Despite the recent surge in social justice and decolonial scholarship, technical and professional communication (TPC) research remains a potential site of oppression. This article is meant to be a call to action; it attempts to (re)ignite discussions about what we value and how we express what we value. It encourages the field of TPC to be more responsive to the experiences and struggles of research participants—those we engage during our knowledge production process. I explore what I call oppressive rhetoric in TPC research with a specific focus on the term subjects in institutional review board forms and in the reporting of some TPC research about research participants. I assert that in spite of our best efforts in advancing the goals of marginalized groups and despite the forward-looking trajectory of progressive research, more work needs to be done to address oppressive rhetoric in TPC scholarship.
AgbokaG. Y. (2014).
Decolonial methodologies: Social justice perspectives in intercultural technical communication research. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication,
44(3), 297–327.
2.
AndewegB. A.de JongJ. C.HoekenH. (1998).
May I have your attention?: Exordial techniques in informative oral presentations. Technical Communication Quarterly,
7(3), 271–284. doi:10.1080/10572259809364631
3.
BartonE.ThominetL.BoederR.PrimeauS. (2018).
Do community members have an effective voice in the ethical deliberation of a behavioral institutional review board?Journal of Business and Technical Communication,
32(2), 154–197.
4.
BlylerN. (1995).
Research as ideology in professional communication. Technical Communication Quarterly,
4(3), 285–313.
5.
BlylerN. (1998).
Taking a political turn: The critical perspective and research in professional communication. Technical Communication Quarterly,
7(1), 33–52.
6.
BoyntonP. M. (1998).
People should participate in, not be subjects of, research. British Medical Journal,
317, 1521.
7.
Boynton, P. M. (2016). The research companion: A practical guide for those in the social sciences and health and development (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
8.
BromleyE.MikesellL.JonesF.KhodyakovD. (2015).
From subject to participant: Ethics and the evolving role of community in health research. American Journal of Public Health,
105(5), 900–908.
9.
Byrne, J. (2005). Evaluating the effect of iconic linkage on the usability of software user guides. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 35(2), 155–178.
ColeF. L. (1988).
Content analysis process and application. Clinical Nurse Specialist,
2, 53–57.
12.
CrabtreeR. D. (1998).
Mutual empowerment in cross-cultural participatory development and service learning: Lessons in communication and social justice from projects in El Salvador and Nicaragua. Journal of Applied Communication Research,
26(2), 182–209.
13.
CrossC. A. (2004).
Protecting the voices of our research appropriately verifying qualitative data. Journal of Business and Technical Communication,
18(4), 491–504. doi:10.1177/1050651904267119
14.
DannerP. (2019).
Story/Telling with data as distributed activity. Technical Communication Quarterly, 1–14. doi:10.1080/10572252.2019.1660807
15.
DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–32).
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
16.
Downe-WamboldtB. (1992).
Content analysis method, applications and issues. Health Care for Women International,
13, 313–321.
17.
DuráL.SinghalA.ElíasE. (2013).
Minga Peru’s strategy for social change in the Peruvian Amazon: A rhetorical model for participatory, intercultural practice to advance human rights. Journal of Rhetoric, Professional Communication and Globalization,
4(1), 33–54.
18.
FreireP. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed.
New York, NY:
Herder and Herder.
19.
HaasA. (2012).
Race, rhetoric, and technology: A case study of decolonial technical communication theory, methodology, and pedagogy. Journal of Business and Technical Communication,
26(3), 277–310.
20.
HerndlC. G. (1993).
Teaching discourse and reproducing culture: A critique of research and pedagogy in professional and non-academic writing. College Composition and Communication,
44(3), 349–363.
21.
JonesN. (2016).
The technical communicator as an advocate: Integrating a social justice approach in technical communication. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication,
46(3), 342–361.
22.
KastmanL. M.GurakL. J. (1999).
Conducting technical communication research via the Internet: Guidelines for privacy, permissions, and ownership in educational research. Technical Communication,
46(4), 460–469.
23.
KrippendorffK. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
24.
MngomezuluM. S. (2015).
Citizenship in colonial Africa: An overview of British and French repertoires. Journal of Public Inquiry,
4, 4–11.
MutuaK.SwadenerB. B. (2004). Decolonizing research in cross-cultural contexts: Critical personal narrative.
Albany:
State University of New York Press.
27.
RoyD. (2008).
Designing procedural graphics for surgical patient-education modules: An experimental study. Technical Communication Quarterly,
17(2), 173–201.
28.
RudeC. D. (2009).
Mapping the research questions in technical communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication,
23(2), 174–215. doi:10.1177/1050651908329562
29.
SandelowskiM. (1995).
Sample size in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health,
18(2), 179–183.
30.
SchaffnerA. C. (1994).
The future of scientific journals: Lessons from the past. Information Technology and Libraries,
13, 239–247.
31.
SmithL. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples.
London, England:
Zed Books Ltd.
32.
SullivanD. (1990).
Political-ethical implications of defining technical communication as practice. Journal of Advanced Composition,
10(2), 375–386.
33.
ThrallsC.BlylerN. R. (1993). The social perspective and professional communication: Diversity and directions in research. In BlylerN. R.ThrallsC. (Eds.), Professional communication: The social perspective (pp. 3–35).
Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
34.
TuckE.GuishardM. (2013). Un-collapsing ethics: Racialized sciencism, settler coloniality, and an ethical framework of decolonial participatory action research. In KressT. M.MalottC.PorfinoB. (Eds.), Challenging status quo retrenchment: New directions in critical research (pp. 3–28).
Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publishing.
35.
WaltonR. (2013).
Stakeholder flux: Participation in technology-based international development projects. Journal of Business and Technical Communication,
27(4), 409–435. doi:1050651913490940
36.
WaltonR. (2014).
Editor’s introduction to special edition on intercultural methodology. Journal of Rhetoric, Professional Communication, and Globalization,
5(1), 1–13.
37.
WaltonR.AgbokaD. (Eds.). (forthcoming). Equipping technical communicators for social justice work: Theories, methods, and topics.
Logan:
Utah State University Press.
38.
WaltonR.PriceR.ZralyM. (2013).
Rhetorically navigating Rwandan research review: A fantasy theme analysis. Journal of Rhetoric, Professional Communication and Globalization,
4(1), 78–102.
39.
WaltonR.ThatcherB. (Eds.). (2014). Methodologies for intercultural research: Reflexivity, flexibility, and humility (Special issue). Journal of Rhetoric, Professional Communication, and Globalization, 5(1).
