Tag: Responsibility

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.

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.