Defining the field of technical communication is a potentially impossible task. In some respects, the process of defining this profession is similar to Sisyphus' eternally futile task: Just as one theory is proposed within the technical communication discourse community, another article is published and the previous theory suddenly collapses. Unlike Sisyphus, however, the members of the discourse community should be able to successfully create a definition of the field based upon the best ideas from previous theories and writings. But who truly holds the power to define the field of technical communication?

It is important to answer this question because the stakes are high: If the field cannot define itself, people outside the field will create their own ill-fitting definitions of technical communication. For example, imagine the definition of technical communication that a product development team manager might have. The manager would probably think about the most common tasks that technical writers perform on the job. From the manager's perspective, these tasks include gathering information from other team members, investigating audience needs, and meeting corporate style guidelines. Although members of the technical communication discourse community perceive their roles as extending well beyond these tasks, it would be easy for this manager to view the purpose and scope of technical communication solely on the basis of these tasks, which would result in a correspondingly narrow definition of the profession for the members of the manager's team.

I believe most technical communicators would prefer to operate under a definition of their profession created within their discourse community. A definition that comes from inside the community would probably offer its members more organizational power than the sort of definition described in the preceding scenario. Throughout this article, I refer to the term "organizational power," which I define as the power available within a group or corporation. In this article, I will examine several recent theories that attempt to recast the boundaries and objectives of technical communication. Specifically, I will examine the resulting organizational power that technical writers would hold, and the lasting effects that the field of technical communication would endure, if the discourse community embraces one of these theories.

In their 1993 article, Slack et al. propose three modes of communication: transmission, translation, and articulation. I will discuss these modes as the starting point for my theory review. I will then locate each theory within one of these three communication modes. Finally, I will conclude this article by reviewing the different theories and their relative value to technical communicators. I believe this process will clarify the potential benefits and problems of each theory, allowing the members of the technical communication discourse community to build upon the most appropriate theory.

Review of the Slack et al. Communication Modes

In their 1993 article, Slack et al. examine the meaning of, and power implicit in, three modes of communication: transmission, translation, and articulation. They examine these modes in the context of technical writers and the relative organizational status they would hold when operating within each mode. They also demonstrate the value to technical communicators of the articulation model: Slack et al. explain how the transmission and translation modes of communication grant relatively little organizational power and meaning to technical communicators.

Slack et al. define the transmission mode of communication in the following terms: "To transmit the sender's meaning as a perfectly executed message is the role of this communicator" (19). To phrase this definition in organizational terms, the technical writer operating in the transmission mode would need to gather the information directly from the subject matter experts (the senders) and transmit it with perfect clarity to the organization's customers (the receivers).

In this communication mode, the senders control the meaning of the information being transmitted, which grants them the vast share of power within the organization. The problem with this model, as Slack et al. define it, is the loss of all meaning and power from a technical communication standpoint: "Technical writers, who are rendered transparent and seen as contributing no meaning, possess no power […] whenever communication is deemed successful" (19). Of course, if the communication is unsuccessful, "technical writers can always be held responsible […]" (Slack et al. 19). Slack et al. see this possibility as a type of "negative power," which is even less desirable than a loss of positive power (19).

In response to this inadequate view of technical communication, Slack et al. cite "numerous contenders in the struggle to define the view developed in contradistinction to the transmission view […]" (20). Due to the large number of contenders trying to create a universal definition for the translation mode, Slack et al. analyze this mode in more detail than the transmission mode. Ultimately, they define the translation mode in the following terms: "Communication is not a linear process […] from sender to receiver, but a process of negotiation in which sender and receiver. both contribute […] to the construction of meaning" (20). Thus, "The acts of encoding and decoding [the information being conveyed] are […] both active processes in the circuit of meaning production" (21). Finally, "It is as though the practices of encoding and decoding are practices of translation […]" (21, emphasis original).

