he guest editors asked if I could respond to the work presented
in this special issue in a way that was critical but useful. To make
the critical points useful meant finding a way to point technical
and professional communication toward different ways to think about
programmatic scholarship and programmatic work. In other words, following
the premise of the technical communicator as problem solver, I
attempt to take the critique of the essays and the service courses as a
direct call to action to improve our research and pedagogical practices
related to how we think about and talk about programs in the field.
I focus my critical view of knowledge infrastructures on three areas:
While initially viewed through the lens of the service course, these
three areas bring into sharp focus important issues for the field that
extend well beyond a single course. As part of our knowledge infrastructure,
these three areas are critical to the future of the field.