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.
Subject:Re: PHD in Tech writing From:gilliankitty -at- yahoo -dot- com To:techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com Date:Sun, 7 Sep 2003 00:03:10 -0600
"Andrea Brundt" wrote ...
>
> I think I agree with Chuck. One of the most valuable qualities in a writer
> is the ability to not just make a good writing decision, but to defend that
> decision to an editor, a coworker or a manager. This ability can come only
> from an understanding of the theory that underpins the practical application
> of writing.
I disagree. Good decisions about documents come from a profound
understanding of the subject matter. You could know every writing and
communication theory in the entire universe, but if you don't understand
the content of a document, you'll never, ever be able to defend your
decisions with any degree of credibility. Theory is not a replacement for
practical application. It can help, but its never a replacement.
Thus, a PhD in tech writing does not mean somebody is a more competent
technical writer in the working world. In some ways, all that schooling,
theory, and time spent in the idealized world of a university can be very
detrimental when transitioning to the real world.
Furthermore, most university programs fail to inform their students that
all the theories and concepts in the world are not a replacement for
content knowledge. Hence, many of these PhD types, when they get into the
real world, try to argue that their subject matter ignorance is some kind
of asset. Which we all know to be a faulty argument.
