Katie Malone

Course: English 485

Instructor: Dr. Paul Sawyer

Assignment: Research

As a professional writing student, I have researched the career opportunities of technical communication, and the possibilities are endless. However, I noticed most of the top-paying jobs are found in the world of computer and biological sciences. So, I began questioning how well prepared I will be upon graduation, because I know very little about these scientific subjects. And after learning about the war of technical communication’s placement in education, I wondered how efficient it would be as an interdisciplinary program. To find out, I explored the fundamental differences of professional and technical writing, the possibility of either being an interdisciplinary college program, and the needs and expectations of technical communication students today to determine how well prepared I will be to enter the workplace.

Around the turn of the 20th century, engineering educators began calling attention to the illiteracy rates of Engineering students and emphasizing the need for them to learn how to write well. However, the teachers could not teach it and the students did not want to learn it. Why does an engineer need to learn about Shakespeare and rhetoric? So, the English faculty was called in. But, the English faculty scoffed at it. Engineering was a vocational program, and what place did it have in English? As Kynell suggests, its induction led to “status concerns” (144), because “English faculty still usually obtained degrees in literature and many of them still perceived the service course engineering English as little more than drudgery” (148). Long story short, the war on technical communication’s educational placement is well established and on-going. In some colleges it is placed in the sciences. In others, it is found in the arts. And, it seems their placement determines their title as Technical Writing or Professional Writing, respectively.

As someone who has recently been introduced to the field of technical communication, I was confused by the use of these two titles. They seemed to always be used together or interchangeably, and I never really knew that there was a difference between the two, or at least so exorbitantly. So, I think it is important to note the differences between professional writing and technical writing.

According to Sullivan and Porter, professional writing is “more closely allied with English as a field, focusing more on writing and promoting a more general humanities perspective” (qtd. in Yeats and Thompson 233). In other words, professional writing students’ curriculum focuses on English traditions of rhetoric and composition. But, as Yeats and Thompson have determined, technical writing “demands that its students have completed coursework in engineering or science” (233). Technical writers learn how to write, as well as what they are writing about, which seems to be the most fundamental difference. It should also be noted that professional writers “share the goal of helping companies better understand the needs of the public, and they are less concerned about defending their companies’ practices,” whereas technical writers “assume their first obligation is to represent their companies” (Yeats and Thompson 233).

Learning this differentia, I feel more confident with my professional writing path. Operations procedures, brochures, and proposals I can do. But, computer software or automotive repair manuals, I’m not so confident. But, for argument’s sake, let’s pretend I was interested in writing Micro-Biology textbooks. How well prepared would I be to write about Micro-Biology as a student of technical communication? Would it be more advantageous if it was housed in the department of English, or in an interdisciplinary model?

Maylath, Grabill, and Gurak observed “PTSC [Professional, Technical, and Scientific Communication] programs in the U.S. seem to flourish when they are independent of English or other large departments and that they often flourish still more when they are located in an engineering or applied science college or at a land grant school” (263). Flourish independent of English. But why? In their research, they found “that humanities departments, especially those focused on literature, often stand opposed to practices that are common in business, science, and engineering” (263).

Because “‘English’ has somehow managed to hold on stubbornly to all written composition not intended for oral delivery” (Maylath, Grabill, and Gurak 264), many PTSC programs are housed in English departments, despite the mounting evidence that these programs flourish when they are not under the control of English departments. And, they “are more likely to offer graduate degrees” with a “more technically oriented program focus” (Yeats and Thompson 225) when housed elsewhere. But, when they are housed in the department of English, they are commonly considered “to be an undergraduate major in rhetoric and composition” (Maylath, Grabill, and Gurak 272). These programs are also considered to teach professional writing.

So, what if it was an interdisciplinary program? To create an interdisciplinary program in technical communication would help “the disciplines [(writing and technology)] to be bridged so that students can easily cross between them” (Maylath, Grabill, and Gurak 265). Providing students with the knowledge of how to write as well as what they will write about allows for well-rounded future employees and prepares them for the workplace.

To model a technical communication program based around the structure of SLU’s Liberal Arts Studies program, a scientific area of concentration determined by the student would “help students develop scientific or technical expertise in a particular industry or discipline” (Whiteside 309). Instead of these concentration areas being communication, social sciences, or visual art, like SLU’s Liberal Arts Studies program offers, biology, computer science, or engineering could be offered instead.

According to the English Department, the Liberal Arts Studies curriculum “major requirements will be considered filled upon the completion of 27 semester hours in English and 24 semester hours in one of these subjects: communication, criminal justice, dance-performing arts, a foreign language, political science, history, mass communication and journalism, music, philosophy, psychology, sociology, social work, theatre, visual arts.” As a student, I have adapted this degree to fulfill the requirements of a professional writing minor by selecting the communication concentration. Thus, with the help of my advisor, I have tailor-made my degree into one similar to that of a Professional Writing major.

