This article compares three rhetorical approaches to accident analysis: materialist, classical, and constructivist. The focal points for comparison are the two accident reports issued by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)—reports that attempted (and failed) to persuade the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) to change a problematic policy about rail communication alongside its technology for rail communication. The central question the article asks is, How can rhetorical theory help explain the CTA”s inaction, which ultimately led to property damage, injury, and death? Classical and constructivist approaches, emphasizing rational deliberation between equals, on one hand, and the social construction of technical knowledge between professionals, on the other, offer plausible explanations for what went wrong. But only the materialist approach appears capable of discerning the ideological nature of the CTA”s resistance to the NTSB”s recommendations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baker, F. Robert
. “Toward Establishing a Rhetoric of Engineering: Broadening the Theoretical Framework for Technical Writing Pedagogy.”Issues in Writing7 (1994): 23-48.
2.
Barabas, Christine
. Technical Writing in a Corporate Culture. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1990.
3.
Bitzer, Lloyd
. “Rhetoric and Public Knowledge.”Rhetoric, Philosophy, and Literature: An Exploration. Ed. Don Burks. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 1978. 67-93.
4.
Blume, Stuart
. “The Rhetoric and Counter-Rhetoric of a “Bionic” Technology.”Science, Technology, & Human Values22 (1997): 31-56.
5.
Burke, Kenneth
. A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1950.
6.
Bytwerk, Randall
. “The SST Controversy: ACase Study of the Rhetoric of Technology.”Central States Speech Journal30 (1979): 187-198.
7.
Campbell, John
. “Introduction.”Western Journal of Speech Communication54 (1990): 249-251.
8.
Davis, Michael
. “Professional Responsibility: Just Following the Rules?”Business and Professional Ethics Journal18 (1999): 65-87.
9.
Dewey, John
. The Public and Its Problems. Athens, OH: Swallow, 1927.
10.
Doheny-Farina, Stephen
. Rhetoric, Innovation, Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992.
11.
Farrell, Thomas
. “Knowledge, Consensus, and Rhetorical Theory.”Quarterly Journal of Speech62 (1976): 1-14. Contemporary Rhetorical Theory. Ed. John Lucaites, Celeste Condit, and Sally Caudill. New York: Guilford, 1999. 140-52.
12.
Farrell, Thomas
, and G. Thomas Goodnight. “Accidental Rhetoric: The Root Metaphors of Three Mile Island.”Communication Monographs48 (1981): 271-300.
13.
Flannery, Michael
, and Lillian Williams. “Injunction Hearing Resumes Today.”Chicago Sun-Times20 Dec. 1979: A14+-A14+.
14.
Godin, Benoit
. “The Rhetoric of a Health Technology: The Microprocessor Patient Card.”Social Studies of Science27 (1997): 865-902.
15.
Goodnight, G. Thomas
. “The Personal, Technical, and Public Spheres of Argument.”Argumentation and Advocacy18 (1982): 214-227. Contemporary Rhetorical Theory. Ed. John Lucaites, Celeste Condit, and Sally Caudill. New York: Guilford, 1999. 251-64.
16.
Green, Ronald
. “Another Materialist Rhetoric.”Critical Studies in Mass Communication15 (1998): 22-41.
17.
Harrison, Teresa
. “Frameworks for the Study of Writing in Organizational Contexts.”Written Communication4 (1987): 3-23.
18.
Johnson, Robert
. User-Centered Technology: A Rhetorical Theory for Computers and Other Mundane Objects. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998.
19.
Katz, Steven
, and Carolyn Miller. “The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Siting Controversy in North Carolina: Toward a Rhetorical Model of Risk Communication.”Green Culture: Environmental Rhetoric in Contemporary America. Ed. Carl Herndl and Stuart Brown. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1996. 111-140.
20.
Krambles, George
, and Arthur H. Peterson. The CTAat 45: AHistory of the First 45 Years of the Chicago Transit Authority. Chicago: Walsworth, 1993.
21.
Longo, Bernadette
. “An Approach for Applying Cultural Study Theory to Technical Writing Research.”Technical Communication Quarterly7 (1998): 53-73.
22.
Lucaites, John Louis
, and Celeste Michelle Condit. “Reconstructing <Equality>: Culturetypal and Counter-Cultural Rhetorics in the Martyred Black Vision.”Co mmunication Monographs57 (1990): 5-24. Readings in Rhetorical Criticism. Ed. Carl R. Burgchardt. State College, PA: Strata, 2000. 471-91.
23.
McGee, Michael
. “The “Ideograph”: A Link between Rhetoric and Ideology.”Quarterly Journal of Speech6 (1980): 1-16.Contemporary Rhetorical Theory. Ed. John Lucaites, Celeste Condit, and Sally Caudill. New York: Guilford, 1999. 425-40.
24.
McGee, Michael
. “In Search of the People: A Rhetorical Alternative.”Quarterly Journal of Speech61 (1975): 235-249. Contemporary Rhetorical Theory. Ed. John Lucaites, Celeste Condit, and Sally Caudill. New York: Guilford, 1999. 341-56.
