At a multinational company, daily written communication between staff, supervisors, customers, and suppliers is frequently conducted using digital tools (e.g., emails, smartphones, and texting applications) often across multiple nationally, linguistically, and conceptually defined borders. Determining digital tools’ impact on intercultural encounters in professional environments like these is difficult but important given the sheer volume of digital contact in technical and professional environments and the ongoing global struggle to broker peace and productivity amid communities’ many perceived differences. Using examples drawn from a case study of binational manufacturing sister companies, I build on recent work in professional, networked written communication to analyze two WhatsApp exchanges, one between a central study participant and his customer, another between the participant and an employee. This study shows how asynchronous digital communication tools created complex “silences” in writing between participants. In these silences (e.g., a lack of or delayed response to a text) individuals try to explain others’ actions for themselves. Drawing on a combination of third-generation activity theory and Latourian actor-network theory, I show that while explaining others’ actions in writing with whatever cultural shorthand is available may remain a common part of everyday life and research, it can be a poor guide for explaining others’ actions, especially in digital writing. My study shows how research of, and instruction in, digital tool use in intercultural writing contexts requires attention to the material conditions and objectives potentially shaping one’s own as well as others’ composition choices.
BanksA. J. (2006). Race, rhetoric, and technology: Searching for higher ground. Lawrence Erlbaum; National Council of Teachers of English.
5.
BanksA. J. (2011). Digital Griots: African American rhetoric in a multimedia age. Southern Illinois University Press.
6.
BarnettS.BoyleC. (Eds.). (2017). Rhetoric, through everyday things. University of Alabama Press.
7.
BarnumC. (2011). What we have here is a failure to communicate: How cultural factors affect online communication between east and west. In AmantK.St.SapienzaF. (Eds.), Culture, communication, and cyberspace: Rethinking technical communication for international online environments (pp. 131–156). Baywood.
8.
BennettA.EglashR.KrishnamoorthyM. (2011). Virtual design studio: Facilitating online learning and communication between U.S. and Kenyan participants. In AmantK.St.SapienzaF. (Eds.), Culture, communication, and cyberspace: Rethinking technical communication for international online environments (pp. 185–205). Baywood.
BremnerS. (2006). Politeness, power, and activity systems. Written Communication, 23(4), 397–423.
11.
BüscherM.UrryJ. (2009). Mobile methods and the empirical. European Journal of Social Theory, 12(1), 99–116.
12.
BüscherM.UrryJ.WitchgerK. (Eds.). (2010). Mobile methods. Routledge.
13.
CallonM. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In LawJ. (Ed.), Power, action, & belief: A new sociology of knowledge? (pp. 196–233). Routledge.
14.
De CerteauM. (1988). The practice of everyday life (RendallS. F., Trans.). University of California Press.
15.
DingD. D. (2011). Pleasure in naming all the parts of the known in their expected order: How traditional Chinese agrarian culture influences modern Chinese cyberspace communication. In AmantK.St.SapienzaF. (Eds.), Culture, communication, and cyberspace: Rethinking technical communication for international online environments (pp. 111–129). Baywood.
16.
EngeströmY. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In EngeströmY.MiettinenR.PunamäkiR.-L. (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge University Press.
17.
FraibergS. (2017). Start-up nation: Studying transnational entrepreneurial practices in Israel’s start-up ecosystem. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 31(3), 350–388.
18.
GlennC. (2004). Unspoken: A rhetoric of silence (1st ed.). Southern Illinois University Press.
19.
GordonG.WilliamsT. (2002). Doing business in Mexico: A practical guide. Best Business Books.
20.
GrantD. M. (2017). Writing Wakan: The Lakota pipe as rhetorical object. College Composition and Communication, 69(1), 61–86.
21.
HaasA. M. (2012). Race, rhetoric, and technology: A case study of decolonial technical communication theory, methodology, and pedagogy. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 26(3), 277–310.
22.
HaasA. M. (2013). Subject matter expert meets technical communicator: Stories of Mestiza consciousness in the automotive industry. In YuH.SavageG. (Eds.), Negotiating cultural encounters: Narrating intercultural engineering and technical communication. Wiley-IEEE Press.
HofstedeG. H. (2003). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). SAGE.
26.
HollidayA.MacDonaldM. N. (2019). Researching the intercultural: Intersubjectivity and the problem with postpositivism. Applied Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amz006
27.
KaptelininV. (2005). The object of activity: Making sense of the sense-maker. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(1), 4–18.
28.
KleinS.LallaS. T. (2011). Digital ecologies: Observations of intercultural interactions in learning management systems. In AmantK.St.SapienzaF. (Eds.), Culture, communication, and cyberspace: Rethinking technical communication for international online environments (pp. 229–243). Baywood.
29.
LambertiA. P.RichardsA. R. (Eds.). (2011). Complex worlds: Digital culture, rhetoric and professional communication. Routledge.
30.
LatourB. (1993). We have never been modern (PorterC., Trans.). Harvard University Press.
31.
LatourB. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford University Press.
32.
LeeC. K.-M. (2007). Affordances and text-making practices in online instant messaging. Written Communication, 24(3), 223–249.
33.
LeontevA. A. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality (HallM. J., Trans.). Prentice Hall.
34.
LynchP.RiversN. (2015). Introduction: Do you believe in rhetoric and composition? In LynchP.RiversN. (Eds.), Thinking with Bruno Latour in rhetoric and composition (pp. 1–19). Southern Illinois University Press.
35.
MatsudaA.MatsudaP. K. (2011). Globalizing writing studies: The case of U.S. technical communication textbooks. Written Communication, 28(2), 172–192.
