Technical communication's attempt to prioritize theories of scholarship and pedagogy has resulted in several authors contributing a three-dimensional framework to approach technology: the instrumental perspective, the critical humanist perspective, and the user-centered perspective [1–3]. This article traces connections between this framework for technical communication and the philosophies of Michel de Certeau [4] and Andrew Feenberg [5], suggesting that the primary connection is a turn toward “rhetoric” as a mediator between scientific and philosophical communication. The article concludes that the current paradigm for understanding technology can be best understood by exploring three conjoined, yet competing, mentalities between a scientific, philosophical, and rhetorical worldview. While this three-dimensional approach provides a strong foundation for technical communication pedagogy and scholarship, it should continue to be re-examined for potential anomalies as the field continues to develop an identity.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
JohnsonR., User-Centered Technology: A Rhetorical Theory for Computers and Other Mundane Artifacts, SUNY, New York, 1998.
2.
SelberS., Multiliteracies for a Digital Age, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, Illinois, 2004.
3.
CarterJ., Market Matters: Applied Rhetoric Studies and Free Market Competition, Hampton Press, Cresskill, New Jersey, 2005.
4.
de CerteauM., The Practice of Everyday Life, (RendallS., Trans.), University of California Press, Berkeley, California, 1988.
5.
FeenbergA., Transforming Technology: A Critical Theory Revised, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002.
6.
SeltingB., Conversations with Technical Writing Teachers: Defining a Problem, Technical Communication Quarterly, 11, pp. 251–266, 2002.
7.
LongoB., Spurious Coin: A History of Science, Management, and Technical Writing, SUNY, New York, 2000.
8.
SpilkaR., Digital Literacy for Technical Communication: 21st Century Theory and Practice, Routledge, New York, 2010.
9.
HassC., Writing Technology: Studies on the Materiality of Literacy, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey, 1996.
10.
JohnsonR., Complicating Technology: Interdisciplinary Method, the Burden of Comprehension, and the Ethical Space of the Technical Communicator, Technical Communication Quarterly, 7, pp. 75–98, 1998.
11.
ZachryM., An Interview with Andrew Feenberg, Technical Communication Quarterly, 16, pp. 453–472, 2007.
12.
KimballM. A., Cars, Culture, and Tactical Technical Communication, Technical Communication Quarterly, 15, pp. 67–86, 2006.
13.
SalvoM., Rhetorical Action in Professional Space: Information Architecture as Critical Practice, Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 18, pp. 39–66, 2004.
14.
TurnleyM., Integrating Critical Approaches to Technology and Service Learning Projects, Technical Communication Quarterly, 16, pp. 103–123, 2007.
15.
Germaine-McDanielN. S., Technical Communication in the Health Fields: Executive Order 13166 and Its Impact on Translation and Localization, Technical Communication, 5, pp. 251–265, 2010.
16.
MillerC. R., A Humanistic Rational for Technical Writing, Central Works in Technical Communication, Johnson-EilolaJ. and SelberS. A. (eds.), Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 47–54, 2004.
MooreP., Legitimizing Technical Communication in English Departments: Carolyn Miller's “Humanistic Rational for Technical Writing,”Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 36, pp. 167–182, 2006.
19.
MirelB. and SpilkaR., Reshaping Technical Communication: New Directions and Challenges for the 21st Century, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, New Jersey, 2002.
20.
KatzS. B., The Ethic of Expediency: Classical Rhetoric, Technology, and the Holocaust, Central Works in Technical Communication, Johnson-EilolaJ. and SelberS. A. (eds.) Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 194–210, 2004.
21.
BartonB. F. and BartonM. S., Ideology and the Map: Toward a Postmodern Visual Design Practice. Central Works in Technical Communication, Johnson-EilolaJ. and SelberS. A. (eds.), Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 232–252, 1993.
22.
Johnson-EilolaJ. and SelberS., Central Works in Technical Communication, Oxford University Press, New York, 2004.
23.
KempF., The Aesthetic Anvil: The Foundation of Resistance to Technology and Innovation in English Departments, in Market Matters, CarterJ. (ed.), Hampton, Cresskill, New Jersey, pp. 77–94, 2005.
24.
KinneavyJ. L., A Theory of Discourse, Norton, New York, 1971.
25.
LanhamR., The Electronic Word: Democracy, Technology, and the Arts, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, 1993.
26.
LanhamR., The Economics of Attention: Style and Substance in the Age of Information, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, 2006.
27.
BoothW. C., The Rhetoric of Rhetoric: The Quest for Effective Communication, Blackwell, Malden, Massachusetts, 2004.
28.
FishS., Rhetoric, in Critical Terms for Literary Study (2nd Edition), LentricchaF. and McLaughlinT. (eds.), University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, pp. 203–22, 1995.
29.
BerlinJ. A., Rhetoric and Reality: Writing Instruction in American Colleges, 1900–1985, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, Illinois, 1987.
30.
FeenbergA., Alternative Modernity: The Technical Turn in Philosophy and Social Theory, University of California Press, Berkeley, California, 1995.
31.
WinnerL., Social Constructivism: Opening the Black Box and Finding it Empty, Philosophy of Technology: The Technological Condition, ScarffR. C. and DusekV. (eds.), Blackwell, Malden, Massachusetts, pp. 233–244, 2003.
32.
HeideggerM., The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays, Harper and Row, New York, 1977.
33.
EllulJ., The Technological Society, Vintage, New York, 1964.
SalvoM., There is No Salvation: Rhetoricians Working in an Age of Information, in Market Matters, CarterJ. (ed.), Hampton, Cresskill, New Jersey, pp. 109–134, 2005.
37.
FreireP., Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Continuum International, New York, 2005.
38.
GarrisonK., Perpetuating the Technological Ideology: An Ellulian Critique of Feenberg's Democratized Rationalization, Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society, 30, pp. 195–204, 2010.
39.
ThomsonI., From the Question Concerning Technology to the Quest for a Democratic Technology: Heidegger, Marcuse, and Feenberg, Inquiry, 43, pp. 203–216, 2000.
40.
EllulJ., The Technological Bluff, Eerdmans Publishing Co, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1989.
41.
KurzweilR., The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology, Penguin, New York, 2005.
42.
DiamondJ., Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, Norton, New York, 1999.
43.
OudshoornN.RommesE., and StienstraM., Configuring the User as Everybody: Gender and Design Cultures in Information and Communication Technologies, Science, Technology, and Human Values, 29, pp. 30–63, 2004.
44.
VeakT., Whose Technology? Whose Modernity? Questioning Feenberg's Questioning Technology, Science, Technology, and Human Values, 25, pp. 226–237, 2000.
45.
GarrisonK., Designing and Implementing a Low-Cost Usability Testing Laboratory: Theoretical Justifications and Practical Considerations, Technical Communication, 60, pp. 175–189, 2013.
46.
GarrisonK., Effects Alternative Theory of Technology: Anticipating the Fourth Mileu of Virtuality, Explorations in Media Ecology, 11, pp. 55–70, 2012.
47.
GarrisonK., Perpetuating the Technological Ideology: An Ellulian Critique of Feenberg's Democratized Rationalization, Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society, 30(3), pp. 195–204, 2010.
48.
GarrisonK., Using Text to Speech Software to Devise First-Year College Students Essays, Computer and Composition, 20, pp. 288–301, 2009.
