After several weeks of articles about the nature of professionalization, and whether technical communication is a profession, I feel like the Carliner article clarified the conversation for me. Until now, we've mostly been considering the question of whether technical communication is a profession, or not. It seemed like you had to fall on one side of the question or the other. I think Carliner makes the point that it's not so clear.
The issue can't be so clearly black and white because, as Carliner notes, different stakeholders hold a spectrum of views. It's just not correct to say that everyone is either fully on board with professionalization, or totally opposed to it. I have a feeling the position of quasiprofessionalism fits many people's perspectives, and these views aren't fully pro- or anti-professionalization.
Many employers may fit into the position of contraprofessionalism. Why insist on external standards when your only concern is finding someone who can do the job you want? Likewise, many organization members (especially active ones) may champion formal professionalism, and the certification it encourages. This leaves a lot of practicing communicators whose own feelings may fall somewhere in between.
On a side note, I found Carliner's definitions to occupation and profession to be baffling. They're not only different from the uses we've read so far; they're practically inverted from what I'd expect. He even notes that what he calls an occupation is referred to as a profession in other articles in the same issue. While he notes that his terminology is different, he doesn't, in my opinion, justify it.
I was also puzzled by Carliner's discussion of profession, occupation, and discipline. I am left thinking that he does not justify it because he cannot. It seems as though he simply prefers his definitions and wants to use them rather than offering sound objections to the alternatives he discusses.
ReplyDeleteOr he thinks that readers would already agree with him.
DeleteI identify with the quasiprofessionalism view and after weeks of reading agree that these views aren't fully pro- or anti-professionalization-- where I believe the lions share of communicators fall. Thanks for calling out Carliner's definitions of occupation and profession -- honestly it didn't catch my attention until I read your post but it is interesting to note.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile I also found it strange that Carliner seemed to add complexity to the concept of professionalism, his explanation of the various approaches to professionalization made it clearer to me why technical communicators haven't been able to agree on one approach to professionalization. While I think the formal professionalization approach might be the most clear-cut approach, I agree that most technical communicators probably fall within the quasiprofessionalism approach. They want a common body of knowledge and a way to distinguish themselves as professionals, but they don't necessarily want to limit qualified communicators from working in the field based on arbitrary requirements.
ReplyDelete