The critical perspective and its application to technical communication

The goal that Nancy Blyler seems to strive for in her article “Taking a Political Turn: The Critical Perspective and Research in Professional Communication” seems to be nothing less than change how we as technical communicators conduct our research and writing standards. Upon reviewing the established method of communication, Blyler notes how it has been skills-oriented, how it “ignores the political dimension…the role that students play as citizens” in any given organization or culture (269). According to Blyler, this method is too constricted, teaching it does not properly prepare technical communicators how to adapt and achieve success. She claims that technical communication “ought to enable students to learn about the network of social interaction on the job,” thus giving them “the means to interpret shared assumptions and values of a professional community and apply them to solve its practical problems in ways that serve public needs” (269). In order to achieve these goals, Blyler gives the suggestion that technical communicators embrace the critical perspective. As she describes it, the critical perspective is not concerned with “describing and explaining a given aspect of reality, but rather with discovering what that aspect of reality means to social actors” (270). Its focus is more on the interaction between individuals in a given social setting. The research that would accompany this method would differ from the informative method that has dominated the field for so long. This research would focus on social action, to “examine the way present [social] conditions came about and are maintained” (270). Unlike the previous methods of research, the critical perspective encourages researchers and participants to work together; to become partners in the research process to facilitate “free and open communication situations in which societal, organizational, and individual interests can be mutually accomplished” (271). Although Blyler admits that this transition would be difficult, she is nonetheless convinced that it could work. She references a situation at the Xerox Corporation where labor and management joined with a researcher to save $3.2 dollars that would avoid closing a department and save many worker’s their jobs. Blyler states that if this opportunity is seized, technical communicators will be “able to profit from initiatives already underway in other fields, thus increasing the range of research projects available to us,” while also broadening our scope of understanding of the world and “the impact of our research in terms of social action” (278).

What Blyler is proposing in her article is an interesting notion to say the least. The traditional mode of research has always established the distance between the researcher and the subjects; no interaction to take place between the two. By setting the two on equal footing, there is potential for more knowledge to be discovered and become applicable to the social society that is being focused upon. As Blyler said, this idea of incorporating social politics into communication would be a significant change. We as communicators would have to become more accepting of other people’s input and their ideas, not “go it alone” like some throwback to the Old West. If the Xerox example would be any indication, then the critical perspective could have great benefits. By getting more people involved, there could be more ideas exchanged toward solving a problem. The “traditional” side of my technical communication experience has taught me that that would be a dab idea, that too many ideas and sources of input could slow down the process. Under proper leadership and coordination though, all of those sources could become very productive. I am a little leery of this new approach that Blyler discusses, but I do think that it could yield great results and would be interested to see it in practice. If nothing else, we could perhaps gain a few new insights on how we can improve our research methods and how to see ourselves in a social organization.