Defining "Research": Undergraduate Perceptions of Research in a Technical Communication Classroom

DEFINING “RESEARCH”: UNDERGRADUATE

PERCEPTIONS OF RESEARCH IN A TECHNICAL

COMMUNICATION CLASSROOM

DEREK G. ROSS, PH.D.

Auburn University, Alabama

ABSTRACT

This article presents data from a two-part study of student perceptions of

research. Fifty-one research proposals are analyzed in order to understand

perceptions of research, and results from a survey are analyzed to better

understand how students both perceive and articulate their understanding

of research. The data show that students assign multiple definitions to the

concept of research, and suggest that increased attention to clarifying ter-

minology and identifying student perceptions would facilitate better work .

INTRODUCTION

Every semester that I teach an undergraduate course in technical communication,

I conduct a bit of on-the-fly research. Before I discuss research practices, I ask

my students two simple questions. First, “How many of you have been asked

to conduct research for a class or for a paper since you have been here at the

university?” Without fail, a significant portion of the class will respond that,

yes, they have been told to go out and do research. I then ask, “How many of

you have had a class that specifically addresses how to do research?” To this

question I get mixed results. I’ve had classes where many students indicate they

have had almost no training in research, classes where everyone rolls their eyes

(my supposition in this case is that yes, they have heard this before), and, every so

often, the response that led me to this article: “What do you mean by ‘research’?”

61

� 2014, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/TW.44.1.e

http://baywood.com

J. TECHNICAL WRITING AND COMMUNICATION, Vol. 44(1) 61-99, 2014

In this article, I present data from a two-part study on student understanding

and presentation of research designed to answer the questions, “How do under-

graduate students enrolled in a technical communication service course perceive

‘research’?” and, “How do these students articulate their understanding of

research?” By attempting to answer these questions, I hope to provide insight

into ways teachers of writing, particularly those who teach classes in business,

technical, and professional communication, might address the teaching of research

and related skills.

As professionals in business, professional, and technical communication, we

can agree, broadly, about what research is and what it does, but the general topic

is so complex that I began to wonder how students with disparate and often

limited exposure to focused research methods classes understand what teachers

ask of them on a regular basis. To that end, through analysis of student-created

research proposals and results from an electronically distributed survey, I examine

how students perceive the concept of “research,” how they articulate their under-

standing, and what an examination of student understanding and presentation may

mean to teachers and researchers in business, professional, and technical writing.

THE UNDERGRADUATE TECHNICAL

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH EXPERIENCE

As both Lang [1] and Nagelhout [2] note, technical writing courses may

represent the extent of an undergraduate student’s experience with writing after

first-year composition. These courses1 must present large amounts of informa-

tion in a short time to a general audience made up of students from different

educational backgrounds, majors, and with different learning goals. Because these

service courses must cover so much information,2 students may be presented with

fairly nominal explanations of research methods and practice. Students are often

required to take these courses as part of their plans of study for other majors, such

as Economics, Building Sciences, or Nutrition and Dietetics. Depending on

available course offerings, however, students may eventually take more classes

in technical and professional communication. The service course, then, may serve

the dual role of preparing students for additional study within the discipline while

exposing non-majors to theoretically and practically useful skills and knowledge.

62 / ROSS

1I refer here only to overview courses, often referred to as service courses, and not the

more in-depth technical, business, or professional communication courses required for an

undergraduate major or specialization, such as document design and editing, among others.2Consider, for example, just the “Brief Contents” of Markel’s Technical Communication,

9th edition [3]. Classes utilizing only this text could be expected to cover “understanding the

technical communication environment,” “planning the document,” “developing and testing

verbal and visual information,” and “learning important applications” in a single semester.

A single subset of one of these sections, “designing documents and web sites,” or “creating

graphics,” for example, could be the basis for an entire semester’s class.

Rachel Spilka’s 2009 article Practitioner research instruction: A neglected

curricular area in technical communication undergraduate programs [4] calls

attention to the dearth of instruction in research at the undergraduate level.

Along similar lines, Ford, Bracken, and Wilson note that “many undergraduate

programs include teaching students to conduct research as a curriculum

objective”; however, “there is a definitive gap between what we state as desired

outcomes and the content we include in our courses to teach those outcomes”

[5, p. 434]. As these authors, along with Spilka [4] and Campbell [6] note,

attention to research instruction in undergraduate programs is limited. Since

the jobs students are likely to acquire outside of the university will require

research skills [e.g., 7, 8], the focused teaching of the language of research

and research methods is vital. By carefully considering research instruction

even at the service-course level, perhaps we may see long term change in what

authors have noted as occasional incoherence and lack of focus in technical

communication research methods [e.g., 7, 9].3

DEFINING RESEARCH

Students enrolled in service technical communication courses may not intend

to follow career paths in technical communication, and research skills and prac-

tices differ among majors. A student majoring in English with an emphasis on

18th Century Literature, for example, will need different research skills than

a student majoring in Biology with an emphasis on Herpetology. Archival work

differs from field work, both of which differ from research in accessibility and

usability. Differences aside, however, “research” should convey a metanarrative

of “information literacy,” defined by The Association of Colleges & Research

Libraries’ Information Literacy Standards for Higher Education as “a set of

abilities requiring individuals to ‘recognize when information is needed and

have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information’”

[10]. Perhaps by being aware of the different ways that students in a technical

communication course perceive “research” and its many complex potential uses,

and by clearly defining “research” in their own classes, teachers of technical and

professional writing will be more able to provide valuable instruction to their

students, regardless of those student’s eventual career paths.

As Ford, Bracken, and Wilson note, “It is important to define what we mean

when we say ‘research’” [5, p. 435]. Carefully and closely defining terminology

limits confusion [e.g., 11-13], and while “the field of technical communi-

cation seems divided about which research methods are most important for

DEFINING “RESEARCH” / 63

3Most students taking the service course are not likely continuing on to a degree specifically

related to technical and professional communication. However, for those students that are

continuing on, a solid grounding in research methods and terminology will only help them

grow as professionals.

undergraduate students to master and which research skills should be covered

in undergraduate instruction” [4, p. 228], we can likely agree that students need

be familiar with at least basic research terminology and practices.

The textbooks used in technical, business, and professional communication

classrooms generally offer excellent overviews of basic research practices, but

are primarily process-oriented in their approach. While some space in textbooks

is dedicated toward working with focused accounts of research (Appendix I),

little time is spent defining research.4 Textbooks often appear to take “research”

as an already understood concept. Some authors, such as Graves and Graves,

write their way into the topic by noting that “researching a subject in technical

communication is often somewhat different than researching a subject in other

areas” [14, p. 73], or, like Lannon, by noting that “major decisions in the

workplace are based on careful research, with the findings recorded in a written

report” [15, p. 115]. Others offer definitions where simplicity elides the com-

plexity of practice. Markel, for example, defines research (both “academic” and

“workplace”) as a goal-oriented process designed to “find information” to help

you “answer a question” [13, p. 114]. Anderson, like Markel, notes a difference

between research conducted for work and for school and establishes research as

a way on the job to “develop ideas, information, and arguments” [16, p. 152].

Of six textbooks I examined,5 Johnson-Sheehan’s introduction to research

offers the most compact rhetorically-comprehensive definition while suggesting

awareness of information literacy:

You should view “research” as a form of information management. Research

is now a process of shaping the flow of information, so you can locate and

utilize the information you need. As an information manager, you need to

learn how to evaluate, prioritize, interpret, and store that information so you

can use it effectively [18, p. 145].

Johnson-Sheehan’s definition of research, one which considers the complexities

of research in relation to ongoing projects, while still process-oriented, may

help students see how their research-related actions merge with their growing

professional identities.

Allen and Benninghoff showed that, as of 2004, the top five core topics taught

in technical and professional communication programs were “rhetorical analysis,

document design, genre writing, working in a team, and editing for clarity and

64 / ROSS

4This is where we run into a major catch-22 of survey and introductory classes. Students

need to know process for their real-world careers, but process without theory creates

uninformed workers—they may know how to do something, but not when or why. Conversely,

if we try to teach research theory in a 15-week course that may be students’ only experience

with technical communication, we run the risk of not being able to give them the tools they

will need on the job.5Anderson, 2007 [16]; Dobrin, Keller, and Weisser, 2008 [17]; Graves and Graves, 2007

[14]; Johnson-Sheehan, 2007 [18]; Lannon, 2008 [15]; and Markel, 2010 [13].

conciseness” [19, p. 328]. Nowhere in this list does “properly conduct and present

research” appear, nor should it, necessarily, as the conduct and presentation of

research is often built into other course elements. As Spilka points out, however,

this lack of specific attention to research may indicate a much larger problem—if

students aren’t prepared to conduct research and understand the implications of

their actions, their professional careers (and our related fields) could suffer [4].

