Written Communication

28(2) 172192
Globalizing Writing 2011 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permission:
Studies: The Case sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0741088311399708
of U.S. Technical http://wcx.sagepub.com

Communication
Textbooks

Aya Matsuda1 and Paul Kei Matsuda1

Abstract
In an increasingly globalized world, writing courses, situated as they are in
local institutional and rhetorical contexts, need to prepare writers for global
writing situations. Taking introductory technical communication in the
United States as a case study, this article describes how and to what extent
global perspectives are incorporated into writing. Based on an analysis
of eight textbooks and a closer analysis of four of them, we illustrate the
representation of technical communication and communicators as well as
multiculturalism and multilingualism in these textbooks and point out the
limitations vis--vis the cultural and linguistic complexity of global technical
communication in todays world. We conclude by considering implications
for U.S. college composition as it continues to contribute to the international
discourse of writing studies.

Keywords
globalization, international communication, technical communication, textbook,
world Englishes

1
Arizona State University

Corresponding Author:
Paul Kei Matsuda, Arizona State University, Department of English,
Box 870302, Tempe, AZ 85287-0302, USA
Email: paul.matsuda@asu.edu
Matsuda and Matsuda 173

Globalization has become inevitable in almost every aspect of life and writ-
ing studies is no exception. In many parts of the world, written communication
often entails communicating across linguistic, cultural, and national boundar-
ies. As writing studies continue to evolve as a global phenomenon, and given
the situated nature of rhetorical and pedagogical practices, it is important to
examine the extent to which writing studies have succeeded in globalizing its
own theoretical and pedagogical practices (Donahue, 2009). How do writing
teachers prepare students for written communication in increasingly global,
transnational, and multilingual rhetorical contexts? In this study, we will take
the United States as a case study to investigate how and to what extent the
global or international (G/I) perspective has been incorporated into writing
instruction. As U.S. writing studies, until fairly recently, had been develop-
ing in isolation from the rest of the world, it would be relatively easy to
choose a sample of first-year composition textbooks and point out the lack
of a global perspective; however, this type of critique would not be produc-
tive. What would be more instructive is to see some of the best practices in
this context to recognize the efforts that have been made over the last decade
or so and to identify some of the strategies that can be applied to a broader
context.
Among various areas of writing research and instruction in the United
States, technical communication is one of the first and most successful areas
in its effort to integrate international issues into scholarship and in instruc-
tion. There are a number of possible reasons for this emphasis. In technical
communication, integrating international perspectives has become essential
because it focuses on effective, efficient, and ethical communication in pro-
fessional or workplace contexts, where international trades and mergers have
become an undeniable reality. In the classroom contexts, introductory techni-
cal communication courses often enroll a large number of international students
who come to the United States to major in engineering, computer science,
and other technical and scientific fields that often requireor at least strongly
encouragestudents to take technical writing courses. For these reasons,
scholars in technical communication have long been interested in finding
ways to internationalize the curriculum and publishers and textbook authors
have responded to this demand by integrating international components into
the textbooks.
Our goal in this study is to analyze introductory technical communication
textbooks to understand the extent to which internationalization has been
institutionalized in one of the most popular courses in U.S. college composition
programs. Our intention is not to infer the actual classroom practices from the
textbooks; we acknowledge that an analysis of textbooks can provide only a
174 Written Communication 28(2)

partial picture of the classroom reality. Technical communication teachers

with knowledge or experience in international technical communication may
be making individual efforts to supplement what the textbooks do not pro-
vide; conversely, teachers without interest or preparation in teaching interna-
tional issues may skip international materials altogether. Still, textbooks can
provide useful insights into the kind of topics that are likely covered in intro-
ductory technical communication courses. Today, writing textbooks are
revised frequently based on feedback from teachers and from experts in vari-
ous subfields, which would suggest that the textbooks do provide, albeit indi-
rectly, some idea of what a large number of teachers wish to have as part of
their teaching resources. Furthermore, when it comes to relatively new and
specialized topics such as international technical communication, textbooks
may actually provide more information than what average teachers can pro-
vide on their own because few graduate programs for technical communication
teachers offermuch less requirerelevant courses such as intercultural
communication, second language writing, or world Englishes. It is even con-
ceivable that many novice teachersand we surmise many experienced
teachers as welllearn about international issues primarily from the textbooks
they use in their classrooms.
Textbooks these days are revised frequently; by the time this article is
published, most of the textbooks in this study would have already been
revised into the next edition. This is not a problem for the purpose of this
study because we are primarily interested in offering a historical snapshot of
what probably is the best representation of G/I issues in writing textbooks
during the period under investigation2005-2007about a decade after the
integration of multilingual and multicultural perspectives into technical com-
munication became an important issue in the field (e.g., Artemeva, 1998;
Daniels, Cronje, & Sokolowski, 1998; Miles, 1997; Thrush, 1993). During
this 10-year period, global networks, flows, and changed work practices
have come to matter in ways they havent mattered in the past (Grabill,
2005, p. 373). Our goal is not to offer suggestions for improving textbooks
per sealthough we hope publishers and textbook authors find insights from
this study useful in further improving the quality of their textbooks. In the
same vein, our intention is not to criticize the textbooks (some of which we
have used in our teaching) or their authors (whose work we respect and
admire). In fact, we believe the textbooks we have analyzed are far more
advanced in incorporating an international perspective than textbooks for
other types of writing courses; they represent the best of what is currently
available in representing G/I issues in the context of writing instruction in
the United States. It could even be argued that they surpass the level of G/I
Matsuda and Matsuda 175

awareness in professional publications in the field. By carefully examining

how they integrate international perspectives, we hope to identify ways in
which textbooks for various types of writing courses can integrate interna-
tional perspectives.
The primary purpose of this study, then, is to examine how and to what
extent technical communication textbooks integrate G/I issues. The major
research questions that guided our study include the following:

