Rhetoric & Technical Communication
Rhetoric & Technical Communication
Toscano, Aaron, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Dept. of English

Resources and Daily Activities

  • Conference Presentations
    • PCA/ACA Conference Presentation 2022
    • PCAS/ACAS Presentation 2021
    • SEACS 2021 Presentation
    • SEACS 2022 Presentation
    • SEACS 2023 Presentation
    • South Atlantic MLA Conference 2022
  • Dr. Toscano’s Homepage
  • ENGL 2116-014: Introduction to Technical Communication
    • February 13th: Introduction to User Design
    • February 15th: Instructions for Users
      • Making Résumés and Cover Letters More Effective
    • February 1st: Reflection on Workplace Messages
    • February 20th: The Rhetoric of Technology
    • February 22nd: Social Constructions of Technology
    • February 6th: Plain Language
    • January 11th: More Introduction to Class
    • January 18th: Audience & Purpose
    • January 23rd: Résumés and Cover Letters
      • Duty Format for Résumés
      • Peter Profit’s Cover Letter
    • January 25th: More on Résumés and Cover Letters
    • January 30th: Achieving a Readable Style
      • Euphemisms
      • Prose Practice for Next Class
      • Prose Revision Assignment
      • Revising Prose: Efficiency, Accuracy, and Good
      • Sentence Clarity
    • January 9th: Introduction to the Class
    • Major Assignments
    • March 13th: Introduction to Information Design
    • March 15th: More on Information Design
    • March 20th: Reporting Technical Information
    • March 27th: The Great I, Robot Analysis
  • ENGL 4182/5182: Information Design & Digital Publishing
    • August 21st: Introduction to the Course
      • Rhetorical Principles of Information Design
    • August 28th: Introduction to Information Design
      • Prejudice and Rhetoric
      • Robin Williams’s Principles of Design
    • Classmates Webpages (Fall 2017)
    • December 4th: Presentations
    • Major Assignments for ENGL 4182/5182 (Fall 2017)
    • November 13th: More on Color
      • Designing with Color
      • Important Images
    • November 20th: Extra-Textual Elements
    • November 27th: Presentation/Portfolio Workshop
    • November 6th: In Living Color
    • October 16th: Type Fever
      • Typography
    • October 23rd: More on Type
    • October 2nd: MIDTERM FUN!!!
    • October 30th: Working with Graphics
      • Beerknurd Calendar 2018
    • September 11th: Talking about Design without Using “Thingy”
      • Theory, theory, practice
    • September 18th: The Whole Document
    • September 25th: Page Design
  • ENGL 4183/5183: Editing with Digital Technologies
    • August 24th: Introduction to the Class
    • August 31st: Rhetoric, Words, and Composing
    • Major Assignments for ENGL 4183/5183 (Fall 2022)
      • Rhetoric of Fear
    • November 16th: Voice and Other Nebulous Writing Terms
      • Finding Dominant Rhetorical Appeals
    • November 2nd: Rhetorical Effects of Punctuation
    • November 30th: Words and Word Classes
    • November 9th: Cohesive Rhythm
    • October 12th: Choosing Adjectivals
    • October 19th: Choosing Nominals
    • October 26th: Stylistic Variations
    • October 5th: Midterm Exam
    • September 14th: Verb is the Word!
    • September 21st: Coordination and Subordination
    • September 28th: Form and Function
    • September 7th: Sentence Patterns
  • ENGL 4275: Rhetoric of Technology
    • April 13th: Authorities in Science and Technology
    • April 15th: Articles on Violence in Video Games
    • April 20th: Presentations
    • April 6th: Technology in the home
    • April 8th: Writing Discussion
    • Assignments for ENGL 4275
    • February 10th: Religion of Technology Part 3 of 3
    • February 12th: Is Love a Technology?
    • February 17th: Technology and Gender
    • February 19th: Technology and Expediency
    • February 24th: Semester Review
    • February 3rd: Religion of Technology Part 1 of 3
    • February 5th: Religion of Technology Part 2 of 3
    • January 13th: Technology and Meaning, a Humanist perspective
    • January 15th: Technology and Democracy
    • January 22nd: The Politics of Technology
    • January 27th: Discussion on Writing as Thinking
    • January 29th: Technology and Postmodernism
    • January 8th: Introduction to the Course
    • March 11th: Writing and Other Fun
    • March 16th: Neuromancer (1984) Day 1 of 2
    • March 18th: Neuromancer (1984) Day 2 of 2
