Document Technician vs. Professional Writer

The scope of professional writing and rhetoric is fluid, as the definition of professional writing and rhetoric has been contested throughout history and continues to elude a firm definition today. Practitioners in the field of professional writing and rhetoric, however, promote a definition that defines their role as a “professional rhetor” whose duties include a wide range of interactive communications, rather than as a traditional “document technician” whose tasks are limited to persuasive production. Studying and practicing professional writing from both perspectives suggests that the role of a professional writer lies on a spectrum between the two extremes.

Regli suggests that the professional writer has been placed in a box as a document technician, but would be much more efficient and effective if the scope rhetoric, and thus the professional writer’s field of responsibilities, were broadened to not only include a rhetoric of persuasion, but also a rhetoric of interaction. As a document technician, the professional writer is prohibited from the process of invention. Regli proposes that the most limited definition of technical writing limits the scope of the professional: the writer sees knowledge as a commodity to be packaged and shipped, not a process in which to be engaged (Regli, 73). “[T]he focus remains on managing, analyzing, and presenting data that seems to have been generated elsewhere,” explains Regli. “[T]he technical writer is too easily relegated to being a glorified typesetter, a font-chooser, or a human grammar checker” (Regli, 73). Regli defines a “richer” or broader scope of professional writing in which, “the writer is a rhetor who treats knowledge as an activity: the rhetor’s expertise lies in knowing how to ‘perform’ knowledge in a communal, dialectical context – how to orchestrate the conversation of a team of specialists working to invent, develop, produce, and test … [the subject matter]” (Regli, 74). People who approach professional writing from a broadly defined rhetorical perspective then must, as Regli highlights, be able “to locate sources of misunderstanding, [to] discover the relevant loci of expertise among multidisciplinary specialists, and [to] synthesize the expertise of many into a document or plan of action” (Regli, 75).

The differences between a document technician’s and a professional rhetor’s approaches to professional writing become clear when outlining their distinct potential responses to the same case study. A document technician would focus on producing documents pertinent to the dilemma at hand. Each document would be carefully tailored to its respective audience, but would also be a collection of knowledge produced by others. With this approach, the document technician could miss larger problems, other potential audiences and potential solutions. The professional rhetor, on the other hand, would engage in a comprehensive approach to the situation – orchestrating the cooperation between all the parties involved, analyzing the situation in context, brainstorming potential solutions and soliciting feedback – all while producing the documents necessary address the problem. Case studies also act as a reality check, invoking the logistical constraints of the professional environment. They force prioritizing the responsibilities of the professional rhetor, as not everything can be accomplished in the time allotted to solve real world dilemmas. Using inventional heuristics of diagramming cause/effect, organizational context, organizational structure and known vs. unknown information, launches invention – highlighting areas of misunderstanding, identifying potential problems, brainstorming possible solutions – and aids in developing the final product. Working with another writer on case studies helps simulate real-life collaboration. Furthermore, a reflection of the ideal process showcases that improbabilities always exist, regardless of how much preparation one does. Extensive research, however, is helpful in guiding decision-making and document production toward the most probable effective solution. The trade-off is necessary, as professional rhetors will be ultimately evaluated on the documents they produce in a professional setting. The professional writer’s actual role is finding the appropriate balance between invention and efficiency.

Professional writers can find this balance by aiming to be professional rhetors skilled in document production. According to Regli, rhetors need to be trained in: “tagmemic problem solving strategies to fend off hasty conclusions” and to aid in identifying central purpose; situational analysis techniques to contextualize the rhetorical situation; audience analysis “to speak to the audience directly”; informational analysis “to figure out the meaning of unfamiliar [or contested] words or concepts … [because] an understanding of the structure of information is crucial” and production skills that enable feedback from all members so that questions are asked, concerns are raised and revisions are incorporated prior to finalizing a project (Regli, 75-77). The mark of an excellent professional writer will be a thoughtful engagement in the preliminary stages of analysis, which will be reflected in a comprehensive, cohesive, clear and concise final product. Managing one’s time effectively is key for a professional writer who defines the scope of their role in this way, allotting time for both interaction and production to satisfy the purpose of their profession. In doing so, they must combine the idealistic goals of being a professional rhetor with the oft-expected duties of a document technician.

The broad definition of “organizationally situated authorship” allows – and requires – professional writers to break out of the traditional role of information managers, packagers and publishers to embark in a more sophisticated role as knowledge creators and collaboration managers. Regli suggests:

“As rhetoricians we inherit a tradition that knows a great deal about how to persuade an audience, about how to win an argument, and about how to perform in a competitive situation like a law court where one party will be the winner and the other will lose. By contrast, we know much less about how to exchange knowledge profitably, about how to clarify difference of definition and association while recognizing ambiguities, and about how to identify and solve problems while incorporating many varied perspectives. We know a great deal and have extensive codification schemes for the rhetoric of persuasion. In contrast, we know very little about the rhetoric of interaction.” (74-75)

 

Polarization often eases the task of comprehension; it’s easier to think in black and white than to deal in shades of gray. The field of professional writing and rhetoric is no exception. Katz and Regli attempt to divide the field into two opposing extremes: one guided by a rhetoric of persuasion (the document technician) and the other guided by a rhetoric of interaction (the professional rhetor); however, the field spans a continuum between these extremes, requiring professional writers to find the balance that best suits the organizational context for which they are writing.

Leave a comment