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.
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?
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 |
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?
No comments:
Post a Comment