Should You Get a Graduate Degree in Technical Writing?
September 19th, 2011 | Posted in blog 48 Comments »
Every so often someone asks me if they should get a graduate degree in technical writing. Penelope Trunk has a controversial post in which she argues that graduate degrees aren’t necessarily smart business decisions. Graduate schools can be an environment that removes you from the world of real experience. Penelope writes,
The biggest problem is that the degree makes you look unemployable. You look like you didn’t know what to do about having to enter the adult world, so you decided to prolong childhood by continuing to earn grades rather than money even though you were not actually helping yourself to earn money. (See Voices of the defenders of grad school. And me crushing them.)
I know that my MFA was a way to postpone a tough economic reality for an English major with little options. It’s a good idea to get real world experience in a career path before investing money for a graduate degree. On the other hand, once you leave the college track, it’s hard to return to it. I sometimes wish I had a masters or PhD in tech comm, but it would be too difficult to return to school right now, and in all honesty, I don’t know what the benefit would be.
Sponsors
Tags: college, master's degree, Technical Writing
If you liked this post, keep updated with new content: Subscribe to I'd Rather Be Writing.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
3841 Subscribers
Mark Baker (4)
Jen (3)
Richard Hamilton (3)
DiSc (2)
Jenny (2)
Sarah O'Keefe (2)
Aneesha (1)
Barrie Byron (1)
Catherine Crane (1)
D. Renn (1)
I’ve become a big fan of Penelope. Her advice is hard-nosed, to be sure, but boils down to this: grad school (especially anything in the humanities) keeps you from getting into the adult world where you can start being productive and making a living.
I’ve been in tech writing for more than 20 years. I do have an MA in English, but earned that about six years before I started my career.
The questions are: what advantage will a graduate degree in tech writing give you in the job market? Will you necessarily know more than the person who has been building his or her portfolio and skills while you’ve been in school? And is it even necessary to return to school after a few years to get a graduate degree? Will it make you more employable or more valuable to your current employer?
I think people who have spent time working as a full-time technical writer will demand a lot more from an academic program than a student who transitions up from within an existing BA program. The reason is, full-time experience in the corporate world prompts you to compare the business value of the education, not just how it affects you financially in the job market, but how the information will make you a better technical writer in your department. If it doesn’t have a direct correlation, I think most experienced writers would dismiss its value fairly quickly.
Upon reading or hearing this kind of opinions, I always can’t help but wonder why do people keep measuring their life choices in terms of how much success, or critical acclaim, or money, or whatever artificial happiness they will bring? What if choosing to go to school or not, no get a master’s or PhD or not, was a decision about how it will make you grow as an individual? About whether you want to do it or not?
Of course, everyone needs a job that pays and nobody can go to school forever. But if you CAN stay in school and you WANT to get a higher degree, because you feel that it would do you some good, intellectually or whatever, why not do it? Sure, you can keep calculating in costs/benefits for such important life decisions, but think about what a decision would bring to you, not only to your wallet. No, potential employers may not see the benefits that a higher degree gives, but is it really important if YOU see it and like it?
I’m neither defending nor accusing grad school, or people like Trunk who think it’s not worth it, for that matter. Just stating that maybe sometimes you need to think about what you, not others, want. And what the hell is an “adult world”? I thought everyone lived in the same one… Just my two cents.
Thanks for commenting, Hugo. I did think Penelope’s arguments could have been more developed. The academic life is enriching, and people with advanced degrees seem generally more intelligent, regardless of the field. My blog is one way I keep a foot in the academic door, because it gives me a space to write and think about professional topics, which is what I imagine a graduate student might do.
I agree with you AND I also take issue with the idea that going to school is the only or even the best way to learn. For me, the money question is relevant. If a degree program costs 10 times as much as a trip around the world, then it is fair to consider whether it either provides 10 times as much intellectual-social-personal value. If it does not, then it is fair to ask that it pay for itself in addition to providing intellectual-social-personal value.
I’ve toyed with the idea of getting a Masters degree in Technical Communication myself. The problem I have with Penelope’s article is that it seems to assume that everyone looking to get a graduate degree is a 20-something with no real work experience. What about those of us who are already working adults? I’ve been in the workforce for about 12 years (I’m 32), and a tech writer for the last three years. Any additional degrees that I seek would be earned while continuing to work fulltime. Those two facts alone render all of Penelope’s arguments irrelevant.
