Linda Driskill's "Content"

In school, the tech comm student is taught from a textbook, studying the ways of constructing documents via ideas of comparison, analysis, and hierarchy. Through her article “Understanding the Writing Context in Organizations,” Linda Driskill points out that although these teachings methods are needed, the “success of many business documents seem to depend on factors outside the genre” that are found within any given workplace (56). Although Driskill acknowledges the positives of traditional tech comm writing, she points out that those “studies tend to overlook context and to focus instead on the technology as the source of behavior” (57). What technical communicators need in additional to writing skills is business savvy, “an awareness of the effects of specific situations, company procedures, and factors inside and outside the company” (57). Driskill says that having a strong sense of business savvy will help technical communicators get a better sense of context that exists within a given company, serving as a “source of meaning for writers and readers” (59). Understanding the context of a situation is important because “all situations have rhetorical or communication requirements,” and through a better understanding of these situations tech writers can “see the significance of the issues resolved through communication processes (59-67). Driskill states that this understanding of context and business savvy needs to be taught in the classroom, that “recognizing the force of culture, technology, and situations can enrich [the] production and use of cases in the classroom” (67).

After reading Driskill’s article, I can see that she raises a very valid point. Although many of the traditional teachings of tech comm are valid--use of syntax, styles, jargon, etc.--that can all be secondary if the document does not fit in with the organization’s culture. All organizations whether they be public businesses, private companies, or nonprofit organizations, all have their own sense of shared beliefs, norms, and values. These are just as important as that organization’s policies and procedures, and I agree with Driskill that the context they shape can make or break any document that is written. For example, you can write a very detailed, well put together annual report explaining a companies financial success, but if the company values individual success and that is not reflected is the report, it can clash with the corporate culture. Even though the document had no technical faults, it would still be considered somewhat of a failure. As Driskill says, teaching students to consider corporate culture and beliefs is important and should be a part of the education tech comm students.

So far, so good

Both Wes and Anna have blogged their readings from the Histories section of Central Works. Both are well written blog postings. Wes points to Rutter's argument for a rhetorical basis for the work of technical communication as opposed to a science or engineering foundation. Anna explores the idea that technical communicators need to acknowledge the applicability of TC not just to software documentation, but to all our endeavors in life.

Both of these are interesting arguments and certainly arguments that reasonate with technical communication professionals and academics. I find Rutter's argument persuasive in that the work I did in industry certainly required attention both to the technical side and to the rhetorical side. As for Durack's argument, I find that TC applies to many things I do, from the soccer game cards I create for my record-keeping as a referee, to the documents I create to keep track of tax related items, to my lambing records and documents. Clearly these are both domestic, traditionally the domain of women, and industrial, more traditionally male, in application.

Both Wes and Anna have given us food for thought. We will continue next week with each student choosing an article in Part 2: Rhetorical Perspectives. Please also post comments to the blog posting of the other student/s.

Good morning at the beginning of week three

Thank you Wes for your pioneering blog posting as we begin our new semester. As Wes has done, please post your two-paragraph summary/critique to the blog. We will continue through the readings in this way. I would like to encourage your reactions to your colleagues writing as well. Let's make this an electronic conversation, not just a place to post our writing.