This article by Carolyn Rude makes an interesting theme when individuals define academic fields. Rude explains how the identity of any academic field is grounded in their research. Some fields are easily identifiable, such as biology or philosophy, but technical communication is an exception. Instead, technical communication, a relatively new field, is usually defined by its practice, not its area of research, as our research tends to overlap with the communications field in general. In order to clarify technical communication’s academic field, Rude examines how most technical communication research tackles questions regarding four topics: disciplinarily, pedagogy, practice, and social change.

 

In order to equally analyze these four practices, Rude comes to the conclusion that these four topics analyze a central question within their respective fields; How do texts and related communication practices mediate knowledge, values, and action in a multitude of social and professional situations (p. 175)? Rude gives a step-by-step breakdown of this question, indicating that the word being “text” in that it means much more than just written words; instead, text analyzed includes print, online, and multimedia in various mediums. Furthermore, communication is always active, in such a way that “mediates” or influences the outcomes of texts. Using this central question, Rude found similar overlap amongst all four topics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This illustration shows what Rude calls a Map. This map illustrates each question in isolation from other fields of research; instead, it simply defines questions within that particular topic and provides no background information about other ideas or related fields. This is just one of the many Maps Rude creates in order to analyze these topics, however, after creating and re-creating many maps to be as inclusive and categorical as possible, she makes a note that this can create limitations within a field of research and that it is more important to understand the questions already asked and answered than the questions that are currently being asked. So she analyzes the four topics in great depth, as briefly described below:

 

Disciplinarity

This topic asks questions about our discipline, one’s that are phrased as: How do we know who we are? What is our history? What are our research methods? Here’s what she found:

• There is no clear or unified definition of technical communication.

• Our field is seen as “relatively powerless place in academic and business settings” (p. 189).

  • We can acquire power if we work with other professional associations and have effective representation in subject-matter and social knowledge.

• A comprehensive history of the field has yet to be created; however, there is a theme of technical communication’s need over time to develop and use knowledge to get things done.

• Technical communication does not have a singular method for research. But this is not necessarily a bad thing, as “overreliance on case studies delays contemplation of larger issues” (p. 192).

  • For example, ethnographies, textual analyses, historical research, surveys and questionnaires, and experiments.

 

Pedagogy

This topic asks questions about our discipline in terms of how we teach it. For example: What should our courses look like? How do we teach students the history and best practices of technical communication? Here’s what she found:

• There is now a close relationship between curriculum and practice of technical communication.

•  Topics taught in such classes include “visual information and design, user-oriented standards for defining document effectiveness, intercultural communication, Web-site development, content management, and project management” (p. 194).

• In order to combine academic communication topics with real-world application practices, courses often ask students to embrace technology and partake in collaborative writing and work environments.

• There is no one clear way to teach technical communications, but this is also a positive thing. Different programs allow for students to build their variety of research and promote creativity.

 

Practice

This topic asks questions about our discipline in terms of our ability to perform effective text design and maintain procedures for developing and distributing information. Typical questions asked are: How do we construct text ethically and effectively? What are text development and design best practices? Here’s what she found:

• Text is only effective if it works for the user. This can be tested and understood through usability tests and customer satisfaction reports.

  • Much of our design information comes from other fields of research by people who think on a more practical than academic level.

• Much of the work in technical communications is creating new knowledge, not applying older knowledge like in engineering or math.

  • To effectively do this, collaboration is essential, as well as time management.

• In order to effectively communication information, technical communicators are now consulting experts and users.

  • This is new in the field, as users used to just be relevant in term so test subjects; now, they are involved in the creation process.

• Change is quickly evolving in terms of technical communication practice, which means technical communicators must adapt quickly and be on top of change.

 

Social Change

This topic asks questions about our discipline in terms of purpose. For example: How do texts work to develop knowledge, action, or change in a situation? Here’s what Rude found:

• There is a range of social issues that attract technical communicators

  • “the environment, health care, intellectual property and access to information, transportation, safety of workers, access to technology, science as it serves social goals, literacy, organizational change, ethics, and more” (p. 204).

• These social issues require technical communicators because they involve text and certain communication practices, thus taking certain social issues that most are unaware of and turning them into a well-known topic of conversation.

• However, writing about social issues is not enough to engender change; instead, the texts technical communicators create can be used to spread knowledge about the issues, provide communication outlets, and provide the reader with something to think about.

 

Throughout her research, Rude makes a point to articulate how technical communication is growing. With this fact comes the need for greater awareness about the field itself. This means emphasizing that, yes, technical communicators do use research from other fields; however, the knowledge we collect and invent from the research is vastly different.

 

 

 

After reading Rude's article, I've found my understanding of technical communication to be more in-depth, or at least more complex.

 

I had never considered defining a field by the research they conduct. Instead, I thought it was the opposite. I thought fields were - like technical writing commonly is- defined by their practice. When I think of biology, I think of the practices biology majors will perform outside of academia, like being a doctor. Additionally, when I explain to people what my major is, I usually explain it in terms of what it will allow me to do in the future as a career. However, this was clearly not the case, as Rude made a 43-page argument for defining technical communications from certain research.

 

Once I understood her point, I first thought defining technical communications by its research would be simple and ambiguous - I mean, we can communicate about anything! However, I found that having such a broad definition of research was not a selling point in categorizing our field of study. But I think Rude's central point about technical communication - that it is created to help users work and/or perform tasks - is the most encompassing of the definitions I've heard. She then began to ask several questions and noted how we should ask questions about our own discipline, although I understand the point she is trying to make - that we must reflect on these questions in order to identify our field - I found all of her questions stated throughout this very long and drawn out piece to be complex and somewhat more confusing. I started to lose sight of why we were asking all of these questions and that certain questions could fit into multiple categories, rather than just one. Although Rude did mention they overlap, I would have liked more analysis in the section where she breaks down each of the four topics about the similarities between each of the four topics of research. 

 

Rude makes an important initial claim: technical communication is difficult to define. That is true, even for people who study it. But she still never gave a particularly clear definition of technical communication, nor did her central research question prove to be all that eye-opening. Her central question was very vague, and although she goes into in-depth analysis about what each word of the sentence means, one shouldn't have to analyze one sentence so much in order to understand its meaning.

 

Although I did not enjoy this piece, nor did I find her article particularly groundbreaking in my understanding of tech-comm, I do agree with a few of her talking points. We do need further research in the field of technical communication. We do need a clear definition of our field of study. And we are an important field that deserves their own area of study - one that people will understand and care about.

 

 

References

Rude, Carolyn. (2009). "Mapping the Research Questions in Technical Communication." Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 23(2),    174-215.