Public Rhetoric and Public Safety at the Chicago Transit Authority

David Coogan Illinois Institute of Technology

Abstract

This article compares three rhetorical approaches to accident analysis: materialist, classical, and constructivist. The focal points for comparison are the two accident reports issued by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)—reports that attempted (and failed) to persuade the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) to change a problematic policy about rail communication alongside its technology for rail communication. The central question the article asks is, How can rhetorical theory help explain the CTA”s inaction, which ultimately led to property damage, injury, and death? Classical and constructivist approaches, emphasizing rational deliberation between equals, on one hand, and the social construction of technical knowledge between professionals, on the other, offer plausible explanations for what went wrong. But only the materialist approach appears capable of discerning the ideological nature of the CTA”s resistance to the NTSB”s recommendations.

Journal
Journal of Business and Technical Communication
Published
2002-07-01
DOI
10.1177/1050651902016003002
Open Access
Closed
Topics

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (3)

  1. Technical Communication Quarterly
  2. Technical Communication Quarterly
  3. Journal of Business and Technical Communication

Cites in this index (3)

  1. Technical Communication Quarterly
  2. Technical Communication Quarterly
  3. Written Communication
Also cites 15 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.1177/016224399702200102
  2. 10.1080/10510977909368011
  3. 10.1080/10570319009374341
  4. 10.5840/bpej19991811
  5. 10.1080/00335637609383313
  6. 10.1080/03637758109376063
  7. 10.1177/030631297027006002
  8. 10.1080/00028533.1982.11951221
  9. 10.1080/03637759009376182
  10. 10.1080/00335638009383499
  11. 10.1080/00335637509383289
  12. 10.1080/03637758309390153
  13. 10.1007/BF00710705
  14. 10.1080/10510977809367983
  15. 10.2307/357883
CrossRef global citation count: 4 View in citation network →