Infrastructures support and shape our social world, but they do so in often invisible ways. In few cases is that truer than with various documents that serve infrastructural functions. This article takes one type of those documents—technical standards—and uses analysis of one specific standard to develop theory related to the infrastructural function of writing. The author specifically analyzes one of the major infrastructures of the Internet of Things—the 126-page Tag Data Standard (TDS)—to show how rethinking writing as infrastructure can be valuable for multiple conversations occurring with writing studies, including research on material rhetoric, research that expands the scope of what should be studied as writing, and research in writing studies that links with emerging fields. The author concludes by developing a model for future research on the infrastructural functions of writing.
BarnettS.BoyleC. (Eds.). (2016). Rhetoric through everyday things. University of Alabama Press.
4.
BeckA. (2018). Measuring the impact: Key lessons from 10 retailers using RFID. GS1 UK.
5.
BowkerG. (1994). Science on the run: Information management and industrial geophysics at Schlumberger, 1920–1940. MIT Press.
6.
BowkerG.StarS. L. (1999). Sorting things out. MIT Press.
7.
BoyleC. (2018). Rhetoric as a posthuman practice. Ohio State University.
8.
BrockK. (2019). Rhetorical code studies: Discovering arguments in and around code. University of Michigan Press.
9.
BuschL. (2011). Standards: Recipes for reality. MIT Press.
10.
CharmazK. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage.
11.
ChingK. L. (2018). Tools matter: Mediated writing activity in alternative digital environments. Written Communication, 35(3), 344–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088318773741
12.
DemchenkoY.GrossoP.de LaatC.MembreyP. (2013). Addressing big data issues in Scientific Data Infrastructure. In 2013 International Conference on Collaboration Technologies and Systems (CTS) (pp. 48–55). IEEE.
13.
DourishP.BellG. (2007). The infrastructure of experience and the experience of infrastructure: Meaning and structure in everyday encounters with space. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 34(3), 414–430.
14.
FleissJ. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions (2nd ed.). John Wiley.
15.
FrithJ. (2015). Smartphones as locative media. Polity.
16.
FrithJ. (2019). A billion little pieces: RFID and infrastructures of identification. MIT Press.
17.
FrithJ. (2020). The pedagogical opportunities of technical standards: Learning from the Electronic Product Code. Technical Communication, 67, 42–53.
18.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine.
19.
GrabillJ. (2010). Infrastructure outreach and the engaged writing program. In RoseS. K.WeiserI. (Eds.), Going public: What writing programs learn from engagement (pp. 23–36). Utah State University.
20.
GrahamS.MarvinS. (2001). Splintering urbanism: Networked infrastructures, technological mobilities, and the urban condition. Routledge.
HaasC.WitteS. P. (2001). Writing as an embodied practice: The case of engineering standards. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 15(4), 413–457.
23.
HackosJ. (1985). Using systems analysis techniques in the development of standards and procedures. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 28(3), 25–30.
24.
HackosJ. (2016). International standards for information development and content management. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 59(1), 24–36.
25.
Hart-DavidsonW.BernhardtG.McLeodM.RifeM.GrabillJ. T. (2007). Coming to content management: Inventing infrastructure for organizational knowledge work. Technical Communication Quarterly, 17(1), 10–34.
26.
HubermanA. M.MilesM. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 428–444). Sage.
27.
JohnsonN. (2012). Information infrastructure as rhetoric: Tools for analysis. Poroi, 8(1), 1–3.
LanhamR. (1992). The electronic word: Democracy, technology, and the arts. University of Chicago Press.
30.
LarkinB. (2013). The politics and poetics of infrastructure. Annual Review of Anthropology, 42(1), 327–343.
31.
LuzónM. J. (2013). Public communication of science in blogs: Recontextualizing scientific discourse for a diversified audience. Written Communication, 30(4), 428–457. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088313493610
ParksL. (2012). Technostruggles and the satellite dish: A populist approach to infrastructure. In BolinG. (Ed.), Cultural technologies: The shaping of culture in media and society (pp. 64–86). Routledge.
34.
ReadS. (2019). The infrastructural function: A relational theory of infrastructure for writing studies. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 33(3), 233–267.
35.
SandvigC. (2013). The internet as infrastructure. In DuttonW. H. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of internet studies (pp. 86–108). Oxford University Press.
SchryerC. F. (1993). Records as genre. Written Communication, 10(2), 200–234.
38.
SilvaT.LekiI.CarsonJ. (1997). Broadening the perspective of mainstream composition studies: Some thoughts from the disciplinary margins. Written Communication, 14(3), 398–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088397014003004
39.
SmagorinskyP. (2008). The method section as conceptual epicenter in constructing social science research reports. Written Communication, 25(3), 389–411.
StarS. L. (2000). It’s Infrastructure All the Way Down (Keynote Address). Proceedings of the Fifth ACM Conference on Digital Libraries, 271–279.
42.
StarS. L.RuhlederK. (1996). Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: Design and access for large information spaces. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 111–134.
43.
SwartsJ. (2010). Recycled writing: Assembling actor networks from reusable content. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 24(2), 127–163.
44.
VeeA. (2013). Understanding computer programming as a literacy. Literacy in Composition Studies, 1(2), 42–64.
45.
WarrenT. L. (2001). Communicating style rules to editors of international standards: An analysis of ISO TC 184/SC4 style documents. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 31(2), 159–173. https://doi.org/10.2190/UD05-TM4K-NF7W-2KWX
WinsorD. A. (1988). Communication failures contributing to the Challenger accident: An example for technical communicators. IEEE Transactions of Professional Communication, 31(3), 101–107.
YoungbloodS. A. (2012). Communicating web accessibility to the novice developer: From user experience to application. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 27(2), 209–232.