I would agree that an MFA in English is useless, unless you intend to become a college professor. However, there are an increasing number of universities that offer advanced degrees in Technical Communication (or some variation). Specifically, I’ve looked at Texas State’s tech comm program. My bachelors degree is in English, but it didn’t give me much preparation for a career in technical writing. I never even took the one undergrad course offered for technical writing – I became a tech writer by accident, after I’d finished most of my degree requirements. I learned how to be a tech writer on the job, and by reading various industry articles and blogs. My hope is that an MA in tech comm would close those gaps in knowledge, but my fear is that it wouldn’t teach me anything I hadn’t already figured out on my own.
I’ve also considered getting a second bachelors degree, in petroleum engineering this time. I work in oil and gas, and I’ve struggled with understanding the industry-specific topics I’ve had to write about. I live in Houston, where oil and gas tech writers are always in demand. The hours required for that undertaking (90+) are a bit daunting, though.
Jennifer, I liked what you said — “My hope is that an MA in tech comm would close those gaps in knowledge, but my fear is that it wouldn’t teach me anything I hadn’t already figured out on my own.”
I’ve met some faculty members in nearby universities, and none of them made much of an impression of me. The problem is, the longer I’m in the field, working directly within an IT organization, the academic world seems less and less current and relevant.
And that canon of essential tech comm literature? I could read it on my own, if one existed. The problem is, most tech comm books are quite boring, and padded with beginner information. I can learn what I need to learn on my own. A program in tech comm would just give me a space to study what I could simply do by myself.
My MFA wasn’t entirely useless. It taught me that I am infinitely creative, and that is something I never realized. It helps me each time I write. I can always look at a blank page and fill it up with something interesting.
It’s true that you can read the various tech comm books on your own, but I do feel that there is something to be said for a structured learning environment. It’s easy to set the book aside when life gets in the way, but you tend to make it a priority when it’s a graded class that you are paying for. Personally, I absorb information better when there are projects and tests and whatnot involved, in spite of the stress they cause me.
I don’t think an MFA is entirely useless, but I don’t know how much it will help you in the job market. I would imagine that it’s more impressive than just a BA, but perhaps not as much as a Masters in something more specifically tuned toward technical communication. In the end, though, your writing samples and interview performance will be the deciding factors. A few months ago, my boss told me point-blank that he hired me because my writing samples blew everyone else out of the water. So, from a career standpoint, I would say that the value of an MFA in Writing depends a great deal on how much you think it will improve your writing. My BA is in English with a Creative Writing focus, and I actively participated in a fiction critique group for several years. Whenever I took a writing class for my BA, I often found myself frustrated with the quality of the critiques I received from my classmates. My critique group could hack my work into little tiny pieces. My classmates, however, spent most of their time praising my work and only finding a few small things that needed to be changed. I’ll admit that it was nice to hear the praise, but you learn a great deal more from criticism than from praise. Considering that the critique group did more to hone my writing skills than the BA did, I don’t have a lot of faith that an MFA in Writing would be worth the time and expense.
Amen to your point about the merits of an MFA. You’re right — writing samples are ultimately what matter in the end when finding a job. I got my job for much the same reason — the hiring manager liked my writing samples. I’m sure my MFA degree has helped me become a much better writer. I hadn’t thought of that impact before.
Re small writing groups, I also have to cringe and agree. You could probably get the same from a local writing group as you could from a fancy institution. The constant writing and feedback is not something one needs to pay a lot of money for at a big college.
I went back to school to get my M.S. in Technical Communications 14 years after earning my B.A. in Communications and it was the best decision I ever made. Before going back for my master’s I had worked as a journalist, a technical writer/editor, and dabbled in marketing. Then I found a job in instructional design at Boeing and realized what a good fit it was and felt that I needed to go back to school to strengthen by credentials.
At the University of Washington the Technical Communications program (now the Human Centered Design and Engineering department, Technical Communications tract) was interdisciplinary and I could take all the TC courses and also all the educational technology courses, computer science, user interface design, and other courses I felt would help me in my instructional design career. Plus I was able to get a position as a teaching assistant.