    • March 23rd: Inception (2010)
    • March 25th: Writing and Reflecting Discussion
    • March 30th & April 1st: Count Zero
    • March 9th: William Gibson’s Neuromancer (1984)
  • ENGL 6166: Rhetorical Theory
    • April 12th: Knoblauch. Ch. 4 and Ch. 5
    • April 19th: Jacques Derrida’s Positions
    • April 26th:  Feminisms and Rhetorics
    • April 5th: Knoblauch. Ch. 3 and More Constitutive Rhetoric
    • February 15th: Isocrates (Part 2)
    • February 1st: Aristotle’s On Rhetoric Books 2 & 3
      • Aristotle’s On Rhetoric, Book 2
      • Aristotle’s On Rhetoric, Book 3
    • February 22nd: St. Augustine’s On Christian Doctrine [Rhetoric]
    • February 8th: Isocrates (Part 1)-2nd Half of Class
    • January 11th: Introduction to Class
    • January 18th: Plato’s Phaedrus
    • January 25th: Aristotle’s On Rhetoric Book 1
    • March 15th: Descartes, Rene, Discourse on Method
    • March 1st: Knoblauch. Ch. 1 and 2
    • March 22nd: Mary Wollstonecraft
    • March 29th: Second Wave Feminist Rhetoric
    • May 3rd: Knoblauch. Ch. 6, 7, and “Afterword”
    • Rhetorical Theory Assignments
  • ENGL/COMM/WRDS: The Rhetoric of Fear
    • February 14th: Fascism and Other Valentine’s Day Atrocities
    • February 21st: Fascism Part 2
    • February 7th: Fallacies Part 3 and American Politics Part 2
    • January 10th: Introduction to the Class
    • January 17th: Scapegoats & Conspiracies
    • January 24th: The Rhetoric of Fear and Fallacies Part 1
    • January 31st: Fallacies Part 2 and American Politics Part 1
    • Major Assignments
    • March 7th: Fascism Part 3
  • LBST 2212-124, 125, 126, & 127
    • August 21st: Introduction to Class
    • August 23rd: Humanistic Approach to Science Fiction
    • August 26th: Robots and Zombies
    • August 28th: Futurism, an Introduction
    • August 30th: R. A. Lafferty “Slow Tuesday Night” (1965)
    • December 2nd: Technological Augmentation
    • December 4th: Posthumanism
    • November 11th: Salt Fish Girl (Week 2)
    • November 13th: Salt Fish Girl (Week 2 con’t)
    • November 18th: The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (Part 1)
      • More Questions than Answers
    • November 1st: Games Reality Plays (part II)
    • November 20th: The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (Part 2)
    • November 6th: Salt Fish Girl (Week 1)
    • October 14th: More Autonomous Fun
    • October 16th: Autonomous Conclusion
    • October 21st: Sci Fi in the Domestic Sphere
    • October 23rd: Social Aphasia
    • October 25th: Dust in the Wind
    • October 28th: Gender Liminality and Roles
    • October 2nd: Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein
    • October 30th: Games Reality Plays (part I)
    • October 9th: Approaching Autonomous
      • Analyzing Prose in Autonomous
    • September 11th: The Time Machine
    • September 16th: The Alien Other
    • September 18th: Post-apocalyptic Worlds
    • September 20th: Dystopian Visions
    • September 23rd: World’s Beyond
    • September 25th: Gender Studies and Science Fiction
    • September 30th: Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein
    • September 4th: Science Fiction and Social Breakdown
      • More on Ellison
      • More on Forster
    • September 9th: The Time Machine
  • LBST 2213-110: Science, Technology, and Society
    • August 22nd: Science and Technology from a Humanistic Perspective
    • August 24th: Science and Technology, a Humanistic Approach
    • August 29th: Collins & Pinch’s The Golem (Science), Ch. 2
    • August 31st: Collins & Pinch’s The Golem (Science), Ch. 3 and 4
    • December 5th: Video Games and Violence, a more nuanced view
    • November 14th: Boulle, Pierre. Planet of the Apes. (1964) Ch. 27-end
    • November 16th: Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. 1818. Preface-Ch. 8
    • November 21st: Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. 1818. Ch. 9-Ch. 16
    • November 28th: Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. Ch. 17-Ch. 24
    • November 30th: Violence in Video Games
    • November 7th: Boulle, Pierre. Planet of the Apes Ch. 1-17
    • November 9th: Boulle, Pierre. Planet of the Apes, Ch. 18-26
    • October 12th: Lies Economics Tells
    • October 17th: Brief Histories of Medicine, Salerno, and Galen
    • October 19th: Politicizing Science and Medicine
    • October 24th: COVID-19 Facial Covering Rhetoric
    • October 26th: Wells, H. G. Time Machine. Ch. 1-5
