Power – ENG 591 Tech. Comm.

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.

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.

Tag: Power

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