As technical communication teachers, we have the power to influence the status of our field and foster an understanding of good communication skills. We also face the struggle of imparting writing and speaking fundamentals as well as promoting advanced skills such as variation and innovation. My own experiences as a remedial technical communication teacher, taught me to seek methods for expanding beyond basic core skills. I wanted students to develop the ability to deviate from restrictive formats and make their own decisions. I hoped to make the classroom a place of empowerment and appreciation for technical communication. Anyone who has ever taught will understand that this is an enormous task to undertake. Every time I walk into the classroom, I face the decision about what information to disseminate, what methods of delivery to adapt, and what type of learning environment to promote. These choices present an enormous gamut of possibilities.

Sifting through the various technical communication theories on pedagogy proved just as difficult. I discovered that many complicated struggles and limitations revolve around the historical struggle between two diametrically opposed theories. Humanism and positivism represent two distinct spectrums of thought. Humanism values the power of language as a tool to inform and persuade. It advocates the art of rhetoric as a superior method for creating interesting and engaging documents. In contrast, positivism values clarity, conciseness, and objectivity. Inside and outside the classroom the struggle between these schools of thought has never reached resolution.

This split in philosophies forced me to seek a unifying theory. I looked for one cohesive element in the array of pedagogical theories, which would connect the diversity I encountered. I found this unifying force in the notion of community. This notion established by Stanley Fish, holds that a community functioning within an established set of common beliefs, vocabulary, and methodology can interpret and judge for themselves what they will and will not accept. Communities unite professionals, academics, and students in the common pursuit of interpretation and understanding. I believe that transferring the communal approach into the classroom removes authority from teachers instilling it in students. It teaches that students have the power and ability to make decisions for themselves.

The opposition between humanism and positivism is essential to understanding the possibilities for resolution in the community. Advocates for humanism often challenge the conventions established by positivism. One of the most influential advocates for humanism in technical communication is Carolyn Miller. Despite the fact that her article was written in 1979, her ideas remain a dominant force for humanistic theory. Miller discusses positivist science as an out-of-date ideology, which assigns importance to objectivity and rationality while simultaneously condemning rhetoric as subjective and emotional. For Miller positivism is a historical phenomenon, which continues to shape our view of technical communication. By splitting science into a desirable category of logic and rhetoric into an undesirable category of emotion, positivism has instructed us to believe that there is no use for rhetoric in good technical writing.

Miller criticizes positivism as influencing the way in which we view education within technical communication. "I wish to argue 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" (610). She suggests that teaching basic skills in this system diminishes the value of our courses as well as our professional value. Teaching technical communication from the positivist perspective limits the power and potential for our field. Miller asserts "No wonder that technical writing is a course that anyone can teach and no one wants to teach" (614). Limiting course work to rules and regulations prevents students from valuing the class. By merely presenting basic skills at an undergraduate level, teachers degrade the value and status of technical communication.

A large portion of Miller's argument examines the attitude toward technical communication inside and outside of the profession. In my remedial technical communication course, I felt challenged to prove the worth of writing to engineers. Because the engineers were resistant to a subject that was unfamiliar and uncomfortable, I struggled to justify the importance of good writing skills in their careers. Miller explains that this situation stems from positivism, which assigns value to the act of science and makes writing superfluous. Miller says, "We teach writing as the ex post facto expression of a scientific idea or a technical effort, not as part of that idea or that effort" (615). Writing is taught as an afterthought of a scientific action. As long as we teach students that writing has a subordinate position, they will resist learning.

Because Miller's plea for a humanistic approach to teaching technical communication was so opinionated, many theorists have disputed her claims over the years. Patrick Moore wrote one of the strongest arguments against Miller in 1987. Patrick Moore directly challenges Miller with the assertion that rhetoric has been stretched too far in technical communication. He believes that the benefits of "non-rhetorical language" have been dismissed too easily. He states that overemphasis on rhetoric has left students unprepared for real word tasks. He cites an STC board of directors workshop as stating "Our graduates' backgrounds are too theoretical, and many lack expertise in such practical areas as time management, critical thinking, and interviewing techniques" (105). Moore pushes the idea that students need to learn real world tasks and skills as well as the intricacies of rhetorical devices.

