Robert Connors’ article on the history of technical writing instruction was published in the Journal of Technical Writing and Communication in 1982. It is an extensive narrative on the progression of technical communication, with an emphasis on academia.
Connors writes that technical discourse has existed ever since the use of tools and man’s communication about them. Technical writing can be traced historically back to the Sumerians and Roman Empire. Systematic instruction of technical writing, however, is still a rather recent development. Connors’ article is an attempt to trace instruction in technical writing from its beginnings to its present state.
Engineering Education in the Nineteenth Century
Technical writing courses have been taught in American colleges since the late nineteenth century; however, the first courses were sparse. The Morrill Acts in 1862 and 1877 “founded and promoted the land-grant agricultural and mechanical colleges that were to make college education available in the later nineteenth century to a hugely increased percentage of the population” (4).
Studies in math, modern languages and literature, liberal arts, and more were added to college curriculum alongside Greek and Roman philosophy and literature. The Civil War made way for this change as engineers were seen as important figures, and the Industrial Revolution meant that schools of engineering were a part of natural progression.
Still, upper-level writing courses were rare in the nineteenth century. Before 1870 an engineer would graduate with little education in writing. In fact, many engineering schools at the time dropped humanities courses almost completely. What remained was the basic of all writing courses—freshman composition. It was believed that taking freshman composition would be enough for engineer to get by.
Engineering education became more sophisticated as the nineteenth century was ending, but it still did not place emphasis on the linguistic needs of its students. “The Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education (SPEE) was founded in 1894, but it had no members from English departments until after 1905, and in general, engineering schools acted as if their students needed none but technical courses” (5).
At the start of the twentieth century, articles condemning the illiteracy of engineering students began to appear in engineering articles. It wasn’t hard to see why this controversy started. Freshman composition courses were simply too general. On top of that, J. Martin Telleen explained in 1908 that freshman English courses came too early in their careers. He also noted that English and engineering faculties rarely engaged in interdepartmental cooperation.
Samuel Earle and Early Technical Writing Theory
“The period 1900 through 1910 was the gestation period for technical writing courses” (6). Some engineering schools actually created English departments to serve the special needs of students.
T. A. Rickard’s A Guide to Technical Writing (1908) became the first important textbook on technical writing. It dealt mostly with usage, and while it was used for college classes, it was more meaningful to practicing engineers. In 1911, the “first genuine technical writing textbook written for use in college courses,” (6) was published. The book, called The Theory and Practice of Technical Writing, was authored by Samuel Chandler Earle.
The Theory and Practice shared few elements with composition texts of the early twentieth century. “It grew out of courses in ‘engineering English’ that Earle had been teaching since 1904, courses that were perhaps the first recognizable technical writing courses” (6). Earle became the philosophical voice of the early technical writing movement. He defended his position on general composition, stating that it was not enough for engineering students.
Earle also commented on the division between English and engineering teachers, stating that the sour attitudes between the two were immature and misguided. His idea was that continuing education in other subjects to further one’s career shows true devotion.
Earle’s influence on the education of teaching English in engineering school was monumental. The decade that followed his death saw great improvement in the growth of technical communication. “Between 1911 and 1920, the basic elements of technical writing courses as we now teach them were limned out at a number of schools around the country” (7).
Complaints about technical school graduates were prevalent by 1916, but engineering schools attempted to change that. A demand arouse, asking for a basic literacy in engineering graduates. Unfortunately, English teachers often used their own methods, and students ended up being taught literature along with writing. This resulted in a problem in understanding between English and engineering faculties.
“On the east coast there grew up a movement led by Frank Aydelotte of MIT whose aim was frankly to ‘humanize the engineering student’s character and his aims in life’ through literary study” (7). He stated that engineers should be able to write what they practice. Some schools taught English courses inhouse where faculty in both English and engineering worked closely together.
“During this period there were generally three sorts of English courses available for engineering students: the required freshman composition course, a sophomore literature sequence that was sometimes required, and the junior- or senior-level courses in ‘exposition for engineers’ that were the prototypes of today’s technical writing” (7). Problems arose immediately, though. Many students were not interested in learning to write or read, English teachers were often young and inexperienced, and the cooperation continued to lack between engineering and English departments.
The Formation of a Discipline
“Prior to 1912, there had only been two English teachers in the SPEE, but seven more joined that year… The Mann Report on Engineering Curricula in 1918 recommended more time spent on English, and by 1920, 64 percent of all engineering schools required some sort of technical writing course for their students” (8). At this point, engineering-only hardliners gave in and fit English into the curriculum.