This curriculum, however, is not interdisciplinary. It focuses on rhetoric and composition, does not offer any focus on technological or natural sciences, and is housed in the English department. So, with this curriculum, I’m not sure how confident I’d be to write Micro-Biology textbooks. However, SLU’s Liberal Arts Studies program has potential to be customized into a technical writing program. Here’s how: Add engineering, biology, computer science, chemistry, physics, and mathematics to the options of concentrations. Having one of these options would truly make it an interdisciplinary program, being a mixture of English and science.

When technical writing is housed in a science department, educators use a more technical approach to teaching their students. Because it is not housed in the English department, the sole focus is not rhetoric and composition, but also includes focus on the sciences. Maylath, Grabill, and Gurak found: “With PTSC programs increasingly having to respond rapidly to technology and workplace changes and with competition coming from programs worldwide, PTSC programs independent of literature would seem to hold an advantage” (278).

The technical communication BS program at Mercer University requires students to take:

•At least 3 lab sciences, including one physics

•Mathematics through at least the first calculus level

•At least three engineering courses, alongside en gineering majors

•At least one programming course (Yeats and Thompson 231)

Other schools “ask their students to select an area of emphasis to their skill set […] meant to help students develop scientific or technical expertise in a particular industry or discipline” (Whiteside 309). These requirements would make a feasible concentration structure in an interdisciplinary-style technical communication program, and this model could easily be adapted into an inter-disciplinary course at SLU, similar to its Liberal Arts Studies program.

While it may seem that a simple solution would be to merge technical writing into a more interdisciplinary program, mixing the traditions of rhetoric and composition with scientific classes, historically, a weakness of these interdisciplinary programs has emerged because “they are not ‘owned’ by powerful departments” (Maylath, Grabill, and Gurak 277) and are dependent on “who will be expected to take responsibility for programs, and thus whose attitudes will have a bearing on program outcomes” (269).

The bottom line is this: the placement of a technical communication program determines what teaching approach will be taken and what problems will be faced. If it is housed in English it will most likely focus on rhetoric and composition and be called professional writing. If housed in a department of science, it will focus on content and be called technical writing. “Many levels of complexity and educational challenges may exist in a particular focus, whether it happens to be more associated with the humanities or with technology and engineering” (Yeats and Thompson 233). Both will face the issues of status and respect for the opposing discipline. In reference to this, Rentz states “As the pages of our journals attest, we in professional writing have been trying ever since becoming an academic presence to figure out on what bases we exist” (188).

And the same holds true for the science-based programs. Scientific scholars are still calling out for the need of emphasizing to science students the importance of writing well. In an editorial of Nature Methods magazine, one scientist calls out a plea: “As a community, scientists have a responsibility in shaping the graduate curriculum to prepare students for the challenges of a career. Teaching them how to clearly convey their work in writing is, in our view, a priority too often neglected” (1). However, hope remains because “discussions about the nature of curriculum in technical communication (and by extension, about the best location for our programs) continue in our academic journals” (Yeats and Thompson 227).

It seems the changes and advancements in technology over the last century should override the historical war of program placement and take precedence when considering issues of technical communication. So, ignoring the “academic propriety and administrative efficacy of [technical communication’s] position within colleges and universities” (Dragga 221) and based on these marketplace changes and trends, how well prepared are technical communication graduates today?

Perhaps, there are ways other than literature and rhetoric courses to prepare students to be successful in the field. In a study done by Jerde and Taper, they found: “Incorporating opportunities for students to practice and improve scientific writing enhances their skills and improves the communication of science” (37) because “the only significant factor influencing scientific writing performance was prior scientific writing experience” (34).

Internships offer opportunities for students to “gain a basic understanding of the business and industry in which they will work” (Whiteside 314). They have also proved valuable for all parties involved: “Students can put theory into practice and gain valuable job-related experience, and businesses can help train and recruit future employees while having certain projects completed inexpensively” (McEachern 211).

However, when technical communication programs are housed in English departments, these programs are less likely to offer internship opportunities. Another possible downside to internships: “Substandard work reflects poorly on the faculty offering the course and the program as a whole. Clients may be depending on the work and failure to deliver has the potential to damage community relations with local industry. Indeed, it may take years to rebuild relations with a local stakeholder after a service learning course fails” (qtd. in McEachern 212).

Professor Gregory Wickliff created an innovational approach to connecting his students to real-world situations. McEachern noted that Wickliff provided students “with general topics (such as a city’s recycling practices)” and required them “to collaboratively define a problem, research it, and write a recommendation report to a reader outside of the classroom (such as the city manager responsible for recycling)” (212). The students gained hands-on experience with typical, everyday approaches in technical writing and “learned a great deal about working in groups, conducting research, and writing proposals and reports” (McEachern 212).

