THE MYTH OF OBJECTIVITY
In Hidden Arguments: Rhetoric and Persuasion in Diverse Forms of Technical Communication, Jessica McCaughey and Brian Fitzpatrick explore a gap in Technical Communication education. They claim that, unlike popular perceptions (both internal and external) of Tech Comm, persuasion and rhetoric are a part of the ways technical communicators write. They are, however, rarely taught to “non-writer” writers, as in, technical communicators that aren’t trying to be writers in the traditional sense.
The overall point is that, even though technical communicators may be taught to perform so-called “objective” technical writing tasks, it still requires a measure of rhetorical and persuasive writing. Technical communicators without a writing background don’t have the prerequisite training in rhetorical devices, ethics, and other values and knowledge that different/traditional kinds of writers receive.
LEARNING BY DOING
McCaughey and Fitzpatrick argue for their ultimate point: altering the tech comm curriculum to better reflect the spaces where these communicators will be working. “Rather than relying on generic business or technical writing practices and modes, or sometimes outdated forms untethered to specific disciplines or industries…, we must do our best to tailor writing assignments as closely as possible to the real-world writing contexts in which our students will be asked to perform.” For example, if someone in the medical field is learning tech comm for that field specifically, they’ll need to learn about how they will be writing in that field and what devices they may end up using in their real lives.
The problem here is not only that the use of rhetorics and persuasion seem to be a kind of unspoken secret about tech comm. The problem that McCaughey and Fitzpatrick identify is that some professionals are simply not prepared or equipped for that reality, due to the nature of a lot of technical writing instruction. They say “inauthentic classroom experience ill equips newly graduated workplace writers with a generic sense of audience and purpose.”
WRITING WHEN YOU’RE NOT A WRITER
Technical writing is traditionally taught to professionals who don’t go on to be “writers.” That’s not their goal or the goal of the curriculum taught to them. They just don’t give much regard to rhetoric, or receive more than a cursory instruction on persuasion. “We find that even within practical forms of writing, such as medical records and accounting documents, hidden arguments exist, and that these professionals recount that learning to write persuasively in these forms was a complex, disorienting process that took place entirely on the job.” These professionals then go on to do technical writing, and find themselves learning “on the job” that these skills are warranted. “It’s important, then, to make a key distinction between teaching technical communication and teaching the technical writing that happens in “the professions.””
This is a very interesting take on the Hidden Arguments article. I love how you pointed to the lack of education in technical communication geared toward “non writers” and how this problem leaves students without the proper skills. Persuasive writing is a genre by itself, but without the framework of rhetorical awareness surrounding technical communication, the students are left without the proper tools to function fully within the workforce. One technique to equip the students with this essential skill is through experience in problem solving in a group dynamic. Educators must provide the students with real-world scenarios in TPC, one option for parables is the use of guest speakers. An expert possessing the experience can demonstrate the strategies for dealing with the unknown.
Hey Barbara. I’m obsessed with your header, “The Myth of Objectivity.” This entire concept was HUGE for my SciComm students. During Syllabus Week, I asked my students to tell me where they can think of instances of “persuasive writing” in their potential, hopeful career fields. A few of the answers I remember were really just writing assignments in classes they thought they would take on their way to graduation! Recently since Unit 2, we’ve been reading the class’s textbook, which has a wicked focus on science being a social activity. Unit 2 shifts ethos and credibility from looking ourselves as job candidates, to studying the scientific ethos and how/WHY any reader should believe a scientist, medical professional, public policy worker in the sciences, conservationists, etc. Thanks to the hot-mess which is today’s scientific discourse, my students were very impacted by their new understanding of persuasion in the sciences. No longer do they assume people believe “what’s right,” and disbelieve “what’s wrong;” they understand that every endeavor to prove their claims are right, is an instance of persuasion. I forget which reading it was, this or the Liz Lane chapter on interstitial design, but whichever reading talked about the instance of the nurse who needed to advocate for one of her patients getting a certain treatment, or a bed somewhere that would facilitate their getting better, really resonates with me. Not only will our students need to be able to do some of the strategies that our unit assignments ask them to practice, but I’m personally concerned that our curriculum doesn’t shed light on moments like those. I try to tell my students that their communication and rhetorical abilities are going to make the difference between them and every other graduate walking beside them in a few years, and every other medical professional stationed on their floor, etc. Without more examples like the one in the reading though, it’s hard for me to personally think of work-in-context scenarios of persuasion for these industries that we do not study.