Maybe I didn’t need to earn my master’s, but I feel it has made a huge difference in the types of jobs I have been able to get and in the salary I have been able to negotiate.
I do think that anyone considering graduate school should first work for a few years to help them define what it is they want to do and then find a program that can provide them with what they need. When I went back I was very focused on what it was that I needed from graduate school and I believe that was beneficial. I live in Seattle and didn’t want to relocate, so I was also lucky that the University of Washington has an excellent program that gave me the flexibility that I needed.
“When I went back I was very focused on what it was that I needed from graduate school and I believe that was beneficial.”
Helen, thanks for your comment. You confirmed my belief that returning to school after being in the workforce for a few years would result in a more focused graduate experience.
My MA is a one-liner at the bottom of my resume. I doubt anyone gets that far without already having made up their mind. (In fact, experience suggests that no one ever actually reads that far.)
I didn’t take the MA because I thought it would lead to a job. I actually took it because I thought that most of the theories about the causes of the industrial revolution were wrong and I want to do the research to demonstrate that the current theories at the time were reading the trends wrong.
Actually, since my degree is in the history of technology, it might be considered pretty good preparation for a career in technical communication, thought the Apple II clone I bought to type my never-to-be-written PhD thesis may have done far more to lead me along to course I have taken.
Anyway, my take on this would be that asking if taking a graduate degree is worthwhile is like asking if taking a vacation is worthwhile. Degrees are not things you do in order to make money. Like vacations, they are things you make money in order to do. And if you would rather go on vacation instead of taking a degree, that is what you should do with your time and money.
But if you really want to take a degree in order to better qualify yourself for a career in technical communication, take a degree in the field you want to write about. The handwriting is on the wall, as has been noted here recently: this is how you qualify for a tech writing job today.
Mark, I really like your parallel with vacations! Although usually, at the beginning of one’s career one may take very few vacations and more degrees, while later on taking a degree becomes rare but vacations more common. At least, let’s hope so.
I think in both cases, if you can afford it and you believe it will do you some good, just go for it.
You say your degree is a small line at the end of your resume. That’s probably because you have a lot of experience in the field, from which employers can easily see that you are competent. And I agree that in such a situation the degree is not really relevant.
However, I think that, as Zuzu and Stuart said, and from my own experience, some companies do consider specialized degrees are important and for someone starting their career, with little or no experience, that degree may be the difference between an automatic job and months of unemployment, for having nothing else to demonstrate their abilities. Plus, “Grad school teaches you how to learn”, as Stuart said. This is critical in our field of work.
I think most comments tend to go towards the same general conclusion: a degree in TC is not essential and it won’t ever help you learn as much as you will in the field, but it can be viewed as an advantage by employers and it will be useful to you as an individual, in one way or another.
We should not underestimate the role snobbishness plays in hiring decisions. Some managers, and some corporate cultures, may be snobbish about degrees. Some may be snobbish about “street smarts” and practical experience and look down on people with advanced degrees.
Some tech writing groups/managers are snobbish about the minutiae of style and grammar. Some are snobbish about formatting and typography. Some are snobbish about their technical proficiency. Some are snobbish about tech writing degrees, and some look down on them.
What people are snobbish about, of course, has nothing to do with what actually helps improve job performance the most. It may, however, have a great deal to do with how people get promoted and compensated.
Bottom line, I guess, is that you should probably strive to work for a company that is snobbish about the same things you are snobbish about. Birds of a feather, and all that. Want to hang out with a different kind of bird? Change your plumage.
Good advice, Mark. I think you’re right about the strategy of taking a degree in the field in which you want to do technical writing. I’m not sure many people actually do that, though. At least not intentionally. I think many people aspire to a certain career, for example, biology, or chemistry, and then find that the field isn’t exactly what they want. As a result, they detour into technical writing and leverage their expertise. But I still think that it’s a good idea to do what you recommend, or maybe to double-major as an undergrad in writing and science/engineering or something similar.
A graduation course in Technical Communication would be no better than the knowledge gathered from your on-job experience. I realized this recently (and I may be wrong). I was in the same line of thinking to do a course on TC since last year and I even searched online few institutes that offer TC courses in India. I noticed their course content didn’t include anything new. In fact, the course content is not in line with the current trends of TC industry.
