Some struggles for prestige in academic technical communication are self-defeating and wasteful because of the clash between the material (or positive-sum) economy of the workplace and the positional (or zero-sum) economy of the academy. Some professors of technical communication create disrespect for themselves and their specialities because they create degrading representations of working people and their artifacts, they promote impossible standards, and they advance discredited or misleading theories. More profitable approaches to gaining prestige for academic technical communication include recognizing that not everyone can be the top person in the positional economy, studying works on the economics of prestige, and promoting the genuinely good works that already exist in academic technical communication.

One way to resolve some of the conflict in English studies and technical communication over their diminishing cultural capital is to recognize the place of instrumental discourse in communication studies. Instrumental discourse is individually verified social agreements to coordinate and control physical actions. One purpose of literary works is to voice new concerns about social inequities. A purpose of rhetoric is to persuade others of the validity of those concerns. Instrumental discourse registers agreements about those concerns and brings them to temporary closure in laws, instructions, contracts, and constitutions. Instrumental discourse is the culmination of a process that often begins with a literary monolog, is continued in many rhetorical dialogs, and ends, for a while, in a chorus of approval. Each phase of this communication process—monolog, dialog, and chorus—has a place in English studies. If more English studies faculty would recognize the need to study the communications that promote dissensus and consensus, then they might contribute more to global discussions about social justice, cooperation, and sustainability, and they might gain more cultural capital and social influence.

Carolyn Miller's oft-cited “Humanistic Rationale for Technical Writing,” published in 1979, tries to give technical communication faculty more cultural capital in English departments controlled by literature professors. Miller replaces a positivistic emphasis in technical communication pedagogy with rhetoric. She shows how technical knowledge is produced by individual activity and social affirmation and not by objective descriptions of sensory impressions. Her “Rationale” is an attempt to change institutional and discursive structures by persuading literature professors that technical communication can have as much distinction in the academy as literature.

Critical theorists often attack economic capitalists for focusing excessively on profit. But critical theorists are themselves capitalists—cultural capitalists—and they also pursue profit: in the form of publications, promotions, enhanced reputations, tenure, and course releases. Economic capitalists typically use profit for constructive reasons: as a form of audience analysis and as a way to create the wealth that enables other people to work, to have specialized jobs (including professorships), and to raise families. Profit is an integral part of the communication of economic capitalism, and the profit motive helps capitalists create safer products and usable professional communication.

By emphasizing the negative meanings of words, ignoring variations in translations, and quoting out of context, Steven B. Katz has argued in an influential article that an “ethic of expediency … underlies technical communication and deliberative rhetoric, and by extension writing pedagogy and practice based on it.” Katz's assertion misrepresents the motive of technical communication and its pedagogy, and it brings discredit to the professions of technical communication and the teaching of technical communication. His attempt to discredit the motive of technical communication is part of a two-millennia-long contest for status between intellectuals and the working classes, and it creates unnecessary mistrust at a time in history when people must focus even more on cooperating socially in order to sustain democratic cultures and our physical environment for future generations.

Abstract of the original article Robert R. Johnson's “Complicating Technology: Interdesciplinary Method, the Burden of Comprehension, and the Ethical Space of the Technical Communicator,” published in the Winter 1998 issue of TCQ, points out that there is much for technical communicators to learn from the burgeoning field of technology studies. Technical communicators, however, have an obligation to exercise patience as they enter this arena of study. Using interdisciplinary theory, this article argues that technical communication must assume the “burden of comprehension”: the responsibility of understanding the ideologies, contexts, values, and histories of those disciplines from which we borrow before we begin using their methods and research findings. Three disciplines of technology study—history, sociology, and philosophy—are examined to investigate how these disciplines approach technology. The article concludes with speculation on how technical communicators, by virtue of their entrance into this interdisciplinary arena, might refashion both their practical roles and the scope of their ethical responsibilities.

Preview this article: Comment & Response, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/57/3/collegeenglish9134-1.gif

Gestalt psychology principles of figure‐ground segregation, symmetry, closure, proximity, good continuation, and similarity provide a simple yet powerful analytic vocabulary for discussing page layout and graphics. The six principles apply readily to typography, white space, data tables and maps, the relation between graphics and text, and other facets of textual design. The principles explain many difficulties that readers have in processing texts and graphics, and they explain why well‐designed pages and graphics are effective.

Research on the visual presentation of instructions (and other texts) tends to be repetitious, unsystematic, and overly complex. A simpler yet rich approach to analyzing the visual dimension of instructions is Gestalt theory. Gestalt principles of proximity, closure, symmetry, figure-ground segregation, good continuation, and similarity provide a powerful approach to making instructions more inviting and consistent, as well as easier to access, follow, and understand. This article applies six Gestalt principles to a badly designed instruction to show what improvements result when Gestalt theory is considered in instructional design.

At the urging of managers from NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center on the night before the fatal launch of the Challenger, the managers at Thiokol reconsidered their judgment not to launch the next day. Although there were no new data, and although their engineers still objected, the Thiokol managers took off their “engineering hats” and put on their “management hats” and decided to launch anyway. The urging of Marshall management and pressure from other sources intimidated Thiokol management and at least one Marshall engineer to do what their superiors wanted them to do. Four conditions created the intimidation: (a) a fear of retaliation, (b) a lack of justice, (c) Marshall's tradition of discouraging the reporting of bad news, and (d) an objectionable act, that is, overruling the engineers on a life or death technical decision.

Severe icing on the space shuttle Challenger's launch pad should have halted the launch on the morning of January 28, 1986. One Rockwell International manager told his subordinates to be sure NASA knew that Rockwell thought a launch was not safe. When the Rockwell subordinates spoke directly to NASA managers, however, they used politeness strategies like those enumerated by Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson to blur the directness of the Rockwell manager's message. The NASA managers interpreted the politeness of the Rockwell subordinates as meaning it was safe to launch. The Rockwell subordinates did not mean it that way, but the Challenger was launched.