At the start of the twenties, the amount of time devoted to technical writing increased, new courses were suggested, and new textbooks began to appear.
The first “modern” technical writing textbook was distributed in 1923 (English for Engineers). It was written by Sada A Harbarger of Ohio State University. The book is organized by “technical forms,” and this still remains the basis for most textbook organization.
Two new developments in technical writing—practical and philosophical—came about in the mid-twenties. The practical development focused on the writing of technical reports, and the philosophical development began to focus less on literature.
“A 1924 SPEE survey found that it was no longer necessary to urge the importance English for engineers… The survey also found that English requirements at engineering schools had doubled since 1914 and that more colleges were instituting technical writing courses each year” (9). At this point it became clear that English found a place in engineering education.
Expansion and Depression
Changes continued throughout the twenties: new textbooks appeared, and technical writing courses refined themselves slowly but stuck to relatively rigid forms.
“Another SPEE survey, in 1930, showed that of 1300 engineers and teachers, 95 percent approved requirements in English composition, 75 percent approved speech requirements and 45 percent approved literature requirements” (9).
The Depression during the early thirties hit engineering schools hard, and engineering teachers still did not give English teachers proper cooperation. English teachers were accused as being insufficient in teaching students. Regardless, technical writing courses continued to fill. Every year, more classes opened and new textbooks sold well.
A dissertation (later turned into a published report) by Alvin M. Fountain appeared in 1938, and the results of its survey/interviews “showed that of 117 engineering schools in America, 76 schools offered 93 different technical writing courses in 1937” (10). This report detailed course content, textbook use, and teaching methods. “The most important information… is that he shows how a technical-forms approach of a rigid and mechanical sort had become all but absolute by the late thirties” (10). The report clearly showed that technical writing was thriving. On the other side, though, the report had also shown that the teaching of technical writing had seen little progress, and the gap between engineer and English teachers widened.
II. A Discipline Comes of Age: 1940-1980
Developments During World War II
During World War II, it appeared that engineering English articles had ceased; however, the teaching of technical writing continued despite lower enrollments.
Two SPEE reports had no immediate effect, but later would “change the course of post war engineering education in America” (11). The Hammond Reports of 1940 and 1944 encouraged a mixture of humanities and sciences at four-year schools. The suggested program would be to have 20 percent or more of the student’s time devoted to humanities. By the early fifties, the “humanistic-stem proponents had achieved final victory” (11).
The Postwar Technical Writing Room
Technical writing courses continued to expand, especially after the war. Part of this had to do with students attending on the GI Bill. Another reason for expansion was due to the nature of the war—it was a technological war. Technical writers were needed to write manuals for airplanes, guns, bombs, and other machines. Technical writing became a job instead of a function.
After the war, technical writing became a profession as technological corporations opened divisions for technical writers—they realized that it was less cost-effective for engineers to design and write. Still, at this point, technical writing was not a major offered at colleges. Courses in the postwar era saw a rise in demand, and teachers tried to cope.
The late forties saw a greater expansion in the number of forms taught in technical writing courses; only gradually had business letters been added. By 1951, six different report forms were widely taught, and more than ten letter types were eventually taught. Manual writing also became popular, partially due to military influence, but also due to “the increasing number of technically-based consumer products American was turning out” (13).
A New Professionalism
The 1950s led way to the essential form of technical writing as we know it today. The Society of Technical Writers was established in 1958. The fifties also saw the industry’s taking notice of technical writing as a profession, and colleges gave serious consideration to technical writing as a standalone major. In 1958, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute established the first master’s degree in technical and scientific writing in the United States.
Most campus technical writing programs were still plagued by the usual problems, but courses continued to be refined. The humanities requirements that were proposed in the Hammond Reports were beginning to be replaced by technical writing requirements. “By 1957, nearly all colleges offered a technical writing course, and 64 percent of engineering schools made such a course a requirement during the junior or senior year” (13). Required courses were more carefully constructed than past courses, and experimental teaching methods became more common. Most successful courses came from cooperative courses team-taught by English and engineering teachers.
“Mills and Walter conducted a survey of over 300 actual technical writing situations in industry, and from this survey came a number of changes in the approach that informed their textbook” (13). Two important assumptions had gleaned from their survey were
- A rhetorical approach rather than the rigid “types of reports” approach that most texts used was best. Most reports are made up of several common processes: definition, description, explanation of process, etc.
