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:Shannon-Weaver Model From:Joseph J Little <litt0023 -at- MAROON -dot- TC -dot- UMN -dot- EDU> Date:Mon, 28 Nov 1994 23:50:08 GMT
I'm really a fan of the Shannon-Weaver communication model. I
just recently learned of it and realized that my own definition
of tech comm was nearly identical to the view given by S-W.
Coming from an engineering background, I can see why.
However, my rhetoric professor thinks my definition of tech comm
as a science of transmission is weak. He believes (I think) that
I'm slighting tech comm by defining it in this 'passive' manner,
and should be emphasizing more on the audience rather than the
information being transmitted. I can see his point, and I agree
that a transactional process exists between the communicator
and the audience--however, I also believe the communicator has
some responsibility to the body of knowledge he/she's transmitting.
So, my question is this: Who feels the Shannon-Weaver model is
a good model for technical communication? Why? Who does not? Why?
Who believes that, with a few small modifications, the Shannon-Weaver
model would be a good model for tech comm? What would those
modifications be?
