by Gary Teagarden and Jennifer Bruns
Conducting Usability Tests
This informative chapter covers usability testing for document and software design.
There are 10 steps in the process of usability testing:
1. Decide when to test
2. Select the test points
3. Choose the type of test
4. Set performance and learning objectives
5. Select testers and evaluators
6. Prepare the test materials
7. Set up the test environment
8. Record information accurately
9. Interpret the data
10. Incorporate the feedback
1. Decide When to Test
You can test at any time during the nine stages of the documentation development process. Usually you test after you have a draft finished so you can see the areas that need testing. But you can test during the three major phases: design, writing or development.
2. Select the Test Points
A test pint is an issue or feature of a document that might interfere with the efficient and effective application of a program to a user’s work activities. Test points fall into two areas: problems with content and problems with document design. Test points could be body text size, heading size, cropped screens vs. whole screens, cues for steps and page orientation.
3. Choose the Type of Test
There are three types of tests—dependent upon the test points selected in step two.
Can-they-do-it test
Can-they-understand-it test
Can-they-find-it-test
4. Set Performance and Learning Objectives
Because you want your tests to measure actual behavior, you must come up with numbers that correlate with the kind of performance you want from your users. These are often called operational objectives. There are two broad categories of performance objectives: Time-related and error-related.
5. Select Testers and Evaluators
The tester is the person who administers the test, arranges the meeting with users, sets up the test situation, records the test activities, and so on. The evaluator is the person taking the usability test.
6. Prepare the Test Materials
Depending on the complexity of your usability test, the written and other materials you supply for testers and evaluators can get complicated. See Tables 8.5 and 8.6 (P.248-249) in the text for a comprehensive list of potential test materials.
7. Set Up the Test Environment
The environment for your test may range from the user’s work environment (the field) to a controlled laboratory. Your best chance to learn about actual use in the context of the user’s work and information environment comes from field testing.
8. Record Information Accurately
Recommend using voice and video recorders, plus take copious notes so that you don’t miss anything.
9. Interpret the Data
Interpretation requires you to take into account all the elements that can go wrong with testing so that you get clear results.
10. Incorporate the Feedback
Following the interpretation your data then the next step is to incorporate the results into your final design.
The author talks about the test paradox: The earlier you test the weaker the results but the easier it is to make changes; the later you test the better the results but the harder it is to make changes.
Some large companies, such as IBM have full-blown usability labs replete with two-way mirrors, video cameras and eye-tracking devices. Ironically, often the best results from usability testing comes from field testing. In addition, field testing is less expensive. But field research poses issues of time, politics, budgets, ethics, and legality that require you to proceed carefully.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Friday, March 14, 2008
Campbell, Chapter 8, “Did I Forget Anything?”
Introduction
Be thorough! The writer is ultimately responsible for mistakes and errors in completed projects.
Creating a Perfect Document
Be sure that you use a review process to ensure that your document does what you want it to do.
There are five types of reviews:
1. Verification (e.g., accuracy)
2. Validation
3. Editing
4. Proofreading (e.g., spelling, punctuation)
5. Approval (e.g., getting clearance)
It is important to keep in mind that these reviews should be done in the above order so that the most critical issues are addressed first.
Can I combine a review?
You can, and sometimes it is effective. However, sometimes this is a more demanding and requires greater skill from the reviewer. When you try to compress all the reviews into fewer steps, something will usually suffer. If you choose to combine reviews, be sure your reviewer knows what you are really looking for from them – whether it is punctuality mistakes or accuracy of the information – they need to know. Having multiple reviewers is another way to ensure that more errors are found in less time. Failure to plan adequate review time is a guarantee that a document will go out with mistakes in it.
The rest of the chapter describes the review steps in detail:
Verification
• Checking for accuracy – information up-to-date, correct, dimensions accurate, eligibility requirements correct, etc.
• Various methods: compare the final draft to the original draft, check it against source documents, confirm numerical and statistical data, or assign a content expert to do the review.
You can combine them or perform them separately.
• Especially important in procedures, where perfection is vital.
• Sometimes, verification can be combined with editing, but it’s usually best if these are done in a separate review. You must be in an “accuracy” mindset when reviewing facts and important data.
Validation
• Checking for usability – policy or procedure understandable, well delivered, does it work in the real world, etc.
• Make sure the concept is understandable. Read the policy completely through to see if it makes sense or if anything is missing. Some writers can do this themselves, but it is easier if there are at least one or two other reviewers.
• Policies can be difficult to validate, as they’re often ambiguous or hard to measure. Usability testing is the best way to test a policy, so use this when possible. You can watch or gauge your reviewer’s difficulties or confusions and make the changes when appropriate. Honest feedback is important.
• Validating procedures does take longer because you’re actually testing the steps and sequence. Again, more eyes make for a better review. Use walk-throughs, observation, focus groups, and surveys to gauge responses. All of these steps require that you go through the basic steps of preparation, testing, debriefing, and documentation.
• Look for anything that indicates a problem on the user’s part: hesitation, guesswork, rereading, page flipping, or improvisation.
Editing
• Most are familiar with this – once you’re sure the content is correct and understandable, you can move on to editing. Editing presents a unique challenge – improve the policy without changing the meaning.
• Use this review to check for format, wording, consistency, flow, cohesion, layout and visual appeal.
• Number of edits depends on the document and project. Use the number you feel is appropriate.
• Approach editing with great precision. Know what you’re editing for, and plan time to do it. Make sure you are going to be uninterrupted when editing so that you can give the document your full attention.
• Keep an eye out for detail for important matters mechanical correctness, not trivial ones. Be sure that you are not looking for small changes like typographical errors in editing – save that for the proofreading phase.
• Review the page layout, look at the formats, consider the design elements, and scrutinize everything for consistency and logic.
Proofreading
• Proofreading is an important, although not necessarily the most enjoyable, task. Most writers consider proofing insignificant. However, if you do not spend time proofreading your document, you may let small mistakes get through. This can question your credibility with your audience. Consider proofreading your final walk-through of your document.
• Decontextualizing is the secret to effective proofreading. Reverse the learned habit of reading for meaning and concept. Take the letters, numbers, and words out of context and consider them as strictly letters, numbers, and words.
• To proofread, you can try many different methods – read backwards, read aloud, read into a tape recorder, read with a partner, read diagonally, turn the page upside down, photocopy it, scan it, or take frequent breaks.
