The goal of surfing is to catch a wave that will give you the longest, most gratifying ride. And the key to catching such a wave is knowledge and timing. But knowledge and timing are also key elements to catching technology waves. Just as professional surfers acquire their skills through practice and observation, so should professional technical communicators. In order to anticipate which technology wave to catch, technical communicators need to practice their craft as well as analyze the actions and events that have come before.

Since the technological boom that led to the rapid development of the field of technical communication, we seem to be constantly chasing the latest and greatest technology, eternally one step behind. So, how do we get out of this rut and position ourselves so that we’re ready to catch the next wave? Our continual struggle to establish the field of technical communication yet assert dominance over new technological domains seem to be in direct conflict with each other. How can we possibly establish our dominance over a moving target? To answer this question, instead of trying to peer into future, perhaps we need to look toward the past. By analyzing the history of technical communication in the context of technological development, perhaps we can leverage lessons learned to propose possible predictions.

In this paper, I will briefly address the importance of studying history. Next, I will offer a definition for technological determinism and provide a subsequent analysis of the effects two specific technological developments, the DTP revolution and the rise of the Web, on technical communication. I will then discuss the state of the field from both an explicit and implicit perspective. Finally, I will conclude with suggestions for positioning the field of technical communication so that we can successfully catch the next technology wave.

Why study history?

Studying the past to better understand the present is not a new concept for technical communicators. Many scholars have researched the history of technical communication to illustrate how the field has been built on a solid foundation and predict which path the field will follow. Henrietta Shirk, for example, reminds us that, “The past can frequently inform the present – it can tell us where we have been, and it can provide information upon which to make decisions about where we might go in the future. It can also give us a clearer understanding of the present (how it came to be what it is)” (1). In her essay, “Researching the History of Technical Communication: Accessing and Analyzing Corporate Archives,” Shirk makes three assumptions about the benefits of analyzing technical communication history. First, she claims that it is virtually an ethical responsibility for technical communicators to “become informed concerning the origins and history of their profession” (1). Shirk also claims that historical research crosses the divide between scholars and practitioners and that it is “not the sole prerogative of scholars in academic settings, but rather information that can and should be accessed (and assessed) by practitioners” (1). Finally, she reveals that the practical application of historical research is in its ability to expose information that can “better inform and justify present and future standards and practices” (1).

Shirk’s research of corporate archives illustrate how archives can be used to “help better inform current workplace practices” (6). She reiterates three perspectives on the uses of history, originally identified by George Smith and Laurence Steadman: heritage, analogy, and diagnosis (1). The diagnosis perspective, in the context of corporate history as described by Shirk, can help technical communicators in “seeing beyond their own immediate experiences in order to understand their audiences more completely and how current publications evolved to be the way they are” (2). Broadening this assertion, I believe that the diagnosis historical perspective can be used to provide insight into the future development and direction of the field of technical communication. By analyzing documents in the technical communication “domain,” we can identify the ways in which technology has impacted the field and recognize our own response behaviors. Perhaps, then, we can use this information in a predictive manner to not only anticipate the next technological development but also to identify recurring themes and roles that we can establish as a part of our domain. Similar to Shirk, I believe that the lessons learned through conducting historical research from the diagnosis perspective “enhances the identity and professional status of technical communicators” (1). Before beginning this historical analysis, we need a general understanding of how the field came to be what it is today.

What are the historical foundations of technical communication?

Some scholars claim that the beginnings of technical communication can be traced back to “the writings and artifacts of many cultures, including the Aztecs, Chinese, Egyptians, and Babylonians” (O’Hara 1). Whereas the writing of technical documents has been around for centuries, what is critical to our current discussion is the development of technical communication as a profession. According to Robert R. Rathbone, the driving force behind the beginnings of technical writing as a profession was World War II (26). This event prompted the disassociation of writing about science from performing scientific acts when “a special task force was recruited to deliver the paperwork” of scientists and engineers (Rathbone 26). In the post World War II era of the 1950s, technical communication grew in response to wartime technologies being applied to peacetime use (Staples 155). Then, in the 1960s, technologies associated with the Cold War and new market trends, such as proposal writing, spurred the growth of technical communication (Staples 155-156). More recently, the high-tech boom and the computer industry have contributed to further growth of the profession. Not only were each of these events significant to the development of the field of technical communication, but the technologies associated with these events also played a large part in shaping the field into what it is today.

What is technological determinism?

