Gender and Technical Communication: A Collection of
Scholarly Articles
Michelle Partridge-Doerr
October 3, 2008
ENG 512
Tasked with writing a book review of an edited volume within the field of
technical communication, and being a feminist who is new to field, I first began
searching for a volume dedicated to the changes that the feminist movement has
prompted in the workplace. When I could not find that, I looked for a volume that
discusses how feminism has affected the curriculum of technical communication. When I
could not find that, I broadened my search to include all volumes about gender and
technical communication. But there were no edited collections about gender issues in
relation to technical communication. Instead, there is a gaping hole in the literature of the
field. Lee Brasseur recognized the same deficiency while creating a college course that
subverts the objectivist paradigm in technical communication. Because “there is no
exclusive text on gender issues in technical communication,” she instead “chose from a
variety of sources” ([1] p. 480) to build the curriculum.
I decided to follow Brasseur’s lead and create my own collection of scholarly
articles for the purposes of this review. I wanted my selection to mimic existing edited
volumes, so I chose from among the journals in the field and limited the search to those
printed within the last 15 years. Additionally, these articles represent several facets of the
field of technical communication: rhetoric (Sherry Dell, “A communication-based theory
of the glass ceiling: rhetorical sensitivity and upward mobility within the technical
organization”); education and training (Lee Brasseur, “Contesting the objectivist
paradigm: gender issues in the technical professional communication curriculum”);
professional multimedia (Amelia Tong and Ela Klecun, “Toward accommodating gender
differences in multimedia communication”); scholarly writing (Jo Allen, “Women and
authority in business/technical communication scholarship: An analysis of writing
features, methods, and strategies”); technical writing in the workplace (Beverly Sauer,
“Sexual dynamics of the profession: articulating the ecriture masculine of science and
technology” and Deborah Bosley, “Feminist theory, audience analysis, and verbal and
visual representation in a technical communication writing task”); and visual design
(Deborah Bosley, “Gender and visual communication: toward a feminist theory of
design”).
Because there is a history of contention among technical communicators, I
included representatives from both academia (for example, Brasseur and Bosley) and
industry (Dell and Tong). This is important to note because although the authors’
perspectives are different, the themes they discuss are the same. Specifically, the articles
assume the masculinist tradition of science and technology that influences the field of
technical communication. A result of that influence is the dominant paradigm of
“masculine” objectivity and rationality and subsequent subordination of “feminine”
subjectivity and emotion. The articles use these assumptions to explain the roots of
gender differences in cognition and visual abilities as apparent in technical
communication. In an attempt to accommodate those differences, the authors apply the
theory of the social construction of knowledge to debate the dominant pedagogy and
introduce a feminist perspective.
My goal in choosing these articles and focusing on these themes is twofold. I
want to be aware of some unified opinions about gender in technical communication so
that I am aware of the difficulties I face as a woman in this field. I also want to be armed
with solutions so that I can share them with my female co-workers and classmates, who I
envision as the audience for this collection. Ultimately, I envision creating an edited
volume about gender and technical communication that includes these articles, among
others. It is my hope that my audience for this review will become aware of these issues
and demand a more in depth and expansive edited volume. This volume would be a
collaborative work from female technical communicators in workplace and university
settings that would set the example of interagency efforts. It would also provide the
blueprint for technical communicators, who have a unique position as mediator in most
workplaces, to enact social change.
Androcentric Bias of Science and Technology
Feminist theory suggests that science and technology are biased toward what are
considered “masculine” traits: rationality and objectivity. The reasoning behind this is
that men dominated the field since its inception and created the epistemology based on
their own biases. And, because “science and technology has reflected the views of the
dominant group within its culture, the viewpoint has been a masculinist model of human
experience which assigns goodness to certain valued ‘male’ traits such as rational
thinking and objectivity” ([1] p. 477). Brasseur uses this theory in her article to argue for
a redefinition of objectivity in the field of technical communication. Her goal is to
propose a socially responsible discourse model through the conceptualization of a college
course on gender issues in technical and professional communication [1]. She believes
that it is important for students to examine the history of the androcentric bias so that the
students can recognize its effects and failings.
Beverly Sauer discusses those effects on technical writing in her article. She
critiques the sexually loaded metaphors and violent imagery in technical operator’s
manuals and explains how they interfere with the proper operation of dangerous
machinery. The “sexual metaphors of penetration, power, and dominance reflect a deeper
masculinist bias in science and technology… particularly the notion that the rational
observer can analyze and master the complexities of nature” ([2] p. 317). The danger
inherent in that notion is the “complexity of the phenomenological reality” ([2] p. 318);
“the notion of a pure and consistent reason reflects masculinist assumptions about the
ability of the Rational Man to act without emotion of subjective feeling” ([2] p. 320). In
Sauer’s case study, the expert testimony of a technical writer speaking about a tool’s
operator’s manual, the objective and simplified text failed to accurately describe the
operation, contributing to fatal user error ([2] p. 315).