• Look for every single imperfection, typographical errors, punctuation, spacing, spelling, agreement, page breaks, titles, misplaced words and phrases, alignment, names, numbers, typestyle, typesize, and margins. When proofreading graphics, be sure you view all details – enlarge the graphic, make certain all numbers are correct, every line is plotted accurately, every item is correctly labeled, and the information in the graphic is consistent with the text.
• The most common errors: transposed letters, duplicate letters, omitted letters, and substitute letters. All proofreaders also have their own ‘blind spots’ – know what yours are and make a mental rule so that you can remember what is correct.
• If you choose to proofread your own material, be sure you are very thorough. It’s best, however, to hand it off to someone else to proof if you can.
• All writers have deadlines. Make sure that you always allow some time for proofing, no matter what.
Approval
• Getting clearance is the last step of documentation review. Send your document to the designated approvers when you’ve completed the above four review steps. However, be sure that you keep in constant communication with your reviews throughout your documentation process. Ask for their input, or consult with them if you need to – approvers don’t like surprises.
• It is best to have a formal procedure in place for approving documents. Make sure your procedure outlines time frames and the approval cycle so that there are minimal questions from the approvers. Once these approvers receive a draft, be sure they know you are expecting their input and that all comments will be considered.
• Slow response time is usually a problem. Most managers and approvers are busy, and will often be swamped with other work and your review will just be one extra thing. Strive to make your document approval an easy process by making a form that makes the approval quick and painless. See the sample form in Chapter 8 for ideas.
• Sometimes approvers disagree on documents – don’t let this bother you. Opinions are what you are looking for with your document review, and it is better to get these opinions and thoughts out in the open before the policy is in place and it then becomes more difficult to change. Stay on top of the approval by coordinating and communicating amongst the approvers. Analyze their responses and look for validity and set up meetings if your approvers require one to come to a consensus.
• You can also have unofficial approvers for your document. Frontline managers, group leaders, or even informal clique leaders can be key supporters for the document. Keep these people in mind in your writing and review process as well – always keep those lines of communication open.
The Critical Decision: Who Reviews?
It is always better to have others review your work. Their eyes are fresher and they are not too closely tied to the doc. Sometimes, it is not always possible to have other reviewers, and when you MUST review your own work, you’ll have to exercise twice your normal discipline.
Submitted by Team 1: Beeman & Xiong
Be thorough! The writer is ultimately responsible for mistakes and errors in completed projects.
Creating a Perfect Document
Be sure that you use a review process to ensure that your document does what you want it to do.
There are five types of reviews:
1. Verification (e.g., accuracy)
2. Validation
3. Editing
4. Proofreading (e.g., spelling, punctuation)
5. Approval (e.g., getting clearance)
It is important to keep in mind that these reviews should be done in the above order so that the most critical issues are addressed first.
Can I combine a review?
You can, and sometimes it is effective. However, sometimes this is a more demanding and requires greater skill from the reviewer. When you try to compress all the reviews into fewer steps, something will usually suffer. If you choose to combine reviews, be sure your reviewer knows what you are really looking for from them – whether it is punctuality mistakes or accuracy of the information – they need to know. Having multiple reviewers is another way to ensure that more errors are found in less time. Failure to plan adequate review time is a guarantee that a document will go out with mistakes in it.
The rest of the chapter describes the review steps in detail:
Verification
• Checking for accuracy – information up-to-date, correct, dimensions accurate, eligibility requirements correct, etc.
• Various methods: compare the final draft to the original draft, check it against source documents, confirm numerical and statistical data, or assign a content expert to do the review.
You can combine them or perform them separately.
• Especially important in procedures, where perfection is vital.
• Sometimes, verification can be combined with editing, but it’s usually best if these are done in a separate review. You must be in an “accuracy” mindset when reviewing facts and important data.
Validation
• Checking for usability – policy or procedure understandable, well delivered, does it work in the real world, etc.
• Make sure the concept is understandable. Read the policy completely through to see if it makes sense or if anything is missing. Some writers can do this themselves, but it is easier if there are at least one or two other reviewers.
• Policies can be difficult to validate, as they’re often ambiguous or hard to measure. Usability testing is the best way to test a policy, so use this when possible. You can watch or gauge your reviewer’s difficulties or confusions and make the changes when appropriate. Honest feedback is important.
• Validating procedures does take longer because you’re actually testing the steps and sequence. Again, more eyes make for a better review. Use walk-throughs, observation, focus groups, and surveys to gauge responses. All of these steps require that you go through the basic steps of preparation, testing, debriefing, and documentation.
• Look for anything that indicates a problem on the user’s part: hesitation, guesswork, rereading, page flipping, or improvisation.
Editing
• Most are familiar with this – once you’re sure the content is correct and understandable, you can move on to editing. Editing presents a unique challenge – improve the policy without changing the meaning.
• Use this review to check for format, wording, consistency, flow, cohesion, layout and visual appeal.
• Number of edits depends on the document and project. Use the number you feel is appropriate.
• Approach editing with great precision. Know what you’re editing for, and plan time to do it. Make sure you are going to be uninterrupted when editing so that you can give the document your full attention.
• Keep an eye out for detail for important matters mechanical correctness, not trivial ones. Be sure that you are not looking for small changes like typographical errors in editing – save that for the proofreading phase.
• Review the page layout, look at the formats, consider the design elements, and scrutinize everything for consistency and logic.
Proofreading
• Proofreading is an important, although not necessarily the most enjoyable, task. Most writers consider proofing insignificant. However, if you do not spend time proofreading your document, you may let small mistakes get through. This can question your credibility with your audience. Consider proofreading your final walk-through of your document.
• Decontextualizing is the secret to effective proofreading. Reverse the learned habit of reading for meaning and concept. Take the letters, numbers, and words out of context and consider them as strictly letters, numbers, and words.
• To proofread, you can try many different methods – read backwards, read aloud, read into a tape recorder, read with a partner, read diagonally, turn the page upside down, photocopy it, scan it, or take frequent breaks.
• Look for every single imperfection, typographical errors, punctuation, spacing, spelling, agreement, page breaks, titles, misplaced words and phrases, alignment, names, numbers, typestyle, typesize, and margins. When proofreading graphics, be sure you view all details – enlarge the graphic, make certain all numbers are correct, every line is plotted accurately, every item is correctly labeled, and the information in the graphic is consistent with the text.