Moore's solution to the division between rhetorical and objective methods is to develop one clear and unanimous meaning for a word. Moore adopts the term standardization to describe the process of consensus within a group. Moore stresses that this standardization is a social experience and therefore a creative pursuit of common values. He promotes standardization as a powerful method of writing for technical communicators. Moore believes that the ambiguity of language has the potential for harming people. It becomes our responsibility to save lives and help others by ending the inherent confusion of language. Moore cites several medical cases where incorrect injections resulted in the deaths of patients. He suggests that clear language would have saved the lives of these individuals. Moore also suggests that technical communicators are the backbone to the basic human and social needs within a community. "Yet, all are important to minimize human pain and suffering, save lives, and help us live happier, more productive lives" (112). Technical communicators should be valued for their efforts to explain and clarify our resources, scientific developments, and technological innovations.

Moore's sentiments attempt to present technical communicators as valuable assets to any corporation. They do behind-the-scenes work but the work is essential to the survival of the human race. Moore believes that doing this work well will naturally result in the attention and recognition we deserve. Moore suggests that the best way to lift the status of technical communication is through hard work. He instructs writers to follow standardization dutifully. In Moore's model, there is no room for questioning or interpreting because vagueness leads to pain. He says, "Too many institutions can be destroyed, and too many people can get hurt or die if teachers, scholars, and universities continue to ignore the instrumental aims of discourse" (115). Moore pushes technical writers to believe that doing their jobs well and maintaining obedience will bring technical communicators the respect they deserve. He calls for obedience and standardization limiting our ability as technical communicators to expand our roles, status, and teaching methods. He fails to place technical communicators in a position of power. Instead, we become interchangeable parts in a machine.

The arguments of Miller and Moore represent the classic struggle between humanism and positivism within the technical communication field. Reading Miller's bold statements about introductory technical communication classes struck a familiar chord with my own experience as a teacher. Her obvious disapproval for the limiting roles of teachers and students in a basic skills environment shaped my concern for the teaching methods employed in my course. However, I still recognized a need for these basic skills. How could I ever expect students to become expert writers without a sound knowledge and emphasis of fundamental concepts?

The ongoing struggle between these competing schools of thought makes it difficult to determine one possible solution. With all the dissention and conflict, it becomes challenging to find an answer for any question in technical communication. In order to discover an improved method for teaching I had to look beyond the clashing paradigms and find a theory that would bring resolution to the division.

Since Stanley Fish first introduced the interpretive community in 1989, it has offered resolution to debate within technical communication. Fish set out to resolve the long disputed problem between assigning authority to the reader or the writer. His answer was to "absorb" the power of these separate entities and place all power in the hands of an outside interpretive community (142). The interpretive community is then free to organize the world according to the goals and interests of the group. The interpretive community yields an incredible amount of power. We as technical communicators can choose what to believe based on established ideas, context, meaning, and genre. Not only do we have free choice, but we also have authority to make these decisions.

James P. Zappen takes Fish's interpretive communities a step further with the notion of discourse communities. Zappen, also writing in 1989, expands on Fish's interpretive community by insisting that technical communicators look beyond their own discipline and institutions to society at large. "Studies in scientific and technical communication that identify the discourse community with the larger interdisciplinary and social community suggest the need to study and teach modes of communication that cut across the boundaries that separate disciplines and organizations from each other and from the public" (9). The scope of our profession can broaden to reach beyond the confines of academia or industry. We should not limit ourselves to technical communication, when our ideas have potential relevance to society as a whole.

While researching better teaching methods, I recognized a strong connection among communal interpretation, discourse communities, and theories of pedagogy. Technical communication theories, which incorporated methods for communal learning, appealed to me as a teacher. I found pieces of each theory applicable and interesting, however, the one unifying force remained community. The remainder of this paper examines the benefits for education offered by several theories, which emphasize the power of communal learning.

Since technical communicators lack one absolute vision of who we are, it is challenging to find one encompassing theory to advocate as a solution to our educational system. This understanding led me to piece together ideas from several theorists. This method ties directly to the theory of Rachel Spilka. Spilka states "along with the proliferation of alternative theories about technical writing has emerged a predictable response: many instructors of technical writing are clinging to a single theory, that technical writing is always objective or always subjective, or always fictional or always 'real,' and are passing along these single theories to their students. (147). Spilka asks that technical communicators consider more that one theory as an answer to our differences. Instead of using one unfaltering teaching methodology, seek a variety of sources for involving students in the learning process.

