This article calls for recognition of ways in which feminisms have, do, and can inform social justice work in technical and professional communication (TPC)—even social justice work that is not explicitly feminist. The authors distill some areas of feminist TPC scholarship that are relevant to future social justice work: (a) epistemological contributions, ways of knowing and methods for discovering them and (b) reclamations of dominant topics, groundwork laid by feminist research on technology and science. They close with nine recommendations to inspire scholars with specific ways to use feminist methodologies and theories to enhance social justice scholarship.
AgbokaG. Y. (2013). Participatory localization: A social justice approach to navigating unenfranchised/disenfranchised cultural sites. Technical Communication Quarterly, 22, 28–49.
2.
AgbokaG. Y. (2014). Decolonial methodologies: Social justice perspectives in intercultural technical communication research. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 44, 297–327.
BlakesleeA. M. (2009). The technical communication research landscape. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 23, 129–173.
5.
BlylerN. R. (1998). Taking a political turn: The critical perspective and research in professional communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 7, 33–52.
6.
BlylerN. R.ThrallsC. (Eds.). (1993). Professional communication: The social perspective. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
7.
BowdonM.PomposM.TurnerA. C. (2013). Writing in crisis: Rhetorical considerations in child advocate reports. Rhetoric, Professional Communication, and Globalization, 4, 103–135.
8.
BrooksA.Hesse-BiberS. N. (2007). An invitation to feminist research. In Hesse-BiberS. N.LeavyP. L. (Eds.), Feminist research practice: A primer (pp. 1–24). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
CollinsP. H. (2004). Learning from the outsider within: The sociological significance of black feminist thought. In HardingS. G. (Ed.), The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies (pp. 103–126). New York, NY: Routledge.
10.
ColtonJ. S.HolmesS. (2018). A social justice theory of active equality for technical communication. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 48, 4–30.
CrabtreeR.SappD. (2005). Technical communication, participatory action research, and global civic engagement: A teaching, research, and social action collaboration in Kenya. Reflections: A Journal of Rhetoric, Civic Writing and Service Learning, 4, 9–33.
DingH.LiX.HaiglerA. C. (2016). Access, oppression, and social (in)justice in epidemic control: Race, profession, and communication in SARS outbreaks in Canada and Singapore. Connexions: International Professional Communication Journal, 4, 21–55. doi:10.21310/cnx.4.1.16dinetal
15.
DingH.SavageG. (2013). Guest editors’ introduction: New directions in intercultural professional communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 22, 1–9.
16.
DurackK. T. (1997). Gender, technology, and the history of technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 6, 249–260.
17.
DurackK. T. (1998). Authority and audience-centered writing strategies: Sexism in 19th-century sewing machine manuals. Technical Communication, 45, 180–196.
18.
ElshtainJ. B. (1982). Feminist discourse and its discontents: Language, power, and meaning. Signs, 7, 603–621.
19.
FlynnE. A. (1997). Emergent feminist technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 6, 313–320.
20.
FlynnJ. F. (1997). Toward a feminist historiography of technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 6, 321–329.
21.
FrostE. A. (2016). Apparent feminism as a methodology for technical communication and rhetoric. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 30, 3–28.
22.
GilliganC. (1982). In a different voice. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
23.
GlennC. (2004). Unspoken: A rhetoric of silence. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
24.
GreigA.KimmelM.LangJ. (2000). Men masculinities and development: Broadening our work towards gender equality [Monograph No. 10]. United Nations Development Programme.
25.
GriffinS. (1978). Woman and nature: The roaring inside her. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.
26.
GurakL. J.BayerN. L. (1994). Making gender visible: Extending feminist critiques of technology to technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 3, 257–270.
27.
HaasA. M. (2008). Wampum as hypertext: An American Indian intellectual tradition of multimedia theory and practice. Studies in American Indian Literatures, 19, 77–100.
28.
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, 277–310.
29.
HallenbeckS. (2012). User agency, technical communication, and the 19th-century woman bicyclist. Technical Communication Quarterly, 21, 290–306.
30.
HallerC. R. (1997). Revaluing women’s work: Report writing in the North Carolina canning clubs, 1912–1916. Technical Communication Quarterly, 6, 281–292.
31.
HarawayD. (2004). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privileges of partial perspective. In HardingS. G. (Ed.), The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies (pp. 81–102). New York, NY: Routledge.
32.
HekmanS. (2004). Truth and method: Feminist standpoint theory revisited. In HardingS. G. (Ed.), The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies (pp. 225–242). New York, NY: Routledge.
33.
