RE: PHD in Tech writing

Subject: RE: PHD in Tech writing
From: "Jim Shaeffer" <jims -at- spsi -dot- com>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 09:39:53 -0400

Some generalized points:

1. Advanced studies of physics, biochemistry and motion analysis have revolutionized sports training and coaching. Talent still counts, but the things that can be taught/learned have changed profoundly because of academic research. (Don't believe me? Watch The Discovery Channel.)

2. I've been doing casual research in Art history and archeology. These fields are being totally transformed by molecular science, electroflouroscopy, X-ray techniques, etc. The overlap between scientific research, technological tools and the humanities is huge and growing. It's impossible to predict how future research might impact future technical communication.

3. Mark Baker wrote: "There is a fundamental difference between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge, and the way they are gained. The tacit knowledge that informs human performance in so many areas of life is developed not by the study of theory but by love and diligent application."

Yet, one of the primary goals of technical communication is to transform tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. Why should technical communication require an apprenticeship when the success of technical communication can be measured by the degree to which such communications can eliminate the need for an apprenticeship?

Jim Shaeffer (jims -at- spsi -dot- com)




Follow-Ups:

Previous by Author: Graphics from mobile devices
Next by Author: RE: weird product decision, must make weird documentation decision
Previous by Thread: RE: Re: PHD in Tech writing
Next by Thread: RE: PHD in Tech writing


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads