Dragga, S. (1996). ‘Is this ethical?’ A survey of opinion on principles and practices of document design. Technical Communication 43(3), (pp. 255-265).

In Sam Dragga’s (1996) article, “‘Is This Ethical?’ A Survey of Opinion on Principles and Practices of Document Design” he determined that the “ability to design information gives the technical communicator a new rhetorical power and imposes new ethical obligations on using that power” (p. 256). Dragga supported the appearance of power in document design by surveying five hundred technical communicators and five hundred technical communication teachers to discover their opinion of the ethics of seven document design cases, he also asked the reader to answer seven survey questions to better understand the argument, showcased the specific characteristics of the participants, and showed an apparent consensus in the data. Dragga’s purpose was to propose that “Periodic self-examination is thus important as a way of orienting ourselves again as professionals and reaffirming the principles of ethical communication. Quite possibly the most ethical thing we can do as a profession is to nourish the ongoing discussion of ethical issues” (p. 264). Dragga’s intended audience was teachers of technical writing and professional communicators who might need a quick reminder of what’s considered ethical and how to examine their own practices. Dragga formatted his argument in an effective and logical way that clearly illustrated his point and invited the reader to be an active participant in his survey on ethics.

Katz, S. B. (1992). The ethic of expediency: classical rhetoric, technology, and the holocaust. College English, 54(3), (pp. 255-275).

In Steven B. Katz’s (1992) article, “The Ethic of Expediency: Classical Rhetoric, Technology, and the Holocaust” he illustrated that “much of Hitler’s ethical and political program is also directly or indirectly based on the ethic of expediency first treated by Aristotle, and is thus amenable to analysis from an Aristotelian point of view” (p. 259). Katz analyzed the ethical problem in rhetoric, the possibility of being too technical and too logical, utilized Aristotle’s theory on rhetoric to support his claims, the deliberative discourse of the holocaust memo was based on the ethic of expediency, the issue of objectivity in technical writing, the majority of technical communication is deliberative, the appearance of Hitler’s attempt to be ethical in his technical execution of his program, the use of science and technology as a basis for a powerful ethical argument, the technological ethos used to create a powerful Nazi rhetoric of propaganda, and the final problem of the expediency in technological capitalism. Katz’s purpose was to propose the solution of “recognizing the essentially ethical character of all rhetoric, including our writing theory, pedagogy, and practice, and the role that expediency plays in rhetoric” (p. 272). Katz’s intended audience was individuals who practice in writing theory and instructors that may not be aware of their ethical responsibility in technical communication. Katz demonstrated a clear understanding of both Aristotle’s theories and Hitler’s programs, but he seemed to be digging himself into an ethical hole throughout the article.

Dombrowski, P. M. (2007). The evolving face of ethics in technical and professional communication: challenger to Columbia. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 50(4), (pp. 306-319).

In Paul M. Dombrowski’s (2007) article, “The Evolving Face of Ethics in Technical and Professional Communication: Challenger to Columbia” he deliberated “not only with ethics with respect to technical, scientific, and professional communication, but also with a broader scope to include such areas as environmental ethics, feminist ethics, and cultural ethics” (p. 307). Dombrowski evaluated the historical progression of ethics, the broadening of ethics relating to pedagogy, the critical theory surrounding ethical writing, feminist and gender issues, the ethics within environmental and visual issues, the parallels and differences between the Challenger and Columbia reports, and the normalization of deviance. Dombrowski’s purpose was to demonstrate that “Part of being human is having a sense of responsibility for what we do” (p. 317). Dombrowski’s intended audience was technical writers of influential reports responsible for upholding ethical standards. Dombrowski skillfully set up the ethical background to support the comparison of the Challenger and the Columbia reports.

Barton, B. F., & Barton, M. S. (1993). Modes of power in technical and professional visuals. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 7(1), (pp. 138–162). https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651993007001007

In Ben F. Barton and Marthalee S. Barton’s (1993) article, “Modes of Power in Technical and Professional Visuals” they predicted that “technical and professional visuals are not only instruments of communication or even of knowledge but also instruments of power” (p. 138). Barton and Barton utilized Michel Foucault’s Panopticon theory to demonstrate the power of visuals, technical visual diagrams are examined through Foucault’s synoptic and analytic modes of power, these modes of surveillance are then observed in tandem to show their combined influence, and the use of Edward Tufte’s micro/macro design approach to understand how maps function. Barton and Barton’s purpose was to reveal the “relevance of the panoptic modality of power to the design of technical visuals, its pervasiveness as a modern design principle, and its value as a heuristic tool for both generating and assessing new visual designs” (p. 156). Barton and Barton’s intended audience was Foucauldian scholars and instructors of visual rhetoric. Barton and Barton clearly illustrated how the visual of the Panopticon embodies the domination of power and how the visuals used are visibly technical communication.

Brasseur, L. (2005). Florence Nightingale’s visual rhetoric in the rose diagrams. Technical Communication Quarterly, 14(2), (pp. 161–182). https://doi.org/10.1207/s15427625tcq1402pass:[_]3

In Lee Brasseur’s (2005) article, “Florence Nightingale’s Visual Rhetoric in the Rose Diagrams” she analyzed “Nightingale’s use of visual and verbal rhetoric in the design and presentation of her rose diagrams” (p. 161). Brasseur explored Nightingale’s life, career, and work in the Crimean War, her report and annex to the government, her use of statistics, her achievements with visual rhetoric, and her three rose diagrams demonstrating the unsanitary conditions of the military hospital. Brasseur’s purpose was to illustrate how “Nightingale’s rhetoric in her use of the rose diagrams is an important example of how visual abstraction of data can help further an argument” (p. 180). Brasseur’s intended audience was verbal and visual rhetoricians unaware of Nightingale’s technical communication contributions during the Crimean War. Brasseur thoroughly examined the visual rhetoric evident in the rose diagrams and their importance to the health of soldiers.

