Contesting the Objectivist Paradigm: Gender Issues in the Technical and Professional Communication Curriculum

In her article “Contesting the Objectivist Paradigm: Gender Issues in the Technical and Professional Communication Curriculum,” Lee Brasseur discusses the different aspects of her master’s level “Gender Issues in Technical and Professional Writing and Communication” class and how she is working toward a socially responsible discourse model.

Brasseur begins her discussion by giving a brief history of language practices. She says that scientific language has been about clarity and conciseness, but that it often hides the complexity of the social environment. Scientific rationalism reflects a view of subject/object ideologies, which assume that one’s position is impartial because the human agency is self-defined and self-motivated. Language practices influenced by this outlook promote a disregard for any culture or cultures outside the dominant one. The dominant group naturally imposes an order upon the more subordinate parts of the culture. Science and technology have reflected the views of the dominant group within its culture, which is a “masculinist model of human experience which assigns goodness to certain valued ‘male’ traits such as rational thinking and objectivity” (477). The current understanding of rational judgment is defined by this group’s ideas about human behavior. However, this paradigm is shifting as more critics warn us about its problematic theories and practices. These critics hope to replace the current discourse model with one that emphasizes multiple positions and moves toward a new paradigm of “objective” discourse.

Brasseur then goes on to discuss the need for a course devoted to gender issues in technical communication. Her goals for the class are to communicate to future technical communicators the value of critiquing the traditional technical discourse model and its reliance on gender-based assumptions. She believes that a course entirely devoted to discussing gender issues will help students study the theoretical and practical information that can strengthen their resolve to change outdated and ineffective paradigms. The students in her class, she believes, will learn that although some of the current discourse models in technical communication are effective in an organization, they may also contribute to communication that limits the capacity to promote change.

Next, Brasseur highlights the two course goals for her “Gender Issues in Technical and Professional Writing and Communication” class. The first goal is to introduce students to the “problems inherent in gendered assumptions about rationality and objectivity, as well as the role of feminist theory in addressing these problems” (479). While the second goal is for students to “gain practical experience in addressing these problems by conducting ethnographic workplace studies” (479).

The assigned readings for Brasseur’s course include those that would present oppositional or essentialist views of feminism, and those that promoted situated knowledge. These texts focus on the societal differences between men and women, as well as the different ways of thinking and understanding. Brasseur discusses the difficulty in selecting textbooks, and says her final decision was based on the diverse background of her students.

For assignments, Brasseur’s students responded in essay format to one or two questions that were meant to help them sort out what they had read. In addition to the assigned readings, Brasseur also had her students select their own readings and lead a class discussion about what they had found. To complete her second goal, the students designed a workplace ethnographic study on a topic related to gender issues.

Brasseur then goes on to describe her syllabus for the course. The syllabus consisted of three units, which focused on specific goals for the class. The first unit was centered on the larger problems of discourse models with privilege objective voices. The second unit provided an examination of two central issues underlying this communication model: “the important role that naming plays in determining how we think and communicate our sense of reality,” and “how permanent positionings of domination and subordination underlie any problematic subject/object ideologies” (481). The third unit addressed the social construction of the workplace and promoted the examination of traditional forms of oral discourse. In addition to the three units, the syllabus listed student-selected readings that focused on the topic of women and technology.

Next, Brasseur discusses an essential part of her course design, which is moving from theory to practice. Through the assigned readings, students became aware of the different theories related to technical discourse, and from these readings, they were able to design their own workplace study to help them gain a personal understanding of the complexity of organizational roles of rationality and objectivity. Brasseur taught her students how to perform proper ethnographies, which take place in a “real world” setting and instead of having the traditional hypothesis, begin with a series of general questions. Even though these studies weren’t performed in a short-time period, Brasseur believed they were useful because they offer a different kind of picture than a study performed in a laboratory. The students performed a variety of studies including some with educational settings, one in a bank, and one in a hospital. Brasseur says that greatest value of the studies was that they provided direct examples of gender-based assumptions for her students.

Brasseur concludes her article by discussing the student and instructor evaluations for the course. She says that overall, the students’ responses were positive, and that the only real complaint was the amount of reading. The comments from her students included how they couldn’t imagine a degree without this class and how the class helped them see the relation of feminist theory to technical writing. Brasseur also includes her own set of comments for what she would like to change about the course in the future. These comments include a change in the required texts, and to allow students to choose any workplace situation to study, not just gender. Brasseur ends her discussion by stating that traditional technical models of discourse are normally taught, and that her class provides a different way of thinking about discourse models.