This fluidity of meaning results in a similarly fluid balance of power: "Communication is thus an ongoing struggle for power, unevenly balanced toward encoding" (Slack et al. 22, emphasis original). The translation mode does empower the technical writer to become a "technical communicator," which leads to a new realm of skills that must be taught ( Slack et al. 23). Slack et al. cite the following skills as necessary to the creation of a technical communicator: "familiarity with the technical field of the sender […]"; "familiarity with the principles of rhetoric and composition […] to ensure that the communicator will know how to fix meanings"; research into "rhetoric (as the art of persuasion), composition, audience analysis, and reader-response […]"; and "attention to power and ethics […]" (23). Finally, "Most educators acknowledge that it would be a good idea for students to understand politics, power, and ethics […]" (Slack et al. 25).

Ultimately, the translation view is inadequate because: "translation based on the model of encoding and decoding limits our understanding of the full authorial contribution and power of the mediator" (Slack et al. 25). Additionally, "the translator is seen as an expert, but only in mediating, not authoring, meanings" (Slack et al. 30). Slack et al. advocate for a third view, the articulation mode of communication, in part because it empowers the technical communicator more completely. They also prefer this mode because the balance of power is more diverse; in the process of communicating a message, the ability to create meaning is no longer assigned to a single actor.

In the articulation mode, "meaning […] can be understood as an articulation that moves through ongoing processes of rearticulation" (Slack et al. 27). Therefore, meaning is negotiated between sender, receiver, and the medium itself, with a greater amount of equality of power shared by all (Slack et al. 27). Power is "that which draws and redraws the lines of articulation," a task that is up to the technical communicator in the articulation mode of communication (Slack et al. 28). As Slack et al. restate it, "Power is thus what works to fix meanings, that which empowers some possibilities and disempowers others" (28, emphasis original).

When viewed through the "lens" of the articulation mode, the practice of technical communication takes on new importance (Slack et al. 29). The meaning of authorship changes, as do the teaching methods within technical communication departments across the country. However, Slack et al. point to a specific change that is particularly relevant to this paper: a change in the way the technical communication discourse community interprets its own theories and writings. The final sentence in the Slack et al. article states, "This understanding [of the power of technical discourse] would thus empower the discourse of technical communicators be recognizing their full authorial role" (33). I see this sentence as a clarion call for scholars to identify their theories within the context of the three communication modes that Slack et al. define.

In the next section, I will take up the challenge that Slack et al. present in their article: I will locate several theories within the Slack et al. communication modes based on how each theory defines the organizational role of technical communicators. Specifically, I will review selected writers whose theories call for a shift in thinking regarding the purpose of the technical communicator at work. Although it predates the Slack et al. article, I chose to include an analysis of the Allen article precisely because it reveals the dangers inherent in attempting to define the technical communication field. Although I think Allen's conclusions are flawed, her argument offers a useful viewpoint from which the Slack et al. article can be regarded. The other scholars examined here published their theories after the publication of the Slack et al. article.

Advocates of the Transmission Mode

Patrick Moore advocates for a shift toward the teaching of instrumental discourse in technical communication programs. As Moore states in his article on instrumental discourse,

By allowing rhetorical theory to dominate writing programs, by defining rhetoric in an all-inclusive way, and by ignoring or devaluing instrumental uses of language, college teachers may be making their students less effective in the marketplace[…]. (105-6)

Moore sees "rhetoric" as a harmful agent: "The influence of rhetoric and composition […] on technical communication does not seem to have benefited technical communication students" (104). The "benefit" that students should derive from their education is actually a measure of their ability to function successfully in the corporate world. Moore confirms this inference by stating that the purpose of a college education in technical communication is "to prepare [students] well for writing in the marketplace" (105).

Although Moore sees instrumental discourse as a complement to rhetorical theory, the examples of instrumental discourse that he gives encompass the vast majority of a technical writer's professional output (106-7). Specifically, Moore believes "rigorously instrumental" forms of communication include texts that "govern, guide, control, and help people execute physical actions" (108). When writing documents for these purposes, "technical writers […] are more cautious about limiting the interpretations and overtones of their words" (Moore 108).