Research Question 1: How G/I are introductory technical communica-

tion textbooks published in the United States?
Research Question 1a: To what extent do introductory technical
communication textbooks integrate G/I issues?
Research Question 1b: What modes of representation do introduc-
tory technical communication textbooks use to incorporate G/I
issues?
Research Question 2: How do introductory technical communication
textbooks represent G/I issues?
Research Question 2a: How do introductory technical communica-
tion textbooks in the United States represent linguistic and cul-
tural issues involved in G/I technical communication?
Research Question 2b: How, if at all, do introductory technical
communication textbooks in the United States represent issues
surrounding the spread and dominance of English as well as the
diversity of language varieties and users?

To answer these questions, we identified and examined major introductory

technical communication textbooks that were published in the United States
between 2005 and 2007. The analyses consisted of two phases. In the first
phase, we sought to answer the first research question by examining all eight
textbooks that fell under this category for the extent to which they integrated
G/I issues and how. In the second phase of the study, we addressed Research
Question 2 by focusing on four of the textbooks that integrated G/I features
most extensively and through different strategies.

Phase 1: How G/I Are Introductory

Technical Communication Textbooks?
The goal of the first phase was to examine to what extent and how G/I issues
were integrated into introductory technical communication textbooks pub-
lished during a 3-year period during the first decade of the 21st century.
176 Written Communication 28(2)

Phase 1 Method
The first phase of this study focused on introductory technical communica-
tion textbooks that are widely used in entry-level technical communication
courses at U.S. institutions of higher education. To identify textbooks for
inclusion, we checked the websites of major technical communication text-
book publishers in the United States and identified comprehensive textbooks
for introductory technical writing courses published with the copyright dates
of between 2005 and 2007. To ensure that all textbooks are more or less
comparable in scope and format, we excluded online textbooks (e.g., Porter,
Sullivan, & Johnson-Eilola, 2004), brief textbooks (e.g., Gurak & Lannon,
2003), handbooks (e.g., Alred, Brusaw, & Oliu, 2006), or reference books
(e.g., Alred, Brusaw, & Oliu, 2002). Technical communication textbooks for
advanced courses or for specific majors, such as engineering (e.g., Beer &
McMurrey, 2005; Sorby & Bulleit, 2006), were also excluded. Following the
suggestion of Miles (1997), who argued the importance of including first-
edition textbooks that might include innovative features, we included textbooks
regardless of the number of editions.
We were interested in materials that are being used by ordinary technical
communication teachers and students rather than materials that are more
likely to be adopted by teachers and students with a special interest in G/I
perspectives on technical communication. For this reason, we excluded those
textbooks that had overt emphasis on globalization, including Technical Com-
munication in the Global Community (2nd ed.; Andrews, 2001) and Global
Contexts: Case Studies in International Technical Communication (Bosley,
2001). While it would be useful to study these textbooks separately for addi-
tional insights about ways to incorporate international perspectives into tech-
nical communication curricula, we decided to focus on textbooks that are
more commonly used for a large number of introductory courses.
Based on these criteria, we identified the following eight textbooks for
the first-phase analyses: Technical Communication: A Reader-Centered
Approach (6th ed.; Paul V. Anderson, 2007); Technical Communication
(6th ed.; Rebecca E. Burnett, 2005); Technical Writing: Process and Prod-
uct (5th ed.; Sharon Gerson & Steven Gerson, 2006); Technical Communi-
cation Today (Richard Johnson-Sheehan, 2005); Technical Communication
(10th ed.; John M. Lannon, 2006); Technical Communication (8th ed.; Mike
Markel, 2007); Technical Communication: A Practical Approach (6th ed.;
William Sanborn Pfeiffer, 2006); and Technical Writing: Principles, Strate-
gies, and Readings (6th ed.; Diana C. Reep, 2006). These books came from
four major publishers of technical communication textbooks: Bedford/St.
Matsuda and Matsuda 177

Martins Press; Pearson Longman; Pearson Prentice Hall; and Thomson

Wadsworth.1
For the first phase of this study, we examined the representation of what
we call G/I features in these textbooks by identifying any segment that
included a discussion of one or more of the following themes: globalization,
internationalization, cross-cultural communication, or English as a second
language (ESL). Our goal at this stage was to identify different ways by
which G/I features were integrated into these textbooks. To achieve consis-
tency, three codersincluding the two coauthors and a research assistant2
conducted a pilot analysis by independently examining an earlier edition of
one of the textbooks and discussed the outcomes before coding any of the
textbooks included in this study.
To ensure that we did not miss any G/I features from consideration, we exam-
ined the eight textbooks in three stages. First, as a starting point for identify-
ing major global features, we used the front and back mattersespecially the
preface, introduction, and detailed table of contents as well as the subject
index. As globalization has become a popular theme in the professional lit-
erature, we reasoned, the authors (and perhaps publishers) would be eager to
highlight their efforts to include these issues as a marketing tool.3 Second,
each of the eight textbooks was coded by at least two of the three coders. In
this stage, each of us scanned the entire texts to identify any G/I features that
were not already identified in the first stage. Then, in the third stage of analy-
sis, we consolidated all the notes to generate the most comprehensive listing
of G/I features in those textbooks. Any questions or discrepancies were
resolved through discussion among all three researchers.4

