Technical and Professional Communication (TPC) is an important field of study to understand the purpose and context of written documents in various contexts, as well as their similarities, goals and perspectives. It is also a useful tool for creators when it comes to decision making, developing branding, and understanding norms in any given field.  Although I still need to work on my general understanding of the basics of TPC, it has been an interesting study so far.

            My current understanding of TPC results from my work within the course, as well as my work as a professor and author.  From readings across the field of TPC, to the actual practice of the scholarship, I have learned much about the context of TPC and the possibilities that can be opened. The readings solidified the idea that TPC is a human-centered discipline. However, they also emphasized the fact that the working definitions of what constitutes TPC is ever evolving and not at all concrete, which sometimes led to frustration and confusion.

            For many of the articles outside my realm of knowledge, such as St.Amant’s ARCO article, or those on UX, it required learning more about the background of what they were discussing before I could piece together what was being argued or presented. Readings such as Wysocki’s awaywithwords, Bernhardt on the “shape of text,” and Schriver’s analysis of information design emphasized the importance of visual, rhetorical, and embodied dimensions of communication—which are skills I practice in creating instructions, presentations, and various other pieces.

Across the wide range of scholarship we examined this semester, a set of recurring themes reveals how complicated and changeable the field of technical and professional communication truly is. The articles consistently emphasize that TPC is grounded in understanding users—whether through UX research (Hunter), cognitive expectations (St.Amant), accountable user-centered design (Shivers-McNair et al.), or the complexities of testing emerging technologies like IoT devices (Wright). Many readings highlight communication as an assemblage process shaped by context, culture, and materiality, from Wysocki’s exploration of multimodal design to Doan’s examination of pedagogical identity and the histories that shape the field. Design thinking emerges as another unifying thread, with scholars such as Tham, Pope-Ruark, and Masters-Wheeler showing how new technology can change traditional approaches to problem-solving. Other studies—like Robles on Gantt charts or Wisniewski on workplace project communication—demonstrate the importance of collaboration, project management, and genre knowledge in supporting complex organizational work. Above all, these articles position TPC as an ethical, user-focused discipline that blends writing, design, technology, and social responsibility. This theoretical grounding and practical application have shaped my understanding of TPC as a field where writing, design, ethics, and human-centered thinking come together to create communication that hopefully serves its audiences.

            I currently have several professional roles: professor, adjunct instructor, author, board member, etc., and in each of those I must handle myself professionally. However, the idea of what that means often changes. My academic roles are very different from my author ones.

As a professor, workplace documents include emails, letters, referrals, PowerPoints, lessons, videos, Blackboard content, announcements, reports and papers. There are many considerations to consider: accessibility, design, user experience, and the student’s ability to follow the information.

As an author, workplace documents include emails, newsletters, website, social media (Instagram, TikTok, Facebook), author pages on various websites, and commentary, as well as my actual books and writings. The tone and branding of these items shift from my tone as a professor, however there are still professional norms I must follow.

Those norms are what I have found most interesting in the study of TPC.  Every profession – from engineering to computer design, to marketing – that we have read about have different standards that they must attain, and overall expectations.  For me, that is the core of what I would like to study and develop and what I focused on in this course.  What are the standards for an author? What should a student expect to create in their future career? How could we help them develop those skills?

            Overall, my foray into Technical and Professional Communication has been fascinating if sometimes frustrating.  I still wonder about how AI will change the future of communication and how we write. I have even found myself using it to draw out themes or suggest outlines for work. As an author, I hate what it has done to creativity, but appreciate how it can help with mundane, repetitive tasks.  As a professor, I had that students are constantly using it to cheat and not learn, but appreciate how it can help them brainstorm, study and examine various things. As a student, I can see it’s usefulness in guiding an assignment, or quickly helping brainstorm or summarize to check understanding, but also understand the pull to use it. For me, I think I would like to continue examining how TPC functions for an author, and in author branding.  This is what I am most taking away from this course and will enjoy continuing to work with.