“the course content is not in line with the current trends of TC industry.” I agree that this is the danger of pursuing such a degree. Definitely check out a program and its faculty before jumping in.
I am working on my Masters in Technical Communication after 18 years as a technical communicator. (I have a bachelors degree in English.) I am learning a lot, meeting some great folks, and overall getting a lot out of it. One thing I enjoy is the exposure to all of the different facets of technical communication. I have never been an instructional designer, but I get to learn about it in a class. Will I become an instructional designer from taking that one class? No, but I will have a broader knowledge of my industry and it might help me develop the training that I have to conduct from time to time. As someone who is usually the lone writer or a lone editor, just having someone proof or grade my editing or writing is a big deal. Do I get some of this from the STC conferences or webinars or my own reading? Yes, I find that the conferences and webinars and schooling and my own reading and my job all feed into each other constantly. I feel like I have a much broader and deeper understanding of the industry now that I am in grad school. But I am in no rush…I don’t think that once I get the degree, I will get a better paying job. I am doing it for me; I am paying for it myself and taking a course at a time as my life allows.
Going to grad school after a long time out in the real world is different from just continuing as a student. It’s kind of the reverse of a Liberal Arts degree, where you’re building a framework of concepts to grow into in your life. This is a framework of concepts on how the world really works and what you actually need as a technical communicator. When you’re in class, you’ll be able to sift the wheat rather neatly so you know what’s actually important.
So does the author expect the companies to a) pay and b) train a person fresh from secondary school, maybe 17 or 18 years of age, with no specific qualifications for the actual job?
The only reason I went for a Master’s in Technical and Professional Writing (that’s an MTPW, by the way, *not* an MA or MS, ugh) was because the certificate course was full, and I didn’t have to take the GRE. I loved the entire experience, but I do think there was too much theory and not enough practice. The best professors were adjunct, writers already out working in the trenches. The one full-time, tenured professor at the university had a PhD from RPI in Rhetoric. Her classes were interesting, but I didn’t need no steenkin’ ‘allegory of the cave’ to help me understand API documentation.
I would still to it again in a heartbeat. I was 35 when I went to grad school and woefully underpaid in a job I loved. As soon as I graduated, I was immediately recruited into the software industry at an 84% increase in pay. They liked the degree. I liked the raise.
” I didn’t need no steenkin’ ‘allegory of the cave’ to help me understand API documentation.” Loved this line. It is sometimes hard to connect theory to practice. Ironically, I have come to rely on Plato extensively as I organize and structure my help content. Just kidding. Still, I like the questioning, critical mind that seems to come from reading him.
If you understand the allegory of the cave, you’re a long way toward understanding the dualism that Aristotle is answering when he discusses praxis – the irreducible marriage of theory and practice, in which an action’s end is considered and deliberate. I rely on this wisdom daily to help me with technical writing tasks ranging from knowledge elicitation on the producer side, to information architecture on the consumer side, creating user-centered documentation for emerging prosumer ecosystems.
I became a technical writer without an English or Tech Comm degree, but I had a knack for writing procedural and training documentation that lead me into Tech Comm. I got my MSTC and it was a wonderfully eye-opening experience for me. I learned the theory behind the things that I knew in my gut about technical writing. It did nothing for my career at my current company, but it did open other employment opportunities — teaching.
I am taking babysteps toward getting a PhD, investigating schools, weighing options, saving money. I am thinking about a PhD because I feel like I have more to learn and I want to learn it. It’s more about me and what I value, rather than what a PhD would or would not do for my career in a non-academic environment.
I appreciate the cold, hard facts approach some people take when writing about advanced degrees. It informs me, and helps me take that next step (PhD or not) with my eyes wide open.
“I am thinking about a PhD because I feel like I have more to learn and I want to learn it.”
I think it’s great to pursue a PhD if you have something you want to learn. But why do you have to correlate the two here? Why not just order a book on the topic and start a blog writing about it, rather than entering a costly PhD program? What is really the difference?
I’ve become very interested in information design recently, and I’ve been seriously considering pursuing a degree in that vein, rather than a straight MS in Tech Comm. Does anyone have any input about Masters in Information Design or similar degrees, such as recommendations of good programs or about the value of an information design degree?
