In 2017, I earned my CTTC (graduate certificate in teaching technical communication) from Texas Tech. On completion of one of the foundation courses in the program, the professor asked my cohort which reading materials from the course we believed best represented the field of technical communication. If I remember correctly, I was the only techcomm practitioner in the class. At that point, I had worked in the techcomm field for about 20 years. The CTTC program consisted mainly of PhD students completing required courses in preparation for qualifying exams. If the PhD students were employed, they worked in higher education as adjuncts or teaching assistants at junior colleges or universities. They were on the path to becoming career academics (researchers), not techcomm practitioners. I often heard classmates refer to themselves as rhetoricians, again, not practitioners. Therefore, I imagine my response to the writing prompt was very different from the others in the program because our experiences were very different. The articles I chose helped me (a practitioner) understand the academic perspective (of a rhetorician) and bridge the two views. The following was my response to the writing prompt mentioned above.

Carolyn Miller –What’s Practical about Technical Writing (1989)

I chose Carolyn Miller’s article because it redirected the focus of technical communication. I am embarrassed to say that I did not understand the significance of Miller’s article when I first read it, but on completion of the foundations course, I gained a appreciate for the impact the article had on the study of technical communication. Sean Williams said it brilliantly:

Miller differentiates praxis, techne, and phronesis, all of which leads her to argue for technical communication as a mode of conduct directed toward the good of the community rather than toward constructing information products. Techne is a type of reasoning necessary to produce something, a knowledge ABOUT. Praxis engages techne, in which something actually is produced. But the crucial turn comes with her emphasis on phronesis, or being concerned with what is good or, she says, possessing the critical awareness about the implications of our competence which enables us to discern good from bad based upon its real impact on communities and people (Williams, 2010, p. 439).

Williams explains why Miller’s push to redirect technical communication toward an alignment to rhetoric was so important to the field of technical communication: “[T]he act of producing something has material consequences for the way people come to understand and act in their world, and if all we considered in production was “getting the job done,” as we’d find in the conduit metaphor and normative discourse, we might not necessarily be acting in the best interest of the community” (Williams, 2010, p. 439).

Miller, herself, explains why her redirect toward rhetoric was so important to the pedagogical approach for teaching technical communicators: “[I]f technical writing is the rhetoric of ‘the world of work,’ it is the rhetoric of contemporary praxis. In teaching such rhetoric, then, we acquire a measure of responsibility of political and economic conduct” (p. 24).

In conclusion, Miller’s article changed how educators viewed and taught technical communication, which led to a change in how technical communicators perform in their careers today.

Lloyd F. Bitzer – The Rhetorical Situation (1966)

I chose Bitzer’s article because of his clear and concise presentation of why rhetoric might be important to a technical communication practitioner. Bitzer shared a definition of rhetoric that a technical communication practitioner (like me) could appreciate: “[A] work of rhetoric is pragmatic; it comes into existence for the sake of something beyond itself; it functions ultimately to produce action or change in the world; it performs some task” (Bitzer, 1996, p. 4). This definition encompassed concepts relevant to activities in my work environment, so it was immediately relatable.

Bitzer also presents a definition of the “rhetorical situation.” A rhetorical situation may be defined as a complex of persons, events, objects, and relations presenting an actual or potential exigence (situation that requires action/inaction) that can be completely or partially removed if discourse, introduced into the situation, can so constrain human decision or action as to bring about the significant modification of the exigence (Bitzer, 1996, p. 11).

Bitzer presented two relatable definitions and then put forth a simple process for identifying a rhetorical situation: (1) exigency, (2) audience, and (3) constraints (BItzer, 1996, p. 8). By providing a simple process, he provided the reader with a tool for testing (validating) his argument. Again, words like process and validation are concepts that technical communication practitioners value. I could now use Bitzer’s process to trace my technical communication deliverables back to one or more rhetorical situations. At this point, in the reading exercise, I felt joy because I was finally connecting rhetoric in a meaningful way to my personal experiences as a technical communication practitioner.

Bitzer also emphasizes that those producing rhetoric content must be cognizant of the moral responsibility associated with the creation or salience of specific knowledge and the potential outcomes (positive or negative) those choices might produce.

In conclusion, I chose Bitzer’s article because it provides a clear definition, explanation, and process for identifying and addressing rhetorical situations.

Ellen Cushman – The Rhetorician as an Agent of Social Change (1996)

I chose Cushman’s article because of its relevance to current events. We are in the mists of what I hope will be an era of significant social change. Technical communicators need to understand that they can and should play a role in directing this change takes. In addition, I love the following note that Cushman includes in her article:

This paper is a multivoiced, self-reflective look at our roles as rhetoricians. As much, I hope to turn our work as scholars inside out, upside down, back in upon itself. I’ve included many voices in this paper because this was the only way I seemed able to capture the range of reactions I’ve had to the theories and practices of critical pedagogues and cultural studies theorist—from initial enthusiasm, to disillusionment to frustration and anger (p. 8).

I can relate to Cushman’s enthusiasm, disillusionment, frustration, and anger. I appreciate her desire to shine a light on privilege, bias, and hypocrisy:

“When we fail to consider the perspective of people outside of the academy, we overlook valuable contributions to our theory building. Without a praxis that that moves between community and university, we risk not only underestimating our students’ pre-existing critical consciousness, but we also risk reproducing the hegemonic barriers separating the university from the community. That is, we become guilty of applying our theories from the sociological “top-down,” instead of informing our theories from the “bottom-up.” (Cushman, 1996. p. 24).

This article is important because it emphasizes that technical communicators have the skills and should feel empowered to “be agents of social change” (Cushman, 1996, p. 7).

In conclusion, I chose Cushman’s article because it is vital that technical communicators feel empowered, and we need to feel and should feel that we can affect social change.

Blake Scott – Rearticulating Civil Engagement Through Cultural Studies and Service-Learning (2004)

I chose Scott’s article for purely selfish reasons. I have spent my career as both an instructional designer and technical communicator. From a technical communication perspective, I benefited from his clear summaries of technical communication theories and concepts. As an instructional designer, I benefited from his creative and intelligent course design approach. Finally, as someone who is addicted to volunteering and who receives great joy and benefit from serving others, I appreciated his focus on service. Therefore, I love everything about Scott’s article. In addition, this article touches on many of the concepts and authors introduced in this foundations course. It is a great reflective piece for those familiar with technical communication, but it could also serve as a great introduction to those not familiar with technical communication. Coming or going, this article provides value. Finally, Scott is a beautiful writer, so his article is not only informative, but also enjoyable to read. Also, if I had to select one article from this class to share with a coworker, client, or associate to introduce them to technical writing, I would choose Scott’s article.

In conclusion, Scott’s article is important for many reasons, but I like it most because it is something I personally want to share with others, and I think it is a fantastic reflection of technical communication.