I came to this course with no background knowledge of
technical writing. As a result, it has taken me some time to get acclimated to
what it is and what is/has been at stake in the professionalization of the
industry.
When I read Light’s “Technical Writing and Professional
Status,” my understanding of the industry, the importance of
professionalization, and the thinking behind the design and sequence of this
course all coalesced. Hallier and Malone’s
discussion of the article demonstrates why this might have happened. That article
is indeed seminal as it is still being discussed and put forth as a watershed
moment in the progression of technical writing as a professional industry. For
me, though, the article illuminated so much about the field not because of its
importance in a lineage of scholarship but more so because it is just an
excellent piece of writing.
Coppola’s discussion how technical writing fits in the
contemporary market economy contains a tension I cannot reconcile. I enjoyed
her opening statement in part two that we live in an age of irony. The irony
here being that just as technical writing is emerging as a profession,
professions are being devalued. Part of this devaluation of professions is the
demand that workers be mobile and flexible. According to Coppola, technical
writers are in a position to thrive because the relatively nascent profession
demands flexibility and broad knowledge and skills of its practitioners. I do
not understand this. She claims that technical writers have “the integrated
skill sets…to navigate the complexities of rapidly shifting work structures.” That
seems more like the regression professionalization rather than the affirmation
of it and that technical writing will be marginalized and devalued as it has
sometimes been in the past.
You make an excellent point about the supposed benefits of mobility and flexibility. I think the same point was being made by Faber. The changing nature of what we continue to be professional is effectively a dilution of the importance of professionals. It's hard to see the demand for flexibility, which is almost entirely placed on employees instead of employers, as a path to professionalization.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I understand Cappola's argument that you pointed out either, it seems like she is devaluing a technical writers abilities with the two statements. If the devaluation of professionalism demands employees remain mobile and flexible and Coppola argues that technical writers redeem these qualities, then they are a part of the devalued workforce. Perhaps Cappola is suggesting that because technical writers can be so flexible and adaptable, they will become more valued for those qualities. Does the devaluation of a profession make professionals out of some, while others may be cast away for their inability to be as flexible?
ReplyDeletePerhaps it is an economical devaluation. The economy has slumped. CEOs are taking an unfair share of resources. Stakeholders are valued over employees. Coppola is not saying that TC is devalued; she's saying that what is happening overall is a devaluation of professions overall. In this economy, I think it is difficult for anyone to feel valued.
DeleteI'm not sure I understand Cappola's argument that you pointed out either, it seems like she is devaluing a technical writers abilities with the two statements. If the devaluation of professionalism demands employees remain mobile and flexible and Coppola argues that technical writers redeem these qualities, then they are a part of the devalued workforce. Perhaps Cappola is suggesting that because technical writers can be so flexible and adaptable, they will become more valued for those qualities. Does the devaluation of a profession make professionals out of some, while others may be cast away for their inability to be as flexible?
ReplyDelete