I argue that teachers should not take understanding of “research” for granted,

and I hypothesize that clarifying terms and expectations early in a course which

requires research components would do much to alleviate student confusion

and perhaps add value to research-related discussions. The remainder of this

article will consider student perceptions and articulations of their understanding

of research through an examination of student-created research proposals and

the results of an electronic survey. It is my hope that this work will help teachers

more effectively instruct their students in the classroom setting.

METHODS

This study, conducted in two parts, first examines an opportunistic sample

of student-produced research proposals obtained from my own classes as a way

to better understand how students collect and present research within a semi-

controlled environment, and, second, examines results from a survey distributed

to all students enrolled the introduction to technical writing courses during the

Spring semester of 2009 at a large southwestern university about their under-

standing of research and research practices. The qualitative coding of research

proposals was performed prior to the design of the survey so that the opportunistic

sample could be used to inform survey language, design, and layout.6

Sample and Analysis of Research Proposals

The first part of this study was conducted to identify how students wrote

about “research” in their own work and to determine if student perceptions of

research were varied enough for additional exploration. The sample consisted of

51 research proposal projects written in response to a persistent assignment

description (Appendix II), submitted between Summer 2006 and Fall 2008 from

a pool of 211 students’ work over the course of 12 separate classes. The proposals

were completed as group projects, usually with three to five members per group,

for a total of three to five proposals submitted per class per semester.

The assignment was designed to teach students about the conduct and presen-

tation of research, as well as the genre-specific goal of learning proposal writing.

The students were exposed to classroom lectures on the nature and presentation of


6All aspects of this study were conducted in full compliance with guidelines established

by the institutional review board for human subjects research.

research, source credibility, audience analysis, and the proposal as a genre, as well

as given numerous workshop opportunities where I gave directed individual and

group instruction on both research and presentation.

The proposal projects I examined contained cover memos documenting

research processes and repetitive genre elements which emphasized the research-

driven component of the assignment (for example, executive summaries and

introductions). In coding these research proposals for student perceptions of

research, many references to research7 were discarded because of their generic use

in titles, such as, “A proposal to research X,” or in blanket statements regarding

the research process, such as “we will research X.” Close textual analysis of these

documents using a grounded theory approach,8 however, revealed 61 statements

which appear to offer some insight into how students actually perceive research.9

These statements were coded into 20 unique ways (categories) in which students

wrote about research. For example, language use in some reports indicated that

students viewed research as a tool, in other reports research was viewed as a

weapon, and, in still others, as a lens—all ways of knowing/seeing that indicate

different perceptions of the conduct and presentation of research. These categories

appeared to separate into two overarching categories: articulations of research as

active and articulations of research as passive. Because my qualitative rhetorical

analysis could only suggest student perception, the categories which emerged

from this analysis were tested on the electronically distributed survey by using

a 4-point Likert-type scale (four points of agreement in addition to an N/A option)

to have students indicate their agreement with each category (Appendix III,

question 16). The results from this question are presented in Table 1.

Electronically Distributed Survey

The electronically-distributed survey shown in Appendix III systematically

qualitatively and quantitatively assessed students’ understanding of research, the

training they received in relation to the conduct and presentation of research, and

their perceptions of the use and presentation of research in their own work.

The survey was distributed via electronic link to a survey-management site.

The link was distributed via e-mail to students enrolled in all Introduction to

Technical Writing classes at the university for the semester. The link was also

presented in-class by willing instructors and time given for completion of the

66 / ROSS

7A word-frequency count showed that the word “research” appeared 1163 times in the

documents, “researched” 63 times, “researchers” 26 times, and “researching” 126 times.8See, for example, Glaser and Strauss’s The Discovery of Grounded Theory [20].9These statements fit into the category of the “interesting phenomena in the material [which]

help […] to select the areas which might be interesting within the sphere defined by the research

questions” to which Hansen and Kautz [21, p. 3] refer in relation to grounded theory research,

and contribute to the narrative that “emerg[es] from the data,” as noted by Glaser and Strauss

[20, p. 46].

Tab

le1

.P

erc

en

tA

gre

em

en

tw

ith

Descri

ptio

ns

ofR

esearc

h

Researc

his

...

Str

on

gly

ag

ree

Ag

ree

Dis

ag

ree

Str

on

gly

dis

ag

ree

N/A

Avera

ge

ratin

ga

Art

icu

latio

ns

of

researc

has

passiv

e

Researc

has

so

meth

ing

that

can

be

man

ipu

late

d

Art

icu

latio

ns

of

researc

has

ap

rocess

Art

icu

latio

ns

of

researc

has

active

Cap

ital

Aw

eap

on

Ato

ol

Aco

mm

od

ity

Are

so

urc

eE

vid

en

ce

Ale

ns

Ob

tain

ab

leb

Sta

ckab

leT

esta

ble

Co

ntin

uo

us

Co

mp

licate

dS

ub

jective

Co

llab

ora

tive

Perf

orm

ed

Wo

rk

Fix

es

Pro

ves

Co

nstr

ucts

ch

ara

cte

rc

Sh

ow

sO

utlin

es

Investig

ate

sd

Gen

era

tes

info

rmatio

ne

17

.7%

19

.4%

46

.0%

26

.2%

39

.7%

41

.3%

21

.0%

45

.2%

29

.0%

48.4

%

54.8

%2

7.9

%2

2.6

%3

2.3

%3

3.9

%4

3.5

%

24

.6%

31

.7%

21

.3%

26

.2%

21

.3%

39

.3%

39

.3%

59.7

%41.9

%49.2

%52.5

%57.1

%52.4

%53.2

%

46.8

%50.0

%4

5.2

%

33

.9%

47.5

%59.7

%59.7

%53.2

%46.8

%

44.3

%45.0

%49.2

%67.2

%65.6

%54.1

%52.5

%

3.2

%2

2.6

%4

.8%

11

.5%

3.2

%4

.8%

9.7

%

6.5

%8

.1%

3.2

%

6.5

%1

4.8

%9

.7%

3.2

%8

.1%

4.8

%

18

.0%

18

.3%

19

.7%

4.9

%8

.2%

4.9

%3

.3%

3.2

%6

.5%

0.0

%1

.6%

0.0

%0

.0%

1.6

%

0.0

%1

.6%

1.6

%

0.0

%1

.6%

3.2

%1

.6%

1.6

%3

.2%

1.6

%0

.0%

1.6

%0

.0%

1.6

%0

.0%

1.6

%

16

.1%

9.7

%0

.0%

8.2

%0

.0%

1.6

%1

4.5

%

1.6

%1

1.3

%1

.6%

4.8

%8

.2%

4.8

%3

.2%

3.2

%1

.6%

11

.5%

5.0

%8

.2%

1.6

%3

.3%

1.6

%3

.3%

1.9

2.1

81

.59

1.8

81

.63

1.6

31

.91

1.6

11

.80

1.5

7

1.4

91

.89

1.9

31

.73

1.7

71

.67

1.9

61

.86

2.0

21

.78

1.9

01

.65

1.6

6

aS

tate

men

tsw

ere

rate

do

n4

-po

int

Lik

ert

-typ

escale

,w

ith

1b

ein

g“s

tro

ng

lyag

ree,”

2b

ein

g“a

gre

e,”

3b

ein

g“d

isag

ree,”

an

d4

bein

g“s

tro

ng

lyd

isag

ree.”

N/A

was

als

oan

op

tio

n.

bO

bta

inab

lew

as

ad

ded

for

the

ele

ctr

on

icsu

rvey.

c“C

hara

cte

r”w

as

ch

osen

as

aro

ug

hap

pro

xim

atio

nfo

reth

os,

as

itseem

ed

aclo

ser

fit

toth

ew

ay

stu

den

tsw

ere

wri

tin

gin

their

pro

po

sals

than

“cre

dib

ility

,”an

dseem

ed

likely

tob

em

ore

read

ilyu

nd

ers

too

d.

d“I

nvestig

ate

s”

an

d“G

en

era

tes

Info

rmatio

n”

were

ch

osen

tore

pla

ce

“fin

ds.”


survey. A reading on research was provided for students who either did not

wish to participate, or who had already completed the survey via the e-mailed

link, during the in-class sessions.

The 20 survey questions fell into three main categories: definitions and per-

ceptions of research, conduct of research, and research practices. Additionally,

I collected demographic information such as class rank and age.

Coding responses to the open-ended question, “In one sentence, define

‘research,’” using a grounded theory approach, generated two overarching

categories in which students appeared to view research as a way to “accumulate”

information or as a way to “investigate” a problem. After developing and describ-

ing these two categories, I trained a colleague on my coding scheme and had

her re-code responses into my previously developed categories using an online

card-sorting technique. A process of discussion and definitional refinement

resulted in 93% interrater agreement. To test the refined definitions and sorting,

30% of the original sample were randomly selected using a random number

generator (random.org), and given to a third coder after discussing the coding

strategy. This process resulted in 83% initial agreement (moderate agreement,

e.g., [22]). Discussion with the third coder and subsequent recoding resulted in

100% agreement.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION I: QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS

OF STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF RESEARCH

Analysis of student-created research proposals suggested that while “research”

is often used as a commonplace concept intended to bring an audience to a place

of shared understanding, students also used “research” in association with other

words and phrases which indicated underlying perceptions of what “research”

is, and how it may be used. Two overarching categories, “research as active” and

“research as passive,” emerged. Each category contains associated subcategories.

