TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
> You certainly don't need a PhD to learn to think
> about why you're doing something, but you do need to learn why
> you're doing
> something. That's the only way to recognize when a traditional behavior
> becomes unproductive or less effective than alternatives.
Palpably false. You learn from the experience of doing these things in
everyday life. In fact it would seem that most human progress is made by
dogged trial and error, with the explanation of why things work trailing the
discovery that things work by some time.
But the issue here isn't the value of PhD's in general. It is specifically
the value of a PhD in technical communication as training for someone who
wishes to be a technical writer. There are of, of course, many practitioners
in every field who are fascinated by the theory behind what they practice.
There are also brilliant practitioners who couldn't give a rats behind about
the theory. The claim that the theory enhances the performance of those who
care about it is somewhat dubious, given the number of equally successful
practitioners who know nothing about the theory. But the theory wonks almost
inevitably believe that it helps them. Which is fine in itself, until they
start telling people that mastery of the theory is the only path to
excellence in practice. It isn't, and to suggest that it is may only serve
to turn away the best and the brightest minds.
Note: I am myself a theory wonk. My theory, about which I am a wonk, is that
theory may elucidate, but does not produce, creativity. There is a
fundamental difference between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge, and
the way they are gained. The tacit knowledge that informs human performance
in so many areas of life is developed not by the study of theory but by love
and diligent application.
Yes, experimental knowledge can be a useful supplement to the tacit
knowledge gained by love and diligent application, but it is a supplement.
Without the core skill, you will not know what to do with the experimental
results.
> Are you saying there are no useful degree programs in technical
> communication because, unlike the master-apprentice system, the
> teacher-student relationship can't actually teach useful skills?
No. I'm saying that while some technical communication degrees may teach you
something useful, getting an education is always and without exception a
better way to spend your time and money. It will prepare you better for
being a technical writer, and, more importantly, it will prepare you for
being a bunch of other things when it turns out that there are no technical
communication jobs to be had.
---
Mark Baker
Stilo Corporation
1900 City Park Drive, Suite 504 , Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1J 1A3
Phone: 613-745-4242, Fax: 613-745-5560
Email mbaker -at- ca -dot- stilo -dot- com
Web: http://www.stilo.com
This message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the
intended recipient and may contain confidential and privileged
information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, copying, or
distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient please contact the sender by reply email and destroy
all copies of the original message and any attachments.
