Re: Techwriter's toolkits and directions for tomorrow

[SIANNON -at- VISUS -dot- JNJ -dot- com]

Just a couple quick notes on Mandy's posting of her discussion with Bill 
(there's a lot that's still digesting, and I'll have to review that after 
hours):
---------------------------------
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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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)?

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.

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

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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

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

---
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.