Journals by RSS
Journals by EmailBen: Welcome to our second installment of Interview with a Gryphon. Today, Gryp and I are discussing a subject that has a lot of technical communicators enthusiastically speaking up.
Gryp: You mean how that Sauron guy forged one HAT to rule them all?
Ben: You’re getting a few universes confused here.
Gryp: Me? You’re the one talking to a mythological creature.
Ben: *Ahem!* We’re going to talk about a discussion about the Society for Technical Communication that was started by Kristi Leach and carried on by Sarah O’Keefe and numerous others in comments on their posts.
Gryp: Wow, links within your dialogue. That’s pretty slick.
Ben: If you’re good, some day I’ll teach you how. So Gryp, the discussion is largely about old ways versus new ways of doing things. For example, big central conferences versus smaller conferences or unconferences with more open formats. Or top-down leadership and formal structure versus online communities and more volunteers. Would you like to comment on what you think about STC’s current state in this area and their efforts to make changes?
Gryp: I think there’s an interesting parallel between STC and the field of technical communication. Both are going through periods of transformation and redefinition right now, started by the fact that their value has been repeatedly called into question.
Ben: Interesting. I’ve thought the same thing.
Gryp: I do read your blog, but a little bias may be at play there. Let me give you another example. Certain aspects of tech comm change quickly, depending on where technology goes. XML, semantic content, social media, mobile delivery—you get the picture. However, the concepts and goals underlying the field don’t change. User analysis, clear communication, interviewing skills.
Just as technical communicators are trying to adapt to the latest trends and technologies in communication, STC is trying to shift in the way it communicates. Starting a blog, moving publications online to more robust platforms, that kind of thing. But the way STC communicates with its members, the media it uses, doesn’t change the underlying concepts and principles.
Ben: You mean advancing the profession, improving the practice of tech comm—things like that?
Gryp: Exactly. I can see how some people argued that STC needed to get with the times. A society of communicators ought to take advantage of updated communication channels. But this doesn’t change the core of the reason STC exists, and I suppose that’s why things like the annual conference may never go away. In spite of the next new thing, people still need to gather and exchange knowledge. They still need to get together and associate in real life, cultivate flesh-and-blood relationships.
However, you bring up a good point. If “improving the practice” means adopting new channels of communication with members, then STC ought to do that. Not only will doing so market STC better, but STC can stand up as an example of effective use of those channels. It seems the society as a whole lagged behind in using things like blogs and Twitter, but I think they’re catching up. They’ve got people on the board who are already doing those kinds of things, so it follows that STC as an organization would follow suit. I think you have some forward-thinking people running the show these days. But they’re a small number, so they need everyone’s input.
Ben: So do you think there’s an “old vs. new” problem in STC right now? Or are we treading on dangerous ground by using those terms?
Gryp: I think it’s fine to be talking about old and new as long as you’re doing a few things: not equating “old vs. new” with “old vs. young”; and not adopting new things just because they’re new, but doing it if there’s a real business case for it; and on the other hand, not holding on to older practices because you’re nervous about trying something different.
When she was STC President, Cindy Currie talked about the “new normal.” So people are already trying to paint STC as doing new things. The board is trying new things. So give them your feedback, volunteer if you can, and help build the new aspects of STC.
But keep in mind that STC will probably not be completely reinvented because some things are already working, and some things have to be done due to the type of organization that STC is. You may think that the 501(c)(3) card is played just when the board doesn’t want to change something, but its specific non-profit status is a real factor.
Anyway, if you want new, check out Michael Hughes’s first Open Mike post. See, I can do it too. There’s a bit of the new STC in Mike’s post.
Ben: That’s all we have time for right now. But feel free to ask either of us a question or express your view, and we’ll continue the discussion. Thank you!
Related posts (auto-generated):
And thanks for differentiating “old v new” as compared to “old v young”.
Ben Reply:
May 20th, 2010 at 6:51 am
Yeah, we’ve cut it close with getting a quorum in the annual meetings I’ve attended the last couple of years. It would be hard to draw enough people from a single regional conference. I think the annual business meeting is a specific way for community leaders, and other members for that matter, to understand how STC legally has to be operated. It serves as a reminder that there’s a place for everything in the order of things and that it is in fact possible to bring about change in the society.