An E-Portfolio

​

            Technical and professional communication (TPC) practitioners are functioning agents of knowledge, whose essential mission is to create and maintain an inclusive space that depresses marginalization. It is vital for practitioners to recognize and understand privilege, and how it plays an important role in the development and perception of a document. For this trace paper, I intend to discuss the concept of privilege, and explore how it can both consciously and unconsciously affect the way communication is shaped by the author and received by the reader, specifically within scholarly settings and the domain of social justice. First, I will lay out the foundational elements and background of TPC. Second, I will discuss the overall definition of privilege, and how it is generally situated within the practices of TPC. I will then trace the concept of privilege through a few different scholastic fields, such as English teaching, the education system and centers of higher learning, and writing center communities. I intend to reference various sources, whose arguments will contribute to my analysis by comparing and contrasting privilege within the pedagogical fields. By examining privilege through the lens of these fields, I aim to demonstrate how privilege is omnipresent, how it affects the fields similarly and differently, and why TPC practitioners must be cognizant of it.

 

            The field of TPC took a turn around 1979 when perspectives broadened of what technical communication can and should do; discourse became widened to involve questions on power and ethics. Since then, a shift towards inclusivity occurred, and TPC began striving towards removing marginalization. Jones, Moore, and Walton provide a very forward-thinking definition of TPC, stating “…a more expansive vision of TPC [is] one that intentionally seeks marginalized perspectives, privileges these perspectives, and promotes them through action” (“Disrupting the Past to Disrupt the Future” 3). This idea is furthermore validated in Haas and Eble’s “The Social Justice Turn”, which describes technical and professional communicators as “public intellectuals, knowledge workers, and advocates for users [who] have a responsibility to advocate for equity in local and global networks of scientific, technical, and professional communication” (4). These concepts demonstrate how TPC practitioners have a deep obligation to be inclusive and neutral if they wish to be effective authors. It is essential for practitioners to fully understand their audience and exigence in order to gain the most ideal readership. Haas and Eble clarify TPC furthermore, stating how technical communicators work to “help equip others with new habits of mind and practice that attune them to responsible citizenship and advocacy, self-awareness and consciousness, and critical thinking” (17). While the duty of TPC practitioners is to help equip others with these ideas and behaviors, it is only fair and logical for the practitioners to be equipped themselves, ensuring they practice what they preach. With rhetoric and audience as the key foundational elements in TPC, mindfulness of inclusivity and concepts such as the 3 P’s, including privilege, has come to the forefront.

            The awareness of several different elements is what comprises inclusive authorship, with a particular element being privilege. A broad definition of privilege would be the unearned or inherent advantages associated with various aspects of identity and sociopolitical traits, which grant a specific status to certain individuals through exclusion and the provision of unequal opportunity. Privilege is one of the 3 P’s, along with positionality and power. Privilege is important because it stems from positionality and helps to compose power, so each tenet basically builds itself off of the last. Privilege is seemingly the most complex of the 3 P’s, and this is because it is “layered, dynamic, and inherently connected to positionality and power”, but therefore, “important for social justice and coalition building” (Jones, Moore, and Walton, TC After the SJ Turn 83). The overall significance of privilege to TPC is the seeking of how unequal opportunity reflects the architecture and perception of the information provided from an author to an audience. It is vital as a TPC practitioner to recognize privilege as an ontological paradigm, which is a shared view of reality. Privilege is a social construct, contrived and designed by humans and society. This type of social injustice is passed down generationally, and unless an unprivileged individual works extremely hard, or all of humanity is able to redress privilege altogether, it is something that will always exist. Ironically, individuals with the least amount of privilege are ostensibly the most familiar and experienced with privilege itself because of their lived experiences. Examining privilege allows the discussion to open about the unfortunate normality of systemic oppression in thought and practice, and how groups and individuals are marginalized as a result.