Phase 1 Results
Through the three-stage analysis, we identified five main ways by which G/I
features were incorporated into introductory technical communication text-
books: (a) G/I chapters, (b) G/I sections, (c) G/I boxes, (d) G/I icons, and
(e) ESL sections. G/I chapters are defined as chapters devoted to G/I issues (e.g.,
Understanding Culture and the Workplace in Burnett, 2005, pp. 37-75),
and G/I sections are any subsections devoted to G/I issues within a chapter
(e.g., Organizing for Cross-Cultural Audiences in Markel, 2007, p. 227).
G/I boxes are designated G/I text segments that were semi-independent of the
main text, usually visually marked with boxes and/or screens (e.g., Global
Guidelines in Anderson, 2007). We excluded from this category a few boxes
on non-G/I topics that only made a brief mention of G/I features (e.g., ethics
side-bars in Burnett, 2005); instead, they are included in the miscellaneous
178 Written Communication 28(2)

Table 1. Distribution of Global/International Features in Major Introductory

Technical Communication Textbooks
Chapters
with G/I G/I G/I G/I G/I ESL
features % chapter sections boxes icons segments Miscellaneous

Anderson 13 56.52 0 1 14 0 0 0
Burnett 5 23.81 1 1 0 0 0 3
Gerson & 1 5.26 0 1 0 0 0 0
Gerson
Johnson- 4 18.18 0 4 0 0 1 0
Sheehan
Lannon 11 42.31 0 12 0 38 0 0
Markel 21 100.00 0 4 21 0 1 2
Pfeiffer 1 6.25 1 0 0 0 1 0
Reep 3 18.75 0 3 0 0 0 2
Note: G/I = global/international, ESL = English as a second language.

category. G/I icons are icons placed in the margins throughout the text that
indicated the presence of G/I features (e.g., global icons in Lannon, 2006).
ESL sections include a designated text segment (a chapter, a section, or an
appendix) that includes information for writers whose native language is
other than English. A small number of global features that did not fit this
scheme were classified as miscellaneous; this category included a mention of
G/I issues in text segments that are not specifically labeled as such.
As G/I chapters and G/I sections sometimes overlapped, we counted the
number of the largest segment that focused on G/I issues, with the exception
of G/I boxes, which were not considered integral to the segment. For exam-
ple, we did not count G/I sections that appeared within a G/I chapter, but we
counted G/I boxes even when it was placed within a G/I chapter or a G/I sec-
tion. To measure the extent of G/I representation, we also calculated the per-
centage of chapters that included some forms of G/I features. The result of
this analysis is presented in Table 1.

Phase 1 Discussion
The results of Phase 1 provide an inventory of different modes of integrating
G/I features as well as a sense of how and to what extent each textbook is
integrating G/I features. The data also seem to suggest that all textbooks
included some discussion of G/I issues and that different texts integrated G/I
issues by using different modes of integration to varying degrees. As the
Matsuda and Matsuda 179

measure for one mode of integration is not equal in size or magnitude with
another, it would not be appropriate to assess the success of G/I integration
based on the frequency data alone. For this reason, we are not providing the
sum of these numbers for each textbook. By the same token, it would not
make sense to compare which strategies are more commonly used because
some of the most frequently used mode of representation (G/I boxes, 35%)
accounts for only two of the eight textbooks. Furthermore, because these
textbooks used diverse modes of integration and did so to differing degrees,
it would not be appropriate to use these data to compare texts quantitatively
or to come up with a strict ranking. Yet these data, if each number is inter-
preted in context, do allow us to assess the relative success of G/I integration
for each textbook and to identify a range of strategies for G/I integration
across textbooks.
In terms of the percentage of chapters that included some form of G/I
features, three textbooks stood out: Markel (2007), Anderson (2007), and
Lannon (2006). These three textbooks accomplished the integration by dis-
persing G/I issues throughout the texts by placing G/I boxes (Anderson,
2007; Markel, 2007) or a combination of G/I sections and G/I icons. Yet
none of these three offered a dedicated G/I chapter. The two that had G/I
chapters were Burnett (2005) and Pfeiffer (2006), each of which included a
G/I theme in the title of one of the chapters. Burnett (2005) substantially
incorporated G/I issues by devoting the entire chapter to culture in the work-
place (chapter 2, Understanding Culture and the Workplace). In Pfeiffer
(2006), however, global issues appear only in a single, 5-page section out of
the 23-page chapter called McDuff, Inc.: Ethics and Globalism in the Work-
place (pp. 38-60); in other words, it is more appropriately counted as a G/I
section that is labeled as a G/I chapter. However, to be fair, Pfeiffer (2006),
along with Johnson-Sheehan (2005) and Markel (2007), is one of the three
textbooks that included a dedicated ESL segment (e.g., a chapter or an appendix)
to provide language support materials for students for whom English is not
the first language.
Based on this description, it seems appropriate to conclude that all intro-
ductory textbooks do integrate G/I issues in various ways and to varying
degrees. It also seems appropriate to suggest that the incorporation of G/I
issues is accomplished most substantially by dispersing them throughout the
textbook (Anderson, 2007; Lannon, 2006; Markel, 2007) or by dedicating an
entire chapter (Burnett, 2005). In Phase 2 below, we will focus on these four
textbooks to provide a closer examination of how G/I issues are integrated
into these textbooks. Before moving on, a caveat is in order. The purpose of
our analysis thus far has been to examine how G/I issues are integrated into
180 Written Communication 28(2)

