Annotations: Week 10

Blakeslee, A, Spilka, R. The State of Research in Technical Communication

Quality and Consistency of Research

1. Research needs to be approached consistently, systematically and thoroughly.
   Problems are jumping too quickly to theory; focusing on satisfying existing theory
2. Building a coherent body of knowledge
   Good coverage of topic is a current strength in the field.
   Problems are lack of funding and a lack of shared agenda.
3. Agreement about key questions for the field
   Need for broad research questions for the field
   More focus on industry
4. Less Thinking, More Doing

Methodology and Training in Methodology

1. Careful about borrowing from other fields
   Faculty directs their interests in preferred research methods
2. More Training in Methods
   Focus on teaching students research methods in curriculum

Interdisciplinary Relationship

• Improve Academic-Practitioner Relationship
  Lack of relevance of research in industry
• Improve relationships with other fields
  Ensuing battle with information and Web design
• Need for Recognition and Support
  Need both internal and external funding

Proposed PoA

1. Expand Problem Definition and Vision
   Solve all above problems
2. Develop Concrete Solutions
3. Implement and Evaluate

I thought the article was very objective in the evaluation of the current (for its time) scenario of research in technical communication. It did not mince words with regards how researchers or practitioner are, and suggested valid solutions for all the problems. I liked both articles this week for not being delusional about the state of research in the field, and the research that Dr. Boettger does certainly breaks the mold of standard research done in the industry, with his corpus-linguistic research.

This article ties in very nicely with the Charney’s article of this week since both of them argue about research methodology and what can be done to improve the situation in the industry.

One thing they haven’t talked about is to improve the mindset of the academics in the industry, looking at what those people talked about in the Charney article.

How has the industry done at improving relations between researchers and practitioners since this article?

Annotations: Week 10

Charney, D. Empiricism is not a four letter word

In this article, Charney talks about opposition to scientific rhetoric and objective methods in composition, and why it isn’t always justified. She talks about the benefit of doing scientific research in composition, while quoting certain experts on their views on quantitative methods of doing research.

These experts seem to reject objectivity and quantitative analysis based on some very shallow reasoning, according to me. This article reminds me of the Elizabeth Tebeaux article which argues against Carolyn Miller’s “A humanistic rationale for technical writing”. The argument against methods that are considered sound is because of the experts’ seemingly irrational beliefs.

Charney says “objective procedures help to sustain disciplinary cohesion and foster criticism”, which is a correct way of looking at something that can only enrich your field. A major argument against objective, quantitative research in this article is that it is anti-feminist, which is a ridiculous assumption.

The author of this article talks about how scientific methods transcend gender and all other boundaries, including race and ethnicity. She supports a middle ground between skepticism and scientism, and she also justifies quantitative and objective methods.

I think it is unfair that composition views numerical and graphical evidence unfavorably since we, as technical communicators, know how important it is to us in creating documents. The arguments by the experts seem baseless, and seem to be something Carolyn Miller would heartily applaud.

I think that the Boettger and Palmer article about Quantitative Content Analysis would be a good fit for this week since this week is about Building Knowledge in Technical Communication.

How relevant is the opinion of Composition Experts in influencing us to adopt their ways?

Annotations: Week Eight

Boettger, R. Palmer, L. Quantitative Content Analysis: Its Use in Technical Communication

Summary

The authors talk about the need for a different way of analyzing content, and discuss the use of quantitative content analysis for this end. The article discusses two case studies: One that looks at journals of technical communication and the other that analyzes Sheep and Goat Raisers’ Magazine.

The second content analysis looks at how ethos, pathos and logos were applied to influence audiences. The first one looked at how visual rhetoric was utilized.

The authors then look at two methods of coding, which are manual coding and computer-assisted programming. They talk about the advantages and disadvantages of such methods.

Synthesis

I’m from a country which has a massive diversity of people. I’ve always wondered how a content analysis of magazines from a particular region might compare to a magazine from another region, considering similar genres of magazines. I might be interested in doing something like that when I return to my country. Florence Nightingale’s Rose Diagrams were also used to influence people. That article analyzed content too, to generate impact.

Question

How do you think content is used today to manipulate people?

Annotations: Week Eight

Halvorson, K. Content Strategy for the Web.

Summary

Content strategy is defined as “the practice of planning for the creation, delivery, and governance of useful, usable content.” There’s two stages to content strategy.

Planning

Steps to content strategy:

1. Audit
2. Analysis
3. Strategy

Implementation

1. Content Creation and Delivery
2. Content Governance

The author then describes a content strategist and lists out their importance, and also defines the role of an information architect. She then transitions to talking about the necessity of web analytics in content strategy.

She discusses the need for thinking about what the required output of the improved content is, and the use of focusing all our energy on getting those out of the redesign.

