Technical Communication: Article Brief 20 mins
lecture the class for 20 minutes on the contents of a telecommunications journal article from the last five years that is related to the readings for a given week. View the attached model for the example for the first of these. ****Note this has to be an actual article****
Volume 67, Number 3, August 2020 l Technical Communication 5
Applied Research
Practitioner’s
Takeaway:
• Technical Communication (TC)
statistically corresponded with
content related to knowledge and
information management and design.
Overall, both topics appeared in the
sample less frequently than expected.
Other research topics; including
editing, usability, and design; were
also underrepresented throughout
the sample, problematizing what
research content practitioners have
available to them.
• Compared to the other four journals,
TC published the least amount of
content directed toward academics.
Instead, the journal’s content focused
on writers, managers, and designers.
• TC was one of three journals to
statistically correspond with content
written by multiple authors.
Content and Authorship Patterns in
Technical Communication Journals (1996–2017):
A Quantitative Content Analysis
By
Ryan K. Boettger and Erin Friess
Purpose: The maturity of technical communication merits a comprehensive,
longitudinal analysis of the content published in its leading journals and the scholars
who produce this research. Although reflexive research is common in the sciences
and social sciences, few studies have analyzed the body of research in technical
communication. Clarity on content and authorship patterns can help position the field
for future relevance and sustainability.
Method: We conducted a quantitative content analysis on 672 articles published in
five leading technical communication journals from 1996–2017. Articles were coded
on nine content variables related to primary topic, primary audience, and authorship.
We subsequently conducted a correspondence analysis on the variables to identify how
specific content areas associated with the journals.
Results: Content and authorship patterns were near identical to the patterns found
in the field 30 years prior. The journals published content primarily focused on
rhetoric, genre, pedagogy, and diversity. In contrast, field-defining topics—usability/
UX, comprehension, design, and editing and style—appeared in the sample less than
expected. A majority of research was single-authored and written by female first authors;
further, a majority of the first authors had academic affiliations in the United States.
Conclusion: Scholars must consider if these content and authorship patterns are the
products of deliberate choices and, if so, if this is the field’s inevitable trajectory for the
next 30 years. We argue that certain topics are being overproduced while other topics
that established the field are being underproduced and, in some cases, being assumed
by other disciplines.
Keywords: content analysis, correspondence analysis, research, technical
communication, technical writing
ABSTRACT
6 Technical Communication l Volume 67, Number 3, August 2020
CONTENT AND AUTHORSHIP PATTERNS
Applied Research
BACKGROUND
State-of-the-discipline studies are common to
many fields, including public administration (Lynn
& Wildavsky, 1990), public policy (Bunea &
Baumgartner, 2014), political science (Kacmar &
Baron, 1999), group communication (Frey, 1994), and
digital studies (Kirschenbaum & Werner, 2014). These
periodic assessments identify the values, boundaries,
and research priorities of a particular field over a
designated timeframe.
Technical communication merits the same analysis
as these other academic disciplines, particularly when
it has been suggested that the field lacks a cohesive
identity. Rude (2009) noted several reasons for the
field’s unformed disciplinary identity, including the
placement of our programs (often in traditional English
literature-based departments); how we distinguish our
questions and methods from other, more established
disciplines; and our relative newness as a legitimate
academic discipline with its own interconnecting
theories and practices (p. 177). In fact, technical
communication has been described as a “young”
discipline for at least the last 30 years (Blakeslee,
2009; Carver, 1998; Garrison, 2014; Haselkorn,
1997; Hayhoe, 2006; Wahlstron, 1988). This youth
has enabled scholars to freeform their definition of
technical communication, the content areas that merit
investigation, and the methods used to expand its body
of knowledge. Rude (2009) extended this observation,
pointing out that scholars are often redefining,
reenvisioning, or rethinking the field. The consistent
use of the prefix re “implies an established identity that
should now be modified, but it also reflects a failure
to pin down the characteristics” (p. 188). As a result,
technical communication is recognized for its diversity,
but this diversity has proven “very difficult to define or
to circumscribe” (Rainey, 1999, p. 524).
St. Amant and Melonçon (2016) recently argued
that technical communication’s inability to define
itself has hampered its legitimacy. They described an
incommensurability problem in which “nothing seems
shared or common” and one that “undermines . . .
our power to act, engage, and develop as a field” (pp.
3–4). They suggested that technical communication
was “doom[ed] . . . to fail unless we can change
the field’s perspective of what we consider common
ground” (p. 4). Rude (2009) raised similar concerns
years earlier, motivating her development of four areas
of related research questions that could better define
technical communication as well as distinguish its
scholarship from other disciplines. These four areas
included disciplinarity, pedagogy, practice, and social
change (p. 176).
Disciplinarity—or, how shall we know ourselves?—
is perhaps most relevant to this study, and the research
focused on disciplinarity can take many forms. Most
of the related technical communication scholarship
focuses on research methods (e.g., Boettger & Lam,
2013; Lam & Boettger, 2017; Melonçon & St.Amant,
2018). Rude (2009) acknowledged the value of
methods but cautioned that we borrow them from
so many other disciplines that their study alone does
not always reveal what is unique and disguisable to
technical communication. Our study pivots from
these methods-driven studies, but we use the results
to complement our findings. Instead, we report both
the content (or topic) and authorship patterns within
technical communication journals over a 22-year
period. Rude (2009) too wrote that the study of topics
alone could offer little significance without the presence
specific research questions; however, we argue that these
analyses contribute a more holistic understanding of
where technical communication has been, where the
field is now, and where the field could go. Further, we
believe the scholars who are studying these topics reflect
how the field has developed and perhaps how it might
need to be redefined.
To respond to these areas, we conducted a
quantitative content analysis on a random sample of
672 articles published in the five leading technical
communication journals from 1996–2017. This
approach and the resulting data is a step toward
determining what the field has published in recent
decades. This current research aims to assess and
contextualize the disciplinarity of the field (and, to a
lesser extent, its pedagogy, practice, and social change)
through an analysis of both the content of the research
and the characteristics of the authors to better frame
the field’s “visibility, identity, status, and sustainability”
(Rude, 2009, p. 207). To explore these issues, we
designed the study to identify the primary content
areas, authorship characteristics, and collaboration
patterns within these journals over the last 22 years.
Volume 67, Number 3, August 2020 l Technical Communication 7
Ryan K. Boettger and Erin Friess
Applied Research
LITERATURE REVIEW
State-of-the-discipline studies are a critical research
component, as they afford the opportunity to assess the
health of a field and to identify patterns for comparative
assessments. Further, state-of-the-discipline studies that
focus on content can identify what is of apparent value
to the field. With relatively few publication outlets
focused exclusively on technical communication, the
content of the research journals is an argument as to
what is of value to the field. At present, our five leading
journals typically publish 4–6 pieces of scholarship
over the course in each of their four issues every year.
This only allows 80–100 opportunities to address the
content demands and alignment issues that are vital to
the future of technical communication.
Additionally, state-of-the-discipline studies that
investigate authorship characteristics such as gender
and professional affiliation can ascertain the degree
to which publications align with a field’s claims of
diversity (Eigenberg & Whalley, 2015; Fox et al., 2016;
Gomes et al., 2016; Raptis, 1992; Siddiqui, 1997).
Understanding a field’s collaborative patterns can frame
arguments for the acceptance of collaborative work to
promotion and tenure boards who, in some disciplines,
have favored sole-authored work over collaborative
pursuits (Abbasi et al., 2012; Ezema & Asogwa, 2014;
Katz & Martin, 1997; Perianes-Rodríguez et al., 2010).
However, in technical communication, little research
has analyzed the content areas (or the topics) and
authorship characteristics of the field’s research.