- The only good criterion for technical writing is “does it work?” This indicates that in technical writing as well as in other rhetorical forms, the writer-reader relationship is most important. (13)
Mills and Walter’s “Technical Writing reflected these assumptions and went on to be the most popular and paradigmatic text of the fifties, pointing the way to a new rhetorical approach to technical writing that was to revivify what had been in danger of becoming a sterile and mechanical course” (13-14).
Others also agreed that a reader-writer relationship was crucial in technical writing instruction. “A growing awareness that audience considerations had long been scanted in technical writing was one of the important developments of the 1950’s” (14). Critics condemned technical writing courses in 1955 for their dismissal of audience consideration.
The fifties also saw the expansion of technical writing into fields other than engineering. Departments such as agriculture, architecture, chemistry, pharmacy, and home economics pushed their students toward technical writing. The course was seen as a viable addition to the curriculum. Courses also evolved to include additional assignments and materials.
Breakthroughs and Problems
By 1959, technical writing textbooks were high in number. By the end of the fifties, textbooks replicated the rhetorical approach of Mills and Walter. Despite the long and honorable history, technical writing received little welcome from literary departments.
America began a war of technology with Russia after Sputnik was launched in 1957, and as the sixties opened there was a serious shortage of technical writers in the industry. Industries engaged in bidding wars for the few technical writers. The Society of Technical Writers changed to the Society for Technical Communication, and it still thrives today. “As a group, technical writers advanced greatly in both pay and prestige” (14).
College campuses still saw problems, however. Courses struggled to define themselves, teachers were unsure what to expect in their jobs, and students were getting more intelligent but were fewer in number as the sixties proceeded.
“Robert Hays investigated the nature of technical writing in 1961 in a widely reprinted essay entitled What Is Technical Writing?” (15) W. Earl Britton wrote the most comprehensive early definition of technical writing by defining it by subject matter, linguistic nature, thought process involved, and purpose. “Britton’s conclusion was that technical writing is defined more than anything else by ‘the effort of the author to convey one meaning and only one meaning in what he says’” (15).
This paved way for an awakened interest in the sixties. The first steps of empirical research into technical writing and the teaching of it were made. Researchers gathered and analyzed facts about technical writing in a scientific manner.
Despite this growth, the same old problems still existed with courses. Teachers continued to battle over whether to teach technical students to write or read and appreciate literature. In the sixties, technical writing teachers continued to be graduate students and low-level faculty members. Literary studies continued to be the interest of many technical writing teachers well into the seventies.
A major form emerged in the teaching of technical writing emerged in the sixties: the proposal. “During the late fifties and early sixties, it was estimated that industry spent in excess of one billion dollars per year on the writing of proposals, and the importance of this new form soon became obvious to the writers of technical writing texts” (16). The first textbook to tackle proposals was published in 1962: Siegfried Mandel and David L. Caldwell’s Proposal and Inquiry Writing. It was received well, and the proposal as a form soon spread to all texts.
Retrenchment and a New Sense of Identity
Well into the early seventies, a serious drop of students enrolled in engineering programs occurred, even though general enrollments were on a steep rise. Enrollments in technical writing courses shrank as well.
Despite the decrease, dedicated technical writing professionals teamed, and in 1970 “the Journal of Technical Writing and Communication was started, a journal which quickly became the most respected organ in the field of technical writing instruction” (16). The journal exclaimed the interests and tools of technical writers. “Tools became more sophisticated; in 1971 Stello Jordan and his associates published a two-volume Handbook of Technical Writing Practices” (16), which was considered the most sophisticated and complete technical writing guide ever published.
In 1974, technical enrollments began to rise again, and by the late seventies they went up an average of 10 percent per year (when college enrollments were becoming static). “The Modern Language Association, which had for over fifty years refused to recognize technical writing as a legitimate function of English scholars caved in during the midseventies and gave technical writing belated recognition in 1976” (16).
The demand was simply a result of the continuing need for technical communicators in industry. “A survey during the late seventies showed that over 50 percent of an engineer’s time was spent dealing with writing, and over 85 percent of professional engineers polled said that a technical writing course should be required of all technical students” (16). More departments continued to require a technical writing course. Teachers were not always rewarded, but many gained credit that had previously been nonexistent. Courses were filled, and many teachers found additional opportunities in consulting for industry, and consulting would help to improve in-class instruction. Available positions also became more and more available, and the seventies proved to be a good decade for technical writers.