• The most common errors: transposed letters, duplicate letters, omitted letters, and substitute letters. All proofreaders also have their own ‘blind spots’ – know what yours are and make a mental rule so that you can remember what is correct.
• If you choose to proofread your own material, be sure you are very thorough. It’s best, however, to hand it off to someone else to proof if you can.
• All writers have deadlines. Make sure that you always allow some time for proofing, no matter what.
Approval
• Getting clearance is the last step of documentation review. Send your document to the designated approvers when you’ve completed the above four review steps. However, be sure that you keep in constant communication with your reviews throughout your documentation process. Ask for their input, or consult with them if you need to – approvers don’t like surprises.
• It is best to have a formal procedure in place for approving documents. Make sure your procedure outlines time frames and the approval cycle so that there are minimal questions from the approvers. Once these approvers receive a draft, be sure they know you are expecting their input and that all comments will be considered.
• Slow response time is usually a problem. Most managers and approvers are busy, and will often be swamped with other work and your review will just be one extra thing. Strive to make your document approval an easy process by making a form that makes the approval quick and painless. See the sample form in Chapter 8 for ideas.
• Sometimes approvers disagree on documents – don’t let this bother you. Opinions are what you are looking for with your document review, and it is better to get these opinions and thoughts out in the open before the policy is in place and it then becomes more difficult to change. Stay on top of the approval by coordinating and communicating amongst the approvers. Analyze their responses and look for validity and set up meetings if your approvers require one to come to a consensus.
• You can also have unofficial approvers for your document. Frontline managers, group leaders, or even informal clique leaders can be key supporters for the document. Keep these people in mind in your writing and review process as well – always keep those lines of communication open.
The Critical Decision: Who Reviews?
It is always better to have others review your work. Their eyes are fresher and they are not too closely tied to the doc. Sometimes, it is not always possible to have other reviewers, and when you MUST review your own work, you’ll have to exercise twice your normal discipline.
Submitted by Team 1: Beeman & Xiong
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Barker, Chapter 9: Editing and Fine Tuning
1. Establish Project Guidelines
Everyone involved should understand their roles for each project, as well as the team goals. A person may be a combined writer/editor, a writer, or an editor. The four types of editing that should be covered in a project are managerial editing, substantive editing, copyediting, and proofreading.
2. Understand the Types of Editing
Managerial editing: Sometimes called the production editing stage, this type of editing involves the documentation planning and production.
Substantive editing: Sometimes called the developmental editing stage, this type of editing involves information and language editing.
Copyediting: This type of editing involves consistency and accuracy in grammar and the document's format.
Proofreading: This type of editing involves giving everything a final look to make sure there are no inconsistencies or errors.
Note: When editing help documents, online testing and editing is important to ensure proper setup of the document on the computer.
3. Plan Your Editing Tasks
Plan and schedule the editing tasks in the early stages of production. Take into consideration the amount of time needed to complete each task when scheduling editing work. Make sure that when editing, no other tasks are performed. It is not the job of the editor to perform any of the writer's tasks, and it could back up the schedule if other tasks are worked on when they shouldn't be.
4. Develop the Appropriate Editing Forms
Develop and use editing forms to standardize editing practices and ensure efficient communication among multiple editors. Of particular importance is the style sheet (a running list of style decisions that have been made for the current document) and the style guide (a higher-level document that broadly defines the style of the document class or organization). Once these documents have been developed, encourage their use.
5. Conduct Editing Sessions
Sooner or later, you will sit down with the document and begin editing. Find an environment that maximizes your ability to concentrate. For most people, it must be absolutely quiet, with no disruptions. Use an editing checklist to make sure you don't skip any editing tasks--especially important when editing your own writing. Try editing with a partner--two brains are better than one. Also consider working on each task for only a short time. Your attention will be less likely to wander. Use multiple, separate editing techniques, rather than trying to catch everything on the first pass.
DISCUSSION
Editing Graphics
Figures and tables are often the first things a user will look at. The editor must ensure that the figures and tables are appropriate and accurate and that they match the document's style. Avoid cluttering screen shots with arrows and callouts--they distract when overused. Ask yourself, Will this figure help the user understand the information? Is there a better way? Know your audience.
Writing v. Editing
Writing and editing are completely separate tasks. If you are the writer and the editor, try to let the document cool off before you begin editing it. You'll need some distance to make unclouded decisions about your own work. If you are the editor of someone else's work, give them suggestions but avoid researching and writing for them.
Crossing Cultures
If your document will be read by non-native English speakers, try to make it easy on them by using simplified English. Simplified English stresses the active voice, the use of articles, the use of consistent language, and the construction of short, direct sentences. If the document will be globalized, used generic language that will be understandable across cultures. If your document will be localized, use language that is familiar to the culture the document is destined for.
When editing for translations, the rules for simplified English apply. In general, try to make it easy on the translator to render the text into a different language. This is complicated and requires specialized training and practice.
Editing Online Help
Editing online help systems is similar to editing paper documents, but there are some differences. Pay special attention to the index and links because these will be used heavily by the average user. Edit on paper and on screen because it is generally easier to edit on paper, but you need to see how the document works on screen as well. Make sure you have an up-to-date topics list so you can check the completeness of the help system.
Knowing What's Correct
Much of the time, you won't. Consult various authorities to arrive at a consensus opinion, then stick with it. Above all, ensure that your document achieves the document's goals.
Working with Others
1. Be Positive; Don't Be a Pain in the Neck
2. See #1.
Everyone involved should understand their roles for each project, as well as the team goals. A person may be a combined writer/editor, a writer, or an editor. The four types of editing that should be covered in a project are managerial editing, substantive editing, copyediting, and proofreading.
2. Understand the Types of Editing
Managerial editing: Sometimes called the production editing stage, this type of editing involves the documentation planning and production.
Substantive editing: Sometimes called the developmental editing stage, this type of editing involves information and language editing.
Copyediting: This type of editing involves consistency and accuracy in grammar and the document's format.
Proofreading: This type of editing involves giving everything a final look to make sure there are no inconsistencies or errors.
Note: When editing help documents, online testing and editing is important to ensure proper setup of the document on the computer.
3. Plan Your Editing Tasks
Plan and schedule the editing tasks in the early stages of production. Take into consideration the amount of time needed to complete each task when scheduling editing work. Make sure that when editing, no other tasks are performed. It is not the job of the editor to perform any of the writer's tasks, and it could back up the schedule if other tasks are worked on when they shouldn't be.
