Michael Morrison's List: Foundation Readings

This seems to me to be the foundational piece. Even as a newcomer to the discipline I discerned the importance of Carolyn Miller, and this piece in particular, from the sheer number of references and citations. Many writers have used Miller's work as a jumping off point or touchstone for their own writing. Miller's influence is clearly felt in the 1980s and 1990s in the work of technical communication.

The essay itself illuminates some of the issues still seen today in the struggle between disciplines in the academic world. One such issue is the friction between traditional, literature based English programs and technical communication.

One of the most interesting parts of this article for me, what I take away as still a very valuable statement is the quote, from very near the end of the article, "Our teaching of writing should present mechanical rules and skills against a broader understanding of why and how to adjust or violate the rules, of the social implications of the roles a writer casts for himself or herself and for the reader, and of the ethical repurcussions of one's words." This statement, from thirty years ago, still resonates well within this field.

Carolyn Miller continues to explore the burgeoning field of technical communication in this essay, which examines the arguments for and against technical writing as merely practical. She defines why and how technical writing can be considered practical and examines what the goals of teaching technical writing are, and more importantly, should be. It seems this article has a great influence on the growth of the profession, being often cited and providing an early look at the nature of the relationship between purely instrumental uses of technical communication and less professionally focused uses.

Miller discusses the role of the university and the role of academics in preparing students for professional life. Many of the points Miller brings to light here are still being debated in the modern conversations about the role of technical communication in the university. This is a useful read for any student (or professor) who is interested in how to balance the demands of the instrumental discourse debate.

Jo Allen is a professor and consultant to business on issues of productivity. She is writing here about gender issues, but her conclusions point to teaching students to avoid bias in any form. In the course of this article she speaks to looking at the choices we make in methods, practices and processes to avoid the "inclination to assign value to any particular method except as it reflects productivity and quality" (388).

Gender studies are an important, ongoing issue in the field of technical communication, as well as science, business and literature. Allen is a contemporary of other feminist critics and proponents of gender studies, such as Mary Lay, who has also written extensively on these issues, especially with regard to research.

An important work from 1992, Stephen Doheny-Farina writes about technology transfers as part of series of books published by MIT covering issues in technical communication. Technology transfers, as he is referring to them, means the way technology is transferred from the laboratory to the marketplace.

The issues surrounding the ability to go from inception to product are illustrated through case studies. These case studies touch on issues from high tech medical machines to the business plan of a start up company. He argues throughout for the reasons technical communicators are a vital part of the technology transfer from the beginning of the process to the end.

This study traced writing in an organization, but the most interesting parts of this work are thoughts Doheny-Farina wrote after the fact of finishing this article. He writes, in the introduction to this piece in "Central Works in Technical Communication" that he doesn't feel academic publishing is the correct outlet for publishing ethnographies. His suggestion is that with the sheer amount of information such ethnographies generate, they would prosper in a hypertext environment.

Nonetheless, the study itself has value in its validation of studying the interaction of knowledge, writing and culture in an emerging business environment and provides an informative read for the student interested in ethnographic research.

James Porter is writing an article here which continues to resonate ever more as technology continues to improve. He is discussing the ways in which texts rely on one another for meaning. Authors sample text from others in numerous ways, starting with simple citation. He also discusses the changes to meaning based on the presumed knowledge of the discourse community a message exists in.

I was struck as I read this by the issues we face today with manipulation of images, parody, text alteration and the multitude of digital changes we can accomplish with just a few clicks of the mouse. This source is a well written and interesting investigation of intertextuality with implications for writers and designers today.

An essay which begins as an attempt to refute an earlier point that teachers of composition should only concentrate on form and have no place judging style or content. He takes a view of classical rhetoric to interpret the role of the composition teacher and how to work with the writing of students and improve their writing.

He ends with an appeal to the reader to not take his point of view at face value, but to go and read Aristotle. I will second that recommendation.

In this article, Davida Charney is expressing a desire for methodological pluralism. His writing rises to the defense of empiricist methods. He is a firm believer in this form of research and teaches it in his own methods courses.

He attempts to dispel mischaracterizations of science and address the charges that certain empirical methods are in some way unethical. He discusses the scientist as a member of community. Perceptions of science as a tool of injustice are also address. This article covers many issues of importance for students considering research methods and who are interested in the controversies surrounding some methods. He has written about this topic multiple times and has developed his thoughts further in other publications.

This article tackles the task of explaining the rise and fall of the four modes of discourse, narration, description, exposition and argument as the modes taught to students. Robert J. Connors is one of the foremost historians of rhetoric and technical communication and I also highly recommend his, "The Rise of Technical Writing Instruction in America." I could not find an online full text link for this history, but it is still in print. Both of these histories have a wealth of information for the student wanting to understand the evolution of the field and social forces which shaped the discipline.

An exploration of the nature of reports. The focus of the article is on the report for decision making but the article touches on the nature of genres and the way genres such as the report still require variation to accomplish different goals.

One of the articles which shaped Mike Markel's writing about the changes desktop publishing brought to technical communication, Patricia Sullivan is a pioneer of this era of change. She writes an interesting overview of the this landmark change in the discipline.

The article is very out of date (1988) and it's primary value is its historical value. This is a chance to examine the discipline of technical communication as it goes through a significant period of change and adapting new technologies. Modern students will also find value here as a model for writing about technologies which shape discourse in new directions.

An additional piece of the evolution of visual design's importance to modern technical communication, this article provides yet another excellent historical look at the change in the profession. Mike Markel provides an overview of the separation and re-unification of the visual and verbal elements of communication. He discusses the modern (then) alteration to instructions, the ability to get tutorials on videotape and the visual nature of most manuals.

