The Value of Research in Technical Communicationby Bill Hosier, Assistant Director-Sponsor |
Over the years, there has been much debate and discussion in the Society as to whether technical communication is a field, an endeavour, a profession or a discipline, none of the above or all of the above. The topics of professionalism, certification and accreditation have often appeared in the pages of Technical Communication and Intercom. I would like to take the opportunity to review the status of technical communication and to highlight the role of research in technical communication.
Traditionally, we have borrowed and continue to borrow, heavily, from established disciplines such as typography, graphic design, reading and learning psychology, physiology of vision, audience and task analysis, and rhetoric. It is not inappropriate to borrow from these disciplines; in fact, it is very sensible to use good research from relevant disciplines. Schriver (1) identifies the relevant theory and research that influence document design today, and that influenced document design in 1980. It is an interesting comparison, with many more domains, such as discourse analysis and computer technology, influencing document design today.
Despite the impressive range of inter-disciplinary knowledge that informs contemporary approaches to technical communication, our profession is still in the earlier stages of its evolution. The status of technical communication is presently indeterminate, regarded as a field of endeavour or profession, but certainly not a discipline (2). If technical communication is to become a true discipline, then the key is a body of knowledge derived from research. Once the body of knowledge has been established, investigations will contribute to the continuing expansion of knowledge in the discipline (3).
In their article, Glassman and Pinelli (4) provide an excellent primer on the research process, classifying the various types of research by purpose and method. Glassman recognizes that it is neither practical nor necessary for every technical communicator to carry out research. However, he makes the important point that to become intelligent consumers of research, we need to develop a working knowledge of the research process. Furthermore, we need to know enough about the research process to judge the merits and validity of published research in technical communication.
Without devaluing the hard work and the current and past efforts of researchers in technical communication, we must recognize that this is but a modest start. Research in technical communication per se is still impoverished, and the literature is scattered. There are major areas, such as access and indexing, where virtually no research has been done. There are encouraging signs, though. It is obvious, even more from the primary literature, that there is much more technical communication research being done currently. It is very gratifying, and informative, to read about this research in journals such as Technical Communication.
In this mass of technical communication research that remains to be done, do we have a clear idea of what needs doing? Schriver (1) discusses directions for future research relating to document design and Doheny-Farina (5) provides a structured research agenda of the many areas of technical communication that still require investigation. Interestingly, Doheny-Farina's article is based on a forum at the 34th ITCC (Denver 1987) for the practitioners and academicians interested in research.
To conclude, research has been shown to be a very powerful tool that is particularly applicable in our profession. Many of our significant problems can be solved and specific questions answered by the application of research. Therefore, when you have the inevitable difficult technical problems relating to technical communication, consider referring to research. Search the literature, evaluate the research material and apply it to your problem.