4. Develop the Appropriate Editing Forms
Develop and use editing forms to standardize editing practices and ensure efficient communication among multiple editors. Of particular importance is the style sheet (a running list of style decisions that have been made for the current document) and the style guide (a higher-level document that broadly defines the style of the document class or organization). Once these documents have been developed, encourage their use.
5. Conduct Editing Sessions
Sooner or later, you will sit down with the document and begin editing. Find an environment that maximizes your ability to concentrate. For most people, it must be absolutely quiet, with no disruptions. Use an editing checklist to make sure you don't skip any editing tasks--especially important when editing your own writing. Try editing with a partner--two brains are better than one. Also consider working on each task for only a short time. Your attention will be less likely to wander. Use multiple, separate editing techniques, rather than trying to catch everything on the first pass.
DISCUSSION
Editing Graphics
Figures and tables are often the first things a user will look at. The editor must ensure that the figures and tables are appropriate and accurate and that they match the document's style. Avoid cluttering screen shots with arrows and callouts--they distract when overused. Ask yourself, Will this figure help the user understand the information? Is there a better way? Know your audience.
Writing v. Editing
Writing and editing are completely separate tasks. If you are the writer and the editor, try to let the document cool off before you begin editing it. You'll need some distance to make unclouded decisions about your own work. If you are the editor of someone else's work, give them suggestions but avoid researching and writing for them.
Crossing Cultures
If your document will be read by non-native English speakers, try to make it easy on them by using simplified English. Simplified English stresses the active voice, the use of articles, the use of consistent language, and the construction of short, direct sentences. If the document will be globalized, used generic language that will be understandable across cultures. If your document will be localized, use language that is familiar to the culture the document is destined for.
When editing for translations, the rules for simplified English apply. In general, try to make it easy on the translator to render the text into a different language. This is complicated and requires specialized training and practice.
Editing Online Help
Editing online help systems is similar to editing paper documents, but there are some differences. Pay special attention to the index and links because these will be used heavily by the average user. Edit on paper and on screen because it is generally easier to edit on paper, but you need to see how the document works on screen as well. Make sure you have an up-to-date topics list so you can check the completeness of the help system.
Knowing What's Correct
Much of the time, you won't. Consult various authorities to arrive at a consensus opinion, then stick with it. Above all, ensure that your document achieves the document's goals.
Working with Others
1. Be Positive; Don't Be a Pain in the Neck
2. See #1.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Barker Chapter 7 - Useful Reviews
The Review Process
Reviews can be time consuming. A thorough review process begins with a statement of intent that the document's authors can circulate at the initial stages of the review. This statement puts the document in the proper context for the review team.
The authors can offer the review team a variety of review types:
- Managerial
- User
- Technical
- Subject Matter
- Editorial
- Sponsor
In order to keep the reviewer on task, it is best to give each reviewer a list of specific questions to complete which are pertinent to their area of involvement only. This will keep the reviewer focused on their area of responsibility.
Time is important to the process and schedule, thus it is important to make sure the reviewer has enough time to complete their own portion of the review.
When you send the document to the review team, there are a couple of options for distribution. Each of these options has its advantages and disadvantages. For a complete listing of the attributes of each distribution channel, please consult the text.
- Sequential circulation - begins with one reviewer who subsequently passes the document on to the next reviewer in an orderly fashion. Usually there is a routing note attached to the document so that the order of review is pre-determined. This is a less expensive way to do things (only one copy is needed) but it can be very time consuming if the document become buried on one of the reviewer's desks.
- Simultaneous circulation - involves the distribution of multiple copies of the document to be reviewed circulated at the same time to all reviewers. This method, of course, can be faster because each reviewer works independently at the same time.
The most significant difference between the two methods is the manner with which the reviewers supply their remarks. In sequential circulation, the reviewer will see the marks of the previous reviewer thus limiting the amount of marks that come back to the author. In simultaneous review, the reviewer is free to mark up all the aspects of the document. It seems that simultaneous review might yield a more thorough examination because each participant starts at the same point and must look at the entire document (free of other's remarks).
Be personal
The document's author/originator must always be aware of the fact that those people who make up the review team are doing him/her a valuable favor by lending their time to the review process. Because of this commitment from the reviewers, the originator of the document must keep a few things in mind:
- Explain your review goals thoroughly when distributing the document for review
- Reinforce the relationship you have with the review team (complement and thank them often)
- Explain the benefits of participation on the review team (the final product benefits from each reviewers expertise)
- Describe how you would like the reviewer to comment i.e.) marks, colors for each reviewer
- Give the reviewers a firm date to return the draft to you
- When the review is returned, make sure that you acknowledge each reviewer's particpation
Figure 7. 4 provides a good example of a review sheet that can be given to the review team
Final Discussion
It's imperative to know what you're asking for from the review team. Make sure that each reviewer understands the differences between:
- Reviewing - uncontrolled environment with many comments
- Testing - controlled environment with few participants
- Editing - professional environment with a single editor
This chapter focuses on review only. Reviews provide the document's author with a quality end product because all of the project's stakeholders (reviewers) will have had the opportunity to comment on the document and the project will be kept on a tight schedule that management will appreciate.
The earlier you begin the review process, the better it will go because the important background information will be discussed more often with the team before the project becomes too involved.
Keep your review team informed and engaged and they will probably work hard for you. If differences arise amongst the reviewers, you must be diplomatic and fair because you will need the reviewers in the future. You can't afford to alienate your team.
Finally, consider doing a walkthrough with the review team at some point during the project. The walkthrough brings all the stakeholders together for a intensive, one hour meeting. The walkthrough, if kept on task, will allow the document's author/originator the opportunity to record and compile a great deal of information in a short time. This will shape and refine the document and give all reviewers the opportunity to collaborate. Most likely, the greatest benefit of the walkthrough involving many reviewers is the opportunity to shape the document in such a way that it will elicit minimal negative feedback in the final stages of review.
Our thoughts
The key to effective document review is a cohesive review team. Keeping the team informed in all phases of the review process will create a more comprehensive and usable document in the end. People like to be heard and it's not difficult to allow this to happen if you plan the review process from the beginning.