    • October 31st: Wells, H. G. The Time Machine Ch. 6-The End
    • October 3rd: Collins & Pinch’s The Golem at Large (Technology), Ch. 7 and Conclusion
    • September 12th: Collins & Pinch’s The Golem (Science), Ch. 7 and Conclusion
    • September 19th: Collins & Pinch’s The Golem at Large (Technology), Prefaces and Ch. 1
    • September 26th: Collins & Pinch’s The Golem at Large (Technology), Ch. 2
    • September 28th: Collins & Pinch’s The Golem at Large (Technology), Ch. 5 and 6
    • September 7th: Collins & Pinch’s The Golem (Science), Ch. 5 and 6
  • New Media: Gender, Culture, Technology (Spring 2021)
    • April 13th: Virtually ‘Real’ Environments
    • April 20th: Rhetoric/Composition Defines New Media
    • April 27th: Sub/Cultural Politics, Hegemony, and Agency
    • April 6th: Capitalist Realism
    • February 16: Misunderstanding the Internet
    • February 23rd: Our Public Sphere and the Media
    • February 2nd: Introduction to Cultural Studies
    • January 26th: Introduction to New Media
    • Major Assignments for New Media (Spring 2021)
    • March 16th: Identity Politics
    • March 23rd: Social Construction of Gender and Sexuality
    • March 2nd: Foundational Thinkers in Cultural Studies
    • March 30th: Hyperreality
    • March 9th: Globalization & Postmodernism
    • May 4th: Wrapping Up The Semester
      • Jodi Dean “The The Illusion of Democracy” & “Communicative Capitalism”
      • Social Construction of Sexuality
  • Science Fiction in American Culture (Summer I–2020)
    • Assignments for Science Fiction in American Culture
    • Cultural Studies and Science Fiction Films
    • June 10th: Interstellar and Exploration themes
    • June 11th: Bicentennial Man
    • June 15th: I’m Only Human…Or am I?
    • June 16th: Wall-E and Environment
    • June 17th: Wall-E (2008) and Technology
    • June 18th: Interactivity in Video Games
    • June 1st: Firefly (2002) and Myth
    • June 2nd: “Johnny Mnemonic”
    • June 3rd: “New Rose Hotel”
    • June 4th: “Burning Chrome”
    • June 8th: Conformity and Monotony
    • June 9th: Cultural Constructions of Beauty
    • May 18th: Introduction to Class
    • May 19th: American Culture, an Introduction
    • May 20th: The Matrix
    • May 21st: Gender and Science Fiction
    • May 25th: Goals for I, Robot
    • May 26th: Isaac Asimov’s I, Robot
    • May 27th: Hackers and Slackers
    • May 30th: Inception
  • Teaching Portfolio
  • Topics for Analysis
    • A Practical Editing Situation
    • American Culture, an Introduction
    • Efficiency in Writing Reviews
    • Feminism, An Introduction
    • Fordism/Taylorism
    • Frankenstein Part I
    • Frankenstein Part II
    • Futurism Introduction
    • How to Lie with Statistics
    • Isaac Asimov’s “A Cult of Ignorance”
    • Langdon Winner Summary: The Politics of Technology
    • Marxist Theory (cultural analysis)
    • Oral Presentations
    • Oratory and Argument Analysis
    • Our Public Sphere
    • Postmodernism Introduction
    • Protesting Confederate Place
    • Punctuation Refresher
    • QT, the Existential Robot
    • Religion of Technology Discussion
    • Rhetoric, an Introduction
      • Analyzing the Culture of Technical Writer Ads
      • Rhetoric of Technology
      • Visual Culture
      • Visual Perception
      • Visual Perception, Culture, and Rhetoric
      • Visual Rhetoric
      • Visuals for Technical Communication
      • World War I Propaganda
    • The Great I, Robot Discussion
      • I, Robot Short Essay Topics
    • The Rhetoric of Video Games: A Cultural Perspective
      • Civilization, an Analysis
    • The Sopranos
    • Why Science Fiction?
    • Zombies and Consumption Satire
  • Video Games & American Culture
    • April 14th: Phallocentrism
    • April 21st: Video Games and Neoliberalism
    • April 7th: Video Games and Conquest
    • Assignments for Video Games & American Culture
    • February 10th: Aesthetics and Culture
    • February 17th: Narrative and Catharsis
    • February 24th: Serious Games
    • February 3rd: More History of Video Games
    • January 13th: Introduction to the course
    • January 20th: Introduction to Video Game Studies
    • January 27th: Games & Culture
      • Marxism for Video Game Analysis
      • Postmodernism for Video Game Analysis
    • March 24th: Realism, Interpretation(s), and Meaning Making
    • March 31st: Feminist Perspectives and Politics
    • March 3rd: Risky Business?

