Johnson R. R., Salvo M. J. & Zoetewey M. W. (2007).User-Centered Technology in Participatory Culture: Two Decades ‘Beyond a Narrow Conception of Usability Testing.’ IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 50(4), (pp. 320-332). doi: 10.1109/TPC.2007.908730

In Robert R. Johnson, Michael J. Salvo, and Meredith W. Zoetewey (2007) article, “User-Centered Technology in Participatory Culture: Two Decades ‘Beyond a Narrow Conception of Usability Testing’” they argued that “usability requires a balance between empirical observation and rhetoric” (p. 320). Johnson, Salvo, and Zoetewey outlined usability by discussing the “end-of-the-line” problem, the complex relationship between rhetoric and science, efficiency, effectiveness, accuracy, the split between culture and science, human behavior, the “Uniqueness of Individual Perception,” the relationship between humans and technologies, contingencies and probabilities, corporatization, and audience analysis. Johnson, Salvo, and Zoetewey’s purpose was to show that the “long view, exemplified in both scholarship and theorizing, may be inefficient, but it remains the only avenue for innovation and coining new knowledge” (p.330). Johnson, Salvo, and Zoetewey’s intended audience was implied psychologist, technical communicators, and engineers. Johnson, Salvo, and Zoetewey effectively demonstrated the dynamics of usability and its different facets, but there should have been more specific examples of what usability was and why the considerations mentioned were necessary.

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.

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.

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.