Technical communication scholars have only
recently begun to reflect on its existing body of
research, in part because the field’s age did not provide
a sufficient amount of longitudinal data. Current
studies typically focus on research methods (Boettger
& Lam, 2013; Brammer & Galloway, 2007; Melonçon
& St.Amant, 2018). A recent study reported that
37% of articles published in the five leading technical
communication journals over a five-year period were
empirical (Melonçon & St.Amant, 2018). This study
built from an early definition of empirical research,
which describes or measures an observable phenomenon
in a systematic way (MacNealy, 1999). The coding for
this current article also applied this definition. Further,
almost 60% of this empirical research was published
in either Transactions on Professional Communication or
Technical Communication. These results are potentially
relevant to the present study as both journals are
affiliated with professional organizations and associated
with content that addresses practitioner audiences
(Smith, 2000a, 2000b). Similarly, specific content
areas are associated with specific research approaches.
Scholarship on collaboration and usability/UX were
typically empirical, whereas scholarship on rhetoric,
pedagogy, and genre were typically non-empirical (Lam
& Boettger, 2017).
The content-related studies (studies that assess
what areas or topics technical communication covers)
produced in technical communication can typically be
organized into two categories. The first encompasses
a collection of self-reflective studies conducted as
integrated literature reviews or anecdotal assessments
(Brammer & Galloway, 2007; Fine, 1996; Forman,
1998; Malone, 2007; Rogers, 1995). Although these
studies have offered focused examinations into specific
content areas and phenomena, they have often done
so without citation analyses, scientometrics, or other
rigorous and replicable means for assessment. The
second category focuses on technical communication
doctoral research. Two studies have examined the
types of doctoral research produced from 1965–1990
and 1989–1998, respectively, and found emphasis
on pedagogical, rhetorical, and compositional areas
(Rainey, 1999; Rainey & Kelly, 1992). Additionally,
Cook et al. (2003) conducted a survey in which recent
technical communication doctoral graduates self-
reported the topics of their dissertation research; they
found that rhetoric, culture, and pedagogy were among
the most reported content areas. The results from these
latter studies inform our own analysis as these doctoral
students were likely new tenure-track researchers during
our 22-year time period.
The field’s most longitudinal examination of journal
content remains the citation analyses by Smith (2000a,
2000b). Smith conducted a citation analysis on 10
years’ worth of technical communication publications
(including the same five journals analyzed in the
present study) and found that the content areas were
“broadly identified as professional issues (defining
technical communication, pedagogy, and research
methods), rhetoric and the rhetorics of communities,
document design and technology issues, and workplace
communication” (p. 427). Smith’s analysis also noted
content differences among the five journals. Technical
Communication Quarterly and Journal of Business and
8 Technical Communication l Volume 67, Number 3, August 2020
Applied Research
CONTENT AND AUTHORSHIP PATTERNS
Technical Communication were identified as the leading
publications for authors with academic affiliations
as well as the forums for the field’s more theoretical
discussions. As noted earlier, TPC and TC both
associated with scholarship from the point of view of
the practitioner. TPC also associated with research
focused on communication with subject-matter experts
and TC associated with research on design. Additional
rigorous (and contemporary) research on technical
communication content areas are needed to enable
a broader understanding of what, exactly, technical
communication currently is to its scholars.
State-of-the-discipline studies have also investigated
the authorship characteristics (e.g., Gomes et al., 2016;
Raptis, 1992; Siddiqui, 1997) and collaborative patterns
(e.g., Abbasi et al., 2012; Katz & Martin, 1997; Perianes-
Rodríguez et al., 2010). These results summarize the
professional and personal characteristics of a field’s
scholars as well as provide insight into the value of
collaborative research and patterns, such as the frequency
that advisees publish with their dissertation advisors.
Only a few technical communication studies
have addressed authorship characteristics. The earlier
cited survey of dissertation authors also examined the
diversity of the authors and found that more women
than men completed technical communication
dissertations, and 93% of these authors self-identified
their ethnicity as “White” (Cook et al., 2003). Of the
18 schools represented by the respondents, all were
based in the US and all but two were large public
institutions (i.e., more than 20,000 students). In a
study of technical communication research journals
(the same five journals reviewed in this present study),
Smith’s (2000a, 2000b) longitudinal citation analyses
found that approximately one third of the data was
produced by more than one author and that more
scholarship was produced by males than females
(Smith, 2000a, 2000b). Authorship statistics of TPC
over a 25-year period found that about a third of the
articles were written by two or more authors with
collaborations trending upward longitudinally in their
sample (Brammer & Galloway, 2007). A subsequent
analysis of four technical communication journals
over a five-year period found that approximately two
thirds of the articles were produced by more than
one author (Lam, 2014). As a contrast, authorship
patterns in JBTC indicated that almost 80% of their
publications were single-authored and 62% of the lead
authors were females (Burnett, 2003). These authorship
patterns suggest variation among the five leading
journals as well as trends that have developed over
the last several decades. Additional rigorous research
is needed to enable a broader understanding of who
authors technical communication research and how
those authorship characteristics align with technical
communication’s “growth area” of diversity (Johnson et
al., 2018, p. xix).
Therefore, we continued to explore these issues
through the following research questions:
RQ1. What are the primary content areas covered
in technical communication journals, and who are
the primary audiences that benefit most from this
content?
RQ2. What are the authorship characteristics of
these journal article writers?
RQ3. What are the collaboration patterns among
authors? What patterns prevail in certain journals
and on particular topics?
METHODS
Our primary method was content analysis. We define
content analysis as “a research technique for making
replicable and valid inferences from texts (and other
meaningful matter) in the contexts of their use”
(Krippendorff, 2012, p. 18). Content analysis has
been modified for qualitative inquiry; however, our
application is quantitative and meaning was identified
through valid measurement rules and relational
inferences via statistical methods (Boettger & Palmer,
2010; Neuendorf, 2016). The general framework for
quantitative content analysis includes identifying the
sample, developing a coding scheme, norming raters,
and analyzing data.
The timeframe for this analysis began with
content published in 1996, which is roughly when
Smith (2000ab) concluded the timeframe for her
bibliometric studies. We concluded the timeframe in
2017, which, at the time of coding, provided the latest
complete volume of each journal. We analyzed content
from five journals: Journal of Business and Technical
Communication (JBTC), Journal of Technical Writing
Volume 67, Number 3, August 2020 l Technical Communication 9
Ryan K. Boettger and Erin Friess
Applied Research
and Communication (JTWC), Technical Communication
(TC), Technical Communication Quarterly (TCQ),
and IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
(TPC). We selected these journals for analysis because
they were all published for the entirety of the designated
time period, were included in Smith’s previous studies,
and have been identified as the leading forums for
technical communication scholarship (Boettger & Lam,
2013; Carliner et al., 2011; Lowry et al., 2007; Smith,
2000a, 2000b). The field has expanded its number
of journals, and technical communication scholars
published in other forums but focusing on the five
leading journals provides the parameters necessary for
longitudinal study.
Our sample included 672 articles published in five
leading technical communication journals from 1996–
2017. We began with 2,148 articles, or every peer-
reviewed article published during the 22-year period.
Each article was numbered in a MS-Excel spreadsheet,
and we used the random number formula to identify
the sample for analysis. The random selection of
the sample retained the representative number of
articles published by each journal. As an example, TC
published 20.4% of the articles in the population
(n = 439), and the journal represented 19% (n = 127)
of the present study’s sample. The remaining sample
included 112 articles from JBTC, 133 from JTWC,
137 from TCQ, and 163 from TPC. We manually
coded 31.3% of the corpus, which is slightly above the
ideal sample size for yielding a 95% confidence level
with a 3.5% margin of error.
We manually coded the sample on nine content
variables: journal, year, primary topic, primary audience,
authorship, gender, affiliation type, geographic affiliation,
and world region. Variables were selected based
on their presence in previous studies in technical
communication and related fields (Boettger et al., 2015;
Boettger & Friess, 2016; Boettger et al., 2014; Boettger
& Lam, 2013; Brammer & Galloway, 2007; Carliner
et al., 2011; Lowry et al., 2007; Juzwik et al., 2006; St.
Clair Martin et al., 2012; Tansey et al., 2012). Table I
includes a description of each variable and its levels.
