Rutter, R. (1991). History, rhetoric, and humanism: Toward a more comprehensive definition of technical communication. In J. Johnson-Eiola & S. A. Selber’s (Eds.) (2004), Central Works in Technical Communication (pp. 20-34). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

In Russel Rutter’s (1991) article “History, Rhetoric, and Humanism: Toward a More Comprehensive Definition of Technical Communication,” he explored “the ways in which the practice of technical communication might be affected for the better by contextualization of the discipline – by increased attention to its origin and development and to the tradition of humanistic rhetoric and the oratorical ideal to which it rightfully belongs” (p. 22). Rutter examined the state of technical communication as it currently is by summarizing the theories of past rhetoricians, scientists, and philosophers, utilizing the analogy of light and fruit, highlighting the rhetorical nature and dynamic nature of technical communication, and emphasizing the importance of a liberal education. Rutter’s purpose was to demonstrate that the most appropriate solution is a “liberal education grounded in oratorical traditions that emphasize the mastery of rhetoric for use in the active life” (p. 32). Rutter’s intended audience was scholars of technical communication and educators of the subject. Rutter displayed extensive knowledge of research from previous scholars with pieces of his own research integrated into the essay, but his argument could have been condensed if there were more concise summaries of philosophies and fewer analogies.

Miller, C. R. (1979). A humanistic rationale for technical writing. College English, 40(6), (pp. 610-617). doi:10.2307/375964.

In Carolyn R. Miller’s (1979) article “A Humanistic Rationale for Technical Writing,” she argued “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” (p. 610). Miller supported her theory by distinguishing between the “inartistic proofs” of science and the “artistic proofs” of rhetoric, linking the windowpane theory of language to the acquisition of knowledge, and dismembering the problems within the positivist legacy (p. 613). Miller’s purpose was to tear apart the holes within the positivist perspective of teaching technical writing so that she could effectively purpose a consensualist solution. Miller’s intended audience was individuals interested in the humanistic qualities of technical writing and the logistics of teaching technical writing. Miller presented a clearly laid out argument with well established claims, which made her article easy to understand and agree with.

Miller, C. (1989). What’s practical about technical writing? In T. Peeples (Ed.) Professional Writing and Rhetoric (2003) (pp. 61-70). New York, NY: Longman.

In Carolyn R. Miller’s (1989) article “What’s Practical About Technical Writing?” she explored why “technical writing is singled out for being practical, it is worth considering what makes it so” (p. 61). Miller tackled the practicality of technical writing by defining it as goal oriented, providing research to support the need to alter courses to coincide with what graduates will encounter in their future professions, discussing Aristotle’s “techne,” the function of praxis, and the need to take responsibility for social actions. Miller’s purpose was to establish a need for nonacademic practice so that it could surface in academic instruction and equip students with the awareness of limitations and the possibility of breaking past them (p. 69). Miller’s intended audience was both instructors of technical writing and professionals inquiring about technical communication skills. Miller showcased well-thought-out points with an impressive line of reasoning and a sound conclusion, but the extent of outside support seemed far fetched and off-track.

Dobrin, D. N. (1983). What’s technical about technical writing? In J. Johnson-Eilola & S. A. Selber (Eds.) (2004), Central Works in Technical Communication (pp. 107-123). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

In David N. Dobrin’s (1983) article “What’s Technical About Technical Writing?” he portrayed prior definitions of technical writing as “simple because they define a difficult concept in terms which are equally difficult and then leave those terms undefined” (p. 109). Dobrin delved into what technical writing was by describing the function of objectivity and truth, it’s univocal quality with both primary and secondary meanings, how the ambiguity of language complicates technical writing by giving a monadist view which makes someone’s meaning indeterminate and misunderstood, the connection between knowledge and language, the presence of axiomatic fictions, the alternity characteristic of language, and the clarification of technology as relating to human behaviors and the accommodations between user and technology. Dobrin’s purpose was to illustrate the existing problems with previous technical writing definitions and attempt to show the difficulty in narrowing down what technical writing was into one inclusive definition. Dobrin’s intended audience was technicians, writers, and college educated individuals curious about technical writing. Dobrin asked countless questions without giving many answers to create a reasonable way of thinking about the subject, but eventually offered his own definition of: “Technical writing is writing that accommodates technology to the user,” which he supported thoroughly with his extensive explanations and logical reasoning (p.118).

Connors, R. J. (1982). The rise of technical writing instruction in America. In J. Johnson-Eilola & S. A. Selber (Eds.) (2004), Central Works in Technical Communication (pp. 3-19). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

In Robert J. Connors’s (1982) article “The Rise of Technical Writing Instruction in America,” he traced the “instruction in technical writing from its beginnings in a few schools of engineering, through its lean times, when it was a poor cousin in literary studies in English departments, to its present eminence as a center of vital scholarly and pedagogic activity” (p. 4). Connors explored the evolution of technical writing by discussing the creation of the Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education, the opposition between English teachers and engineering teachers, the integration of English in with engineering courses, the need for technical communication due to WWII, the importance of the writer-reader relationship, the need for professional speech, and the creation of a new profession. Connors’s purpose was to demonstrate the progression of technical communication and highlight the hurdles technical writing had to overcome to exist in the accepted state that it’s in now. Connors’s intended audience was college students and professors wishing to learn more about the origins of technical communication. Connors laid out a logical sequence of events for how technical communication came to exist, which was both informative while still being surprising.