By Kirk St.Amant | STC Fellow
Technical communication can seem like a field divided. Academics appear to focus on the theoretical, while industry practitioners generally concentrate on the applied. And educators often struggle to balance the two to prepare students for life after graduation. Yet across all these areas, there are commonalties that can unite. These include a common interest in a topic (technical communication), a mutually recognized objective (understanding and addressing audience/user expectations), and a shared reliance on research to better understand both. In fact, one could say the common interest connecting the field is understanding communication behaviors—how we present, perceive, and process information to achieve goals.
How can research help the members of a field collaborate effectively? By understanding how different groups approach research, we can identify areas where collaboration can benefit all. This process begins by noting differences in how research is perceived across the field.
Definitions and Perceptions
The key question is “What is research?” It may seem obvious, but it’s more complex than most of us realize. I do a quick Internet search to determine the best method for using a software to perform a task. Is this research? How about having five coworkers review a new website to evaluate its design? A survey of 2,000 individuals to determine when they use their mobile phones to check the day’s news?
Many of us would agree these examples all represent research (i.e., a quest for answers). Differences, however, would likely occur due to the value individuals associate with each kind of research. This is because members of the field often use different metrics to assess the significance—or the value—of research and identify research that “counts” or “contributes.”
Metrics and Value
In industry, if the objective of research is to create effective products, then activities contributing to this goal have value. As such, a range of activities can constitute “valuable” research if they address the primary metric of creating effective products. For educators, the objective of research might be to find an effective way to teach new content. In this case, value is determined by how well students achieve certain learning objectives. And in academia, research often exists as a formal category for assessing an individual’s job performance. In these cases, certain kinds of research—that which leads to conference presentations and academic journal articles—are often seen as having value.
This use of different metrics for assessing value creates varied perspectives of how individuals in the field view research. These perspectives also affect how individuals from one group view the research done by others. The result is a “yes … but” divide. “Yes, it is research, but it doesn’t help me achieve my overall objectives, so it doesn’t have value to me.” The key to fostering collaboration through research becomes a matter of perspective. This means we—as members of a field—need to understand how different approaches to research can help us address our objectives and contribute value according to metrics we recognize.
Dynamics of Difference
Knowledge is power. Accordingly, the more we know about how value is associated with research, the better we can understand and address alternative perspectives. In terms of research, the most problematic differences generally involve the following aspects.
Function and Focus
For some of us, research is used to address an immediate problem or answer a particular question at hand. For others, the objective is to identify patterns of how persons engage in a communication behavior. This difference in function leads us to focus on different topics and to use different methods to find the answers we need. Each kind of research—short term and specific and long term and more general—can contribute to the other; the key is considering how and then looking for ways to achieve such objectives.
Artifacts vs. Action
Technical communication research is about behavior, or how humans share information. What we study to understand that behavior, however, can vary. For some, research is about analyzing artifacts or applying a particular approach to determine how well a text addresses a theoretical construct. For others, the focus involves action or observing how individuals engage in a process to understand behaviors that produce artifacts. Both kinds of research can help us understand the complexities of how humans convey information; the key is to understand how each kind of research can contribute to the other.
Desired vs. Doable
The populations we study also affect how we view research. Ideally, our research involves large numbers of persons who represent specific audiences. Unfortunately, such research can be costly, time consuming, and difficult to coordinate. As a result, individuals might focus on populations to which they have quick and easy access. (Consider, for example, how much of academic research involves studying students in the researcher’s class or at an institution.) The key consideration here is how partnering across segments of the field might address such factors.
Value and Variation
As noted, different metrics affect what research is valued in the field. Accordingly, effective research collaboration involves understanding such differences and designing projects that allow participants to address the value prospects associated with their professional activities. Doing so might mean re-thinking approaches to how research is done—from what research results can be publically shared to what contributions merit authorship credit for academic articles.
Collaboration and Convergence
Addressing these factors is not easy, but the resulting benefits can be manifold. Moreover, there are models for engaging in such research-based collaborations (St.Amant & Meloncon). These can include:
- Using internships to learn about individuals working in other areas of the field
- Creating advisory boards of individuals from different segments of the field
- Coordinating symposia or conferences for sharing research among different groups in the field
The key is for individuals to learn about each other’s perceptions of research. Through such understanding, we can develop partnerships for effectively engaging in collaborative research projects that benefit all involved. The entries in this issue represent a step toward such understanding.
Issue Overview
The articles in this issue present different perspectives on research and offer ideas and examples on using research as a mechanism to collaborate. Through this approach, readers can better understand the perspectives of “others” and understand how research might help foster effective partnerships.
The first three articles present perspectives on what research is and what it involves. In the initial entry, university professor and STC Fellow Michael J. Albers overviews how academics generally perceive research and contrasts that perspective with how individuals from industry view research. Next, Tom Johnson of Amazon offers his perspective on how individuals in industry approach research and the kinds of research activities he, as a technical communicator working for an international company, regularly does. Elizabeth Frick expands upon this industry perspective by noting how she—as the owner of her own technical communication business—engages in research.
The final two articles examine how different segments of the field can use research to collaborate. The article by Sam Dragga (a retired career academic) and Dan Voss (a retired member of industry) provides a framework for including ethics into research practices across the field. In so doing, the two offer an example of how individuals from different segments of the field can collaborate around a mutual interest in research. The closing entry, a summary of an interview with Boeing employee Alexandra “Sandy” Bartell (a University of Washington PhD) by Darin Williams provides insights on how research-based collaborations by someone who has used research as a tool for working across different areas of technical communication.
Final Thoughts
The more members of a field collaborate, the stronger the field becomes. The topic of research can serve as a mechanism for engaging in such collaborations in ways that are meaningful to all involved. Realizing this goal is not easy, and it requires continued, consistent attention over time. To do so, we—as members of a common field—need to understand the perspectives and expectations individuals from other areas associate with “research.”
This issue is a step toward fostering such understanding. Like most initial steps, it is a small part of a greater journey toward an objective. Readers are therefore encouraged to consider how they might build upon the ideas noted here to expand our approach to research and foster partnerships around a topic of mutual interest to us all. I look forward to where the next steps in this journey will take us.
REFERENCE
St.Amant, K., & Meloncon, L. 2016. Reflections on Research: Examining Practitioner Perspectives on the State of Research in Technical Communication. Technical Communication 63.4, 346–363.