Operationalization best practices related to survey
and experimental research also apply to measurement
in content analysis. This includes the development
of mutually exclusive coding categories where each
recording unit fits into only one category on a given
score dimension (Neuendorf, 2016). This practice
Table I. Variable and variable levels considered in the present study
Variable Description
Journal Recorded the forum of the article as JBTC, JTWC, TC, TCQ, or TPC.
Year Recorded the year the article was published (e.g., 1996–2017).
Primary Topic Classified the primary topic of each article as assessment, collaboration, communication strategies,
comprehension, design, diversity, editing and style, genre, professionalization, knowledge and
information management, pedagogy, research design, rhetoric, technology, or usability and user
experience.
Primary
Audience
Classified the primary audience who would most benefit from reading each article as academic,
business owner, consultant, editor, general, manager, student, visual communicator, other, senior
writer/content strategist, or writer/content developer.
Authorship Classified the authorship of each article as single-, co-, or multi-authored.
Gender Classified the first author as either female or male based on the pronouns used in the author’s
biography.
Affiliation Type Classified the affiliation of the first author as academic or industry/government.
Geographic
Affiliation
Classified the geographic affiliation of the first author as national or international.
World Region Classified the world region of the first author as Africa/Middle East, Asia, Australia, Central and South
America, Europe, or North America.
10 Technical Communication l Volume 67, Number 3, August 2020
Applied Research
CONTENT AND AUTHORSHIP PATTERNS
enables different coders to arrive at the same results
and provides a common instrument to facilitate data
comparison across multiple studies. In fact, the codes
developed by the researchers for this and earlier studies
have also been applied by other researchers (e.g.,
Hannah & Lam, 2016).
Our codebook was finalized after 12 drafts and
norming sessions with a separate sample and among
three researchers. Previous research describes the
development of these codebooks, particularly how we
developed and refined the mutually exclusive codes
for primary topic and primary audience codes (Boettger
et al., 2015; Boettger & Friess, 2016; Boettger et al.,
2014). For example, identifying mutually exclusive
categories for primary topic proved challenging. We
initially coded a small sample using four different
schemas before arriving at the final approach. When our
first codebook was developed, the classification scheme
for the STC Body of Knowledge (and later applied in
Carliner et al., 2011) was still evolving and contained
several coding options. The large number of possible
codes proved challenging to sort into mutually exclusive
categories, norm across multiple raters, and analyze
for noticeable patterns. We encountered similar issues
with the coding scheme used by the eServer Technical
Communication Library (tc.eserver.org). In addition,
we considered the keywords that prospective authors
choose to classify their submissions to journals using the
ScholarOne Manuscript system (e.g., audience analysis,
linguistic research, listening persuasion/proposals). We
found these keywords proved helpful to each journal
in identifying appropriate manuscript reviewers but
more difficult to apply usefully and consistently to all
the major journals in technical communication. In the
end, our aim was to create a codebook that addressed
the diversity of scholarship in the field across multiple
publication venues.
We acknowledge that a piece of technical
communication scholarship does not always neatly fit
into a single category, but the abstraction and isolation
of variables is a vital step to any scientific method. No
one study can address every nuance of a phenomenon;
however, our results include a consistent application
of codes that were developed with attention to validity
and reliability. Therefore, these codes can be applied
to other data samples for comparison, contributing to
the growth rather than the stagnation of a particular
research conversation.
For this study, we collapsed the earlier developed
codes of gender and intercultural communication
codes into a more encompassing diversity code. This
update was in response to the focus on diversity
and inclusion in recent technical communication
scholarship. Twenty percent of the current sample was
re-coded for inter-rater reliability. Agreement between
the study’s authors was 84.6% (using Krippendorff’s
alpha coefficient) and within the recommended range
(Watt & van den Burg, 1995).
Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics,
contingency table analyses, and correspondence
analyses. Contingency table analyses correlate
multivariate frequency distributions, allowing
researchers to statistically compare distributions of
non-numerical data. For this study, we ran a binomial,
a type of contingency table analysis that tests the
statistical significance of deviations from theoretically
expected distributions in two categories. We also ran
the chi-square test to test two-way table associations.
Correspondence analysis (or CA) is a geometric
technique used to analyze multi-way tables containing
some measure of correspondence between the rows
and columns (Greenacre, 2007). The most useful
component of CA is its ability to visually organize the
data into central and peripheral instances. CA is not an
inferential measure and does not determine statistical
significance. Statistical output provides a chi-square
value that reflects the overall interaction between the
rows and columns, but the researchers must consult
other statistical output to properly interpret the results.
Throughout this paper, we only report CAs that had a
significant chi-square value of ≤ 0.05, and, like previous
researchers, we reviewed other output to determine
between-variable relationships (e.g., Boettger & Friess,
2016; Boettger & Lam, 2013; Friess, 2018; Lam &
Boettger, 2017).
RESULTS
The results are organized around the three research
questions.
RQ1: Content and Audience
What are the primary content areas covered in technical
communication journals, and who are the primary
audiences that benefit most from this content?
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftc.eserver.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7CRyan.Boettger%40unt.edu%7C937fa9d849b04d6a87f208d6a19bdca3%7C70de199207c6480fa318a1afcba03983%7C0%7C0%7C636874088136990296&sdata=hjP%2BMXvC9OBPvYrRsJJ6DcistXRLh1A7DRfPCUBJyaw%3D&reserved=0
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftc.eserver.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7CRyan.Boettger%40unt.edu%7C937fa9d849b04d6a87f208d6a19bdca3%7C70de199207c6480fa318a1afcba03983%7C0%7C0%7C636874088136990296&sdata=hjP%2BMXvC9OBPvYrRsJJ6DcistXRLh1A7DRfPCUBJyaw%3D&reserved=0
Volume 67, Number 3, August 2020 l Technical Communication 11
Ryan K. Boettger and Erin Friess
Applied Research
Primary topic
Overall, the journals published content primarily
focused on rhetoric, pedagogy, and genre (see Table
II). A contingency table analysis determined how
evenly distributed the primary topics were across
the journals. Our null hypothesis assumed that if all
topics were evenly distributed, 44.8 articles on each
topic would have appeared within the 22-year period.
This number was derived by dividing the sample
size by the number of primary topics (i.e., 672/15).
As hypothesized, not every content area was equally
represented in the journals, and it is this result that
focuses much of our analysis. The far-right columns of
Table II list the observed frequencies of the topics and
the related p-values.
Articles on rhetoric, pedagogy, genre, and diversity
appeared in the journals at a higher than expected
frequency. In other words, these areas appeared
significantly more often than 44.8 times in the
sample. These topics comprised 49.4% of the overall
sample and were dispersed in all five journals. Articles
on usability/UX, comprehension, knowledge and
information management, research design, design,
and editing and style appeared in the journals less
frequently than expected. In other words, these areas
appeared significantly less often than 44.8 times in the
sample. The remaining five topics were not significantly
distributed and, therefore, appeared within the journals
as frequently as expected.
Primary topic and journal
A correspondence analysis (CA) identified a significant
relationship between primary topic and journal (χ2 =
171.005 p < 0.00). Seven associations were identified
from the statistical output.
The strongest correspondence was between TCQ
and rhetoric (see Figure I). TCQ published 42.4%
of the rhetoric articles in our sample (see Table I).
Next, TPC corresponded with collaboration and
communication strategies. The journal published
52.8% and 40%, respectively, of the articles on both
topics. JTWC corresponded with genre and pedagogy.
