Engineering writing engineering
Winsor begins by commenting that she would never do a so-called study like this now. The article is outdated for several reasons, mostly problems with construction like explanation of her subject choice or analytical triangulation. Regardless, its value is in its interdisciplinary perspective. The basic premise here is this: Observations of the external world is transformed into "knowledge" through language. However, engineers wouldn't agree with this, according to Winsor, because they "see themselves as working directly on physical objects" and thus believe that their knowledge is derived directly from an object without linguistic transformation.
To look at an engineer’s textual product through the lens of the language transformation theory, Winsor sought the aid of a mechanical engineer and studied his documents as well as his process in writing a technical paper. Specifically, she noted that the instruments that interface the physical environment or object with the engineers produce raw textual information that must be interpreted into knowledge. Therefore, Winsor stated that knowledge for the engineers is “constructed through texts, not discovered in the original process of lab work,” via the process of inscription.
In viewing her engineer’s work product, Winsor concluded that his writing wasn’t the final product but the means of its creation as the source of engineering knowledge. Moreover, all the raw instrumentation data are socially codified to make meaning. The engineer’s knowledge about the object (engine) and the documentation of the engine were the same, and Winsor stated unequivocally that the engineer had no knowledge of the object that wasn’t tied directly to writing. In the section “Writing the engineer,” Winsor discussed how documents that the engineer used and produced were interpretive of the engineers themselves in that the generated reports created and reflected forms of the engineering discipline.
Overall, I thought this was an interesting article though it lacked in the areas to which the author admitted in the introduction. I think it’s important to generalize more that language is the crux of knowledge, according to this theory, not necessarily writing on paper, although temporal stability of the linguistic product is primary for transmission of knowledge.
4 Comments:
I'm continually amazed how my perspectives on the power of language (since I'm an English nerd) are only narrowly held. Winsor's explication of engineer's view that their knowledge comes directly through experimentation, without any facilitation or interpretation via linguistic pathways, reminds me very much of the degree language (and its influence) is taken for granted. I attempted to discuss this with my students last week. I told them about the anecdote that the Eskimos have nearly fifty words describing snow (and that classify snow in all sorts of ways) and that because we only have a couple of ways, we can only perceive it in a very limited sense. Some of my students thought this was interesting, but several thought it was ridiculous, the notion that your language can shape how you interpret the word.
I wish that I would have better proof for them to show Winsor's point that "unmediated knowledge...is not possible for any of us" (349) and that our control and understanding of language has a great impact on our control and understanding of our world.
Even though Winsor, mentions that the article is outdated but his idea is still valuable. It is sad but true how English does not play a major role in engineering. I come from a business and technological studies background but I always had a keen interest in English writing and communication. I think no matter what our occupation is, at the end of the day need to know how to communicate. While reading this article I thought about how by husband thinks. He comes from an engineering background and according to him his engineering knowledge is all he needs in his job. To him as long as he has his engineering knowledge he does not need to worry much about the way of communication. Nevertheless, no matter how much we know we need to be able to have a means of communication and be able to get our message across. I agree that we need specialized knowledge on different subjects but at the end of the day everyone needs to know how to communicate well, while improvising good use of language.
I really appreciate the observation the author makes about the fact that engineering is essentially constructed via language. Be it language of printouts and graphs created by high tech digital research equipment, by means of taking measurements of mechanical measuring tools, or theories defined and recorded by way of mathematical formulas – all constructed through language.
When scientists develop formulas, they record them using mathematical symbols, yet the symbols mean nothing without definitions and clear understanding made possible by language. For example, the formula for speed is V=S/t (I hope I didn’t mess it up). It means nothing unless you have a concept of S – distance, and t – time. And of course – V for speed. Thus, physics is constructed using language.
When engineers get creative and use scientific laws to invent and construct their machines, whether mechanical, electrical, or electronic, they take this construction to the next level. They take existing concepts developed and recorded through language, bring them together to build machines, and tinker with them until they are happy with their performance. The tinkering is essentially engineering. But to make the product they invent useful, they must teach others how to streamline the manufacturing of their inventions and then communicate to others how to produce them in this streamlined way. That is done using language – that’s where tech communicators come into play. Without language and communication engineering is possible, but it would not be of any use since a single individual could not share his ideas with others. And others could not build on their predecessors ideas, making progress impossible.
Now, will we ever be able to convince scientists and engineers of these conclusions? Probably not. My guess is many of you reading this post will disagree with my interpretation of Winsor’s article and the conclusions discussed above. To test them, however, just put an American electrical engineer in the among Russian electrical engineers without an interpreter. They will not be able to work together. At least until they develop a common language, most likely based on the symbolic language of formulas and charts. Which nevertheless is a language.
When I first began to consider possible comments about Windsor my mind was drawn to Hoops’ example about Eskimo’s. My first feeling was of disagreement. I was convinced that we could perceive snow to the degree that the Eskimos can but we probably would just have a harder time communicating it. Obviously Windsor’s findings had not really registered in my mind yet.
Upon thinking deeper into the subject I have come full circle and agree that Eskimo’s would have a deeper perception of snow because of such an extensive vocabulary for it. This vocabulary not only makes them better at communicating about snow to others but also communicating to and storing the information in their own brain.
As a simple add on I must say that I found the idea that, “…knowledge may be defined as that which most people in a discourse community are convinced of, and what a discourse community is convinced of is indicated by the texts it has accepted” very interesting.
Post a Comment
<< Home