Getto, G., Franklin N. & Ruszkiewicz S. (2014). Networked rhetoric: iFixit and the social impact of knowledge work. Technical Communication, 61 (3), (pp. 185-201).

In Guiseppe Getto, Nathan Franklin, and Sheryl Ruszkiewicz’s (2014) article, “Networked Rhetoric: iFixit and the Social Impact of Knowledge Work” they strived to “develop an understanding of iFixit’s Technical Writing Project as a network that links human action to nonhuman action, and that sees this linkage as potentially rhetorical” (p. 187). Getto, Franklin, and Ruszkiewicz conducted a qualitative case study in a technical writing classroom at a state university, they examined the interactions and rhetorical impacts, the right to repair, how nonhuman actors influenced the human counterparts, the students possession of knowledge, and the complexity of rhetoric. Getto, Franklin, and Ruszkiewicz’s purpose was to express the importance of more knowing-how and less knowing-that, decentering the human rhetor, studying complex social realities, and reconsidering social justice as technological as well as social” (pp. 198-199). Getto, Franklin, and Ruszkiewicz’s intended audience was technical writing instructors looking for guidance and students seeking to guide themselves. Getto, Franklin, and Ruszkiewicz focused mainly on the students in the study and their ability to both create and produce knowledge, which was a unique approach to the subject and its importance in the classroom.

Jones, N. N., Moore, K. R. & Walton, R. (2016). Disrupting the past to disrupt the future: an antenarrative of technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 25 (4), (pp. 211-229).

In Natasha N. Jones, Kristen R. Moore, and Rebecca Walton’s (2016) article “Disrupting the Past to Disrupt the Future: An Antenarrative of Technical Communication,” they asserted that “specific, pragmatic actions are necessary to create effective change going forward” (p. 212). Jones, Moore, and Walton offered a framework for developing a focus point for technical and professional communication (TPC), interrogated the dominant narrative, presented a collection of nondominant stories that unraveled and reweaved TPC, the importance of user advocacy, the role of social justice, and researched the 3Ps of positionality, privilege, and power. Jones, Moore, and Walton’s purpose was to suggest that “social justice scholarship might provoke other now-silent (or silenced) scholars to develop research agendas that reach toward the goal of inclusion” (p. 223). Jones, Moore, and Walton’s intended audience was scholars and researchers of TPC seeking to better understand inclusion. Jones, Moore, and Walton began their article with full disclosure and ended by acknowledging that more research was needed, which granted them credibility and built trust with their audience.

Colton, J. S. & Walton, R. (2015). Disability as insight into social justice pedagogy in technical communication. The Journal of Interactive Technology & Pedagogy 8, (pp. 1-13).

In Jared S. Colton and Rebecca Walton’s (2015) article “Disability as Insight into Social Justice Pedagogy in Technical Communication,” they proposed that, “considerations of disability can provide insight into the relevance of social justice to technical communication practice” (p. 1). Colton and Walton analyzed the definition of social justice, reviewed the various aspects of social action (e.g., service learning, community-based research, action/activist research, civic engagement), the establishment of an ethical framework to insight social justice, the individualistic aspect of the virtue of ethics, studied three designed undergraduate courses with various methods for collecting data about the relationship between social justice and technical communication, discovered an emerging pattern of the students’ need and ability to engage in inclusive and accessible communication design, and the students’ awareness of the connections between social justice and technical communication. Colton and Walton’s purpose was to propose the strategy of “introducing issues of social justice to students by initially pointing their attention to disability and its immediate and more accessible exigency to communication design” (p. 8). Colton and Walton’s intended audience was instructors wishing to implement social justice practices with communication design and students becoming more aware of social justice in the classroom. Colton and Walton demonstrated a clear understanding of the topic they were arguing and approached their study in an ethical way that benefited both the instructors and the students.

Dragga, S. & Voss, D. (2003). Hiding humanity: verbal and visual ethics in accident reports. Technical Communication, 50 (1), (pp. 61-82).

In Sam Dragga and Dan Voss’s (2003) article “Hiding Humanity: Verbal and Visual Ethics in Accident Reports,” they identified “how the reporting of human injuries and fatalities in accident reports often strips victims of their humanity and hides the tragic human consequences of technological failures from individuals trying to devise appropriate public policy, establish effective safety regulations, and modify or abolish dangerous industrial processes—government officials, company executives, labor representatives, community activists, and ordinary citizens” (p. 61). Dragga and Voss reviewed a series of accident reports and how they portrayed human beings in both the words used and the illustrations, the focus on objects in the accident, the legal and ethical factors governing the publication of people’s photos, the rights to privacy or lack thereof, and the proposition of techniques to humanize reports. Dragga and Voss’s purpose was to use technical communicators’ skills to “communicate clearly the human dimension of accidents, making the loss of lives and the anguish of survivors impossible to ignore” by being sensitive, creative, and ethical (p. 79). Dragga and Voss’s intended audience was technical communicators writing and illustrating accident reports. Dragga and Voss made a solid case for their argument by providing numerous examples of the omission of the victims in accident reports and covering their bases by pointing out the legal issues that accident reporters face when publicizing sensitive information about victims.