I appreciate how Kline and Barker's idea of professional
consciousness contributes to an actual sense of professionalism among
practitioners. It reminds me of Light's points about how important the desire
itself for professional status is. Kline and Barker's consciousness, in this
sense, is a kind of collective consciousness, shared among (ideally) all
technical communicators, and technical communication academics.
However, I wonder how achievable this is when considering
Carliner's delineation of approaches to professionalism. Kline and Barker use
the example of a Society for Technical Communication (STC) project with both
practicing and academic participants. I think it's fair to say that most, if
not all, the participants could be classified as formal professionals. While
Carliner notes that some quasiprofessionals may join professional
organizations, I'm not sure many would be inclined to participate in the summit
the authors describe.
In this case, it's likely most participants already buy in
to the project of professionalism. The barrier to creating a professional
consciousness among these practitioners and academics is probably lower than it
would be for non-members of organizations like STC. How likely are contraprofessionals
to participate in a project like this? The first part of Kline and Barker's
CANFA set of characteristics is "Collaborate." The more pressing
grounds for collaboration are between those not currently engaged in
professional efforts and those who are—regardless of whether they're academics
or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment