Tag: Social Justice

Colton, J. S., Holmes, S., & Walwema, J. (2017). From NoobGuides to #OpKKK: Ethics of Anonymous’ Tactical Technical Communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 26(1), (pp. 59–75). https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2016.1257743

In Colton, Holmes, and Walwema’s (2017) article, “From NoobGuides to #OpKKK: Ethics of Anonymous’ Tactical Technical Communication” they analyzed “the ethical thought of feminist philosopher Adriana Cavarero, particularly her concept of vulnerability, as a supplement for those employing tactics for social justice causes” and examined “the technical documents produced by the hacktivist collective Anonymous” (p. 59). Colton, Holmes, and Walwema discussed the problematics of tactics being classified as “an art of the weak,” the suggested body of thought called the “ethics of care,” then examined three of Anonymous’ recent technical communication genres that demonstrated an ambiguous ethical status, ethical justification, discerning whether a tactic aims away or towards “horrorism,” the evaluation of ethics of tactics through vulnerability or unethical tactic, the act of utilizing hacking, and the issue of doxing hacked information with the question of accuracy and credibility. Colton, Holmes, and Walwema’s purpose was to illustrate that “Through the application of care ethics, particular Cavarero’s notion of vulnerability, we have worked to show that tactical technical communication can benefit from supplementation” (p. 73). Colton, Holmes, and Walwema’s intended audience was those deciding whether a tactic was ethical or not and providing them with a different lens to assess each occurrence individually. Colton, Holmes, and Walwema exposed the wide range of unethical tactics and offered suggestions on how to combat the inclusive labeling, which was supported by their incorporation of the three technical communication genres that demonstrated an ambiguous ethical status.

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.