Therefore, according to Moore, technical writers who successfully achieve this standard add no meaning to the words they write: They simply convey information as clearly as possible, without adding any room for interpretation (because a writer's interpretation might lead to misinterpretation). This model of communication fits the Slack et al. definition of transmittive communication, a model that holds no real organizational power for technical communicators.

In a similar vein, and in direct support of Moore's article, John Hagge also advocates in favor of instrumental discourse as the model for technical communication pedagogy. In his article in response to Patrick Moore and Carolyn Miller, Hagge makes his position clear immediately: "in opposition to Miller and followers, I believe that facts are not human constructions–that an external world of irreducible, 'brute' facts exists independently of humans […]" (463). Miller would place Hagge in the "positivist" camp for this comment alone, but Hagge believes this nomenclature is intentionally derisive and misleading: "the bugbear of positivism gets used to drive people into the rhetorical, constructionist camp […]" (463).

Hagge sees language as something that can be manipulated through the use of rhetorical devices. He sees "facts" as irrefutable things to be identified and described "objectively" using a specific dictionary definition for the word "objective" (464). He further defines technical writers as professionals who adhere to clarity above all else within their work: "[Scientific and technical writing authors] shun deliberately loaded language, avoid purely personal attacks, and eschew subjective special pleading" (464).

Miller classifies this separation of facts and description of the facts as belonging to a "window-pane" theory of the world. According to this theory, readers view the "facts" through a "window" of language that strives to be as transparent as possible so as to render the facts with "absolute clarity" (Miller 613). From Hagge's perspective, meaning resides within these facts, and it is the task of the technical writer to convey the meaning as clearly as possible, without relying upon "loaded" or "subjective" language. This perspective is quite similar to the Shannon and Weaver transmission theory that Slack et al. cite: "Meaning is something that is 'packaged up' by the sender, shipped out, and 'unwrapped' by the receiver, who can then act or think accordingly" (16).

The problem with Hagge's theory is its relative disempowerment of technical communicators. When the members of an organization regard language as something that must be deconstructed to reveal the facts, or when they regards facts as entities separate from language, the organizational role of the technical communicator suffers. Hagge calls for "nonrhetorical, instrumental language [to be] recognized as a valid, useful discourse mode," but his call for this mode implicitly forbids the technical writer from determining which facts need to be communicated nonrhetorically (473). For Moore and Hagge, it is the scientists and engineers who learn the facts and who call upon the technical writers to convey those facts accurately. This transmissive mode of communication relegates the entire field of technical communication to a clerical role within the larger organizational context.

Advocates of the Translation Mode

In her article on the possible roles of the technical communicator, Amare uses C.P. Snow as an exemplar of the technical writer persona. Referring to this idealized persona, Amare rejects the transmission mode for technical writers: "the proper connection between technology and users is not to be based on the technical communicator as mediating conduit, but rather based on a higher encompassing culture" (129). Although she initially challenges the validity of the translator label, Amare decides that the translator role is highly appropriate for technical communicators (130-1). Amare sees technical communicators as "technically savvy" people who "know how to 'make sense' of a discourse community" (131). Based in part on this perception, Amare believes that technical communicators serve as translators between "competing discourse fields" (132).

Amare encourages this translator definition: She identifies technicians and users as two opposing discourse fields, and she identifies the technical communicator's role as the translator between these fields (130-131). Interestingly, Amare warns technical communicators not to "define themselves against the development team, management, and users" (129, emphasis original). She describes this self-definition as wrong because it "may not necessarily enable the technical communicator to win the either/or battle" (129-30). However, Amare sees this "either/or battle" as a battle between technicians and users (130). By encouraging technical communicators to remove themselves from this power struggle, Amare renders communicators nearly powerless in organizational terms.