 

            Although human identity is heterogeneous and mosaic, privilege bases itself entirely off of sociocultural identity markers. These markers can range from race, ethnicity, religion, class, language, sex, and gender. Some of these markers are static, like race, ethnicity, and sometimes sex. Other markers are more unfixed, like religion, class, language, and gender. These unfixed markers can be changed by the individual by choice, which can also change their privileges. Jones, Moore, and Walton use a term coined by Sara Ahmed that describes privilege as an energy-saving device (TC After the SJ Turn 84). Essentially, underprivileged folk have to work doubly, even triply hard sometimes to achieve the same experiences and statuses of the more privileged folk, and lots of energy is expended in the process. The discrimination and inequities that transpire from privilege are seen in a variety of ways, particularly in scholastic and pedagogical fields. Jones, Moore, and Walton ask an important question right in the beginning of their book in the chapter on privilege, inquiring, “…in academia, when men graduate students are more likely to be offered prestigious research fellowships while women graduate students are offered smaller assistantships, who notices?...Even though the women graduate students are part of the whole, they are pushed to the margins” (84). While gender was the determining factor for this example, one can substitute any other identity marker and still get the same result; it will always be the Caucasian, Christian, upper-class, English-speaking, straight male who prevails as the most privileged. This has been the case for many decades and even centuries, especially within the field of TPC. There is a major lack of inclusion and representation within the field, as it “remains white and patriarchal” (Jones, Moore, and Walton, TC After the SJ Turn 2). Minority identities have long gone underrepresented. This notion has created a very white-centered database for TPC works. The lack of inclusivity has resulted in a similitude within the theories and practices of TPC, so there is a constant cycle of works and references being non-inclusive. Jones, Moore, and Walton state, “The lack of scholarly work by minority scholars points to a problem with how and whose knowledge we legitimatize in the field…When we fail to ask ourselves whom we are leaving out, we continue to relegate the work of minority scholars to the margins of the field” (TC After the SJ Turn 2-3). In addition to the uniformity within the field’s scholarship, the readership and effectivity of the work decreases and becomes restricted by white supremacy; it is not a healthy pattern.

 

            In her article, “Researching Privilege in Language Teacher Identity”, Roslyn Appleby explores the particular challenges faced by nonnative-English-speakers (NNES) and teachers of color. She also examines how certain privileges are attached to whiteness and native-English-speaker (NES) status, specifically within the field of TESOL, which is the International Association of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Privilege is felt both consciously and unconsciously, and it can even be detrimental to one’s self-esteem. Appleby references one study exploring how NNES teachers experienced immensely lowered self-esteem after transferring to a location that was English-dominated. In this instance, the NNES teachers became automatically oppressed and marginalized because of their language difference. While the NES teachers may not have particularly shown any outward judgement or rejection, the NNES teachers nonetheless unwittingly became less privileged than the NES teachers. It should be noted that privilege in this way is fluid. One’s privilege and status may change based on the environment or level of comfort and expertise with the local setting. On page 758 of her article, Appleby states,

​

          It is notable that in these studies, the mobilities inherent in the globalised project of TESOL act as an                 agentive force in shaping identities: as teachers move from one national context to another, and                       encounter different sorts of interpersonal and institutional relationships, they may experience a                       corresponding shift both in their own status and identities and in the identities ascribed to them in the            new context.

​

          I personally consider this matter quite a bit, as I wonder how people’s entire personalities may be different when they are speaking in a native language versus a non-native language. For example, someone who is foreign and not fluent in English may hold a conversation in a completely different way than if they were to hold it in English. Besides having common differences in terminology and certain translations, the way they express themselves and the challenge of linguistic restrictions can create differences in their own personality, how others perceive their personality, and what privileges may arise (or disappear) as a result. Appleby concludes that most studies yield the same results, stating, “In these studies, the privileges attached to English language teacher identity relate primarily to masculinity, assumed or ascribed Western origin (often conflated with whiteness), NES ability, and (assumed) heterosexuality” (759).

