The authors argue that technical and professional communication is currently facing an issue of incommensurability due to the diversity of the field. They call for unifying the field around its research questions to provide a common foundation for the future.
AllenJ. (1990) The case against defining technical writing. Journal of Business and Technical Communication4(2): 68–77.
2.
AndersenR. (2014) Planning for the shaping force of cultural dynamics in a component content-management system implementation. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication57(3): 216–234.
3.
AngeliE. L. (2015) Three types of memory in emergency medical services communication. Written Communication32(1): 3–38.
4.
AtvtgisT.KappelD.PolackE. P.WilsonA.KnightJ. (2015) Assessing the accuracy of trauma patient prioritization: Communication design of the M.I.S.E.R. information system protocol and communication channel during crisis communication exchanges. Communication Design Quarterly3(4): 85–90.
5.
BlakesleeA. M. (2009) The technical communication research landscape. Journal of Business and Technical Communication23(2): 129–173.
6.
BlochJ. (2011) Glorified grammarian or versatile value adder? What internship reports reveal about the professionalization of technical communication. Technical Communication58(4): 307–327.
7.
BlylerN.ThrallsC. (1993) Professional communication: The social perspective, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
8.
BlylerN. R. (2004) Critical interpretive research in technical communication: Issues of power and legitimacy. In: Kynell-HuntT.SavageG. J. (eds) Power and legitimacy in technical communication: Strategies for professional statusVol. 2, Amityville, NY: Baywood, pp. 143–168.
9.
BoettgerR. K.LamC. (2013) An overview of experimental and quasi-experimental research in technical communication journals (1992–2011). IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication56(4): 272–293.
10.
BradyM. A.SchreiberJ. (2013) Static to dynamic: Professional identity as inventory, invention, and performance in classrooms and workplaces. Technical Communication Quarterly22(4): 343–362.
11.
BridgefordT.St.AmantK. (2015) Academy-industry relationships and partnerships: Perspectives for technical communicators, Amityville, NY: Baywood.
12.
CarlinerS. (2012) The three approaches to professionalization in technical communication. Technical Communication59(1): 49–65.
13.
CarlinerS.CoppolaN. W.GradyH. M.HayhoeG. F. (2011) What does the transactions publish? What do transactions readers want to read?IEEE Professional Communication54(4): 341–359.
14.
ClearyY. (2012) Discussions about the technical communication profession: Perspectives from the blogosphere. Technical Communication59(1): 8–28.
15.
CoppolaN. W. (2012) Professionalization of technical communication: Zeitgeist for our age introduction to this special issue (Part 2). Technical Communication59(1): 1–7.
16.
DavisM. T. (2001) Shaping the future of our profession. Technical Communication48(2): 139–144.
17.
DaytonD.BernhardtS. A. (2004) Results of a survey of ATTW members, 2003. Technical Communication Quarterly13(1): 13–43.
18.
DebsM. B. (1993) Corporate authority: Sponsoring rhetorical practice. In: SpilkaR. (ed.) Writing in the workplace: New research perspectives, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, pp. 158–170.
19.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: capitalism and schizophrenia (B. Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
20.
DobrinD. (1983) What’s technical about technical writing? In: AndersonP. V.BrockmannR. J.MillerC. R. (eds) New essays in technical and scientific communication: Research, theory, practice, Farmingdale, NY: Baywood, pp. 227–250.
21.
FaberB. (2002) Professional identities: What is professional about professional communication?Journal of Business and Technical Communication16(3): 306–337.
22.
FaberB.Johnson-EilolaJ. (2002) Migrations: Strategic thinking about the future(s) of technical communication. In: MirelB.SpilkaR. (eds) Reshaping technical communication: New directions and challenges for the 21st century, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 135–148.
23.
HarrisR. A. (2006) Introduction. In: HarrisR. A. (eds) Rhetoric and incommensurability, West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press, pp. 1–149.
24.
HartH.ConklinJ. (2006) Toward a meaningful model for technical communication. Technical Communication53(4): 395–415.
25.
HenschelS.MelonconL. (2014) Of horsemen and layered literacies: Assessment instruments for aligning technical and professional communication undergraduate curricula with professional expectations. Programmatic Perspectives6(1): 3–26.
26.
HerndlC.NahrwoldC. (2000) Research as social practice: A case study of research on technical and professional communication. Written Communication17(2): 258–296.
