What is Professional Communication?

Is professional communication/technical writing practical? I believe all the scholars of

technical communication have revolved around this question. The central term here is practical.

The scholars take it variously, from instrumental purpose to high pragmatic purpose. All the

writers I am going to discuss in this paper can be discussed in terms of this term ―practical.‖ I

can divide the writers into four groups: 1) Instrumental (Moore, and Tebeaux); 2) Humanistic

(Miller, Rutter, Harris, and Katz); 3) Politico-cultural (Longo, Sullivan, Lay, Durack, and

Palmiri); 4) Communication (Johnson, Slack, and Hughes). However, I am equally aware that

these writers can be grouped in different ways. These categories are for functional purpose and

are very open and overlapping. After discussing all these writers, I will conclude with Miller‘s

article, ―What Is Practical about Technical Writing?‖

The major contention among the scholars of professional communication has been

whether it has to be practical. The debate around this issue of practical use of technical writing

has ranged from the denunciation of such focus as a blindfolded support of corporate ideology,

and the similar blanket rejection of any theoretical approach to technical writing as making no

sense. But most of the time the middle way is the best one which Miller in her article ―What Is

Practical about Technical Writing‖ takes. She goes beyond narrow form of pragmatism and

blends practical with the good, not that practical is useful, therefore good. I think we can bring

almost all the theorists of technical writing under this discussion as all of them either talk of

practical purpose, usefulness, or ethics. My position will be later Miller‘s, that technical writing

is pragmatic in higher terms, that it should not only be instrumental and thus useful and good, but

it has to be good for the larger community so that it can equally be ethical. However, Miller‘s
 Paudel 2

position is not so explicit in suggesting the need for technical communicators to be politically

and culturally aware. She does not speak directly for technical communicators to act as agents of

social change. But her notion of practical is open to that extension too.

The tension between vocational focus and humanistic focus in technical writing is very

old. Connors shows that it at least goes back to the early period of the development of technical

writing instruction in America. In different periods, the focus has shifted from one to the other.

The question here is whether workplace models should guide teaching of technical writing or the

academic. What kind of technical writing is good?

This tension appears more prominently in the debate between the scholars like Tebeaux

and Moore on the one side and Mille, Rutter, and Harris, on the other. For Tebeaux and Moore

technical writing has to be instrumental and practical. It should be what the industry and

corporate world requires it to be. This is what Tebeaux means when she says: ―Its purpose is to

familiarize students with various kinds of writing done in the industrial and corporate world.

Therefore, the point of view of the business and industrial world of which the student will

become a part is the only criterion which should be used to plan and teach course‖ (823). For her

the major purpose of technical writing is to produce literate graduates who can write ―clearly,

correctly, and economically‖ (822) because ―the purpose of technical writing is to prepare

students to write for the actual world of work‖ (824). It should prepare them well to get

―paychecks‖ (823). What Miller says humanistic or rhetorical, or what Harris and Rutter say

liberal arts, for Tebeaux, ruins technical writing and makes it very unpopular course like any

other literature courses. For her we need to be grateful to the industry that has directly made
 Paudel 3

technical writing what it is today. To be precise it has to be directly practical and no other aspect

is worth consideration.

Moore is quite similar in his logic about the instrumentality of technical writing and his

denunciation of any other theoretical approaches. Countering Miller, he says that ―instrumental

discourse is as humanistic as rhetoric‖ (101). He questions the appropriateness of any approach

like Miller‘s or Katz‘s that emphasizes on either, rhetorical or humanistic: ―Overemphasizing the

rhetorical, literary, and creative aspects of technical communication ignores what is socially

useful and humane about the instrumental aims of technical communication‖ (―Instrumental

Discourse‖ 101). He completely rejects Miller, Rutter, and Dobrin‘s ideas: ―in their efforts to

broaden their definition of technical communication to include everything under the sun—

rhetoric literature, philosophy, social science—some critics deprive students of the sharp,

pragmatic tools that they will need to work with others (and sometimes control others) so that

they can improve personal, organizational, and cultural conditions in the workplace‖

(―Instrumental Discourse‖ 114). For Moore instrumental discourse is humanistic because it is

useful for many people to ―to get things done‖ (115). When technical writing helps ―get things

done,‖ it is both practical and humanistic. So, for him what is practical is humanistic.

