: "It is the burden of comprehension---the responsibility we have to understand the contexts, values, and methods of those from whom we borrow--that I will address. The purpose of my discussion is four-fold. First, I want to come to some understanding of how technology has been approached--historically, methodologically, and ideologically--by scholars in disciplines that have for some time interrogated technological artifacts, systems, and the people who use them. Second, I bring this research to technical communication for the purpose of situating the arguments of other-disciplinary technology scholars into our own disciplinary framework. Third, I hope to experience some of the promise of interdisciplinary research that in the best of circumstances leads to what Klein calls 'an inductive openendedness' (93).' that interesting space in the world of research where we end up with more--and even more interesting--questions. Finally, I turn to some of these questions back toward the profession of technical communication for the purpose of rethinking our roles and responsibilities.
I will limit my discussion to the methodologies of several disciplines that have for some time been involved with the study of technology from historical, sociological, and philosophical perspectives. I have chosen disciplines that not only have some precedent in the field, but which also cover a fair stretch of methodological ground appropriate for technical communicators. For instance, I have chosen the history of technology because of its comparative longevity in technology studies; sociology because of its innovative techniques, specifically ethnography and case study, and its interest in feminist studies; philosophy due to its concerns with fundamental issues of human action, most importantly ethics and public decision-making. "