Textbooks became more sophisticated and were made available for two and four-year colleges.
At the end of Connors’ article, he states that technical writing should be taken out of the hands of English teachers. It is interesting to note that at Minnesota State, our technical writing program is listed in the English department. As Connors would see, the instructors here do understand the separation of literature and technical writing, so he would most likely be pleased.
This article was not easy to summarize (as you can tell by this summary’s length). The amount of information that Connors wrote was concise, with every sentence containing a new thought. We thank you for your time in reading this summary!
Team 3 (Lori Hood and J.J. Carlson)
16 comments:
Wow, this was a long summary. Thanks for the info, however!
Although history is not my favorite subject, I understand its importance in helping us to understand the present and to define our role as technical communicators. The profession has evolved based on need and technical revolution within civilization. The works of early technical writers and their arguments for need and importance of technical communication makes our position much easier. We should continue to explore and expand the field and not take the past for granted.
One thing I thought about when it comes to the evolution of the field of technical communication is that our role changes with the technology that we need to convey, support and interpret to others. Would the absence of technology make us redundant? Can we be replaced my the very same technology that we are supporting as of today?
Interesting point about the place of TC in different academic departments. Here it's in English but at other schools I looked at, it's in Engineering. Also, community colleges are now developing technical communication programs. I wonder what impact all of these things will have on our field in the future, as well as the technology itself, as Vanda mentioned. I think that's why this chapter is so informative. Having a sense of how TC developed gives me some perspective on where it might go.
Interesting question Vanda. I'm not sure that it's possible to answer it though. I believe the answer lies in the way humans prefer to communicate and the way we prefer to communicate is always changing. Sure, a machine of some sort might be able to replicate what we as technical communicators design, but it seems like our role is to continue to improve the way we communicate. I am hopeful that innovation in communication will come from our research and development as technical communicators.
I do remember reading Connors in another class and I found this quote to be interesting. Connors says on page eight that “English departments considered technical writing courses as second rate and were often staffed with younger faculty members or fringe people.” I still feel like that today, we're the geeks and nerds. Less creative and more practical. Whatever, if people only knew how easy we make things for them!
Finally, why is it that some schools (MIT, RPI, U of Michigan) can look at acceptability of their programs in the 1950’s and other programs still struggle for acceptability today? Industry values technical communicators, but academia has issues sometimes. This academic/professional world struggle makes me wonder if there ever will be true acceptance in a world that is seeing constant change in the way we communicate.
So, has our identity as technical communicators come of age? What's your opinion?
Lori & JJ, thank you for all the history into tech comm! I am glad that we are learning the history of our study - technical communication, at least in my experience, is not very well-known, and to know that it has such an expansive history is impressive.
I think Vanda raises an interesting point - about evolution of both our position and technology. I think it's important that we realize our jobs will always change.
Thank you for the comprehensive summary! I think this is a great essay to begin the Central Works book with, since it's a thorough history of technical communication. I feel it is a good base for me to begin the semester since I've never studied the history of the discipline before.
I agree that Vanda makes some interesting observations. I think technical communicators will always be necessary because of the constant growth of technology. There will always be a need for those who can convey to laypeople just what the new technology consists of and how to work with it.
The tension that has existed in the field of technical communication as a result of disagreements between English and engineering faculty goes a long way toward explaining the academic atmosphere in which the seminal works in technical communication were produced in the 1960s and 70s (many of which we will read in this book later in the semester).
Many scholars in this time period felt a need to formulate a coherent vision and theory of technical communication that was entirely its own, rather than borrowing ideas from engineering and English. No longer content to have their place defined for them (What is technical writing? It's the kind of writing you do when you can't be doing real writing.), a rapid transformation in the understanding of the role of technical writing (and later, “technical communication”) took place. If the further readings in this book can be used as a guide to the general direction this transformation has taken, then we can state that the technical writer has increasingly been expected to consider her readers' backgrounds and points of view, the writer is seen as something more than just a transmitter of an engineer's ideas, and the function of technical writing is recognized as having a humanistic rationale (give thanks to Carolyn Miller).
Although the field still struggles with issues of identity, there can be no doubt of the contributions to scholarship that have been made by technical communication researchers and thinkers. Connors does a great job of setting the scene for the rest of the book. The editors chose wisely when they made this the opening article.
