sections of a group paper or simply using computer-mediated technology, but rather that it requires people who interact using different tools in different settings to achieved shared goals, either because the project has too much complexity (procedural, social, or intellectual) for one or because it requires multiple perspectives. Furthermore, the authors discuss cognition and learning, small group processes, and technology. In their section on cognition and learning, they briefly mention:

1. The importance of positive interdependence (we can reach individual goals only if the whole group is doing well)

www.learning-knowledge.com


2. And a way of explaining it: the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky 1978)

http://talonsphilosophy.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/jonathan-toews-modern-education-and-zpd/


They also indicate that smaller groups may be better (Lowry et al. 2006) and that classroom and workplace groups vary in terms of construction, environment, and interaction (e.g. in a workplace the participants are likely to realize that they may collaborate again, not necessarily true in a classroom, semester vs. years, etc.). This leads to a discussion of: 

1. Social loafing (which happens more often in big groups or groups with undefined goals)

www.oecam.com


2. Groupthink (which can hinder productive conflict)


3forward.com
The authors go on to suggest that effective collaborations often require defined leadership. Leaders plan, organize, and motivate. They help group members "articulate and accomplish a shared vision" (464). They may also be facilitators, though this can also be a separate position. Facilitators are responsible for scheduling, organizing and sharing documents, and monitoring participation. They briefly indicate that classroom interaction often involves an unfortunate reduction in uncertainty and that leadership can be gendered (e.g. conventions of female or male leadership, women denied leadership roles). 

The last part of the literature review talks about the role of technology and how different technologies can be used depending on time (synchronous or asynchronous) and space (co-located or remote) (i.e. the cool table on 466). I appreciate that they mention that collaboration depends on how the technology is being used and that all technology does not necessarily enhance communication.     

Heuristic and case study

The heuristic the authors propose is a series of framing questions in Table 18.3 (468) relating the seven components of collaboration (see above) to cognition/learning, small group processes, and technology. For example, one of the questions dealing with setting and technology was "how do different settings affect your group's use of technology?" (469). They state that the answers to some of these questions may be partially or completely predetermined (e.g. goal of grant, job titles). They end by stressing the importance of compromise and the unique challenges faced in different groups.
Reflecting on the example and using the heuristic in this chapter should help you minimize problems and maximize rewards, but expect each collaboration to involve unique challenges, disagreements, and setbacks. Ultimately, your ability to turn moments of difficulty into sites of productivity could make the difference between success and failure (473).  

Questions

1. Lowry et al. found that groups of three had higher quality interactions than groups of six (but not significantly so). They also had greater openness, accuracy and richness. I wish this chapter would have cited some other studies as well, but Lowry's research made me think a lot about collaboration in the classroom. For example, how important is group size? Should students work in both smaller and bigger groups, or just smaller groups? Should the instructor construct the groups or should students have some ability to decide? Should students work with the same people over the course of the semester or should the groups be switched up? 

2. Should we ask each student to pick a role (leader, facilitator, etc) during group work? 

3. When describing the difference between productive and unproductive conflict, the authors stress considering attitudes, self-confidence, motivation, and sense of responsibility. Later, they indicate that students may instead look for a leader who instead minimizes uncertainty and reduce conflict. Can we teach productive conflict? Should we talk about it? How can we get students to consider all of these variables?   

4. There are A LOT of questions and variables in the authors' heuristic, and the discussion questions make me think they realize that students will not address them all and that some might be more important than others. How might this heuristic be reduced to be more manageable? Might that be an exercise for students as well as modifying it for their own workplace?

5. What do you think of using Second Life (discussion question 8) or the scenario between working at home or at work (discussion question 10)?

Connections 

This chapter easily connects to several others we've read this semester. For example, "What is the Future of Technical Communication?" and this one both discuss intellectual complexity (i.e. wicked problems) and how collaboration has increased in contemporary settings. The chapter also connects to Hart-Davidson's chapter because they both emphasize that work in technical communication can be interdisciplinary. For example, "What are the Work Patterns of Technical Communication?" talks about all the different genres of the papers Elena is working on in the coffee shop, and the people working on Cassandra's team all have very different skill sets and backgrounds. In this case, it is interesting to think about what role technical communicators play, especially in a group vs. alone. For example, there is a database administrator (and assistant) on this team, and I'm curious about the difference between recruitment materials and draft documents in the task list (456). These tasks seemed clear-cut to me at first, but now they still seems vague, and I would like to know more about Cassandra's specific role.