For Miller, Rutter, Harris, and Katz, focus on instrumentality (practicality) of technical

writing can be dangerous. It may produce literate slaves, little cogs of a machine, rather than

responsible and self-conscious professionals. Katz shows how the overemphasis on practical

quality or usefulness (expediency) can be as dangerous as providing a terrible tool to Hitler. Katz

believes that similar focus in western tradition (focus on expediency rather than humanitarian)

produced Hitler and can be equally dangerous in the US if the US does not stop making
 Paudel 4

economic progress end it itself. Here, Katz is directly attacking the logic of the people like

Tebeaux and Moore who turn back to the possible devastation the flat utilitarian focus in

technical writing may lead to. This is what Katz contends: ―For when expediency becomes an

end in itself or is coupled with personal or political or corporate or scientific or technological

goals that are not also ultimately rooted in humanitarian concerns, as is often the case, ethical

problems arise‖ (272).

Miller also rejects Tebeaux and Moore‘s idea out rightly. What is practical for them is

surely the end of technical writing but not the final and only end, as Katz emphatically says. For

Miller, technical writing should focus on ―self-consciousness‖ and rhetorical awareness rather

than producing clean and clear documents. Miller believes that Tebeaux‘s or Moore‘s approach

to technical writing reduces it to a ―skills‖ or ―technicist‖ course dominated by positivist notion

of windowpane theory of language that destroys technical writing‘s aspiration to disciplinary

identity (―Humanistic‖ 213). Miller does not want to produce human photocopy machines

reproducing what has already been produced and kept in filing cabinet of the industry or

corporate world. What she wants is to produce professionals who can handle all sorts of

rhetorical situations and produce documents or texts accordingly. She does not discount the

importance of writing well but says that rhetoric helps towards that. But it does more than that. It

makes students understand the situation. Similarly, like Katz, She wants technical

communicators or writers to be ethically conscious about what they are doing.

She responds to Tebeaux‘s and Moore‘s ideas rightly. Miller clearly says that the role of

technical writing is to teach students how to write well. But she believes that that the objective of

technical writing course is not to produce technicists but professionals well aware of the
 Paudel 5

rhetorical situation of their workplace. She contends that theory of rhetoric ―does not ignore

‗purely pragmatic topics and problems,‘ as professor Tebeaux asserts, but it informs them and

provides ways to approach and solve them‖ (825). Miller believes that rhetorical approach assists

in Tebeaux‘s purpose by acquainting students ―with . . . the values, aims, and methods of the

professional community they intend to enter‖ (826), it does not, as Tebeaux believes, overdoses

students with literary and philosophical stuff. The difference is that Tebeaux wants students to

produce clear and objective writing necessary for business and corporate world, whereas Miller

wants to make them equally aware of rhetorical situation and act as ethical beings. Miller‘s

response to Moore‘s objection is that Moore, like Tebeaux, confuses the meaning of rhetoric.

Miller points out that rhetoric and instrumentality are not opposed to each other. She says: ―I

have been urging a rhetorical view of technical communication precisely because rhetoric is the

best way I know for understanding the instrumental dimensions of discourse‖ (―Comments‖

483).

Harris and Rutter, very clearly speak for liberal arts approach. They extend Miller‘s

position but with more literary focus. They do not merely want their students to understand the

culture of the profession they want to enter (as Miller talks of while talking about enculturation).

This, for these two writers, does very little to humanize technical writers. They want more

humane professionals who have good understanding of the broader humanities that expands their

understanding of the world and the human beings. Harris advocates liberal arts approach to

technical writing, which means, ―any approach to research or scholarship in scientific and

technological texts which employs concepts and methods primarily from the liberal arts: literary

theory and history, traditional and modern rhetoric, linguistic, and the philosophy and history of
 Paudel 6

science and technology‖ (628). For her, liberal arts approach ―deepens and widens our

understanding‖ (636).

Russell Rutter extends Miller‘s position. He believes that professional communication

curricula must be based ―less exclusively on writing and workplace culture [like Miller‘s] and . .

. rest upon strong liberal studies base‖ (―History‖ 31). Despite his similarity, he focuses more on

humanistic elements than Miller as he says that technical writers and communicators are first

human beings and only then professionals. However, we need to remember that none of them

discount the importance of teaching students how to write, design, and produce texts well

(―History‖ 32). In his second article, Rutter moves to a completely poetic (literary) approach to

technical writing: ―Science and technology, insofar as they are human activities, are essentially

poetic endeavors because they shape disparate bits of information into truths about the behavior

of matter. Given this fact we can hardly doubt that writing about science and technology is

likewise a poetic process, and for the same reason-because the writer by imagination transmutes

inert statements of bare fact into lively communications of the truth‖ (―Poetry‖ 709). Rutter‘s

difference here is that he identifies technical writing with poetry as both of them are creative

endeavors.

