Chapter 8: What’s Technical About Technical Writing?
by David N. Dobrin
Team 2: Gary Teagarden and Jennifer Bruns
David Dobrin, the author of this article not happy with an over-simplified definition of technical writing—“Technical writing is writing about technology.” In the introduction of this essay Dobrin notes that he wanted something more about what technical writers do. “And what they do is write or ghostwrite manuals and reports.”
Observes Dobrin: “The reports and manuals appear when there is a technology, a writer, and readers who want to use the technology. When the pieces succeed, they act as a kind of semipermeable membrane that lets understanding leak through at a controlled rate.”
Dobrin trys to come to a more refined, all encompassing definition of technical writing. He looked at pioneering work of several academics in trying to construct a definition: Fred MacIntosh, John Walter, Patrick Kelley and Roger Masse. For example, Kelley and Masse state, “Technical writing is writing about a subject in the pure sciences in which the writer informs the reader through an objective presentation of the facts.”
Writing Technically
“The definers of ‘technical writing’ look at texts; the definers of ‘writing technically’ look at the encounter which produces the texts.” John Harris defines technical writing: “Technical writing is the rhetoric of the scientific method.” In quoting another expert in Earl Britton, Dobrin writes that not only must writing be objective, it must be univocal. That is, “The primary, though certainly not the sole, characteristic of technical and scientific writing lies in the effort of the author to convey one meaning and only one meaning in what he says.
Britton explains that writing is like music. If one wants complexity in music, one writes a symphony. If one wants to wake up soldiers, one plays reveille on a bugle. Literature is the symphony; technical writing is the bugle call.
Dobrin: “The technical writer speaks with the care of a scientist, the humility of a saint, and the clarity of the bugle call.” Talk about an apt metaphor.
Sections within this piece speak of univocality—precise language and only one meaning to the copy in question. More theory is discussed when he discusses the universalist view of language and the monadist view. The nuances of these definitions are confusing and must be read carefully to grasp the differences. Those taking the universalist view believe a sentence can mean a particular thing and that precisely that meaning can be understood. The monadist alternative is to see language as it is actually used, rather than as a formal system.
A New Definition of Technical Writing
After a thorough discussion, Dobrin notes “Technical writing is writing that accommodates technology to the user.” People do not read technical writing for fun, but because they need to do a task. Technical writing gives what is useful, not what is unknown.
He finishes his piece with a take on how people end up in technical writing—typically from two paths: Technicians who learn how to write and writers who learn to excel at technology. Which are you?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I remember reading this article in Prof. Haas' ENG 679 class. I asked myself how can one be in a profession that seems to endure a constant identity crisis and I was amazed how many articles were out there, written by technical writers debating as to what consituted technical writing and defending their profession. I have not seen that in other professions so far. Although articles on this topic may be helpful in a defense debate, I find them difficult to read, since I am sold on technical writing. I know what the profession means to me and I guess I just accept that and move on.
Interesting views on some fundamental questions about TC. As we discussed in the last class, so many people don't understand what TC is and what we do. Yet, without us, they'd be lost. Also, the question of how we come to TC is interesting, whether we see ourselves first as writers or scientitists. Does that influence the work we do and the way we interact with others? This is a more introspective article than I'm used to reading in TC and I found it helpful as a person new to TC.
TC is very a very important aspect to everyone and yet they don't know it. I have come to appreciate the profession, only because before this class I wasn't sure exactly what TC was. TC is like geography, no one really knows what you will do with it when you graduate. The article, like ours, is defending a position about the profession. If it weren't for the profession the most readers of technical writing would be in state of confusion.
I sympathize with Dobrin’s impatience with the imprecise language used by some authors in their definitions of technical writing. He states that he had "difficulty understanding what Harris means by 'rhetoric' and 'science,' what either Harris or Stratton means by 'objective,' and how technical writing is like music." I have had similar difficulty with some of these terms being casually used in papers I have read in other classes—it makes for difficult reading when authors use these terms loosely.
I also agree with his assessment of the alternity inherent in all languages. Dobrin defines alternity as the property of statements to conjure not only what is, but to simultaneously bring to mind what isn't. At first, it might seem that he is setting a trap for himself—if there are unintended consequences of all statements that arise from alternity, then there is no avoiding the problem of vague and ambiguous wording when attempting to define technical writing. But Dobrin makes distinctions among these linguistic phenomena. In his view, alternity is a feature of language that is to be celebrated and embraced—ignoring it won't make it go away. On the other hand, vagueness is the result of "a confused intention" and ambiguity is "a property of denotations." It is clear that he believes that vagueness and ambiguity can be resolved through correct thinking. To him, alternity does not produce vague or ambiguous statements, but rather, statements that allow room for interpretation. This inevitable aspect of language demands creativity and critical thinking as the technical writer undergoes the task of "inhabit[ing] two groups at once [i.e., the engineers and the audience], testing the practices of each against the other."
What a difference a good definition makes.
To answer your question, I am a writer who is learning technology. Technical writers do benefit from becoming experts at what they are writing about. Because this isn't always so easy to do on your own, I think collaboration between writers and subject matter experts is very important to create the most useful and well-written documents.
It was fun reading this after having touched on the topic in our discussion in class last week. It will be interesting to talk more about it next week.
