: “It is the burden of comprehension—the responsibility we have to understand the contexts, values, and methods of those from whom we borrow–that I will address. The purpose of my discussion is four-fold. First, I want to come to some understanding of how technology has been approached–historically, methodologically, and ideologically–by scholars in disciplines that have for some time interrogated technological artifacts, systems, and the people who use them. Second, I bring this research to technical communication for the purpose of situating the arguments of other-disciplinary technology scholars into our own disciplinary framework. Third, I hope to experience some of the promise of interdisciplinary research that in the best of circumstances leads to what Klein calls ‘an inductive openendedness’ (93).’ that interesting space in the world of research where we end up with more–and even more interesting–questions. Finally, I turn to some of these questions back toward the profession of technical communication for the purpose of rethinking our roles and responsibilities.
I will limit my discussion to the methodologies of several disciplines that have for some time been involved with the study of technology from historical, sociological, and philosophical perspectives. I have chosen disciplines that not only have some precedent in the field, but which also cover a fair stretch of methodological ground appropriate for technical communicators. For instance, I have chosen the history of technology because of its comparative longevity in technology studies; sociology because of its innovative techniques, specifically ethnography and case study, and its interest in feminist studies; philosophy due to its concerns with fundamental issues of human action, most importantly ethics and public decision-making. “
Month: January 2004
Currently missing:
Cell phone (again) –but no big deal, because I am letting the service lapse.
Two dissertation books: Cynthia Selfe’s, and Literacy and Computers. I just can afford the $100 to replace these right now. Where did they go? Arrrgh.
Cynthia Selfe: “First, I think we need to continue to resist all projects and systems that serve to establish an overly-narrow, official version of literacy practices or skills. Such projects and systems simply serve to reward the literacy practices of dominant groups and punish the practices of others. They serve to reproduce a continuing and oppressive cycle of illiteracy, racism, and poverty in this country and in others.
This means that on every curriculum committee we serve, in every standards document that we contribute to, in every outcomes assessment that we participate in, on every syllabus that we construct-we have to lead the way in insisting on a diverse range of literacy practices and values, rather than one, narrow and official form of literacy. We have made a start at this effort in the standards document of the NCTE, but in the CCCCs we need to go much further in helping both future teachers and those already in classrooms understand why this work is so important and what implications their successes and failures may have.”
Cynthia Selfe: “Nowhere are these struggles and debates rendered in more complex terms–and nowhere are they more influential on our own work–than they are in the direct linkage between literacy and computer technology that has been established in increasingly direct ways over the last decade in this country. This potent linkage is sustained and reproduced by a complexly related set of cultural influences: workplaces in which approximately 70% of jobs requiring a bachelors degree or an advanced college degree now require the use computers (Digest of Education Statistics, 1996, p.458); a corporate sector focused on exploiting the 89% of ‘teachers and the public’ who believe that the Internet adds value to teaching and learning specifically because it ‘reduces the costs teachers spend on classroom activities’ (‘MCI Nationwide Poll,’ 1998); schools in which 87% of high school students are now writing on computers by Grade 11 (Coley, Crandler, and Engle, 1997, p. 27); and homes in which 86% of parents are convinced that a computer is the one ‘most beneficial and effective product that they can buy to expand their children’s opportunities’ for education, future success, and economic prosperity (Getting America’s Student’s Ready, 1996, p. x).”
Cynthia Selfe: “Technological literacy-meaning computer skills and the ability to use computers and other technology to improve learning, productivity and performance-has become as fundamental to a person’s ability to navigate through society as traditional skills like reading, writing and arithmetic.”
The Computer Delusion by Todd Oppenheimer: “There is no good evidence that most uses of computers significantly improve teaching and learning, yet school districts are cutting programs%uFFFD– music, art, physical education%uFFFD– that enrich children’s lives to make room for this dubious nostrum, and the Clinton Administration has embraced the goal of ‘computers in every classroom’ with credulous and costly enthusiasm
“
Google Toolbar Installed: “the world’s best search”
Cynthia Selfe: “Technological literacy-meaning computer skills and the ability to use computers and other technology to improve learning, productivity and performance-has become as fundamental to a person’s ability to navigate through society as traditional skills like reading, writing and arithmetic.”
Cranetext 