Disability studies, cultural analysis, and the critical practice of technical communication pedagogy

Technical Communication Quarterly

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 49-65

  Palmeri, Jason ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34250881644     PISSN: 10572252     EISSN: 15427625     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15427625tcq1501_5     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Adler, M. H. (1973). The writing machine. London: George Allen & Unwin.
2. Barclay, D. (1995). Ire, envy, irony, and ENFI: Electronic conferences as unreliable narrative. Computers and Composition, 12, 23–44.
3. Brueggemann, B. J. (1999). Lend me your ear: Rhetorical constructions of deafness. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
4. Brueggemann, B. J. (2002) An enabling pedagogy. In S. L. Snyder, B. J. Brueggemann, & R. Garland-Thomson (Eds.), Disability studies: Enabling the humanities (pp. 317–336). New York: The Modern Language Association.
5. Carter, J., & Markel, M. (2001). Web accessibility for people with disabilities: An introduction for web developers. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 44, 225–233.
6. Center for Universal Design. (2000). Oxo International becomes universal design icon. Retrieved on January 10, 2005, from http://design.ncsu.edu/cud/proj_services/projects/case_studies/oxo.htm
7. Colker, R. (1999). The Americans with Disabilities Act: A windfall for defendants. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 34, 98–162.
8. Davis, L. (1995). Enforcing normalcy: Disability, deafness, and the body. New York: Verso.
9. Dragga, S., & Voss, D. (2003). Hiding humanity: Verbal and visual ethics in accident reports. Technical Communication, 50, 61–82.
10. Eastman, C. (1910). Work-accidents and the law. New York: Charities Publication Committee.
11. Garland-Thomson, R. (1997). Extraordinary bodies: Figuring physical disability in American culture and literature. New York: Columbia University Press.
12. Garland-Thomson, R. (2002). The politics of staring: Visual rhetorics of disability in popular photography. In S. L. Snyder, B. J. Brueggemann, & R. Garland-Thomson (Eds.), Disability studies: Enabling the humanities (pp. 56–75). New York: The Modern Language Association.
13. Hart, G. (2000). Ten technical communication myths. Technical Communication, 47, 291–298.
14. Henry, J. (2000). Writing workplace cultures: An archaeology of the discourse community. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
15. Herndl, C. G. (1993). Teaching discourse and reproducing culture: A critique of research and pedagogy in professional and non-academic writing. College Composition and Communication, 44, 349–363.
16. Hubbard, R. (1997). Abortion and disability: Who should inhabit the world? In L. J. Davis (Ed.), Disability studies reader (pp. 187–202). New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
17. Johnson, R. (1998). User-centered technology: A rhetorical theory for computers and other mundane artifacts. Albany: State University of New York Press.
18. Kolstenick, C. (1998). Conflicting standards for displaying data displays: Following, flouting, and reconciling them. Technical Communication, 45, 473–482.
19. Lay, M. M. (2000). The rhetoric of midwifery: Gender, knowledge, and power. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
20. Linton, S. (1998). Claiming disability: Knowledge and identity. New York: New York University Press.
21. Longo, B. (1998). An approach for applying cultural study theory to technical writing research. Technical Communication Quarterly, 7, 53–73.
22. Longo, B. (2000). Spurious coin: A history of science, management, and technical writing. Albany: State University of New York Press.
23. Madaus, M. (1997). Women’s role in creating the field of health and safety communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 6, 261–280.
24. Mazur, B. (2000). Revisiting plain language. Technical Communication, 47, 205–211.
25. Mitchell, D. T. (2000). Body solitaire: The singular subject of disability autobiography. American Quarterly, 52, 311–315.
26. Mitchell, D. T. (2002). Narrative prosthesis and the materiality of metaphor. In S. L. Snyder, B. J. Brueggemann, & R. Garland-Thomson (Eds.), Disability studies: Enabling the humanities (pp. 15–30). New York: The Modern Language Association.
27. O’Brien, R. (Ed.). (2004). Voices from the edge: Narratives of the Americans with Disabilities Act. New York: Oxford University Press.
28. O’Hara, K. (2004). “Curb cuts” on the information highway: Older adults and the Internet. Technical Communication Quarterly, 13, 423–445.
29. Perkins, J., & Blyler, N. (1999). Introduction: Taking a narrative turn in professional communication. In N. Blyler & J. Perkins (Eds.), Narrative and professional communication (pp. 1–37). Stamford, CT: Ablex.
30. Ray, D. S., & Ray, E. J. (1998). Adaptive technologies for the visually impaired: The role of technical communicators. Technical Communication, 45, 573–579.
31. Russell, M. (1998). Beyond ramps: Disability at the end of the social contract. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press.
32. Salvo, M. J. (2001). Ethics of engagement: User-centered design and rhetorical methodology. Technical Communication Quarterly, 10, 273–290.
33. Sauer, B. A. (1993). Sense and sensibility in technical documentation: How feminist interpretation strategies can save lives in the nation’s mines. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 7, 63–83.
34. Sauer, B. A. (1994). Sexual dynamics of the profession: Articulating the ecriture masculine of science and technology. Technical Communication Quarterly, 3, 309–323.
35. Schlosser, E. (2002). Fast food nation: The dark side of the all-American meal. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
36. Scott, J. B. (2003). Risky rhetoric: AIDS and the cultural practices of HIV testing. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
37. Scott, J. B. (2004). Tracking rapid HIV testing through the cultural circuit: Implications for technical communication. Journal of Technical and Business Communication, 18, 198–219.
38. Uljin, J. M., & St. Amant, K. (2000). Mutual intercultural communication: How does it affect technical communication? Technical Communication, 47, 220–237.
39. Vaugh, J. (1989). Sexist language—still flourishing. Technical Writing Teacher, 16, 33–40.
40. Waddell, C. (1990). The role of pathos in the decision-making process: A study of the rhetoric of science policy. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 76, 381–400.
41. Whitehouse, R. (1999). The uniqueness of individual perception. In R. Jacobson (Ed.), Information design (pp. 103–129). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
42. Wilson, J. C. (2000). Making disability visible: How disability studies might transform the medical and science writing classroom. Technical Communication Quarterly, 9, 149–161.
43. Wilson, J. C., & Lewiecki-Wilson, C. (Eds.). (2001). Embodied rhetorics: Disability in language and culture. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.