One way to understand what it means to take a rhetorical approach to technical communication is to consider what questions we ask as we work to define the boundaries of technical communication and the work of technical communicators.  For example, instead of asking the question “what does technical communication look like?” we might shift our focus to ask the question “what does technical communication do?” As technical communicators, we explain things (you can read more about technical communication as explaining things in Section 3). In order to do the work of explaining things to specific audiences with particular intentions, we need to understand the rhetorical situation, which changes with each new communication task.

In this text, technical communication is understood as action. There are the actions that technical communicators take to assess and respond to a rhetorical situation, and then there is the action taken up by the audience. Technical communication generally assumes some specific action: its purpose is nearly always tied up in moving an audience to do something or to act in some way.

If thinking about communication in terms of action seems confusing, consider common examples of technical communication, such as an informative brochure about the Covid-19 vaccine, or a set of instructions on how to assemble a piece of furniture. In both cases, the texts–the brochure and the instructions–are instances of communication that assume some action on the part of the reader or audience. For the most part, technical communicators can assume that the purpose of an informational brochure on the Covid-19 vaccine is either working to persuade the audience to get the vaccine, or is offering information to an audience who already did get the vaccine, or is providing information to an audience that is deciding whether to get the vaccine. In each case, there is an associated action: receiving a vaccination against a specific virus. In the case of the instructions, one can assume that the audience will use those instructions to complete the specific action of assembling that piece of furniture.

Considering the rhetorical nature of communication, and framing communication in relation to action, also shifts the focus of technical communication towards the process rather than the product. In other words, while the products of technical communication vary quite a bit (you can practice some of these in Section 4 by reading about common genres), the process is always rhetorical. The process of technical communication is recursive, rhetorical, audience-focused, and linked to action. Technical communication is a recursive process, that involves writing, listening to feedback, revising, editing, and researching. You can read more about what it means to understand technical communication as a recursive process below.

Technical communication as recursive

As we take a rhetorical approach to technical communication–and to writing in particular–by analyzing and responding to each unique rhetorical situation, we also focus, in this text, on technical communication as recursive and as responsive.

Technical communication is recursive in that the process is iterative rather than linear; one recent workplace study frames professional writing as “multimodal editing” and as almost always collaborative. Technical communication is responsive in that it is user focused, and must respond to shifting needs, contexts, and purposes. The more we work to frame writing as recursive, with a focus on the process of technical communication (alongside an analysis of various products, which we do later in this text), the more we can also focus on communication as action, invested in access and equity. The recursive nature of technical communication means that there is always room for growth, change, and improvement: and there are always opportunities to work towards equity.

Working towards equity and inclusion in communication has not been, and is not, a linear process. Similarly, the process of creating a text or document rarely follows a linear path. In both cases, as we (technical communicators, researchers, and writers) collect new information or recognize previously unrecognized user needs, we need to step back and start again.

Often, as you write and research and collaborate and revise, you have to revisit and change things that you completed earlier during the writing process. For example, say you are writing a technical definition and receive input from a subject matter expert (SME) that challenges the definition you gathered from earlier interviews with other SMEs. What do you? Likely, you halt your writing to complete more follow-up research to see whether there is a second, equally accepted definition of this product or process, or whether the product or process has two competing approaches.

When we read texts (such as manuals, or technical reports, or definitions), we don’t see the process that went into creating and re-creating these texts. As a result, it might seem like a report (or manual or definition) was written in the order that you read it. As you write (and as you’ve likely already discovered writing and researching up to this point) you learn that introductions should be written last, or that you might work on three different sections of a report at the same time, or that first drafts look nothing like what ends up in a final draft of a definition on a webpage.

The writing process changes from one writer to another, and from one writing task to another. Some things that impact the writing process include:

• Time allotted to complete the task
• Whether you are “starting from scratch” or stepping into a project that has already begun (for example, whether you are coming up with a new proposal based on your own recommendations or experience, or whether you are asked to revise your organization’s employee handbook)
• Whether you are working independently or collaboratively
• The rhetorical situation (audience, purpose, context) of this particular writing task

Often, the writing process looks something like this:

1. Brainstorm and research (come up with an idea, make some notes, figure out your task and how to approach it)
2. Outline (develop your notes and structure the document)
3. Draft (begin to write)
4. Revise (receive some feedback on your draft and make changes based on that feedback and on your own re-reading of the document)
5. Edit (multiple levels of editing exist, at which point you are reworking the details of your document to make it as closely aligned with your intended audience and purpose as possible).

In this picture of the writing process, a writer or group of writers move smoothly from brainstorming all the way to editing. The five major steps are achieved in that order, from step 1 until step 5, at which point your writing is complete!

The actual writing process, as you very likely have already experienced, rarely looks this way. Although you may begin with brainstorming and conclude a project with editing, many things happen throughout these “steps” that cause you to go back to a previous step, jump ahead to a future step, or repeat various steps as needed. Further, you may begin your own role in a project at various stages of that project’s timeline. For example, you may begin work with a document that has already been written, and your task is to update the document for a current calendar year or current project. In this case, do you begin with brainstorming? Is revising also considered drafting? Do you make an outline after you have done some writing or after you have received some feedback? You can see how, in practice, this simplified writing process quickly evolves into something else.

Rather than moving from step 1 to step 5, your writing process for any given writing project might move something like this:

3. Draft (begin to write)
1. Brainstorm (out of the draft you begin to process new ideas or thoughts or approaches)
3. Draft (begin, again, to write)
2. Outline (from what you’ve written, you can now suss out your main ideas and organize them into an outline)
1. Research (after looking at your outline, you recognize the need to research and see what others have found/argued/claimed/written)
3. Draft (your research leads you to change some aspect of your initial draft and so you begin again…)

And so on and so forth.

Each rhetorical situation–each writing task and context–may inspire its own process. It is also possible that you will find one process that works best for you, regardless of the particular writing task (such as beginning with a 1-page draft and then moving to an outline to organize your content). It is very unlikely, however, that your writing process will be as well contained and as predictable as we first saw in steps 1-5; further, you should not be afraid to “start over” if something disrupts this process–if, during revisions, you realize that you need to conduct more research or that you need to refocus your main point. Finally, the writing process is constrained according to time and whether you are working collaboratively. A brochure that you are to produce with a team over the course of a month will likely involve a different process than an email that you need to send to your team in the next hours.

So, if the writing process always looks different from one project to another, why focus on the process at all? And if this process is recursive and messy, why might it still be helpful to break it down into its component parts?

It’s important to have a picture of the writing process and to focus on your own writing process even though it so often looks different from one project to the next. The more we understand the various components, the better equipped we are to understand how to approach a project. Further, understanding the writing process—and most importantly, understanding this process as recursive—helps us to streamline our own writing process and to develop appropriate plans and timelines given the rhetorical situation (given the context, goal, purpose, etc.).

In sum, it is important to understand how to analyze the rhetorical situation so that you can make deliberate choices when you approach each new instance of technical communication. Focusing on technical communication as action, and focusing on the process rather than product, are important parts of taking a rhetorical approach. This approach allows technical communicators to create effective texts with each specific purpose, context, and audience in mind.