Simply stated, determinism is “a philosophical system…for analyzing cause and effect and the individual’s freedom to choose” (Ebersole, Definitions par. 2). When this definition is applied to technology, it takes on a slightly different characteristic: “The issues raised by technological determinism question the role of technology in shaping our future. To what extent do the tools we make and use determine our behavior” (Ebersole, Definitions par. 3)? Similarly, Merritt R. Smith states “changes in technology exert a greater influence on societies and their processes than any other factor” (Smith 2). On the surface, this assertion may seem like an obvious statement, especially for the field of technical communication. After all, most technical communicators are primarily concerned with the “changes in technology” and how these changes affect society. Technological determinism, however, encompasses a much more complex discussion. In fact, “within this genre of thought and expression one can discern two versions of technological determinism” (Smith 2).

The soft view of technological determinism states that “technological change drives social change but at the same time responds discriminatingly to social pressures” (Smith 2). Meanwhile, the hard view sees “technological development as an autonomous force, completely independent of social constraints” (Smith 2). If we accept the hard view in the context of technical communication, then there seems to be little that we can do to predict or affect the development of technology. The soft view, on the other hand allows society to have some kind of effect on technology and gives technical communicators the opportunity to act as agents of change from within society[1]. This definition of technological determinism affords us a basis for analyzing the effects of technology on society and more specifically, on the field of technical communication.

How has technology affected technical communication?

The invention of the printing press is considered by many to be the one of the most important technological inventions of our time. Since then, there have been many following “inventions of new media for the transmission of information among persons” (Eisenstein 3). From telegraph to television, society seems to have been bombarded by a plethora of new technologies since the printing press. However, there was nothing that could have prepared the fledgling field of technical communication for the rapid development of the computer industry and subsequently the Internet. Descriptions of these events note that “the term ‘desktop publishing’ did not even exist before 1985, and yet 1986 and 1987 have been banner years for books, magazines, and videotapes on the subject” (Brockmann 30). Texts of the time also describe how the rapid development and adoption of the Web created a “snowball effect of exponentially rising numbers of readers and writers” (Berners-Lee 80). There seems to be no question as to the speed at which these technologies came into fruition, but how did desktop publishing (DTP) and the Internet specifically affect practicing technical communicators and the profession?

The topic of “technology” is practically unavoidable in discussions about “technical” communication. This subject has been addressed by many scholars, however, of particular interest are scholarly writings that not only broach the topic, but also contribute to the academic discussion by identifying the ways in which technology has affected the profession. Ann Rockley identifies one way in which “new technology” impacted the field of technical communication. In her 2001 article, “The Impact of Single Sourcing and Technology,” Rockley identifies an increased skill set as a tangible result of the technology that has “dominated our profession” (189). Similarly, Frederick M. O’Hara notes “the changes in technology have placed increased demands on the skill levels of technical communicators. They have not made obsolete the core competencies…but they have required new knowledge and capabilities as new job categories have been created, such as desktop publisher, electronic graphic artist, and webmaster” (4). Not only does “this phenomenon challenge[s] technical communicators to hurriedly adopt new applications,” but it also distracts technical communicators and “divert[s] the profession from its original role, that of effective communication” (Rockley 189). These observations suggest that technology dilutes the core skill set of technical communicators forcing us into the role of “jack of all trades and master of none.”

Not only does this phenomenon attribute to a dilution of the technical communication core skill set, but it also diverts our attention and interferes with our “ability to examine [our] practices critically” (Applen 301). The overall detrimental affect on the technical communication profession gives us a deeper understanding of why Rockley describes the advent of DTP as a near-violent revolution in which “technical communicators were plunged into the world of desktop publishing in the mid 1980s” (189). It also makes us look more critically at the way in which the “technology to develop help materials and Web-based materials has driven the direction of our profession” (Rockley 189). With our attention devoted to learning about the “technical” aspect of our field, it is easy to lose site of the “communication” component.

Technical communicators seem to have traded “control” over their core skill set for an attempt at control over the latest and greatest technology. Ebersole points out “promises of new technology are often accompanied by a freely acknowledged need to exert control over the same” (Ebersole, Controlling Technology par. 2). However, he also cautions us against this attempt, stating that “the greatest irony of all is the very idea that mankind can control technology” (Ebersole, Controlling Technology par. 1). With this being the case, how can technical communication reconcile its own oxymoronic existence? Are technical communicators doomed to “devolve into obsolete appendages to high technology, consumer devices and software” (Willerton 72)? To keep up with the pace of technology, “technical communicators must continue to reevaluate and reinvent what they do” (Willerton 72). But this reinvention should be approached as an opportunity, not a curse.

Although the rapid development and diversity of technology may be considered detrimental to the field of technical communication, historically, these same characteristics of technology have afforded technical communication with opportunities to grow and expand its sphere of influence. For example, the post WWII boom of electronic consumer goods production “opened up several new genres of technical communication” (O’Hara 3). Technology has also provided us with tools to help us do our jobs better. “Successively more powerful computers and more sophisticated software have increased the possibilities in the production of technical communications,” for example, in the form of word-processing applications and page-layout software (O’Hara 3). Instead of viewing ourselves as prisoners of technology, we should view the “rapid advances in computer technology as an opportunity to effect change” (Applen 301). Before we can effect change and modify the characteristics and applications of technical communication, we need to fully understand the current state of the field of so that we can identify what needs to be changed and how we should go about it.