I was curious about Frank Aydelotte, the man from MIT mentioned in this essay. Turns out he was a pioneer in other areas as well:
http://www.swarthmore.edu/bulletin/mar03/aydelotte.html
I thought this was a great choice of article to open the book, not just because I’m so interested in history, but because it sets the scene for the later articles. I was surprised at the amount of discussion that it created; this was unexpected. Reading about TC’s history also opened us up to thinking about our place in the field today, as well as its place in the future: how it might change as technology changes and as people’s perceptions of the field itself changes. I also think it’s interesting that views of technical communication change with department (English or engineering) and with discipline (academic or professional), and I think that this, along with its history, at least partially contributes to the concerns raised about the future of TC.
Very interesting! This article demonstrates the need for good communication no matter what the discipline. Although people with strong technical abilities are sometimes less interested in writing than they are in math and problem-solving, the ability to read and write well is fundamental to all learning. Language studies and writing techniques can and should be taught in technical programs. Not everyone loves this kind of education, but I believe it's a necessary thing.
I've mentioned that my dad was an engineer. We always teased him because while he was a wizard at physics and calculus, he couldn't write a grocery list without misspelling basic food items. Since he retired, he and my mom have played Scrabble nearly every afternoon. Now, in addition to his excellent strategic moves, he has learned to spell. He is a force to be reckoned with in the game! Lately he's even been reading books for pleasure -- something I've never seen him do before.
Even non-writers can benefit from language studies. And it is equally important to be able to share one's knowledge with the rest of the world in terms that can be understood.
It was interesting to read about the differences of opinions and the evolving perception of whether it was important for an engineer to know how to write well. I belong to an editing list-serve, and there was recently a disccussion about the writing abilities of scientists. One person wrote something about her opinion being that scientists are poor writers. Of course, that didn't set well with everyone. It seems to me that writing well is an expectation for all college students, regardless of major.
Another comment that I have-it is interesting to note that even today there is a big difference of opinion of what constitutes technical writing. As I researched different TC programs around the country, I was surprised to see the totally differents sorts of programs offered by different schools. Lots of choices with very different focuses.
As I am not a tech comm major, I found the summary very interesting. I didn't realize the history behind tc. As with any field of study the history is an important element in the progress of the field. Not to be to mushy, it was like a flower opening up, seeing how it progressed throughout the years, I really understood for the first time how this profession came about.
I started out in the engineering program at MSU and there were (at the time) no advanced English classes or communication classes required. But, I do have to say that the engineers that I worked for have a very good understanding of tc as I know it. As the field progresses, the people who deal with it and work with it also progress with it.
I loved this summary about history of technical communication. It certainly has given me background information about the development of the field. It is fascinating to learn about the beginnings as I am new to the field of technical communication.
I can draw the parallels between the speech communication field and technical communication field when it comes to their acceptance of other disciplines specifically in academe. Speech communication field similarly to technical communication field experienced enormous resistance by other disciplines when idea of incorporating the speech communication courses across curriculum arose.
I wonder how can similar resistances to often needed skills can be overcome more easily in the future? It took a long time for engeering field to accept the technical writing skills as essential to their field. What can make other disciplines see the need and application of technical communication and writing in the future? Would that be more research, technologies, workplace demands, changed in industries?
I am finally getting to my comment on this article. First off, I completely agree with the other students that this is a great article to begin the semester with.
It is interesting because I am originally from Kansas and went to the University of Nebraska at Kearney (UNK) for my undergraduate degrees. At UNK there was no technical communication program. I also believe that when I visited different colleges to “choose the right one for me,” the few I visited did not have this major/degree. I am making this comment because while reading the history on technical communication (great summary by the way), I see the struggle and the ups and downs the field has taken. I know we commented on this in class on Monday (great discussion!!!) but I do feel that technical communication, although has made great strides, is still moving forward and making its place in the academic and professional world. I hope that someday UNK just might have a technical communication program; maybe not in the English department, but fitted somewhere within the college--that perhaps technical communication will be offered at more universities and even community colleges.
Sorry, I meant to end my comment as: "that perhaps technical communication will be offered at more universities and even MORE community colleges."
Thanks guys. Your summary is still helping tech comm students today!
Robert Connors presents certain vital things which make humanity think deeper. The values of the world has diminished considerably from the nineteenth century to the present times. World has become more complicated with technology that human relationship has become secondary.
Shakespeare Essay Writing Service
Post a Comment