introductory technical communication textbooks. As G/I issues, despite their

popularity in the professional writing literature, are not yet an integral part of
most technical communication curricula, it is not our intention to evaluate the
overall quality or appropriateness of any of these textbooks as introductory
technical communication textbooks per se.

Phase 2: How Do Introductory Technical

Communication Textbooks Represent G/I Issues?
The goal of the second phase was to examine how various aspects of G/I
issues were represented in introductory technical communication textbooks.

Phase 2 Method
To allow for detailed qualitative analyses, we decided to focus on four textbooks
that integrated G/I issues substantially: Anderson (2007), Burnett (2005),
Lannon (2006), and Markel (2007). These four textbooks are not meant to be
representative of the eight that were available in the market. Rather, we consider
these four to represent the best practices among available general technical
communication textbooks in terms of integrating G/I issues. As such, a close
analysis of G/I features in these textbooks would lead to an inventory of vari-
ous ways in which technical communication textbooks might integrate G/I
issues. A critical examination of best practices would also help us understand
possible limitations of the current approaches to integrating G/I issues into
technical communication textbooks.
As the initial coding scheme, we started with a version of the sociolinguis-
tic profile framework (Berns, 1990) that had been used successfully in text-
book analysis (Matsuda, 2002). The categories included history and context
of the spread of English, linguistic varieties of English (i.e., dominant variet-
ies and world Englishes), functional varieties of English (i.e., intranational
lingua franca, international lingua franca, symbolic uses), users of English
(i.e., native and nonnative users of English, ESL writers, nonnative-English-
speaking audience); globalization (i.e., globalization of communication,
economy/business, technology); and linguistic and cultural diversity (i.e., mul-
tilingualism and multiculturalism). The initial analysis based on this frame-
work indicated that the eight technical writing textbooks amply represented
some of the categories, such as globalization of communication, economy/
business and technology as well as nonnative-English-speaking audience,
ESL writers, and international cross-cultural differences. Yet some of the key
categories dealing with language issuesincluding linguistic and functional
Matsuda and Matsuda 181

varieties of English, and linguistic diversitywere scarcely represented. For

this reason, we decided to drop most of the categories that were not repre-
sented and to focus on categories that were salient in the technical communi-
cation textbooks, including users of English, which was further subdividedin
the analysis processinto (a) technical communicators, (b) their audience,
and (c) linguistic and cultural diversity. The first two categories, as they were
often implied in the text, were examined through the analysis of the invoked
audience (Ede & Lunsford, 1984)an important subset of rhetorical analysis
(Selzer, 2005). Specifically, we looked for various linguistic and rhetorical
cues that indicated who you were as the audience of the textbook (i.e.,
would be technical communicators). Similarly, we identified how the audi-
ence for technical communication was constructed by looking for various
cues that constructed them (i.e., the audience whom technical writers were
asked to consider). The last category, the representation of language and cul-
ture, lent itself to content analysis (Huckin, 2005) because they were more
explicitly stated.
As all the features that included G/I issues had been identified through
Phase 1, we, the coauthors of this article, went through the tags (that were
physically placed on the textbooks) and notes to identify examples and counter-
examples, if any. Again, as the coding was meant to be generative, we came
to the table with our independent readings and consolidated our interpreta-
tions and specific examples that were identified.

Phase 2 Results and Discussion

The image of technical communicators. In our audience analysis, we exam-
ined the image of technical communicators by looking at how the textbooks
constructed the youthe primary audience of the textbooks. In all four text-
books, the image of technical communicators that emerged was overwhelm-
ingly that of native speakers of a privileged variety of English from the
mainstream U.S. cultural backgrounds, reflecting the myth of linguistic
homogeneitythe tacit and widespread acceptance of the dominant image of
composition students as native speakers of a privileged variety of English
(Matsuda, 2006, p. 638). The construction of the technical communicator as
someone from the United States becomes apparent in phrases such as You
dont even have to leave the United States or work for a multinational corpo-
ration to find cultural differences (Burnett, 2005, p. 38, emphasis added).
The U.S. centeredness is not surprising as these textbooks are being devel-
oped primarily for technical communication courses in the United States
and sold almost exclusively in the U.S. market due to copyright restrictions.
182 Written Communication 28(2)

The linguistic or cultural background of the technical communicator, how-

ever, was seldom described explicitly, perhaps, because the image of stu-
dents as native speakers of privileged varieties of English is seldom articulated
or defendedan indication that English-only is already taken for granted
(Matsuda, 2006, p. 639).
Instead, the dominant image of the technical communicator became
apparent indirectly through the discussion of discursive Others with whom
the technical writer interacts. When Others are mentioned, they are por-
trayed not as the technical communicator or the you in the textbook; instead,
they are usually constructed as collaborators or colleagues. For example,