The third group can be taken as an extension of the second. These writers also speak for

humanistic rationale for technical writing. They say that all these ethical, humanistic, and

rhetorical considerations are really important. But they are not sufficient. That may help making

technical writing not only practical but also communal. However, for these writers,

understanding the context and writing for the good of the larger community is not sufficient.

Their questioning will be: does what these people call ―humanistic‖ include all human beings or
 Paudel 7

only the privileged group of the society? The problem for most of the writers in this group is that

technical writers need also to be careful about the cultural and political role technical writing

plays in solidifying the conventionally legitimized discriminations in the society rather than

challenging them. They believe that technical writing partakes in the process that validates and

reinforces the dominant ideology of the society and helps maintain status quo. So, the major

purpose of teaching technical writing or producing technical discourses should be questioning

why the certain discourses are privileged over the others. These writers are aware about the deep-

seated cultural biases that govern, besides others, technical writing too.

That is why, for these writers, being practical is validating lingering biases against a

larger section of the society. One similarity among all of these writers is that they imbibe insights

from cultural studies, influenced by either Marxist scholarship or Foucauldian discourse analysis.

Longo adopts critical theory approach (Foucauldian discourse theory) to uncover the

power politics implicit in technical writing. Longo rightly says that we need to go beyond

Miller‘s brand of social constructionism. He rightly charges social constructionists of merely

describing the way the technical knowledge is produced rather than analyzing and questioning it.

Their act, Longo contends, helps ―stabilize our culture‘s system of knowledge and power based

on scientific knowledge‖ (Longo 1). What he wants technical communicator do is to ―illuminate

how struggles for knowledge legitimation taking place within technical writing practices are

influenced by institutional, political, economic, and/or social relationships, pressures, and

tensions within cultural contexts that transcend any one affiliated group‖ (Longo 18).
 Paudel 8

He says that the knowledge created by technical writing through its the garb of

practicality, neutrality, and objectivity hides dangerous politics that devaluates other forms of

knowledge. And it is critical theory approach that helps uncover the power/knowledge network

operating in the production of technical communication.

Dale Sullivan has a very similar voice. She very strongly denounces traditional, practical,

or instrumental approach to technical writing. She very harshly criticizes Tebeaux‘s statement

that the role of technical writing is to produce professionals who can write as required by the

industry: ―Therefore, our present way of defining technical communication as the discourse

appropriate for industry is equivalent to defining it as the rhetoric appropriate for slaves—those

barred from making decisions about the ends, those whose decision-making authority is

restricted to determining the most efficient means of obtaining predetermined ends‖ (Sullivan

216). She believes that traditional way of teaching technical writing blocks social action (218).

She wants professional communicators not merely to use the industrial discourse but to

―transform present practices and open up opportunities for public social action‖ (218).

Like Longo and Sullivan, Palmiri also sees how technical communication normalizes the

dominant discourses and excludes the voices and experiences of the marginalized. By following

disability studies approach informed by cultural studies and discourse analysis of some social

theorists like Foucault, he exposes how technical communication is ―enmeshed in the broader

social construction of normalcy and disability‖ (50). His major contention is that the normalizing

discourses of technical communication silence the experiences and values of the community of

the ―disabled.‖ He urges technical communicators to free themselves from the ableist use of

language that promotes the suppression of the voices and experiences of the ―disabled‖ and
 Paudel 9

forces them to assimilate the normalizing discourse and feel ashamed of their own position and

experiences. So, for Palmiri too, what is normally thought to be practical and objective technical

communication is but the normalizing discourse that excludes and marginalizes the values of the

community of the people with different abilities (disability). For him the notion of practical skills

building is all but sham and politically repressive.

Feminist scholars in technical communication, like Longo, Sullivan, and Palmiri, want to

make technical communicators politically and culturally aware. Durack and Lay redefine

technical communication exposing the cultural blinders in the traditional definition of technical

communication that, on the one hand, suppresses and excludes the works of women, on the other

hand, block women from entering the field. These writers believe that the assumed practicality,

neutrality, and objectivity of technical communication hide age-old biases towards women.

