de Jong, Menno D.T.

English

NARCIS 

Practically Meaningful Academic Research and Academically Relevant Practitioner Research

University of Twente Research Information

EDITORIALPractically MeaningfulAcademic Research andAcademically RelevantPractitioner ResearchMenno D. T. de JongEditorWhere would technicalcommunication standwithout the contributionof empirical and analyti-cal research? I don’t find it hard toanswer that question. First, I think itis questionable whether our disci-pline would have survived. Underthese circumstances, practitionerswould have to rely on experienceand professional intuitions when de-signing communicative solutions.Insights we now take for grantedwould not have existed or, at least,would not have been articulated assuch. Imagine, for instance, a situa-tion in which no systematic empiricalresearch existed on how people usemanuals or other instructional docu-ments. We would not only miss themany specific insights about topicssuch as how to index, how to chunkinformation, or how to effectivelyuse visuals; we would also lack thedeeper understanding of the behav-ior of manual users we now have.In my first editorial, I tried toemphasize the journal’s mission tobridge the academic and professionalworld. I see it as an enormous ad-vantage to be working in a disciplinewhere academics and practitionersare well connected. For practitioners,it is important that their work relatesto a substantial and identifiable bodyof knowledge, which not only pro-vides legitimacy to their expertise,but also enables them to optimizetheir work and hire new colleagues.For many academics, especially inour field, it can be very motivatingthat their work is immediately avail-able for use in professionals’ dailypractice. Technical Communicationis destined to be the premier outletfor practically meaningful academicresearch and academically relevantpractitioner research.PRACTITIONERS AS USERS OF RESEARCHARTICLESThere are, however, some challengeswe must face. Robert Krull (1997) isone of the researchers who explicitlyaddresses the problems practitionersmight have reading, interpreting, andusing academic research. His mainpoint is that not all practitioners havethe prior knowledge and researchexperience to evaluate academic re-search, in particular quantitativestudies involving causality and statis-tical testing. His article still serves asa concise and very useful guide tothe world of wonders of academicresearch. Although I don’t expectthat terminological and conceptualproblems will be at the heart of ourchallenges, we will continue our ef-forts to make research articles inTechnical Communication as clearas possible for practitioners.Caroline Jarrett (2007) describesher experiences reading researcharticles as a practitioner, basicallyobserving herself as a reader of sucharticles. She stresses the importanceof unambiguous titles, abstracts, andconclusions and warns against anymisguiding practical claims. This,too, is something we must try to ad-dress in the review procedure ofmanuscripts.Patricia Wright (1998) furtherelaborates on the problem of thepractical applicability of researchfindings and raises two fundamentalissues. One is that the generalizabil-ity of research findings may alwaysbe disputed. There will always befeatures that make a specific commu-nication product or process differentfrom the products or processes un-der study. Another issue involves theecological validity of academic re-search: the circumstances underwhich research data have been gath-ered may differ considerably fromnormal usage conditions.There may even be other, moresubstantial, problems with the appli-cability of research. First, it is impor-tant to realize that research does notnecessarily lead to clear cut guid-ance. There seems to be a cycle ofsimplifying and complicating re-search contributions. Conducting onestudy may lead to univocal conclu-sions; conducting another will proba-bly lead to less straightforwardamendments. Years ago, research ledto clear conclusions about the use ofpassive constructions (“don’t usethem”). Extensive research by LouiseCornelis (1997) led to more finelyVolume 56, Number 2, May 2009 • TechnicalCOMMUNICATION 97tuned conclusions, acknowledgingthat passives may also be functionalin communication. Second, the moreresearch develops, the more detailedissues will be involved, which maybe further removed from the dailypractice of technical communicationprofessionals. Complexity and detailare essential for the development ofour discipline but may negativelyaffect practitioners’ perceptions ofpractical relevance. Third, the re-search agenda of academics is onlyloosely connected to professionals’information needs, and the thresholdfor practitioners to contribute toTechnical Communication may behigh.FROM DISSEMINATION TO DIALOG ANDCO-PRODUCTIONThe same type of discussion can beseen in other applied academic disci-plines. In the context of managementscience, for instance, Sara Rynes(2007) speaks of an “academic–prac-tice gap” and proposes various solu-tions. A common theme in most so-lutions mentioned is that we mayneed to leave the dominant dissemi-nation model of research, in whichacademics develop their research inisolation, and then try to disseminatetheir findings to the practitioners.Instead, we need a system of dialogand co-production, in which practi-tioners and academics interact witheach other about pressing issues onthe research agenda and in whichpractitioners and academics collabo-rate to contribute to the body ofknowledge.This is certainly a direction thatwe will explore in the near future. Iintend to use STC’s annual TechnicalCommunication Summits and thejournal’s Web site to facilitate thediscussion between practitioners andacademics. Their discussion could,for instance, focus on the practicalusefulness of published articles onpractically relevant issues that de-serve research attention and on op-portunities for academic researchersto conduct research in professionalorganizational contexts.In the context of managementscience, Sara Rynes (2007) suggestedthat the academic–practice gap wouldbe an interesting research topic. In-deed, I would be more than interestedto see how technical communicationprofessionals use and judge academicresearch contributions. This is an issueat the heart of academic and profes-sional disciplines.IN THIS ISSUEThis issue of Technical Communica-tion contains seven articles. Han Yucontributes to our knowledge on in-tercultural communication by draw-ing attention to the historical back-ground of genres. Specifically, shediscusses how Chinese culinary in-structions developed over time. LeoLentz and Menno de Jong explorethe barriers technical communicationprofessionals may experience whenthey try to empathize with the usersof documents. Their study involvesprofessionals’ severity ratings ofreader problems and the argumentsthey provide for their ratings. MikeMarkel presents a tutorial on the syn-ergy of verbal and visual informationon PowerPoint or other presentationslides. Poornima Padmanabhan dis-cusses the use of goal-based scenar-ios in online instruction and trainingsituations.Three articles in this issue focuson academic programs. First, LisaMeloncon gives an overview of Mas-ter’s programs in technical communi-cation in the United States. After that,Angela Eaton describes how techni-cal communication professionals canapply to Master’s and PhD programsin technical communication. She dis-cusses the application process in de-tail and pays special attention to theperspective of academics who judgethe application materials. Finally, Jer-rod Larson and colleagues evaluatethe use of directed research groupsto train Master’s and PhD students tobecome technical communicationresearchers. TCREFERENCESCornelis, L. H. 1997. Passive andperspective. PhD dissertation, UtrechtUniversity, Utrecht, The Netherlands.Jarrett, C. 2007. Problems and joys ofreading research papers forpractitioner purposes. Journal ofusability studies 3:1–6.Krull, R. 1997. What practitioners needto know to evaluate research. IEEEtransactions on professionalcommunication 40:168–181.Rynes, S. L. 2007. Let’s create atipping point: What academics andpractitioners can do, alone andtogether. Academy of managementjournal 50:1046–1054.Wright, P. 1998. Printed instructions:Can research make a difference? InVisual information for everyday use.Design and research perspectives,Eds. H. J. Zwaga, Th. Boersma, andH.C.M. Hoonhout. London: Taylor &Francis, pp. 45–66.EDITORIALPractically meaningful and academically relevant research de Jong98 TechnicalCOMMUNICATION • Volume 56, Number 2, May 2009

https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/files/6794939/Jong09practically.pdf

Practically Meaningful Academic Research and Academically Relevant Practitioner Research

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NARCIS

University of Twente Research Information