naming professional writing and technical communication?

In their survey of Association of Teachers of Technical Writing (ATTW) members, David Dayton and Stephen A. Bernhardt (2004) asked respondents to select their preference from a list of common names used for academic programs in professional and technical communication. Their results, Dayton and Bernhardt observed, confirm the enduring debate over what to call the field, a question they suspect will not be settled any time soon. One participant responded:

Naming the field is a consequence of the field’s lack of a coherent identity and lack of professional status…Thus, the organization makes up its own name for positions held by technical communicators, and we tend to think that’s great as long as our identity gets linked with other higher-status professions such as engineers or managers, as in “knowledge engineer” or “information engineer.” Finally, it’s probably a consequence of the rapid changes in the work people are doing and the new areas in which we practice. Names can’t keep up with the changing and expanding roles we fill. (p. 30)

The respondent makes two observations that are particularly relevant to this webtext: (a) names confer (or detract from) value by virtue of the associations they conjure up and (b) innovation—including technological innovations like wireless—complicates naming.

Jump back to naming.