In summary, follow these five steps as review process guidelines:
- Ask politely for involvement from reviewers
- Explain why they are important to the project
- Keep the team informed (always) not just when you need them
- Thank the reviewers when they have completed their task
- Show the reviewers the final product with changes
Thank you, Vanda and Lance (Team 7)
"Frameworks for the Study of Writing in Organizational Contexts" by Teresa M. Harrison (Central Works... Article 17)
Preface
Harrison comments that, nearly two decades after this article was first written, she realizes "that the primary activities of communication theorists are to derive and synthesize" (p. 255). She recognizes not only how much of this essay was based upon other research but also that this essay was one part of an evolving communication theory that has since become "the status quo" (255).
Introduction
Most professional writing is done within the context of organizations. While the amount of writing varies in different fields, most college-educated working adults do some writing on the job.
Writing that is done on the job tends to reflect the writer's analysis of organizational policies and procedures, understanding of readers, and awareness of social and environmental constraints.
Studying writing in organizational contexts helps us to understand the relationship between how organizations work and how its members write. It might also help us to develop broader theories about the impact of social context on the act of writing. Finally, it helps students of writing to better analyze and prepare for writing in and for their organizations.
One major challenge to studying organizational writing is the necessity for interdisciplinary research. It requires an understanding of both composition theory and organization theory. This article presents several approaches to studying writing in organizational contexts.
The Nature of Context
Much of the research on writing has focused on the social aspect of writing. This includes not only studying the relationship between the writer and the reader, but also studying the environment in which the writer and reader interact. Whether an organization should be considered a rhetorical context depends upon which approach the researcher takes.
Context as Situation
In a traditional approach such as Bitzer's, rhetorical context is considered "a situation that constitutes an occasion for rhetoric" (257). The elements of audience, exigence, and constraints trigger an appropriate rhetorical response. In this approach, situations are objective and set. The people experiencing the situation are constrained by and respond to the situation.
In this approach, there is no need to analyze organizational context because rhetorical situations are isolated events that occur between individuals. However, Harrison contends that organizations do influence rhetorical situations because their unique policies, procedures, and members may limit the kinds of situations that may occur.
Context as Community
In the New Rhetoric, reality is not seen as objective. Instead, knowledge arises from rhetorical activity or social interaction; it doesn't exist outside of the knower. The knower's assumptions influence the way they view or understand an experience.
Individuals who share assumptions make up communities, and community knowledge may different depending upon the context of each community. When individuals communicate within a community, they are demonstrating that they belong or identify with others in that community. Because of shared assumptions, individuals within a community can understand each other, and that understanding further reinforces the sense of community.
While rhetorical activity can unite communities, it can also exclude other individuals. Those that don't share their knowledge or behaviors may be excluded. Because of this, shared meanings that are reinforced within communities can be analyzed.
In this approach, academic disciplines, such as science or composition, can be viewed as unique communities with specific characteristics. If this is so, then organizations too can be considered communities with unique characteristics that should be examined for rhetorical context.
Organizations as Rhetorical Contexts
From an organizational theorist's perspective, organizations are seen "as a social phenomenon constructed through the interaction of symbol-using organisms" (260). They are viewed as cultures. Therefore, a number of researchers have used ethnographic methods to study organizations just as they would different ethnic groups.
Two perspectives in particular are helpful for analyzing an organization's rhetorical context: viewing organizations "as systems of knowledge" or viewing them as "patterns of symbolic discourse" (260).
Organizations as Systems of Knowledge
One approach to studying organizational culture views it as a " 'system of cognitions or a system of knowledge and cognitions' " (260). As individuals interact in the organizational environment, they create and reinforce the beliefs around which their culture is based. In this approach, researchers attempt to understand how an organization's members create knowledge and how that knowledge is used to guide behavior.
The evolutionary model focuses on "the organizational-level processes by which knowledge is constructed" (260). It argues that organizations retain interpretations of experience that are positive or useful, and these meanings become the shared knowledge of the organization.
The social information processing model focuses on "the social processes by which knowledge is established and shared" (260). Organization members interact with each other, sharing their perspectives and attitudes about the organization. These shared ideas become a system of knowledge, referred to as a "paradigm" (260).
The basis of this approach is the belief that thinking and acting are related. Studying organizational knowledge can provide insight into members' beliefs and roles. A major challenge, however, is understanding how organizational knowledge affects the actions of individual members.
Organizations as Patterns of Symbolic Discourse
Another approach views the organization as a context for making and using symbols. Symbols may include the words and images developed around the unique actions, events, or objects of an organization. Studying the symbols that are commonly used in organizations can provide insight into the relationships between and the actions of an organization's members.
Symbols such as images and metaphors can reveal much about an organization's beliefs and even the way its members think. One example is the use of war metaphors to represent corporate takeovers.
Common words may take a unique meaning for members of an organization because of shared understanding. Examples are slogans, stories, or sagas that illustrate the beliefs and values that guide the actions of an organization.
In summary, the New Rhetoric expands the definition of rhetorical context beyond the rhetorical situation. It includes the larger environment, such as an organization, that sets the stage for rhetorical situations to occur. This consideration is necessary because an organization influences the beliefs of and symbols used by its members.
Implications for Research
One recommendation for applying these approaches is to examine the shared knowledge of an organization and how that influences the writing done by its members. The culture of an organization might influence or limit the writing methods used by members.
Researchers may also examine organization's policies regarding how to write, what to write, and who writes. Deviations from established policies might also reveal something about the individual writer's rhetorical choices.
The symbols used by an organization can be analyzed to understand the rhetorical choices that are available to an organization's members. Symbols can also be analyzed to understand how they contribute to the creation and maintenance of the organization itself.
Implications for Writing in Organizations
Writing for an organization can be challenging. Organizational writing requires that the writer learn about the culture of the organization. Without an understanding of the values, goals, and beliefs of an organization, a writer might not be able to effectively communicate with the intended audience. The organization may also have written or unwritten rules about writing that must be considered.
Considering an organization as a culture is helpful for performing audience analysis. If members of an organizations share beliefs and symbols, then the writer can better plan how to approach such an audience. The writer can also consider the characteristics of those who are not organization members and can write appropriately for that audience as well.
Analyzing an organization's culture is helpful for both new and old members. Those new to an organization can analyze its culture to better integrate into the organization and develop writing appropriate for the organization. Long-standing members of an organization can benefit from understanding the underlying beliefs of the organization and can better target the desired audience.
Finally, analyzing organizational culture can help writers of all kinds understand the social environment. Analyzing an organization's symbols as if they were text helps writers to understand the shared meanings that influence the interactions of an organization's members.
