In this study, six focus groups comprising technical communicators and technical communication instructors evaluated and discussed two versions of an instructional manual and two versions of a memo. Findings reveal that the practitioners and academics relied on similar metaphors (including the Conduit Metaphor), metonymies, and constructed scenarios. Although their ways of evaluating texts were broadly similar, practitioners exhibited greater awareness of task-related rhetorical variables whereas academics were more likely to be concerned with textual features and general principles that apply to technical writing tasks. Differences between the groups were particularly evident in discussions of the memo.
Abbott, C. (1993). Uncovering the CYA (“cover-your-ass”) phenomenon in organizational writing: Initial findings. Technical Communication, 40, 344-348.
2.
Axley, S. R. (1996). Communication at work: Management and the communication-intensive organization. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
3.
Barabas, C. (1990). Technical writing in a corporate culture: A study of the nature of information. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
4.
Barcelona, A. (2000). Introduction: The cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 1-28). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
5.
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
6.
Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
Bizzell, P. (1982). Cognition, convention, and certainty: What we need to know about writing. Pre/text, 3, 213-243.
8.
Blakeslee, A. M. (1997). Activity, context, interaction, and authority: Learning to write scientific papers in situ. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 11, 125-169.
9.
Bowden, D. (1993). The limits of containment: Text-as-container in composition studies. College Composition and Communication, 44, 364-379.
10.
Britton, W. E. (1978). What is technical writing? In W. K. Sparrow & D. H. Cunningham (Eds.), The practical craft: Readings for business and technical writers (pp. 8-13). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
11.
Christensen, B., & Christensen, F. (1978). Notes toward a new rhetoric: Nine essays for teachers (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
12.
Dannels, D. P. (2000). Learning to be professional: Technical classroom discourse, practice, and professional identity construction. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 14, 5-37.
13.
Dannels, D. P. (2003). Teaching and learning design presentations in engineering: Contradictions between academic and workplace activity systems. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 17, 139-169.
14.
Devitt, A. J. (1993). Generalizing about genre: New conceptions of an old concept. College Composition and Communication, 44, 573-587.
15.
Dias, P., Freedman, A., Medway, P., & Paré, A. (1999). Worlds apart: Acting and writing in academic and workplace contexts. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16.
Dicks, R. S. (1999, March). Technical communication in academia and industry: The cultural gaps that prevent understanding. Paper presented at the Association of Teachers of Technical Writing, 2nd Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA.
17.
Dicks, R. S. (2002). Cultural impediments to understanding: Are they surmountable? In B. Mirel & R. Spilka (Eds.), Reshaping technical communication: New directions and challenges for the 21st century (pp. 13-25). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18.
Dobrin, D. (1983). What’s technical about technical writing? In P. R. Anderson, R. J. Brockman, & C. R. Miller (Eds.), New essays in technical and scientific communication: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 227-250). Farmingdale, NY: Baywood.
19.
Dobrin, D. (1989). Writing and technique. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
20.
Doheny-Farina, S. (1992). Rhetoric, innovation, technology: Case studies of technical communication in technology transfer. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21.
Elling, R. (1997). Revising safety instructions with focus groups. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 11, 451-468.
22.
Eubanks, P. (2000). Awar of words in the discourse of trade: The rhetorical constitution of metaphor. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
23.
Eubanks, P. (2001). Understanding metaphors for writing: In defense of the conduit metaphor. College Composition and Communication, 53, 92-119.
24.
Eubanks, P., & Abbott, C. (2003). Using focus groups to supplement the assessment of technical communication texts, pedagogy, and programs. Technical Communication Quarterly, 12, 25-46.
25.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
26.
Flower, L., Hayes, J. R., & Swarts, H. (1983). Revising functional documents: The scenario principle. In P. R. Anderson, R. J. Brockman, & C. R. Miller (Eds.), New essays in technical and scientific communication: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 41-58). Farmingdale, NY: Baywood.
27.
Freedman, A., & Adam, C. (1996). Learning to write professionally: “Situated learning” and the transition from university to professional discourse. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 10, 395-427.
28.
Freedman, A., Adam, C., & Smart, G. (1994). Wearing suits to class: Simulating genre and simulations as genre. Written Communication, 11, 193-226.
29.
Goossens, L. (1994). Metonymy in the pipeline: Another way of looking at the container metaphor. In K. Carlong, K. Davidse, & B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Eds.), Perspectives on English: Studies in honour of Professor Emma Vorlat (pp. 386-394). Lueven, Belgium: Peeters.
30.
Goossens, L., Pauwels, P., Rudzka-Ostyn, B., Simon-Vandenbergen, A. M., & Vanparys, J. (Eds.). (1995). By word of mouth: Metaphor, metonymy and linguistic action in a cognitive perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
31.