​

         Privilege is not only prominent on the teaching side of educational institutions, but also on the student side. There has been more of an open conversation about trying to avoid re-inscribing systems of education with exclusion and privilege. It has become important to focus efforts towards a more balanced relational interaction between teacher and student that strives towards flattened hierarchies, and therefore higher levels of cooperation. In Medina and Walker’s article, “Validating the Consequences of Social Justice Pedagogy: Explicit Values in Course-Based Grading Contracts”, the authors emphasize how a proportional spread of privilege will create more social justice and workable evaluations in technical communication. Medina and Walker highlight the commonality of privilege within certain elements of scholarly institutions, and then credit grading contracts as a step towards bridging this gap between the system and those who are facing oppression. Medina and Walker aim to prove how the implementation of contract-grading can ultimately break certain stigmas of power balances and yield more positive consequential validity, declaring, “In applying concepts of consequential validity to the assessment site of grading contracts, our hope is that they work to both disrupt traditional exercises of privilege and advocate for the marginalized.” (52). They also argue that privilege is a large factor that promotes “social and institutional inequality in courses, vertical curricula, and degree programs”, and rather “evaluation and assessment should both work to critique the exercise of privilege and be inclusive of non-white students with varying levels of privilege” (46-47). These ideas within classroom settings are similarly explored in Poe and Inoue’s article, “Toward Writing as Social Justice: An Idea Whose Time Has Come”, where they question the validity of writing assessments.  On page 122, they state, “The rhetoric that accompanies assessment - like poverty - encourages an isolated, atomistic way of thinking about individuals. Like the personal responsibility discourse of poverty that attempts to isolate the deviant and render them particularly blameworthy for their condition, assessment practices often isolate failure.” Instead, fairness is what should constitute the writing assessment. On pages 122-123, the authors furthermore argue the following:

​

          The term fairness, rather than justice, allows the unification of assessment theory under a single aim:                Fairness in writing assessment is defined as the identification of opportunity structures created through            maximum construct representation. Constraint of the writing construct is to be tolerated only to the                  extent to which benefits are realized for the least advantaged.      

 

          While these articles analyze ways in which the classroom can become more inclusive and less privileged, there is still lots of work that needs to be done, and there is no one solution for every circumstance. For there to be a proper domain of justice and equal privileges, entire systems and regulations would need to be redressed. However, there is still hope, even if the progress made is one small step at a time.

 

          Writing center communities, including the writers, tutors, and administrators, often face dilemmas of ethics related to identity, privilege, and the politics behind it all. This is because writing centers often involve complex work that focuses on the intersection of identities of both the staff and clientele. According to Denny et al. in the book Out in the Center: Public Controversies and Private Struggles, diversity is what underpins the work of writing centers. Denny notes that “identity and the politics of negotiation and face are always present and require inventory and mapping” (3). Their book aims to “explore the very public and yet also personal nature of writing center sessions and of individuals working and collaborating in an environment that necessitates dialogue and negotiation within the self and with others (4). The book is broken up into six parts, with each part discussing the effects of different identity markers in writing center practices. These markers include race, language, gender and sex, religion, class, and disability. Denny et al. provide a thoughtful and comprehensive collection of reflective narratives that are able to function as a call to action. The call to action attempts to illustrate identity and the associated privileges as multifaceted and interconnected. By viewing identity as variegated, “members of communities such as writing centers can create conditions for inclusivity through considerations of the ways in which features of our identities and our lives intersect with one another” (Denny et al., 240). Once a sense of empathy and communion occurs, the levels of consciousness-raising will increase. Denny et al. continue to validate this on page 240, stating,

​

          [Writing center] students, staffs, and faculties exist as an amalgam of individuals who find their way to              the writing center carrying far more than the assignments that on the surface bring them to our                      doorsteps. They bring their experiences, lived or understood though association – the narratives                        assigned to their bodies, beliefs, and choices. They bear the burden of the social, cultural, and/or                        economic symbolic markers and/or capital that determine who is afforded a greater sense of autonomy              and who is not.

​

          These communities go on to benefit even more than writing practices, as they extend into everyday life and an overall shift in mindset. This is particularly noteworthy because of the effectivity of the call to action. TPC practitioners are known to function as agents of knowledge-making and action, so any positive change or progress is considered a success.

 

            While the vocation of TPC has been human-centric for quite some time, there exists a challenge to determine who exactly should be at the center of the field. Cerebrating how the work of TPC can demonstrate inclusivity to the maximum power opens up the discussion for the necessity of embracing human dignity and rights as the foundation for TPC practices. Rebecca Walton explores this in her article, “Supporting Human Dignity and Human Rights: A Call to Adopt the First Principle of Human-Centered Design”. On page 403, she states, “With the critical-cultural turn, more technical and professional communication (TPC) scholarship began addressing issues of culture and power, rejecting a narrowly scoped value system comprised solely of efficiency and effectiveness, a value system that is blind to our field’s role in hegemonic power relations.” By relating TPC to human-centered design (HCD), a connection is made that both prioritizes the people, and suitably supports human dignity and rights. TPC and HCD have become almost interchangeable, as they have very similar end goals. While HCD is more focused on designing products that are convenient and efficient for users and their needs, TPC does the same thing, rather with communication instead of products. This means that “the research and practice of both fields traditionally have involved complex contexts in which people use technology to perform tasks, and people are the primary focus of HCD and TPC” (Walton, 404). By adopting this human-centric mindset and approach to communication, one can begin to engage more broadly and wholesomely. On page 407, Walton expounds upon this further, stating,

