Abstract

This article presents a case study using ethnographic and visual methods to investigate the framing activity of engineering students. Findings suggest students use the rhetorical figure of hypotyposis to produce the vivid images needed to frame engineering constraints. Data reveal students multimodally inducing collaboration between group members to construct images as ways to configure engineering constraints. The author argues for the usefulness of hypotyposis for understanding the framing of engineers, technical communicators, and other designers.

Journal
Technical Communication Quarterly
Published
2017-10-02
DOI
10.1080/10572252.2017.1382258
Open Access
Closed
Topics

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (2)

  1. Technical Communication Quarterly
  2. Written Communication

Cites in this index (14)

  1. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
  2. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  3. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  4. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
  5. Technical Communication Quarterly
Show all 14 →
  1. Technical Communication Quarterly
  2. Rhetoric Review
  3. Written Communication
  4. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
  5. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  6. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  7. Written Communication
  8. Written Communication
  9. Written Communication
Also cites 53 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262015684.001.0001
  2. 10.1163/1568537042484977
  3. 10.4135/9781446268278.n21
  4. 10.1016/0142-694X(88)90045-2
  5. 10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00035-7
  6. 10.2307/1511637
  7. 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
  8. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262525381.003.0003
  9. 10.1016/j.destud.2004.06.005
  10. 10.1007/BF01607156
  11. 10.1119/1.3562193
  12. 10.1162/desi.2006.22.3.4
  13. 10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6
  14. 10.7208/chicago/9780226206868.001.0001
  15. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199764129.001.0001
  16. 10.2307/1578475
  17. 10.2307/1511850
  18. The aesthetics of imagination in design
  19. Rhetoric in the flesh: Trained vision, technical expertise, and the gross anatomy lab
  20. 10.2307/1574154
  21. 10.1080/10400419109534381
  22. 10.1525/aa.1994.96.3.02a00100
  23. 10.1177/016224399101600402
  24. 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.06.008
  25. 10.1002/jee.20005
  26. 10.1002/jee.20001
  27. 10.1177/108056990006300212
  28. 10.1016/S0142-694X(00)00003-X
  29. 10.1162/074793601750357213
  30. 10.1080/21650349.2013.875488
  31. 10.1007/978-1-4471-1482-6_3
  32. 10.1016/S0142-694X(02)00055-8
  33. 10.2307/468718
  34. 10.1016/j.destud.2013.11.002
  35. 10.1207/s15327884mca1104_3
  36. 10.1515/semi.2005.2005.156.113
  37. 10.1016/j.destud.2012.06.005
  38. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262525381.003.0008
  39. 10.3726/978-3-0351-0782-1
  40. 10.1163/9789004231184
  41. 10.1057/9780230250628_9
  42. 10.2307/j.ctt5hjqwx
  43. 10.1017/CBO9781139924849
  44. 10.1080/15710880701875068
  45. 10.1016/0142-694X(84)90002-4
  46. 10.1177/0162243910392795
  47. 10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00020-5
  48. 10.1007/BF00177307
  49. 10.1016/0020-7373(91)90039-A
  50. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195381634.003.0004
  51. 10.1016/j.destud.2004.08.003
  52. Everyday engineering: An ethnography of design and education
  53. Doing discourse analysis: Methods for studying action in talk and text
CrossRef global citation count: 2 View in citation network →