Tactical Technical Communication
Tactical Technical Communication
复制标题
战术技术交流
DOI：
10.1080/10572252.2017.1259428
复制
发表时间：
2017
影响因子：
1.1
通讯作者：
M. Kimball
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Kimball
十年前，我突然意识到，我们领域的几乎所有学术都集中在组织内部发生的技术沟通上，或者是由组织与其成员，选民或客户进行接触而产生的技术沟通（Kimball，2006）。在我们的学术研究、教育学和实践中，我们经常假设考虑的基本单位，即范围，是某种形式的正式组织：公司、政府机构或机构。这种组织假设也受到其他人越来越多的审查。例如，克莱·斯皮努齐（Clay Spinuzzi）有影响力的工作逐渐将框架扩展到组织之外，形成了更灵活和临时的联盟。在Tracing Genres through Organizations：A Sociocultural Approach to Information Design（Spinuzzi，2003）及其更实用的后续卷Topsight：A Guide to Studying，Diagnosing，and Fixing Information Flow in Organizations（Spinuzzi，2013）中，Spinuzzi主要关注组织内的通信网络和惯例。但是，最近，在All Edge：Inside the New Workplace Networks（Spinuzzi，2015）中，Spinuzzi将他的关注点扩展到组织之外，具有讽刺意味的是，他关注的是更小的东西：基于项目的团队。换句话说，斯皮努齐的工作似乎已经开始假设组织作为适当的研究单位，但已经转移到考虑跨组织边界的更偶然和灵活的安排。当然，组织仍然是一个重要的范围单位。然而，组织的假设掩盖了一个更大的观点，即每天有数百万人独自进行技术交流，他们在组织之外、组织之间甚至与组织相反地工作。这种技术交流早在组织假设之前就存在了，但随着互联网为人们提供了机会，让人们为自己的目的而不是代表机构分享技术信息，这种交流得到了极大的发展。实际上，每个能够上网的人现在都是潜在的技术传播者，与整个世界分享他们对技术的了解。有了YouTube、Instructables和网络论坛等服务，任何人只要在金钱或技术上进行少量投资，就可以与世界各地的用户分享传统上由公司或政府机构雇用的专业技术作家提供的信息。(For关于这一趋势的更详细讨论，请参见Kimball，2016。这些新的技术传播者在许多对知道“如何做”某事感兴趣的人中找到了现成的听众，但对“如何成为”某事不感兴趣。例子很多，但这里有一个个人的。我们洗衣机的轴承烧坏了。当它大声地试图把自己摇开时，我和妻子在想该怎么办。在过去的几十年里，我们的选择余地很小。我们可以把这台机器拆开，试着自己诊断和修理问题。自然，我们的无知使我们不愿意走这条路。我们可以雇一个修理工，但可能要花很多钱。我们完全可以花更大的钱买一台新洗衣机。最后，我们可以寻求正规的培训，成为家电修理工。然而，这种培训很难获得，甚至费用更高，而且速度很慢。我们可能会用完干净的衣服之前，我们学会了足够的修理机器。而且，具有讽刺意味的是，我们可能必须学习很多关于修理其他类型机器的信息，以及允许我们参与的专业价值观和标准
A decade ago, I was struck by the realization that almost all of the scholarship in our field focuses on the technical communication that happens within organizations, or that is produced by organizations to engage with their members, constituents, or customers (Kimball, 2006). In our scholarship, pedagogy, and practice, we regularly assume that the basic unit for consideration, the scope, is some sort of formal organization: a corporation, a government agency, or an institution. This organizational assumption has come under increasing scrutiny by others, as well. For example, Clay Spinuzzi’s influential work has gradually expanded the frame beyond the organization to more flexible and temporary alliances. In Tracing Genres through Organizations: A Sociocultural Approach to Information Design (Spinuzzi, 2003) and its more applied follow-on volume, Topsight: A Guide to Studying, Diagnosing, and Fixing Information Flow in Organizations (Spinuzzi, 2013), Spinuzzi focused primarily on communication networks and conventions within organizations. But, more recently, in All Edge: Inside the New Workplace Networks (Spinuzzi, 2015), Spinuzzi broadens his focus beyond the organization, ironically by looking at something smaller: the projectbased team. In other words, Spinuzzi’s work seems to have begun with assuming the organization as the proper unit of study but has shifted to consider more contingent and nimble arrangements that cross-organizational boundaries. Of course, the organization is still an important unit of scope. Yet the organizational assumption obscures a larger view of the technical communication performed by millions of people each day on their own, working outside of, between, and even counter to organizations. This kind of technical communication existed long before the organizational assumption, but it has grown tremendously with the opportunities afforded by the Internet for people to share technical information for their own purposes, rather than on behalf of institutions. In effect, everyone who enjoys access to the Internet is now a potential technical communicator, sharing what they know about technology with the entire world. With services like YouTube, Instructables, and web forums, anyone with only a small investment in money or technology can share with users across the world the kind of information that has traditionally been the product of professional technical writers employed by corporations or government agencies. (For a more detailed discussion of this trend, please see Kimball, 2016.) These new technical communicators find a ready audience in the many people interested in knowing “how to do” something, but not “how to become” something. Examples abound, but here’s a personal one. The bearings of our washing machine burned out. As it loudly tried to shake itself apart, my wife and I cast about for what to do. In previous decades, our options would have been slim. We could take the machine apart and try to diagnose and repair the problem ourselves. Naturally, our ignorance made us reluctant to take that route. We could hire a repairperson, but likely at great expense. We could simply buy a new washer, at even greater expense. Finally, we could seek formal training and become appliance repairpersons. However, such training is difficult to come by, even more costly, and slow. We would likely run out of clean clothes before we learned enough to fix the machine. And, ironically, we would likely have to learn a lot of information about fixing other kinds of machines, as well as the professional values and standards that would allow us to participate