Regardless of her idealistic view of the discipline of technical communication, Amare's definition of the discipline explicitly defines its members as translators. In her 1991 article, Jo Allen also refers to C.P. Snow in the context of the ongoing attempt to establish a concrete definition for technical writing. Allen sides with Amare by rejecting the either/or approach to discipline classification because it engenders an "exclusionary tone" among its members (75). But while Amare wants to narrow the definition of the technical communication discipline, Allen sees any definition of the field of technical communication as an unnecessary, potentially harmful contrivance.

Based on the "historical problems surrounding any attempt" to define the field of technical communication, Allen believes "that no definition will adequately describe what [technical communicators] do" (76). However, she also provides at least one idea about what a successful definition of the discipline would include: "Because technical writing is a recursive process […] it seems pretty clear that any definition of technical writing should focus on what the writing does and not on what the writing is about" (72).

Allen sees the process of definition as a process of exclusion: The definition of a discipline is primarily a description what it is not, or does not contain. By describing the concepts that technical communication does not include, Allen constructs her own "exclusionary definition," ending with a collection of excluded ideas about technical communication. For example, Allen spurns the transmission model as a valid definition of technical communication, citing Britton as a specific proponent of this model (70). Allen also criticizes Dobrin's definition because "it is flawed with the same kind of experience-based assumptions for which Dobrin has criticized others" (70). Allen then cites a few reasons why any future attempt to define the discipline would fail: the problematic inflection of the term "technical writing"; the need to determine which subject matter is "technical" and which style of writing is sufficiently "technical"; the differences in the definition of "clarity" between discourse communities; and the difficulties associated with finding a piece of technical writing to study empirically (71-3). All of these problems lead to additional problems, and the cumulative effect in Allen's article is the creation of an impenetrable thicket of problems through which no path can be cut.

Because Allen advocates against any concrete definition for technical communication, it is difficult to decide which communication mode she would prefer. Based on certain tenets of technical communication that she cites as important, it seems more logical to claim that Allen would align herself with the translation model.

Allen describes the role of the technical communicator as a translator of meaning: "It seems ironic, considering the role technical writing often plays as the bridge between the sciences and humanities, that we should be so close to creating […] our own split […]" (75). In her article, she clearly wants to leave the theorizing to the academics, and to enable the professional communicators get back to work. This isolationist attitude does nothing to empower technical communicators within their organizations, which is the primary value of the articulation mode of communication. And because Allen explicitly rejected the transmission mode, she would be left with only the translation mode.

Advocates of the Articulation Mode

The articulation mode of communication, the final mode that Slack et al. describe, has influenced other scholars who have covered similar territory in the years since 1993. Some scholars, such as Jim Henry, explicitly construct their theories around the Slack et al. article. Henry uses the Slack et al. article to structure his own ideas about the field of technical communication: His articles clearly favor the articulation mode of communication (Henry 1994; Henry 1995). Other scholars, such as Corey Wick and Jack Bushnell, propose theories that strongly relate to the theory of Slack et al. Wick does not incorporate the ideas of Slack et al. explicitly, while Bushnell cites Slack et al. but does not discuss their ideas at length. However, both scholars' theories offer different, somewhat revolutionary models of organizational power; therefore, they are worth examining in the context of the Slack et al. article.

In his article on the content of technical writing classes, Bushnell certainly advocates teaching prospective technical communicators to operate within the articulation mode. Bushnell discusses his own college experiences, concluding that "I had not been trained to follow an efficiency model or to anticipate what 'bosses want'; instead, I had been taught to think and write in a way that would make my ideas impossible to ignore […]" (185). He uses his experience to reject the transmission and translation modes of communication currently being taught: "we teach [our students] more or less how to gather information and present it […] in a clear, organized way" (Bushnell 185).