Contact Me

Office: Fretwell 255F
Email: atoscano@uncc.edu
LBST 2213-110: Science, Technology, and Society » September 26th: Collins & Pinch’s The Golem at Large (Technology), Ch. 2

September 26th: Collins & Pinch’s The Golem at Large (Technology), Ch. 2

Chapter 2: “The Naked Launch: Assigning Blame for the Challenger Explosion”

As Collins & Pinch mention, everyone alive remembers where they were when the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded. Of course, their first edition of this book was published in 1998 before 9/11 and the 2003 Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. Many of you might not remember those events, but, obviously, 9/11 was a very tumultuous time when the public searched for answers, so, if you were old enough, you probably remember where you were. I remember the 2003 Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, but, as the nation was gearing up for an invasion of Iraq, and we already had troops in Afghanistan, there wasn’t the same attention paid to it as to the Challenger disaster, which we discussed for months. As an aside, I was living outside Washington, DC, on 9/11 (teaching at George Mason University), so I was very much searching for answers and continued to anticipate the anniversary every year…until 2020. Yes, the 20th anniversary had more significance, but, I hate to say it, COVID pushed 9/11 out of my mind. It wasn’t until I heard a report on the radio about that day’s memorial for 9/11 victims that I remembered the significance of the day. Perhaps COVID-19 has replaced 9/11 for our main collective cultural event of trauma.

Similar to the “fog of war,” there’s a fog surrounding catastrophic events—lots of doubt, confusion, and misinformation. Sometimes it’s easy to figure out the immediate cause of a technological catastrophe, but it’s not as easy to have a bigger picture view in the moment or shortly after.

Three Things to Take Away From Ch. 2

  1. Judging past decisions can be skewed by hindsight. The Challenger disaster has many stories; there’s no single narrative.
  2. The details of the explosion that reached the public were incomplete and made into sound bites or easily consumed visuals.
  3. NASA and Thiokol engineers arrived at their decisions based on assumptions about the shuttle that were in dispute. The key players had to make arguments for or against launching.

Richard Feynman and the rubber in ice water demonstration.

Why still study the Challenger disaster?

Important Lessons/Questions to Consider

Continuing on the theme of more questions than answers, I hope the Challenger disaster reading allows you to think more about the rhetoric of technology. The discourse surrounding the Challenger disaster influences how people—lay person and expert—(re)construct the meaning of the event. In other words, the audience’s assumptions and the information filtered 2nd, 3rd, 4th hand…lead to conclusions.

