NEW TOPIC: Academia and Industry

Wed Dec 6 14:09:46 MST 2006

I agree, Kathy, that the new STC might be a viable place to brush up on
technical skills. I too am behind the curve since my industry days (like
Dan, I worked in the defense industry, although not as impressively
long). But I'm not convinced that STC workshops would be the most
efficient or cost-effective way to do so. 

As you point out, opportunities both online and on-site abound for this
kind of training. Personally, I think I'd be more likely to get value
out of a short online training course in the context of a consulting gig
that made me apply the skills immediately, than I would out of a
context-less workshop at STC. 

By the same token, I also wonder whether practitioners will get much out
of STC workshops, if they're formed under a technology/tools focus. Most
people nowadays simply learn how to learn technology, then pick up
specific technical skills as they need them. Will practitioners value a
two-grand (with travel and lodging) training-fest - particularly as
increasing numbers of them are consultants/independent contractors
footing the bill themselves? I don't know; I suppose we'll see.

The value of a conference, it seems to me, is to confer - not to get
training. But that might be the academic in me speaking.

Miles Kimball
TTU

-----Original Message-----
From: bounce-stc-ac-277407 at lists.stc.org
[mailto:bounce-stc-ac-277407 at lists.stc.org] On Behalf Of Northcut,
Kathryn
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 2:41 PM
To: stc-ac
Subject: [stc-ac] RE: NEW TOPIC: Academia and Industry

It was hard to tell from Hart and Conklin's article the types of
processes, software packages, utilities, and related gizmos their
research subjects are proficiently using. As an academic, my
technological skills are languishing. If I were in industry, I'd be
using RoboHelp and Photoshop and Frame and whatever else the job
required and provided; my university provides little. I used to be way
more flexible with technology, for example when I had 2 computers on my
desk - a Unix machine and a PC - than I am now, with an aging PC and
centralized IT controlling what's on it. 

The thought did cross my mind that the practitioners in Hart's and
Conklin's study aren't using very much in the way of specific tools
skills, but this impression may be more the result of the point of their
article, not the nature of those people's jobs. The jobs I'm seeing
advertised on the STC jobs list that I'm most interested in for my
students (and myself, if the tenure track academic thing doesn't work
out) - require more than a passing understanding of standards,
publication software packages, and other various specific tools that I
don't use daily (and in some cases, I don't know what the acronyms or
terms even mean). If I were to learn specific tools, say at a conference
like STC, I'd make sure to use them to keep my skills fresh - and the
way for me to use them is to teach a class that features them (even if I
have to have students huddle around my office computer, or pay out of
pocket for a couple of licenses). Bonus for the students!

I believe that a person with a broad view and understanding of
communication and all its guises and theories and research methods, but
no ability to take work product and change/fix/edit/adapt it with the
tools at hand, under a deadline, is no more valuable than the techie
with no understanding of writing or communication or business. STC does
hold the promise of being able to provide me with some of the narrower
tools skills that I mentioned are languishing, most effectively through
2 hour or 1/2 day workshops/tutorials at the conference. Caveat: STC is
not the only place to get such training, I am sure. 

I've been hoping (and I know Hillary has seen me say this before) that
STC might set up faculty internships, but then it occurred to me that if
I want to get into the workplace, all I need to do is contact some
managers/directors at various prospective work sites and explain my
situation. We don't necessarily need STC to do anything, but it would
sure be convenient for us, as academics and practitioners, if they
offered more services that brought us together. 

Kathryn Northcut
Assistant Professor of Technical Communication
Department of English and Technical Communication
University of Missouri-Rolla
northcut at umr.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: bounce-stc-ac-319517 at lists.stc.org on behalf of Kimball, Miles
Sent: Wed 12/6/2006 1:24 PM
To: stc-ac
Subject: [stc-ac] RE: NEW TOPIC: Academia and Industry

Responding to Jimmie's call for research into academic/practitioner
relations: One step in the right direction is Hillary Hart and James
Conklin's article in this month's TC (53.4). Given their research and
this conversation, it sounds like STC is not only out of touch with
academics, but out of touch with practitioners. 

I don't know exactly what the conference lineup will be, but it sounds
like STC's new model shifts it toward workshops on practical aspects of
tech comm and its technologies, so practitioners can enjoy greater
"take-home value." But Hart and Conklin found that technical
communicators are increasingly thinking of themselves not as tech
writers, but as communication facilitators. They still create tech docs,
but that's not the center of their role anymore - they're process
enablers, more than producers.

For most of us in academia, Hart and Conklin's research is good news -
we've been arguing for a shift toward a self-definition as
"symbolic-analytic" "articulators" for years (Johnson-Eilola,
Slack/Miller/Doak). For the STC, however, it's bad (or at least ironic)
news, because it suggests that they're emphasizing something (training
in tools and documentation practices) that practitioners don't really
see as central to their roles as technical communicators anymore.

Of course, I could be misconstruing the STC's intentions or actions -
it's possible to have workshops about how to be a better communication
facilitator, for example. But it occurs to me that the workshop model
naturally aims at much more limited, practical, and defined practices
about tools and technologies (eg XML).