In one sense, Bushnell is responding to Peter Moore's call for technical communication programs to heed business needs and produce information transmitters. In fact, Bushnell appears to respond directly to Moore: "Our job [in academia] is not to be like the corporation; that does no one any good, despite short-term perceptions by some in industry and (apparently) a great many in academia" (184, emphasis and parentheses original). Unlike Moore, Bushnell is an advocate for the continued separation of the university and the corporation.

In a broader sense, Bushnell wants to shift the focus of the technical communicator's professional role from corporate "do-ers" to academic "thinkers" (Bushnell 185). This shift entails the empowerment of technical communicators to go beyond transmitting information clearly, or translating information to make concepts clear to another audience. Bushnell argues in favor of teaching students how to articulate meaning successfully in order to be better critical thinkers. This skill would allow students to elevate their own organizational roles upon entering the corporate environment (although Bushnell does not explicitly state this elevation as the goal of his theory).

Corey Wick advocates a similar refocusing of the dominant educational paradigm within technical communication. However, Wick has different interests than Bushnell: Wick is interested in associating the academia of technical communication more closely with the business world. Specifically, Wick wants to change the current paradigm for one reason: to align the field of technical communication more closely with the burgeoning field of knowledge management.

Slack et al. discuss the need for "technical communicators to learn more about the technical content of their work" so they can be more effective, more ethical authors (32). Specifically, they claim the need to learn the technical content more thoroughly:

can be understood as easily articulated to the conception of the communicator as author. Such technical knowledge can provide the backdrop for sound, ethical decision making, as well as for competent transmission and translation. (32-3)

Wick makes the same argument, but for a different reason: to help ease the process of the paradigm shift. As Wick states the issue,

The most obvious ways in which technical communicators can [change paradigms] is to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the technologies that serve knowledge management as well as business in general. (527)

In order to align technical communication with knowledge management, Wick believes that "[technical communicators] must develop a functional understanding of the technologies involved with knowledge management" (527).

One problem Wick sees with the current paradigm is its "document-centered view of knowledge management, a view that derives from the way in which we have traditionally defined ourselves: by the products we produce" (527). Wick wants to shift this definition: "we must redefine ourselves […] by our competencies and the knowledge and expertise that underlie them" (527). Shifting the way technical communicators define themselves, as Wick suggests, would mean a closer alignment with the articulation mode of communication.

Wick defines the current technical communication paradigm as one that obliges technical writers to be judged (and to judge themselves) based on whether they successfully convey information to their audience. But in the transmission and translation modes, the writer has little to do with the creation of the information: Neither of these modes empowers the writer to help articulate the meaning behind the text. If the paradigm shifts to rely upon the articulation mode of communication, technical writers would help to mediate and define the knowledge being presented. Therefore, it would be easier to define the organizational value of technical writers: value would be based on the ability to help create original knowledge rather than to transmit or translate another person's knowledge. In this sense, technical communicators would become knowledge workers, a role that Wick advocates and that only the articulation mode of communication facilitates.

Conclusions

Moore and Hagge believe in the transmission mode of communication, which would offer the least amount of organizational power to technical communicators. An organization that relies upon the transmission mode of communication would contain managers that believe the purpose of the documentation team is to clearly transcribe and transmit meaning. That team would offer its members a minimal amount of organizational power, and would leave them with a relatively slim chance for positive power or recognition.

Amare and, to a certain degree, Allen believe the translation mode is more appropriate for technical communicators. This mode may empower writers to become communicators, but the analogy between technical communication and translation does not grant enough organizational power to technical writers. Within an organization that relies upon the translation mode, technical communicators have a small amount of power over the meaning of their writing; however, the subject matter experts still decide which meaning should be translated, rendering the writer unable to advocate for alternate meanings.

If the transmission and translation modes of communication are inadequate bases for a new definition of technical communication, what about the articulation mode? Slack et al. believe technical writers must operate within the articulation mode of communication inside an organization in order to possess the necessary power to hold a truly meaningful role. In terms of offering the chance to gain organizational power, the articulation mode seems to be quite promising.

