Class Discussion - Week 7

TCBOK and the personas:

Russell says:
I’m also perplexed by passages such as this: “For example, the person in the “actively working technical writer wanting to keep his kills current” persona comes to the site to learn more about DITA.” I assume that “kills” is a typo for “skills,” but it’s unnerving enough for me to wonder about poor DITA and what she/he did to deserve death.

Joseph says:
Personas make me nervous – I never like the “type” that is supposed to portray me. Maybe if there were an intercultural tech writer who, ahem, was a former dj and looks like Brad Pitt…. Seriously though, they most often turn me off because those in charge of the website didn’t quite “get me right” so they shouldn’t try to “get me” at all.

Steve says:
I’m not suggesting that the portal will (or should) become the exclusive domain of practice. Instead, what I’d hope is that it might become the place where theory and practice begin (finally) to interact in an active and ongoing forum.

Several of the articles we’ve read (Spilka, Savage, Rainey) assert that TC can not reach the professional status it seeks until it has a “body of knowledge.”

• What would they say about TCBOK?
• It obviously doesn’t meet that criteria right now, but could it?
• If not, where is it off the mark?
• What does a “body of knowledge” look like?

______________________________________________________________________

Organizational structure

Garth says:
I remain rather surprised by the fragmentary nature of these organizations: it seems that having multiple associations, separately incorporated, with considerable mission overlap, might lead all of the organizations to weakness in membership and finances. Since they focus on (slightly) different aspects of the discipline/profession, why not have one association with affinity groups for researchers, teachers, practitioners, business vs. engineering, international/intercultural, etc.?

Garth raises an excellent question. As the readings on ATTW and CPTSC confirm, we’re not lacking in professional organizations. In fact, there are so many that I’ve built a “cheat sheet” with names and acronyms just to help me keep them straight. Yet several of the articles we’ve read have insisted that TC needs an overarching, governing organization (Spilka, Savage).

• So what do we think about Garth’s suggestion that these organizations should consider merging?
• What would we gain? What would we lose?
• Is it realistic?
• Could any of the current organizations become an “umbrella”? Which one?

_____________________________________________________________________

R-E-S-P-E-C-T: Academe vs. practice, legitimacy, tenure and where our discipline is being formed

I thought the exchange between George and Nancy on the blog this week was so relevant and exceptionally articulated that I found myself cheering and fist-pumping as I read both posts! I’m assuming that everyone had a chance to read the conversation, but below are excerpts, just to get the conversation rolling.

George (representing the non-academic practitioner) says:
I think a better question might be why are we so ashamed of our own practice? …We spend more time worrying whether we are good enough than we do making ourselves better. …In my naïve opinion, legitimacy in academe will come once we accept our own legitimacy and stop feeling stigmatized about being practical (it should be a strength, not a weakness).

Nancy (representing the marginalized, tenure-seeking academic) responds with a “burgeoning rant” about an Eskimo poet with pink toenails, and the PhD English student who receives an MLA dissertation of the year award and an immediate tenure track position for discovering him and sharing him with the world.

Obviously this is a well-used soapbox!

• So what does this issue suggest about “where our discipline is being formed”?
• How does it relate to the humanities vs. science debate?
• Is there a “best” place for TC programs to reside in academic institutions?

____________________________________________________________

Diversity and Globalization

Joseph says:
I think that we Americans can use more intercultural communication skills. We’re nearly powned by China presently, the days of “We’re #1!” are long gone, and it’s time to get on the same page as everyone else around the world and LEARN about who folks are, where they are, and what their needs / attitudes / values are. …As technical writers, what good is our copy if we aren’t translating appropriately to our audience?

Sarah says:
Joseph, I agree with you that intercultural communication training is definitely needed – I think Maylath and Grabill would agree with you based on their survey of CPTSC and the push for diversity. I agree that it often happens naturally, but I also wonder what the marketing intentions are for programs, schools, workplaces in TCR and how that affects the “diversity”.

We’ve been talking since the beginning of the course about the struggle to define TC.

• Can we (meaning TC academics and professionals) “market” to a wider demographic? How?
• Would an increase in diversity necessitate a change in how we define ourselves as a profession/discipline? If so, how?
• Could a program’s placement (English department, communications department, engineering department) be a factor in its ethnic/religious/gender make-up?