The different ways that students wrote about research suggested that further

study (in this case, the survey) was warranted.

Research as Active

The category “Research as Active” emerged from student writings which

suggested “research” as an agent with its own agency. In this case, students’ use

of “research” indicates that research itself (not the researcher) “does” something.

In the associations coded as active, research fixes, proves, constructs ethos,

shows, outlines, and finds (Table 2).

When research “fixes,” students portray research as actively functioning to

solve a problem. When it “proves,” research is assumed to have truth-value

in-and-of itself. When research constructs ethos, students write about research

in such a way that “research” establishes character through its own assumed value.

68 / ROSS

Tab

le2

.A

rtic

ula

tio

ns

ofR

esearc

has

Active

Sta

tem

en

tP

rop

osalan

dyear

Exam

ple

fro

mstu

den

tre

searc

hp

rop

osal

Researc

hfixes

Researc

hp

roves

Researc

h

co

nstr

ucts

eth

os

Researc

hsh

ow

s

Researc

ho

utlin

es

Researc

hfin

ds

Fre

ed

ay

care

,F

all

20

06

Ind

oo

rw

ate

rp

ark

,

Sp

rin

g2

00

7

Ro

om

mate

matc

hin

g,2

00

7

Pig

eo

np

ois

on

ing

,

Su

mm

er

20

07

Sm

okin

go

rdin

an

ce,

Sp

rin

g2

00

7

Textb

oo

kb

uyb

ack

fees,

Su

mm

er

20

06

Teach

er

pay,F

all

20

06

Ad

ditio

ns

tosta

diu

m,

Su

mm

er

20

06

Exte

nd

ed

din

ing

ho

urs

,

Fall

20

07

“We

can

fix

that

with

pro

per

researc

h,as

ou

tlin

ed

inth

isp

rop

osal”

“We

develo

ped

this

su

rvey

ino

rder

top

rove

toth

ed

ecis

ion

maker

that

there

isin

tere

st

inth

isp

roje

ct”

“Pro

ven

thro

ug

hsta

tistics,stu

den

tsliv

ing

on

cam

pu

sh

ave

ab

ett

er

gra

de

po

int

avera

ge”

“We

are

asm

all

researc

hg

rou

pin

tere

ste

din

help

ing

[th

e]

Un

ivers

ity”

“Researc

hh

as

sh

ow

nth

at

no

nsm

okers

su

ffer

man

yo

fth

esam

ed

iseases

as

sm

okers

do

wh

en

they

inh

ale

seco

nd

han

dsm

oke”

“Th

ere

searc

hals

osh

ow

sth

at

the

incre

ase

inb

uyb

ack

perc

en

tag

eis

in

the

wo

rks

for

the

near

futu

re;

as

stu

den

ts’vo

ice

their

neg

ative

co

ncern

s,

an

das

inte

rnet

co

mp

etitio

nin

cre

ases”

“Th

ere

searc

h,p

erf

orm

ed

by

the

Am

eri

can

Fed

era

tio

no

fT

each

ers

,

ind

icate

sth

at

[...]”

“Ou

rre

searc

ho

utlin

es

the

feasib

ility

ofad

din

g1

0,0

00

seats

to[t

he]

Sta

diu

mw

ith

the

sam

eeco

no

mic

imp

act

ofad

din

g8

,00

0seats

”

“Ou

rre

searc

hfo

un

dth

at

[th

e]

majo

rity

ofth

ose

su

rveyed

wh

ofo

un

dth

e

mark

et

ho

urs

inco

nven

ien

tw

ere

stu

den

tscu

rren

tly

livin

go

ncam

pu

s”


When research “shows,” the research itself functions as the vehicle for bringing

an idea or object to the reader’s attention, and when research “outlines,”

“research” itself seems to function as a descriptor, rather than the findings.

Last, when research “finds,” the researchers relinquish agency and credit for

findings to the act of research itself.

Research as Passive

The category “Research as Passive” emerged from student writings which

suggested “research” as having no agency. In this case, student use of “research”

and related terminology suggests that research simply “is.” Here, research is a

thing that can be manipulated or a process that can be done, but does not do. As

a “thing,” research is capital, a weapon, a tool,10 a commodity, a lens, evidence,

or is a resource (Table 3). Important to note here is that research becomes a

tool which must be wielded—students write about research as something they

could almost pick up and put down. Hence, the things students do with research

are active, but research itself is passive and, to some extent, treated as an object

(for example, I swing a hammer, but the hammer itself does nothing until

I swing it). Related to these categories are two ways in which research can

be manipulated: research can be stacked, and research can be tested (Table 4).

As a process, research is continuous, complicated, subjective, collaborative,

performed, and work (Table 5).

When research functions as “capital,” students portray research much the

same way as money—something that can be spent. When functioning as a

“weapon,” research is portrayed as something which has the potential to be

used for devastating effect. As a “tool,” research is written about as the method

in-and-of-itself to reach a desired goal, and, as a “commodity,” as something

which can be exchanged or bartered (beyond money). As a “lens,” research

is through what results are seen (and can be “focused”), and, as “evidence,”

research becomes unequivocal proof, again, in-and-of itself. As a “resource,”

research is treated in much the same way as time or money: research can be

“put in” to a project.

When portrayed as a thing, research can be manipulated. Students write about

research as “stackable,” where subsequent research events can be put together,

and “testable,” where research itself can be verified.

70 / ROSS

10 Several of these categories suggest action, but are written about in such a way that they

do not appear to be an agent, or have unique agency. “Weapon” and “tool,” for example, remain

in the “passive” category because the way students use associated language suggests that they

view research, in these cases, as things they may use—not research as doing something in and

of itself. A hammer, for example, is passive because it does not and cannot do anything by

itself, just as a “weapon” is passive until it is wielded.

Tab

le3

.A

rtic

ula

tio

ns

ofR

esearc

has

Passiv

e

Sta

tem

en

tP

rop

osalan

dyear

Exam

ple

fro

mstu

den

tre

searc

hp

rop

osal

Researc

has

cap

ital

Researc

has

weap

on

Researc

has

too

l

Researc

has

co

mm

od

ity

Researc

has

len

s

Researc

has

evid

en

ce

Researc

has

reso

urc

e

Sm

okin

go

rdin

an

ce,

Sp

rin

g2

00

7

Sex

ed

ucatio

n,F

all

20

06

Aw

ay

gam

esp

irit,

Su

mm

er

20

08

Nap

pin

gare

a,F

all

20

07

New

str

ain

so

fco

tto

n,

Sp

rin

g2

00

7

Hig

hsch

oo

lfo

otb

all,

Sp

rin

g2

00

7

Lo

were

dstu

den

tm

ed

ical

fees,F

all

20

07

Stu

den

tID

fees,

Su

mm

er

20

06

Sm

okin

go

rdin

an

ce,

Sp

rin

g2

00

7

Recyclin

gp

rog

ram

,S

pri

ng

20

07

“Th

eo

nly

thin

gth

at

will

co

st

yo

uis

the

researc

hw

ew

illp

rovid

eo

ver

afive

mo

nth

peri

od

on

the

pro

po

sed

su

bje

ct”

“An

ars

en

alo

fco

mp

lete

dre

searc

halr

ead

yte

ste

dan

dp

rep

are

dfo

rth

ere

lease”

“We

will

beg

inth

ere

searc

hfo

rg

ett

ing

the

best

gro

up

rate

at

ho

tels

inth

ecity”

“We

sta

rted

researc

hin

gd

iffe

ren

tn

ew

sp

ap

er

art

icle

sto

get

sta

tistics”

“We

go

tso

me

ofo

ur

researc

hb

yin

terv

iew

ing

ap

rofe

ssio

nalco

tto

nb

reed

er”

“Th

isp

roje

ct

isb

ein

gco

mp

lete

dto

pro

vid

eyo

uw

ith

the

an

aly

sis

,fig

ure

s,an

dre

searc

hn

eed

ed

toeffectively

beg

inim

ple

men

tatio

no

fth

ep

rop

osal[.

..]”

“Ou

rre

searc

hw

illb

efo

cu

sed

on

havin

ga

so

lutio

n[.

..]”