The sad part about all this is that STC *needs* academics (like Hart and
Conklin) to help them understand the practice of tech comm - not to
mention their own membership. H & C (and the other academics who make up
the majority of authors in TC) are fulfilling an essential role - to
take the long and deep view, rather than to solve immediate problems.
Unfortunately, these changes at STC seem to suggest that they're less
interested in our contributions than they used to be. 

That's fine - STC's leadership is free to define the organization's
boundaries as they see fit. But it's a pity that they've so effectively
soured what had been a mostly positive venue for academics and
practitioners to share information. Especially since the value (as far
as I can see) was primarily to the practitioner side of the equation.
Academics may sometimes be "out of touch," but we still conduct most of
the research and make most of the knowledge in the profession. We also
(as Ann Wiley points out) provide and train new members for the
profession.

But the value of STC has never extend as far the other way (ie, to the
benefit of academics). I've rarely gained much of any use from STC
except for the journal, which I get free through our library anyway. The
conference, though it had some useful content, has always been stacked
with sessions that are of little direct utility to academics (either in
terms of pedagogy or research). The best thing academics got out of STC
was connections with practitioners - and frankly, making those
connections doesn't necessarily require going to a spendy and
inconvenient conference filled with practitioner training workshops. 

Given STC's declining membership, I'd go Ann one further: perhaps STC's
time is past, not just its big conference. 

Then again, maybe I'm just feeling cynical. There's still much good in
this relationship if we can salvage it. So for the time being, I'll
continue to pay my STC dues, even if I won't ever be able to afford the
conference.

Miles Kimball
Texas Tech

-----Original Message-----
From: bounce-stc-ac-277407 at lists.stc.org
[mailto:bounce-stc-ac-277407 at lists.stc.org] On Behalf Of Jimmie
Killingsworth
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 10:40 AM
To: stc-ac
Subject: [stc-ac] RE: NEW TOPIC: Academia and Industry

Hello, all.  Sorry to add to the pile on this, but Deb's response
moves me to say that what we're dealing with here might be a deeper
division between academics and practitioners than we're perhaps
willing to acknowledge.  Indeed some of the flaming in this stream of
emails reminds me of what I think of as attitudes embedded in the
division.  Once I was running a little late to a session at STC
because I had been stuck in a meeting in which I was trying to get a
publication series initiated but was being put off by the Society
management.  I hurried in and tried to jump into my presentation,
unfortunately without wasting time on apologies and explanations.
The evaluations of the session flamed me for being an "arrogant
academic" who didn't care enough about the session to make it on
time.  Somebody also said something about my casual clothes.  I WAS
arrogant enough (I guess) to be put off by these comments.  I've also
been told in workshops I was leading at the convention that an
academic like me couldn't possibly understand some of the issues I
was presenting even though most of the stuff I was talking about came
directly from experience in the field.  Finally, I think it's
important to acknowledge that we DO sometimes think differently,
partly because we have to generalize at a fairly high level if we
hope to teach students with a variety of interests in applying our
teachings, whereas most practitioners work with applications that are
so particular to their situations that they have very limited
relevance to our work.  Exploring the dimensions of the differences
between academic and practitioner attitudes and discourses in tech
comm--and exploring with open-eyed honesty--could make a very useful
project for those of us in STC and for our students.  Jimmie

At 9:23 AM -0500 12/6/06, Bosley, Deborah wrote:
>Bonni, I think you've covered the territory
>well. STC used to have faculty internships
>and they'd help place faculty in corporate environments
>for a brief time (I hope I'm remembering that correctly).
>
>All of the items you've listed are very do-able. These problems
>have existed for as long as I've been a member of STC (20
>years).  I'm not sure why we never make any headway.
>
>Deborah
>
>Dr. Deborah S. Bosley, Director
-- 
M. Jimmie Killingsworth, Ph.D.
Professor and Director of Writing Programs
Department of English
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX  77843
(979) 847-8550
(979) 862-2292 (fax)
killingsworth at tamu.edu

---
You are currently subscribed to STC Academic Community as:
miles.kimball at ttu.edu. To make changes in your subscription via the web,
or to search the list archives, browse to
http://lists.stc.org/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=stc-ac

Use the link above to remove an existing subscription and create a new
subscription with a new email address.  

To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-stc-ac-277407D at lists.stc.org

---
You are currently subscribed to STC Academic Community as:
northcut at umr.edu. To make changes in your subscription via the web, or
to search the list archives, browse to
http://lists.stc.org/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=stc-ac

Use the link above to remove an existing subscription and create a new
subscription with a new email address.  

To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-stc-ac-277407D at lists.stc.org

---
You are currently subscribed to STC Academic Community as:
miles.kimball at ttu.edu. To make changes in your subscription via the web,
or to search the list archives, browse to
http://lists.stc.org/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=stc-ac

Use the link above to remove an existing subscription and create a new
subscription with a new email address.  

To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-stc-ac-277407D at lists.stc.org