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.
I'm glad to hear from you. The "academics" are any who desire to propagate
the standardized systemic learning popularized since the time of the
industrial revolution, and not push towards newer education models. A
quick, 11-minute snippet of the core concerns:
When STC first offered certification, it showed hope because it was to be
portfolio based. But the model they were using to evaluate portfolios
was driven according to an academic peer review model that focused on a
specific definition of core competencies.
I guess they eventually discovered what we all knew intrinsically, that a
technical communicator is not a technical communicator. You really cannot
standardize competencies across our field because once to you get past
writing, editing, and structure, there are no best practices, only what
works for a given case at a given time based on the present level of
understanding.
Hardly leaves room for growth in technical areas.
Now about academics being an insular species who don't understand the
world: I don't fault academic learners who understand that there are
multiple intelligences and that people learn different ways. However I find
people who invest in the higher academic system (PhD, Masters, Bachelors)
tend to prefer others of the same. A truly progressive employer will
consider the initiative of self-learning and "university of
Google" candidates in their hiring criteria.
-Tony
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 5:32 AM, Charlotte Branth Claussen <
charlotteclaussen -at- gmail -dot- com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','charlotteclaussen -at- gmail -dot- com');>> wrote:
> I do not like this idea of academics as a strange species that do not
> understand the world. Who are "the academics" in this case?
> Wouldn't academics question their theories and models if real life proved
> them wrong? At least, that would be the case at the institution where I was
> educated.
>
> Charlotte
>
>
>
> 2014-11-05 23:24 GMT+01:00 Tony Chung <tonyc -at- tonychung -dot- ca
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','tonyc -at- tonychung -dot- ca');>>:
>
> > When Certification was first announced, I said it had a chance of
> > succeeding only if the academics didn't get involved. Sure enough, the
> > academics got involved and tried to model specialized certification after
> > existing educational models.
> >
> > With the Information Age at the forefront, traditional academic models
> > cannot sustain our economy. We have more out of work academics than
> people
> > ready and willing to work.
> >
> >
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Read about how Georgia System Operation Corporation improved teamwork, communication, and efficiency using Doc-To-Help | http://bit.ly/1lRPd2l
