260 likes | 372 Views
The Rhetorical Process and the Communication of Expert Knowledge. From Text and Action: The Operator’s Manual in Context and Court By James Paradis. The importance of process writing.
E N D
The Rhetorical Process and the Communication of Expert Knowledge From Text and Action: The Operator’s Manual in Context and CourtBy James Paradis
The importance of process writing • Procedurally sensitive processes often require that the operator adhere to specific protocols or operational sequences, which can be counter-intuitive.
The tool • A direct-acting studgun used to fire nails and other fasteners into various constructions materials.
Operator’s manuals • Operator’s manuals typically employ four textual elements that attempt to bind the worlds of external objects with those of human behavior.
Textual Element #1 • They construct a written analogue of the tool or process itself. • This reduces the tool or process to a series of verbal and visual terms that are, in fact, idealizations substituting for the thing itself.
Textual Element #2 • The manual introduce a fictional operator who represents an average of suitably qualified individual. • This everyman is the agent, the guiding force, capable of making a range of commonsense decisions about how to apply the tool.
Textual Element #3 • The material context of conditions and situations requisite for effective and safe use of the instrument.
Textual Element #4 • The action—can be a loose narrative of representative steps the operator takes to apply the tool or a narrative sequence of precisely defined actions that furnish a behavioral template on which the operator must model his or her actions.
The Studgun as Mechanism • A versatile tool that is a blend of hammer function and firearm technology • It fires a variety of fasteners, including pins (nails) and studs (threaded bolts) into materials as different as wood, hard concrete and structural steel. • It has many options and is an enormously complex firearm technology.
2 Court Cases • Roger Gagne vs. Power Anchor Corp, et al • A Maine construction worker was trying to frame a window opening in a concrete basement foundation. • Gagne was struck by a coworker using a stud gun • The studgun’s fastener passed through wood, rebounded off a object embedded in concrete and struck Gagne in the back of his neck. • Gagne possessed an operator’s card; coworker did not.
DuCharme v. Star Expansion Corp • Aircraft employee was killed by a stud in free flight after it had passed through 3 layers of materials. • Neither the operator or the victim had an operator’s license.
Ambiguities • 1. In Case 1 the operator fired the studgun closer than 3 inches from the edge of the wood frame into concrete. • The operator’s manual had cautioned against firing “closer than 3 inches from the edge in concrete.”
Ambiguities, 2 • In the DuCharme case, the operator fired a low-powder charge into very thin steel—not noted in the manual as unsafe.
Problems • Neither worker had been licensed to operate the studguns. • There were no danger warnings on the studguns. • Neither manual mentioned that incorrect or casual use could lead to serious bodily harm or injury
Rhetorical conventions • Typical instruction manuals have Taxonomies or terminological standards, conditional generalizations and segmented action sequences. • They reflect a rhetorical preoccupation with accuracy and clarity. • Ex. “To determine correct power load” • “Correct” is a misleading ideal.
Consequence • The reductive text’s usefulness is achieved through a simplification that does not acknowledge the complexity of the reality.
Specifying Actions • In the manual, Rule 3 directs the operator to begin with the weakest possible charge and to work upward in charge strength until the desired penetration is achieved. • It is an attempt to resolve the technology into a series of discrete operations that direct the human-machine interaction • The shortage of action statements forces the operator to formulate his/her own actions.
Legal Discourse • The document is a testament that the technology can be explained. • Texts are viewed as more stable than oral discourse • In both cases, the plaintiffs based their claims largely on an analysis of the studgun as it was represented in the operator’s manual.
What does this mean? • The manual, as a rational system, must be accessible to common sense. • Its world must to some degree be complete or self-sufficient. • Unfortunately, as procedures become elaborated in detailed protocols, they increasingly leave the realm of commonsense behind.
Example • “To vary the amount of penetration: fasteners can be positioned in the barrel by using the ramrod provided with the tool kit or using .22 caliber crimped loads Power levels 1 or 2. • Nowhere is it explained how the ramrod works, what “crimped” loads are or where Power Levels 1 and 2 fit into the scheme of ammunition used to propel the studs.
Finding • Loose terminology • Incoherent syntax • These underscore the inconsistency of the action statements.
Other problems • Omission of prominent, explicit warnings • Issues of safety were relegated to list of “Safety rules” formulated as “Do nots.” • There was no effort to provide rationale for the rules.
Why did this happen? • An operator’s manual is a rhetorical field. • The tool is a different object to the various constituencies whose professional ends are in some way bound in it. • To engineer—Studgun is an expression of functions • To capitalist--An expression of production, marketing and finance • To operator—A utilitarian object whose purpose is to drive studs
Rhetorical Consequences • Expertise is constantly reconstructed in behavioral terms of action for the nonexpert. • As a technology becomes more complex, it becomes harder to understand and to manipulate according to common sense. • We ask the operator to relinquish his or her individual inclination so as to conform to some technically prescribed activity and we expect principles governing behavior to not be arbitrary.
Conclusion • The environment must be seen in terms of social circumstances and the artifact (technology) must also be considered to include rhetorical factors.
Rhetoric of Action • Operating procedures for the studgun show several rhetorical conventions of operational discourse • 1. A procedural outline exists for selecting a power load—”To determine Correct Power Load” • Not every operator will use this but the textual version governs all studgun uses.