[...] Link: Should You Get a Graduate Degree in Technical Writing? | I'd … [...]
I recently made a midlife career change to technical writing by way of a graduate program in Professional Communication. I’m sorry to inform you there is very little similarity between what you learn in grad school and what you learn on the job. Grad school teaches you how to learn, which is vital to gain domain and institutional knowledge on the job; and it exposes you to as many genre, technical skills, and workplace situations as you like; but grad school’s primary role is to inculcate you in a wide range of rhetorical, philosophical, and theoretical schools of thought, as they pertain to an equally wide range of rhetorical situations and communicative praxis in the workplace. It’s this rich, thick education that prepares the technical writer, not as mere conduit of instrumental information, but as ethical agent charged with developing communicative action. It’s this investment in Aristotle’s social wisdom (phronesis) that helps humanize the enormous flow of technical information constantly shaping our life.
If you want to master a few genre, learn how to use the Adobe Technical Communication Suite, and pass a copy editing test — the “mere knackery” of technical writing — save yourself some money and go to tech school. If you want to understand ethical and cultural dimensions of technical writing in the information age, with stops along the way for things like Gestalt theory, multiple resource theory, and knowledge management, take a detour to the halls of higher learning. The real world will still be waiting for you, and it will be all the better for the wisdom you bring it.
“It’s this rich, thick education that prepares the technical writer, not as mere conduit of instrumental information, but as ethical agent charged with developing communicative action.”
Well put, Stuart. I think your experience in the professional and academic worlds has given you a lot of insight about this topic. Your comment would be worthwhile for any prospective tech comm grad student to consider. It’s almost as if education’s value is for education itself, not necessarily as a set of skills one will use in the job. Still, there is carryover with the “communicative action,” as you put it.
On the materialistic side, having an MA in Professional Communication has consistently gotten me more interviews and more money. At companies like IBM, it is an explicit criterion for higher compensation.
Conversely, recognizing what companies place value on higher learning helps job seekers discriminate between employers that consider technical writers high-paid clerical workers and those that understand the value and nature of modern information development and knowledge management.
Boy howdy, this reflects my thoughts exactly! There are cases where a Master’s will add greatly to your value, but for the most part, I don’t feel they are as valuable as actual real-world experience… which a degree is not.
Nor is a degree necessary at all. I have a high school diploma and a smidgen of college. At this point in my career, I can see no value, financial or education, to going back and getting a writing degree of any kind. (I want to get an Art degree, but that’s for me, not my career.)
It’s kind of cool to know that you only have a “smidgen of college” but have nonetheless authored more than two dozen books. I love that.
It’s true! I had a year and a half of college that I was just not ready for. A few years later, I did a CETA training program that taught me how to type and the basics of programming, and that’s all the higher education I have. The rest was me.
It’s fascinating to see how much discussion this topic generates whenever it pops up–here and elsewhere on the web. To me, it speaks of a critical moment in the profession-as-profession; is preparation for tech comm work a matter of training or professional development?
To put it another way: if a graduate degree were just about training (learn the tools), I would tend to agree: Why bother? Go buy a book. But if graduate study can offer something beyond training–an opportunity for engaged learning within a community of inquirers, with an emphasis on developing relevant professional leadership skills (communications project management, content strategy, strategic deployment)–then it strikes me that there is much to be gained though the time and effort invested in an advanced degree or certificate. I also think that advanced study can provide practitioners with a cross-disciplinary perspective on industry–how does the same case study problem look through the lens of MarCom, VizCom, or EdTech?– with the advantage of giving the tech comm professional that broader, systemic perspective that leadership positions often require.
Tom notes above: “The problem is, the longer I’m in the field, working directly within an IT organization, the academic world seems less and less current and relevant.” As someone involved in the fine-tuning process of a graduate program, I take these words to heart. Perhaps being at a polytechnic puts us in a bit of a different category, but I firmly believe that those of us responsible for tech comm programs should be working hard to stay relevant within a rapidly changing profession.
Stay relevant or teach us how to stay relevant? “Give us a fish or teach us how to fish”?