Conclusion
Both rhetorical and organizational theories can be used to understand writing in organizations. Both theories believe that discourse is based on social interaction. Discourse unites individuals with shared beliefs into communities, and the common knowledge shared by a community's members allows them to understand each other.
Writers can benefit from approaching organizations as rhetorical contexts because it allows them to better appreciate the unique beliefs and symbols used by each organization. They can understand both the shared culture of those in the organization and the differences of those outside of the organization. This is especially important for technical writers who interact with both technical specialists and the general public. It is also important for others who write for organizations because it helps them to understand assumptions, to challenge them if necessary, and to create new knowledge.
Submitted by Team 1
Harrison comments that, nearly two decades after this article was first written, she realizes "that the primary activities of communication theorists are to derive and synthesize" (p. 255). She recognizes not only how much of this essay was based upon other research but also that this essay was one part of an evolving communication theory that has since become "the status quo" (255).
Introduction
Most professional writing is done within the context of organizations. While the amount of writing varies in different fields, most college-educated working adults do some writing on the job.
Writing that is done on the job tends to reflect the writer's analysis of organizational policies and procedures, understanding of readers, and awareness of social and environmental constraints.
Studying writing in organizational contexts helps us to understand the relationship between how organizations work and how its members write. It might also help us to develop broader theories about the impact of social context on the act of writing. Finally, it helps students of writing to better analyze and prepare for writing in and for their organizations.
One major challenge to studying organizational writing is the necessity for interdisciplinary research. It requires an understanding of both composition theory and organization theory. This article presents several approaches to studying writing in organizational contexts.
The Nature of Context
Much of the research on writing has focused on the social aspect of writing. This includes not only studying the relationship between the writer and the reader, but also studying the environment in which the writer and reader interact. Whether an organization should be considered a rhetorical context depends upon which approach the researcher takes.
Context as Situation
In a traditional approach such as Bitzer's, rhetorical context is considered "a situation that constitutes an occasion for rhetoric" (257). The elements of audience, exigence, and constraints trigger an appropriate rhetorical response. In this approach, situations are objective and set. The people experiencing the situation are constrained by and respond to the situation.
In this approach, there is no need to analyze organizational context because rhetorical situations are isolated events that occur between individuals. However, Harrison contends that organizations do influence rhetorical situations because their unique policies, procedures, and members may limit the kinds of situations that may occur.
Context as Community
In the New Rhetoric, reality is not seen as objective. Instead, knowledge arises from rhetorical activity or social interaction; it doesn't exist outside of the knower. The knower's assumptions influence the way they view or understand an experience.
Individuals who share assumptions make up communities, and community knowledge may different depending upon the context of each community. When individuals communicate within a community, they are demonstrating that they belong or identify with others in that community. Because of shared assumptions, individuals within a community can understand each other, and that understanding further reinforces the sense of community.
While rhetorical activity can unite communities, it can also exclude other individuals. Those that don't share their knowledge or behaviors may be excluded. Because of this, shared meanings that are reinforced within communities can be analyzed.
In this approach, academic disciplines, such as science or composition, can be viewed as unique communities with specific characteristics. If this is so, then organizations too can be considered communities with unique characteristics that should be examined for rhetorical context.
Organizations as Rhetorical Contexts
From an organizational theorist's perspective, organizations are seen "as a social phenomenon constructed through the interaction of symbol-using organisms" (260). They are viewed as cultures. Therefore, a number of researchers have used ethnographic methods to study organizations just as they would different ethnic groups.
Two perspectives in particular are helpful for analyzing an organization's rhetorical context: viewing organizations "as systems of knowledge" or viewing them as "patterns of symbolic discourse" (260).
Organizations as Systems of Knowledge
One approach to studying organizational culture views it as a " 'system of cognitions or a system of knowledge and cognitions' " (260). As individuals interact in the organizational environment, they create and reinforce the beliefs around which their culture is based. In this approach, researchers attempt to understand how an organization's members create knowledge and how that knowledge is used to guide behavior.
The evolutionary model focuses on "the organizational-level processes by which knowledge is constructed" (260). It argues that organizations retain interpretations of experience that are positive or useful, and these meanings become the shared knowledge of the organization.
The social information processing model focuses on "the social processes by which knowledge is established and shared" (260). Organization members interact with each other, sharing their perspectives and attitudes about the organization. These shared ideas become a system of knowledge, referred to as a "paradigm" (260).
The basis of this approach is the belief that thinking and acting are related. Studying organizational knowledge can provide insight into members' beliefs and roles. A major challenge, however, is understanding how organizational knowledge affects the actions of individual members.
Organizations as Patterns of Symbolic Discourse
Another approach views the organization as a context for making and using symbols. Symbols may include the words and images developed around the unique actions, events, or objects of an organization. Studying the symbols that are commonly used in organizations can provide insight into the relationships between and the actions of an organization's members.
Symbols such as images and metaphors can reveal much about an organization's beliefs and even the way its members think. One example is the use of war metaphors to represent corporate takeovers.
Common words may take a unique meaning for members of an organization because of shared understanding. Examples are slogans, stories, or sagas that illustrate the beliefs and values that guide the actions of an organization.
In summary, the New Rhetoric expands the definition of rhetorical context beyond the rhetorical situation. It includes the larger environment, such as an organization, that sets the stage for rhetorical situations to occur. This consideration is necessary because an organization influences the beliefs of and symbols used by its members.
Implications for Research
One recommendation for applying these approaches is to examine the shared knowledge of an organization and how that influences the writing done by its members. The culture of an organization might influence or limit the writing methods used by members.
Researchers may also examine organization's policies regarding how to write, what to write, and who writes. Deviations from established policies might also reveal something about the individual writer's rhetorical choices.
The symbols used by an organization can be analyzed to understand the rhetorical choices that are available to an organization's members. Symbols can also be analyzed to understand how they contribute to the creation and maintenance of the organization itself.
Implications for Writing in Organizations
Writing for an organization can be challenging. Organizational writing requires that the writer learn about the culture of the organization. Without an understanding of the values, goals, and beliefs of an organization, a writer might not be able to effectively communicate with the intended audience. The organization may also have written or unwritten rules about writing that must be considered.
Considering an organization as a culture is helpful for performing audience analysis. If members of an organizations share beliefs and symbols, then the writer can better plan how to approach such an audience. The writer can also consider the characteristics of those who are not organization members and can write appropriately for that audience as well.
