Technical Writing Blog 3

This article is driven by the idea of how Technical Communication relates to the humanities. More specifically, does it relate to the humanities? Carolyn Miller began trying to prove that technical writing could satisfy a humanities course requirement because the university contemplated attaching a literature pre-requisite to her technical writing course. It should be noted that while Miller believes an “argument can be made, and on firm and respectable grounds” she also says that “the way to it is not clear.” She goes on at length about how, in order to understand technical writings relationship to the humanities, a new definition of science needs to be realized. She goes on to state that “the common opinion that the undergraduate technical writing course is a “skills” course with little or no humanistic value is the result of a lingering but pervasive positivist view of science” (Miller 1). I mean really? How arrogant is a statement like that? Just accept the fact that your course does not satisfy a humanities requirement and accept the damn literature course as a pre-requisite. It’s not going to harm a student to know a little more is it? Actually, let’s look at the quote again. I just want to know: what the hell is positivism. Miller defines positivism as "the conviction that sensory data are the only permissible basis of knowledge". Okay. What the hell does that mean? I like to think of myself as a fairly educated person, and I have never heard this term before. However, this doesn’t mean anything, let’s take to the internet! The Oxford English Dictionary defines positivism as “a philosophical system elaborated from the 1830s by the French thinker Auguste Comte (1798–1857), recognizing only observable phenomena and empirically verifiable scientific facts and laws”. Well that’s a pretty erudite definition. Let’s look to wikipedia to dumb that down for us. According to wikipedia, “Positivism refers to a set of epistemological perspectives and philosophies of science which hold that the scientific method is the best approach to uncovering the processes by which both physical and human events occur.” FINALLY, a statement I can understand, and more importantly I agree. Why would anyone want to change that? Positivism is good. Positivism is right. If positivism is right, and miller says it’s wrong, then that can only mean Miller is wrong. My favorite line in the article comes on the 5^th page. For me it drives home the fact that Miller is just another writer using rhetoric and language to convince the reader that her position is the right one. She says “the whole idea of invention is heresy to positivist science- science does not invent, it discovers.” She would have the reader believe that science, invention, and discovery to not go hand in hand. She would have you believe that invention and discovery oppose each other, but in truth, invention is discovery, and discovery is invention. They are just words that convey an idea. That idea is the true genius in science. There is always more to know, and unlike Miller, I will not forget that. Just because technical writing involves an “examination and understanding of one’s own activity and consciousness” (Miller 8) does not mean that I will consider it a humanity. Why? Because positivism taught me that just because something is black and white doesn’t mean it’s a zebra. Just because something has the right qualifications doesn’t make it true. There is always more to know.  

I would like to use this image as a metaphor for Miller. She won’t accept the obvious, that maybe she should just accept the literature pre-requisite. Instead she goes about getting her course to count towards humanities, something much more complicated and unnecessary.

Technical Writing Blog 2

Who killed Rex? Is it the man who let him out of the gate? Or is the customer service representative who failed to note that there was a dog in the backyard? Could it be the owner for failing to tell the company that he even had a dog? Spinuzzi attempts to find the answer in his article, but he does it by analyzing the flow of information through three separate networks. The telecommunications network comprising the company’s service areas, the actor-network comprised of the many entities that agree to work together, and the activity network which examines the developmental activity of a collective.  These networks are individually complicated enough to give someone a headache, but when you put all three together, then it almost becomes impossible to sort through it all. This is why Spinuzzi is forced to break each network down and explain exactly what each one does and how it interacts with the other two. According to Spinuzzi, a failure somewhere along one of these networks is what led to Rex’s death. As he analyzes each of the networks, detailing what comprised each of the networks in terms of the company in question; the reader can clearly see a picture begin to form. It is not the fault of any one person or network, but rather a failure on the parts of all three. Spinuzzi says “So it's hard to pin down blame: in distributing intellectual work across networks, the theories also distribute responsibility and agency, competence and (especially) incompetence.” There is simply too much confusion and entanglement present, and each network is too interdependent on the others. If a mistake is made in one, then that mistake will most likely get translated to all three. Of course none of this matters to the customer (or to Rex, who is now dead), as he does not care where the mistake was made, just that one was made, and his dog has died.

So as a tribute to Rex, here’s a funny video of a dog, which I shall pretend is Rex (there’s no proof that it isn’t), and smile at the memory of him.

 

Technical Writing Blog 1

http://uh7qf6fd4h.search.serialssolutions.com/?genre=article&isbn=&issn=07333188&title=Zoo+Biology&volume=22&issue=3&date=20030101&atitle=Evaluation+of+the+genetic+management+of+the+endangered+black-footed+ferret+%28Mustela+nigripes%29&aulast=Wisely%2c+Samantha+M.&pages=287-298&sid=EBSCO:Wildlife+%26+Ecology+Studies+Worldwide&pid=

The above is a link to an article written by Dr. Samantha Wisely, who is currently an Associate Professor in Zoology and Physiology at Kansas State University. The article is an evaluation of the genetic management of the endangered black footed ferret and the current system put in place by the AZA (American Zoo and Aquarium Associations) for the conservation of the species. It is a generally held convention in science articles like this one that you do not present raw data. No one but another research scientist would be able to understand it. Therefore the information has to be collected, summarized, and translated into terms that an average person would be able to understand. This article also utilizes tables and figures to present some of its research data in a clear accessible manner. This article is important because it discusses one of the key methods to trying to preserve a species. The black footed ferret recovery program is just getting underway and without proper analysis of it's methods, there is no guarantee it would work. This article concludes that the current management program under the AZA will succeed in its goal of maintaining 80% of the genetic diversity of the program's founder population over the course of the next 25 years. This will go a long way towards saving a species.

Job description: http://www.wfsc.tamu.edu/jobboard/display.cfm?Jobno=26756