760: on carliner’s computers and technical communication in the 21st century

Carliner highlights a principle problem facing technical communication (as a discipline and practice) in the 1970s. The problem would continue to persist well into the 1990s. “The main qualification for the job of a technical writer in this environment was experience supporting and servicing products that were the subject of documentation. These workers developed competency in writing through training and on-the job mentoring… during the 1970s, this employer typically emphasized technical knowledge over writing skills.” (22, 23). Subject-matter-experts writing in the style of their trainers and mentors, who themselves were subject-matter-experts. Adherence to house and industry style guides were essential, as formal education in writing, composition, or English were not the norm. These individuals were typically carrying forward what they had learned in freshman comp – and that’s assuming they had an undergraduate degree.

Much as Ceruzzi’s historical narrative alluded to, Carliner notes that through the 1970s, most technical documentation was written for technical audiences. The late 1980s saw the emergence of the technical communicator as author, content collector, synthesizer, and information product producer. Most significantly, however, was the shift away from information products for technical or highly trained audiences to audiences with specific information requirements and varying degree of technical competence.
In reasserting Mirel’s call to action from a decade earlier, Carliner notes the following in regard to distributed authorship: “Much information is published as individual topics; that is, as a series of one-screen discussions of a subject, rather than as complete manuals. Users typically find topics by searching the database, following well-identified links, or by being directed to a specific Web page by a cross-reference from another Web page or by a person” (28).

Carliner notes that during the fourth phase of technological developments (mid 1990s to mid 2000s), “Many technical communicators worked in a state of continuous production of information, rather than going through peaks and valleys…” (41). While the focus is, of course, on technical communicators, it should be noted that these technological developments were changing the way in which all knowledge workers produced and managed information. In many ways, the activity of producing information products was decentralized and moved out of documentation groups. Business analyst were writing and publishing use-case studies. Programmers were writing help statements as conditional code statements. Quality analysts were writing FAQs and user documentation. These individuals were not recognized as technical communicators, technical writers, editors, publishers, or any of the myriad of labels Carliner notes. Yet these individuals were, and continue to be in many organizations, producers of technical information products; hence the demand to infuse the curriculum of degree programs (particularly professional degree programs) with the type of instruction and skills development Spilka identifies in her introduction.

On a personal note, Carliner’s narrative about the phases of technological developments reminded me of how much fun and challenging it was to be working in tech com in the late 1980s and early 1990s. His second and third phases are especially poignant, in that I was reminded of the many talented and creative technical writers I had the opportunity to work with during those years. Their access to new technologies and their ability to quickly adapt it to their changing roles motivated me to apply to a graduate professional and technical communications program. Good times. Yeah, good times.