“User-Centered Technology,” by Robert Johnson, develops a
case for a greater level of responsiveness with our pedagogies when we develop
strategies for teaching technical writing. What we need to respond to, as the
first half of the book establishes, is the needs of the users of various
technologies so that the needs of the user aren’t left merely for end
consumption but instead are integral throughout the process of development.
Johnson uses a rhetorical foundation for his discussion of technology,
referring to Kinneavy’s rhetorical triangle to show the difference between
thinking about products from a system-centered model (p. 29) and a
user-centered model (p. 36), arguing that a system-centered model is not as
effective as the user-centered, harkening Aristotle's quip that “…the user, or,
in other words, the master, of the house will even be a better judge than the
builder” (p. 3), insinuating that it might not always be best to rely on those
considered the experts in Johnson’s expert/novice dichotomy (p. 13).
Johnson clearly wishes for readers to view the user, or in
the case of teachers, their students, as people who should be empowered so that
their own experiences can supplement their development of optimum tactics for
using technologies. Instead of simple gestures by system-centered thinkers to
create the appearance of user-friendliness (p. 28), Johnson would like to see
users as actual practitioners able to move beyond mere tool-use (p. 47) and
closer toward the ability to rely on metis
and other rhetorical insights to utilize a “critical reading approach” (p.
159).
The other (not good) alternative is for users to be thought
of in terms of their end use and as such, users would continue to be excluded
from the development of the very technologies that make society thrive. By
mentioning principles of economics related to the benefits of reducing human
factors and increasing efficiency (Taylorism), Johnson shows how those who
chose to remain system-centered thinkers in fact do so to continue to subjugate
users to the oppressor’s form of reality (p. 74-75). Without an acknowledgment
of this reality, users struggle to see clearly those forces of technology that
make technologies, like fishing, about less than having a fish caught for you and
more about being taught by somebody how to fish. The difference is tangible in
the role it plays on those who would otherwise be oppressed by forces of
technological determinism (p. 88) and a general lack of agency (p. 86).
Some questions occurred to me as I finished the book in
response to what I found to be a fairly long-winded argument. The first
question I wondered about was what exactly would Johnson define technical
writing as? It seems he tries to provide some clarity midway through the book
(p. 120) when he lists the reasons for focusing so heavily on computer
technology. He describes it as technical in the sense that there are often many
steps involved to controlling a system that has very specific methods of
manipulation, but otherwise I feel that the author is thinking of technical
writing in terms of, for better or worse, a partially genre driven, at times
formulaic form of communication (p. 139-141). Maybe these are subsets of the
same idea, maybe I just ended up a bit confused, but it seemed like there were
many examples provided to establish what exactly a user-centered technology
looks like and not enough time spent making connections between technical writing
as a discipline and computer-based technologies.
Another question I had concerns the degree to which Johnson
recommends “keeping the baby when draining the water” (made up quote, relates
to p. 164). He puts those instructors using the “practice of dictating format
or genre types” on blast by saying they are the ones bringing shame to the good
names of pedagogically sound, user-centric, autonomous-voice-respecting instructors,
but then immediately reels back with the acknowledgement mentioned above. To
what degree do you all think there is a place for mundane, formulaic methods of
rote knowledge-dispensing in the teaching of technical and professional writing?
Should it be used at all? Should there always be room for educated free thinkers
to exercise their best judgment when approaching any given task? I currently
don’t know what my answers to these questions are, but I’m sure, after more consideration
in collaboration with others, I will be able to soon have a better foundation
for establishing my own educated opinions on this topic.
