Praxis Assignment: React
Introduction to Writing Studies
January 18, 2019
React: address one or more of the threshold concepts and readings from the course. Ground your reaction in 1) your own areas of expertise and interest 2) your experiences.
In this Praxis Assignment I will primarily be reacting, both in written word and gifs, to Mapping the Research Questions in Technical Communication’s explanations on power relations in the field and elsewhere. Firstly in the abstract, author Carolyn D. Rude explains that “a mapping of a field’s research questions is a political act, emphasizing some questions and marginalizing or excluding others” (Rude 2009). This really struck me as I have never really heard professionals in fields other than those like political science, women and gender studies and others that are directly and transparently related to social and political issues address how certain areas are political acts. Coming from a political science background, I am constantly being reminded that almost everything, even inaction, is a political act, and yet so many people, professions, and fields do not mention this omnipresent aspect. So, reading a publication in a writing studies class about technical writing that not only highlights but explains in depth how mapping research questions both emphasizes and marginalizes questions was equally surprising and attractive.
In realizing the power dynamics of each decision, not matter how ‘relevant’ or not it seems, reasons for each outcome is further illuminated. This is important in creating and advancing research questions for all developing fields like technical writing. In the same abstract section, Rude goes on to say that the mapping process then “illustrates reasons for the tensions between the academic and practitioner areas of the field” (Rude 2009). I also found this interesting as I had no idea that there would be tensions between academia and the industry as it seems counterintuitive to have those tensions. I wonder if Rude would consider this applicable in all fields or just technical writing or all writing fields. It at least seems to me that a tension between what is being taught in schools and practical application in the industry will often times occur with most fields, but maybe it is even more so in writing studies. Research and practice are so connected so I’d hope that exploring the four areas of questioning will find common interests and provide a common ground for the two.
When describing the mapping metaphor, Rude makes an incredibly relatable statement: “If we are to understand ourselves and our field, we must understand where power is located and how it shifts.” In life, academia, industry, and just about every facet of our lives, power relations, much like politics, are everywhere. It is pertinent that we realize this if we are to make positive changes in each of these aspects. Rude does realize this as she explains that the studies of power in technical studies exhibits its “relatively powerless place in academic and business settings but also express resistance to the dominance of science, business, and industry.” There are inherent power relations contained within institutions and in personal relationships. In this instance, there is an epistemological concern since the question of acceptable knowledge in the more social field of writing is being questioned and compared with the ways in which dominate principles in areas such as science and business are studied. I related this understanding to my own experience in studying ‘soft’ or ‘social’ sciences instead of ‘hard’ sciences. I had an urban ecology professor who admitted that when he was in college he thought research into social environmental issues was not as important as the more biological, ecological, and other scientific research of the environment. There are power relationships in the sciences just like writing studies. Instead of a resistance to the dominant, however, I believe that in the case of environmental studies, the discipline tries to dismantle the dominant submissive relationship and then work alongside to create an equal collaborative effort.
In the disciplinary area of questioning, Rude tells us that methods for the questioning “must accommodate the assumption that writing is a social activity, often produced collaboratively but also influenced by and influencing the context.” As a social activity, writing gains power from those who practice it and those who are affected by it. It is essentially political and is therefore all about power. So, it seems that it is essential that technical communicators, both in academia and the industry, understand the effects of power within the structures in which they work and the society overall. Rude goes onto to say that “power comes not from the alignment with traditional sources of power but from the empowerment of participants who are affected by the outcomes of research.” This was my absolute favorite line in the whole work as I felt that it could be applied to almost every power structure: researcher and audience, academia and industry, hard science and soft science, majority and minority, and the list goes on. I think we believe too often that joining or becoming a source of power is an accomplishment when it really is quite the opposite. This is explicitly seen in politics and especially in our current polarized status in the United States. Because of my thoughts in this, the last part of the statement garnered endless approving snaps from myself. Rude then sums up her thoughts on power as she believes that “questions on power might shift … focus from frustration about what is missing to the contributions of the field’s research and practice”. I found that this line was important because explains why questioning power in technical communication is so important; hopefully it will provide a bridge between research and practice and academia and industry.
Rude, C. D. (2009). Mapping the Research Questions in Technical Communication. JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION, (2), 174. Retrieved from https://journals-sagepub-com.libproxy.scu.edu/doi/pdf/10.1177/1050651908329562