Analyzing an organization's culture is helpful for both new and old members. Those new to an organization can analyze its culture to better integrate into the organization and develop writing appropriate for the organization. Long-standing members of an organization can benefit from understanding the underlying beliefs of the organization and can better target the desired audience.
Finally, analyzing organizational culture can help writers of all kinds understand the social environment. Analyzing an organization's symbols as if they were text helps writers to understand the shared meanings that influence the interactions of an organization's members.
Conclusion
Both rhetorical and organizational theories can be used to understand writing in organizations. Both theories believe that discourse is based on social interaction. Discourse unites individuals with shared beliefs into communities, and the common knowledge shared by a community's members allows them to understand each other.
Writers can benefit from approaching organizations as rhetorical contexts because it allows them to better appreciate the unique beliefs and symbols used by each organization. They can understand both the shared culture of those in the organization and the differences of those outside of the organization. This is especially important for technical writers who interact with both technical specialists and the general public. It is also important for others who write for organizations because it helps them to understand assumptions, to challenge them if necessary, and to create new knowledge.
Submitted by Team 1
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Campbell Chapter 7 - What's the Secret to Creating Good Manuals and Handbooks
What's the Secret to Creating Good Manuals and Handbooks
What to Put in a Manual or Handbook
Ultimately there is no formula for writing a manual. The manual will be written for a certain purpose and a certain audience. How do you present the manual? You want to present it in a way that the user will find it easy to use by not spending endless time looking for answers in it. the content must be in logical order, with a reference systme that's quick and easy.
There are seven design elements referred to as the front matter and the back matter. Many of the items in the list are so common that we do not give them a second thought when writing.
Table of Contents (TOC) Front Matter
An overview of what's in the book. It's the first impression readers have of the manual. If the table gives a good impression it encourages the reader to go on. If it gives a negative impression, such as crowded, confusing, or hard to read, it gives the reader that assumption the rest of the document is the same.
List of Illustration Front Matter
This is placed after the TOC and lists the illustrations and graphics in the manual. This makes it easier for the reader to find exactly what they are looking for instead of paging through the book.
List of Form Front Matter
The list of forms is like the illustrations list. The book also suggests that this could be placed in a forms index.
Introduction Front Matter
"This part of the front matter sets the stage ofr what's coming and orients the reader to certain basics about the manual, such as the purpose and scope."
Glossary Back Matter
This is a list of definitions that is used throughout the manual. It can be placed at the front or the back. Audience analysis can help determine whether you should use a glossary, what type, and how in-dpeth it needs to be.
Appendix Back Matter
Information that supplements the text belongs in this section. This information would otherwise confuse the reader while going through the manual. If the text is at the end of the manual they have decision to back and read through it.
Index
"The index is probably the most valuable "speed tool" you can give the reader" Its an alphabeical list of what's in the manual. When developing an index use terminology the readers use. Stay with realistic language and avoid corporate-speak.
The Production Elements
This is another area that tends to be overlooked because of familiarity. Main items to consider when deciding on production elements are: 1. How readers will use the manual, 2. Under what conditions they'll use it; and 3. How frequently they'll use it. There are six elements to consider.
Size
Standard 8 1/2 x 11 for most manuals. Smaller size manual tend to get lost among regular size materials.
Paper
Using a standard 20 to 24 lb. paper is adequate. If heavy use is expected a heavier paper is suggested such as 24 to 32 lbs. If the manual is being used in a production area, a water resistent or laminate type of page should be used. It is more costly, but it will save the cost of having to replace manuals more often or losing pages of the manual.
Color
3 color issues
1. Page color
2. Section color
3. Binder color
White is mainly used for page color because it is easiest on the eyes. But to make a section stand out, color would be a good choice. The example gives whas the blue pages in a telephone book for the government section. Binder colors also can make a stand out impression. If everyone else uses black, try another color to make yours stand out.
Binders
Inexpensive binders aren't always the way to go. They often fall apart at the seams or the rings break. One must consider the usage it will have when purchasing.
Usage of the binder should also be taken into consideration. a 2" binder requires 2 hands where a 1/2" binders needs 1 hand to pull off the shelf. If a person is on the phone all day the 1/2" binder makes the most sense. Split up the manual into 2 binders.
Always use 3-ring binders when you expect changes in content. Spiral binders can be used if there is to be not changes or minimal changes. Whatever binding system is used, be sure the pages will lie flat and are easy to turn.
Cover
If using a binder, get one that has clear envelope on the front to slip a page into and preferrably one on the spine. Manuals sit on the shelf with only their spines showing, so being able to put a title on the spine ensure that they will be seen and used more.
Dividers
Tabs divide sections. Buy sturdy tabs so they do not break off between section.
What to Put in a Manual or Handbook
Ultimately there is no formula for writing a manual. The manual will be written for a certain purpose and a certain audience. How do you present the manual? You want to present it in a way that the user will find it easy to use by not spending endless time looking for answers in it. the content must be in logical order, with a reference systme that's quick and easy.
There are seven design elements referred to as the front matter and the back matter. Many of the items in the list are so common that we do not give them a second thought when writing.
Table of Contents (TOC) Front Matter
An overview of what's in the book. It's the first impression readers have of the manual. If the table gives a good impression it encourages the reader to go on. If it gives a negative impression, such as crowded, confusing, or hard to read, it gives the reader that assumption the rest of the document is the same.
List of Illustration Front Matter
This is placed after the TOC and lists the illustrations and graphics in the manual. This makes it easier for the reader to find exactly what they are looking for instead of paging through the book.
List of Form Front Matter
The list of forms is like the illustrations list. The book also suggests that this could be placed in a forms index.
Introduction Front Matter
"This part of the front matter sets the stage ofr what's coming and orients the reader to certain basics about the manual, such as the purpose and scope."
Glossary Back Matter
This is a list of definitions that is used throughout the manual. It can be placed at the front or the back. Audience analysis can help determine whether you should use a glossary, what type, and how in-dpeth it needs to be.
Appendix Back Matter
Information that supplements the text belongs in this section. This information would otherwise confuse the reader while going through the manual. If the text is at the end of the manual they have decision to back and read through it.
Index
"The index is probably the most valuable "speed tool" you can give the reader" Its an alphabeical list of what's in the manual. When developing an index use terminology the readers use. Stay with realistic language and avoid corporate-speak.
The Production Elements
This is another area that tends to be overlooked because of familiarity. Main items to consider when deciding on production elements are: 1. How readers will use the manual, 2. Under what conditions they'll use it; and 3. How frequently they'll use it. There are six elements to consider.