The need for a maintenance plan is discussed, and how to enforce that plan and details all the necessary part. She also lists out and elaborates on various roles of people in the organization and their responsibilities.

Synthesis

I thought that the author made a lot of valid points throughout the article. She focused a lot on Audience Analysis in the redesign of the web content and that reminded me of Cooper’s article about thinking about a definite audience while doing so, and not incorporating everyone’s opinions. It also adopts Jansen and Jansen’s article partly about the importance of being direct and succinct while redesigning content. I’ve always thought that site designs are quite convoluted and there’s too much content thrown in, so this article made a lot of sense to me. It also talked about how everyone goes in for trying to accommodate as much content as they can into their website, making it generic, which hearkens back to Johns’ article about definite forms of writing in organizations.

Question

Is it really so important to any company to employ so many additional people just to handle the web site, or even if they aren’t specifically hired, might the other employees have so much time on their hands?

Annotations: Week Seven

Katz, S. “The Ethic of Expediency: Classical Rhetoric, Technology and the Holocaust”

Summary

This article talks about, mostly, the use of rhetoric and expediency in the success of the Nazi Party and Hitler in making the Nation believe in their propaganda. The author discuss the ethical aspects of rhetoric and how it was made to serve the Holocaust. Just’s memo shows how his ethics were governed by the organization (the Nazi Party) that he worked for.

Through a variety of comparisons, he tries to establish a connection between Aristotle’s writings and Hitler’s belief in his propaganda. Katz believes Hitler used the ethic of expediency rhetorically to create a “moral” warrant for Nazi action. He proposed how Hitler justified Nazi brutality through technological and political expediency to protect the purity and well-being of the Aryan race. Hitler’s rhetoric was meant to indoctrinate the citizens to the belief of the Nazi Party.

Then, Katz talks about how there are parallels in the rhetoric between Hitler’s propaganda and the current political situation in the US as also the advertising in the country. Economic expediency is what drives this country, just how technological and political expediency drove Nazi Germany.

Synthesis

I was surprised by how logical Just’s memo was, and then I realized it was for exterminating people. I get the power of expediency and how influential rhetoric. I also think Carolyn Miller’s article makes a lot more sense now, regarding the humanistic rationale in technical communication, which Katz makes references to, throughout the article. My beliefs have always been to place my faith in science over all else, but this article made me realize how foolhardy that kind of thinking is. The conclusion also got me thinking regarding how rhetoric is used in everyday life to convince us to buy something, but my question is something different. The author had me thinking about this question before his conclusion.

Question

Does anyone other than me think that Katz was admiring Hitler’s use of rhetoric in convincing his countrymen to commit such heinous crimes? His words warning us against such a thought about him notwithstanding.

Annotations: Week Seven

Winsor, D.A. “Communication Failures Contributing to the Challenger Accident: An Example for Technical Communicators”

This article talks about what exactly went wrong in the lead-up to the Challenger Space Shuttle Disaster, and the ethics of communicating bad news within and outside organizations.

Summary

The lead-up to the Challenger Accident is given sequentially from when the problem with the O-Rings was discovered and the communication, or lack thereof, that happened after till the day the space shuttle launched. The article discusses how the miscommunication between the contracted agency, MTI, Marshall Space Center and NASA led to a calamity for the astronauts on board. The differences in data interpretation between the managers and engineers at MTI was the reason behind this. The engineers at MTI were hell-bent, close to the launch date, to better investigate the O-Ring problems, but the management refused to acknowledge this as a serious problem, with Marshall dismissing this glitch. None of these problems were sent upwards to NASA. Roger Boisjoly, an engineer at MTI, was one of the heroes who strongly opposed the launch, writing emotional memos which displayed a strong ethical sense. Unfortunately, the launch went through, resulting in one of the worst calamities in the history of NASA.

Synthesis

This miscommunication shows the lack of ethics and a difficulty in communicating bad news between organizations, even if the problems are acknowledged within the organization. Good news is accepted willingly, but bad news is not so welcome. There is huge difficulty in disseminating bad news in hierarchical structures, so lower level employees are reluctant to report these to the upper level (or in this case, the contractors to the hirers). The use of rhetoric by Roger Boisjoly failed to convince the upper level management, making me feel that news as bad as this needs to be aired in public, even at the cost of someone’s job. Such pressure-induced miscommunication is never good. There should be a lot of importance placed on generating an atmosphere where employees can communicate with upper-level management freely, and without fear. There needs to be a reduction in pressure, especially when contract-based work is involved. Nothing should overrule ethics, not at the cost of people’s lives.

Question

The use of rhetoric in Roger Boisjoly’s memo failed to generate a response from the upper-level management. What do you think should be done in such instances?