Scientific and Technical Communication: Theory, Practice and Policy | Discussion

Discussion

1. Note the prologue to Cooper's piece. Why is this information given? How does knowing the "pretext" help lend to an interpretation of Cooper's text? More generally, do you think it would be "more objective" to know the complete circumstances under which scientific or technical texts are produced? What factors in the writing process do you think are important to let the reader know? How would a reader of your prose be aided by knowing the elements of your writing process?

2. "Reflexivity," Cooper points out, "can be provisionally characterized as an issue that arises when we address questions of representation: the statements that we make, or the knowledge that we construct about representational practice are themselves representations and thus implicated in what they describe." Initially, offer an interpretation of this statement. Provide examples of how specific communications practices represent the activity they describe. How do representations of activities (e.g., lab experiments) shape our understanding of the thing in itself? Can one get "outside" linguistic or graphic representations? A critic of the usefulness of reflexivity has argued that it is a little like a bricklayer suddenly ceasing his work so that he may take time to study his trowel. Which view most nearly approaches your own? Why?

3. One of the goals of reflexive textual practices and new literary form is to "disrupt" traditional forms of representation used in scientific and technical communication. What, from Cooper's perspective, is harmful about these representational practices? In what specific ways do new literary forms (NLFs) disrupt representation? How are the tools of NLFs ? such as dialogue, parallel texts, irony ? in themselves a form of representation? Can you suggest other communicative forms which might be "more useful" in transforming the traditional practices of technical communication?

4. How is the study of scientific knowledge a reflexive problem?

5. What are the central criticisms of reflexive textual practices that Cooper describes? Do you see alternatives to these limitations, or are these practices destined to collapse under their own weight?

6. In what fields or disciplines do you see reflexive issues have the greatest impact? How the reflexive "problem" manifest itself in these fields? Critics of the social science argue that because of inherent reflexive problems in the nature of social and behavioral study, no universal, objective claims and predications can be made about human action. Do you agree or disagree? Why? How might new literary forms be a solution to this problem?

7. Cooper ends with an exchange with his omnipresent interlocutor:

"So, after all this, aren't you in effect saying that the way things are written is irrelevant? No, this is not an idealist argument for the irrelevance of techniques and technologies of representation to knowledge: it's an argument against the degeneration of technique into formula. Certain writers begin experimenting with some textual forms which have been comparatively little used within their field; this has the potential to draw attention to a range of questions about reflexivity, textuality, genres, conventions of authorship and so forth."

In part, this text assumes Cooper's premise that the techniques of scientific and technical communication have, in many cases, simply degenerated into formula. Explain whether you agree or disagree with this assessment. What is the harm in technical communication being dominated by formula? What communicative formulas and standards do you follow in your field or discipline? How do they shape you thinking and expression? What advantages and disadvantages are there to having shared, regulated discourse?

Exercises

1. Cooper provides a "User's Manual" for new literary forms. Take a paper that you have previously written, the purpose of which is to objectively render information (e.g., a lab report, set of instructions, functional description or formal definition), and revise it into a reflexive text using the techniques in the manual. If you would prefer not to do this with your own work find a short journal and assume the authors' identity. In a prologue to the text instruct the reader how it" came to light."

2. Through the chapter, Cooper mentions texts that use new literary forms in their style of presentation (including his own). Referring to the techniques for reading texts in fields in which you are not expert, in Chapter 2, Part I, write a critical analysis of Cooper's text, or another reflexive text. In the conclusion or recommendations section provide a "reading plan" for someone interested in reading a reflexive text. Consider lending advice about how one should intellectually and emotionally approach these texts, how they are best read (sequentially, at random, closely, apathetically), and how reading a reflexive text compares with reading texts which are common in your field. Consider what light wrestling with a reflexive text sheds on how scientific and technical texts are traditionally written and read.

3. At the beginning of the semester, form into groups of three or four students, provide a short-term (two to three weeks) or term-length" participant-observer" study of a laboratory, seminar series, research class or professional setting. During the course of the study you will need to take notes on the actions of the people you observe. If you own, or have access to, a hand-held tape recorder, you can, with the participants' permission, record what goes on in the research setting. There are two parts to this assignment. To begin, prepare a brief literature review of a selected number of anthropological and sociological studies of other cultures. In the literature be careful to note the kinds of artifacts, rituals, customs, social structures and languages observed in other cultures. While general texts on anthropological method will do, here are some places in the literature (to which Cooper sometimes refers ? his footnotes may also provide inspiration) to start:

James Clifford and George Marcus eds. (1986) Writing Cultures. University of California Press, Berkeley
Clifford Geertz (1973) Interpreting Cultures. Harper and Row: New York.
Karin Knorr-Cetina and Michael Mulkay eds. (1983) Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science. Sage. London.
Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar (1986) Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. 2nd edition. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Greg Myers (1990) Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge. University Of Wisconsin Press, Madison.

The second part of the is assignment is to find the academic culture you wish to study. Consider choosing a discipline with which the group is unfamiliar. Next, target a class (or classes), seminar series, laboratory, or regular disciplinary activity to study. The purpose is to study this setting like studying another culture. Like someone starting a new job, you must concentrate on comparing and contrasting the activities in the research setting to other social activities with which you are familiar. Depending on the length of the study, you can provide your instructor with a series on periodic reports on the status of the project which would lend the basis for a more developed oral presentation. When the research is completed, the group will present their findings in an oral presentation to other class members.

Discussion and Exercises:
"Textual Technologies"

James H. Collier and David M. Toomey

Book Contents

Discussion and Exercises:
Textual Technologies

Discussion and Exercises: "Textual Technologies"

James H. Collier and David M. Toomey

Book Contents

Discussion and Exercises:Textual Technologies

Discussion and Exercises:
"Textual Technologies"

Discussion and Exercises:
Textual Technologies