Most collaborative groups in industry and in the classroom include

people from other cultures. The challenge for all group members is to
understand the ways in which cultural differences can affect group
behavior. People from other cultures

might find it difficult to assert themselves in collaborative groups

might be unwilling to respond with a definite no
might be reluctant to admit when they are confused or to ask for
clarification
might avoid criticizing others
might avoid initiating new tasks or performing creatively

Even the most benign gesture of friendship on the part of a U.S. student
can cause confusion. (Markel, 2007, p. 60, emphasis added)

Here, all examples of possible difficulties that people from other cultures
experience are related to behaviors that deviate from those that are (stereotypically,
we hasten to add) associated with dominant U.S. cultural values and practices
such as assertiveness, directness, initiative, and creativity. What that seems to
suggest is that the target audience is a student from a dominant U.S. culture
who is comfortableor at least familiarwith those values.
The image of the technical communicator as a monolingual English-
speaking student also becomes apparent from the discussion of translation.
At least three of the textbooks had a small section about having English texts
translated into other languages by translators, but none of them mentioned
the possibility of technical communicators translating the texts or preparing
documents in languages other than English in the first place. While, in tech-
nical communication classrooms, there may be U.S. students who are proficient
in other languages as well as U.S. resident and international students who are
Matsuda and Matsuda 183

native users of other languages, their linguistic resources are not acknowl-
edged. It is also worth mentioning that the term multilingual is conflated
with nonnative English speakersa practice which seems to reflect that of
larger discourse of multilingualism in the United States and in U.S. writing
studies. In our analysis of the four textbooks, neither did we find any use of
multilingual in referring to native English speakers who are proficient in
another language nor did we see any discussion of strategies for producing
documents in other languages. The underlying assumption seems to be that
technical communicators are not just native English speakers but monolin-
gual native English speakers (Horner & Trimbur, 2002; Matsuda, 2006).
Some textbooks did acknowledge the presence of the multicultural popu-
lation in the workplace. One of the textbooks made an explicit mention of the
presence of multiculturalism in the United States: Moreover, many workers
in the United States and Canada were born and raised elsewhere in the world
or have grown up in families or neighborhood deeply influenced by other
cultures (Anderson, 2007, p. 454). Yet in another part of the same text, the
multicultural individuals are portrayed not as the technical communicator
the audience of the textbookbut as the technical communicators col-
league: Even when communicating to coworkers at your own location, you
may address a multicultural audiencepersons of diverse national and eth-
nic origins (Anderson, 2007, p. 6).
Although the myth of linguistic and cultural homogeneity remains strong
in the representation of technical communicators in these textbooks, some
of the textbooks have also used strategies for challenging the tendency for
Othering. Markel (2007), for example, flips the scriptto borrow Gilyards
(2006) termby pointing out that in cross-cultural communication, the
technical communicator may in fact be the Other (Markel, 2007, p. 83).
Anderson (2007) also addresses this problem by not explicitly identifying
the technical communicator with the dominant U.S. culture:

On the job, you will almost certainly find yourself engaged in some
form of international or intercultural collaboration. In companies with
international operations, collaboration between offices can also mean
collaboration between residents of different countries. Moreover, many
workers in the United States and Canada were born and raised else-
where in the world or have grown up in families or neighborhood
deeply influenced by other cultures. (Anderson, 2007, p. 454)

While the term other cultures implies the presence of the dominant U.S.
culture, this passage is phrased in such a way that neither culture is directly
184 Written Communication 28(2)

linked to youthe reader of the textbook. Another effective strategy Anderson

(2007) uses is to mention the United States among different cultures:

People from different cultures also have different expectations about body
positions. In Sweden, listeners signal that they are being attentive by
sitting straight and folding their arms in front of their torsos (Rabinowitz
& Carr, 2001). In the United States, where one signals attention by
learning forward and openness by keeping arms spread, the Swedish
posture can be mistaken for boredom or disagreement. (p. 455)

Although the U.S. example is used as a point of comparison, making the

dominant assumption or practice explicit does help level the playing field
by providing an understanding of the dominant U.S. culture to those who
come from other linguistic and cultural backgrounds.
We must point out, however, that the representation of culture in these
textbooks are largely based on a rather static and much critiqued notion of
national culture (see Atkinson, 1999). The characterization of the technical
communicator based solely on nationality seems problematic because it
does not account for linguistic and cultural differences within the national
boundary.
The international audience. While the textbooks we have analyzed tend to
conceptualize technical communicators in limited ways as monolingual
native English speakers from the United States, they are more successful in
incorporating an international perspective in conceptualizing the audience
for technical communication; one of the most prominent G/I features is the
mention of international audience. This is to be expected, given the emphasis
on the transactional nature of writing in technical communication, in which
audience plays a central role. The international audience as represented in
these textbooks can be classified into two broad categories. The first category
includes people (i.e., clients, audience) from other countries with whom tech-
nical communicators interact as they work with companies and government
agencies from other countries. The other category includes colleagues and
coworkers that technical communicators encounter as a result of interna-
tional mergers of companies.
All textbooks discussed how people from different national and regional
cultures have different expectations, assumptions, and practices in technical
communication. Furthermore, they all emphasized the importance of under-
standing the audiences cultural background in preparing a document that is
effective and culturally appropriate. Here is an example of how a textbook
compares and contrasts different cultures:
Matsuda and Matsuda 185

To many U.S. readers, an indirect refusal might be misinterpreted.

