This article makes the argument that material evidence for many of the most valuable contributions that contemporary technical communicators make to their organizations is often found not in the traditional documentation that they produce but, rather, in the more fragmentary and provisional documents they create as daily participants in their work teams. To make this argument, the article presents data from a case study of a technical communicator at a software firm, showing how a reminder note he carried to a meeting helped him achieve an important design change. The article unpacks the concept of immutable mobiles from actor network theory to derive a framework that helps us interpret the multiple functions of this note in helping the technical communicator warrant and win a design argument with software developers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Body of Knowledge—Experimental Wiki—TCBOK Home. Retrieved June 10, 2011 from http://stcbok.editme.com/
2.
Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2010–11 Edition. Retrieved June 10, 2011 from http://www.bls.gov/oco/
3.
SavageG. J., Toward a Professional Status in Technical Communication, in Power and Legitimacy in Technical Communication Volume I: The Historical and Contemporary Struggle for Professional Status, Baywood, Amityville, New York, pp. 1–12, 2003.
4.
SullivanD. L.MartinM. S., and AndersonE. S., Moving from the Periphery: Conceptions of Ethos, Reputation, and Identity for the Technical Communicators, in Power and Legitimacy in Technical Communication Volume I: The Historical and Contemporary Struggle for Professional Status, Baywood, Amityville, New York, pp. 115–136, 2003.
5.
DicksR. S., The Effects of Digital Literacy on the Nature of Technical Communication Work, in Digital Literacy for Technical Communication: 21st Century Theory and Practice, Routledge, New York, pp. 51–81, 2010.
6.
SalvoM. J., Ethics of Engagement: User-Centered Design and Rhetorical Methodology, Technical Communication Quarterly, 10: 3, pp. 273–290, 2001. doi: 10.1207/s15427625tcq1003_3.
7.
JohnsonR. R., User-Centered Technology a Rhetorical Theory for Computers and Other Mundane Artifacts, State University of New York Press, Albany, 1998.
8.
Johnson-EilolaJ., Relocating the Value of Work: Technical Communication in a Post-Industrial Age, Technical Communication Quarterly, 5: 3, pp. 245–270, 1996. doi: 10.1207/s15427625tcq0503_1.
9.
PrattE., A Different Perspective on Measuring the Value of Technical Communication, Intercom, pp. 15–18, August 2009.
10.
MirelB., Advancing a Vision of Usability, in Reshaping Technical Communication, MirelB. and SpilkaR. (eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, New Jersey, pp. 165–187, 2002.
11.
BuchananR., Declaration by Design: Rhetoric, Argument, and Demonstration in Design Practice, in Design Discourse: History, Theory, Criticism, MargolinV. (ed.), University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 91–109, 1989.
12.
DeutenJ. and RipA., The Narrative Shaping of a Product Creation Process, in Contested Futures: ASociology of Prospective Techno-Science, BrownN.RappertB., and WebsterA. (eds.), Ashgate, Burlington, Vermont, pp. 65–86, 2000.
13.
FriessE., Designing From Data: Rhetorical Appeals in Support of Design Decisions, Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 24: 4, pp. 403–444, 2010. doi: 10.1177/1050651910371197.
14.
SwartsJ., Textual Grounding: How People Turn Texts into Tools, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 34: 1&2, pp. 67–89, 2004. doi: 10.2190/EG0C-QUEY-F9FK-2V0D.
15.
LatourB., Drawing Things Together, in Representation in Scientific Practice, LynchM. and WoolgarS. (eds.), MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 19–68, 1990.
16.
WinsorD. A., Engineering Writing/Writing Engineering, College Composition and Communication, 41: 1, pp. 58–70, 1990.
17.
WinsorD. A., Using Writing to Structure Agency, Technical Communication Quarterly, 15: 4, pp. 411–430, 2006. doi: 10.2307/357883.
18.
AndersonD. L., The Textualizing Function of Writing for Organizational Change, Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 18: 2, pp. 141–164, 2004. doi: 10.1177/1050651903260800.
19.
LatourB., Reassembling the Social, Oxford University Press, New York, 2005.
20.
KaptelininV. and NardiB. A., Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2006.
21.
ColombG. G. and WilliamsJ. M., Perceiving Structure in Professional Prose: A Multiply Determined Experience, in Writing in Nonacademic Settings, OdellL. and GoswamiD. (eds.), The Guilford Press, New York, pp. 87–128, 1985.
22.
SchwaberK. and BeedleM., Agile Software Development with Scrum, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 2002.
23.
LatourB., Pandora's Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1999.
24.
BlairA., Note Taking as an Art of Transmission, Critical Inquiry, 31, pp. 85–107, Autumn 2004. doi: 10.1086/427303.
25.
LatourB. and WoolgarS., Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts (2nd ed.), Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1986.
26.
WinsorD. A., Writing Power: Communication in an Engineering Center, State University of New York Press, Albany, New York, 2003.
27.
WhittemoreStewart, Designing User Assistance for Internet Marketplace Applications Using Server-Side Online Help, Technical Communication, 50: 1, pp. 17–23, 2003.
28.
Whittemore, Stewart, Metadata and Memory: Lessons from the Canon of Memoria for the Design of Content Management Systems, Technical Communication Quarterly, 17: 1, pp. 88–109, 2008.
29.
WhittemoreStewart, Finding and Learning: Exploring the Information Management Practices of a Technical Communicator, Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, July 2009.