HenningT.BemerA. (2016). Reconsidering power and legitimacy in technical communication: A case for enlarging the definition of technical communicator. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 46, 311–341.
34.
HerndlC. G. (1993). Teaching discourse and reproducing culture: A critique of research and pedagogy in professional and non-academic writing. College Composition and Communication, 44, 349–363.
35.
HidalgoA.SackeyD. J. (Eds.). (2015). Special issue on race, rhetoric, and the state. Present Tense, 5. Retrieved fromhttp://www.presenttensejournal.org
36.
HirschmannN. J. (2004). Feminist standpoint as postmodern strategy. In HardingS. G. (Ed.), The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies (pp. 317–332). New York, NY: Routledge.
37.
HunsingerR. P. (2006). Culture and cultural identity in intercultural technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 15, 31–48.
38.
JonesN. N. (2016). The technical communicator as advocate: Integrating a social justice approach in technical communication. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 46, 342–361.
39.
JonesN. N.MooreK. R.WaltonR. (2016). Disrupting the past to disrupt the future: An antenarrative of technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 25, 211–229.
40.
JonesN. N.SavageG.YuH. (2014). Tracking our progress: Diversity in technical and professional communication programs. Programmatic Perspectives, 6, 132–152.
41.
KatzS. B. (1992). The ethic of expediency: Classical rhetoric, technology, and the Holocaust. College English, 54, 255–275. doi:10.2307/378062
42.
KimmelM. S. (1987). Rethinking “masculinity”: New directions in research. In KimmelM. S. (Ed.), Changing men: New directions in research on men and masculinity (pp. 9–24). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43.
KimmelM. S. (1993). Invisible masculinity. Society, 30, 28–35.
44.
KoerberA. (2006). Rhetorical agency, resistance, and the disciplinary rhetorics of breastfeeding. Technical Communication Quarterly, 15, 87–101.
45.
KoerberA. (2013). Breast or bottle? Contemporary controversies in infant-feeding policy and practice. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
46.
LakoffR. T. (2004). Language and woman’s place: Text and commentaries: Vol. 3. Cambridge, England: Oxford University Press.
47.
LancasterA. (2006). Rethinking our use of humanistic aspects: Effects of technical information beyond the intended audience. Technical Communication, 53, 212–224.
48.
LayM. M. (2002). Feminist criticism and technical communication. In GurakL. J.LayM. M. (Eds.), Research in technical communication (pp. 165–184). Westport, CT: Praeger.
49.
LayM. M. (2004). Feminist theory and the redefinition of technical communication. In DubinskyJ. (Ed.), Teaching technical communication: Critical issues for the classroom (pp. 428–445). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s. (Original work published October 1991)
50.
LeavyP. L. (2007). The feminist practice of content analysis. In Hesse-BiberS. N.LeavyP. L. (Eds.), Feminist research practice: A primer (pp. 223–248). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
51.
LippincottG. (1997). Experimenting at home: Writing for the nineteenth-century domestic workplace. Technical Communication Quarterly, 6, 365–380.
52.
MaloneE. A. (2010). Chrysler’s “most beautiful engineer”: Lucille J. Pieti in the pillory of fame. Technical Communication Quarterly, 19, 144–183.
53.
MaloneE. A. (2013). Elsie Ray and the founding of STC. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 43, 121–143.
54.
MarxK.EngelsF. (2002). The communist manifesto (Trans. MooreSamuel). London, England: Penguin. (Original work published 1848)
55.
MillerC. R. (1979). A humanistic rationale for technical writing. College English, 40, 610–617.
56.
MukherjeeI.WilliamsM. G. (2016). Branding authenticity, global-localization and technology: Thematic analysis of two West Bengal urban–rural handicrafts NPO Websites. Connexions: International Professional Communication Journal, 4, 91–130. Retrieved fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21310/cnx.4.1.16muketal
57.
MuñozC. (2014). Transformative pedagogy for social justice education: Teaching technical communication students to bridge with Anzaldúan theories of social change(Master’s thesis). Retrieved fromhttp://dc.ewu.edu/theses/222/
58.
NarayanU. (2004). The project of feminist epistemology: Perspectives from a nonwestern feminist. In HardingS. G. (Ed.), The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies (pp. 213–224). New York, NY: Routledge.
59.
NoddingsN. (1988). An ethic of caring and its implications for instructional arrangements. American Journal of Education, 96, 215–230.
60.
OpelD.StevensonP. (2016). Do women win? Transnational development NGOs, discourses of empowerment, and cross-cultural technology initiatives in the Global South. Connexions: International Professional Communication Journal, 4, 131–157. doi:10.21310/cnx.4.1.16opeetal
61.