Table II. Frequencies and contingency table analysis results of primary topic and journal
Primary Topic Journal Frequency P binomial
JBTC JTWC TC TCQ TPC
Rhetoric 26 15 9 39 3 92 0.00*
Pedagogy 14 19 7 24 27 91 0.00*
Genre 18 32 11 12 17 90 0.00*
Diversity 8 13 12 16 10 59 0.04*
Communication strategies 7 11 7 5 20 50 396
Professionalization 4 14 13 7 6 44 100
Technology 6 4 12 5 15 42 0.76
Collaboration 8 2 4 3 19 36 0.19
Assessment 5 3 11 9 5 33 0.07
Usability/UX 4 5 9 3 9 30 0.02*
Comprehension 3 5 9 3 8 28 0.01*
Knowledge management 3 0 9 4 11 27 0.00*
Research design 3 3 4 5 6 21 0.00*
Design 1 2 8 1 4 16 0.00*
Editing and style 2 5 2 1 3 13 0.00*
Grand Total 112 133 127 137 163 672
*Significant at ≤0.05 α level
12 Technical Communication l Volume 67, Number 3, August 2020
Applied Research
CONTENT AND AUTHORSHIP PATTERNS
The journal published 35.6% and 20.9%, respectively,
of the articles on both topics. Finally, TC corresponded
with knowledge and information management and
design. The journal published 33.3% and 50%,
respectively, of the articles on both topics. JBTC did
not correspond with a primary topic.
Primary audience
The primary audience category was coded based on
who would benefit most from reading the content
rather than who was most likely to read it. Academic
was identified as the most frequent primary audience,
accounting for 67.3% of the sample (see Table III).
Writer/content developer was the next most frequent
primary audience (9.9%), and the related content
appeared most often in JTWC, TC, and TPC. The
third primary audience was manager (8.5%) and the
related content appeared most often in TC and TPC.
Primary audience and journal
A second CA identified a significant relationship
between primary audience and journal (χ2 = 219.02 p
< 0.00). Four associations were identified based on the
statistical output (see Figure II).
Figure I. Correspondence analysis between journal and primary topic. The eigenvalues for the first two dimensions are 51.48%
and 23.44%, respectively, indicating that the visualization explains 74.92% of the variation (inertia).
Volume 67, Number 3, August 2020 l Technical Communication 13
Ryan K. Boettger and Erin Friess
Applied Research
The strongest correspondence was between TCQ
and the academic. As indicated in Table III, 93.4% of
the content in the TCQ sample most benefitted this
audience. Academic was the typical audience for all
the journals; however, the frequency of TCQ articles
differed from the other four journals. As a contrast, the
JBTC, JTWC, TPC, and TC sample focused its content
on academics 83.0%, 67.7%, 59.5%, and 34.7%,
respectively, of the time. In addition, TC corresponded
with the senior writer/content strategist and the visual
communicator. The journal published 53.7% and
73.3%, respectively, of the content for both audiences.
TPC corresponded with the manager and published
57.9% of the related content.
RQ2: Authorship Characteristics
What are the authorship characteristics of these journal
article writers?
Authorship
Overall, 59.4% of the sample was single-authored,
26.5% was co-authored, and 14.1% was multi-authored
(see Table IV). When we collapse the two latter
categories, 40.6% of the sample was written by two or
more authors. Three journals best reflected this overall
authorship distribution. Results indicated that 42.5%
and 57.1% of the content published in TC and JBTC,
respectively, was single-authored. TPC was the only
journal that published more content by two or more
authors (55.8%) than sole authors. Comparatively,
authorship in JTWC and TCQ was imbalanced, and
both journals published substantially more single-
authored content (72.9% and 67.9%, respectively).
Gender
We coded the gender of the first author based on the
pronouns used in the author-provided biography. If no
biography was included in the article, we consulted the
pronouns used in the author’s institutional biography
or LinkedIn profile. Overall, 50.7% of the first authors
in the sample were coded as female. The JBTC, TCQ,
and TPC sample included more female-first authors
(61.6%, 53.3%, and 51.5%, respectively). The JTWC
and TC sample included more male-first authors
(57.9% and 53.5%, respectively). Results from a chi
square test confirmed the overall gender distribution of
first authors across journals was significant (χ2 = 10.59,
p < 0.05).
Further, the sample included 513 different first
authors; 264 were coded as female and 249 were coded
as male. Of the females, Natasha Jones was first author
on the most articles (n = 5), followed by Kim Sydow
Campbell, Nancy Coppola, Loel Kim, Carolyn Rude,
and Elizabeth Tebeaux (n = 4 each). Of the males,
Table III. Frequencies of primary audience by journal
Primary Audience Journal Frequency
JBTC JTWC TC TCQ TPC
Academic 93 90 44 128 97 452
Writer/Content developer 7 20 19 4 17 67
Manager 4 3 16 1 33 57
Senior writer/Content strategist 6 1 22 1 11 41
General 0 14 8 1 1 24
Visual communicator 0 2 11 1 1 15
Editor 2 2 2 0 2 8
Other 0 1 3 1 0 5
Business owner 0 0 1 0 1 2
Consultant 0 0 1 0 0 1
Student 0 0 0 0 0 0
Grand Total 112 133 127 137 163 672
14 Technical Communication l Volume 67, Number 3, August 2020
Applied Research
CONTENT AND AUTHORSHIP PATTERNS
Joseph Little and Kirk St.Amant were first author
on the most articles (n = 6), followed by Ned Kock,
Edward Malone, and Jason Swarts (n = 5 each). All of
these authors held university affiliations.
Affiliation type
The sample included 92.1% first authors with academic
affiliations (see Table V). The sample included 272
different academic affiliations (associated with the first
author). Authors affiliated with Texas Tech University
published the most articles in our sample (n = 20);
followed by Iowa State University (n = 17); University
of Central Florida, University of Memphis, and North
Carolina State University (n = 15 each); University
of Minnesota and University of Washington (n = 14
each); Auburn University (n = 12); University of Twente
(n = 11); and University of North Texas, Utah State
University, and Virginia Tech (n = 10 each).
Only 7.9% of the first authors had an industry or
government agency affiliation. These affiliations were
represented in all five journals; however, 80% of these
affiliations appeared in either TC or TPC (60.38% and
20.75%, respectively). Overall, five articles were written
by independent contractors. Authors affiliated with
Figure II. Correspondence analysis between journal and primary audience. The eigenvalues for the first two dimensions are
61.75% and 25.01%, respectively, indicating that the visualization explains 86.76% of the variation (inertia).
Volume 67, Number 3, August 2020 l Technical Communication 15
Ryan K. Boettger and Erin Friess
Applied Research
IBM (n = 3) and FLIR Systems (n = 2) contributed
multiple articles to the sample, but the 43 other
affiliations were only represented once.
Geographic affiliation and world region
The sample included 82.9% first authors who held a
national affiliation (i.e., anywhere within the United
States, see Table V). TPC and JBTC published the most
first authors with international affiliations (32.5% and
20.5%, respectively). TCQ published the least amount
of first authors with international affiliations (4.38%).
Finally, 86.8% of first authors were affiliated
with institutions or organizations in North America
(see Table V). The sample also included affiliations
with Europe (8.18%), Asia (3.72%), and Australia
(1.34%). TPC published the most first authors
with international affiliations (39.1%), while TCQ
published the least (1.46%).
RQ3: Collaboration Patterns
What are the collaboration patterns among authors?
What patterns prevail in certain journals and on
particular topics?
Journal and authorship
To answer the third research question, we examined
the authorship and affiliation results beyond the
descriptive statistics. A CA identified a significant
Table IV. Frequencies of single-, co-, and multi-authored articles
Authorship Journal Frequency
JBTC JTWC TC TCQ TPC
Single 64 97 73 93 72 399
Co 37 29 39 26 47 178
Multi 11 7 15 18 44 95
Grand Total 112 133 127 137 163 672
Table V. Frequencies of gender, affiliation type, geographic affiliation, and world region in articles
Gender
Journal
FrequencyJBTC JTWC TC TCQ TPC
Female 69 56 59 73 84 341
Male 43 77 68 64 79 331
Affiliation Type
University 110 128 95 134 152 619
Industry 2 5 32 3 11 53
Geographic Affiliation
National 89 122 105 131 110 557
International 23 11 22 6 53 115
World Region
North America 97 122 111 135 118 583
Europe 10 9 12 2 22 55
Asia 4 0 3 0 18 25
Australia 1 2 1 0 5 9
16 Technical Communication l Volume 67, Number 3, August 2020
Applied Research
CONTENT AND AUTHORSHIP PATTERNS
relationship between journal and authorship (χ2 =
42.281 p < 0.00). Three associations were identified
from the statistical output (see Figure III).
