Week 5 Discussion: From Discussion Leader Lindsey Farmer

Overview of The Rhetoric of Risk: Technical Documentation in Hazardous

Environments
Beverly Sauer immerses herself into the culture of the coal mining industry, and after
years of conducting interviews and research, she emerges with an insight essential to
understanding the rhetoric necessary in hazardous environments. She finds that although
physical locations may vary to include global and local mining communities, consistent
and effective rhetorical strategies create open communication and most importantly,
practical safety protocols.
Understanding that risk communicators must learn to incorporate nontraditional forms of
rhetoric, such as gestures and sensory knowledge, into their work establishes a key
argument to her findings. Because laborers convey their stories through their experience
and body language, the rhetoric of large regulatory industries must also include these
accounts. By doing so, the whole truth of tragic incidents is detailed, and written safety
precautions become more effective.
Finally, Sauer also incorporates common risk communication themes, including
stakeholder buy-in, expert versus individual/community, and cost opposed to realistic
procedures. Her inclusion of the themes further reiterates the importance of the
individuals voice in the rhetoric of risk.
Discussion questions to consider:
1. Sauer uses the mining terms inby and outby to describe both physical
locations within a mine and opposing rhetorical spaces maintained by federal
regulations and laborers, respectively (Chapter 4). She asserts that a disconnect
exists between federal safety regulations created by inexperienced lawmakers and
actual procedures that are effective and tested by laborers. How might technical
communicators use rhetoric to ensure that official documents and communication
are applicable and reasonable so that laborers are not forced to find loopholes that
endanger lives?
2. Throughout prior readings in the course, evidence exists that stakeholder input
and buy-in is key to the overall success of the risk communication. Considering
the Six Critical Moments of Rhetorical Transformation (Chapter 2), how does
Sauer add to this argument? What new perspective does she offer to the argument
through her observations and theory?

3. What role does the risk communicator play in navigating the boundaries created
between the laborer and management when business cost becomes a factor in
changing work procedures? How does rhetoric bridge the gap between the two
perspectives when both the lives of the laborers and the life of the business are at
stake?
4. In examining Nagys report of the Wilberg fire (Chapter 4), what barriers or
limitations in the risk communication exist when varying narrative accounts are
merged into a single document? How does allowing multiple perspectives to
document an incident enable future investigative reports reflect the truth of the
experience while still maintaining accurate rhetorical procedures?
5. What are the benefits of risk communicators, especially in hazardous
environments, exploring unconventional approaches (i.e. drawings, sensory
knowledge, engineering experience, and gestures) to create rhetorical documents
in large regulatory industries? What are the dangers of incorporating these
methods in formal documents, procedures, policies, and training?

Additional Resources:
Brasseur, L. (2005). Florence Nightingale's visual rhetoric in the rose diagrams.
Technical Communication Quarterly, 14(2), 161-182. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.jproxy.lib.ecu.edu/docview/215437024?accountid=10639
Brasseur illustrates the importance of including unconventional rhetorical methods in
addition to traditional texts. The article details how Florence Nightingale chose to use
visual prompts, such as rose diagrams, to fully convey the dim truth surrounding the
number of deaths related to sanitary conditions during the Crimean War. After months of
no response from the British government to her original report, which excluded the visual
aids, she then amended her essay to include visual rhetoric to support the text. The
government then acted on her recommendations.

Fox, N. (1998). Risks, hazards and life choices: Reflections on health at work.
Sociology, 32 (04), 665-687. Retrieved from http://journals.cambridge.org/SOC
Fox offers an interesting analysis of the differences in definitions of risks and
hazards. He argues social or cultural perception create risk. He also studies the role
and responsibilities laborers hold in preventing hazards in the workplace.

Moore, S. M., Bauer, E. R., & Steiner, L. J. (2008). Prevalence and cost of cumulative
injuries over two decades of technological advances: A look at underground coal
mining in the U.S. Mining Engineering, 60(1), 46-50. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.jproxy.lib.ecu.edu/docview/232300786?accountid=10639
Moore et al., 2008 examine the cost of injuries within todays coal mining industry.
Although new technologies have decreased the number of fatalities, new procedures may
have also increased the potential for physical injuries. The analysis goes so far as to
compare body part injuries to the average cost of each.

Waggoner, E. (2014). I'm from West Virginia and I've got something to say about the
chemical spill. Huffington Post. Retrieved from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-waggoner/west-virginia-chemicalspill_b_4598140.html
Although Eric Waggoner holds a PhD and teaches in the English Department at West
Virginia Wesleyan College, the article is by no means a scholarly essay; however, as a
native West Virginian, he offers insight into the cultural tension surrounding coal mining
or the industry versus the laborers dilemma. Note, his post is in response to the recent
chemical spill, but his rant also targets the coal mining industry.