Because they didnt hear the direct denial they expected, these U.S.
readers could believe that the request could be fulfilled so they may
persist in asking. On the other hand, readers in the Japanese and Korean
cultures may interpret the direct U.S. style as rude and inconsiderate.
(Anderson, 2007, p. 78).

Some examples dealt with the arrangement of discourse more directly To

native readers of English, the long introductions and digressions in certain
Spanish or Russian documents might seem tedious and confusing, but a
Spanish or Russian reader might view the more direct organization of English
as overly abrupt and simplistic (Lannon, 2006, p. 227). Anderson (2007) goes
even further and recommends that technical communicators adapt their rhetorical
styles. He argues that technical communicators can increase their chances of
communicating successfully by learning about the other culture and adapting
their writing accordingly (p. 76) and later provides an example of a writer
adapting to the expectations in Japanese business letters, which often begin
with a reference to the current season and weather (p. 294).
The most frequently mentioned strategy is the use of cultural informants.
In order to avoid unnecessary confusion and misunderstanding caused by
cultural differences, technical communicators are encouraged to learn as
much of the target culture as possible and to have someone from the target
culture review the documents. For example, Markel (2007) writes, Some-
times people in the United States incorrectly assume that their own cultural
values are shared by everyone. If your readers come from another culture, try
to have your draft reviewed by someone from that culture (p. 35). He also
provides suggestions for creating effective graphics for multicultural read-
ers: Cultural differences are many and subtle. Learn as much as possible
about your readers and about their culture and outlook, and have the graphics
reviewed by someone from the culture. (p. 329). Similarly, Anderson
(2007) frequently mentions the use of test readers who shares the cultural
backgrounds with the audience. In the box item called Global Guideline,
Anderson suggests the use of test readers from the target culture.

Testing communications that will be used in other cultures can present

special challenges . . . [T]he language, images, and other aspects of a
communication that seem perfectly clear and appropriate in ones own
culture can be incomprehensible, laughable, or offensive in another. When
preparing communications for audiences outside your own culture,
186 Written Communication 28(2)

make a special effort to use test readers that represent those audiences.
(Anderson, 2007, p. 432)

The mention of cultural informants is important because it can be a way of

including people from other cultures as part of the technical communication
team; however, these textbooks do not explicitly suggest that the technical
communicators could themselves come from these backgrounds.
Linguistic and cultural issues. As we have seen, these textbooks seem eager
to integrate the discussion of cultural differences that international readers
bring, which can be fascinating to students (and teachers) with relatively lit-
tle experience with intercultural communication. In contrast, the coverage of
language issues is rather limited, even though the audience of international
communication is often assumed to be nonnative English users. All four of
the textbooks approach the presence of nonnative English users by suggest-
ing technical communicators to simplify English. They offer strategies for
simplifying the language, such as using imperatives; avoiding idioms, collo-
quialisms, and slang; and using short simple sentences structures and vocab-
ulary. While these suggestions are generally useful, they also raise a number
of concerns. For example, the advice to use imperatives could create a seri-
ous communication problem in writing directions for Japanese-speaking
readers. By convention, instructions in Japanese are written in declarative,
rather than imperative, sentences. The use of imperatives could therefore be
disturbing, if not outright offensive, especially if the Japanese readers social
status is higher than that of the author (e.g., technical communicator vs. client,
guest, customers, etc.).
Another problem is how the unqualified reference to nonnative English
speakers could lead to their characterization as perpetual language learners
rather than competent language users. While Anderson (2007) provides
qualifications such as readers who are not fluent in English (p. 269), others
tend not to qualify their descriptions of the international audienceas if all
international readers are not fluent in English. As a result, these suggestions
may inadvertently reinforce the view that multilingual readers necessarily
have limited proficiency in English, while multicompetent language users
ability to use English may surpass that of monolingual native English users
because of the rich linguistic and cultural resources from multiple languages
(Cook, 2003).
While the discussion of language issues is limited in reference to the inter-
national audience, it is even scarcer in regard to second language writers in
the technical communication classroom or workplaces. When those issues
Matsuda and Matsuda 187

are mentioned, they are usually included as a separate section within the
textbook. In Markel (2007), for example, the discussion of U.S. cultural and
stylistic issues for second language writers appears in the appendix, not in the
main part of the text. The peripheral presence of information for second lan-
guage writers seems to suggest that students who need this type of language
instruction are exceptions, rather than the norm, in the technical communica-
tion classroom. Furthermore, it is important to point out that none of the
textbooks mention the value of linguistic and cultural background that these
student bring to the classroom and the workplace as resources for technical
communication. Unlike the case of cultural informants, these textbooks do
not suggest that technical communicators receive feedback from a nonnative
English user regarding the appropriateness of their texts. The assumption
seems to be that if you are a native user of English, it is fairly easy to simplify
it for nonnative users, which is often not the case.