Spilka emphasizes bringing this variety to the classroom. By broadening our methods, we open "valuable avenues of inquiry" for our students. (148). Supporting a variance of methods for teaching audience analysis, Spilka introduces the concept of the "audience continuum" (148). Spilka recommends analyzing, comparing, and rating our teaching methods through this continuum. She points out that we have little proof of any one teaching method being completely effective. Therefore, teachers should implement a variety of methods. Spilka suggests combining lecture, classroom exercises, and oral presentations to teach students. She deviates from the authoritative structure of positivism by emphasizing student interaction and involvement. However, she maintains that the essential skill of audience analysis must be learned.

One of the most insightful aspects of Spilka's theory is her notion of "providing students with real rhetorical situations and real audiences" (151). Spilka suggests that assigning students real life scenarios such as a proposal or report based on a real company will build the strongest connection and interest between the student and her work. "We have noticed that when given 'real' communication tasks, our students seem to evaluate their work more carefully before, during, and after the writing process, and to place more value on what they are learning in the class" (151). Inviting my own students to treat their assignments as real world endeavors has been a rewarding experience. Students who write proposals or reports with a real company or organization are motivated to do it well. Their interest in this organization promotes a tangible reason for learning the strategies of good writing. Encouraging students to choose their own topic and company suggests that the teacher values and trusts the abilities of her students. It implies that the students have control over their progress and development in the course.

In addition to giving students a sense of real world relevance, we can teach that deviation from rigid formats is acceptable. Typically, remedial courses in technical communication employ the use of genre to explain audience expectations. The concept of genre can be very helpful for explaining why audiences expect a different format from a poem than a report. Genre can also be limiting to a student's possibilities when teachers instruct blind adherence to lists of strict rules and regulations. Thomas Kent discusses the theories surrounding genre and its uses. He proposes that the traditional representations of genre present a "prescriptive and rigid taxonomy." In this model, genre works to restrict students by enforcing a set of rules on them. Kent specifically cites Wilkinson, Clarke, and Wilkinson's model of the business letter as an example of rigid genre. Their textbook divides business letters into simplistic A-plan, B-plan, and C-plan letters. (233). These prescriptive categories rely on typical textbook situations such as the bad news letter to create inflexible formats for students to follow. Kent explains, "letters are reduced to generic formulas, and these formulas are further reduced to step-by-step instructions or what Wilkinson, Clarke, and Wilkinson call 'checklists'" (233). Kent suggests that these checklists narrow the variations possible for students. What happens if there is no checklist for the type of situation that they encounter? Strict adherence to "catalogues of rules" can not help the student who encounters a scenario outside the text.

Kent asserts that modern genre theory can transcend the traditional "fixed and rule-bound taxonomies." Breaking from traditional restrictive models of genre and examining the flexibility within these structures can provide new insights. Kent explains, "In fact, composition pedagogy and the area of business writing in particular might be considerably strengthened if certain principles from contemporary genre theory were incorporated into our textbooks and class rooms" (237). Thinking of genre as a dynamic concept instead of something fixed in time frees the writer to expand the rules of any given genre. Genres by nature shift and expand throughout time. Kent points out that the modern novel does not accurately represent its predecessors. When teaching the concept of genre, Kent instructs us to "move beyond production rules" and change to "flexible guidelines" (239). He stresses the need to explore alternate ways for presenting the same information. Instead of limiting students to one format, encourage them to look at a variety of "strategies for problem solving."

Beyond assignments and instructions, students need to feel that their learning environment is positive and encouraging. Before the classroom can become a "student friendly" environment, teachers must understand how students process information. Stephen Katz suggests using the "sociology of knowledge" to understand language and methods for teaching it. He cites Susanne Langer's theory of symbolization to support the social function of knowledge. Langer believes that "symbol-making" is essential to all human activities. Perception relies on the "symbolization" of information. She states that "All 'facts' undergo symbolic transformation. Thus, there is no essential difference between science and art as symbolic activities" (361). Humans understand the world we live in with symbols. We can not interact with each other or comprehend complicated matter without symbols. The understanding of science relies on this symbolic approach just as heavily as art does.

Katz emphasizes the ideas of David Bleich as modern expansion on the theories of Langer. Bleich expands Langer's theory to explain what he names "resymbolization" or symbolizing knowledge by transforming it into "a more subjectively satisfying form" (361). Bleich suggests that this resymbolization can be transferred into the classroom because it is a "process of social adaptation and growth." The classroom can be thought of as a community of interpreters. Bleich suggests that ideas should be presented to a class and then interpreted, or resymbolized, through consensus within the group. Katz points out that teaching in an inductive manner places students in a position of authoritative power. It places teachers and students together in a communal effort toward learning and interpreting.