Despite the age of the article (1995), readers can take two important lessons away from the reading, in addition to the historical value of the article. The first point is that of the difference in learning styles which makes these different types of instruction designs even more useful than Markel explores. The second point is that the article provides a template for writing and exploring the impact of technological changes to the field of technical communication.

An early article examining the changes desktop publishing brought to the technical communication field, this piece is an interesting historical examination of the way the field changes. Markel is examining the effect of word-processing packages on visual document design.

The article provides a review of the literature (at the time) centering on visual design, with an emphasis on gestalt theory. He is asking the question, how do we measure the baseline for students and visuals? What do students perceive when they see a visually designed text? Though this text is comparatively out of date and much has changed, this is an excellent review of visual design theory as it evolved.

Choose anything written by Markel and you might consider it a foundational text for technical communication. Mike Markel has been very important to the field in defining technical communication and creating texts for students. As a student myself of research methods in technical communication, Markel is a prominent figure for our class.

In this article, Markel is exploring the ethics of technical communication. He examines the difficulties in teaching ethics to technical communications students. "In our desire to be clear and concise, to avoid the length and abstruseness of the sophisticated writing about ethics, we risk oversimplification of the theories and condescension to our readers" (81). He also points out that by simplifying ethics discussion, those in the field avoid "taking a position" (81).

This article then goes on to explore a particular framework for involving ethics into the teaching and practice of technical communication. He advocates taking ethics into consideration in the work of technical communication. The work draws heavily on Kant and John Rawls to lay out his ethical design. This article is fundamental to discussions of ethics in the profession of technical writing and is a useful read at any level, from undergraduate student to professor.

Discussing professional writing more than technical communication, this essay draws on Miller and Moore to attempt to bridge the academic gap between the professional writing teachers and traditional English departments. Rentz writes well about the statistics of how English departments are changing their curricula to include professional writing. She draws upon personal experience in setting curriculum and major requirements in an English department which includes Master's programs in professional writing.

This essay bridges the gap between instrumental discourse and humanistic, rhetorical approaches and calls out for teachers involved in English or professional writing to take a new look at the structure of their programs and the debates surrounding them.

Perhaps best described as the other side of the argument in the instrumental discourse debate, the article is interesting as it was written in 1982 but addresses the main concerns of teachers debating how to properly teach technical writing (later to be technical communication). Harris wants to establish why the liberal arts approach, the inclusion of rhetoric, literary theory and linguistics are important to students of technical communication.

Something which jumps out as being of interest to me as a current student of technical communication and rhetoric is her idea that technical writing should be taught purely as "language engineering -- a technology in itself." She also comments that in the "anti-academic" view technical writing is only a practical exercise and that research in the liberal arts is impractical.

Harris is a useful read for anyone interested in the division within the discipline. Her work here stands with Miller, Dobrin and Moore in setting the stage for the conflict over the teaching of technical communication.

Though separated by a considerable distance in time, Moore's article is, in many ways, a response to the writing of Carolyn Miller and David Dobrin. Moore is arguing that many instances of technical communication are non-rhetorical. He is writing to change perceptions and to shape a new theory for teaching technical communication students.\n\nMoore's article argues that students coming out of technical communication classes run by rhetoric and composition departments do not properly prepare them for the workplace. Instrumental discourse, he argues, can meet the needs of the workplace, is the proper method for teaching students and allows for the acceptance of non-rhetorical language in certain contexts. Examples of the types of writing Moore considers non-rhetorical include data maps and instruction sets.\n\nThe argument Moore makes is not unique to him alone, though he is perhaps the most outspoken proponent of strict instrumental discourse views for teaching technical communication. The debate remains ongoing in the field and this article is an important element.

In this work, Dobrin asks some very tough questions about technical writing and the teaching of technical writing. Dobrin is exploring the perceived objectivity of technical writing through the philosophic lens of holism, as well as the theories of Heidegger.

Of particular importance to the student of technical communication are the ideas of tacit knowledge and how it shapes perception and the relationship between technology and technological objectivity. Both of these points are part of Dobrin's argument and both speak to concerns still present in discussions of technical communication. What is the role of the technical communicator? How does the work of a technical communicator interact with audiences? Does objectivity matter, or is it even possible?

Another important issue raised here is the idea that in order to successfully communicate as part of a group (or discourse community) you need to learn the intricacies and subtleties which allow this group to achieve their view of objectivity. This is an interesting idea for the technical communicator as it speaks to the notion of positioning oneself as an expert and what is the proper level of knowledge needed to write well about a subject. Ultimately, this article lays groundwork to several discussions which seem to still be ongoing in the community of technical communication.

A text repeatedly spoken of in the professional community, Kuhn's work is an important piece in defining aspects of scientific communication. Taking a view of science writing from a professional and historical angle, Kuhn is examining the nature of how science changes over time. Instead of an incremental accumulation of knowledge, he proposes that the landscape of science changes radically at certain points.

These revolutions are periods not only shaped by important discoveries. Kuhn also explores how these discoveries, the revolutions, change what science accepts, what new questions might be asked and what happens with the teaching of science following one of these events. This work is a landmark, perhaps not of technical communication, per se, but certainly of science writing, as Kuhn explores scientific communication as it relates to these revolutions.

Another seminal work from Dr. Miller she examines genre in a new manner. Paying less attention to form or substance, her classification focuses on the "action it is used to accomplish" (151).

One of Miller's objectives is to make genre classifications rhetorically useful. She seeks to avoid useless taxonomies but to find a sound system of organizing materials based on the social action of those rhetorical instances. The importance of Carolyn Miller's writing cannot be overestimated. As with her other works this piece is extensively cited and has shaped conversation about genre since its publication.