Durack reveals how definition of technical communication itself is biased due to the gendered

definition of major terms used in most definitions: technology, work, and workplaces. Durack

says: ―The problem with regard to adding women to our disciplinary history lies in the

assumption that technology, work, and workplace are gender-neutral terms‖ (36-37). She

believes that to include the contributions of women in the history of technical communication,

and to make the definition of it more inclusive, the binary oppositions like public/private,

household/industry, and masculine/feminine labor must be changed (40). She believes that to

make such comprehensive definition the ―peculiar set of cultural blinders‖ has to be challenged

(Cowan qtd in Durack 36). Lay‘s ideas are similar to that of Durack: ―As feminist theories attack

the last vestiges of scientific positivism within science and technology, technical communication

must also let go of the ethos of the objective technical writer who simply transfers information
 Paudel 10

and accept that writers‘ values, background, and gender influence the communication produced‖

(156).

Lay‘s rejection of objective technical writer and transmission model of communication

reminds us of what Slack, Johnson, Hughes, and Pringle and Williams tell us about technical

communication as a construction of knowledge rather than mere ―objective‖ transmission for

―practical‖ purposes. The transmission view is another way of saying practical view of

communication. The role of technical communicator here becomes that of objectively

transmitting the information produced in the industry or the business. Here, as in instrumental

view of technical communication, the technical communicator should not think anything more

than how to reproduce information as directly as possible so that it satisfies the intension of the

master of the industry. This is related to the idea of ―practical‖ in that the focus on practical

purpose speaks for unambiguous, clear, transmission without any disturbances on the way

between the knowledge of the specialists and the users. Slack rejects this transmission view of

communication and proposes articulation view of communication. She believes that technical

communicator is and should be more than a transmitter and act like an author receiving

information from two ends (specialist and users) and adding, deleting, and refining and revising

information with his/her knowledge of what is good (167). Like Slack, Hughes also describes

technical communicator as an articulator or creator of meaning, making tacit knowledge manifest

(275). So, here, technical communication is not merely practical and objective, but also ethical.

In consciously recycling the information and knowledge of the producer and the users in keeping

with what he/she thinks is good, the technical communicator, in Slack‘s view can be an agent of
 Paudel 11

change. Thus, this view of technical communication goes closer to Miller and some other

politically motivated scholars of technical communication.

Johnson in a little different vein redefines technical communication from users‘

perspective. Johnson contends that since technical documents (communication) are produced for

use, users should be involved in the process of production of the document so that it not only

becomes user-friendly, but becomes user-centered (100). Here, in his definition of technical

communication from user-centered perspective, the notion of practicality and instrumentality is

completely redefined. Now, what is practical for the industry may not be so for the users and

technical communicators should not try to force what the industry thinks good for its sake as

good for users. Though Johnson does not go to the political implication of his redefinition of

technical communication from users‘ perspective, we can easily see that if that is truly brought to

practice, it has to accommodate what is largely good for the community rather than

commercially practical for the producers. Here, we can see some underdeveloped indication of

what Miller calls higher form of pragmatism.

After observing these varying definitions and perspectives on professional

communication/technical writing, I want to conclude with the central idea from Miller‘s article

―What Is Practical about Technical Writing?‖ My rationale in ending this paper with this article

is that it comes after a long deliberation on the issue of what is good technical writing after the

publication of her article ―Humanistic Rationale for Technical Writing.‖ She consciously

addresses the issues raised by her critics and expands her ideas too. However, I do not totally buy

her ideas. I still believe that her definition in this article too falls short of what she seems to
 Paudel 12

intend: the conscious critical inquiry into the discourse of the industry, which has a pervasive

influence in the larger society too.

Miller towards the end of her article sums up her position thus: ―Understanding practical

rhetoric as a matter of conduct rather than of production, as a matter of arguing in a prudent way

toward the good of the community rather than of constructing texts, should provide some new

perspectives for teachers of technical writing and developers of courses and programs in

technical communication‖ (23). Here, Miller makes her point clear, refines her earlier position

when she responded to Moore and Tebeaux. She is now clear about what she means by practical

or instrumental. She is not now saying that what she says by practical is not same to what

Tebeaux says. What she does here is blends practical with humanistic through her use of the term

―high pragmatism.‖ Now she does not say that the role of rhetoric of technical communication is

to make the students understand the culture of the profession he/she enters, but to make him/her

think beyond that culture to the practical benefit of his/her activity as a technical communicator

to the larger community. Here is how she refines her argument: ―My own earlier sketch of a new

pedagogy similarly suggested the need to promote both competence and critical awareness of the

implications of competence (‗Humanistic‘ 617). I might now supplement critical awareness with

prudential judgment, the ability (and willingness) to take socially responsible action, including

symbolic action‖ (23). Here, Miller‘s position is very much comprehensive. She does not dismiss

the importance of competence in producing good writing or communication (Tebeaux and

