"The study of rhetoric traditionally has aimed to equip students with an ability to identify problems and issues, to investigate, to interpret, and to communicate results -- whatever the subject matter. These abilities require higher-level thinking, not just skills; analysis and evaluation, not just observation . . . . The study emphasizes strategies and practice rather than a body of facts and contemplation; thus the study of rhetoric aims for social application. Students are studying rhetoric in a technical communication course even though they may never hear of Aristotle nor study history and theory of rhetoric. Identifying a problem, gathering, interpreting, and arranging information, choosing an appropriate style, and making recommendations, as students learn to do in preparing recommendation reports, proposals, and manuals, are rhetorical acts. In its best tradition, rhetoric insists upon responsible and ethical practice. This is the tradition in which we educate students." What one might see this as is an attempt to justify a mix between a prescriptive approach to rhetorical application (taught to students) and an adaptive approach. Rude suggests that strategies (adaptive/heuristic) and practice (prescriptive) should be integrated so that students are prepared to make “responsible and ethical” decisions when the time comes to apply this stuff we have learned. Carolyn Rude’s approach to education is one that I see Pirsig and Johnson both approving of, but there are differences in strategies towards the education as well as the demonstration of the know vs. know-how of the technical communications education. I will attempt to tackle this paradigm in two parts: Pirsig’s point of view and Johnson’s.Part I: “Quality is a characteristic of thought and statement that is recognized by a nonthinking process. Because definitions are a product of rigid, formal thinking, quality cannot be defined.&#...