Deborah Bosley echoes this sentiment in her articles: “technical communication
devoid of a political or ethical context, and removed from the human, can have quite
dangerous effects” ([3] p. 228). She adds that technical communication, because it has
roots in scientific positivism, is considered an objective translation of facts and data [3];
however, “the irony is that, although technical communication exhorts us to be cognizant
of audience… at the same time it traditionally adheres to a theoretical perspective that
privileges knowledge and truth as objective, distanced, and uninfluenced by linguistic,
human intercession” ([4] p. 296). This paradox highlights the inherent power imbalance
that has been created by the patriarchal influence in science and technology. As many
authors in this collection have discussed, valuing certain traits and cultures necessarily
means devaluing others.
Power and Domination
The logical effect of the dominance of one group in society and its subsequent
dominance of many aspects of that society is that other groups, and the aspects of society
with which they are associated, are marginalized. When the “dominant group makes rules
to govern society and its institutions, it naturally imposes an order upon the other, more
subordinate parts of the culture” ([1] p. 476). In terms of the objectivist bias in technical
communication, the “same language practices can obscure or hide the complexity of the
social environment and may end up, in many cases, telling only one side of the story,”
which is not good communication ([1] p. 476). Brasseur makes this point to underscore
the importance of teaching students studying technical communication about alternative
viewpoints.
Sauer, in the article about the operator’s manual, examines the use of sexual slang
by the author of a scholarly article. Using the slang term “studgun” in scholarly writing,
she posits, gives the term authority. Word usage, especially in academic writing, is
governed by social constraints. In other words, words chosen for scholarly prose has the
“seal of approval” of the society, or at least its most dominant group [2]. At the same
time, the term, which is overtly sexual and characterizes the tool as masculine and potent,
marginalizes the female readership. Therefore, “if the discourse of scholarship excludes
women… scholarly language will impede women’s ability to express themselves;
dominant (male) groups will have an unfair advantage” ([2] p. 313).
Jo Allen makes a similar point in her 1994 article, which examines women’s
business and technical writing and looks for characteristics of authoritative rhetoric. As a
result of the masculinist bias in technology, “what counts as knowledge (especially in
academic circles) has been more frequently defined by men and, as a male-dominated
enterprise, has largely excluded women from knowledge-making” ([5] p. 281). Academic
writing has also ignored women’s experiences, which helps explain why classical rhetoric
does not recognize traditionally “feminine” language features, like hedging, as
authoritative [5].
Sherry Dell addresses this theme of dominance from an industry standpoint. In
her 1992 article, Dell describes two forms of communication and discusses how they
contribute to the glass ceiling in the workplace. She states that glass ceiling affects men
as well and women, and the reason for its existence is the communicative ability of the
employee and not the gender. Her theory “proposes that the expressive communicator
will be seen as member of the dominant organizational communication style, and the
rhetorically sensitive communicator will be seen as an outsider” ([6] p. 231). What is
important to note is (1) that the dominant group dictates the acceptable form of
communication and (2) that rhetorical outsiders are marginalized. It is no coincidence
that features of the ostracized communication style, rhetorical sensitivity, are the features
most often associated with women’s language. As is evident in the next section, traits
associated with women are considered inferior, even though those traits were arbitrarily
assigned by the patriarchy.
Gender Differences
At the root of much research on gender and communication is the idea of the
“culture of difference,” wherein “reported differences between males and females in the
works on Carol Gillian or Mary Belenky and her associates have so quickly and
thoroughly become part of our social consciousness that now we tend to observe the
behavior of males and females through the lens of those theories” ([4] p. 293). Most
recent research assumes gender differences and compares them to study the inferiority of
one set versus the other [5]. The authors in this collection subvert the trend and question
the validity of this theory. The findings of these studies help explain why the theory
persists and what can be done to change perceptions.
All of the authors agree on the most commonly referenced gender differences, and
Bosley summarizes them succinctly in her 1992 article:
Research on psychological development… suggests that women are more likely
than men to have what can be called a ‘connected,’ ‘collectivist,’ or ‘sociocentric’
schema of the self in relationship to others… Males, on the other hand, are often
characterized as being ‘egocentric,’ ‘individuated,’ or ‘autonomous,’ implying
sense of self as separate, individuated, and autonomous ([4] p. 297).
These characteristics are borne of the objectivist masculinist bias in science and
technology. The traits that are valued, like objectivity and rationality, come from a
separation of the self from nature (the natural world, human emotion, etc.). Along the
same lines, traits that are devalued, like subjectivity and emotion, come from closeness
with nature. Bosley tests the implications of the theory of different abilities between the
genders using two separate studies. Her theory in her 1992 article is that “if women create
meaning through connectedness, and men through individuation and distance, then they
may perceive and visually represent the world in like manner” ([3] p. 224). Therefore,
differences between the genders in an assignment to visually depict a series of steps
would be expected. Likewise, Bosley analyzes men’s and women’s attention to audience
in a writing task in her 1994 article to test if women, who tend toward affinity and
collaboration, are more adept at connecting with the audience. Both studies yield almost
no discernable differences in ability between the genders.