Moore, except making that competence good in itself), but goes beyond it to suggest that this is

not an end in itself (that can overlook the fascist tendency of the corporate world, as Katz points

out about present American emphasis on economic progress as an end in itself), highlights the
 Paudel 13

need of critical awareness (but does not limit the role of technical communicator to be only

aware about where and what he/she is doing), but again moves further than this and underscores

the value of the communicator‘s prudential judgment towards the betterment of the larger

community. This definition seems to accommodate largely the focus of cultural studies (feminist,

disability studies, critical theory approach) on social action too. However, we may have to be

particular about what ―larger community‖ means. If it means the majority or merely the

dominant section of the society, this definition is faulty. If it includes those in the margin, as

discussed by politically oriented scholars like Palmiri, this definition is the one we need to

promote. This makes technical communicator not only rhetorically sound but also responsible to

the mission of changing the discriminations in the society.

To conclude, technical writing is practical, which means its practicality does not refer to

its usefulness to any individual, industry, corporate house, or any individual fraction or group or

community of the society. It should be responsible to the needs of the society as a whole. Is what

she says practical? Can any technical writing be good and useful for the whole society? This is

what technical communicators should try. No one can prove this, but this is what one should

consciously try to do.

Works Cited

Connors, Robert J. ―The Rise of Technical Writing Instruction in America.‖ Johnson-Eilola and

Selber 3-19.

Durack, 3. Katherine T. "Gender, Technology, and the History of Technical Communication."

Johnson-Eilola and Selber 35-46.

 Paudel 14

Harris, Elizabeth. ―In Defense of the Liberal-Arts Approach to Technical Writing.‖ College

English 44.6 (Oct 1982): 628-636.

Hughes, Michael. ―Moving from Information Transfer to Knowledge Creation: A New Value

Proposition for Technical Communicators.‖ Technical Communication 49.3 (August

2002): 275-285.

Johnson, Robert R. ―Audience Involved: Towards a Participatory Model of Writing.‖ Johnson-

Eilola and Selber 91-106.

Johnson-Eilola, Johndan, Stuart A. Selber. Central Works in Technical Communication. Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 2004.

Katz, Steve. ―The Ethic of Expediency: Classical Rhetoric, Technology, and the Holocaust.‖

College English 54.3 (Mar 1992): 255-275.

Lay, Mary M. "Feminist Theory and the Redefinition of Technical Communication." Johnson-

Eilola and Selber 146-159.

Longo, Bernadette. Spurious Coin: A History of Science, Management, and Technical Writing:

Suny Series, Studies in Scientific and Technical Communication. New York: State

University of New York Press, 2000.

Miller, Carolyn. ―Carolyn Miller Responds.‖ College English 41.7 (Mar 1980): 825-827.

- - - . ―A Humanistic Rationale for Technical Writing.‖ College English 40.6 (Feb 1979): 610-

617.

- - -. ―Comments on ‗Instrumental Discourse Is as Humanistic as Rhetoric.‖ JBTC 10.4 (1996):

482-486.
 Paudel 15

- - -. ―What's Practical about Technical Writing?‖ Technical Writing: Theory and Practice. Ed.

Bertie E. Fearing and W. Keats Sparrow. New York: Modern Language Association,

1989. 14–24.

Moore, Patrick. ―Instrumental Discourse Is as Humanistic as Rhetoric.‖ JBTC 10.1 (1996): 100-

118.

Palmiri, Jason. ―Disability Studies, Cultural Analysis, and the Critical Practice of Technical

Communication Pedagogy.‖ Technical Communication Quarterly 15.1 (2006): 49–65.

Rutter, Russell. ―History, Rhetoric, and Humanism: Toward a More Comprehensive Definition

of Technical Communication.‖ Central Works in Technical Communication. Ed. Johndan

Johnson-Eiola and Stuart A. Selber. New York: Oxford, 2004. 20-34.

- - -. ―Poetry, Imagination, and Technical Writing.‖ College English 47.7 (Nov 1985): 698-712.

Slack, Jennifer Daryl, David James Miller, and Jeffrey Doak. ―The Technical Communicator as

Author: Meaning, Power, and Authority.‖ Johnson-Eilola and Selber 160-174.

Sullivan, Dale L. "Political-Ethical Implications of Defining Technical Communication as a

Practice." Johnson-Eilola and Selber 211-219.

Tebeaux, Elizabeth. ―Let‘s Not Ruin Technical Writing, Too: A Comment on the Essays of

Carolyn Miller and Elizabeth Harris.‖ College English 41.7 (Mar 1980): 822-825.