“Th

rou

gh

ou

rre

searc

h,w

efo

un

dth

at

[sch

oo

ln

am

e]

was

on

eo

ftw

osch

oo

lsth

at

ch

arg

ea

fee

for

IDs

every

sem

este

r”

“Based

on

researc

h,th

isto

wn

isco

nsta

ntly

tryin

gto

bett

er

its

co

mm

un

ity

tob

eco

me

ah

ap

py

an

dh

ealth

yp

lace

for

all

citiz

en

s”

“With

the

will

ing

ness

an

dexp

eri

en

ce

top

ut

inth

etim

ean

dre

searc

h,

desig

nin

ga

pro

fita

ble

an

dself-s

usta

inin

gre

cyclin

gp

rog

ram

for

the

un

ivers

ity

isextr

em

ely

feasib

le”


Tab

le4

.R

esearc

has

So

meth

ing

Th

at

Can

Be

Man

ipu

late

d

Sta

tem

en

tP

rop

osalan

dyear

Exam

ple

fro

mstu

den

tre

searc

hp

rop

osal

Researc

has

sta

ckab

le

Researc

his

testa

ble

Sch

oo

lsp

irit,

Sp

rin

g2

00

8

New

str

ain

so

fco

tto

n,

Sp

rin

g2

00

7

“Th

isco

nclu

sio

nis

based

on

ag

rou

pm

em

ber’s

pre

vio

us

researc

h”

“We

will

test

ou

rre

searc

hat

thre

ed

iffe

ren

tlo

catio

ns

thro

ug

ho

ut

[th

esta

te]”

72 / ROSS

Tab

le5

.A

rtic

ula

tio

ns

ofR

esearc

has

aP

rocess

Sta

tem

en

tP

rop

osalan

dyear

Exam

ple

fro

mstu

den

tre

searc

hp

rop

osal

Researc

has

co

ntin

uo

us

Researc

his

co

mp

licate

d

Researc

his

su

bje

ctive

Researc

his

co

llab

ora

tive

Researc

his

perf

orm

ed

Researc

his

wo

rk

Recyclin

gp

rog

ram

,

Sp

rin

g2

00

7

Sex

ed

ucatio

n,S

pri

ng

20

08

Health

yfo

od

so

ncam

pu

s,

Sp

rin

g2

00

7

Ro

om

mate

matc

hin

g,

Sp

rin

g2

00

8

Sta

diu

mseatin

g,

Su

mm

er

20

08

ST

Daw

are

ness

cla

ss,

Sp

rin

g2

00

7

Sex

ed

ucatio

n,F

all

20

06

Win

den

erg

y,S

pri

ng

20

08

Teach

er

pay,F

all

20

06

“With

furt

her

researc

h,[t

he

un

ivers

ity]

co

uld

be

ab

leto

co

ntr

ibu

teto

the

main

ten

an

ce

ofth

eu

niv

ers

ity,th

ecle

an

liness

ofth

een

vir

on

men

t,an

dtu

rna

pro

fit

inth

ep

rocess”

“With

these

fou

rco

mp

on

en

tsan

dm

ore

researc

h,w

efe

elw

ecan

execu

tea

pro

per

ed

ucatio

np

rog

ram

”

“Th

isw

illin

clu

de

researc

h,in

terv

iew

s,an

dsu

rveys

am

on

gcu

rren

tstu

den

ts

[...]”

“Th

isp

rop

osalis

bein

gw

ritt

en

tosh

ow

that

we

have

ap

pro

pri

ate

qu

alif

icatio

ns

an

dh

ave

co

nd

ucte

den

ou

gh

researc

hto

pro

ve

that

thro

ug

h

furt

her

researc

hw

ew

illb

eab

leto

pro

vid

e[t

he

un

ivers

ity]

with

am

ore

effective

matc

hin

gp

rocess”

“We

will

als

ore

searc

hw

ith

the

co

ntr

acto

ran

dth

ecity

feasib

leo

ptio

ns

to

cre

ate

mo

rep

ark

ing

for

the

sta

diu

m”

“Ou

rre

searc

hh

as

been

co

nd

ucte

dfr

om

severa

ld

iffe

ren

tasp

ects

ofth

is

pro

ble

m[.

..]”

“We

are

qu

alif

ied

an

dexh

ibit

the

skill

sto

perf

orm

researc

h”

“Wh

ilere

searc

hin

g,o

ur

team

fou

nd

an

art

icle

[...]”

“We

will

do

researc

ho

fte

ach

er

sala

ries

an

dfin

da

way

tora

ise

their

pay”


As a process, students write that research is “continuous,” in that one can

always go out and do more, “complicated,” where “research” and subcomponents,

such as interviews and surveys, are all written about at once, “subjective,”

where students write about research with the understanding that research will

have to be verified by a third party, “collaborative,” where students suggest that

research will be undertaken by multiple groups at once toward a shared goal,

“performed” meaning research is a process which is acted out, and, simply,

“work,” as indicated by the descriptor “do.” For example, a student may write

that they will “do research” in the same way that they would say they would

“do work.”

These categories illustrate ways in which students appear to conceptualize

and wrestle with the language of research. In some cases research is a process,

which may be approached or viewed in different ways depending on the project,

the timeline, and the students’ understanding of what they are doing and what

they are trying to accomplish. In other cases, research is portrayed as having

agency and appears to be utilized as a way to make claims because of a lack (or

perceived lack) of expertise. In many of these cases the portrayal of research,

or the students’ perceptions of what research actually is, appears slippery.

“Research” may fit into more than one of these categories at a time, and, in

some cases, student’s portrayal of “research” may change several times over the

course of a proposal.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION II:

SURVEY

Data were collected with an electronically-distributed survey over the

course of the Spring semester of 2009. The following sections described results

obtained from that survey which speak to students’ perceptions and articu-

lations of “research.”

Demographics

Students from almost all departments of the university where the survey was

conducted enroll in the Introduction to Technical Communication class, and

about 1000 students per year take the course. The reason the course is so popular

is because that while the core curriculum requirements state that students must

take two sophomore-level English courses and two sophomore literature courses,

the Introduction to Technical Writing class may be used to fulfill three of these

hours. The university’s undergraduate/graduate handbook notes that while the

course is only specifically required in the Prelaw, International Economics, and

Technical Communication curricula, the course is listed in sample schedules for

74 / ROSS

25 different degree paths,11 is an elective in Geographic Information Science,

Advertising, and Public Relations, and is a prerequisite for seven courses

outside of the Department of English (personal communication with the Program

Coordinator, October 10, 2011).

The class breakdown (obtained from registration information provided by the

Department of English) of the 372 students enrolled during the 2009 spring

semester of the Introduction to Technical Writing course and the total N for the

survey were roughly approximate (P = .43; see Table 6). The slightly significant

difference between the two groups occurred because of the difference between the

percentages of freshmen and sophomores enrolled in toto versus those taking

the survey (P = .24, one-tailed and P = .38, two-tailed, using the Fisher Exact

Probability Test). The average number of enrolled juniors and seniors compared

to those taking the survey showed no significant difference (P = .77).

Respondents ranged in age from 18 to 30, with an average age of 21.5. Males

constituted 35.9% of the sample, while 64.1 % were female.

Previous Research Experience

Of the respondents, 83.3% indicated that they had been asked to conduct

research in at least one of their classes at the university. Of the 64 respondents that

completed the demographic section of the survey, 51.6% indicated that they had

received training in the conduct of research (see Table 7). A chi square test of

association using a Yates correction showed no correlation between perception of

research training and gender (P = .841). Correlating class rank to research training

with a chi square test of association showed no significant difference between

freshmen and sophomores: P = 0.558 (one-tailed) and P = 1 (two-tailed), using

a Fisher Exact Probability Test because of the small sample size. Similarly, no

significant difference was observed between juniors and seniors (P = 0.888 using a


11 B.S. in Agricultural and Applied Economics; B.S. in Agricultural and Applied Economics

and Bachelor of Business Administration; B.S. in Food Science; B.S. in Animal Science—

Business Option; B.S. in Animal Science—Production Option; B.S. in Animal Science—Meat

Science Option; B.S. in Animal Science—Meat Science Business Option; Pre-Veterinary

Medicine Curriculum; B.S. of Landscape Architecture; B.S. in Environmental Crop and

Soil Sciences; B.S. in Horticultural and Turfgrass Sciences; B.S. in Exercise and Sport

Sciences—Exercise Science Track; B.S. in Computer Science and Master of Science in

Software Engineering; B.S. in Computer Science; Dual B.S. Degrees in Computer Science

and Mathematics; Combined B.S. and M.S. in Computer Science; Curriculum for B.S. in

Community, Family, and Addiction Services; B.S. in Family and Consumer Sciences with

Teacher Certification; B.S. in Personal Financial Planning; B.S. of Interior Design; B.S. in

Human Development and Family Studies; B.S. in Human Development and Family Studies

with Teacher Certification in Family and Consumer Sciences; B.S. in Nutrition with Secondary

Teacher Certification in Hospitality, Nutrition, and Food Science; B.S. in RHIM with Teaching

Certification in Family and Consumer Sciences; B.S. in Retail Management.