The theories of Wick and Bushnell use the articulation mode of communication for two different purposes. Wick attempts to associate technical communication instruction more closely with the corporate world, a move that he believes will empower technical communicators to become managers within their organizations, which would in turn allow them to instill new values about their field within their organizations. Bushnell prefers to hold separate the areas of technical communication pedagogy and practice; he wants to equip technical communication students with more substantial critical thinking skills, allowing those students to enter the working world and to challenge the paradigms they encounter within that world.

Both of these approaches offer potentially valuable paths for the field of technical communication. Both approaches start in the classroom, where Bushnell and Wick call upon the teachers of technical communication to shift their own perspectives on the field in order to teach their students a new message. Of the scholars examined in this article, Bushnell and Wick offer the most potentially empowering options to technical communicators; however, both theories could also lead to serious crises.

The field of knowledge management is very new and currently requires its own process of definition. I believe that if the technical communication discourse community takes Wick's theory as the foundation for self-definition, the community will need to revisit its definition as knowledge management itself is redefined over the coming years. If, as Wick hopes, the field of technical communication tightly aligns itself with knowledge management, and if knowledge management turns out to be a professional dead end, future scholars will be forced to extricate the field of technical communication from knowledge management. But even if knowledge management becomes an integral part of every corporate environment, as a field it will undergo changes that will ripple through technical communication, resulting in a need for redefinition in both fields.

Bushnell's theory appears to offer relatively little risk and great rewards for technical communicators. I agree that the academic and corporate environments should remain separate within the field of technical communication; otherwise, academic programs will become little more than extended training sessions for the working world, potentially annihilating the theoretical underpinnings of the field. The danger with Bushnell's theory rests not in his interest in this separation, but in his strongly adversarial attitude toward the corporate world.

If the scholars insist upon a definition of technical communication that is irreconcilably different from the experience of the professional writers, a rift will open and two different discourse communities will be formed. One community will contain the scholars, whose theories and research will seem alien to the other community: the professional, corporate community. This division into two communities will cause the professional community to define itself in opposition to the academic community, which could ultimately result in two different definitions of technical communication. I believe if this situation were to occur, it would be a disaster: It is probably easier to create a single definition for a single discourse community than it is to recombine two opposing communities under one definition.

I believe the articulation mode of communication is itself a decent foundation for a definition of technical communication. With varying degrees of success, Wick, Bushnell, and even Amare used the Slack et al. article as a touchstone for the creation of new, intriguing theories. Although I believe these theories are imperfect and could create serious issues for the field of technical communication, the field itself will only be healthy as long as its scholars and professionals continue to theorize about the meaning of its existence.

Works Cited

Allen, Jo. "The Case Against Defining Technical Writing." Journal of Business and Technical Communication 4 (1990): 68-77.

Amare, Nicole. "The Culture(s) of the Technical Communicator." IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 45 (2002): 128-32.

Bushnell, Jack. "A Contrary View of the Technical Writing Classroom: Notes Toward Future Discussion." Technical Communication Quarterly 8 (1998): 175-88.

Hagge, John. "Ethics, Words, and the World in Moore's and Miller's Accounts of Scientific and Technical Discourse." Journal of Business and Technical Communication 10 (1996): 461-75.

Henry, Jim. "Toward Technical Authorship." Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 24 (1994): 449-61.

________. "Teaching Technical Authorship." Technical Communication Quarterly 4, no. 3 (Summer 1995): 245-59.

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): 100-18.

Slack, Jennifer Daryl, David James Miller, and Jeffrey Doak. "The Technical Communicator as Author: Meaning, Power, Authority." Journal of Business and Technical Communication 7 (1993): 12-36.

Wick, Corey. "Knowledge Management and Leadership Opportunities for Technical Communicators." Technical Communication 47 (2000): 515-29.