In partial answer to the many questions that have been raised about the definition and location of technical writing programs, a random sample of full-time teachers of professional writing was conducted. The results indicate that those located in English departments do not receive the respect and support they need. Those located in other departments are significantly more satisfied. Some strategies for improving the situation are suggested.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
SidesC. H.VadisQuo, Technical Communication?Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 24: 1, pp. 1–6, 1994.
2.
AdamsK. H., A History of Professional Writing Instruction in American Colleges: Years of Acceptance, Growth, and Doubt, Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, Texas, 1993.
3.
ConnorsR. J., The Rise of Technical Writing Instruction in America, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 12: 4, pp. 329–352, 1982.
4.
DuffyT. M., Readability Formulas: What's the Use? in Designing Useable Texts, DuffyT. M. and WallerR. (eds.), Academic Press, Orlando, Florida, pp. 113–143, 1985.
5.
KynellT., Technical Communication from 1850–1960, paper presented at the 25th Anniversary Meeting of the Association of Teachers of Technical Writing: Remembering Our Past, Planning Our Future, The Palmer House, Chicago, Illinois, April 1, 1998.
6.
SmithF. R., Editorial: The Challenges We Face, Technical Communication, 35: 2, pp. 84–88, 1988.
7.
CarlinerS., Evolution-Revolution: Toward a Strategic Perception of Technical Communication, Technical Communication, 43: 3, pp. 267–276, 1996.
8.
DobrinD. N., Writing and Theory: The View of a Reformed Academic, in Technical Communications Frontiers: Essays in Theory, SidesC. H. (ed.), Association of Teachers of Technical Writing, St. Paul, Minnesota, pp. 15–28, 1994.
9.
HarrisJ. S., Teaching Technical Writing: A Pragmatic Approach (Rev. Edition), Association of Teachers of Technical Writing, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1992.
10.
KreppelM. C., Wanted: Tenure and Promotion for Technical Communication Faculty, Technical Communication, 42: 4, pp. 603–606, 1995.
11.
LarsenR., How Not to Be a ‘Retread,’The Technical Writing Teacher, 9: 3, pp. 184–185, 1982.
12.
TebeauxE. (ed.), Issues in Promotion and Tenure for Faculty in Technical Communication: Guidelines and Perspectives, Association of Teachers of Technical Writing, St. Paul, Minnesota, no date.
13.
PearsallT. E., ATTW: A Retrospective, paper presented at the 25th Anniversary Meeting of the Association of Teachers of Technical Writing: Remembering Our Past, Planning Our Future, The Palmer House, Chicago, Illinois, April 1, 1998.
14.
PickettN. A., ATTW: A Retrospective, paper presented at the 25th Anniversary Meeting of the Association of Teachers of Technical Writing: Remembering Our Past, Planning Our Future, The Palmer House, Chicago, Illinois, April 1, 1998.
15.
CunninghamD. H., ATTW: A Retrospective, paper presented at the 25th Anniversary Meeting of the Association of Teachers of Technical Writing: Remembering Our Past, Planning Our Future, The Palmer House, Chicago, Illinois, April 1, 1998.
16.
MacNealyM. S., Research in Technical Communication: A View of the Past and a Challenge for the Future, Technical Communication, 39: 4, pp. 533–551, 1992.
17.
MacNealyM. S., Strategies for Empirical Research in Writing, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, Massachusetts, 1999.
18.
StaplesK. E., Technical Communication from 1960–1997, paper presented at the 25th Anniversary Meeting of the Association of Teachers of Technical Writing: Remembering Our Past, Planning Our Future, The Palmer House, Chicago, Illinois, April 1, 1998.
19.
SchriverK. A., Dynamics in Document Design, John Wiley, New York, 1997.
20.
GeislerC.RogersE. H., and HallerC. R., Disciplining Discourse: Practice in the Affiliated Professions of Software Engineering Design, Written Communication, 15: 1, pp. 3–24, 1998.
21.
Peterson's Graduate Programs in the Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences 1995, Peterson's Guides, Princeton, New Jersey, 1995.
22.
AndersonP. V., Survey Methodology, in Writing in Nonacademic Settings, OdellL. and GoswamiD. (eds.), Guilford Press, New York, pp. 453–500, 1985.
