Much of the training that is targeted at technical communicators seems to revolve the creation and quality control of text. To my thinking, formatting, editing and punctuation are really editing skills, although I accept that they are also part of the landscape for many technical communicators.
These things are all skills that most people develop to a reasonable level in the first year of professional practice. No doubt they can be refined by further application but I’m adamant that 10 years of editing/writing is a case of arrested development if you are in fact a tech communicator rather than a career editor.
Such skills are what Americans refer to as “commodity technical writing”: user guides, screen captures and the like. Snaggit Monkeys, in less flattering language.
What kind of professional development comes next? Clearly it can branch in many directions and this has been stumbling block in scoping any certification. I suspect the problem arises because too much effort is wasted considering content-creation skills. No matter what kind of content is involved, this is just a variation of commodity tech writing.
Business coaches are forever trying to inspire owners to spend time working on the business, rather than just working in the business. And so it should be with advanced technical communication skills. Forgot about content creation and refinement. Instead, consider the environment in which the content exists. The whole-of-life planning and management. Process improvement. Not to mention the promotion of such skills.
These skills are a long way up the value chain from commodity tech writing, but how can they be nurtured? Are they even worth developing within the context of technical writing?
I’ve seen local surveys where potential employers rate the qualities they most value in technical writers. Invariable, the skills that are plain “commodity tech writing” rank highly. Probably this reflects the fact that non-expert employers, recruitment agencies and a pool of commodity tech writers have created a status quo. The employers and recruiters don’t know any better, and the tech writers typically don’t have any incentive to up-skill I (assuming they have the desire).
The big-picture aspects of technical communication are happening, but typically not with much involvement from technical writers. That’s not how it works under the status quo.
Happily, certification that focuses on advanced technical communication also sidesteps many of the problems of curriculum. We no longer need to worry about specific tools, particular industries or any other issues related authoring. Perhaps this a way forward with twenty-year impasse in technical communication certification?
As someone who is pursuing an advanced degree in Technical Communication, I had hoped to see some more feedback on this topic. I suppose it’s time for me to jump in with my two cents now.
ReplyDeleteFor myself, my “advanced training” comes in the form of an annual trek back to the U.S. each year where some 50 or so PhD students in the Texas Tech TechComm program descend on this west Texas campus for 2 weeks of intensive interaction. Because I write (communicate) in a remote and isolated location, in Papua New Guinea, [isolated from other tech communicators] I am usually starved for information by the time I make my way back to Texas each May. I, too, seek out ways to nurture my own tech communication skills, but am also always looking for ways to engage in contributory activities with other like-minded individuals.
[Note: I suppose I should disclose that my degree pursuit is actually in “Technical Communication and Rhetoric” which means that many of my classmates are not so focused on Technical Writing as an occupation.]
During my visit to Texas this May I learned about researchers engaged in everything from analysing animations of unsightly ailments (warts, congestion, foot fungus, etc.), to the impact of distance education on working mothers, to the use of Burke’s pentad in analysing environmental impact statements, to the practice of rhetorical agency in collaborative spaces of diabetes care, and on and on, to name just a few. Attending poster sessions, paper and panel presentations, and job talks is only part of the learning environment, however. Sitting at meals, congregating over drinks, engaging in the occasional discussion and debate, all of these casual and informal activities are also important, believe it or not, in my professional development.
Of course, these activities are not open for engagement by just anyone, and will no longer even be available to me once I have completed, and defended, my own dissertation. Still, the idea is a good one and should go a long way in explaining my “nagging” of members of the Australian Chapter of the STC. I am hungry for information, and interaction, and know that members of this group have valuable information they could share with me. I also hope that I have some insight and experiences that I can share as well. So I hope you’ll bear with me as I stumble around in your spaces trying to find places where information exchange on the topics of technical communication and writing are occurring.
Because, in my opinion, skill building in our field can actually often be accomplished, and perhaps even best accomplished, in the simple acts of interaction amongst professionals.
Bea, while interaction with other practitioners is certainly one way to identify useful skills and trends, I see two limitations with it (1) you need to identify which of those many opinions to adopt, and that may only become apparent after trying out some that do not meet your expectations (b) it doesn't help those in positions of ignorant authority to choose among candidates for a particular role. They are never going to become "engaged" - they just need instant confirmation of your qualifications.
ReplyDeletePersonally I would prefer to see the engagement during development of a curriculum. That would provide an opportunity to compare and test competing opinions and to distil "best practice". In any case we in the STC-AUS chapter don't have much scope for members to interact, so there is little opportunity for exchange of ideas and experiences. We did try a forum in the past, but it never got much use and had to be shut down after a hacker attack. Some of the specialised STC forums are OK for this. Cheers, Colin