The strongest correspondence was between TPC
and multi-authorship. The journal published 46.3%
of the multi-authored articles in the sample (see
Table IV). Next, JBTC and TC corresponded with
co-authorship. Both journals published 42.7% of the
co-authored research in the sample. Further, 33% of
the JBTC sample and 30.7% of the TC sample were
co-authored. JTWC and TCQ did not correspond
with an authorship pattern; however, both produced
substantially more single-authored research than the
other journals.
Preliminary collaboration patterns
Based on these CA results, we further examined the
193 articles that were written by two or more authors
in TPC, JBTC, and TC. As summarized in Table
IV, these journals collectively published 70.7% of
the sample that was written by two or more authors.
These three journals demonstrated the strongest
inclination for collaboration and, thus, might suggest
more generalizable authorship patterns in technical
communication. We present these results as preliminary
because they represent a sub-sample of a larger sample
and are not necessarily reflective of the population.
Overall, we found that 58% of these collaborations
were led by female researchers. Further, 8.81% of these
first authors had an industry/government affiliation,
and 34% had an international affiliation. All of these
Figure III. Correspondence analysis between journal and authorship. The eigenvalues for the first two dimensions are 79.98%
and 20.02%, respectively, indicating that the visualization explains 100% of the variation (inertia).
Volume 67, Number 3, August 2020 l Technical Communication 17
Ryan K. Boettger and Erin Friess
Applied Research
results exceed the collective averages reported for the
entire sample.
Additional results found that 23.83% of the
articles were led by a student (n = 46), suggesting a
mentorship pattern. Finally, 10.36% (n = 21) included
collaboration between at least one academic and one
industry professional. In these collaborations, 75% of
the lead authors had an academic affiliation.
Topic and authorship
A CA identified a significant relationship between
primary topic and authorship (χ2 = 69.495 p < 0.00).
Five associations were identified from the statistical
output (see Figure IV).
The strongest correspondence was between rhetoric
and single authorship. Results found that 78.3% (n
= 72) of the rhetoric sample were written by a single
author. Further, 18.1% (n = 399) of the sample’s
single-authored articles were on rhetoric. Next, articles
on both collaboration and communication strategies
corresponded with multi-authorship, and 27.8% (n =
10) and 22% (n = 11) of the articles on these topics,
respectively, were written by three or more authors.
Finally, pedagogy and editing both corresponded with
co-authorship, and 18% (n = 32) and 38.5% (n = 5),
respectively, of the articles on these topics were written
by two authors.
Figure IV. Correspondence analysis between primary topic and authorship. The eigenvalues for the first two dimensions are
82.87% and 17.13%, respectively, indicating that the visualization explains 100% of the variation (inertia).
18 Technical Communication l Volume 67, Number 3, August 2020
Applied Research
CONTENT AND AUTHORSHIP PATTERNS
Gender and authorship
As reported earlier, 50.7% of the first authors in the
sample were coded as female. However, males published
53.6% (n = 214) of the singled-authored articles
compared to females (n = 185). In contrast, females led
57.1% (n = 156) of the articles written by two or more
authors compared to men (n = 117). These authorship
patterns were significant (χ2 = 7.5 p < 0.01).
DISCUSSION
The motivation for this study was to analyze the
content and authorship patterns that inform technical
communication scholarship and, thus, provide baseline
findings for future research and help ground the current
state of technical communication. In this discussion, we
explore what these results may mean for the “visibility,
identity, status, and sustainability” of the field of
technical communication that Rude discussed (Rude,
2009, p. 207).
The content areas of technical communication
have been remarkably consistent for decades.
Smith’s analysis of technical communication
scholarship from 1988–1997 revealed a shift in the
field’s legitimization, and, collectively, a move away
from composition theory and a focus on rhetoric
(Smith, 2000a, 2000b). She found JBTC and TCQ
to be the leading publications for authors with
academic affiliations as well as the forums for the
field’s more theoretical discussions. In particular, TCQ
experienced tremendous growth after transitioning
from the more focused Technical Writing Teacher.
In contrast, TC and TPC—journals both affiliated
with professional organizations—typically published
scholarship from the point of view of the practitioner.
TC also aligned with design-related content, TPC
with communicating with engineers and subject
matter experts, and JTWC with pedagogy.
Our present study includes over two additional
decades of data; however, our results show no
considerable change to Smith’s (2000a, 2000b) previous
research. Rhetoric solidified itself as the most common
primary topic and appeared in the sample more
frequently than expected. TCQ corresponded with
rhetoric-focused articles, while TPC corresponded with
collaboration and communication strategies (mostly
related to engineers and other SMEs). TC continued its
correspondence with design, while JTWC corresponded
with content focused on pedagogy.
In sum, content in professional and technical
communication journals has remained consistent
for thirty years. Though the field has matured, the
journals have held fast to their defining characteristics.
On one hand, this consistency suggests stability, and
the content shifts observed in the mid-1990s were
needed to advance technical communication. More
important, these shifts remain (or, appear to remain)
mutually shared by its scholars. On the other hand,
this consistency is somewhat surprising for a young
academic discipline that was only finding its footing a
short time ago.
Content on usability/UX, comprehension,
knowledge and information management,
research design, design, and editing and
style appeared less than expected.
Results from the contingency table analysis found
that content primarily focused on usability/
UX, comprehension, knowledge and information
management, research design, design, and editing
and style appeared in the sample less frequently
than expected.
Collectively, these topics are all field-defining and
represent the foundations of technical communication.
Arguably, the field has necessarily evolved from these
original foci and established an alternative foundation
that includes higher-level aspects of the universes in
which we do our work. Hart and Conklin (2006)
identified increasing variety in the duties of current
technical communicators. The evolution of the
profession now places technical communicators in
all phases of product development rather than solely
in the added-benefit final phase just prior to product
deployment. Current technical communicators are
becoming “strategic negotiators” who create deliverables
beyond user manuals and online help and engage in
non-traditional tasks and processes, including teamwork
and business process-development (pp. 413–414).
However, the lack of coverage of these topics in our
peer-reviewed literature could be worrisome given that
they encompass skillsets that technical communication
hiring managers require (Brumberger & Lauer,
2015; Kimball, 2015; Lanier, 2004, 2009, 2018;
Lauer & Brumberger, 2016; Rainey et al., 2005).
The description of technical writers by the Bureau of
Volume 67, Number 3, August 2020 l Technical Communication 19
Ryan K. Boettger and Erin Friess
Applied Research
Labor Statistics, a description developed by the STC
and technical communication practitioners, further
highlights these skills as necessary for meeting the
projected demand of the profession (Brennan, 2016;
Carliner, 2012; “Occupational Outlook Handbook:
Technical Writers,” 2018).
We ask scholars to consider if a de-emphasis on
these types of topics is deliberate or necessary for
growth. As an example, editing and style was the least
frequent primary topic. The topic accounted for 1.93%
of the sample compared to the 13.69% of articles on
rhetoric. Editing and style is a topic that the field has
not yet interrogated through rigorous scholarship,
and, in fact, much of the related information that
we teach students has been described as “technical
communication lore” (Graham, 2017, p. 13). Further,
a recent census of the field found that editing was
the second most prominent work responsibility of
the 676 participants (after content creation), with
12% identifying it as a primary responsibility, 31%
as a secondary responsibility, and 15% as a tertiary
responsibility (Carliner & Chen, 2018). In his recent
editorial, Graham (2017) wrote that effective technical
writing was nearly universally understood to be clear,
concise, situated within a genre, and directed toward
a specific audience. He argued that only half of these
virtues (audience and genre accommodation) were
well established through rigorous scholarship, while
research related to clarity and concision were often
based on anecdotal or contradictory information.