Tab

le6

.C

lass

Bre

akd

ow

no

fA

llS

tud

en

tsE

nro

lled

inth

eIn

tro

du

ctio

nto

Tech

nic

alW

ritin

gC

lass

Co

mp

are

dto

Su

rvey

Resp

on

den

ts

All

stu

den

tsen

rolle

dS

urv

ey

resp

on

den

ts

Fre

sh

man

So

ph

om

ore

Ju

nio

r

Sen

ior

12

10

4

13

4

12

2

3.2

%

28

.0%

36

.0%

32

.8%

3

12

24

25

4.7

%

18

.8%

37

.5%

39

.1%

Tab

le7

.C

lass

Ran

kan

dR

esearc

hT

rain

ing

Receiv

ed

researc

h

train

ing

?

Cu

rren

tcla

ss

ran

k

Fre

sh

man

So

ph

om

ore

Ju

nio

rS

en

ior

Resp

on

se

perc

en

t

Yes

No

1 2

6 6

12

12

14

11

51

.6%

48

.4%

76 / ROSS

Yates correction). Comparing upper-class students (juniors and seniors) with

under-class students (freshmen and sophomores) also showed no statistical

significance using a Yates-corrected P value (P = .888). These results indicate that

upper- and under-class students are just as likely to provide the same answer to

the question “In any of your classes here at the University, have you received

training in the conduct of research?,” suggesting that either students are actually

not receiving training in research as their studies progress, or, more likely, that

they either do not recall their training, or do not always perceive when they are

receiving research-specific training.

Of the respondents, 54.7% indicated intent to pursue graduate education after

completion of their undergraduate degree. A slight correlation exists between

indications of training in the conduct of research and intent to pursue graduate

education. While the Yates correction shows P = .08, the uncorrected Pearson

P = .048. This very slight correlation suggests that students who perceive their

undergraduate education as part of a continuing process may be more invested

in learning research skills, may have taken classes which put more weight on

research practices, or may be more invested in believing they have received

training because they need to prove that they have what it takes to continue on

through advanced degrees in higher education.

Of the 33 respondents who answered that “Yes” they had been asked to

conduct research at the university, 30 chose to list the class or classes in which

they received instruction in research. Eleven respondents (36.67%) explicitly

mentioned the technical writing class. Fifteen respondents (50%, including the

technical writing classes) refer to courses in English. These responses suggest

that teachers of technical, professional, and business writing have a responsibility

to make sure their students are learning valuable research skills. As one student

wrote, “Technical writing would be the only class that actually broke down the

process of researching.”

Student Agreement with Descriptions of Research

Agreement with the descriptions of research which emerged through the

analysis of student-created research proposals was high (Table 1). In every

presented instance the average percent agreement indicated that students either

agreed or, in two cases (research as testable and research as continuous), strongly

agreed, with the presented categories. These results suggest that “research” is a

complex concept that can be perceived in numerous different ways.

Definitions of Research

The 60 responses to the question, “In one sentence, define ‘research,’” indicated

general agreement as to what “research” actually is. The responses were often

quite general, for example, “finding information” or “searching for information

for a given subject,” but suggested that research involves the gathering, ordering,


and/or negotiation of information. Only two of the 60 responses (3.33%) could

not be viewed as “correct” definitions of research, largely because of their

brevity and vagueness: one respondent simply indicated that research is “long”

and another tautologically defined research as “researching something.” The

general definitional agreement appeared consistent with textbook portrayals12

of research. Coding the 60 responses to this open-ended question, however,

yielded two distinct ways in which students view research: as an accumulative

process or as an investigative process.

Investigation vs. Accumulation

The categories of “investigation” and “accumulation” emerged from the data

and suggest that students perceive research as either an engaged process, or as a

less complex act of collection.13

Accumulation, as it plays out in student definitions of research, is indicated

by phrases which suggest the student is attempting to gather information in

order to provide proof, or to show others the truth of what is “out there.” Here,

accumulated evidence speaks for itself. In this case, information exists in the

world and must simply be found and stockpiled.

Investigation, in relation to student definitions of research, is indicated by

phrases which indicate the student is seeking knowledge and understanding

through interpretation of information. Here, evidence may generate new and

unforeseen ideas. In this case, the purpose of research is to generate new knowl-

edge and seek new avenues of discovery: there may be things in the world which

are not simply “out there,” but which must be constructed or interpreted.

The fundamental theoretical differences between the two portrayals lie in

the end-game. As an end, a researcher who “accumulates” does so in order to

collect existing artifacts to prove truth to others via reference. A researcher

who “investigates,” however, seeks information to develop new ideas or theories

and to explore possibilities. In the first, the references show information, in

the second, information is used to develop new thought.

When placed side-by-side, as shown in Table 8, the different articulations

of research indicating views of research as either an accumulative process or an

investigative process may be observed.

78 / ROSS

12 See, for example, Johnson-Sheehan’s explanation of research as “information manage-

ment” (18, p. 145).13 The difference seems to be that of an awareness of complexity. One way to explain this

is with a cooking metaphor—the difference between “investigation” and “accumulation” is

like the difference between deciding to make your own spaghetti sauce versus buying a jar

of sauce from the store. The first involves choosing a recipe, buying ingredients, placing

ingredients in concert, and cooking until completion, with several areas for interpretation

and modification along the way. The second involves the choice of what kind of sauce to

buy, but ultimately comes down to collection and presentation.

Primary and Secondary Research

Students were asked to define “Primary Research” in one sentence, then, in the

next short-answer question, to define “Secondary Research.” These questions

were included in the survey as a way to further investigate student perceptions

of research and the ways they articulate understanding by asking for answers

that would be potentially more focused than those provided by only defining

“research” in general terms.

Only 51.72% (30) of the 58 respondents who completed this section (roughly

half of those that were able to offer a general-yet-satisfactory definition of

research) were able to describe primary research. More students, 68.96% (40),

were able to define secondary research.

Students who defined “primary research” in a manner consistent with common

practice14 indicated that primary research is “research done within the confines

of first-hand (wherein the writer was present for the events they are writing about)


Table 8. Comparative Student Examples of Research as

Accumulation vs. Investigation

Accumulation Investigation

“Research is the process of finding

information.”

“Research is the process of gathering

information about a certain topic.”

“Gathering more information on a

particular topic.”

“Looking up information on a certain

subject.”

“Research is the act of finding informa-

tion on a subject.”

“Research is the information you find on

a specific topic when searching sources.”

“It is the process of looking into

something further.”

“The ability to learn more of a

subject or object.”

“Investigating ideas, whether

established or not, in an effort to

draw a conclusion about any

aspect of phenomena.”

“The action of finding, analyzing,

and developing information.”

“Seeking more in-depth analysis

over a specific topic.”

“A process to greater understand

a topic.”

14 Briefly put, primary research is research that is unique or specific to a particular study,

and typically involves hands-on data collection, while secondary research is the literature

review aspect of a study which draws upon others’ work to frame a study.

material,” “when someone goes out and does a survey or something else they

actually do,” “setting out and finding the information yourself, not getting the

information from someone that has already done the research,” or “information

you get directly from the subject you are researching.” Those who answered with

definitions inconsistent with common practice often described primary research in

terms of secondary research, or used “primary” as a synonym for “importance”

and indicated, for example, that primary research is “the main idea of research

you are looking up,” or “information directly related to the topic at hand.”

Definitions of secondary research consistent with common practice included

descriptions such as “research done using material that is based on primary

research written by other people; it usually contains information on the opinions

of other people of the primary material,” “information that is a review of a

primary source,” ”information drawn from magazines, books, etc.,” and “infor-

mation that someone else has researched and developed.” Definitions inconsistent

with common practice described “secondary” as “not as important as something

else,” as something that occurs late in the research/writing process, or suggested

secondary research as being inferior to primary research. For example, students

described secondary research as “something that’s not as important as the main

ideal,” “research connected to, but not essential to, the basic components,” or

“information indirectly related to the topic at hand.”15

The difficulty that some students had in articulating answers to these questions

in keeping with common practice suggests that either students have not had

specific training in the language of research, or, just as likely, that they may have

been exposed to these definitions but did not understand them or were unable

to remember them while taking the survey.

Hypothetical Situation

The last open-ended response question in the survey was the presentation of a

hypothetical situation. Students were asked to respond to the following prompt:

“You have been told to conduct research on the feasibility of placing an off-leash

dog park somewhere in [your city]. Briefly, how would you conduct research

for this project?” As with the primary and secondary research questions, the

scenario was intended to encourage students to work through “research” in more

complexity and detail than a single definition could provide as a way to further

assess student perceptions and the ways they articulate understanding.

80 / ROSS

15 In a few instances, student descriptions of primary and secondary research were written

as binaries: describing primary research as “directly related” and secondary as “indirectly

related” to something, for example. These definitions suggest that the student is attempting to

work their way toward understanding by coming up with binary answers to the questions. One

binary suggests a rather interesting worldview in relation to the permanence of information and

what happens as research is written: primary research was described as “collected information

that doesn’t exist,” and secondary research as “collected information that does exist.”