Size
Standard 8 1/2 x 11 for most manuals. Smaller size manual tend to get lost among regular size materials.
Paper
Using a standard 20 to 24 lb. paper is adequate. If heavy use is expected a heavier paper is suggested such as 24 to 32 lbs. If the manual is being used in a production area, a water resistent or laminate type of page should be used. It is more costly, but it will save the cost of having to replace manuals more often or losing pages of the manual.
Color
3 color issues
1. Page color
2. Section color
3. Binder color
White is mainly used for page color because it is easiest on the eyes. But to make a section stand out, color would be a good choice. The example gives whas the blue pages in a telephone book for the government section. Binder colors also can make a stand out impression. If everyone else uses black, try another color to make yours stand out.
Binders
Inexpensive binders aren't always the way to go. They often fall apart at the seams or the rings break. One must consider the usage it will have when purchasing.
Usage of the binder should also be taken into consideration. a 2" binder requires 2 hands where a 1/2" binders needs 1 hand to pull off the shelf. If a person is on the phone all day the 1/2" binder makes the most sense. Split up the manual into 2 binders.
Always use 3-ring binders when you expect changes in content. Spiral binders can be used if there is to be not changes or minimal changes. Whatever binding system is used, be sure the pages will lie flat and are easy to turn.
Cover
If using a binder, get one that has clear envelope on the front to slip a page into and preferrably one on the spine. Manuals sit on the shelf with only their spines showing, so being able to put a title on the spine ensure that they will be seen and used more.
Dividers
Tabs divide sections. Buy sturdy tabs so they do not break off between section.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Article Summary: Charney’s “Empiricism Is Not a Four-Letter Word”
Do empirical methods have a place in the scholarship of technical and professional writing? At the time this article was written (1996), an influential cadre of technical communication researchers had been calling into question not only the validity of these methods but also the moral and ethical character of those who used them. Basing their rejection of empirical methods on feminism and social constructionism, these scholars successfully forced quantitative research in technical communication out of the mainstream. With this article, Charney’s aim was to expose the logical fallacies of this movement, as he saw them, and to attempt to restore the reputation of quantitative methods. His hope was for a community of scholarship that valued qualitative and quantitative research methodologies in equal measure.
The Mischaracterization of Science
Although many critics of science merge objectivity, positivism, rationalism, and materialism (among other terms), Charney notes that these concepts can and should be separated and that many notable scholars have upheld some, but not all, of these ideas. Nevertheless, critics equate the quantitative approach with an ethos of self-interest and political status quo. By eliminating the richness of human experience from their research, empiricists are viewed as misrepresenting the true nature of the world as reducible and fully describable.
A key accusation against empiricism is that it is inherently sexist. Some scholars charge that empiricism reinforces masculine modes of knowledge and shuts out other, feminine, paths, such as intuitions, traditions, and personal experience. Charney counters that, contrarily, the pervasiveness of sexism in our culture has often been revealed through quantitative analyses and that empiricism has probably opened the door to many more people to join in the production of knowledge than were allowed to in cultures that privileged the elitist few. Because science is open and repeatable, it allows anyone to challenge it and add to it.
Indeterminacy
Critics also point to the fundamental contradiction in science that so-called “objective” methods are not really objective at all. In every data set, there is variance; in all methods, there are indeterminate sources of error. How, then, can scientists claim absolute objectivity? Charney concedes that “scientific knowledge and methods are, at least in part, socially constructed.” However, he says, this does not invalidate the central rationality of science. Science is a process, not a discrete, monolithic entity. Imperfect tools are used to continually improve our understanding and to create new tools that are less imperfect than their predecessors. Science is self-critical and self-examining—nothing stands that is shown to be false. To Charney, empiricism is what prevents a totalitarian ethic because it promotes a free and open exchange of ideas. This is in direct contrast to the characterization of science by the opposing side as an upholder of oppressive power structures.
What’s Really Objective about Objectivity?
As noted, critics often charge that science is not objective because its methods are socially constructed and inherently indeterminate. However, to philosophers of science, there is no contradiction between social construction and objectivity—it is largely a misperception of science that leads people to reject it. The social constructivist roots of science are evident in the way that scientific ideas and methods are tested and re-tested. No one individual holds absolute authority. Knowledge is arrived at through consensus via a community-based process. Most scientists do not see their own results as fixed, immutable truths, but rather as probabilities that lean in one direction or another. As a result, scientific articles are best viewed as rhetorical devices to disseminate results and attempt to convince one’s peers of the value of one’s work. This process results in ever-improving methods and knowledge claims. It is precisely this aspect of science, and not the “supposed neutrality or disinterestedness of individual scientists,” that defines objectivity in science.
How Researchers Treat Their Participants
Another critique of empiricism is the cold manner in which quantitative researchers approach their research participants. Critics equate distance with uncaringness, objectivity with amorality. Charney points out that “these characterizations smack of the worst kind of exclusionary identity politics” in that “they essentialize the researchers on the basis of their methods.” In contrast, many quantitative researchers care deeply for their research participants—deeply enough to remain distant and “cold.” This distance is what allows them to report accurately on what they observe, and what allows others to reproduce their studies and validate their results. The methods one uses cannot be used as a gauge of the moral character of those who use them. In that light, the supposed caring and compassionate nature of qualitative researchers cannot be ascertained purely through their own descriptions of their participants. Their reports are just as calculated as those of quantitative researchers—they must assume a particular “voice” in order to appeal to their readers (primarily, other qualitative researchers).
Objectivity Reinforces Collective Authority
Qualitative analyses are inherently situated in the place they were conducted. Studies that rely on qualitative methods are not generalizable to broader contexts, and the validity of these studies cannot be independently verified. Paradoxically, this lends absolute authority to the individual researchers because they are the only ones who can make claims about their own research. Although qualitative research is often viewed as democratizing and collectivist, the opposite is true. Quantitative research, conversely, relies on the community for its credence. And because quantitative research leads toward generalizability, the results of multiple studies build upon one another to form an interconnected web of understanding.
Toward a Synthesis of Qualitative and Quantitative Methods
Neither qualitative nor quantitative methods alone are sufficient to create a robust field of scholarship in technical communication. Both reveal knowledge in their own way, and both reveal different kinds of knowledge. Charney believes that, as a field, we should embrace all methods that have the capability of leading us to our collective goals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)