OK, fair enough: and to stretch the metaphor–if learning were a *thing* that we (or anyone) could give, it would indeed have a pretty fishy shelf-life. Not to overstate a cliche, but learning should always be a verb, not a noun.
If a graduate program were to emphasize professional development over tools training, I do believe that would be teaching tech comm professionals how to stay relevant…not just “how to” fish, but when to, where to, etc.
OK, I believe I’ve plumbed the depths of that metaphor far enough and finally hit bottom!
I think there’s much to be gained in nurturing a two-way conversation between industry and the academic world. It’s certainly something that we’re encouraging at SPSU.
I don’t think the issue is one of staying relevant. That would imply that the academic programs had ever been relevant, and that has never been my impression.
My impression — and I would be delighted to find that it is mistaken — is that the academic programs in technical communication have always been irrelevant because they fail to consider technical communications as an economic activity.
The focus always seems to be on rhetoric and cognition, and while that study can sometimes reveal something useful (I’m thinking of Minimalism here) it is largely divorced from the daily grind of real-world technical communications — as any number of working tech writers have commented over the years.
The engineering schools get this right. They understand engineering as an economic activity. Students are taught not only to consider structure and aesthetics, but also the economic aspect of engineering. The building must not only be sound and pleasing, it must be affordable, and it must generate wealth over its lifespan.
Until technical communication schools build the economics of technical communication into the curriculum — as a foundational concept that runs through how every subject is taught and understood, they will not be seen as particularly relevant to working technical communications.
Teaching this would be a great service to the profession as well, because it seems to me to be a chronic problem in the profession that technical writers neither know, nor care to know, how much economic value is created by the various activities they do every day.
Tech writers complain constantly that they are undervalued and not taken seriously, but they are lost when challenged to defend their value in terms of the measurable economic value they create. It academic tech comm programs could teach that — the way engineering schools teach it to their students — then they would really be worth something.
As I said, I would love to be told I am wrong, and that tech comm programs do indeed have this focus. But be warned that if you tell me so, I’m going to want a lot of details!
What you are suggesting sounds very intriguing and relevant to the sorts of conversations we are having right now within our program. And I am sure you are right–I would guess that a majority of programs do not stress the economics of tech comm. We should–part of that professional preparation (and holistic perspective) that I mention above should certainly include an understanding of economic valuation.
On another scale, but related to your point: we have been discussing the role of entrepreneurship in that professional development process, given the opportunities for consulting/ contracting involved in tech comm work.
Yes, having more actual practitioners in to tell people what to expect–the good and the bad–is an excellent idea.
Speaking of real-world stuff, I am reminded of one professor in the U of WA TC program who shall forever remain Mark Haselkorn who has a long history of telling classes, frequently on their last day, “Well, congratulations, you’ve graduated, there are no jobs out there, good luck,” in pretty much those words. Apart from the fact that that’s patently untrue, it’s grossly unprofessional and inappropriate on a dozen levels. I think he’s probably an exception to the rule for TC profs (and there are some truly great ones in the same department, too), but he’s not alone in his bad behavior.
Lots of good comments here on the question of doing graduate work in technical communication. What I see as important is choosing the right program for both your interests and what you see as the future of *YOU* in the field. A couple of months ago in another thread on this blog, I wrote:
“While the traditional jobs in “Tech Writing” are still out there, the field is also expanding to include new technologies and communication practices. Now is not the time to be mired in the kind of thinking that situates Tech Comm in its 1989 cubicle. It’s a brave new world (apologies to Huxley) out there.
Our program–like many others offered by polytechnics–has a curriculum that’s addressing the changes in the profession. For example, I’m a prof who teaches Information Architecture, Writing for New Media, and Content Strategy (just wrapped this last one up). One of my colleagues teaches Human Performance Technology; another colleague–Carol Barnum–has a Usability Testing course. These aren’t your typical courses and we’re not your typical program.”
It’s important not to see tech comm grad degrees as monolithic entities. There’s lots of variation in the offerings out there. Do your research and find out what programs align best with how you want to articulate and expand what you do.
And, by all means, no matter what the degree, don’t shy away from research courses–especially, courses that focus on methodological design and include integrated quantitative/qualitative outcomes. The whole idea of demonstrating “measurable economic value” comes from being able to create a model for valid inquiry and assessment.