23.
StraussA. and CorbinJ., Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques, Sage, Newbury Park, California, 1990.
24.
DraggaS., Women and the Profession of Technical Writing, Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 7: 3, pp. 312–321, 1993.
25.
PhilbinA. I.RyanA. M., and FriedelL., How Technical Communicators Feel About Their Occupation: Facets, Attitudes, and Implications for the Future of the Profession, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 25: 3, pp. 303–320, 1995.
26.
AllenJ., Gender Issues in Technical Communication Studies: An Overview of the Implications for the Profession, Research, and Pedagogy, Journal of Business and Technical Communication. 5: 4, pp. 371–392, 1991.
27.
SmithF. R., Editorial, Technical Communication, 38: 1, pp. 13–14, 1991.
28.
StonerR. B., Economic Consequences of Feminizing Technical Communications in Proceedings of the 35th ITCC, Society for Technical Communication, Arlington, Virginia, pp. MPD-108–MPD-109, 1988.
29.
MagnerD. K., The New Generation: Study Shows Proportions of Female and Male Professors Are Growing, The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A17–A18, February 2, 1996.
30.
BakerM. A. and Goubil-GambrellP., Scholarly Writing: The Myth of Gender and Performance, Journal of Business and Technical Communication5: 4, pp. 412–443, 1991.
31.
CunninghamD. H., Foreword, in Teaching Technical Writing: A Pragmatic Approach, (Rev. Edition), HarrisJ. S. (ed.), Association of Technical Writing Teachers, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1992.
32.
BarnumC. M., The Metamorphosis of the English Teacher: From Lit Jock to Tech Writer, The Technical Writing Teacher, 9: 1, pp. 25–28, 1981.
33.
StrattonC. R., Technical Writing: What It Is and What It Isn't, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 9: 1, pp. 9–16, 1979.
34.
SandersS. P., Tenure, Promotion and the Department of English at the State University, in Issues in Promotion and Tenure for Faculty in Technical Communication: Guidelines and Perspectives, TebeauxE. (ed.), Association of Teachers of Technical Writing, St. Paul, Minnesota, pp. 21–31, no date.
35.
RichardsonM., Technical Writing Faculty in English Departments: Some Indiscreet Observations, in Issues in Promotion and Tenure for Faculty in Technical Communication: Guidelines and Perspectives, TebeauxE. (ed.), Association of Teachers of Technical Writing, St. Paul, Minnesota, pp. 77–85, no date.
36.
SoutherJ. W., Teaching Technical Writing: A Retrospective Appraisal, in Technical Writing: Theory and Practice, FearingB. E. and SparrowW. K. (eds.), Modern Language Association, New York, pp. 2–13, 1989.
37.
WahlstromB., Tenure and Promotion for Technical Communication Faculty: Guidelines for Service, Teaching and Research, in Issues in Promotion and Tenure for Faculty in Technical Communication: Guidelines and Perspectives, TebeauxE. (ed.), Association of Teachers of Technical Writing, St. Paul, Minnesota, pp. 129–140, no date.
38.
WarrenT. L., Tenure and Promotion at Oklahoma State University: Difficult But Not Impossible, in Issues in Promotion and Tenure for Faculty in Technical Communication: Guidelines and Perspectives, TebeauxE. (ed.), Association of Teachers of Technical Writing, St. Paul, Minnesota, pp. 99–108, no date.
39.
DurackK. T., Authority and Audience-Centered Writing Strategies: Sexism in 19th-Century Sewing Machine Manuals, Technical Communication45: 2, pp. 180–196, 1995.
40.
CunninghamD. H. and HarrisJ. G., Undergraduate Technical and Professional Writing Programs: A Question of Status, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication24: 4, pp. 127–137, 1994.
41.
EckerP. S., Why Define Technical Communication at All?Technical Communication42: 4, pp. 570–571, 1995.
42.
FearingB. E. and SparrowW. K., Preface, in Technical Writing: Theory and Practice, FearingB. E. and SparrowW. K. (eds.), Modern Language Association, New York, pp. v–vii, 1989.
43.
HayhoeG. F.StohrerF.KunzL. D., and SouthardS. G., Guest Editorial: The Evolution of Academic Programs in Technical Communication, Technical Communication, 41: 1, pp. 14–19, 1994.
