Re: Techwriter's toolkits and directions for tomorrow

[HALL Bill <bill -dot- hall -at- tenix -dot- com>]

Some quick responses to Shauna's latest - which will probably be my last for
awhile - I'm in heavy-duty presentation mode for the next few weeks selling
Tenix's solutions to some of these issues to our primary customer and seeing
if we can't actually form a documentation technologies business unit.

Shauna questions/comments delve deep into epistemology - which I happen to
believe is central to capturing, managing and presenting knowledge (small
"km") which is what techwriters do for a living - so no apologies to posting
this.

Sorry about the extensive repetitions, but otherwise the context gets lost.

---------------------------------
Bill states:
> In science there is assumbed to be only one truth, 
> and scientific theory attempts to describe that truth - 
> so during the period of "ordinary" science there is only 
> one paradigm for the perceived truth. However, when this 
> begins to break down, alternative world views may begin
> to develop and compete (subliminally) for adoption by people 
> in the discipline. This process may take a full generation 
> or more, until people who won't give up the old paradigm 
> die off, but from Kuhn's historical point of view this 
> is a "revolution".
>
> In technology, there isn't necessarily an underlying "truth" 
> to the way we do things, hence competing paradigms may have 
> an even longer life than they do in the sciences. 

Please let me know if I am correctly interpreting your statement.  

Science assumes there can be only one truth, and so by extension supports 
the existance of only one paradigm. Under this assumption, Kuhn asserts a 
'revolution' in paradigm occurs when an alternative world view is developed 
that successfully overtakes the existing paradigm. During this transition 
period, conflicts in discussion (e.g. tool use 'holy wars') occur as a 
symptom of the change in the underlying paradigm.

[Bill's comment to the above: Your understanding is correct. More and deeper
epistemology - Science assumes there is only one truth, but Karl Popper in
Objective Knowledge and his earlier works showed conclusively that although
what we claim to know may be true in reality, we can never prove through
logic that what we claim to know actually is the truth. Paradigms also
involve a lot more cognitive artefacts than just a theory, so even though
the paradigms change, the new one isn't necessarily more true than the old
one. I oversimplify here, Popper in Objective Knowledge is the authority
what science can know about truth.]

Technology does not require that there be only one truth, and therefore the 
conflicts that have been perceived as a result of a transition from one 
paradigm to another may last an indeterminate amount longer, because there 
is no guarantee the transition will ever actually occur -- i.e., there may 
be more than one paradigm successfully persisting, at which point the 
conflicts are not so much a symptom of an impending change, but of an 
existing, continuing difference.

[Well stated!]

If I am interpreting this correctly, then the practical concern this brings 
up for technical communication is how to accommodate more than one 
simultaneously-existing paradigm when analyzing our audiences, content, and 
delivery mechanisms. Some will choose to pick a side, while others may try 
to find a bridge between conflicting paradigms that tries to incorporate 
elements of both. Some will adapt their personal work strategy to the 
prevailing paradigm of those around them, while others will try to effect 
change upon the corporate culture in which they operate, 'moving the 
mountain to Mohammed', as it were.

[My suggestion for a direction for tomorrow is that tech communicators
should focus on the bridging function. The paradigmatic differences between
those who invent and develop technologies and those who use them will always
remain - which I think most techwhirlers know at least implicitly. What they
need to keep in mind is that such thing are also happening in their very own
profession with their very own tools.]

Bill again states:
> [Word definition is mainly a symptom. The fundamental 
> difference between paradigms (at least as I understand them)
> lies in the different world views in which the words are 
> articulated. Even if you focus on defining the words,
> they still describe differen perceptual worlds - an issue 
> that I think some people dealing with localization are 
> acutely aware of.]

Just wanted to quote that, because it is an excellent practical example of 
how a tech writer may need to accommodate more than one paradigm in the 
same output. In this case, the primary area of effect is in the audience 
analysis part of the work.

And the key question from Mandy:
> How can preference be distinguished from paradigm?

