Chapter 2: The Ship of Theseus: Change Over Time in Topics of Technical Communication Research Abstracts

Abstract

The WAC Clearinghouse supports teachers of writing across the disciplines. Hosted by Colorado State University, and supported by the Colorado State University Open Press, it brings together scholarly journals and book series as well as resources for teachers who use writing in their courses. This book is available in digital formats for free download at wac.colostate.edu.

Toward TPC-UX: UX Topics in TPC Journals 2013–2022

“…But this article should not be considered a post-positivistic attempt at objectivity. Rather, I agree with Carradini (2022) who argues that “quantitative analysis… points out areas where the scholar should investigate the texts further” (p. 43). Statistical indicators offer a pragmatic approach for determining salient patterns across (relatively) large swaths of data, but such indicators, by default, cannot offer narratives, reveal situated knowledge, or make qualitative assessments (Haraway, 1988; Merry, 2016; cf.…”

“…Because usability/UX was a primary topic in Friess and Boettger's (2021) analysis, I could not adapt their approach for this procedure. Rather, following Carradini (2022), I decided to use terminological frequency to chart the primary topics within Note. A chi-square test of independence did not find a statistically significant relationship between the variables of broad topic and journal, X 2 (15, n = 150) = 19.00, p = .21359797.…”

“…As TPC has matured as an academic discipline, meta-analyses of scholarship have become commonplace (e.g., Boettger & Friess, 2016; Boettger & Lam, 2013; Carradini, 2022; Melonçon & St. Amant, 2019; Rude, 2009; Smith, 2000; Thompson, 2001; White et al, 2016). While some analyses use “thick” descriptions that offer granular assessments of certain topics—for instance, integrative literature reviews (see Acharya, 2022a; Clark 2016; Melonçon & Warner, 2017)—many meta-analyses in TPC have illustrated the utility of “thin descriptions” (Carradini, 2022, p. 43), which are somewhat distant readings of the patterns within a disciplinary corpus.…”

“…As TPC has matured as an academic discipline, meta-analyses of scholarship have become commonplace (e.g., Boettger & Friess, 2016; Boettger & Lam, 2013; Carradini, 2022; Melonçon & St. Amant, 2019; Rude, 2009; Smith, 2000; Thompson, 2001; White et al, 2016). While some analyses use “thick” descriptions that offer granular assessments of certain topics—for instance, integrative literature reviews (see Acharya, 2022a; Clark 2016; Melonçon & Warner, 2017)—many meta-analyses in TPC have illustrated the utility of “thin descriptions” (Carradini, 2022, p. 43), which are somewhat distant readings of the patterns within a disciplinary corpus. As Mueller (2017) writes, “Distant and thin treatments foster primary, if tentative and provisional, insights into… network sense —incomplete but nevertheless vital glimpses of an interconnected disciplinary domain focused on relationships that define and cohere widespread scholarly activity” (p. 3).…”

“…Friess and Boettger (2021) have used this research approach to compare scholarly TPC topics to practitioner topics; they argue that communication strategies and collaboration offer avenues for bridging the academic/practitioner divide. Carradini (2022) used a content analysis of keywords in TPC scholarly abstracts to identify changes in TPC topics between 2000 and 2017; the author argues that his findings “point the field toward the future,” a future wherein “an expanded set of practitioners work[] with researchers to understand and analyze the work of an increasingly-but-not-entirely digital workplace so that knowledge can make its way back to the classroom” (p. 65). This article methodologically draws on these “thin descriptions” in TPC to assess the salience and trajectories of TPC-UX topics.…”