25.
McGee, Michael
. “A Materialist”s Conception of Rhetoric.”Explorations in Rhetoric: Studies in Honor of Douglas Ehninger. Ed. Ray McKerrow. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman, 1982. 23-48.
26.
McGee, Michael
, and Martha Martin. “Public Knowledge and Ideological Argumentation.”Communication Monographs50 (1983): 47-65.
27.
Miller, Carolyn
. “Opportunity, Opportunism, and Progress: Kairos in the Rhetoric of Technology.”Argumentation8 (1994): 81-96.
28.
Miller, Carolyn
. “Technology as a Form of Consciousness: A Study of Contemporary Ethos.”Central States Speech Journal29 (1978): 228-236.
29.
Miller, Carolyn
. “What”s Practical about Technical Writing?”Technical Writing: Theory and Practice. Ed. Bertie Fearing and W. Keats Sparrow. New York: Modern Language Association, 1989. 14-24.
30.
Mirel, Barbara
. “Beyond the Monkey House: Audience Analyses in Computerized Workplaces.”Writing in the Workplace. Ed. Rachel Spilka. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1993. 21-40.
31.
Mirel, Barbara
. “Writing and Database Technology: Extending the Definition of Writing in the Workplace.”Electronic Literacies in the Workplace. Ed. Patricia Sullivan and Jennie Dautermann. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English Press, 1996. 91-114.
32.
Ornatowski, Cezar M.“2+2=5if2IsLarge Enough: Rhetorical Spaces of Technology Development in Aerospace Engine Testing.”JBTC12 (1998): 316-342.
Sauer, Beverly
. “The Dynamics of Disaster: A Three Dimensional View of Documentation in Tightly Regulated Industry.”Technical Communication Quarterly3 (1994): 393-419.
35.
Sauer, Beverly
. “Sense and Sensibility in Technical Documentation.”Science and Technology Today. Ed. Nancy MacKenzie. New York: St. Martin”s, 1995. 509-527.
36.
Smith, Sam
, and Michael Sneed. “Supervisors “Nervous” as They Man First Trains.”Chicago Tribune19 Dec. 1979: A12+-A12+.
37.
Spilka, Rachel
. “Orality and Literacy in the Workplace: Process and Text-Based Strategies for Multiple-Audience Adaptation.”JBTC4.1 (1990): 44-67.
38.
Strong, James
. “City CTA Stand Could Portend New Labor Policy.”Chicago Tribune23 Dec. 1979: 5+-5+.
39.
Strong, James
, and David Young. “CTA Walkout Is Over; Trains, Busses Rolling.”Chicago Tribune21 Dec. 1979: A1+-A1+.
40.
Sullivan, Dale
. “Political-Ethical Implications of Defining Technical Communications as a Practice.”Humanistic Aspects of Technical Communication. Ed. P. Dombrowski. Amityville, NY: Baywood, 1994. 223-234.
41.
Throgmorten, James
. Planning as Persuasive Storytelling: The Rhetorical Construction of Chicago”s Electric Future. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.
42.
Tyner, Howard
. “It”s the Byrne Show with Phil Donahue.”Chicago Tribune19 Dec. 1979: A5+-A5+.
43.
United States. National Transportation Safety Board. Annual Report to Congress. NTSB SPC-00-03. 22 Aug. 2001. www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/SPC0003.pdf.
44.
United States. National Transportation Safety Board. Chicago Transit Authority Collision of Trains No. 104 and No. 315 at Addison Street Station. NTSB-RAR-76-9. Washington, DC: GPO, 1976.
45.
United States. National Transportation Safety Board. Rear End Collision of Two Chicago Transit Authority Trains Near the Montrose Avenue Station. NTSB-RAR-85-11. Washington, DC: GPO, 1985.
46.
United States. National Transportation Safety Board. Strategic Plan. 20 May 2001. www.ntsb.gov/Abt_NTSB/strategic/plan.htm.
47.
Van Nostrand, A. D.Fundable Knowledge: The Marketing of Defense Technology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1997.
48.
Wallace, Karl
. “The Fundamentals of Rhetoric.”The Prospect of Rhetoric. Ed. Lloyd Bitzer and Edwin Black. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1971. 3-20.
49.
Winsor, Dorothy A.“Engineering Writing/Writing Engineering.”College Composition and Communication41 (1990): 58-70.
50.
Winsor, Dorothy A.“Rhetorical Practices in Technical Work.”JBTC12 (1998): 343-370.
51.
Winsor, Dorothy A.“What Counts as Writing? An Argument from Engineers” Practice.”Journal of Advanced Composition12 (1992): 337-347.
52.
Winsor, Dorothy A.Writing Like an Engineer. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996.
53.
Young, David
. Chicago Transit: An Illustrated History. Dekalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1998.
54.
Young, David
, and James Strong. “Byrne Rejected Peace Bid, Said No to 24 Cent Raise: Union.”Chicago Tribune19 Dec. 1979: A1+-A1+.