27.
HughesM. (2002) Moving from information transfer to knowledge creation: A new value proposition for technical communicators. Technical Communication49(3): 275–285.
28.
KillingsworthM. J. (1999) Technical communication in the 21st century: Where are we going?Technical Communication Quarterly8(2): 165–174.
29.
KimballM. (2015) How a few great companies get it done [special issue]. Technical Communication62(2): 88–103.
30.
KlineJ.BarkerT. (2012) Negotiating professional consciousness in technical communication: A community of practice approach. Technical Communication59(1): 32–48.
31.
KnievelM. (2006) Technology artifacts, instrumentalism, and the humanist manifestos: Toward an integrated humanistic profile for technical communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication20(1): 65–86.
32.
KuhnT. (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
33.
LayM. M. (2004) Reflections on technical communication quarterly, 1991–2003: The manuscript review process. Technical Communication Quarterly13(1): 109–119.
34.
LazardA. J.MackertM. S. (2015) E-health first impressions and visual evaluations: Key design principles for attention and appeal. Communication Design Quarterly3(4): 25–34.
35.
LockerK. O. (2003) Will professional communication be the death of business communication?Business Communication Quarterly66(3): 118–132.
36.
McKeeH.PorterJ. E. (2009) The ethics of internet research: A rhetorical, case-based process, New York, NY: Peter Lang.
37.
McNelyB.SpinuzziC.TestonC. (2015) Guest editors’ introduction: Contemporary research methodologies in technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly24(1): 1–13.
38.
MelonconL. (2009) Master’s programs in technical communication: A current overview. Technical Communication56(2): 137–148.
39.
MelonconL. (2013) Visual communication in environmental health: Methodological questions and compromises. Communication Design Quarterly1(2): 34–37.
40.
MelonconL.HenschelS. (2013) Current state of US undergraduate degree programs in technical and professional communication. Technical Communication60(1): 45–64.
41.
MillerC. R. (1989) What’s practical about technical writing? In: FearingB. E.SparrowW. K. (eds) Technical writing: Theory and practice, New York, NY: Modern Language Association, pp. 14–24.
42.
MooreP. (2006) Legitimizing technical communication in English departments: Carolyn miller’s “Humanistic rationale for technical writing”. Journal of Technical Writing & Communication36(2): 167–182.
43.
MooreP. (2008) Cruel theory? The struggle for prestige and its consequences in academic technical communication. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication38(3): 207–240.
44.
RicklyR. J. (2007) Messy contexts: Research as a rhetorical situation. In: McKeeH.DevossD. N. (eds) Digital writing research: Technologies, methodologies, and ethical issues, Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, pp. 377–397.
45.
RudeC.CookK. C. (2004) The academic job market in technical communication, 2002–2003. Technical Communication Quarterly13(1): 49–71.
46.
RudeC. D. (2009) Mapping the research questions in technical communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication23(2): 174–215.
47.
ScottJ. B.LongoB.WillsK. V. (2006) Critical power tools: Technical communication and cultural studies, Albany: State University of New York Press.
48.
SelberS. A. (2004a) The CCCC outstanding dissertation award in technical communication: A retrospective analysis. Technical Communication Quarterly13(2): 139–155.
49.
SelberS. A. (2004b) Multiliteracies for the digital age, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
50.
SlackJ. D. (2003) Technical communicator as author? A critical postscript. In: Kynell-HuntT.SavageG. J. (eds) Power and legitimacy in technical communication Volume 1: The historical and contemporary struggle for professional status, Amityville, NY: Baywood, pp. 193–207.
51.
SlackJ. D.MillerD. J.DoakJ. (1993) The technical communicator as author: Meaning, power, authority. Journal of Business and Technical Communication7(1): 12–36.
52.
SpilkaR. (2009) Practitioner research instruction. Journal of Business and Technical Communication23(2): 216–237.
53.
St.AmantK. (2015a) Aspects of access: Considerations for creating health and medical content for international audiences. Communication Design Quarterly3(3): 7–11.
54.
St.AmantK. (2015b) Culture and the contextualization of care: A prototype-based approach to developing health and medical visuals for international audiences. Communication Design Quarterly3(2): 38–47.
55.
SullivanD. L. (1990) Political-ethical implications of defining technical communication as practice. JAC: A Journal of Rhetoric, Culture, & Politics10(2): 375–386.
