CFP for TCSJ special issue: "Unjust 'Permission Structures' in/as Technical Communication"

2024-11-25

We are thrilled to invite proposals for our special issue of Technical Communication and Social Justice (TCSJ) on the topic of Unjust “Permission Structures” in/as Technical Communication. While the process of permission structuring originates from controlling access and user roles within computer networks, this technical term has been appropriated to describe a rhetorical strategy whereby communicators use the audience's existing beliefs and values to persuade them to accept novel opinions and/or take action. Permission structures thereby aim to facilitate a change of opinion by building “a process that helps them see [a new] point of view more clearly” (Pfeiffer qtd. in Holland & Bohan, 2013). In other words, people are more likely to change their minds if the new belief is “structured” to connect to their original belief. 

During our panel on this topic at the 2024 Rhetoric Society of American Biennial Conference, we argued that, “The emergence of permission structures as a political, business, and pedagogical strategy reveals a frustrating truism: merely presenting accurate information is rarely sufficient for changing beliefs and inspiring action. In fact, the opposite may often be true, where exposure to new information causes people to dig in and maintain positions.”  As we demonstrated in our analyses of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy (Lambert), climate science and evolution (Monty), anti-trans and anti-immigrant bigotry (Morquecho), and the demonization of DEI initiatives in public education (Warren-Riley), permission structures pervade the public policy, political, and educational spheres.

Over the past decade, prominent politicians and public figures in the United States have weaponized permission structures to spread mis- and malinformation, normalize bigotry, and sow disharmony. As the term increasingly saturates public political discourse, “permission structures” are often reduced to describing how radical views are normalized or destigmatized. Yet, the concept aligns with technical communication because the structuring of permission to accept or reject complex policy, science, and legal topics is technical in nature. Similarly, permission structures are imperative to social justice because they persuade audiences to either accept or reject expert knowledge and lived experiences, and the outcome often impacts individuals and communities on matters of import around public policy, human rights, and public health. 

As such, this special issue will both complement and extend prior work in TCSJ, including vaccines and public health (Agbozo, 2023; Vail, 2023), pedagogy and education (Clem, 2023; Dayley, 2023), the socio-politics of technologies (Lawrence, 2024) and design (Lane & Moore, 2023), "colonial logics" (Homer, 2023), and political and historical "truth telling" (O'Brien, 2023).

In order to demonstrate the complexity of this dynamic rhetorical strategy, we welcome submissions that investigate unjust permission structures in technical communications. While the concept of “permission structures” is neutral, we are specifically interested in submissions that explore how permission is structured to unjustly deny legitimate evidence, to draw false comparisons, to perpetuate inaccurate beliefs, and to justify discriminatory and damaging practices. By “recognizing” and “revealing” the structures behind unjust policy arguments, we echo Walton et al.’s (2019) efforts “to dismantle some barriers to coalition building” (p. 12). 

We invite a range of fitting methods/methodologies (e.g., theoretical, pedagogical, comparative, case study, critical, queer, feminist, archival, multimodal/multimedia) and topics of inquiry (e.g., environment/ecology, risk and crisis communication, legislation and governance, health and medicine, AI and augmented reality, finance/investment/crypto, usability/UX) that exemplify permission structuring for unjust public or political purposes. The list of approaches and topics grows, along with our excitement for the possibilities for this special issue.

Questions to Consider (or Possible Lines of Inquiry):

  • In what ways does permission structuring complement, amend, appropriate, or contradict existing technical communication theories and strategies?
  • How can permission structuring be mapped or theorized as technical communication?
  • How has permission been structured to deny legitimate evidence, to draw false comparisons, to perpetuate inaccurate beliefs, and to justify discriminatory and damaging practices?
  • What are characteristics and patterns of individuals, groups, events, or agents who can grant permission?
  • What can be learned from historical examples of permission structures being used to enact harmful outcomes?
  • What are effective strategies for subverting unjust permission structures as a way to reach, persuade, and change minds of audiences with entrenched political beliefs?
  • What aspects of beliefs make them more or less susceptible to persuasion via permission structures?
  • How do permission structures function within academic institutions or education more broadly? 
  • What are examples of incoherent, inverted, or contradictory permission structures?

