Investigating the Media Preferences of Technical Communicators (1)
This series of articles examines the media preferences of technical communicators within the conceptual framework provided by the article Communicating Channels used by Technical Writers Throughout the Documentation Process (McGee, 2000), of which critical summary forms this first section. Following that is a comparison of the results of a survey issued to 23 technical translators/communicators in replication of McGee’s empirical method for validation or reassessment of her arguments and findings with regard to the Japanese Technical Communication context. Differences and similarities in the results of the surveys (incorporating influential intercultural factors) are then presented within expanded discussion of Media Richness Theory (hereafter “MRT”). Assessment of the value to my workplace practice of MRT and the surveys’ findings closes this essay.
McGee claims the reasons behind technical communicators’ choice of communication channels (“media”) have been inadequately elucidated, and proposes that during the writing process, communication occurs via at least five channels: team meeting, written/online review[1], face-to-face meeting, telephone, and e-mail. She then raises the question of the technical writer’s placement within the technology development process – as support (re. Forbes, 1994) or as finishers (re. Porush, 1997) who, by extracting and reporting salient facts, identify flaws or isolate key functions.The skills of technical writers are, according to McGee, not only writing, but translation, troubleshooting, and diplomacy (a repertoire that will resonate with most translators; noted also by Sechrest et al, 1982). With this rationalization as a basis, McGee used a questionnaire to investigate which of the various channels at their disposal do technical writers prefer when demonstrating these skills.
[1] I find it interesting that the author – although she cites Paradis, Dobrin, and Miller, 1985 – considers document review as a communication channel yet fails to credit the time and diplomacy issues involved in this detailed activity. It seems an odd inclusion in a list that features “telephone” and “e-mail”.