Conclusion
As we have described, some of the introductory technical communication
textbooks have made serious efforts to integrate G/I perspectives by using
various strategiesa major improvement from a decade ago (Miles, 1997; Thrush,
1993). However, the representation of international technical communication
and communicators remains rather limited. By and large, international technical
communication is portrayed as an interaction between a technical communi-
cator, who is a monolingual native English user from the dominant U.S.
culture, and his or her international audience, consisting largely of nonnative
English users in need of cultural and linguistic accommodation. Despite the grow-
ing diversity of the student population in U.S. higher educationespecially
in fields such as engineering and computer science that are closely related to
technical communicationpeople from nondominant linguistic and cultural
backgrounds are generally construed as linguistic and cultural Otherin the
roles of collaborators or colleagues but not as technical communicators
themselves. The discussion of G/I communication focus heavily on cultural
issues, and they tend to be stereotypical representations of cultural differences,
reflecting outmoded contrastive cultural analyses that have been thoroughly
problematized in other related fields, such as anthropology, applied linguis-
tics, intercultural communication, and teaching English to speakers of other
languages (Atkinson, 1999).
In discussing cultural issues, the textbooks tend to take an egalitarian stance
that emphasizes the importance of respecting differences; when it comes to
language issues, however, the same textbooks tend to take a hierarchical
188 Written Communication 28(2)

stance in which technical communicators are encouraged to help nonnative

English speakers. Language differences are construed as deficiencies, and
language support for nonnative English users, if it was provided at all, was
relegated to a peripheral and remedial rolein the forms of separate sections
or appendices. Furthermore, some of the key insights from the field of world
Englishes (Bolton & Kachru, 2006)such as descriptions of linguistic and
functional varieties of English as well as the linguistic diversity within vari-
ous sociolinguistic contextswere not incorporated into the textbooks ana-
lyzed in this study. The treatment of language issues in these textbooks does
not seem to account for the complex and multilingual reality of the global era.
Today, many technical writers are themselves multilingual users of English and
can use their own international, multicultural, and multilingual resources to
facilitate effective communication with an international audience. In the
technical communication classroom, students are no longer limited to mono-
lingual native English speakers. Many institutions now require science and
engineering students, many of whom are native speakers of languages other
than English, to take technical communication courses as an additional writ-
ing course required by accreditation agencies. It seems clear that technical
communication textbooks need to continue their efforts to integrate interna-
tional and multilingual perspectives.
Even with all these limitationswhich we hope will be addressed in future
editionsthese introductory technical communication textbooks still repre-
sent some of the best efforts at internationalizing the U.S. composition cur-
riculum. U.S. college composition in general has much to learn from the
successes and the limitations of technical communication textbooks as it con-
tinues its effort to internationalize. U.S. college composition needs to recog-
nize the diversity of student population. The college student population today
is not what it used to be in the late 19th century, when the U.S. college com-
position course first became institutionalized, or the mid-20th century, when
U.S. composition studies emerged as a field of inquiry (Knoblauch & Matsuda,
2008). In order to educate the students who are increasingly multicultural,
multilingual, and multinational, it is no longer enough to acknowledge their
presence and celebrate the diversity. Our own rhetoric of instruction must also
change so that the you of the textbook and of the classroom instruction repre-
sents the actual student population and their audiences rather than an outdated
and inaccurate image of the idealized student populationthat is, we need to
move beyond the myth of linguistic homogeneity (Matsuda, 2006).
It is also necessary to recognize that the English language is not what it
used to be. With the worldwide expansion of the British Empire in the 19th
century and the triumphs of the United States as a cultural and economic
Matsuda and Matsuda 189

empire in the 20th century, English has become a global language, but not
everyone uses the same English in the same way, nor should they. Today, the
English language has become nativized in various postcolonial contexts.
English is also being learned as a foreign language and being used for inter-
national and intranational communication by a growing number of people; in
fact, nonnative users of English far outnumber native users of English (Crystal,
1997; Graddol, 1997). The English language today is as diverse as people
using it; that is, there are many world Englishes. It would also be important
to emphasize the need for technical communicators to learn other languages
or for those who already know other languages, to further develop the knowl-
edge of technical communication specific to those languages to enhance their
communication.
U.S. writing specialists, most notably Fred Newton Scott, have argued
that one of the important goals of rhetorical education is to prepare citizens
for participation in democracy (Berlin, 2003). Arguing for the integration of
global perspectives may seem like a tall order if the goal of writing instruc-
tion is considered to be the preparation of citizens in a narrow, nationalistic
sense. If, however, we can reimagine students in the writing classroom as
citizens of the world, we can settle for no less.

Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to Matt Schneider for his help with the analysis of the
textbooks.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this
article.

Notes
1. As of October 2009, Pearson Longman and Pearson Prentice Hall have become
Pearson Higher Education; Wadsworth is now part of Cengage Learning.
2. The research assistant was originally the third author, but he suggested that
we drop his name when he decided to pursue a career outside academia. We
decided to give him due credit for his assistance by mentioning him in the
acknowledgments.
3. Further analyses confirmed that this assumption was accurate for the most part for
we were able to identify most of the global or international features this way.
190 Written Communication 28(2)

4. Given the generative and exploratory nature of coding in this study and follow-
ing Brices (2005) suggestion about the impracticality of interrater reliability in
qualitative research (p. 172), we operated under a consensus model and decided
to forego interrater reliability.