The editors are committed to honoring their diverse identities and lived experiences while recognizing the need to proactively engage in just and equitable editorial practices. In editing this special issue, we will intentionally enact practices of accessibility, inclusion, and care by soliciting diverse and representative authors and peer reviewers, and ensuring that all contributions adhere to TCSJ's visual and digital accessibility guidelines.

Timeline:

Proposals Due By: Dec. 20th, 2024

Notifications Sent By: Dec. 31st

Full Manuscripts Due by Feb. 15, 2025

Peer Review and Editorial Team Feedback By: Mar. 15, 2025

Full Revised Manuscripts Due by: April 15th, 2025

Final Journal Issue Draft Manuscript Due By: April 30th, 2025

Submission Guidelines:

We encourage proposals of 250-500 words, excluding references, submitted to the editors by Dec. 20,  2024. Feel free to contact the guest editors with your ideas and questions regarding possible projects. 

Deadline for Proposal Submissions: 

December 20, 2024. Submit a PDF attachment via email to kymberly.morquecho@gmail.com.

Special Issue Guest Editors:

R.J. Lambert, Medical University of South Carolina

Randall Monty, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley

Kymberly Morquecho, The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley

Sarah Warren-Riley, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley

References:

Adams, R., Jones, A., Lefmann, S, & Sheppard, L. (2014). Utilising a collective case study system theory mixed methods approach: rural health example. BMC Medical Research Methodologies, 14, 94. 

Agbozo, G. (2023). Software-Mediated Public Health Information Localization as Social Justice Work. Technical Communication and Social Justice, 1(1), 8–23. https://techcommsocialjustice.org/index.php/tcsj/article/view/16

Clem, S. (2023). Teaching Editing for Social Justice. Technical Communication and Social Justice, 1(2), 49–69. https://techcommsocialjustice.org/index.php/tcsj/article/view/12

Dayley, C. (2023). How Marginalized Students Persist in TPC Academic Programs. Technical Communication and Social Justice, 1(2), 70–96. https://techcommsocialjustice.org/index.php/tcsj/article/view/6

Holland, S. & Bohan, C. (2013, May 1). In Obama's jargon, getting to yes requires a 'permission structure.' Chicago Tribune.

Homer, M. (2023). The Problem with Common Ground: Translation and Colonial Logics in the ‘Imiloa Astronomy Center Online Interface. Technical Communication and Social Justice, 1(1), 107–128. https://techcommsocialjustice.org/index.php/tcsj/article/view/19

Hsu, V. J. (2022). Irreducible damage: The Affective drift of race, gender, and disability in anti-trans rhetorics. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 52(1), 62-77.

Lane, E., & Moore, K. (2023). The Invisible Work of Iterative Design in Addressing Design Injustices. Technical Communication and Social Justice, 1(2), 28–48. https://techcommsocialjustice.org/index.php/tcsj/article/view/11

Lawrence, H. (2023). Technical and Professional Communicators as Advocates of Linguistic Justice in the Design of Speech Technologies. Technical Communication and Social Justice, 2(1), 1–22. https://techcommsocialjustice.org/index.php/tcsj/article/view/32

Lipson, C. (2013). Comparative rhetoric, Egyptology,and the case of Akhenaten. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 43(3), 270-284.

O’Brien, A. (2023). Mundane Documents, American Exceptionalism, and Savannah’s “Unique” History: A Comparative Rhetorical Analysis of the Confederate Memorial Task Force’s Reports. Technical Communication and Social Justice, 1(2), 1–27. https://techcommsocialjustice.org/index.php/tcsj/article/view/4

Macdonald, N. (2015). Vaccine hesitancy: Definition, scope and determinants. Vaccine, 32. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.036.

Walton, R., Moore, K.R., & Jones, N.N. (2019). Technical communication after the social justice turn: Building coalitions for action. Routledge.

Yenor, S. (2023). How Texas A&M went woke. https://dc.claremont.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/How-Texas-AM-Went-Woke-web.pdf

Yu, Han; & Northcut, Kathryn M., Eds. (2018). Scientific communication: Practices, theories, and pedagogies. Routledge.

Vail, R. (2023). “Descendants of Survivors": Tensions in Translating COVID-19 Vaccine Promotion Videos in Hawai’i. Technical Communication and Social Justice, 1(1), 64–78. https://techcommsocialjustice.org/index.php/tcsj/article/view/8