TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
All this talk lately about which skills are important for a technical
communicator to possess are interesting. In Tom Murell's meta-topic posting I
noticed an interesting, if subtle dichotomy that is evolving.
One side of this argument, there is this attitude of "generalism." That a
technical writer can be a generalist on subjects honing a general set of
"communication skills."
On the other side is the relativists. They argue that every situation (job,
project, document, etc.) is unique. And therefore any attempts to generalize
their work is unfair. They have a honed set of specialized skills, that make
them able to adapt to the specific needs of their audience, subject matter,
project, etc.
These two concepts are at direct opposition. I think the underlying sentiment
here is one wanting all the benefits of either concept without the natural
drawbacks.
Let me elucidate...
Its also easy to hide in the gray zone. To say "generalities don't apply to
me." What I do is special - unlike others.
But generalizing is a two-sided sword. On one hand we have this push from some
communicators that the tech writing profession isn't beholden to one topic.
That as writers can be generalists and be capable communicators. But then those
same people will turn around refuting all attempts to generalize their skills,
experience, or education. Saying that "every situation is unique" and "every
audience is different."
Then some folks are saying, yes every situation is different and therefore you
must have the expertise to deal with that situation. But then when pressed on
acquiring that expertise, they counter with "I don't need to be an expert, I
need to know just enough to get the job done."
Well what do you want? Generalism or relativity? If you're going to argue that
generalism is the way to live, then naturally you are going to become oppressed
by the tyranny of generalization. If you deeply believe that writers can be
generalists, then you are naturally going to be judged on very general terms.
Likewise, if you want to live inside a relativist perspective, then naturally
you have to be an expert at your relative domain. And you will be judged on how
well you have mastered your relative domain of work.
Let me put that in more practical terms:
Writer A - The Generalist
-------------------------
Writer A: I have a swath of generalized skills that make me an excellent
communicator.
A's Boss: Oh, then you won't mind doing some clerical work and some tech
support.
Writer A: No! I am a communicator with a unique set of skills! I deserve
respect!
A's Boss: Get lost.
Writer B - The Specialist
-------------------------
Writer B: Every situation is unique, therefore I have highly developed skills
for my audience.
B's Boss: Do you know how to remodulate a TX5939-BigPorker Insexulator?
Writer B: Ummmmm, no. I am an accomplished technical communicator not a
remodulation technician.
B's Boss: Get lost.
You can't be simultaneously general and unique. Either you're a generalist, and
you live with the realities of being a generalist. Or you specialize, and you
live with the demands of specialization.
Which is funny. Go back and start reading the posts of some people - even me.
You will notice that in one post they are adamantly demanding that their highly
generalized skills are valuable and in-demand. Then two posts later, they are
saying "every situation is unique, and generalizations are unfair."
I get a huge kick out of that. Because it is the essence of how stupid we
humans are. We deeply believe in things at one moment, and then two moments
later, we're deeply in love with something diametrically different. We deeply
think we can be simultaneously moral and ruthless, loving and exclusive,
detailed and general. We want everything with no consequences. Wars with no
blood, wealth with no poverty, justice with no judgment.
And that isn't how the universe is wired. All things have consequences. Causes
have effects. And if you don't like that effect, then consider the causes.
Right. My life sucks now, so I am going away for awhile. I'll be back. Just
need some time off to get my business in order.
Andrew Plato
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/
LAST CHANCE for this steal of a deal! Purchase RoboHelp X3 by February 28
and receive $100 mail-in rebate and FREE WebHelp Merge Module ($339 value)!
RoboHelp, the Industry Standard in Help Authoring, has won over 55 industry
awards. For more information please visit: http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l2.
"RoboHelp X3 is simply remarkable." - George Bell, Techno-Vision Systems
---
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.