It’s important to know your audience. Sometimes that’s easy, but often times it’s not. Although speakers can’t completely control their messages, understanding how an audience might interpret one’s message is important. Consider the following types of people below. How might a person of that disposition conclude regarding the Challenger disaster? Consider generic assumptions that a person may have and how that influences their conclusions.

  1. Conspiracy theorist—the government always lies and covers up facts
  2. World-renowned physicists—they know their words will influence the public
  3. Politician against funding NASA
  4. A voter very much in favor of funding for NASA

Key Quotations

  • pp. 41-42: The popular belief for the Challenger disaster: “NASA managers succumbed to production pressures, proceeding with a launch they knew was risky in order to keep on schedule.
  • p. 43: “After the event it is easy to slot the heroes and villains into place. It is harder to imagine the pressures, dilemmas, and uncertainties facing the participants” making the decisions.
  • p. 66: “The problems with the joint were not…suppressed or ignored by NASA, the engineers were actually too well aware of the problems and the risks.”
  • p. 48: Burden of proof: “The engineers at Marshall had a reputation for being conservative and rigorous; they saw it as their job to keep the contractor honest by trying to ‘shoot down’ their data and their analyses.”
    A stance from this perspective would be more than just skeptical. The engineers would approach the contractors as adversaries, forcing them to overcome a hostile audience.
  • p. 74: “[A] risk-free technology is impossible and that assessing the working of a technology and the risks attached to it are always inescapable matters of human judgement.”
  • p. 74: “[T]he technical cause of the Challenger accident is to this day [as of 1998] not absolutely certain.”

Consider the rhetoric of the two phrases:
“the Challenger accident” vs. “the Challenger disaster”
It’s probably obvious that labeling it “the Challenger accident” might possibly deflect that anyone was to blame; after all, it was just an accident. Whereas, “the Challenger disaster” conveys an inflammatory tone. Another key takeaway is that both phrasings are rhetorical. Furthermore, what’s the rhetoric of “the Challenger debacle”?

Similarity and Difference

  • p. 50: “Things appear similar or different depending on the context of use.”
  • p. 51: “Because most tests only simulate how the technology will be used in practice, the crucial question in judging test outcomes becomes: how similar is the test to the actual use?”

All description is done by comparison (to a large extent). When you define something, you use metaphors, similes, analogies, and other words. To explain an unfamiliar concept, you use a familiar concept to compare to it. For instance, the Internet protocol, TCP/IP is needed to have information successfully transmitted across networks. Without that, computers wouldn’t be able to talk to each other. Data wouldn’t be able to be assembled for delivery or compiled by the receiving computer. It would be like trying to have a conversation with another person who doesn’t speak your language. The words get to you, but you can’t translate them.
***The above bolded words are communication words that metaphorically show how “talk” relates to computer networking: Computers don’t talk the way humans do…yet…but they certainly communicate. This is one of many metaphorical uses of personification and technology. Ever “downloaded” with someone?

Similarity doesn’t mean being identical. A metaphor just has to be close or relatable enough to the audience. If one uses a comparison not closely enough related, it’s consider fallacious and called a false analogy. It is possible to refute all analogies as false if one argues that the comparison standard isn’t similarity but being identical. However, that would be too extreme and would miss the role similarity plays in defining concepts. Beware of rhetorical chicanery.

Acceptable Risk in Technology

We debate risks constantly. There is a risk to nearly every activity. All technologies have risks associated with them, but we still use them. No car is 100% safe, but we still drive because we’ve accepted the risks involved. The Challenger had risks associated with its operation, but the key players deemed those risks acceptable. Collins & Pinch point out that risk was also based on perspective.