The end of the chapter connects to Spilka's "Communicating Across Organizational Boundaries: A Challenge for Workplace Professionals". Spilka indicates that external goals may have to come before internal goals in work with multiple organizations, and the current chapter describes Cassandra's willingness to compromise on the brochure's design for the good of the team. The authors state: "Collaborators should be receptive to compromise, putting the collective goal ahead of individual interests" (472).  It is also apparent that Cassandra (and others in the group) know about information design; perhaps they learned from "What do Technical Communicators Need to Know about Information Design?". For example, they were concerned with brochures and thus how to structure visual content and materials in order "to make an argument or tell a story, creating purpose-driven groups..." (Schriver 390). Furthermore, Wysocki's chapter connects to this one in the discussion of new media and networking. Wysocki mentions games such as World of Warcraft and how they allow for interaction even when players are in different spaces. Similarly, Burnett et al. talk about how collaborators could communicate in remote locations, both synchronously and asynchronously.   
 

Wednesday, October 9, 2013

Here's a Heuristic: Solving Problems in Technical Communication

I really wanted to like this book before I even opened it; Solving Problems in Technical Communication sounds so definitive, so action-oriented! Party! Well, maybe. I opened it and immediately noticed differences between this book and the other texts we've read this semester. After all, the first sentence of the introduction states, "This book is for students who are leaning about the field of technical communication" (1). Though they are quick to add that people with "some experience" (1) could also use make use of their work, it functions more as an academic introduction for the new student, at least to me. Thus, I think it's useful that they bring up the functional, social, and workplace aspects of technical communication early (though their example of a "broad social concern" being users who desire to save paper is perhaps a bit flimsy). It has also made me think about whether or not I want to treat these as discrete subjects in my own course (between 101 and 402 I've been reflecting quite a bit on break down vs. integration), and I'd be interested to hear people's opinions about that in class.

I also enjoyed the focus on adaptability, because it stresses the importance of electronic literacy instead of computer literacy, but what troubled me was the invisible emphasis on trial and error. For example, they say, "you also learn (or should learn) that the ease with which e-mail can be misread in volatile situations suggests that, in some cases, calling for a face-to-face meeting will be slightly less efficient but more likely to be productive in the long run" (8). This sentence suggests to me that there are some people who will never learn what they "should learn" and that "in some cases" I should call a face-to-face meeting that will "most likely" be productive. In other words, there's a struggle between the straightforward rules and the intuition of it all. I do think that is what they are trying to stress with the heuristics in general (e.g. the final word section), but I wonder how much room there is for error in the workplace and the differences between performing trials in the classroom and in the 'real world'. If this book offers heuristics as places to start, how do we teach students when it is time to deviate and how to deviate, or is it enough to teach them that they exist in the first place? How do we "teach" intuition and does this vary based on the student or the teacher? Is this a goal of remediation? Are the ways their practice will be limited in the classroom similar what they might face in the future? Should we even try to mimic that?

After reading a few Selfe (and Selfe) pieces, I think the first chapter might be my least favorite of their pieces. I appreciate that they talk about the different techniques used to map the field and problems with each, but I'm unconvinced that clouds are the answer, if only because they also have an extreme amount of subjectivity. However, I do think that it could be a really cool exercise for students. For example, I like their idea of using resumes (or some other assignment) to generate a cloud, which could be analyzed using some of their questions from page 32. I'm simply not convinced that all of the adjustments and choices the generator of a cloud has to make (e.g. what texts to use, how to use/manipulate them, what to exclude or enhance) really allows someone to get at the definition of technical communication. If you are making choices about what to include and how to include it, might you already have some idea of what your definition is? Furthermore, the cloud cannot function without interpretation. For example, there seem to be many terms that appear once (problematic?), and a person looking at one would have no idea about the relationship between writing and communication and how that has changed over time.

The Davidson chapter made me wonder about the use of the personal in technical communication texts for students, and I wonder how common that is. We've now moved from Amanda to Elena, and later we'll hear about Kate and and a variety of other early practitioners. However, Elena is the only one in the first section to be "made-up," as a composite character. The author states that her "job titles and work patterns are borrowed from several real people" (73) and it made me question how one would quantify several. Is several enough to describe "folks like Elena" as "contemporary technical communicators" (51), especially considering the fact that the field is too diverse to define? How does this differ from describing several real people and which would you (as a reader) prefer? This article did make me come back to users and usability testing in the classroom, and I liked the discussion on 'usability' vs. 'usefulness'; it was cool to hear about some of the studies throughout, and texting is an accessible example.