44.
JonesD., A Question of Identify, Technical Communication, 42: 4, pp. 567–569, 1995.
45.
KalmbackJ. R.JobstJ. W., and MeeseG. P. E., Education and Practice: A Survey of Graduates of a Technical Communication Program, Technical Communication33: 1, pp. 21–26, 1986.
46.
NolanD., Letter to the Editor: What Do We Call Ourselves?Technical Communication, 42: 2, p. 215, 1995.
47.
RaineyK. T. and StaplesK. E., Toward 2000: Education, the Society, and the Profession, Technical Communication, 42: 4, pp. 543–544, 1995.
48.
ReinschL., Editorial: Boundaries and Banners, Journal of Business Communication, 28: 1, pp. 97–99, 1991.
49.
ShawG., The Shape of Our Field: Business Communication as a Hybrid Discipline, Journal of Business Communication, 30: 3, pp. 297–313, 1993.
50.
SullivanP. A. and PorterJ. E., Remapping Curricular Geography: Professional Writing in/and English, Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 7: 4, pp. 389–422, 1993.
51.
ZimmermanD. E. and MuraskiM. L., Reflecting on the Technical Communicator's Image, Technical Communication, 42: 4, pp. 621–623, 1995.
52.
BeretonJ., The Professional Writing Program and the English Department, in Writing in the Business Professions, KoganM. (ed.), National Council of Teachers of English, Urbana, Illinois, pp. 279–296, 1989.
53.
MillerC. R., A Humanistic Rationale for Technical Writing, College English, 40: 6, pp. 610–617, 1979.
54.
BarnettG. A. and CarsonD. L., Research on Defining the Profession of Technical Communication: A Bridge to Professional Understanding, in Proceedings: 27th International Technical Communication Conference, International Technical Communication Committee (eds.), Minneapolis, Minnesota, pp. R-29–R-33, 1980.
55.
TinkerM. A., Legibility of Print, Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, 1963.
56.
RentzK., Editorial: Negotiating the Field of Business Communication, Journal of Business Communication, 30: 3, pp. 233–240, 1993.
57.
MaidB., Personal Interview, April 1, 1997.
58.
FleishmanA., The Condition of English: Taking Stock in a Time of Culture Wars, College English, 57: 7, pp. 807–821, 1995.
59.
GreenblattS. and GunnG., Introduction, in Redrawing the Boundaries: The Transformation of English and American Literary Studies, GreenblattS. and GunnG. (eds.), Modern Language Association, New York, pp. 1–11, 1992.
60.
RudeC. D., The Place of Rhetoric in the Technical Communication Program, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Council for Programs in Technical and Scientific Communication, ZappenJ. P. and KatzS. (eds.), ERIC ED 361, 782, pp. 17–24, 1991.
61.
GerberJ. C., Suggestions for a Commonsense Reform of the English Curriculum, College Composition and Communications, 28, pp. 312–316, 1977, reprinted in The Writing Teacher's Sourcebook, TateG. and CorbettE. P. J. (eds.), Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 60–64, 1988.
62.
RobinsonJ. L., Literacy in the Department of English, College English, 47: 5, pp. 482–498, 1985, reprinted in The Writing Teacher's Sourcebook, TateG. and CorbettE. P. J. (eds.), Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 65–81, 1988.
63.
StayB. L., Designing the Undergraduate Rhetoric and Writing Major, Composition Chronicle, 7: 9, pp. 5–7, ED 377 510, pp. 3–5, 1995.
64.
MacNealyM. S., Strategies for Empirical Research in Writing, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, 1999.
65.
MacNealyM. S., Toward Better Case Study Research, IEEE Transactions in Professional Communication, 40: 3, pp. 182–196, 1997.
66.
MacNealyM. S.SpeckB., and SimpsonB., Fiddling Around with Text: A Case Study of a Non-Revisor, Issues in Writing, 8: 1, pp. 27–53, 1996.
67.
MacNealyM. S. and HedgesK., Effects of Line Length on the Psychological Reality of the Paragraph, in Empirical Approaches to Literature and Aesthetics, KreuzR. and MacNealyM. S. (eds.), Ablex, Norwood, New Jersey, pp. 99–124, 1996.