Though students differed widely on their approaches and on the level of detail

and amount of thought put into their responses, of the 52 that answered the prompt,

37 (71.15 %) articulated a response that indicated perception of research as a

complex process. Some of these, such as the following, were quite involved:

I would first determine the need. After determining who all wants a dog

park, I would determine how far these people would travel to go to a dog park.

I would then research what would be the best location for the dog park,

looking into different variables such as noise and scent pollution. After

defining a location, I would find out what are the needs of a dog park.

And:

Interviewing the neighborhood where proposed dog park would be to see

how the people feel about it. Research the pros and cons of having an off-leash

dog park. Look at other off-leash dog parks in other areas and see their

success/failures. What are the safety issues of having an off-leash dog park?

And:

I would first survey [my city] to see if there are any sites that would serve as

appropriate locations for an off-leash dog park. If so, I would then conduct

a survey by asking residents how they would feel about an off-leash dog

park, if they would use it, and if they would be bothered by it.

Shorter responses to the prompt which did not indicate perceptions of research as

complex included responses such as “check out local parks throughout the weeks

where many dogs are located,” and “look for a good location,” or simply, “idk.”16

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that students have varied and complex per-

ceptions of research. Students perceive research as metaphorically complicated,

and while they are able to articulate a general, definitional sense of “research,”

definitions often differ among students, and perceptions of “research” and its

goals—such as differences between simply accumulating information and investi-

gating in order to generate new knowledge—are not entirely consistent. The

results suggest that students need definitional clarification of “research” and

related terms, such as the differences between primary and secondary research.

Instruction on the complexity and eventual potential application of research

would likely prove useful. Beyond being able to more clearly articulate

their methodology to a third party, deepened understanding of fundamental

components will likely allow students to think more creatively about their

own projects.


16 Text-speak for “I don’t know.”

The demographic correlations suggest that teachers of technical and profes-

sional communication have an obligation to their students to help them under-

stand both how to conduct research and the importance of research in relation to

their future careers. Lack of significance between upper- and under-classmen’s

responses to the question of research training is likely partially due to the limited

sample size, but also suggests that more emphasis needs to be placed on helping

students understand what they are doing when they are asked to conduct research.

Since many students indicate that they haven’t been trained in research—though

they likely have—teachers in technical and professional writing classes should

help students learn to see how the skills they learn throughout their many varied

classes at the university connect so that they may learn to more effectively create

the sort of workplace documents they will be called upon to produce throughout

their careers. The very slight correlation of students who intend to continue on

for graduate degrees with a positive perception of training in research suggests

that having some awareness of future value facilitates either retention or the

perception of value.

Since this study was conducted, I have tried to incorporate this understanding

into my own courses by asking students to write research proposals specifically

related to research in their own fields. One way that I’ve kept this manageable and

still kept a group component in classes is by asking students to individually present

mini-proposals to the class. In these mini-proposals, students indicate a research

question, research plan, audience, and timeline for work. This mini-proposal

requires them to think through the permutations of a potential project and the

types of research that would be required, as well as consider how the presentation

of their information motivates an audience to action. These mini-proposals are

presented to and judged by the class, with the top four or five “winning” proposals

selected for expansion into much larger research proposals/requests for funding.

Students have responded positively to these projects, in some cases actually

going so far as to submit their proposals to the intended audience,17 though this

element is not explicitly required in the assignment.

82 / ROSS

17 In one case, students wrote a research proposal to investigate ways to raise money and

awareness for a local autistic-child care program, and in another to investigate ways to raise

awareness for local music funding. In both cases, students involved with the projects ended up

in contact with their intended audience, though I do not know how much farther these students

took their work. Students from other groups have also stopped me in passing to note that the

proposals for their projects were gaining interest in other classes, and students have ended

up in conversations with professors in their other departments about the ways they conduct and

present research. The mini-proposal -> voting -> large proposal assignment cycle has generated

student interest far beyond my prior method of sorting students into groups and having them

choose a topic of interest, to the extent that students get into heated debates in class about

the best primary research strategy (interviews, surveys, modes of construction and distribution,

etc.) and the ultimate presentation of information.

The way that students write about and rhetoricize “research” (as a weapon, to

construct ethos, etc.) suggests some level of rhetorical awareness, and students

do not necessarily appear to be parroting back text from a book or a teacher’s

lectures, but instead incorporating common workplace frames and experiences

into their writing. Working with students to provide more overt explanation and

explication of rhetorical writing strategies related to the presentation of their

research, however, should enhance understanding of what many of them already

do (even subconsciously) and empower students to create more effective docu-

ments while enabling them to envision more complex research strategies.

In class, discussions should take place on what happens when research is

discussed in different ways. One way to approach this is through a discussion

of active- vs. passive-voice presentations of research, such as the rhetorical

differences between writing “I conducted research” and “research was conducted”

(see e.g., [23]). Another approach would be to work through the presentations

of research itself as active (such as “Research has shown that nonsmokers suffer

many of the same diseases as smokers do when they inhale secondhand smoke”)

or passive (such as “The only thing that will cost you is the research we will

provide”) and discuss how these different presentations have the potential to

shape the way an audience reacts to presented information. Teachers could

provide students with examples of different categories and discuss how presen-

tation impacts or shapes the rhetorical appeals of logos, ethos, and pathos.

Many technical and professional communication textbooks focus on process

(how) over theory (why), and present “research,” definitionally, as a given. The

overarching definitions of research are often quite general (though the explan-

ations of different methods are not). In these cases, authors assume some level

of understanding about the fundamental intent of research that students may

not possess. This vagueness about what “research” is may be the cause of

the acceptable-but-general definitions offered by students on the electronic

survey, and may also be partially responsible for some students’ inability to define

primary and secondary research.

To give students a better understanding of what research is, and its many

permutations, discussion of focused definitions may help. Johnson-Sheehan’s

definition of research (presented in the introduction) could prove useful, as

might Hughes and Hayhoe’s articulation of research as “the systematic collection

and analysis of observations for the purpose of creating new knowledge that

can inform actions and decisions” [24, p. 4]. In addition, helping students become

familiar with the concept of “information literacy,” as articulated by the American

Library Association, could help. The acts of acculturation and disciplining

which take place in the writing classroom do more than just teach students how

to “do;” these constructs teach new ways to approach problems. “Primary” and

“secondary” research (as well as robust definitions of research-in-general) can

serve as decision-making heuristics—ways to begin to work through a problem

and plan an approach.


Students apply the knowledge that they learn in our classrooms in the work-

place [25]. Defining “research” more explicitly in our classrooms, and working

with students on a rhetoric of research would likely help them understand

the complexity of research, and perhaps begin to move beyond constraining

worldviews, thereby allowing more robust research and writing practices. The

categories of “Investigation” and “Accumulation,” for example, appear to be

indicative of an organismic vs. mechanistic split in student perceptions of

research. Briefly put, in a mechanistic worldview, objects are seen as what they

are. A collection of information (parts) fit together in a specific way to form a

whole. As Prawat and Floden note, in this view, “a belief is truthful to the extent

that it accurately represents what is outside the mind; mental structures must

correlate with or correspond to those structures afforded by the environment” [26,

p. 38]. Accumulation seems indicative of a mechanistic worldview because it

involves the collection of elements (information) as they are found in the world.

In an organismic worldview, parts work together to create a process. This

process may then yield new information in gestalt beyond the “simple” whole

created by collecting and fitting parts together. For the organicist, as Stephen

Pepper postulated, “every actual event in the world is a more or less concealed

organic process” [27, p. 281]. In this view, tests of truth are “dependent on the

inclusiveness of the system of beliefs,” so order and structure in the world involve

more than discovery (mechanism), but also “individual creation” [26, p. 42].

Thus, in the case of investigation versus accumulation, a student who accumulates

may take a more mechanistic worldview, as that student is attempting to collect

enough parts to create a whole (an answer to a problem, for example), while a

student who investigates may take a more organismic worldview, as the pieces

collected may work together in previously unforeseen ways to create a previ-

ously unforeseen/unexpected whole which may then lead to further investigation

(the continuation of a process).

Helping students move beyond a purely mechanistic system of information

accumulation and presentation would likely benefit them in other classes and

in their careers. As Brady notes, “problem solving is not a mechanistic process.”

Rather, problem solving “serves as a guide that supports writers as they investi-

gate knowledge that changes from one social context to another, one community

to another, one practice to another” [25, p. 51]. Mechanistic versus organismic

approaches to information management may have importance beyond problem-

solving, however. In “Changing Organizational Practices and Norms,” Suchan

notes an association between report-writer’s articulations of themselves in mech-

anistic terms, where they describe themselves as “information ‘deliverers,’

‘copiers,’ ‘scribes,’ ‘reporters,’ and ‘conveyors’” and their views of themselves

as “passive, voiceless, transparent, and invisible” [28, p. 34]. Suchan’s data,

coupled with the categories that emerged from this data, suggest that teachers

of technical, professional, and business communication have the opportunity

to literally shape a student’s perceived self-worth over time. If students enter job

84 / ROSS

tracks that involve research-based problem solving and writing, then how they

view their roles in relation to the mediation of information is an important and

valuable aspect of their lives.