Interestingly, some land grant colleges and associate degree programs model their technical communication programs around the needs of local businesses and industries “because these programs are well connected to the communities in which they reside and typically offer the training that directly addresses the skills and abilities that are in demand in the local job market” (Yeats and Thompson 247). North Dakota State University has even begun updating their program “to reflect the requirements and expectations of the technical communication field” (Maylath, Grabill, and Gurak 275), due to the influx of technical writing needs because of the Microsoft facility located nearby in Fargo.

After Whiteside surveyed graduates and managers of technical communication, managers “recommend more ‘hands-on experience’” (311), while graduates said “they had ‘too much theory’ and needed more work with software tools and computer languages” (311). Nevertheless, it seems the most telling finding of her study was that “both recent graduates and managers strongly agree that technical communicators need more preparation on the following areas: […] scientific and technical knowledge” (313).

Hiring managers often cite oral and written communication skills as one of their top priorities of abilities needed of new-hires and “project management, problem-solving skills, and business operations knowledge as areas these employees lacked [competence]” (Whiteside 311). Yet, the problem with scientists not wanting to write still exists today, partly because of their college’s curriculum. “Some commendable universities offer a scientific writing course, but it is usually not part of the curriculum and accommodates only a fraction of the students” (“The Way We Write” 1).

So, based on all this research, I would have to conclude that I am not and will not be prepared to write Micro-Biology textbooks. Could I write textbooks? Certainly, because my program’s focus is rhetoric and composition. Textbooks pertaining to Micro-Biology? Very doubtful. I believe aptitude goes a long way, because as Beck comments “The technical communicator appeared as a technical expert first, then as a writer” (qtd. in Yeats and Thompson 228). I think if I had more interest in the subject and if I was in a technical writing program, rather than one of professional writing, I’d be better prepared for the job. The program I am in does not have a scientific focus which would ease my transfer into the scientific writing world, but that does not discredit the program itself. And universities offering this preparation certainly exist.

That being said, the essential difference between technical writing and professional writing is profound, so it only makes sense that they be housed in both English and science departments. As Davis observed: “where a technical communication program is located within a university has a profound impact upon the nature of the program” (qtd. in Maylath, Grabill, and Gurak 263).

Upon research, it also seems that an inter-disciplinary approach to technical communication has potential, but is historically weak. This is somewhat disheartening because such an approach seems feasible, albeit too reliant on cooperation and agreement among those in charge of it, which gives the program a powerless disadvantage from the start. I do think a successful inter-disciplinary technical communication program can exist with the right faculty involved and with innovative approaches like those of Gregory Wickliff’s and North Dakota State University’s.

To me, it seems high-time that technological and marketplace advancements replace program location as the utmost issue, and that programs should focus on the current trends of job markets and get rid of “all the theory” the graduates said they had too much of. Or, as Yeats and Thompson state: “we believe that the time has come to set aside the historical location of programs in search of a place where the field can be free to expand to better serve its students and its overall agenda” (226).

Works Cited

Dragga, Sam. “Positioning Programs in Professional and Technical Communication: Guest Editor’s Introduction.” Technical Communication Quarterly 19.3 (2010): 221-224. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 8 Oct. 2010.

English Department. Southeastern Louisiana University, n.d. Web. 7 Nov. 2010.

Jerde, Christopher L., and Mark L. Taper. “Preparing Undergraduates for Professional Writing.” Journal of College Science Teaching 33.7 (2004): 34-37. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 30 Oct. 2010.

Kynell Teresa. “Technical Communication from 1850-1950: Where Have We Been?” Technical Communication Quarterly. 8.2 (1999): 143-151. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 30 Oct. 2010.

Maylath, Bruce, Jeff Grabill, and Laura J. Gurak. “Intellectual Fit and Programmatic Power: Organizational Profiles of Four Professional/Technical/Scientific Communication Programs.” Technical Communication Quarterly 19.3 (2010): 262-280. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 8 Oct. 2010.

McEachern, Robert W. “Problems in Service Learning and Technical/Professional Writing: Incorporating the Perspective of Nonprofit Management.” Technical Communication Quarterly 10.2 (2001): 211. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 30 Oct. 2010.

Rentz, Kathryn. “A Flare from the Margins: The Place of Professional Writing in English Departments.” Pedagogy 1.1 (2001): 185. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 30 Oct. 2010.

“The way we write.” Nature Methods Jan. 2006: 1. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 8 Oct. 2010.

Whiteside, Aimee L. “The Skills That Technical Communicators Need: An Investigation of Technical Communication Graduates, Managers, and Curricula.” Journal of Technical Writing & Communication 33.4 (2003): 303-318. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 8 Oct. 2010.

Yeats, Dave, and Isabelle Thompson. “Mapping Technical and Professional Communication: A Summary and Survey of Academic Locations for Programs.” Technical Communication Quarterly 19.3 (2010): 225-261. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 8 Oct. 2010.