s15427625tcq1101_1

In Kelli Cargile Cook’s (2002) article, “Layered Literacies: A Theoretical Frame for Technical Communication Pedagogy” she proposed a “theoretical frame for technical communication pedagogy based on six layered literacies: basic, rhetorical, social, technological, ethical, and critical” (p. 5). Cook synthesized the current narratives surrounding the teaching of technical communication, assessed the six layered literacies (basic, rhetorical, social, technological, ethical, and critical), knowing oneself and the audience, effectively collaborating, working with technologies, knowing your role and how it affects the user-centered design, the ethical force that moves things along towards a center, recognizing ideological power structures and taking action to assist others, and the incorporation of the literacies into the curriculum. Cook’s purpose was to demonstrate that “most importantly, they can use the frame both to promote and to assess the increasingly complex range of knowledge and skills students require to become successful technical and professional communicators in the twenty-first century” (p. 24). Cook’s intended audience was potential and current instructors of technical communication who might need guidance about teaching such complex material. Cook clearly described each type of literacy distinctly and established their importance into the curriculum.

Holladay, D. (2017). Classified conversations: psychiatry and tactical technical communication in online spaces. Technical Communication Quarterly, 26(1), (pp. 8–24). https://doi-org.ezproxy.csupueblo.edu/10.1080/10572252.2016.1257744

In Drew Holladay (2017) article, “Classified Conversations: Psychiatry and Tactical Technical Communication in Online Spaces” he examined the “practices of participants in online mental health discussion forums conversations as they interpret technical documents” (p. 8). Holladay investigated the tactical technical communication used in online mental health forums, the current medical discourse used to diagnose and document mental health, the ethical and humanistic elements at stake, one discussion board focused on PTSD and the other two boards focused on Autism spectrum conditions, the privacy and rights in online spaces, the tactical technical communication used to create parallel social roles, the reliance on secondary sources for information, the reclamation of diagnosed terms to dictate identity, the doubt in medical professionals and skepticism about prescribed medications, and including personal experiences from the patient into medical documents to create a more diversified understanding. Holladay’s purpose was to propose a direct reform of diagnostic language because “such changes to technical documents would afford a place for the disparate, granular accounts of people receiving mental health care in the official record and, perhaps, facilitate the legitimation of their perspectives in local and institutional contexts” (p. 22). Holladay’s intended audience was medical professionals, individuals diagnosed with a mental disorder, and instructors of technical communication seeking inclusive knowledge about how mental disorders should be understood and how specialized knowledge should be made more accessible for everyone and not used as an exclusionary tool. Holladay approached his research by obtaining sufficient Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, giving his participants a voice without explicitly criticizing any one culprit, and skillfully avoiding a bias by simply showing the data and offering a possible solution to the obvious miscommunication.

Blyler, N. (1998). Taking a political turn: The critical perspective and research in professional communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 7(1), 33. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572259809364616

In Nancy Blyler’s (1998) article “Taking a Political Turn: The Critical Perspective and Research in Professional Communication.,” she promoted that “research in professional communication ought to take an increasingly political turn” (p. 1). Blyler investigated the resistance of political communication in a pedagogy setting along with the possibilities, the sources of power, the ethical benefits, the goal of research, the necessary relationship between knowledge and politics, self-conscious recognition, empowerment and emancipation, the relationship between researcher and participant, free and open communication, ideology and subjectivity, disciplines, theoretical perspectives, and methodology. Blyler’s purpose was to demonstrate the realization that “the same benefits in our research that accrue to us from our political turn in our pedagogy: the benefits of empowerment, emancipation, and social action” (p. 12). Blyler’s intended audience was scholars involved in professional communication who may have been weary of incorporating political features. Blyler’s innovative perspective appeared possible in the article, but it would be interesting to see how the funding issues and political logistics evolve.