The hypothetical situation suggests that the practice of research, at least hypo-

thetically, may come more easily to students than actually articulating definitional

differences or a rhetoric of research. College students of any age are inundated

with the task of “doing research” (83.3% of the survey respondents indicated

that they had been asked to do research at some point in their college career).

Thus, when confronted with an actual task, they appear able to articulate a

response that shows some awareness of real-world constraints. However, more

practice and more time spent on research components—such as different methods

of collecting data, different resources to utilize when conducting secondary

research, different methods of collecting primary research, and different ways

to articulate the research process itself—would likely allow students more

creativity and flexibility in the conduct of their own work.

The results of this study suggest that teachers of technical and professional

communication need to reframe the way that they consider the teaching of

research. The technical and professional writing classroom is unique in that

our students are learning communication strategies from us that they will then

apply to other fields of study—a biologist will learn little about biology in my

classroom, for example, but they should learn how the collection and presentation

of information shapes the ultimate impact of their biology-related work. Time

should be spent in class discussing student’s research backgrounds and career

trajectories in order to help them understand how their perceptions of research

and writing shape the documents they produce. If we can help students under-

stand the complexities of research and writing, and help them learn how their

perceptions of research will shape their writing in the future, then we will have

added valuable richness to their education.

Limitations and Plans for Future Study

Using work produced by my own students as the initial collection of artifacts

for understanding student perceptions of research limits the applicability of

this study. It is possible that the language students used in their research reports

is reflective of classroom discussions, though teaching something doesn’t

necessarily force a single viewpoint onto a student. Additionally, my close

textual analysis of the student-created research proposals and resulting categorical

description was likely colored by my own teaching practices. These assign-

ments were written for my class, I did grade them at one point, I am familiar

with the assignment, and this project arose from my reading of these presenta-

tions and my classroom interactions with students. It is my hope, however, that

the data I present here will encourage teachers to consider their student’s per-

ceptions and presentation of research in a more critical light, thereby eventually


strengthening student-created work and providing a more solid basis for their

eventual workplace practices.

A more refined survey tool would be a definite asset to future study, and

distributing that tool to more students in a variety of different programs and

educational settings would prove immensely valuable. Considering perceptions

of research in students in a service course is different from considering percep-

tions and experiences of students pursuing technical and professional com-

munication as a major—because the survey asked about technical writing,

students may have adjusted their answers in relation to their education in tech-

nical writing. Thus, a chemistry student who does research on a regular basis

may have responded that they had not been trained to do research, because they

weren’t seeing the question as relating to their college experience as a whole

(even though questions were tailored to ask about their entire university

experience). It would be interesting to tailor this survey to different majors and

ask the same questions about perception to look for difference.

Further research on perceptions of research would prove useful in multiple

areas. First, refined surveys across multiple institutions would allow for more

robust results, thereby giving us deeper insight into the perceptions of university

students. Second, the metaphors that arose in both aspects of this study seem

to be indicative of a particular rhetoric of research that would benefit from

further exploration. Do, for example, metaphors have an impact on learning

styles? Important work on metaphors in our field (e.g., [29, 30]) tells us how

important they are, but what impact do these different figures have on student per-

ceptions when presented in a classroom environment? Third, do the accumulation/

investigation splits, which echo organismic/mechanistic worldviews, correlate

at all with student life experiences, including previous scholastic experiences,

GPA, and desire to progress within academia? Fourth, comparing perceptions

of research between university and workplace environments would likely prove

valuable. And what could setting up pre- and post-treatment assessments in a

more structured experiment or quasi-experimental strategy, perhaps even within

a single course, tell us about student knowledge acquisition in relation to under-

standing important concepts like research?

CALL TO ACTION

To conclude, I offer a challenge: beyond teaching the practical aspects of

research methods, design, and practice, question your students on their percep-

tions of research: what it means to “research,” how the phrasing and framing

of research impacts meaning, and what they view as the role of research, both to

them and in their field. Dedicate time in class to working through questions of

perception and presentation, and strive to help your students see how the work

they complete in your classroom applies to their future.

86 / ROSS

AP

PE

ND

IXI:

SP

AC

ED

ED

ICA

TE

DT

OF

OC

US

ED

DIS

CU

SS

ION

OF

RE

SE

AR

CH

PR

AC

TIC

ES

IN

SIX

CO

MM

ON

INT

RO

DU

CT

OR

YT

EC

HN

ICA

LC

OM

MU

NIC

AT

ION

TE

XT

BO

OK

S

Textb

oo

k

Pag

en

um

bers

of

researc

h-s

pecific

sectio

n(i

nclu

des

exam

ple

s)

Pag

es

devo

ted

to

exte

nd

ed

dis

cu

ssio

n

ofre

searc

h

To

talb

oo

kp

ag

es

exclu

din

gb

ack

matt

er

(ap

pen

dic

es,sty

le

gu

ides,re

fere

nces,etc

.)

Perc

en

tag

eo

fb

oo

k

pre

sen

tin

ga

focu

sed

dis

cu

ssio

no

fre

searc

h

An

ders

on

(6th

Ed

.)[1

6]

Do

bri

n,K

elle

r,an

dW

eis

ser

[17

]

Gra

ves

an

dG

raves

[14

]

Jo

hn

so

n-S

heeh

an

(2n

dE

d.)

[18

]

Lan

no

n(1

1th

Ed

.)[1

5]

Mark

el(9

thE

d.)

[3]

15

1-1

96

96

-12

9

73

-94

14

4-1

78

11

3-1

72

11

3-1

47

45

33

21

34

59

34

66

9

69

3

30

2

71

6

63

1

62

8

6.7

3%

4.7

6%

6.9

5%

4.7

5%

9.3

5%

5.4

1%


APPENDIX II: PROPOSAL ASSIGNMENT DESCRIPTION

Overview*

Write a proposal for a research project. The purpose of this research proposal

is to solicit your reader (someone who has the power to help you) to permit you

to carry out research and to provide resources for it.

As with all technical communication, this will be much easier if your group

first identifies the following:

What problem do you want to solve/research?

Who is your reader?

What are your criteria for suitable possible solutions?

What research/investigative methods will you use to gather information about

the problem?

Suggestions for Responding Successfully

Keep in mind the following tips for writing a successful proposal.

This is a research proposal, not a goods-and-services proposal. You are seeking

permission to carry out a research project in exchange for the organization’s

(authority’s) granting you time and the other resources. Do not write a goods-

and-service proposal: for example, a proposal to renovate a house. Rather propose

to research whether renovating a house is feasible (possible and desirable).

The key to writing a successful proposal is to show an understanding of the

readers’ needs. Audience analysis is critical here. What do you know about your

audience that can help you present the problem or opportunity in terms that the

audience will understand and appreciate? How can you justify to your audience

the need to implement your proposal? Most often, the way to demonstrate a

problem or opportunity is through cost figures. Don’t write that a problem is

increasing the rate of defective products you are producing; rather, write that

the problem is increasing the rate of defective products from the normal 1.2% to

1.8%, and that this increase is costing you $43,000 in lost productivity per year.

In this case, an effective proposal might do well to consider time constraints,

availability of resources, etc. and address those items as well.

Integrate your research into the discussion of the problem and the rest of the

proposal. Perhaps the most common deficiency in student proposals is the failure

to carry out secondary research and to use it in framing the discussion of the

problem or the opportunity. Don’t just toss in a few citations to the literature.

Use the literature as the starting point for your discussion of what is known and

not known about your subject. Because your reader doesn’t want to waste time

and money reinventing the wheel, he or she won’t authorize the project unless

he or she knows that you have already done your homework.

88 / ROSS

Use primary research to indicate a need for your work. Want to prove that

research on where to place a video game rental kiosk and how to run it is

necessary? Survey or interview a few students to show your decision makers that

there is interest.

Be specific in describing what you plan to do. As the chapter makes clear, it

is not sufficient to merely assert that you will carry out research, for instance.

When you describe a research methodology, be prepared to justify why you

have chosen that method rather than other available methods. Don’t let your

audience wonder why you would do what you propose or what the outcome of

the procedure would be.

Explain and demonstrate your professionalism. A lot of people have good ideas

but don’t follow through on them.

Show that you are a professional. Include the kinds of information your

audience seeks, such as task schedules and commitments to submit progress

reports. In addition, be sure that the proposal looks professional.

If you don’t use a standard structure, explain your decision. The chapter

provides a basic organizational structure for the proposal. I am less concerned that

you follow the structure provided than that you provide the kinds of information

that the chapter describes. For example, I do not care whether you call your

summary a “summary”; however, I do want you to understand that a proposal

of more than a few pages needs some kind of summary for readers who do not

have the time or interest to read the whole proposal.

Deliverable

A one-page reflective memo:

• Summarize your process of developing/researching/drafting your proposal

(one paragraph).