Such foundational topics may be less appealing to
developing technical communication scholars, but
with the continuing growth of content management
systems and user-generated content along with ongoing
changes in what audiences consider appropriate in
given communicative situations, the need for research
focused on editing and style is large. In fact, technical
editing remains one of the most under-researched
subfield in technical communication (Boettger, 2014;
Eaton, 2010).
If lack of interest explains the absence of some
topics, relevancy to the field might explain the absence
of others. Usability/UX, which partially evolved
from technical communication research, is now, by
many measures, its own field of study, with its own
conferences, publication forums, and professional
organizations (J. Redish, 2010; J. G. Redish & Barnum,
2011). Redish and Barnum (2011) observed that they
do not see many technical communicators at UXPA
(the annual conference for usability professionals), nor
do they see UX professionals presenting at technical
communication conferences. They note that while
both are part of the same family tree, sharing a deeply
intertwined history, the two fields are now more like
“distant cousins” (p. 100). Results from the present
study suggest that technical communication journals
have largely ceded the study of this topic. The loss
becomes particularly troublesome when a recent
analysis of research methods found that the usability/
UX articles published in technical communication
journals were typically replicable, aggregable, and data-
supported (Lam & Boettger, 2017).
Future research needs to investigate why scholarship
on these foundational topics are appearing with less
frequency. We concede that our analysis of academic
journals provides an incomplete perspective of the
field’s overall content distribution and that trade
publications like Intercom might cover these topics with
more depth. However, these foundational topics merit
scholarly attention since “knowledge derived from basic
and applied research” could benefit both the practice
and the theory of technical communication (Rainey
& Kelly, 1992, p. 570). These disconnects are further
evidence of the field’s incommensurability problem (St.
Amant & Melonçon, 2016).
Content primarily focused on rhetoric,
pedagogy, genre, and diversity appeared
in the journals more than expected.
Results further indicated that scholarship on rhetoric,
pedagogy, genre, and diversity appeared in the sample
more than expected. From a content perspective,
Boettger and Friess (2016) argued that rhetoric was
needed to inform technical communication, but
rhetoric, when explored in abstract, was not technical
communication (p. 321). Pedagogical research has been
found to be of limited value to practitioners because
they often have limited applicability outside the
classroom (St.Amant & Melonçon, 2016). Pedagogy is
arguably a topic that fits best in the academy; however,
the field’s current pedagogical research often involves
classroom experience reports, which typically have
limited value beyond that particular experience (Lam
& Boettger, 2017). Eaton refers to this research as
“cup of coffee articles;” the results are useful, but only
as useful as having a cup of coffee with a colleague
20 Technical Communication l Volume 67, Number 3, August 2020
Applied Research
CONTENT AND AUTHORSHIP PATTERNS
and discussing an experience (Eaton, 2010, p. 9).
Other popular topics, such as genre, have already
been well established through rigorous scholarship
(Graham, 2017). The field then needs to consider if the
amount of research being published on these topics is
warranted (or even necessary).
In addition, the field needs to consider if the
scope of the coverage these popular topics receive is
sufficient. For example, genre research may appear
more than expected, but scholars might consider the
breadth of this scholarship. As noted previously, the role
of the technical communicator is evolving, including
the variety of products produced (Hart & Conklin,
2006). Recent census results suggest that technical
communicators primarily produce user guides and help
and user assistance topics (66% and 52%, respectively);
however, these professionals are also creating user
interfaces, marketing information, white papers, social
media content, and chatbots (Carliner & Chen, 2018).
Additionally, attention to technical communication
standards, structured writing, and agile work practices
are informing how technical communications develop
these products.
And despite its visibility in the journals, the
diversity in scholarship has been described as under-
representative and, as an example, includes little
perspective of women of color and their experiences in
professional and technical communication (Jones et al.,
2016). This present study builds from previous studies
where content related to gender and intercultural
communication were coded separately (Boettger et al.,
2015; Boettger & Friess, 2016; Boettger et al., 2014;
Boettger & Lam, 2013). We collapsed these categories
and expanded the code book definition in response to
the growing amount of scholarship focused on diversity
and inclusion. The further production of scholarship
coded as diversity will be more evident in a ten-year
follow-up study.
From a methodological perspective, the approaches
used to address these popular topics contrast with
the approaches used to address less popular topics. A
study of recent technical communication scholarship
found that 68.8% of rhetoric, 75% of pedagogy, and
53.8% of genre research was non-empirical (Lam
& Boettger, 2017). In particular, the rhetoric and
pedagogy research revealed a heavy concentration of
theory and commentary-based research when compared
to the other topic areas assessed. Another recent study
identified similar trends, including that TPC published
almost 40% of the empirical research among the five
leading technical communication journals (Melonçon
& St.Amant, 2018). The findings suggest that technical
communication research leans toward topics that have
routinely not required rigorous empirical analyses, rigor
that would likely be expected if the same research were
to be published in other fields.
Professional and technical communication research
is typically produced by a homogenous population.
Results of the present study also revealed salient
findings related to authorship. In her earlier study,
Smith reported that male authors outnumbered female
authors by a 2:1 measure (Smith, 2000b). Our results
suggested that authorship has achieved more parity over
22 years. Female-first authors appeared in our sample
slightly more often than males (50.7% compared to
49.3%). JBTC, TCQ, and TPC all published more
female-first authored pieces than male. This gender
distribution is consistent with what has been previously
reported in JBTC (Burnett, 2003) and potentially
surprising to those who considered TPC more male-
dominated due to the journal’s engineering origins.
We also found female authors collaborated more
than males, a pattern that aligned with Smith’s (2000b)
earlier findings. A chi square test measuring males’
tendency to publish as single authors and females’
tendency to collaborate was significant. Overall,
authorship among the five academic journals varied.
JBTC and TC corresponded with co-authorship,
and TPC corresponded with multi-authorship. TCQ
and JTWC did not correspond with any pattern, but
they published more singled-authored pieces than
collaborative. We also reported preliminary information
that suggested a mentorship pattern; students were
lead author on almost a quarter of the subsample we
analyzed. Additional research needs to be conducted
on collaboration patterns, but a trend toward student-
mentor publications would be a positive growth sign for
the field.
However, beyond the gender balance of first
authors and potentially positive trends in collaboration,
the typical technical communication scholar was
rather homogeneous. Authors in our sample were
overwhelmingly based in North America (almost
exclusively in the United States) and held an academic
affiliation. Further, of the 92.1% of the articles that
Volume 67, Number 3, August 2020 l Technical Communication 21
Ryan K. Boettger and Erin Friess
Applied Research
had first authors affiliated with academic institutions,
59.9% were affiliated with 12 academic institutions.
Of these 12 institutions, 11 were large (over 20,000
students) public institutions based in the United States.
This suggests that the majority of the field’s research
is conducted at only a handful of similar academic
institutions concentrated in the US.
This suggests that voices that should be crucial
in the shaping of the technical communication field
are largely missing from the published research.
Despite being a field that grounds itself in real-
world communicative practices, voices from industry
professionals are largely absent. With the omission
of industry input, academic-driven research occupies
much of the research journals with content areas that
may be beneficial for tenure and promotion but of less
value to a manager wanting to learn more about best
practices in, for example, API documentation.
International voices were also largely absent from
the data set. A lack of authorship diversity also assumes
a lack of content that examines the different roles
of technical communicators in other countries. In a
recent tcworld post, an international business owner
wrote that Korean and Japanese technical writers
primarily produced documents for consumer products
while U.S. technical writers covered a larger product
range (Kim, 2017). These different functions require
different skillsets, and the business owner stated that
the U.S. content she’s consulted over her career has not
emphasized the character traits essential to developing
consumer manuals. Over 75% of our journal
articles were written by first authors with U.S.-based
affiliations, and the remaining authors were dispersed
among three world regions: Europe, Asia, and Australia.
This pattern leads us to wonder why authors with more
geographically diverse affiliations are not publishing in
our leading journals, and, as important, what content
they are reading (and perhaps producing elsewhere)
about technical communication.