A degree is good if you can afford it. Many people forget to calculate the hidden price for getting a degree: living costs, lost income/opportunities, interest on student debt etc.
I’ve found immense value in taking intense workshops (3 days max) on critical techcomm topics and software to be most beneficial in advancing my career: Information Mapping, Authorit, Camtasia…
I’m experimenting with P2PU as a cheap (=free) way to facilitate peer-to-peer techcomm learning here:
http://p2pu.org/en/groups/how-to-make-screencasts/
Avi, thanks for commenting and for sharing the link you referenced. I wish I could find a more advanced book on screencasting. I’d love to learn more about the techniques used in lynda.com. I know screencasting is a passion of yours.
Lynda.com also has a course on screencasting:
http://www.lynda.com/iMovie-tutorials/screencasting-with-the-mac/53851-2.html
I found Daniel Park’s book on Camtasia to be pretty comprehensive:
http://www.dappertext.com/camtasia-studio-the-definitive-guide/
Hi All,
I am Agnibann Bose, an Indian and a technical writer based in Bangalore, India. As of today, I have about 2 years of technical writing experience and about a year of content writing experience. I have catered to diverse industries such as search marketing (for Yahoo) and clinical research (Aris Global, where I am currently working). I intend to apply for a Masters program in Technical Communication for Fall 2012 entry. I was, in a blank state of mind as to how this would do to my career as well as from the knowledge point of view. Academically, I have done a Masters in Microbiology and initially wanted to do a PhD in the same field. But later, my penchant for writing took over and I decided to become a writer. Working as a content writer in a software company, kindled a fire in me to be a technical writer, which I am proud to say that I have managed to become one right now. But, somewhere two years down the line, I feel, that there is a scarcity of knowledge in me regarding the field/domain, which may be regained or fulfilled by taking up this technical writing program. Could any of you, the vastly experienced souls, please comment on this decision of mine.
Thanking you,
Regards,
Agnibann Bose
Technical Writer
Aris Global, Bangalore, India
Agnibann, you said, “I feel, that there is a scarcity of knowledge in me regarding the field/domain, which may be regained or fulfilled by taking up this technical writing program.” One question: How would a technical writing program address your lack of knowledge in a particular field/domain? The technical writing program will not give you the domain knowledge you need. Instead, I recommend a degree in the domain specialization you choose to pursue.
I think this is a very limiting way to approach technical writing. Technical writers, at their highest level of work and fulfillment, perform knowledge elicitation, information development, and professional communication activities to help organizations communicate to internal and external stakeholders in the spirit of Aristotle: “the best available means of persuasion.” These skills are domain agnostic. Good technical writers are able to gather and help communicate domain knowledge as communicators, not as SMEs. Leave the domain-specific MS to the engineers and inculcate yourself in an MA program dedicated to preserving and defending the principles of ethical, user-centered communication.
On a practical level, this approach will expand your employability beyond any one set of writing tools or technologies, and that is the grist of “grad school teaches you how to learn.” A far more useful skill than “knowing how to write about a particular widget” is knowing how to gather and formulate knowledge about any widget put in front of you, whether that widget be a tool, a process, or a product. At that point you bring real value to the organization by bridging the gap between “pretty it up” and helping organizations develop and manage their knowledge assets.
If all we bring to the table is grammar, style, and composition, we will one day be replaced by offshore resources, algorithms, or a combination of both.
First let me thank Stuart and Tom for your prompt replies. My saying, “I feel, that there is a scarcity of knowledge in me regarding the field/domain, which may be regained or fulfilled by taking up this technical writing program.” actually portrays the scenario in India, where technical writers are kind of stuck in their respective domain oriented quagmires. My entire point of taking up a Masters program in Technical Communication is to imbibe that “overall knowledge” that would allow me to transcend any domain as Stuart has pointed out. Thanks again people.
Any recommendations for best college programs for the BS in Technical Communication? Do you think that MN State – Mankato is one of the better ones? Would having a less-expensive certification in Tech Comm be an advantage? Would a certificate complement the generic AS degree?
I’m in an adult learning program at a local community college, and I hope to have my Associate’s degree by this time next year. I have some training and experience in tech writing and I have a nice start on my portfolio.
Thanks for any advice and feedback!
Bobbi