Brad Mehlenbacher: "What is the Future of Technical Communication?"

Mehlenbacher identifies the problem technical communicators face is an issue that "is largely a communication challenge" (189). In today's workplace, the idea of tech communicator as "expert" is mostly nonexistent, so it's more important to be a facilitator between technology and employees. As the workplace is downsized, tech writers are expected to do more. This had led to the increase in "wicked problems" for tech communicators (191). In the past, problems were "tame problems" or issues that have a clear beginning and end. Mehlenbacher uses the example of chess and how one can use similar strategies to win games, strategies that are repeatable, learnable, and can be improved on (191). Wicked problems, on the other hand, have no real beginning or end; strategies that worked in one instance may not work across others; and repetition won't necessarily make for better tech communication. Wicked problems are bad because 1. tech communicators may generalize a problem and apply the same method to any issue that's similar (becoming static rather than dynamic). 2. The general becomes the rigid and used on more complex issues requiring a different solution. 3. Tech communicators can ignore what they don't understand and use what they do know to make it easier for them, rather than what's most valuable for the situation (192).
Because of wicked problems, "rhetorical self-consciousness" is decreasing. To be rhetorically self-conscious, is to know about modes of persuasion, understanding that wicked problems take time to figure out, and to reflect upon the problem (193).
Tech communicators no longer need to be experts. The increase in wicked problems calls for tech comms to be facilitators, "to strive to understand and mediate the relationship between complex symbolic systems and human beings" (194). In other words, to be the go-between technology and humans. Mehlenbacher stresses the importance of tech comms to reflect; to think about what went right and what needs to be improved on; to think about knowledge, how it's gained, what the person already knows, and how to navigate these spaces(197-98).
To teach this, the author also stresses that teachers themselves need to reflect on their "own learning and communication processes" (198). He recommends using many problem-solving activities in class to give students a chance to play around with a new understanding of knowledge so that decisions are influenced by "reflection rather than reaction" (200). That's what the take-away from this article is: with the workplace as it is today, tech communicators need not be experts, but facilitators. To be the most effective, tech communicators need time for reflection on issues, and to not rely on past ways of problem-solving strategies, but to continually revise as to not get lulled into a false sense of security by using strategies that are the easiest.
Connections:
Longo and Fountain- rather than looking to the future, think of the past to unearth what has worked, reflecting on who is serves (or doesn't). Close to Mehlenbacher's article in that it calls for a high degree of reflection.

Swarts- wants tech communicators to " understand the user's tasks and the functional capabilities of the tools used" (146). Goes along with future of tech writing as being the facilitators between technology and humans.

As I was reading this I was reminded of Johnson's "user-friendly" posit. Mehlenbacher wants tech communicators to be better equipped at solving problems and being mediators of technology and other employees.

Questions:
Is it possible to do the level of reflection Mehlenbacher's asking for? He admits that the workplace has become "busier." If tech communicators are on board with this idea of reflection, what if the higher-ups at a job aren't? What if they're more concerned with product than process?
 

Because Lauren always has cool pictures in her blog, here's a gratuitous picture of my Ry-guy