I really like the quotation that says that "when the pieces succeed, they act as a kind of semipermeable membrane that lets understanding leak through at a controlled rate.” I think that is a good test to see if a technical writer is doing a good job. You want enough, but not too much or too little, information to flow through the writing. Too much and the understanding gets sluggish and slows down, too little and it isn't as helpful and valuable as it should or could be.
The liked the quote from the article” Technical writing gives what is useful, not what is known” (Dobrin, 1983, p. 121” It made the most sense to me and I would be able to elaborate on this statement when explaining what technical writing is.
Of course, fewer definitions of technical writing would help to create conformity in the field and consequently explain it more precisely to others. Reality is, new and revised definitions of the technical writing will probably continue to emerge for years to come.
However, I am not a technical writer at this point in my life, I agree with Vanda; if you are a technical writer, you know what technical writing means to you, how to apply it in the professional capacity and as a result, various definitions of technical writing would not create “identity crisis”.
I have started to identify myself with technical communication /writing more as semester (and this class) progresses. I wonder-as my identity as technical writer transpires more, will I be more vigilant of proper definitions and perception of technical communication? I guess, it remains to be seen..
I am looking to discuss this with the rest of you next week!
So Dobrin in What’s Technical About Technical Communication didn’t especially like the idea of Earl Britton’s univocality (a situation that calls for a single voice and meaning) p.111. Well, I was a bit dismayed that Dobrin took issue with the concept. I liked what Britton said, “The primary, though certainly not the sole, characteristic of technical and scientific writing lies in the effort of the author to convey one meaning and only one meaning in what he says,” he added “Literature is a symphony; technical writing is a bugle call.” Well, sure, this really paints a boring picture of technical writing, but the challenge for the technical communicator lies in sifting through all the possibilities of understanding or interpretation in order to produce a consistent, understandable, and usable document that can be understood by the wide array of readers. If I think about technical writing in the sense of its objective – the idea is to communicate a process or procedure for the end user to easily understand without confusing or clouding the purpose.
So I should have just read on instead of getting frustrated reading about Dobrin’s dismay of this concept of univocality because in the end, Dobrin not only acknowledges the purpose of univocality and other important concepts, he expands the view. I like this quote of Dobrin’s referring to the process of tech writing, “The procedure is in effect as a natural history of technical writing. It looks at each thing in its domain both as an organism (which has a history) and as an entity (which is simply there). The procedure begins where someone conceives the need to accommodate, adducing the relationships of power and perception which generate it; and the procedure must end where the accommodation is completed.” Dobrin goes on to talk about the “human” factor and how different circumstances require different approaches. So, the way I read it, technical refers to the process not the product. Pretty cool stuff.
Although this is my fourth class in tech comm and I am not currently employed in the field, this is the first class in which defining technical communication has come up. I was not aware before our discussion a couple of weeks ago that there was such disagreement over the question and was surprised at how much discussion there was on the topic. The only time the issue really came up is when I have had to define for other people what I am going to school for and usually would give a very simple definition about how it has to do with writing. Like Vanda said, I suppose have my own idea of the profession, and just go from there.
Dobrin's review of the universalist vs. monadist views of language is interesting. Each theory is an extreme: either people understand precisely what is meant, or there are too many possible interpretations to allow us to communicate clearly. The alternity theory seems to reside in the middle ground, acknowledging that meaning is multifaceted and can change depending on the time and place. Words can be inclusive or exclusive in meaning, or both. One's choice of words can also be inclusive or exclusive of people, when the choices are meaningful to one group but not another.
This makes word choice highly important in any communication, but especially in technical communication, when clarity and precision are tied to usability. Writers must also be sure to choose language that is inclusive of the users to whom the communication is addressed.
As others have mentioned, I also appreciated the final question Gary posed. I think I entered the field as a technology user who learned to write technically out of necessity.
I do disagree, though, with the concept that people do not read technical writing for fun. Although I do believe the primary purpose of reading technical literature is usually done out of necessity, I also believe a number of people read technical pieces for entertainment. I don't remember which classmate referred to the Technical and Scientific Prose course, but many of the essays/stories read throughout the course were quite entertaining.
I have to agree with Vanda in this case. I am really sold on technical writing as well, and agree that articles, such as these, seem to create more of an identity crisis for writers. I understand that our position and roles must evolve, to some extent. However, I do not feel that warrants a complete overhaul on our job description every two years. I am being sarcastic there, but I guess I don't understand - is it just that the theory and notion of technical commnication is so "new" (even though it's been around for centuries) that we just don't have a good explanation of it? Or, is it just the type of position that, since it is mostly based on technologies, the purpose of our job changes?
These are tough questions, but I guess I feel that the more we question ourselves/our identities, the further behind we fall in the big picture.
The bugle analogy was interesting, and of course, it got me thinking. Sometimes technical writing is straight to the point, but is it always the only way? I think that technical writing takes the ideas of science in that its goal is not to add filler. With a technical document, we want straightforward material so we can work efficiently. The bugle works in the military because it is what is used and has been conditioned.
With many things, there are multiple ways of doing something successfully. I think our jobs as technical communicators is to explore multiple vantage points that work to get to the point in a quick manner, and then go from there. Some may take a little more time to explain the process, but their intricacy may be crucial to the user.
We have read the blog and it's a nice thing in your blog. Really helpful with the information provided.Thank you for the post.. For more information visit:- technical writing services UK
Post a Comment