3.2: Faulty Communication and Real Consequences

Let's move to a real example of an ethical situation in technical communication.

In 1986, the spaceship Challenger exploded. What you may not know is that a failure of communication was partially responsible for that disaster. There was an "O-ring problem," or "the failure of a rubber seal in the solid rocket booster" with regard to the shuttle's construction (Winsor 336). From early 1984 until July 1985, the O-ring problems were noticed but not taken seriously. Or dismissed. On July 22, 1985, MIT engineer Roger Boisjoly sent a memo to R.K. Lund, who was MIT's Vice President of Engineering. In the memo, Boisjoly stated that the O-ring problem was serious, and concluded, "It is my honest and very real fear that if we do not take immediate action . . . to solve the problem . . . then we stand in jeopardy of losing a flight along with all the launch pad facilities" (Winsor 341). MIT engineer Brian Russell wrote an August 9 letter in response to Boisjoly's memo. Russell's letter stated the facts very plainly. For example, he writes, "If the primary seal were to fail from . . . 330-660 milliseconds the chance of the second seal holding is small. This is a direct result of the o-ring's slow response compared to the metal case segments as the joint rotates" (Winsor 343). Russell's memo does not provide any interpretation of the situation, and as such, "did not communicate its intent [as] is shown by the fact that the people who read it were uncertain about what it meant" (343). The important information in the Russell memo, which was quoted above, was buried deep in the letter after such reassurances as "MIT has no reason to suspect that the primary seal would ever fail after pressure equilibrium is reached" (343). While it might seem prudent in the face of bad news to report "just the facts," if lives are at stake, it is important to communicate clearly. Do not hide or bury the information that there is a problem. Make a clear recommendation to solve the problem, if appropriate and possible. Make clear the perceived consequences if the problem is not dealt with. Of course, no one wants to be wrong or to be perceived as overly dramatic. But at the same time, ethical communication is clear and appropriately detailed so as to prevent disasters such as the Challenger explosion. The Challenger launch was delayed because of the O-ring problem, but on January 28, 1986, the shuttle launched. And exploded.

Of course, no one wants to be the bearer of bad news. And no one wants to point the finger. We all are concerned about how we are perceived by others. And we don't want to jeopardize our position within a company or organization. Also, we might be asked by someone above us to "fudge the data" a little bit in order to keep a grant or contract. Our working relationships or even our jobs might be on the line. Perhaps a grant might not get funded if certain data are not reported. Or perhaps our company won't get a contract if we don't promise that our construction plan can hold the number of cars the client desires. When the pressure is on, the consequences may not seem so dire. But as Kant reminds us, if we don't wish others to lie about the maximum amount of cars that can use the parking deck safely while we are in the parking deck, then we certainly should not do it, either.

Appropriate Language in Technical Communication

Quote from Kueffer and Larsen

Factual Correctness

Every metaphor simplifies by illustrating certain aspects of a scientific object while neglecting others. Scientific metaphors can nonetheless, be interpreted in terms of their factual content, and, in this respect, they can be considered wrong. At the start of the genomic era, for instance, Avise (2001) proposed alternative genetic metaphors to replace prior mechanistic ones (e.g., the blueprint metaphor) that he felt misrepresented new insights about the nature of the genome . . . . Metaphors should be consistent with the state of knowledge to the degree of scientific accuracy required in a particular context (e.g., research, popular science writing, science-based decision making).

Socially acceptable language

The same rules that apply to everyday life concerning socially acceptable language also apply to science. Metaphors that are racist, sexist, or in other ways offensive should be avoided. Herbers (2007) for example, condemns references to slavemaking and negro ants and reference to rape in animal behavior studies.

Neutrality

It is often difficult to assess the neutrality of a metaphor. Scientists should, nonetheless, seek in their communication to avoid language that is generally recognized to be loaded with emotion, such as apocalyptic warnings and dramatic hyperbole. This language can distract from the perceived neutrality of a scientist, who is expected to present research results that invite open and critical discussion. One rhetorical function of such metaphors is to convince when evidence is missing or ambiguous; however, this is inadvisable, insofar as it leads to scientific statements' being supported with rhetoric instead of facts.

Transparency

When a metaphor is used, it should be introduced as such and its connection with specific aspects of scientific concepts should be illustrated. At least in longer texts, authors should explicitly reflect on the connotations and performativity of their chosen metaphors. When metaphors are replaced by similes (i.e., using an X is like Y statement), there is a lower risk that they will be taken literally (Carolan 2006). (Kueffer and Larson 722)

To get started, let's watch a video on using appropriate language in technical writing. Appropriate language becomes an ethical concern if inappropriate languages is imprecise or disrespectful.

Access the video in a new window

To continue to address some specific aspects of ethics in technical communication, Kueffer and Larson remind us that sometimes writers use inappropriate metaphors in technical communication that reduce the credibility of the scientific writing or research that they are trying to communicate to the public. We live in a time when, especially in advertising and popular culture, dramatic language is pervasive. It may be tempting to overstate or dramatize a scientific finding to garner public attention to something very important such as climate change. For example, a letter with the title, " 'Alien species: Monster fern makes [International Union for Conservation of Nature] invader list' " really grabs the attention. But Kueffer and Larson explain, "We consider this choice of words to be undesirable, because it merely expresses a value judgment of the authors (i.e., that the species is like a monster because it is bad) rather than illustrating the science. The metaphor devalues this plant species in its entirety (like a monster that is always bad) rather than specifying which aspects of its behavior are problematic" (721). Kueffer and Larson continue, "It is better to communicate precisely, and to use appropriate metaphors so that if, for example, later contradictory information becomes available, the public does not dismiss scientific findings. Responsible technical communicators understand that scientific research involves a level of uncertainty which must be made clear to readers" (721).