SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AS ENFRAMING OR EMPOWERING: HOW LEAN AND SIX SIGMA DEFINE TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION

In this project, I examine current forms of scientific management systems, Lean and Six Sigma, as they relate to technical communication. With the goal of breaking work up into standardized processes in order to cut costs and increase efficiency, Lean, Six Sigma and Lean Six Sigma hybrid systems are increasingly applied beyond manufacturing operations to service and other types of organizational work, including technical communication. By consulting scholarship from fields such as business, management, and engineering, and analyzing government Lean Six Sigma documentation, I investigate how these systems influence technical communication knowledge and practice in the workplace. I draw out the consequences of system-generated power structures as they affect knowledge work, like technical communication practice, when it is reduced to process. In pointing out the problems these systems have in managing knowledge work, I also ask how technical communication might shape them.

How scientific is the science in ethnopharmacology? Historical perspectives and epistemological problems

This commentary is based on a general concern regarding the low level of self-criticism (-evaluation) in the interpretation of molecular pharmacological data published in ethnopharmacology-related journals. Reports on potentially new lead structures or pharmacological effects of medicinal plant extracts are mushrooming. At the same time, nonsense in bioassays is an increasing phenomenon in herbal medicine research. Only because a dataset is reproducible does not imply that it is meaningful. Currently, there are thousands of claims of pharmacological effects of medicinal plants and natural products. It is argued that claims to knowledge in ethnopharmacology, as in the exact sciences, should be rationally criticized if they have empirical content as it is the case with biochemical and pharmacological analyses. Here the major problem is the misemployment of the concentration-effect paradigm and the overinterpretation of data obtained in vitro. Given the almost exponential increase of scientific papers published it may be the moment to adapt to a falsificationist methodology.