Gurak, L. J., & Lannon, J. M. (2001). A concise guide to technical communication. Boston: Addison-Wesley Longman.
32.
Herrington, A. (1985). Writing in academic settings: A study of contexts of writing in two college chemical engineering courses. Research in the Teaching of English, 19, 331-359.
33.
Houp, K. W., & Pearsall, T. (1968). Reporting technical information. New York: Macmillan.
34.
Johnson, R. R. (1998). User-centered technology: A rhetorical theory for computers and other mundane artifacts. Albany: State University of New York Press.
35.
Jong, M. D., & Schellens, P. J. (1998). Focus groups or individual interviews? A comparison of text evaluation approaches. Technical Communication, 45, 77-89.
36.
Kaufer, D. S., Ishisaki, S., Butler, B., & Collins, J. (2004). The power of words: Unveiling the speaker and writer’s hidden craft. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
37.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus group: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.
40.
LaRoche, M. G., & Pearson, S. S. (1998). Rhetorical and rational enterprises: Reassessing discourse in organizations. Written Communication, 15, 281-303.
41.
Lay, M. M., Wahlstrom, B., Doheny-Farina, S., Duin, A. H., Rude, C., Selzer, J., et al. (1995). Technical communication. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
42.
Longo, B. (2000). Spurious coin: A history of science, management, and technical writing. Albany: State University of New York Press.
43.
Lunt, P., & Livingstone, S. (1996). Rethinking focus groups in media and communication research. Journal of Communication, 46, 79-98.
44.
Mathes, J. C., & Stevenson, D. W. (1976). Designing technical reports: Writing for audiences in organizations. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill Educational.
45.
Miller, C. (1979). A humanistic rationale for technical writing. College English, 40, 610-617.
46.
Miller, C. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151-167.
47.
Mills, G. H., & Walter, J. A. (1954). Reporting technical information. New York: Macmillan.
48.
Mirel, B., & Spilka, R. (Eds.). (2002). Reshaping technical communication: New directions and challenges for the 21st century. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
49.
Myers, G. (1998). Displaying opinions: Topics and disagreement in focus groups. Language in Society, 27, 85-111.
50.
Odell, L., & Goswami, D. (1982). Writing in a non-academic setting. Research in the Teaching of English, 16, 201-223.
51.
Pearsall, T. E. (1975). Teaching technical writing: Methods for college English teachers. Washington, DC: Society for Technical Communication.
52.
Prior, P. (1998). Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the academy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
53.
Puchta, C., & Potter, J. (1999). Asking elaborate questions: Focus groups and the management of spontaneity. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 3, 314-335.
54.
Quible, Z. (1998). Afocus on focus groups. Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication, 61, 28-40.
55.
Reddy, M. (1979). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 284-324). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
56.
Rhodes, F. H. (1941). Technical report writing. New York: McGraw-Hill.
57.
Sandman, P., Klompus, C. S., & Greenleaf Yarrison, B. (1985). Scientific and technical writing. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
58.
Shannon, C., & Weaver, T. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
59.
Slack, J. D., Miller, D. J., & Doak, J. (1993). The technical communicator as author: Meaning, power, authority. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 7, 12-36.
60.
Smith, E. O. (1997). Intertextual connections to “A humanistic rationale for technical writing.”Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 11, 192-222.
61.
Smith, S. (2003). What is “good” technical communication? A comparison of the standards of writing and engineering instructors. Technical Communication Quarterly, 12, 7-24.
62.
Spilka, R. (Ed.). (1993). Writing in the workplace: New research perspectives. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
63.
Spilka, R. (2000). The issue of quality in professional documentation: How can academia make more of a difference?Technical Communication Quarterly, 9, 207-220.
64.
Stratton, C. R. (1984). Technical writing: Process and product. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
65.
Suchan, J. (1995). The influence of organizational metaphors on writers’ communication roles and stylistic choices. Journal of Business Communication, 23, 7-29.
66.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
67.
Sweetser, E. (1992). English metaphors for language: Motivations, conventions, and creativity. Poetics Today, 13, 705-723.
68.
Thralls, C., & Blyler, N. R. (1993). The social perspective and professional communication: Diversity and directions in research. In C. Thralls & N. R. Blyler (Eds.), Professional communication: The social perspective (pp. 3-34). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
69.
Turner, M. (2001). Cognitive dimensions of social science: The way we think about politics, economics, law, and society. New York: Oxford University Press.
70.
Ulman, J. N., & Gould, J. R. (1972). Technical reporting (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
71.
Weiss, T. (1997). Reading culture: Professional communication as translation. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 11, 321-338.
72.
Winsor, D. A. (1996). Writing like an engineer: A rhetorical education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
