Discourse theories frequently emphasize the importance of understanding audience but seldom delve into how writers form conceptions of their audiences, especially in organizations. This study examines computer documentation writers’ tactics for conceiving of their audiences. Based on two ethnographic case studies and insights from activity theory, the author describes and evaluates technical communicators’ tactics for understanding audiences, constrained and supported by their organizations. She discusses the advantages and limitations of each tactic, looking at how each tactic might answer questions about audience. This research should be useful to technical communication educators as they expand students’ options for audience research in nonacademic settings. In addition, the findings of this study can enhance theories about the ways writers create images of their audiences.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Agar, Michael H.“Speaking of Ethnography.”Qualitative Research MethodsSeries 2. Ed. John Van Maanen, Peter K. Manning, and Marc L. Miller. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1986.
2.
Alred, Gerald J., Walter E. Oliu, and Charles T. Brusaw. The Professional Writer: A Guide for Advanced Technical Writing. New York: St. Martin's, 1992.
3.
Barabas, Christine. Technical Writing in a Corporate Culture: A Study of the Nature of Information. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1990.
4.
Berkenkotter, Carol, and Thomas N. Huckin. Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication: Cognition/Culture/Power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1995.
5.
Bist, Gary, Ken Dixon, and Glori Chadwick. “Setting Up a Customer Network to Review Documentation.”Technical Communication40 (1993): 715-719.
6.
Blakeslee, Ann M.“Readers and Authors: Fictionalized Constructs or Dynamic Collaborations?”Technical Communication Quarterly2 (1993): 23-35.
7.
Brown, Vincent J.“Persuasiveness and Audience Focus in a Nonacademic R&D Setting.”Journal of Technical Writing and Communication26 (1996): 37-55.
8.
Burnett, Rebecca E.“Substantive Conflict in a Cooperative Context: A Way to Improve the Collaborative Planning of Workplace Documents.”Technical Communication38 (1991): 532-539.
9.
Christiansen, Ellen. “Tamed by a Rose: Computers as Tools in Human Activity.”Context and Consciousness. Ed. Bonnie Nardi. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996. 175-198.
10.
Cole, Michael. Cultural Psychology: A Once and Future Discipline. Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 1996.
11.
Couture, Barbara, and Jone Rymer. “Situational Exigence: Composing Processes on the Job by Writer's Role and Task Value.”Writing in the Workplace: New Research Perspectives. Ed. Rachel Spilka. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1993. 4-20.
12.
Dautermann, Jennie. “Negotiating Meaning in a Hospital Discourse Community.”Writing in the Workplace: New Research Perspectives. Ed. Rachel Spilka. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1993. 98-110.
13.
Dautermann, Jennie.“Writing at Good Hope Hospital: AStudy of Negotiated Discourse in the Workplace.” Diss. Purdue University, 1991. DAI52 (1991): 9132442A.
14.
Debs, Mary Beth. “Collaborative Writing: A Study of Technical Writing in the Computer Industry.” Diss. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1986. DAI47 (1986): 8619970A.
15.
Debs, Mary Beth.“Collaborative Writing in Industry.”Technical Writing: Theory and Practice. Ed. Bertie E. Fearing and W. Keats Sparrow. New York: MLA, 1989. 33-42.
16.
Debs, Mary Beth.“Recent Research on Collaborative Writing in Industry.”Technical Communication38 (1991): 476-484.
17.
Denzin, Norman L.Sociological Methods: A Sourcebook. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978.
18.
Dobrin, David N.Writing and Technique. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1989.
19.
Doheny-Farina, Stephen, and Lee Odell. “Ethnographic Research on Writing: Assumptions and Methodology.”Writing in Nonacademic Settings. Ed. Lee Odell and Dixie Goswami. New York: Guilford, 1985. 503-535.
20.
Driskell, Linda. “Understanding the Writing Context in Organizations.”Writing in the Business Professions. Ed. Myra Kogen. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1989. 125-145.