How is technical communication currently characterized?

Although technical communication strives to be on the cutting edge of technology, the conventional means by which the field defines itself is somewhat outdated and restrictive. For example, stating “the role of the technical communication practitioner stems from the need for members from two distinct professions to connect” restricts us to the role of a translator between technology and the user and puts us “outside the subject areas” (Amare 128). In this model, our communication is limited to discrete interactions between one party or the other, but neither simultaneously. Instead, technical communication should “provide an intellectual space where academic cultures can meet and talk to one another” (Amare 129). This interpretation is an improvement over the technical-communicator-as-translator model, because it allows technical communicators to possess mastery of the language of two worlds in order to bridge them and create one world. This approach, however, is still flawed, because technical communication is written out of the equation if there are no “academic cultures” to provide an intellectual space for.

The current model illustrates that “technical communicators often define themselves against the development team, management, and users” (Amare 129). This convention may have been applicable when technical writing was simply recognized as a job title that provided “standardized procedures, definitions, descriptions, instructions, and training” to the government (O’Hara 2). However I would argue that the greater impact of technology on the field on technical communication has been the revelation of the fact that our field has grown strong enough as a profession so that we can define ourselves based on our core competencies. This argument does not advocate a complete separation from the development team, managers, and users, but it merely suggests that we do not need to solely define ourselves in their context.

These explicit assertions from fellow scholars provide us with a solid basis for furthering studies of our field. But, I believe that we can also learn a lot about the field of technical communication through more implicit analyses. Book reviews of “technical communication” writings, for example, allow us to see into the mind of the reviewer by capturing their vantage point at the time of the review. By using this approach, we can see what content was considered important and potentially discover revealing patterns of thought among reviewers. This approach also makes it possible to quickly analyze a relatively large amount of writings. By looking at how the topics of DTP and the Web were covered through documentation, we can start to recognize patterns in writing about these technologies and identify common trends between the two.

What can we learn from book reviews?

The advent of DTP posed a unique problem for traditional print publishers in that writers suddenly had the ability to design their own documents without the necessary knowledge or training to do so effectively. The field responded quickly, and within two years of the arrival of desktop publishing, there was already a multitude of resources on the topic. R. John Brockmann’s “Desktop Publishing: A Critical Bibliography” attempted to provide a solid reference basis for desktop publishers. Reviewing materials released from 1986 to 1988, Brockman created three categories for the 11 books in his review: hardware and software, tutorials, and publishing context (Brockmann 30). The key to writing good hardware and software books was the ability to incorporate conceptual information about publishing. Books that received favorable reviews “describe the design process first and then, in the light of that, go on to talk about equipment” (Brockmann 32). These resources were also able to successfully incorporate “typesetting information in their discussion of the specifics of the hardware and software” (Brockmann 33). Another strength of books in these categories was their ability to illustrate the business relationship to DTP and subsequently position DTP as not only a value-add, but also as a viable business solution. Such books relayed “publishing, accounting, and financial context to DTP” and addresses “budgeting, marketing, and the like…in a uniquely DTP context” (Brockmann 32).

Unlike hardware and software books, tutorials in this genre are only given a cursory evaluation. Those that address the “desktop publishing production methodology” are view favorably, but Brockmann simply recommends picking “the book that suits your level of expertise and your level of software integration” (33).

What lends credibility to books that cover the publishing context is an approach that side steps “all the marketing gee-whizness” while focusing on the “connection between these traditional ideas and techniques and the capabilities of the DTP systems” (Brockmann 34). The ability to remain grounded in the “traditional and accepted rules and techniques” while showing “how DTP systems implement them” (Brockmann 34). These resources emphasize the fact that DTP requires a certain amount of expert knowledge and “correctly object to the ‘do-it-yourself’ ethic, which disavows experts and reference material” (34).

Although DTP resources were written in response to the emergence of a new technology, the books that were considered most valuable to the field at the time framed DTP in the context of existing print publishing methodologies. Perhaps the success of this approach can be attributed to the fact that many DTP materials focused on educating technical communicators. Authors of DTP books relied on the fact that the technical communication professionals would acknowledge the importance of print publishing methodologies. This model, however, did not necessarily apply to the broader audience for Web materials.

Similar to DTP technology, the Web allowed anyone with access to publish online without the necessary knowledge or training to do so effectively. The Web, however, posed a much larger problem, due to the fact that it reached a much larger audience. The response to the unleashing of the Web was similar to that for DTP: many books and resources were created to help guide and inform novice Web designers and teach them how to create well-designed Web sites.