Bill responds:
> I think the primary symptom of a paradigmatic difference
> is the degree and nastiness of the ad hominem attacks. 
> When people can no longer rationally compare the relative 
> merits of preferences without personally attacking those 
> who hold different views, we have to consider there may 
> be a more fundamental issue in areas which cannot be 
> expressed as simple comparisons of features.

So what you're actually suggesting is that "holy wars" should/can be used 
as an indicator of potential paradigmatic conflict, which may require 
further analysis on the part of the tech communicator?

[Absolutely!]

Mandy states:
> I think the degredation in communication comes from 
> frustration both with not being understood by the 
> seemingly obstinate stupid people but also from not 
> having the right tools/skills to communicate/argue one's 
> position effectively 
[snip]
> There must be a study out 
> there analyzing why people resort to name-calling in 
> failed communication and I'd bet it could be found both 
> in psychology (cognitive or social) and in 
> language/culture/literacy/rhetoric.

That first comment struck me particularly, since I suspect much of what 
fuels the bitterness in "holy wars" specifically focused on tech comm tools 
and methods may be because they *are* the tools/skills we have to use to 
communicate/argue our points to the audience of our docs.

[Agreed!]

I agree there must be some research supporting the response to failed 
communication.

Mandy continues:
> Not having analyzed all the old holy war posts for myself, 
> I would also say the miscommunication/holy wars are able 
> to happen because of the limits of medium in which the 
> communication is taking place (which, I believe, has
> been pointed out in the past). 

And this is where the delivery of context is affected. If paradigm is to be 
considered as part of the context of the audience, would its effect be 
primarily on how communication is delivered (method of delivery), or on how 
that delivery is crafted (manner/style of delivery)?

[I think both - and more. At least in the sciences to win a holy war you
either have to encourage/force a gestalt change, which some people will
never do, or you have to be able to step far enough outside of both
paradigms to identify the tacit/implicit elements and begin by explaining
how those differ from one another and relate to the external reality. You
actually need to consider three components: content, method of delivery and
manner/style - where your content will be out of what would be seen to be in
scope if you were working in only one paradigm. You have to be able to
explain the new paradigms context and show how it relates to/is different
from the old paradigms context. It makes the writing more complex and
difficult - both for the writer and for the reader - but may also be more
understandable.]

The analogy that strikes me is writing a blues song: the paradigm is the 
blues genre, but does that affect primarily the instruments chosen, or the 
tone/rhythm of the song? The content (words of the song) may be independent 
of the delivery, but whether the delivery is successful can depend on 
whether the paradigm(s) of the audience are respected.

I am probably extrapolating too far from the original point, but I am 
seeing this discussion weave into several others that have occurred over 
the past year or so. The extended goal of such discussions as this is 
always the improvement of our "product", namely the communication we enable 
and provide to our audiences. Figuring out "why do people fight over tools" 
is less important to me than how that particular "why" can appear in other 
contexts, and affect the documentation I produce.

[Yes, but until we ask "why", we are not ready for that important next step
of working out how to address the issues.]

There's more I'd like to comment on, but it's not "jelling" in my brain 
into something that can be effectively communicated right now, and I've 
blown most of my lunch hour again, so I'm going to follow Mandy's example 
and sign off with the possibility of further comment later.

Shauna

[Hey, guys, you are certainly helping my own thinking in this area. It's a
good forum!

Bill Hall
Documentation Systems Analyst
Strategy and Development Group
Tenix Defence
Nelson House, Nelson Place
Williamstown, Vic. 3016
Australia
Tel: +61 3 9244 4820
     +61 3 9244 4000 (Switch)
URL: http://www.tenix.com
Mailto:bill -dot- hall -at- tenix -dot- com]


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Are you using Doc-to-Help or ForeHelp? Switch to RoboHelp for Word for $249
or to RoboHelp Office for only $499. Get the PC Magazine five-star rated
Help authoring tool for less! Go to http://www.ehelp.com/techwr

Free copy of ARTS PDF Tools when you register for the PDF
Conference by April 30. Leading-Edge Practices for Enterprise
& Government, June 3-5, Bethesda,MD. www.PDFConference.com

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.