36.
McNairL. D.ParettiM. C. (2010). Activity theory, speech acts, and the “doctrine of infelicity”: Connecting language and technology in globally networked learning environments. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 24(3), 323–357.
37.
MiccicheL. R. (2014). Writing material. College English, 76(6), 488–505.
38.
MiettinenR. (2005). Object of activity and individual motivation. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(1), 52–69.
39.
NardiB. A. (2005). Objects of desire: Power and passion in collaborative activity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(1), 37–51.
40.
ParettiM. C.McNairL. D.Holloway-AttawayL. (2007). Teaching technical communication in an era of distributed work: A case study of collaboration between U.S. and Swedish students. Technical Communication Quarterly, 16(3), 327–352.
PiggS. (2014). Coordinating constant invention: Social media’s role in distributed work. Technical Communication Quarterly, 23(2), 69–87.
43.
PiggS.GrabillJ. T.Brunk-ChavezB.MooreJ. L.RosinskiP.CurranP. G. (2013). Ubiquitous writing, technologies, and the social practice of literacies of coordination. Written Communication, 31(1), 91–117.
44.
PihlajaB. (2018). Activity theory, Actor-network theory, and culture in the twenty-first century. In RiceR.AmantK.St. (Eds.), Thinking globally, composing locally: Rethinking online writing in the age of the global internet (pp. 182–203). Utah State University Press.
RiceR.AmantK.St. (Eds.). (2018). Thinking globally, composing locally: Rethinking online writing in the age of the global internet. Utah State University Press.
48.
RickertT. (2013). Ambient rhetoric: The attunements of rhetorical being. University of Pittsburgh Press.
49.
RoseE. J.WaltonR. (2018). Factors to actors: Implications of posthumanism for social justice work. In MooreK.RichardsD. P. (Eds.), Posthuman praxis in technical communication (pp. 91–117). Routledge.
50.
RoysterJ. J.KirschG. E. (2012). Feminist rhetorical practices: New horizons for rhetoric, composition, and literacy studies. Southern Illinois University Press.
51.
RückriemG. (2009). Digital technology and mediation: A challenge to activity theory. In SanninoA.DanielsH.GutiérrezK. D. (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp. 88–111). Cambridge University Press.
52.
SackeyD. J.BoyleC.XiongM. N.RíosG. R.ArolaK. L.BarnettS. (2019). Perspectives on cultural and posthumanist rhetorics. Rhetoric Review, 38(4), 375–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350198.2019.1654760
53.
SaldañaJ. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). SAGE.
54.
SimmonsW. M.MooreK. R.SullivanP. (2015). Tracing uncertainties: Methodologies of a door closer. In LynchP.RiversN. (Eds.), Thinking with Bruno Latour in rhetoric and composition (pp. 275–293). Southern Illinois University Press.
55.
SpinuzziC. (2003). Tracing genres through organizations: A sociocultural approach to information design. MIT Press.
56.
SpinuzziC. (2008). Network: Theorizing knowledge work in telecommunications. Cambridge University Press.
57.
SpinuzziC. (2010). Secret sauce and snake oil: Writing monthly reports in a highly contingent environment. Written Communication, 27(4), 363–409.
58.
SpinuzziC. (2013). Topsight: A guide to studying, diagnosing, and fixing information flow in organizations. CreateSpace.
59.
SpinuzziC. (2015). Symmetry as a methodological move. In LynchP.RiversN. (Eds.), Thinking with Bruno Latour in Rhetoric and Composition (pp. 23–39). Southern Illinois University Press.
60.
SpinuzziC.NelsonS.ThomsonK. S.LorenziniF.FrenchR. A.PogueG.LondonN. (2016). How magnets attract and repel: Interessement in a technology commercialization competition. Written Communication, 33(1), 3–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088315614566
61.
AmantK.St.SapienzaF. (Eds.). (2011). Culture, communication, and cyberspace: Rethinking technical communication for international online environments. Baywood.
62.
StrotherJ. (2011). Cultural adaptation of cybereducation. In AmantK.St.SapienzaF. (Eds.), Culture, communication, and cyberspace: Rethinking technical communication for international online environments (pp. 207–228). Baywood.
63.
SunH. (2012). Cross-cultural technology design: Creating culture-sensitive technology for local users. Oxford University Press.
64.
SwartsJ. (2013). How can work tools shape and organize technical communication? In Johnson-EilolaJ.SelberS. A. (Eds.), Solving problems in technical communication (pp. 146–164). University of Chicago Press.
65.
SwartsJ. (2016). Composing networks: Writing practices on mobile devices. Written Communication, 33(4), 385–417.
66.
ThatcherB. (2012). Intercultural rhetoric and professional communication: Technological advances and organizational behavior (1st ed.). IGI Global.
ThatcherB.AmantK.St. (Eds.). (2011). Teaching intercultural rhetoric and technical communication: Theories, curriculum, pedagogies, and practices. Baywood.
69.
ToddZ. (2016). An indigenous feminist’s take on the ontological turn: “Ontology” is just another word for colonialism. Journal of Historical Sociology, 29(1), 4–22.
70.
TokunagaR. S. (2009). High-speed internet access to the other: The influence of cultural orientations on self-disclosures in offline and online relationships. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 38(3), 133–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2009.505058
WilliamsM. F.PimentelO. (Eds.). (2014). Communicating race, ethnicity, and identity in technical communication. Baywood.
75.
ZachryM.ThrallsC. (Eds.). (2007). Communicative practices in workplaces and the professions: Cultural perspectives on the regulation of discourse and organizations. Routledge.