21.
Duffy, Thomas M., Theodore Post, and Gregory Smith. “Technical Manual Production: An Examination of Five Systems.”Written Communication4 (1987): 370-393.
22.
Ede, Lisa, and Andrea Lunsford. “Audience Addressed/Audience Invoked: The Role of Audience in Composition Theory and Pedagogy.”College Composition and Communication35 (1984): 155-171.
23.
Faigley, Lester. “Nonacademic Writing: The Social Perspective.”Writing in Nonacademic Settings. Ed. Lee Odell and Dixie Goswami. New York: Guilford, 1985. 231-248.
24.
Floreak, J. M.“Designing for the Real World: Using Research to Turn a ‘Target Audience’ into Real People.”Technical Communication36 (1989): 373-381.
25.
Flower, Linda. “Cognition, Context, and Theory Building.”College Composition and Communication40 (1989): 282-311.
26.
Galt, Phyllis S., and Susan B. Jones. “Technical Writers: The Next Generation. Distributed Systems and the Changing Roles of Technical Communicators.”1991 Ninth Annual International Conference on Systems Documentation Conference Proceedings, Chicago, 10-12 Oct. 1991. New York: Association for Computing Machinery Special Interest Group on Documentation, 1991. 113-118.
27.
Glaser, Barney G.“The Constant Comparative Method of Qualitative Analysis.”Issues in Participant Observation: A Text and Reader. Ed. George J. McCall and J. L. Simmons. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1969. 216-227.
28.
Grice, Roger A.“Document Development in Industry.”Technical Writing: Theory and Practice. Ed. Bertie E. Fearing and W. Keats Sparrow. New York: MLA, 1989. 27-32.
29.
Grice, Roger A.“Information Development Is Part of Product Development—Not an Afterthought.”Text, Context, and Hypertext: Writing with and for the Computer. Ed. Edward Barrett. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1988. 133-148.
30.
Harrison, Teresa M., and Mary Beth Debs. “Conceptualizing the Organizational Role of Technical Communicators: A Systems Approach.”JBTC2.2 (1988): 5-21.
31.
Heneghan, Beverly Bates. “The Composing Processes of Computer Documentation Writers.” Diss. George Mason University, 1987. DAI48 (1988).
32.
Hovde, Marjorie Rush. “The Knowledgeable Practice of Computer Documentation Writers: Tactics for Constructing User and Software Images and for Negotiating Organizational Boundaries.” Diss. Purdue University, 1994. DAI56 (1995): 9523365A.
Huettman, Elizabeth. “Writing for the Unknown Reader: An Ethnographic Case Study in a Business Setting.” Diss. Purdue University, 1990. DAI52 (1991): 9116406A.
35.
Iseri, Ronald S., and Katherine Stevens. “Documentation: Dispersed or Centralized.”1991 Ninth Annual International Conference on Systems Documentation Conference Proceedings, Chicago, 10-12 Oct. 1991. New York: Association for Computing Machinery Special Interest Group on Documentation, 1991. 119-124.
36.
Janes, Robert W.“A Note on the Phases of the Community Role of a Participant Observer.”Issues in Participant Observation: A Text and Reader. Ed. George J. McCall and J. L. Simmons. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1969. 52-59.
37.
Johnson, Robert R.“Audience Involved: Toward a Participatory Model of Writing.”Computers and Composition14 (1997): 361-376.
38.
Kirsch, John. “Investment in Computer-Product Documentation: Causes and Effects.”Text, Context, and Hypertext: Writing with and for the Computer. Ed. Edward Barrett. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1988. 187-209.
39.
Kleimann, Susan D.“The Complexity of Workplace Review.”Technical Communication38 (1991): 520-526.
40.
Kleimann, Susan D.“The Reciprocal Relationship of Workplace Culture and Review.”Writing in the Workplace: New Research Perspectives. Ed. Rachel Spilka. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1993. 56-70.
