Of all the positions I've worked, this is the first opportunity I've earned to put my knowledge to full practice. Being hired as a technical writer, one who makes a livable wage and is treated with respect, has been a trip. I don't know what else to call it. I've been in secretarial positions and client facing positions for so long, it's incredible to me that I don't have to interact with a customer base daily. In fact, I only talk to internal employees. 

I've gotten a wide array of responses to being a technical writer. Some ask why I'm there, if I'm busy at all, but most ask about what this job really consists of. It boggles my mind to realize how many employees interact with technical documentation every day, but don't make the connection of its importance to their every day tasks. To make it easier to explain, I simplify it into a joke, "If I do my job right, you won't have to answer questions from interns because the document will already answer all their questions" - it gets a few laughs, sometimes. 

It's a struggle with my students as well, many of them balk at me when I remind them that they'll never escape writing. They rebuke back, "well, I'm an engineer" or "I do math, I'll never have to do that" etc. I challenge them with my experience. I've worked with engineers, researchers, and as of late with a financial company. Writing never leaves the picture - no matter what industry. They're in part correct, it won't be a 5 paragraph essay or a cover letter. But they'll never be able to dodge reports, white papers, memos, emails, meeting notes etc.

The workplace is saturated with writing - and a wide variety of audiences to appeal to. In my last post I argued that rhetoric focused curriculum should be integrated into earlier schooling because it assists students in reading their environments and adaptation to situations much easier. It should also be taught through the lens of the professional workplace. But understanding the basics of technical writings, and applying knowledge of the audience as an advantage, communication can be improved in the workplace. 

Technical writing can benefit companies in several ways: 

• Reduce training time for interns and new employees 
• Make clear expectations for each role to reduce responsibility tensions
• Creates a paper trail of versions when software or procedures are updated 
• Ensures a simpler way to hold employees accountable - when documentation is not available, it can be easy to make mistakes
• Reduces workflow disruption - if someone is sick or out who completes a specific task daily, somebody can take over without delay because they have documentation to fall back on 
• Ensures a brighter future at the workplace by cultivating clearer communication 

If you've ever struggled through training, had trouble adjusting to a job because the information is overwhelming to understand verbally, or encounter too many methods of completing a task, your workplace may need a technical writer. If you'd like to talk more about this subject or have questions, please leave a comment or contact me. 

Earlier last week I mulled through a fair amount of Heidegger. I'm not fond of his work but the concepts fuel so much of my current research it's necessary to familiarize myself with the material. But in that lies a question, how important is reading the primary source when it's been synthesized better elsewhere?  Most colleagues that I work with will vehemently defend the need to read primary sources, but those same colleagues balk at reading sources from writers that conflict with their own views. 

Martin Heidegger was a Nazi. Worst of all, he was silent about the ungodly things happening aound him and a few bits of his writing even contained explicit anti-semetic language.  Further, he never apologized or rescinded his implied views. Since he joined the Nazi party in 1933 he was subsequently banned from teaching later in life. Although he lightly implied that he regretted his decisions, a man with all that authority and privilege never took a moment to discuss his mistakes. As someone who is toted so worldly and well-knowing, I would expect better. 

Times were different then. But it is 2018 and I don't necessarily agree with having to be forced to read primary material because it's synthesized so many other ways. There are many scholars that have done that work for us, taking something dense and turning it into something applicable. I believe they have more the right to be read than Heidegger. 

The values that the Digital Humanities and the general academic Rhetoric community don't seem to support requiring Heidegger source text. Just in case, my dear, few readers, you are reading this and would like to join the conversation, I've turned the comments on.

I feel so unjust when I read and use Heidegger as a source because I feel I have no excuse to use him when others have done better with his ideas. I also feel so slighted when I am forced to read works of problematic white men simply because other, better hearted people have crafted more sound works. This issue isn't necessarily a huge one for the Digital Humanities but discourse about problems such as these can open some great dialogue about what we can do better.