Henry's chapter brought back ethnography and autoethnography, and I was wondering how difficult it currently is to publish an autoethnography and the ways in which we might motivate someone to publish a scholarly work instead of a professional one. I appreciated that the chapter outlined various ways in which one could use a cultural analysis (e.g. journal, report, informal notes etc.) It was also entertaining to see the concessions made to students. For example, after talking about conducting an interview, the article continues: "Though these steps may seem time consuming..." (87). Yes, perhaps being ethical is time consuming. I also chuckled at the survival of the fittest part in the conclusion, though it's an apt generalization.

"It's a hard life running in and out of the workplace!"
www.australiangeographic.com


I found "How Can Technical Communicators Develop as Both Students and Professionals" interesting, and I'm curious to hear what the class thinks about technical writing as a profession (or not) and the authors' thoughts. I had some trouble with the statements "In many ways, the road to professional success seems easy to understand and navigate. Almost everyone has at least a basic understanding of how to find a job and keep it" (100) as well as "If work is not an option, then the time may be perfect to earn a graduate degree" (111). Also, I enjoyed reading the professionals' stories and the emphasis on pragmatic steps and tools, but I'm curious how this would affect students (these three all sound as if they have their lives perfectly together). Also, should we be teaching networking skills or is that up to the student? If we should, how might we do that? For example, should we have students set up profiles on professional networking sites? Would using some of these discussion questions to point out that internship opportunities etc. are available be enough?

Porter's work is immediately connected to the user-centered approach (he even cites Johnson), and it was interesting to see how it was presented for an audience of students. I very much appreciated that they talked about all the definitions of theory and connected different ways of viewing theory to the different ways of viewing writing. I was hoping that the article would address what Max did as well as what he should do (I often prefer more specifics) but I thought it was a useful general introduction to move students from thinking exclusively about documents to thinking about users. On the other hand, Swarts article inspired more thoughts about distinct assignments. For example, it might be interesting to have students do a modified version of question 1 in the discussion questions along with the drawing activity we did in class the other week. As in many of the other articles we've discussed, this one also stresses the importance of context (though I have to admit I'm still not sure I quite understand the purpose of Figures 6.3 and 6.4).

By this point, Longo and Fountain's chapter sounds pretty familiar (Side note: Has anyone read Spurious Coin?), though I did appreciate the humor. Oh, file cabinets. It reminds me of a conversation I was part of in another course where we talked about chain novels and whether an author was more constrained within a paper or by the conventions of genre (the discussion on 173) and also our earlier discussion about Angel and whether or not it was more useful to just keep using it because we finally had it figured out. I'm also curious about socialization as a two-way street and how it is influenced by power dynamics. Does socialization always require more sacrifice from the newcomer to "absorb the culture" (176). Should some cultures not be absorbed, and how does that fit in with enjoying the work, pay, etc.? I think these questions also relate to discussion questions 5 and 6. Lastly, Mehlenbacher's chapter mentions Janine's useful ability to work under tight deadlines, and it makes me wonder about the time students will have for reflection in their career. There is a definite emphasis in this text on being "reflective problem solvers" (3), but I wonder about the balance between reflection and problem-solving, especially when the reflective part is largely invisible compared to the desired problem-solving one. As Mehlenbacher states, "Given the pressures to solve problems quickly while working with complex problems in ill-structured environments, the technical communicator's ability to achieve what Bazerman (1988) describes as "rhetorical self-consciousness" is exceedingly difficult" (193). It's interesting that this is the first chapter in which that has been brought up (at least that I noticed). How do we teach students to transcend this idea of information overload? Have we?    



 
  




       

Tuesday, October 1, 2013

Research and Pedagogy in CPT Part 2

The first thing I learned while reading the third section of Critical Power Tools is that Bernadette Longo must be a pretty important person in technical communication research, and you should probably cite her if you want to discuss cultural context and rhetorical boundaries. I was, in fact, most interested in her article because I'm partial to discussions about this qualitative/quantitative dichotomy and what knowledge is privileged and why. Without attempting to summarize the article, Longo argues that we need to examine technical writing beyond the limits of an organization and pushes for cultural studies as a part of technical writing research. I understand her points; however, I cannot help but think that other discourses and institutions have even more power through the guise of appearing "scientific". For example, Longo mentions that the engineers' data was ignored during the Challenger crisis and, for many, no amount of research is going to convince them that climate change is human-driven, because that would have economic consequences. Also, scientists may "...make princesses out of all these Cinderellas" (117), but we have to make sure to carefully quantify how sure we are that each one is really royalty. As I was reading this, an NPR report was discussing how confidence intervals are being linked to adjectives; for example, 'very likely' is 90% confident and 'extremely likely' is 95% confident. Thus, I do not think that the public always sees science or numbers as offering them "objective truths" (123).

