The work of technical communicators transcends the purely technical--it has implications for real human beings. Located as they are at the critical intersection of technology and humanity, technical communicators direct traffic to avoid human injury and to promote sensitivity to the needs of human beings. When technology fails human beings, it is the ethical obligation of the technical communicator to sustain the humanity of the victims of that failure--to make those victims visible.

As we discussed in a previous article on statistical graphics (Dragga and Voss 2001), the conventional guidance on ethics in technical communication emphasizes issues of deception or distortion (that is, telling lies). The accuracy of the information is the principal--and often the only--criterion by which the ethics of the technical communication is judged. This limited perspective, often justified in the name of objectivity or impartiality, brings with it an undesirable byproduct--inhumanity. We believe the practice of communicating statistical or technical information regarding human lives with utter indifference to their humanity is both biased and unethical.

In this article, we will amplify that earlier discussion of humanistic graphics. Specifically, we will identify how the reporting of human injuries and fatalities in accident reports often strips victims of their humanity and hides the tragic human consequences of technological failures from individuals trying to devise appropriate public policy, establish effective safety regulations, and modify or abolish dangerous industrial processes--government officials, company executives, labor representatives, community activists, and ordinary citizens.

To illustrate this point, we will review a series of accident reports, focusing on their use of illustrations. We will look especially at accident reports of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), both because of their variety (for instance, highway, aviation, pipeline, railroad) as well as their availability as public domain materials. It is noteworthy, however, that accident reports from both public and private institutions reveal a similar inhumanity. We will propose several techniques to humanize accident reports and discuss the legal and ethical implications of such efforts, especially the delicate issue of balancing the objective of making victims visible versus the danger of violating their privacy in the process.

Nothing in this analysis is intended to criticize the sincerity, integrity, or courage of the accident investigators themselves. Without question, theirs is a job of heroic challenges (physical, intellectual, and emotional), requiring the almost continuous exercise of extraordinary sensitivity to victims and survivors. Unfortunately, however, the words and illustrations of accident reports often fail to communicate this sensitivity, leaving a genuine opportunity for technical communicators to come to the aid of investigators and serve the public good.

ACCIDENT REPORTS AS Al) HOC PRACTICE

Studies of the Challenger disaster aside (for example, Dombrowski 1991; Winsor 1990), the writing of accident reports has received limited attention in the field of technical communication. A pertinent exception would be Beverly Sauer's research on mining accidents. She noticed that the language of official narratives "silences the horror of human suffering and the loss of human life" (Sauer 1993, p. 72), whereas the discussion of causes is...