Our results offer several points of entry regarding
the future scholarship in professional and technical
communication. We invite readers to consider if these
content and authorship patterns are the products
of deliberate choices, and, if so, if this is the field’s
inevitable trajectory for the next 30 years. In turn, if
some of these patterns were influenced by alternative
factors, are there ways the field could or should adjust?
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, our study currently provides the most
comprehensive, longitudinal analysis of content and
authorship patterns within the leading technical
communication journals. While other journals exist
on the periphery of the field, they do not yet have the
sustained publication record to be included in this
particular study; however, future researchers may wish
to complement this current study with data from those
forums.
In terms of authorship, our study suggests that a
narrow band of researchers with relatively homogenous
characteristics drives the research of the field.
Underrepresented voices, namely non-U.S. scholars and
industry professionals, are needed to help accurately
shape the field from a research perspective.
While authorship in technical communication
research potentially suffers from a homogeneity
problem, the content areas in technical communication
potentially suffer from a diversity problem. Carolyn
Rude asked, “What makes technical communication
distinct and recognizable?” (Rude, 2009, p. 175).
Our research fails to locate a satisfactory answer to
that question. The sheer broadness of the field (as
evidenced in the 15 identified content areas) hampers
our ability to identify what does, in fact, make technical
communication distinct and recognizable. Turning to
the content areas that appear most frequently doesn’t
help us answer Rude’s question as those content areas
either exist as their own academic discipline (e.g.,
rhetoric) or within any number of academic disciplines
(e.g., pedagogy, diversity). The content areas that have
traditionally been tied to technical communication
(e.g., usability/UX, editing and style, design, and
knowledge and information management) appear so
infrequently in the published research it is difficult to
suggest that those content areas help to make technical
communication, from a research perspective, distinct
and recognizable. Rather than laud this content area
diversity (Rainey, 1999), this diversity gives us pause.
Rude suggested that “an academic identity with research
that others recognize requires some consensus on the
value we bring to knowledge making” (Rude, 2009,
p. 175). Our results suggest that such a consensus still
eludes the field.
Thirty years later, our results reflect consistency and
distinction, at best, or complacency and stagnation, at
22 Technical Communication l Volume 67, Number 3, August 2020
Applied Research
CONTENT AND AUTHORSHIP PATTERNS
worst. The field has demonstrated that it can pivot and
hold the line. However, this occurred at a time when
its scholars seemed to mutually agree on the direction
forward. Our results suggest several paths forward, but
the field must first establish a new common ground
for technical communication to move forward with
relevance, sustainability, and cohesion.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank Saul Carliner for his contributions
and feedback on previous versions of this research.
REFERENCES
Abbasi, A., Chung, K. S. K., & Hossain, L. (2012).
Egocentric analysis of co-authorship network
structure, position and performance. Information
Processing & Management, 48(4), 671–679.
Blakeslee, A. M. (2009). The technical communication
research landscape. Journal of Business and Technical
Communication, 23(2), 129–173.
Boettger, R. K. (2014). The technical communication
editing test: Three studies on this assessment type.
Technical Communication, 61(4), 215–231.
Boettger, R. K., Carliner, S., & Friess, E. (2015).
Update to who says what to whom? Assessing
the alignment of content and audience between
scholarly and professional publications in technical
communication (1996–2013). Paper presented at
the Proceedings of the IEEE 2015 International
Professional Communication Conference,
Limerick, Ireland.
Boettger, R. K., & Friess, E. (2016). Academics are
from Mars, practitioners are from Venus: Analyzing
content alignment within technical communication
forums. Technical Communication, 63(4), 314–327.
Boettger, R. K., Friess, E., & Carliner, S. (2014).
Who says what to whom? Assessing the alignment
of content and audience between scholarly and
professional publications in technical communication
(1996-2013). Paper presented at the Proceedings
of the IEEE 2014 International Professional
Communication Conference, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.
Boettger, R. K., & Lam, C. (2013). An overview of
experimental and quasi-experimental research in
technical communication journals (1992–2011).
IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication,
56(4), 272–293.
Boettger, R. K., & Palmer, L. A. (2010). Quantitative
content analysis: Its use in technical and
professional communication. IEEE Transactions on
Professional Communication, 53(4), 346–357.
Brammer, C., & Galloway, R. (2007). IEEE
Transactions on Professional Communication:
Looking to the past to discover the present. IEEE
Transactions on Professional Communication, 50(4),
275–279.
Brennan, A. T. (2016). The potential impact of industry
classification code changes for tech comm providers.
Paper presented at the Professional Communication
Conference (IPCC), 2016 IEEE International.
Brumberger, E., & Lauer, C. (2015). The evolution of
technical communication: An analysis of industry
job postings. Technical Communication, 62(4),
224–243.
Bunea, A., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2014). The state of
the discipline: authorship, research designs, and
citation patterns in studies of EU interest groups
and lobbying. Journal of European Public Policy,
21(10), 1412–1434.
Burnett, R. E. (2003). A farewell. Journal of Business
and Technical Communication, 17(1), 3–8.
Carliner, S. (2012). The three approaches to
professionalization in technical communication.
Technical Communication, 59(1), 49–65.
Carliner, S., & Chen, Y. (2018). What technical
communicators do. Intercom, 65(8), 13–16.
Carliner, S., Coppola, N., Grady, H., & Hayhoe, G.
F. (2011). What does the Transactions publish?
What do Transactions’ readers want to read? IEEE
Transactions on Professional Communication, 54(4),
341–359.
Carver, M. (1998). Finding a home for technical
communication in the academy. Paper presented at
the Proceedings of the 16th annual international
conference on Computer documentation.
Cook, K. C., Thralls, C., & Zachry, M. (2003).
Doctoral-level graduates in professional, technical,
and scientific communication 1995–2000: A
profile. Technical Communication, 50(2), 160–173.
Eaton, A. (2010). Conducting research in technical
editing. In A. J. Murphy (Ed.), New perspectives on
technical editing (pp. 7–28). Baywood.
Volume 67, Number 3, August 2020 l Technical Communication 23
Ryan K. Boettger and Erin Friess
Applied Research
Eigenberg, H. M., & Whalley, E. (2015). Gender
and publication patterns: Female authorship is
increasing, but is there gender parity? Women &
Criminal Justice, 25(1–2), 130–144.
Ezema, I. J., & Asogwa, B. E. (2014). Citation analysis
and authorship patterns of two linguistics journals.
portal: Libraries and the Academy, 14(1), 67–85.
Fine, M. G. (1996). Cultural diversity in the workplace:
The state of the field. The Journal of Business
Communication (1973), 33(4), 485–502.
Forman, J. (1998). More than survival: The discipline
of business communication and the uses of
translation. The Journal of Business Communication
(1973), 35(1), 50–68.
Fox, C. W., Burns, C. S., Muncy, A. D., & Meyer,
J. A. (2016). Gender differences in patterns of
authorship do not affect peer review outcomes
at an ecology journal. Functional Ecology, 30(1),
126–139.
Frey, L. R. (1994). The naturalistic paradigm: Studying
small groups in the postmodern era. Small Group
Research, 25, 551–557.
Friess, E. (2018). “Filling to capacity”: An exploratory
study of project management language in Agile
Scrum teams. Technical Communication, 65(2),
169–180.
Garrison, K. (2014). The scientist, philosopher, and
rhetorician: The three dimensions of technical
communication and technology. Journal of Technical
Writing and Communication, 44(4), 359–380.
Gomes, E., Barnes, B. R., & Mahmood, T. (2016). A
22 year review of strategic alliance research in the
leading management journals. International business
review, 25(1), 15–27.
Graham, S. S. (2017). Data and lore in technical
communication research: Guest editorial.
Communication Design Quarterly Review, 5(1), 8–25.
Greenacre, M. (2007). Correspondence Analysis in
Practice. Chapman & Hall.
Hannah, M. A., & Lam, C. (2016). Patterns of
dissemination: Examining and documenting
practitioner knowledge sharing practices on blogs.
Technical Communication, 63(4), 328–345.