"It's extremely likely that this outfit is going to allow you to dazzle the prince, and you know what that means!" 
I like the statement by Saur:
Regulations based on objective empirical data and experimentation can reinforce and support workers' subjective experience...we do not close a coal mine every time a miner feels a chill or hears an unexpected noise. As McCloskey concludes,"The alternative to modernism is not irrationalism" (168; cf. Dawes "Irrationality," Rational as cited in Saur, 183).
I see science as attempting to gather enough information to draw conclusions and to be useful, and I think the same is true for cultural studies. For example, one person may notice how an object is acting in a historical context, another author may notice something else and add to it, and another may use that historical context to examine a different object. Furthermore, this article (and others) brought up additional questions for me:

1. Is an "incitement to discourse" enough to validate cultural studies? Isn't that the goal of all (okay, the vast majority of) research?
2. Doesn't theory drive methodology, or am I confused?
3. Is technical writing conquering "users' native know-how" and transforming it into powerful scientific discourse? (117) Is it building on know-how? What might happen if we compare it to the goal later proposed by Salvo: "the technical communicator takes raw data...and transforms it into usable knowledge" (232)?
4. If we place a high value on speculative knowledge, does that bring up other power struggles? For example, do we value the speculative knowledge of a professor from Harvard over one from a community college? Doesn't the institution still reign?
5. What would technical writing and scientific discourse look like if it were 'open' (Salvo 236)? Is uncertainty a part of that? Would it be more exciting to read a text that includes the relationship between the author and research? What about the engineer, the technical writer, and the research?

I was happy to read Britt's article after Longo's because I was wondering how we should define an institution. However, I would like to know more about the levels she purposes:
At the most local level are sites such as composition classrooms; at the most global level there are disciplines (such as English studies) and macroinstitutions (such as the family or state). Situation in between are what Porter et al. call microinsitiutions/organizations (such as literacy centers or writing centers (Britt 135).
I like that the authors mention that we cannot always critique the local level to be effective, because that's part of my argument in 501. I also understand that institutions rely on rhetoric, and I thought it was so interesting how they emerge as taken-for-granted. However, I'm still not 100% sure I could define one. For instance, how do we know what separates a macroinstituation from a microinstitution? Is discipline synonymous with institution? Does that make 'the university' a macroinstitution? Therefore, when reading Grabill's article, I appreciated that he articulated the distinction between method and methodology, and I thought it was an interesting way to show that methodology is "shaped by a number of issues" (154), including ideology.

In terms of pedagogy, Henry's article reiterated technical writers' second class statuses, their tendency to be neglected, and their assumed role as "handbooks" (208). He suggests that technical writing in the classroom suffers because faculty hired to teach it are over-worked and underpaid; they don't have time to do meaningful work. Also, most of them don't have technical writing experience. After our discussion last week, I wonder how important experience in that specific arena is? Also, could there be problems with autoethonography if one is asked to do it without anonymity? One of the science programs I have heard of allows students to work for a government agency and write a chapter as part of their dissertation. Should it be problematic that organizations might read this work, knowing who published it?

Scott's article was useful because it provided some specific pedagogical strategies and examples. However, I think that it is possible to show that personal success and "civic involvement and democratic social reform" (242) can connect in helpful and motivating ways. Also, is service-learning the same as having an internship with a non-profit? How do we distinguishing volunteering from service-learning? I also found myself getting confused about his stance at certain points. For example, in the last paragraph of 246, he talks about how certain instructors would place questions and reflections near the end, which I'm guessing he is arguing against, but I was left waiting for a wrap up that he never provides. Later, when he fully articulates his stance, I appreciate it; I like that reflection is not an "afterthought" (250) or "more of an exercise [students complete] for their instructor and grade" (250), because I have experienced that before. Wills' work is also interesting, but I wonder how her argument would change (or wouldn't change) if she was discussing teaching undergraduates instead of graduate students. I also found some of the quotes in the afterward to be particularly powerful.
"...we might begin with the simple fact that language, as Jim Berlin often wrote, is never innocent. Language matters. The uses of language matter" (272).