Part four of Solving
Problems in Technical Communication focuses on developing knowledge about the field of communication. This
section follows a section pertaining to approaches to the technical writing
field and in my view, adequately provides analyses which turn the theories of
how to interact within the technical writing field, as detailed in part three,
into practical methods for approaching the field as a technical communicator or
teacher of technical communications.
Part four begins with an emphasis on understanding methods
to transfer knowledge and information about technical writing to others in the
field. From a quick look through the table of contents for this section, it
appears as if the editors of this collection arranged the articles in a manner
that examined different modes of understanding for the technical writing field.
The forth section has articles specifically about genre, knowledge creation,
information design, new media, collaboration, and international environments
for technical writing that for me, together, represent a small portion of the
considerations that are necessary for technical communicators to be aware of in
order to be able to come up with the best appropriate means for completing any
given technical communication tasks.
This point, that technical communicators can only really be
briefed on a few of the circumstances surrounding their technical
communication, is one that I feel resonates throughout the book as a message
that reminds readers that just because they might feel as if they “know” how to
technically communicate, doesn’t necessarily mean that what they know how to do
in one context will still be applicable in another. This, I believe, is one
reason why scholars like Henze believe that it is beneficial for communicators
to understand how different genres can necessitate different responses than
others. As Henze explains, “Genres can help technical communicators diagnose a
document user’s needs and produce documents that respond to those needs in
situationally appropriate ways” (p. 337). This is a sentiment I agree with and
would only amend to extend beyond “documents” to include any type of medium
used for communication.
Ultimately, after
finishing this book and the articles in it, I wonder to myself, how could
teachers of technical communication better decide what areas to focus on when
teaching students? Is it acceptable to simply rely on what I, as a teacher,
believe to be the most important areas to focus or is their some need to have a
baseline understanding of certain aspects of technical communication that might
supersede teaching, say, ideas surrounding new media? I ask because I just don’t
believe a semester is a large enough space in time to teach even the different
considerations explored as the subject of the articles in part four, let alone
those subjects in addition to a model based on forms and reports. What do you
believe the single most important piece of information people should learn in a
technical communication class?