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: More about paradigms From:Stuart Selber <SSELBER -at- MTUS5 -dot- CTS -dot- MTU -dot- EDU> Date:Fri, 19 Mar 1993 09:16:57 EST
ie paradigms. Sometimes I think of paradigms in terms of the models we use for
communication. Most early (and even some newer) technical communication texts
describe what we do as simple "transfer," that we are conduits through which
information neutrally passes. Slightly more progressive models describe what we
do as "translation," where at least in the process of writing our job is to
make sense of information. A more productive model, and one that can help us
gain more status (be seen for the important work we do) is an "articulation"
model (Slack, Miller, and Doak), which recognizes that in all activities
surrounding language we create meaning. In this way, what we do as technical
communicators is epistemic. This more complicated model of communication begins
to frame the complex range of activities we're involved in. If articulation can
become an important paradigm in our field (help constitute what we define as
*legitimate* work) than I think the possibilities for technical communicators
are increased in important ways. Many great minds probably waste away laboring
under "communication as transfer" paradigms.