Hart, H., & Conklin, J. (2006). Toward a meaningful
model of technical communication. Technical
Communication, 53(4), 395–415.
Haselkorn, M. P. (1997). The future of technical
communication. Technical Communication, 44(3),
220.
Hayhoe, G. F. (2006). Needed research in
global technical communication. Technical
Communication, 53(2), 141–142.
Johnson, M. A., Simmons, W. M., & Sullivan, P.
(2018). Lean technical communication : toward
sustainable program innovation. Routledge, Taylor &
Francis Group.
Jones, N. N., Moore, K. R., & Walton, R. (2016).
Disrupting the past to disrupt the future: An
antenarrative of technical communication. Technical
Communication Quarterly, 25(4), 211–229.
Juzwik, M., Curcic, S., Wolbers, K., Moxley, K.,
Dimling, L., & Shankland, R. (2006). Writing
into the 21st century: An overview of research on
writing, 1999 to 2004. Written Communication,
23(4), 451–476.
Kacmar, K. M., & Baron, R. A. (1999). Organizational
politics: The state of the field, links to related
processes, and an agenda for future research. In
G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in human resources
management, volume 17 (pp. 1–39). Elsevier
Science/JAI Press.
Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research
collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.
Kim, Y. (2017). Technical writing in Korea and Japan:
A strong focus on the user. http://www.tcworld.
info/e-magazine/business-culture/article/technical-
writing-in-korea-and-japan-a-strong-focus-on-the-
user/
Kimball, M. A. (2015). Special issue introduction
Technical Communication: How a few great
companies get it done. Technical Communication,
62(2), 88–103.
Kirschenbaum, M., & Werner, S. (2014). Digital
scholarship and digital studies: The state of the
discipline. Book History, 17(1), 406–458.
Krippendorff, K. (2012). Content analysis: An
introduction to its methodology. Sage.
Lam, C. (2014). Where did we come from and where
are we going? Examining authorship characteristics
in technical communication research. IEEE
Transactions in Professional Communication, 57(4),
266–285.
http://www.tcworld
24 Technical Communication l Volume 67, Number 3, August 2020
Applied Research
CONTENT AND AUTHORSHIP PATTERNS
Lam, C., & Boettger, R. (2017). An overview of research
methods in technical communication journals
(2012–2016). Paper presented at the Professional
Communication Conference (ProComm), 2017
IEEE International.
Lanier, C. R. (2004). Electronic editing and the author.
Technical Communication, 51(4), 526–536.
Lanier, C. R. (2009). Analysis of the skills called for by
technical communication employers in recruitment
postings. Technical Communication, 56(1), 51–61.
Lanier, C. R. (2018). Toward understanding important
workplace issues for technical communicators.
Technical Communication, 65(1), 66–84.
Lauer, C., & Brumberger, E. (2016). Technical
communication as user experience in a broadening
industry landscape. Technical Communication,
63(3), 248–264.
Lowry, P. B., Humpherys, S. L., Malwitz, J., & Nix,
J. (2007). A scientometric study of the perceived
quality of business and technical communication
journals. IEEE Transactions on Professional
Communication, 50(4), 352–378.
Lynn, N. B., & Wildavsky, A. B. (1990). Public
administration: The state of the discipline. Chatham
House Pub.
MacNealy, M. S. (1999). Strategies for empirical research
in writing. Longman.
Malone, E. A. (2007). Historical studies of technical
communication in the United States and England:
A fifteen-year retrospection and guide to resources.
IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication,
50(4), 333–351.
Melonçon, L., & St.Amant, K. (2018). Empirical
research in technical and professional
communication: A 5-year examination of research
methods and a call for research sustainability.
Journal of Technical Writing and Communication,
49(3), 252–278.
Neuendorf, K. A. (2016). The content analysis guidebook.
Sage Publications.
Occupational Outlook Handbook: Technical Writers.
(2018). https://www.bls.gov/ooh/Media-and-
Communication/Technical-writers.htm
Perianes-Rodríguez, A., Olmeda-Gómez, C., &
Moya-Anegón, F. (2010). Detecting, identifying
and visualizing research groups in co-authorship
networks. Scientometrics, 82(2), 307–319.
Rainey, K. T. (1999). Doctoral research in technical,
scientific, and business communication, 1989–
1998. Technical Communication, 46(4), 501–531.
Rainey, K. T., & Kelly, R. S. (1992). Doctoral research
in technical communication, 1965–1990. Technical
Communication, 39(4), 552–570.
Rainey, K. T., Turner, R. K., & Dayton, D. (2005). Do
curricula correspond to managerial expectations?
Core competencies for technical communicators.
Technical Communication, 52(3), 323–352.
Raptis, P. (1992). Authorship characteristics in five
international library science journals. Libri, 42(1),
35–52.
Redish, J. (2010). Technical communication and
usability: Intertwined strands and mutual
influences. IEEE Transactions on Professional
Communication, 53(3), 191–201.
Redish, J. G., & Barnum, C. (2011). Overlap,
influence, intertwining: The interplay of UX and
technical communication. Journal of Usability
Studies, 6(3), 90–101.
Rogers, P. S. (1995). What sources have inspired our
research? Business Communication Quarterly, 58(1),
57–60.
Rude, C. D. (2009). Mapping the research questions in
technical communication. Journal of Business and
Technical Communication, 23(2), 174–215.
Siddiqui, M. A. (1997). A Bibliometric Study of
Authorship Characteristics in Four International
Information Science Journals. Paper presented at
the International Forum on Information and
Documentation.
Smith, E. O. (2000a). Points of reference in
technical communication scholarship. Technical
Communication Quarterly, 9(4), 427–453.
Smith, E. O. (2000b). Strength in the technical
communication journals and diversity in the
serials cited. Journal of Business and Technical
Communication, 14(2), 131–184.
St.Amant, K., & Melonçon, L. (2016). Reflections on
research: Examining practitioner perspectives on
the state of research in technical communication.
Technical Communication, 63(4), 346–364.
St.Amant, K., & Melonçon, L. (2016). Addressing the
incommensurable: A research-based perspective
for considering issues of power and legitimacy
in the field. Journal of Technical Writing and
Communication, 46(3), 267–283.
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Media-and-Communication/Technical-writers.htm
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Media-and-Communication/Technical-writers.htm
Volume 67, Number 3, August 2020 l Technical Communication 25
Ryan K. Boettger and Erin Friess
Applied Research
St. Clair Martin, J., Davis, B. D., & Krapels, R. H.
(2012). A comparison of the top six journals
selected as top journals for publication by business
communication educators. Journal of Business
Communication, 49(1), 3–20.
Tansey, T. N., Phillips, B. N., & Zanskas, S. A. (2012).
Doctoral dissertation research in rehabilitation
counseling: 2008–2010. Rehabilitation Counseling
Bulletin, 55(4), 232–252.
Wahlstron, B. J. (1988). Establishing Standards for
Graduate Programs in Scientific and Technical
Communication. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Council for Programsi n Technical
and Scientific Communication, Minneapolis, MN.
Watt, J., & van den Burg, S. (1995). Research methods
for communication science. Allyn and Bacon.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Ryan K. Boettger is an associate professor and assistant
chair in the Department of Technical Communication
at the University of North Texas. His research areas
include data-driven learning, content analysis, and
technical editing. His research in STEM education is
currently funded by the National Science Foundation.
He can be contacted at ryan.boettger@unt.edu.
Erin Friess is an associate professor in the Department
of Technical Communication at the University of
North Texas. Her research explores the discipline of
technical communication, workplace communication,
and usability/user experience. Her research has
appeared in IEEE Transactions on Professional
Communication, Technical Communication Quarterly,
Journal of Business and Technical Communication, and
Technical Communication. She can be contacted at
erin.friess@unt.edu.
Manuscript received 2 September 2018, revised 13 December
2018; accepted 5 March 2019.
mailto:ryan.boettger@unt.edu
mailto:erin.friess@unt.edu
mailto:ryan.boettger@unt.edu
mailto:erin.friess@unt.edu