Although many Web resources covered principles of good design, “hands-on” examples seemed to play a large part in contributing to the success of the resource. “Lists of sites where one can actually view band and good examples of Web pages” and “examples of good Web site design, great HTML code” were tantamount to discussions of “typography as it pertains to Web publications” and “how usability principles might be applied to Web information development” (Murphy, Poor Richard’s par. 7, Murphy, Web By Design par.7, Murphy, Typography par. 1, Murphy, Web Site Usability par. 1). Unfortunately, these “how-to” guides for the general public undermined the knowledge and level of skill necessary to create effective Web sites.

Regardless of the type of technology (DTP or Web) that technical communicators are faced with, there seems to be an underlying need for the conceptual or theoretical framework behind the technology. This framework provides the context for working with the technology so that technical communicators can evaluate its usefulness and applications to the current social context. This observation does not provide us with a clear set of rules for dealing with the next new technology, and I believe that this is exactly the point.

What is the future direction of technical communication?

The emerging attitude of technical communication toward new technology seems to be one in which how-to books are a thing of the past. If technology could be neatly explained in how-to books, there would be no need for technical communicators to exercise their critical thinking skills. In a book review of “Reshaping Technical Communication: New Directions and Challenges for the 21st Century,” Russell Willerton summarizes the intent of the second part of the book: to examine “ways in which technical communicators can move beyond traditional service-oriented roles in industry to positions of greater influence” (70). Anshuetz and Rosenbaum talk about “technical communicators who have moved into new spheres of influence beyond creating information products” and “argue for defining technical communication more expansively and for learning from those who move beyond traditional roles” (Willerton 71). These scholars agree that the next step for technical communication is an expansive one in which we illustrate the applicability of our core skill set, “exert leadership and serve as agents of change” (72). Looking forward, we are already positioning ourselves to catch the next technology wave of knowledge management. The wave has not yet passed us, and already its been noted, “one of the most crucial competencies for leaders of knowledge-management efforts is once again a core competency of technical communication” (Wick 527). Armed with this knowledge, I believe that the field of technical communication should embrace change, not fear it, because we have learned how to continue to evolve and reposition ourselves to catch the next big wave.

[1] Although this assumption of the soft view of technological determinism provides a convenient platform for technical communication, it in no way suggests that the intricacies of the technological determinism genre can be reduced to such a simple conclusion.

Works Cited

Amare, Nicole. “The Culture(s) of the Technical Communicator.” Interface. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 45.2 (2002): 128-132.

Applen, J. D. “Technical Communication, Knowledge Management, and XML.” Technical Communication 49.3 (2002): 301-313.

Berners-Lee, Tim. “Realising the Full Potential of the Web.” Technical Communication 46.1 (1999): 79-82.

Ebersole, Samuel. “Media Determinism in Cyberspace.” Regent University School of Communication & the Arts 1995. 23 May 2003

Murphy, Avon J. “Poor Richard’s Web Site: Geek-free, Commonsense Advice on Building a Low-Cost Web Site.” Book Review. Technical Communication 45.4 (1998): .

Murphy, Avon J. “Typography on the Web.” Book Review. Technical Communication 46.2 (1999): .

Murphy, Avon J. “Web By Design.” Book Review. Technical Communication 45.4 (1998): .

Murphy, Avon J. “Web Site Usability: A Designer’s Guide.” Book Review. Technical Communication 45.4 (1998): .

O’Hara, Frederick M., Jr. “A Brief History of Technical Communication.” STC Proceedings 2001. 23 May 2003

Rathbone, Robert R. “Growth of the Technical Writing Profession.” Intercom Feb. 2002: 26-28.

Rockley, Ann. “The Impact of Single Sourcing and Technology.” Technical Communication 48.2 (2001): 189-193.

Shirk, Henrietta N. “Researching the History of Technical Communication: Accessing and Analyzing Corporate Archives.” STC Proceedings 2000. 23 May 2003 .

Staples, Katherine. “Technical Communication from 1950-1998: Where Are We Now?” Technical Communication Quarterly 8.2 (1999): 153-164.

Smith, Merritt R. “Technological Determinism in American Culture.” Does Technology Drive History?: The Dilemma of Technological Determinism. Ed. Merritt Roe Smith and Leo Marx. Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2001. 1-35.

Taylor, Kim. “The Portable Technical Writer.” Book Review. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 45.1 (2002): 67-69.

Wick, Corey. “Knowledge Management and Leadership Opportunities for Technical Communicators.” Technical Communication 47.4 (2000): 515-529.

Willerton, Russell. “Reshaping Technical Communication : New Directions and Challenges for the 21st Century.” Book Review. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 46.1 (2003): 70-72.