​

         …this centrality of humans to the work and values of TPC is neither simple nor straightforward.                         Considerations of identity, culture, power, and values complicate notions of audience and stakeholder in             the practice, research, and pedagogy of TPC. In pedagogy, for example, we see the notion of stakeholder             being broadened to acknowledge professors’ identities and values, which shape the design of all courses,           including those that challenge and destabilize notions of TPC as a-cultural and value neutral.                             Considerations of identity and power also underlie TPC pedagogy that guides students in explicitly                     identifying and considering a range of stakeholder perspectives—particularly those of marginalized and             potentially overlooked groups…

​

          It has become vital for TPC practitioners to be able to navigate the complexities of identity, and to work towards alleviating marginalization. By helping others identify their intrinsic worth through knowledge-sharing and calls to action, levels of oppression can decrease. Only then can we determine “which humans’ knowledge and experience is considered legitimate and relevant to informing the communication and the communication practices that we craft, teach, and study” (Walton, 407).

 

          In conclusion, TPC practitioners are functioning agents of knowledge, whose essential mission is to create and maintain an inclusive space that depresses marginalization. As you can see, the role of privilege is ubiquitous in how writing and communication is portrayed and received. Privilege can affect TPC, both deliberately and unintentionally, in several ways that can shape the overall meaning or message of communication. While this notion extends itself far and wide through many different fields, it is specifically embossed in scholarly settings and the domain of social justice. This analysis was meant to examine the fundamentals of TPC, intertwine the concept of privilege, and then trace that concept through various scholastic fields, such as English teaching, the education system and centers of higher learning, and writing center communities. Multiple references provided significant contributions that helped to illustrate the distinct complexities of identity and privilege, and how these complexities play a major factor in the way TPC practitioners approach their work and are viewed by their audience. By examining privilege through the lens of the pedagogical fields, I found it to be an omnipresent element that is dependent upon the context or setting of the environment, so therefore it is movable and changeful. This fluctuation can certainly make it more challenging for TPC practitioners to get the most effective and ideal readership, but focusing on the human-centric aspect will allow for more inclusive and nondiscriminatory communication.

​

​

​

References

​

Appleby, Roslyn. “Researching Privilege in Language Teacher Identity.” TESOL Quarterly, vol. 50, no. 3, 2016, pp. 755-768.

​

Denny, Harry, et al. Out in the Center: Public Controversies and Private Struggles. University Press of Colorado, 2018. 

​

Haas, Angela M., and Eble, Michelle F. “The Social Justice Turn.” Key Theoretical Frameworks: Teaching Technical Communication in the Twenty-First Century. Utah State University Press, 2018, pp. 3-19.

​

Jones, Natasha N., Moore, Kristen R., and Walton, Rebecca. Technical Communication After the Social Justice Turn. Routledge, 2019.

​

---. “Disrupting the Past to Disrupt the Future: An Antenarrative of Technical Communication.” Technical Communication Quarterly, vol. 25, no. 4, 2016, pp. 1-19.

​

Medina, Cruz, and Walker, Kenneth. “Validating the Consequences of Social Justice Pedagogy: Explicit Values in Course-Based Grading Contracts.” Key Theoretical Frameworks: Teaching Technical Communication in the Twenty-First Century. Utah State University Press, 2018, pp. 46-65.

​

Poe, Maya, and Inoue, Asao B. “Toward Writing as Social Justice: An Idea Whose Time Has Come.” College English, vol. 79, no. 2, 2016, pp. 119-126.

​

Walton, Rebecca. “Supporting Human Dignity and Human Rights: A Call to Adopt the First Principle of Human-Centered Design.” Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, vol. 46, no. 4, 2016, pp. 402–426.