• Summarize who you have determined would be the decision maker for the

problem/opportunity outlined in your proposal (one paragraph).

• Describe why you believe your proposal is feasible (one paragraph).

• Describe which of the course goals (see “Home” page on course website)

you feel you encountered in completing this assignment (one paragraph).

Proposal: A formal document in block paragraph format including the following

sections:

• Title Page

• Table of Contents

• Executive Summary

• Introduction/ Overview

• Project Description

• Qualifications

• Budget


• Timeline

• References (if applicable)

• Appendices (including a graph of your proposed schedule and an itemized

budget if applicable)

Grading Criteria for Proposals

Audience awareness: How well do you analyze your audience and recognize

their needs in this proposal? Is the problem presented in a way that the reader

can understand and appreciate? How do you justify to your audience the need

to implement your proposal? Appropriate level of detail given. Appropriate

assessment of audience’s knowledge and concerns.

Answer readers’ questions/content: What is the problem? Why is it a prob-

lem? How will you find possible solutions to the problem? What do you propose

to do exactly to test the effectiveness of the proposed solutions?

Parts of the Proposal:

• Cover memo (includes identifying information)

• Executive Summary (sums up the entire proposed project)

• Introduction/ Overview (identifies the problem/opportunity, the background

of the problem, the scope of the proposal, and the purpose of the proposal)

• Proposed program (provides a clear, specific plan of action and justify the

tasks you propose performing) Is a detailed schedule of tasks included?

• Qualifications and experience (outlines what makes you qualified to do

research—relevant skills, expertise, and experience)

• References (if applicable)

• Appendices (if applicable)

• Visual design, style, and editing: Running headers and footers. Consistent

and appropriate font choices. Conventional genre format. Appropriate use

of visual aids. Use of standard edited English.

An Important Note:

The final proposals that you submit are group projects. Therefore, each member

of your group will receive the same grade for the submitted report. It is your

responsibility to make sure that each and every member of the group is an equal

contributor in the final project.

*This assignment description is modified from other teacher’s assignment

descriptions at the university where I was employed when this research took place.

Elements of this description are unique to my course, others were incorporated

directly from other teacher’s assignment descriptions. This is very much the

product of a collaborative teaching group who shared information, and I thank

each and every one of you who contributed to the generation of this assignment.

90 / ROSS


APPENDIX III: SURVEY

92 / ROSS

APPENDIX III: (Cont’d.)



94 / ROSS




96 / ROSS


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author thanks the students who participated in these courses for all of

their hard work. I also thank my colleagues for their excellent help and support

as this article developed.

REFERENCES

1. S. Lang, Integrating the Web into an Introductory Technical Communication Course,

in Technical Communication and the World Wide Web, C. Lipson and M. Day (eds.),

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey, pp. 305-321, 2005.

2. E. Nagelhout, Pre-Professional Practices in the Technical Writing Classroom: Pro-

moting Multiple Literacies through Research, Technical Communication Quarterly,

8:3, pp. 285-299, 1999.

3. M. Markel, Technical Communication (9th Edition), Bedford/St. Martin’s, New

York, New York, 2010.

4. R. Spilka, Practitioner Research Instruction: A Neglected Curricular Area in Tech-

nical Communication Undergraduate Programs, Journal of Business and Technical

Communication, 23:2, pp. 216-237, 2009. doi: 10.1177/1050651908328882

5. J. D. Ford, J. L. Bracken, and G. D. Wilson, The Two-Semester Thesis Model:

Emphasizing Research in Undergraduate Technical Communication Curricula,

Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 39:4, pp. 433-453, 2009. doi:

10.2190/TW.39.4.f

6. K. S. Campbell, Research Methods Course Work for Students Specializing in Business

and Technical Communication, Journal of Business and Technical Communication,

14:2, pp. 223-241, 2000. doi: 10.1177/105065190001400203

7. A. M. Blakeslee and R. Spilka, The State of Research in Technical Communication,

Technical Communication Quarterly, 13:1, pp. 73-92, 2004. doi: 10.1207/S15427625

TCQ1301_8

8. K. T. Rainey, R. K. Turner, and D. Dayton, Do Curricula Correspond to Managerial

Expectation?: Core Competencies for Technical Communicators, Technical Com-

munication, 52:3, pp. 323-352, 2005.

9. A. M. Blakeslee, The Technical Communication Research Landscape, Journal of

Business and Technical Communication, 23:2, pp. 129-173, 2009. doi: 10.1177/

1050651908328880

10. American Library Association, Information Literacy Standards for Higher Education,

Association of Colleges & Research Libraries, 2011. Retrieved from http://www.

ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/standards/informationliteracycompetency.cfm

11. J. W. Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Method

Approaches (2nd Edition), Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, 2003.

12. L. F. Locke, W. W. Spirduso, and S. J. Silverman, Proposals That Work: A Guide

for Planning Dissertations and Grant Proposals (4th Edition), Sage, Thousand

Oaks, California, 2003.

13. M. S. Macnealy, Strategies for Empirical Research in Writing, Longman, New


14. H. Graves and R. Graves, A Strategic Guide to Technical Communication, Broadview,

Orchard Park, New York, 2007.


15. J. M. Lannon, Technical Communication (11th Edition), Pearson Longman, New


16. P. V. Anderson, Technical Communication: A Reader-Centered Approach (6th

Edition), Thomson Wadsworth, Boston, Massachusetts, 2007.

17. S. I. Dobrin, C. J. Keller, and C. R. Weisser, Technical Communication in the

Twenty-First Century, Pearson/Prentice Hall, Columbus, Ohio, 2008.

18. R. Johnson-Sheehan, Technical Communication Today (2nd Edition), Pearson

Longman, New York, New York, 2007.

19. N. Allen and S. T. Benninghoff, TPC Program Snapshots: Developing Curricula

and Addressing Challenges, Technical Communication Quarterly, 13:2. pp. 157-185,

2004. doi: 0.1207/s15427625tcq1302_3

20. B. G. Glaser and A. Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for

Qualitative Research, Aldine Transaction, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1967.

21. B. Hansen and K. Kautz, Grounded Theory Applied—Studying Information Systems

Development Methodologies in Practice, Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii

International Conference on System Sciences, p. 264b, 2005. doi: 10.1109/HICSS.

2005.289

22. L. R. Frey, C. H. Botan, and G. L. Kreps, Investigating Communication: An Intro-

duction to Research Methods, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, Massachusetts, 2000.

23. D. Atkinson, The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London,

1675-1975: A Sociohistorical Discourse Analysis, Language in Society, 25:3,

pp. 333-371, 1996. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500019205

24. M. A. Hughes and G. F. Hayhoe, A Research Primer for Technical Communication:

Methods, Exemplars, and Analyses, Taylor and Francis, New York, New York, 2008.

25. A. Brady, What We Teach and What They Use: Teaching and Learning in Scien-

tific and Technical Communication Programs and Beyond, Journal of Business and

Technical Communication, 21:1, pp. 37-61, 2007. doi: 10.1177/1050651906293529

26. R. S. Prawat and R. E. Floden, Philosophical Perspectives on Constructivist Views

of Learning, Educational Psychologist, 29:1, pp. 37-48, 1994. doi: 10.1207/s15326985

ep2901_4

27. S. C. Pepper, World Hypothesis: A Study in Evidence, University of California Press,

Berkeley, California, 1961.

28. J. Suchan, Changing Organizational Communication Practices and Norms: A

Framework, Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 20:1, pp. 5-47, 2006.

doi: 10.1177/1050651905281038

29. K. Baake, Metaphor and Knowledge: The Challenges of Writing Science, SUNY

Press, New York, New York, 2003.

30. G. Lakoff and M. Johnson, Metaphors We Live By—With a New Afterword, University

of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, 2003.

Other Articles On Communication By This Author

Ross, D. G., Against Fear: Barry Lopez and Lessons for Communicators, Mother Pelican,

7:7, 2011.

Ross, D. G., Environmental Rhetoric, Ethics, and Policy: Teaching Engagement, Present

Tense, 2:1, 2011.

98 / ROSS

Ross, D. G., Ambiguous Weighting and Nonsensical Sense: The Problems of “Balance”

and “Common Sense” as Decision-Making Heuristics in Environmental Rhetoric,

Social Epistemology, 26:1, 2012.

Ross, D. G., Common Topics and Commonplaces of Environmental Rhetoric, Written

Communication, 30:1, 2013.

Ross, D. G., Deep Audience Analysis: A Proposed Method for Analyzing Audiences for

Environment-Related Communication, Technical Communication, 60:2, 2013.

Ross, D. G., and Arnett, E. J., To Do is to Learn: The Value of Hands-on Research in an

Introductory Research Methods Course, Programmatic Perspectives, 5:2, 2013.

Direct reprint requests to:

Derek G. Ross

Dept. of English

Auburn University

Auburn, AL 36849

e-mail: [email protected]


Defining "Research": Undergraduate Perceptions of Research in a Technical Communication Classroom

Documents