Allen also challenges the existing assumption of gender differences in her article
about authority in women’s scholarly writing. She restates the description of recent
research: “In communications, gender research has often been conducted in an effort to
test popular perceptions about the existence and, in many cases, the inferiority of
“women’s language’” ([5] p. 271). In her sample of 24 articles written by women, almost
all used traits of women’s language. Those traits include self-references, hedging, the use
of parenthetical information, and inclusion of women’s issues, all of which offer a
distinct voice—a taboo in objective writing. Allen effectively argues that the female
authors not only establish authority using these devices but also connect in a unique way
with their audiences, which makes their combination of traditional writing guidelines and
marginalized feminine language incredibly effective [5].
Social Construction of Knowledge
The authors of this collection of essays build from the definition of masculine
bias, to the exploration of dominance and subjugation, and to the exposure of gender
“differences” to reach a common conclusion. They come at that stance from many angles.
Amelia Tong and Ela Klecun, who advocate for accommodating gender differences in
multimedia communication in their 2004 article, assume the existence of gender
inequalities and cite some of the articles that Bosley and Allen fault for overstating
cognitive differences between the genders. However, the authors concede that “gender
differences are not only inherent (physiological) but are also socially constructed and thus
need to be considered in their social context” ([7] p. 123). They also suggest that those
differences are changing, and may mirror changing technologies ([7] p. 123). They
speculate that “effective communication can be a thoughtful and articulate process and no
longer gender specific” ([7] p. 120), which echoes Allen’s findings on women’s scholarly
writing.
Bosley, who studied a visual design assignment among school-aged teens, did
find a few differences between the genders, namely the choice of shapes used. In those
cases, she suggests that “such differences may be the result of the female respondents’
own expectations of their abilities…women may be sabotaging their own abilities by
conceding to the expectations of our culture in such studies” ([4] p. 303). Likewise, to
explain the longstanding assumption of differences, she states that “these differences may
be a result of education and socialization which encourage boy in areas which foster
spatial abilities and encourage girls in areas of verbal ability; however, despite (or
because of) such external influences, differences continue to be noted” ([3] p. 225).
Sauer contends that “we must acknowledge that all reality is a matter of social
interpretation and make clear the biases and perspectives which influence what we see
and what we create” ([2] p. 228). She also points out that even science “is a reflection of
context and of the knower” ([2] p. 223). She argues in her 1994 article that good technical
writing must recognize the audience and that current models of writing, which reflect
masculinist bias and suppress women’s knowledge, can not effectively do that. She posits
that “creating a balance between the verbal and the visual components of representation
may well represent a movement toward integrating a more ‘female’ way of seeing” ([2]
p. 224).
Brasseur critiques the masculinist bias in this way: “the current understanding of
what constitutes rational behavior or objective judgment reflects only [the dominant]
group’s ideas about the nature of human activity” ([1] p. 477). Therefore, the curriculum
for her course “places an emphasis on how individual perceptions of reality inform the
ways in which we and others act” ([1] p. 482).
This collective focus on social knowledge reflects the three concepts of ethos,
reputation, and authority in rhetorical theory. A female technical writer’s ability to
convey expertise and leadership and earn respect from her audience and peers hinges on
the dominant perception of women in the fields of science and technology. Women must
start from within their fields to replace that perception and negative stereotypes with the
alternative presented here, and we as female technical communicators are the best agents
for that change. First, because we are women, whose views have been subjugated for
centuries, we have a different and fresh perspective on science, rationality, and
communication. Second, because we are technical communicators, we occupy positions
as mediators and trusted confidants and have a breadth of knowledge of all facets of our
organizations. It is the task of every female technical communicator, both in academia
and industry, to collaborate to project a new image of the field. Indeed, this collection
provides an excellent example of women on both sides sharing ideas and discussing the
field’s most urgent issues. With this collection of articles, women have a tool to subvert
the objectivist paradigm, project authority and competence, and critique misconceptions
about gender differences. Armed with this collection, women can be the advocates for
social change that technical communicators are uniquely positioned to be.
Works Cited
[1]
L.E. Brasseur, “Contesting the objectivist paradigm: gender issues in the technical
professional communication curriculum,” IEEE Transactions on Professional
Communication, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 114–123, Sep. 1993.
[2]
B. Sauer, “Sexual dynamics of the profession: articulating the ecriture masculine of
science and technology,” Technical Communication Quarterly, vol. 3, no. 3, pp.
309–324, Summer 1994.
[3]
D. Bosley, “Gender and visual communication: toward a feminist theory of design,”
IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 222–229,
Dec. 1992.
[4]
D. Bosley, “Feminist theory, audience analysis, and verbal and visual representation
in a technical communication writing task,” Technical Communication Quarterly,
vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 271–292, Summer 1994.
[5]
J. Allen, “Women and authority in business/technical communication scholarship:
An analysis of writing features, methods, and strategies,” Technical Communication
Quarterly, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 271–292, Summer 1994.
[6]
S. Dell, “A communication-based theory of the glass ceiling: rhetorical sensitivity
and upward mobility within the technical organization,” IEEE Transactions on
Professional Communication, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 230–235, Dec. 1992.
[7]
A. Tong and E. Klecun, “Toward accommodating gender differences in multimedia
communication,” IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, vol. 47, no.
2, pp. 118–129, June 2004.