Katz suggests that in addition to treating the classroom as a community for interpretation, the classroom can be a source of discussion and debate. Katz cites Peter Elbow's idea that students who write and read out loud can receive and give immediate feedback. Elbow suggests creating this environment helps students to learn how to adapt audience response into the revision of their writing. "This communal response from a real audience, at once present and alive, can be used to teach writing as a subjective and social process of invention and revision" (366). Teaching students to share writing in an oral forum provides the opportunity for writers to interact directly with their audience. Experiencing immediate audience feedback allows students to break away from the pressure of imagining a reader. Elbow says, "the best writing has voice, the life and rhythms of speech…Speech helps us get our meanings integrated into our words" (367). Imitating the variation and personal interaction of speech in writing may help students to improve as writers.

Despite the plethora of theories in the late eighties advocating change in the classroom, today the issue remains unsolved. Theorists still grapple with the problem of incorporating non-authoritative, revisionary teaching methods into the classroom. Jack Bushnell, published in 1999, voices his anger and resentment that positivism still influences technical communication pedagogical methods. Bushnell's frustrations are highly vocal and subversive. He lashes out against his peers and his community with a page long citation attacking technical communicators who have an "overwhelming emphasis on practical, training-orientated scholarship" (178). Bushnell posts the names of each offender with the defiance and outrage that Martin Luther must have felt toward the Catholics. He targets his attack at teaching methods, which encourage students to be good workers and not good thinkers. He sees the growing influence of corporate America on this profession. Educational practices often emphasize becoming a valuable asset to a company instead of a free thinker. He believes that teaching students to spur innovative ideas that distinguish them from the norm is the answer to the current problematic approach.

Bushnell's critique of current technical communication teaching devices suggests that the tension between positivism and humanism is thriving. The great debate between objectivity and subjectivity rages on without resolution. "As teachers of technical communication, we often find ourselves in a kind of liminal space between the liberal arts (or generally humanistic) world of the university and the primarily economically driven world of industry" (177). Bushnell aligns the demands of industry with the positivist view. Teaching students to please managers with clarity, speed, and conciseness feeds into the misguided goals of positivism. Bushnell cautions teachers in our profession to avoid the tempting role as a "bridge" between industry and academia. Instead, he advocates pushing students to become "critical thinkers" recognizing the complexities of communication (177). He takes his position a step further by placing all members of technical communication industry and academia in absolute opposition. "The whole point is that the community of the workplace and the community of the university are distinct" (184). Bushnell contends that there is a huge divide between the goals of each group.

While Bushnell's evaluation of the tension between industry and academia are very relevant, technical communication teachers should consider where the pressure to train engineers for industry is coming from. We know that industry pushes universities to produce students that meet their requirements. In turn, they recruit students for internships and jobs increasing the reputation and prestige of the university. More recently, the demands from industry for engineers with good communication skills resulted in the 2000 Accreditation Board for Engineering and technology (ABET) guidelines. ABET developed an evaluation system based on a list of criteria to determine if universities are providing engineers with the proper educational requirements. In her 2002 Technical Communication article, Julia Williams discusses the repercussions of ABET's review system for technical communicators. Williams asks us to acknowledge that ABET's evaluation is a response to industry that has caused radical changes in engineering programs. Because ABET places communication high on its list of priorities, the status for technical communication in engineering departments is higher than ever. Williams see this as an opportunity for taking an active role in changing educational pedagogy.

Williams suggests, "Rather than look on the changes in engineering as someone else's problem, I believe we technical communicators should be paying careful attention to what industry wants, what engineering programs plan to do in response, and what role technical communication may play in affecting these changes" (90). Because of ABET's new standards, engineering programs have been forced to bring communication skills to the top of their lists of things to improve. ABET concentrates more on students' overall learning outcomes than specific skills such as problem solving or mathematics. This is indicated in their list of outcomes where six out of eleven focus on non-technical skills (89). Williams advocates getting involved in the new educational process. She encourages technical communicators to embrace the new emphasis on communication and use it to their advantage.