41.
Kroll, Barry M.“Writing for Readers: Three Perspectives on Audience.”College Composition and Communication35 (1984): 172-185.
42.
Kuutti, Kari. “Activity Theory as a Potential Framework for Human-Computer Interaction Research.”Context and Consciousness. Ed. Bonnie Nardi. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996. 17-44.
43.
Lauer, Janice M., and J. William Asher. Composition Research: Empirical Designs. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.
44.
MacKinnon, Jamie. “Becoming a Rhetor: Developing Writing Ability in a Mature, Writing-Intensive Organization.”Writing in the Workplace: New Research Perspectives. Ed. Rachel Spilka. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1993. 41-55.
45.
Mathes, J. C., and Dwight Stevenson. Designing Technical Reports: Writing for Audiences in Organizations. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1991.
46.
Mirel, Barbara. “Expanding the Activities of In-House Manual Writers: Strategies for Complex Audiences and Purposes.”Management Communication Quarterly3 (1990): 496-526.
47.
Nardi, Bonnie. Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human Computer Interaction. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1996.
48.
Odell, Lee. “Beyond the Text: Relations between Writing and Social Context.”Writing in Nonacademic Settings. Ed. Lee Odell and Dixie Goswami. New York: Guilford, 1985. 249-280.
49.
Ong, Walter J., “The Writer's Audience Is Always a Fiction.”PMLA90 (1975): 9-21.
50.
Park, Douglas B.“The Meanings of ‘Audience.’ ”College English44 (1982): 247-257.
51.
Philbin, Alice I., Ann Marie Ryan, and Lisa Friedel. “How Technical Communicators Feel about Their Occupation: Facets, Attitudes, and Implications for the Future of the Profession.”Journal of Technical Writing and Communication25 (1995): 303-320.
52.
Porter, James E.Audience and Rhetoric: An Archaeological Composition of the Discourse Community. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1992.
53.
Porter, Lynette, and William Coggin. Research Strategies in Technical Communication. New York: Wiley and Sons, 1995.
54.
Raven, Mary Elizabeth. “Analyzing and Adapting to Multiple Audiences: A Study of Two Writers in the Computer Industry.” Diss. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1992. DAI54 (1992): 9314375.
55.
Russell, David R.“Activity Theory and Its Implications for Writing Instruction.”Reconceiving Writing, Rethinking Writing Instruction. Ed. Joseph Petraglia. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1995. 51-77.
56.
Russell, David R.“Rethinking Genre in School and Society.”Written Communication14 (1997): 504-554.
57.
Schriver, Karen A.Dynamics of Document Design. New York: Wiley and Sons, 1997.
58.
Selzer, Jack. “The Composing Process of an Engineer.”College Composition and Communication34 (1983): 178-187.
59.
Simpson, Mark. “Shaping Computer Documentation for Multiple Audiences: An Ethnographic Study.” Diss. Purdue University, 1989. DAI51 (1990): 9018906A.
60.
Smart, Graham. “An Ethnographic Study of Knowledge-Making in a Central Bank: The Interplay of Writing and Economic Modeling.”Diss.McGill University, Montreal, 1998.
61.
Spilka, Rachel. “Orality and Literacy in the Workplace: Process-and Text-Based Strategies for Multiple-Audience Adaptation.”JBTC4.1 (1990): 44-67.
62.
Spinuzzi, Clay. Personal conversation. 24 Mar. 1999.
63.
Winsor, Dorothy. “An Engineer's Writing and the Corporate Construction of Knowledge.”Written Communication6 (1989): 270-285.
64.
Wright, Patricia. “Five Skills Technical Writers Need.”IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication24 (1981): 10-16.
65.
Zimmerman, Donald E., and Marilee Long. “Exploring the Technical Communicator's Roles: Implications for Program Design.”Technical Communication Quarterly2 (1992): 301-317.