References
Alred, G., Brusaw, C. T., & Oliu, W. E. (2002). The technical writers companion
(3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martins.
Alred, G., Brusaw, C. T., & Oliu, W. E. (2006). Handbook of technical writing (8th
ed.). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martins.
Anderson, P. V. (2007). Technical communication: A reader-centered approach (6th
ed.). Boston, MA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Andrews, D. C. (2001). Technical communication in the global community (2nd ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Artemeva, N. (1998). The writing consultant as cultural interpreter: Bridging cultural
perspectives on the genre of the periodic engineering report. Technical Communi-
cation Quarterly, 7, 285-299.
Atkinson, D. (1999). TESOL and culture. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 625-654.
Beer, D., & McMurrey, D. (2005). A guide to writing as an engineer (2nd ed.). Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley.
Berlin, J. A. (2003). Rhetoric, poetics, and cultures: Refiguring college English stud-
ies. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
Berns, M. (1990). Contexts of competence: Social and cultural considerations in
communicative language teaching. New York, NY: Plenum.
Bolton, K., & Kachru, B. B. (Eds.). (2006). World Englishes (Vol. 1-4). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Bosley, D. S. (Ed.). (2001). Global contexts: Case studies in international technical
communication. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Brice, C. (2005). Coding data in qualitative research on L2 writing: Issues and impli-
cations. In P. K. Matsuda & T. Silva (Eds.), Second language writing research:
Perspectives on the process of knowledge construction (pp. 159-175). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Burnett, R. E. (2005). Technical communication (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Thomson
Wadsworth.
Cook, V. (Ed.). (2003). Effects of the second language on the first. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Daniels, J. K., Cronje, R. J., & Sokolowski, B. C. (1998). Exchanging medical infor-
mation with Eastern Europe through the Internet. Technical Communication
Quarterly, 7, 301-317.
Matsuda and Matsuda 191

Donahue, C. (2009). Internationalization and composition studies: Reorienting the

discourse. College Composition and Communication, 61, 212-243.
Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. (1984). Audience addressed/audience invoked: The role of
audience in composition theory and pedagogy. College Composition and Com-
munication, 35, 155-171.
Gerson, S., & Gerson, S. (2006). Technical writing: Process and product (5th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Gilyard, K. (2006). Lets flip the script: An African American discourse on language,
literature and learning. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.
Grabill, J. T. (2005). Globalization and the internationalization of technical commu-
nication programs: Issues for program design. 2005 IEEE International Profes-
sional Communication Conference Proceedings, 373-378.
Graddol, D. (1997). The future of English? London, UK: The British Council.
Gurak, L. J., & Lannon, J. M. (2003). A concise guide to technical communication
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Longman.
Horner, B., & Trimbur, J. (2002). English only and U.S. college composition. College
Composition and Communication, 53, 594-630.
Huckin, T. (2005). Content analysis: What texts talk about. In C. Bazerman & P. Prior
(Eds.), What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts
and textual practices (pp. 13-32). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Johnson-Sheehan, R. (2005). Technical communication today. New York, NY: Pearson
Longman.
Knoblauch, A. A., & Matsuda, P. K. (2008). First-year composition in the 20th cen-
tury U.S. higher education: An historical overview. In P. Friedrich (Ed.), Teaching
academic writing (pp. 3-25). London, UK: Continuum.
Lannon, J. M. (2006). Technical communication (10th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson
Longman.
Markel, M. (2007). Technical communication (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Bedford/
St. Martins.
Matsuda, A. (2002). Representation of users and uses of English in beginning Japanese
EFL textbooks. JALT Journal, 24(2), 80-98.
Matsuda, P. K. (2006). The myth of linguistic homogeneity in U.S. college composi-
tion. College English, 68, 637-651.
Miles, L. (1997). Globalizing professional writing curricula: Positioning students and
re-positioning textbooks. Technical Communication Quarterly, 6, 179-200.
Pfeiffer, W. S. (2006). Technical communication: A practical approach (6th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Porter, J., Sullivan, P., & Johnson-Eilola, J. (2004). Professional writing online,
Version 2.0 (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Longman.
192 Written Communication 28(2)

Reep, D. C. (2006). Technical writing: Principles, strategies, and readings (6th ed.).
New York, NY: Pearson Longman.
Selzer, J. (2005). Rhetorical analysis: Understanding how texts persuade readers. In
C. Bazerman & P. Prior (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it: An introduc-
tion to analyzing texts and textual practices (pp. 279-307). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sorby, S. A., & Bulleit, W. M. (2006). An engineers guide to technical communica-
tion. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Thrush, E. A. (1993). Bridging the gaps: Technical communication in an international
and multicultural society. Technical Communication Quarterly, 2, 271-283.

Bios
Aya Matsuda is Assistant Professor of English at Arizona State University, where
she teaches courses in applied linguistics. Her research interests include the use of
English as an international language, the linguistic and pedagogical implications of
the global spread of English, and issues related to non-native English speaking teach-
ers in the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) profession.
Her work focusing on these issues have appeared in various books and journals
including English Today, The CATESOL Journal, JALT Journal, TESOL Quarterly,
and World Englishes.

Paul Kei Matsuda is Associate Professor of English at Arizona State University,

where he works closely with doctoral and masters students in applied linguistics,
rhetoric and composition, and Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages
(TESOL). Co-founding chair of the Symposium on Second Language Writing and
editor of the Parlor Press Series on Second Language Writing, Paul has published in
such journals as College English, College Composition and Communication, Compo-
sition Studies, English for Specific Purposes, International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, Journal of Basic Writing, Journal of Second Language Writing, and Writ-
ten Communication as well as in numerous edited collections.