Miller, Carolyn. âA Humanistic Rationale for Technical Writingâ College English. 40(6). 1979. 610-617. doi.org/10.2307/375964.
This piece by Carolyn Miller focuses on introducing new (for 1979 and still important today) ânotions of what technical and scientific rhetoric can be and doâ (48). Her work here looks at more than just the connections between scientific writing and technical communication though. She is extremely critical of the perceived connection between science and technical communication in this piece because of the traditional positivist view of science (which is clearly, to Miller, not the role of technical communication) and the historic connection between engineering and technical communication (as a service course). She claims that this positivist connection to technical writing is a âform of intellectual coercion, it invites us to prostrate ourselves at the windowpane of language and accept what science has demonstratedâ (50). This windowpane metaphor is important to technical communication because it places individuals either inside or outside a particular place (or discourse community), and is often used by science fields to separate those who âseeâ what is self-evident and those who do not (Clay Spinuzzi would call this a âheroâ complex).
Miller, after discussing the connections that are assumed to be between technical communication and science fields, calls for a new epistemology for technical communication. This is a call that is echoed through much of the research on technical communication still, including other works by Carolyn Miller, David Russell, Anne Beaufort, Mary Soliday, J. Blake Scott, and many others. The epistemology she creates here âholds that whatever we know of reality is created by individual action and by communal ascentâ as a way to see the world (51). She continues developing her epistemology later by saying âif we pretend for a minute that technical writing is objective, we have passed off a particular political ideology as privileged truthâ (52). This is important to think about in connection with other cultural research, and discourse community work, because the cultural connections that technical communicators deal with, between communities both inside and outside of the entities we work for, are important communities that define and redefine the work that we do and the knowledge that we share or produce.
This article is a historically foundational research piece for my comprehensive exams and my own dissertation research because it brings me to an understanding of much of the background, histories, and stereotypes of technical writing in the academy. It also helps me build an understanding of historical pedagogies in the field and where the field has space to grow. While this has many uses in the research I plan to do, I do not think that Carolyn Miller fully answers the need for cultural understanding, even though she hints at this need with her discussion of community and acknowledgement of forces outside of the technical writer. It also lays out many of the issues that still plague the perception of technical and professional writing and communication, both in the classroom and in professional work (specifically as monodirectional communication). She does introduce a need to begin to transition from technical writing to a much more technical communication, or rhetorical, focus as a field (which I feel we need to continue transitioning to, because I see it in my own department).

















