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:

• • considering pedagogical approaches
• • improving research
• • understanding the impact of labor within the field

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.