Unlike Bushnell, who reinforces the divide between industry and academia, Williams pushes technical communicators within both camps to work together toward influencing and improving the communication skills of engineers. She concedes that teachers will now have to consider how to teach engineers about communicating in the workplace. She also adds, "For professional technical communicators, changes in how engineers are trained will provoke changes in technical workplaces, as engineers who were required to incorporate communication into their technical work in college bring new communication skills to their jobs" (90). Industry not only places demands on how engineers should be taught, they also must learn to interact with graduating engineers who meet the ABET requirements. This places industry and academia in a common pursuit. Both parties seek improvement for teaching methods and outcomes for communication skills in engineers.

Williams advocates professional technical communicator's involvement in the engineering educational "revolution." She outlines several methods for industry to work with engineers toward achieving the goals of ABET. One such method is developing a university-industry relationship. She says, "Explore the opportunities for partnering with a technical communication or engineering department to teach a class, supervise an internship, or participate in a campus discussion about communication and engineering" (94). Williams pushes for a partnership between the two competing groups. She urges professionals to take engineering communication skills as an issue that will affect the universities as well as the workplace.

While Williams advocates team involvement and cooperation between industry and academia, Bushnell isolates himself on all sides. He places his ideas and methods for teaching in complete opposition with others. His anger and frustration with the stagnant condition of technical communication theory results in resistance and rebellion against everyone. Bushnell claims that he is aligning himself with Miller, however, he admits "But while she imagines students learning 'how to belong to a community' (617), I want them to learn how to shape that community" (184). He advocates taking charge and control of the community for personal gain. Bushnell sets himself so far outside of the community that there is no reconciliation between existing industry and academia. His crusade against industry does not support a lasting resolution to our problems. He merely suggests that technical communicators adopt his methods for teaching. Ultimately, readers must accept his version of teaching as the only answer to the complex struggle between these two groups.

Bushnell's argument rejects a solution within existing communities. No where in Bushnell's three pages of cited sources are the names of Fish or Zappen. This suggests to the reader that discourse communities have no place in his theory. He seeks methods to change and shape the community by disassociating himself from it. Acceptance of this theory places us in a disadvantage. How can we as technical communicators influence industry if we are estranged from it? Furthermore, how will we influence other institutions and disciplines if our own field is fragmented? Abandoning Fish's interpretive communities and ignoring Zappen's urge to consider the larger social community could be detrimental to our position in the field and in the greater professional world.

Translating this into a theory that I wish to pass on to my students is challenging. I clearly reject the positivist authoritarian model of Moore and the isolation model of Bushnell. However, this leaves me in conflict with a group of technical communicators. I found resolution to the intricate web of clashing opinions in the notion of community. Communities are the source of our power. Whether it is a community in the classroom or the workplace, we rely on its ability to foster productive interpretation as well as shape changes and understanding. Encouraging a communal pursuit of knowledge within the classroom teaches students to decide for themselves what they will accept or reject. Just as allowing formatting and style deviations inspires students to think for themselves, pushing for group work, peer editing, and class discussion emphasizes the importance of student opinions. In addition, building interaction between the communities of academia and the communities of industry allows the possibility to overcome misunderstanding and conflict. The resolution that we seek as teachers and professionals can be found in the power and authority of communities.

Works Cited

Bushnell, Jack. "A Contrary View of the Technical Writing Classroom: Notes Toward Future Discussion." Technical Communication Quarterly 8 (1999): 175-188.

Fish, Stanley. Doing What Comes Naturally. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 1989 (pp. 1, 37, et passim).

Katz, Steven B. "The Epistemic Trend in Rhetorical Theory: A Four-Dimension Review." The Technical Writing Teacher 3 (1987): 355-369.

Kent, Thomas. "Genre Theory in the Aria of Business Writing." The Technical Writing Teacher 2 (1987): 232-241.

Miller, Carolyn R. "A Humanistic Rationale for Technical Writing." College English 40 (1979): 610-17.

Moore, Patrick. "Instrumental Discourse Is as Humanistic as Rhetoric." Journal of Business and Technical Communication 10 (1996): 100-118.

Spilka, Rachel. "The 'Audience Continuum.'" The Technical Writing Teacher 2 (1989): 147-152.

Williams, Julia M. "Technical Communication, Engineering, and ABET's Engineering Criteria 2000: What Lies Ahead?" Technical Communication 49 (2001): 89-95.

Zappen, James P. "The Discourse Community in Scientific and Technical Communication: Institutional and Social Views." Technical Writing and Communication 19 (1989): 1-11.