By Lisa Meloncon | Senior Member
For many years, the field of technical communication paid close attention to the development of academic degree programs. The first official recording of programmatic data can be found in Academic Programs in Technical Communication, which was published in 1976. This volume points to the uniqueness of the field: it was edited by academics and published by STC. Three subsequent editions of this text were published in 1981, 1985, and 1993, and a follow-up to these four texts was came out in 1997, Education in Scientific and Technical Communication: Academic Programs That Work. Since 1997, however, detailed programmatic examinations have been confined to a rather limited number of articles. It is likely that one of the reasons the field has not addressed this gap within the literature is that the field is unaware of its present size and scope.
Presently, there is no central repository of information about programs. The closest the field has are three self-enrollment lists (provided by STC, the Council for Programs in Technical and Scientific Communication [CPTSC], and the Association of Teachers of Technical Writing [ATTW]) for program directors to enter basic information about academic degree programs and/or certificates offered. As Sally Henschel has shown, these three lists carry with them their own ideologies and limitations. Moreover, keeping track of academic degree programs can be a full-time job.
However, the field—academics and practitioners alike—needs a better understanding of the academic programmatic landscape because technical and professional communication (TPC) programs in the United States have grown at a staggering rate (see Figures 1–3).
The growth rates of academic programs runs parallel with the description in the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Outlook Handbook for jobs in technical communication as well as related fields such as e-learning, grant writing, and advocacy. All of this growth professionally and academically comes without the programmatic and curricular scholarship and reflection that the field had in its early days; thus, it presents opportunities for the field on several fronts.
First, the relationship between academic programs and the professional field needs to be rejuvenated. Academics should be more proactive in reaching out to the practitioners in their communities. With tightening university budgets, professional development opportunities for faculty are difficult to finance. Many practitioners would be willing to provide workshops on new software or discuss current trends and practices, which builds good relationships and provides opportunities for both academics and practitioners.
Second, while some programs may not be large enough to support a full-fledged student chapter of STC, opportunities still exist to infuse programs with connections to those who are practicing technical communication. In this case, practitioners can offer to participate in roundtable discussions about career options within technical communication or show practical connections between what students are learning in the classroom to the practice of technical communication. These connections could also provide students much-needed networking opportunities.
Third, the impetus for reaching out does not fall solely on the shoulder of academics. Practitioners have a stake in academic programs as well. Moreover, practitioners can also collaborate with academics on the types and kinds of practical research the field needs. Building on successful interactions like the STC/CPTSC pre-conference of 2011 (see report at www.cptsc.org/partnership-prof-preconference.pdf), research opportunities are another way that the growing number of programs can be connected to the practicing field of technical communication.
Finally, academic programs cannot, and should not, escape the connection to the professional field of technical communication. What this means is that TPC programs must adapt and change their curricula to changes in business and industry and because of advances in technology. Even though the process of writing has not altered much, the way writing is composed and delivered has altered dramatically. Programs must continually adapt or risk being labeled as outdated and out of touch, which is already a constant refrain made by practitioners toward academic programs (see, e.g., www.techwr-l.com/archives/). Thus, for technical communication to grow and prosper, academic programs need connections to practitioners to ensure they are connecting their curricula to current practices and trends. These sorts of collaborations can ensure that academic programs are preparing students for the twenty-first-century workplace.
Conclusion
The growth of academic programs provides an unprecedented opportunity for scholars and practitioners to explore relationships between programs and the practice of technical communication. But it will take a concerted effort on all sides to ensure academic program sustainability and the vibrancy of the field.
Additional Reading
Allen, N., and S. T. Benninghoff. TPC Program Snapshots: Developing Curricula and Addressing Challenges. Technical Communication Quarterly 13.2 (2004): 157–85.
Davis, M. T. Shaping the Future of Our Profession. Technical Communication 48.2 (2001): 139–44.
Henschel, S. Forecast: Change in Technical Communication Programs. Poster presented at Association of Teachers of Technical Writing Conference. New Orleans, LA, 2008.
Harner, S., and A. Rich. Trends in Undergraduate Curriculum in Scientific and Technical Communication Programs. Technical Communication 52.2 2005): 209–20.
Keene, M. L., ed. Education in Scientific and Technical Communication: Academic Programs That Work. Arlington, VA: Society for Technical Communication Press, 1997.
Kim, L., and C. Tolley. Fitting Academic Programs to Workplace Marketability: Career Paths of Five Technical Communicators. Technical Communication 51.3 (2004): 376–86.
Meloncon, L. Master’s Programs in Technical Communication: A Current Overview. Technical Communication 56.2 (2009): 137–48.
Whiteside, A. L. The Skills that Technical Communicators Need: An Investigation of Technical Communication Graduates, Managers, and Curricula. Journal of Technical Writing & Communication, 33.4 (2003): 303–18.
Wilson, G., and J. D. Ford. The Big Chill: Seven Technical Communicators Talk Ten Years After Their Master’s Program. Technical Communication, 50.2 (2003).
Lisa Meloncon (meloncon@tek-ritr.com) is an STC senior member of the Southwest Ohio Chapter and professor of technical and professional writing at the University of Cincinnati. Other than programmatic research, her main interest is in health and environmental health communication, and the impact of technology and communication in delivering complex information to various audiences. She also owns a technical communication consulting firm.
