Research in Business Communication: The State of the Art

Abstract

This paper deals with the current state of research in business communica tion. To assess the present, it looks at the past and explores the road we have followed to our present position. It includes suggestions on the pro per subject matter of research in our discipline, presents a taxonomy for identifying research interests and relationships, and identifies areas in which we have been prolific and those in which we find much uncharted terrain. In so doing, it compares the research interests of the American Business Communication Association and two other major communication so cieties. It comments on research direction (and misdirection) and on re search types, tools, and developments. It also comments on the quality, philosophy, and objectives of research; and it suggests explanations for current emphases in our field, noting the stages of inquiry through which it has evolved. The paper concludes with a candid evaluation of our efforts in research and with suggestions for future directions.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

David N. Bateman , "What Business Communicationists Measure and How They Measure It," Guidelines for Research in Business Communication, American Business Communication Association, Champaign, IL, 1977, p. 66.

See especially Rolf F. Rehe , "Is Unjustified Typesetting Justified?" Technical Communication, Vol. 25, No. 1, First Quarter 1978, pp. 7-10.

Bette Ann Stead , "A Content Analysis of The Journal of Business Communication: Toward A Body of Knowledge," The Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 15, No. 2, Winter 1978, p. 49.

Stead, p. 49.

John A. Walter , "Confessions of a Teacher of Technical Writing ," The Technical Writing Teacher, Fall 1973 , p. 5.

M.L. King , "Research in Composition: A Need For Theory," Research In The Teaching of English, October 1978, p. 202.

King, p. 199.

See, e.g., "Why Johnny Can't Write," Newsweek , December 8, 1975.

George R. Klare , "Readable Technical Writing: Some Observations ," Technical Communication, Vol. 24, No. 2, Second Quarter, 1977, pp. 1-3, 5. Klare treats these matters more fully in his A Manual For Readable Writing, Glen Burnie, MD, REM Company, 1975.

10.

Used here "word depth" refers to the number of commitments a reader must store. This suggests what we might intuit: that the number of clauses and phrases intervening between the subject and the verb correlates negatively with ease of understanding. "Embedded" sentences have repeated parts within parallel elements; they are perfectly grammatical but harder to understand than less embedded sentences.

11.

See, for example, M. Richard Davis , "Does Expression Make a Difference?" Technical Communication, Vol. 23, No. 2, Second Quarter, 1976, pp. 6-10.

12.

For an instructive discussion of the problems and pitfalls of obtaining scientific consensus, see Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2nd ed., 1970.

13.

Thomas Hardy , The Mayor of Casterbridge, Macmillan and Company, Ltd. , London, 1912, p. 369.