  • p. 55: “It is wrong to set up standards of absolute certainty from which to criticize engineers.”
    • An extreme “hater” could have this perspective
    • An average citizen could have such a perspective
  • p. 55: “[T]o what degree do [the O-rings] have to seal?”
    • To what degree does light bend…depends on which plate you use.
  • p. 57: Acceptable risk is negotiated. It involves compromise.
  • p. 63: “Although the engineers at Marshall and at Thiokol were alarmed about the first ever blow-by, they felt that they had a three-factor rationale for continuing to classify the joint as an acceptable risk.”
    • There was agreement on the acceptable risk based on shared assumptions regarding O-ring erosion.
    • There wasn’t agreement on the risk of low (or high) temperatures and to O-rings.
  • p. 64: “[A]ll the engineers directly involved…still considered the joint to be an acceptable risk.”
  • p. 65: We can’t assume “engineering knowledge is certain knowledge.”
    • But we do expect probability. What’s probable? Context usually dictates the level of probability of safety we expect from a technology.

The points above aren’t here to claim that scientists lie and deceive the public. Of course, there have been occasions where that has happened, but if that was the majority of science–deception–we wouldn’t have the knowledge we have today or the technologies we have. There would be only negative scientific ethos. Scientists and engineers are human (even if they don’t talk like humans), and they make mistakes just as all humans do. Hindsight might make us sure, but, being in the “thick of the event,” is different. Just because scientists and engineers supported different positions doesn’t mean one side was lying or misleading.

Statements Coming Back to Haunt You

Remember, the media report sound bites and focus attention on an area of a topic. They can’t go into the amount of detail a huge investigation would go into. Provocative statements, even if out of context, can influence an audience more so than explaining complex issues and data.

  • p. 69: “When do you want me to launch, next April?”
  • p. 72: “It’s time to take off your engineering hat and put on your management hat.”

Pliability of Rubber

At the end of class on Tuesday, we discussed designs that needed pliable materials, such as rubber, to function better. Just as skyscrapers on the West Coast ought to have the ability to sway because of earthquakes, bridge joints need to “work like an accordion, opening and closing to accommodate movement, and the rubber seals have to move in concert. It’s a delicate balance between strength and pliability” (An Expansion Joint Seal for an Iconic New Bridge). You want to use rubber or similar materials to allow “give and take” in certain structures. Because of the hot gas pressure during launch, the O-Rings allow the joints to expand and seal, so they were a solution for the rocket design (c.f. pp. 44-47). The Morton Thiokol engineers and NASA-Marshall engineers/managers disagreed about how open the joint would be on lift off (p. 49).

But under what conditions will the O-Ring rubber hold up? As discussed, rubber is pliable and can be used to protect fruits and vegetables of a variety of sizes. It’s versatility and pliability are expected effects. For the O-Rings, the discrepancy was with how pliable and resistant to the cold the would be–the engineers disagreed. Dr. Richard Feynman’s demonstration (linked above) with the vice-gripped piece of rubber in the glass of ice water convinced the lay public that the Challenger launched at too cold a temperature. In the minds of the public, Feynman’s soundbite was enough proof, and many continue to assume that the O-Ring failure–due to it being too cold on the morning of the launch–is the main or ultimate reason for the accident (including this link to More information on the Challenger explosion is at Space.com). While it’s hard to be certain that there was just one reason for the accident, the O-Ring failure appears to have been a very likely factor. Collins & Pinch’s chapter doesn’t dismiss this theory but complicates the prevailing assumptions that the cold temperature caused the O-Rings to fail, and that was the only reason for failure.

Please understand the nuance here. These shuttles were launched before with no accidents; there was doubt on both sides of the decision to launch or not; and other culprits might be potential reasons for the accident. The certainty the publics holds on the matter is based not on a thorough examination of the facts, figures, and testimonies; instead, it’s most likely the easiest explanation to convey. Also, after researchers looked further into the accident and wrote up new findings, I believe the public moved on and was less interested in the topic.

Although this may seem rather cynical, having something definitive to blame as opposed to dealing with the ambiguity of multiple contributing factors could be a comfort. Pay attention to one’s commitment to black-and-white thinking and either-or conclusions. Most topics have a lot of gray area.

Next Class

For Wednesday, 9/28, read Ch. 5 and 6–notice I’m asking you to skip Ch 3 & 4. Don’t forget that your post for this week is due Friday, 09/30, at 11:00 pm.

Skip to toolbar
  • Log In