PetersenE. J. (2014). Redefining the workplace: The professionalization of motherhood through blogging. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 44, 277–296.
62.
PetersenE. J. (2016). Empathetic user design: Understanding and living the reality of an audience. Communication Design Quarterly, 4, 23–36.
PetersenE. J.MoellerR. M. (2016). Using antenarrative to uncover systems of power in mid-20th century policies on marriage and maternity at IBM. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 46, 362–386.
65.
PetitA. (2001). Domestic, virtuous women: Examining women’s place in a public environmental debate along Louisiana’s cancer corridor. Technical Communication Quarterly, 10, 365–386.
66.
PollockG. (2016). Is feminism a trauma, a bad memory, or a virtual future?Differences, 27, 27–61.
67.
RauchS. (2012). The accreditation of Hildegard von Bingen as medieval female technical writer. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 42, 393–411.
68.
RoseE. J.WaltonR. (2015, 7). Factors to actors: Implications of posthumanism for social justice work. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual International Conference on the Design of Communication (p. 33). Limerick, Ireland: ACM.
69.
RossS. M. (1994). A feminist perspective on technical communicative action: Exploring how alternative worldviews affect environmental remediation efforts. Technical Communication Quarterly, 3, 325–342.
70.
RoysterJ. J.KirschG. E. (2012). Feminist rhetorical practices: New horizons for rhetoric, composition, and literacy studies. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
71.
RudeC. D. (2008). Introduction to the special issue on business and technical communication in the public sphere: Learning to have impact. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 22, 267–271.
72.
RudeC. D. (2009). Mapping the research questions in technical communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 23, 174–215.
73.
SauerB. A. (1993). Sense and sensibility in technical documentation: How feminist interpretation strategies can save lives in the nation’s mines. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 7, 63–83.
74.
SauerB. A. (1994). Sexual dynamics of the profession: Articulating the ecriture masculine of science and technology. Technical Communication Quarterly, 3, 309–323.
75.
ScottJ. B.LongoB.WillsK. V. (2006). Critical power tools: Technical communication and cultural studies. Albany: State University of New York Press.
76.
ShirkH. N. (1997). Contributions to botany, the female science, by two eighteenth-century women technical communicators. Technical Communication Quarterly, 6, 293–312.
77.
SkinnerC. (2012). Incompatible rhetorical expectations: Julia W. Carpenter’s medical society papers, 1895–1899. Technical Communication Quarterly, 21, 307–324.
78.
SmithE. O.ThompsonI. (2002). Feminist theory in technical communication: Making knowledge claims visible. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 16, 441–477.
79.
SnyderR. C. (2008). What is third-wave feminism? A new directions essay. Signs, 34, 175–196.
80.
SpinuzziC. (2003). Tracing genres through organizations. Cambridge: MIT Press.
81.
SullivanP.MooreK. (2013). Time talk: On small changes that enact infrastructural mentoring for undergraduate women in technical fields. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 43, 333–354.
82.
TebeauxE. (1998). The voices of English women technical writers, 1641–1700: Imprints in the evolution of modern English prose style. Technical Communication Quarterly, 7, 125–152.
83.
TebeauxE.LayM. (1992). Images of women in technical books from the English Renaissance. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 35, 196–207.
84.
ThiemeK. (2010). Constitutive rhetoric as an aspect of audience design: The public texts of Canadian suffragists. Written Communication, 27, 36–56.
85.
ThompsonI. (1999). Women and feminism in technical communication: A qualitative content analysis of journal articles published in 1989 through 1997. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 13, 154–178.
86.
TongR. (2009). Feminist thought: A more comprehensive introduction (3rd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
87.
WaltonR. (2016). Making expertise visible: A disruptive workplace study with a social justice goal. Connexions: An International Professional Communication Journal, 4, 159–186.
88.
WaltonR.JonesN. N. (2013). Navigating increasingly cross-cultural, cross-disciplinary, and cross-organizational contexts to support social justice. Communication Design Quarterly, 1, 31–35.
89.
WhiteK.RumseyS. K.AmidonS. (2016). Are we “there” yet? The treatment of gender and feminism in technical, business, and workplace writing studies. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 46, 27–58.
90.
WilliamsR. (1994). The political and feminist dimensions of technological determinism. In SmithM. R.MarxL. (Eds.), Does technology drive history? The dilemma of technological determinism (pp. 217–235). Cambridge: MIT Press.
WylieA. (2004). Why standpoint matters. In HardingS. (Ed.), The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies (pp. 339–374). New York, NY: Routledge.
