More than 20 years ago, Elizabeth O. Smith published her points of reference that documented the research trajectory of technical communication from 1988 to 1997. Her results indicated a focus on rhetorical analyses, a decrease in collaborative research, and a disproportionate representation of male authors. This study builds on these points with a quantitative content analysis of 1,271 articles that were published in five leading technical communication journals and Intercom, the trade magazine for the Society for Technical Communication, from 1996 to 2017. The results show that both the research journals and Intercom have pivoted to process-driven rather than product-driven content. The results also suggest that the primary topics of communication strategy and collaboration might be the most likely places to foster future industry–academic ties and that the greatest division between the two populations is the primary topic of rhetoric. This study offers an updated baseline for future investigations by offering an evaluation of disparate content foci between the publication types.
AlbersM. J. (2016). Improving research communication. Technical Communication, 63(4), 293–297.
3.
AllenJ. (1990). The case against defining technical writing. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 4(2), 68–77.
4.
AndersenR.HackosJ. (2018, August). Increasing the value and accessibility of academic research: Perspectives from industry [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the 36th ACM International Conference on the Design of Communication, Milwaukee, WI.
5.
BatovaT. (2018). Work motivation in the rhetoric of component content management. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 32(3), 308–346.
6.
BlakesleeA. M.SpilkaR. (2004). The state of research in technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 13(1), 73–92.
7.
BoettgerR. K.FriessE. (2016). Academics are from Mars, practitioners are from Venus: Analyzing content alignment within technical communication forums. Technical Communication, 63(4), 314–327.
8.
BoettgerR. K.FriessE. (2020). Content and authorship patterns in technical communication journals (1996–2017): A quantitative content analysis. Technical Communication, 67(3), 4–24.
9.
BoettgerR. K.FriessE.CarlinerS. (2014). Who says what to whom? Assessing the alignment of content and audience between scholarly and professional publications in technical communication (1996–2013) [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the IEEE 2014 International Professional Communication Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
10.
BoettgerR. K.LamC. (2013). An overview of experimental and quasi-experimental research in technical communication journals (1992–2011). IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 56(4), 272–293.
11.
BoettgerR. K.PalmerL. A. (2010). Quantitative content analysis: Its use in technical and professional communication. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 53(4), 346–357.
12.
BrammerC.GallowayR. (2007). IEEE Transactions on professional communication: Looking to the past to discover the present. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 50(4), 275–279.
13.
BreuchL.-A. K. (2002). Thinking critically about technological literacy: Developing a framework to guide computer pedagogy in technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 11(3), 267–288.
14.
BuneaA.BaumgartnerF. R. (2014). The state of the discipline: Authorship, research designs, and citation patterns in studies of EU interest groups and lobbying. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(10), 1412–1434.
15.
BurnettR. E. (2003). A farewell. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 17(1), 3.
16.
CarlinerS. (1995). Finding a common ground: What STC is, and should be, doing to advance education in information design and development. Technical Communication, 42(4), 546–554.
17.
CarlinerS. (2014). Technical communication. In BhatiaV.BremnerS. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language and professional communication (pp. 99–111). Routledge.
18.
CarlinerS. (2015). Technical communication at a crossroads. Intercom, 62(10), 6–11.
19.
CarlinerS.CoppolaN.GradyH.HayhoeG. F. (2011). What does the transactions publish? What do transactions’ readers want to read?IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 54(4), 341–359.
20.
ClarkD. (2016). Content strategy: An integrative literature review. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 59(1), 7–23.
21.
DobrinD. N. (1983). What’s technical about technical writing. In AndersonP. V.BrockmanR. J.MillerC. R. (Eds.), New essays in technical and scientific communication: Research, theory, practice (pp. 227–250). Baywood.
22.
FarkasD. K. (1985). The concept of consistency in writing and editing. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 15(4), 353–364.
23.
FreyL. R. (1994). The naturalistic paradigm: Studying small groups in the postmodern era. Small Group Research, 25(4), 551–577.
24.
GettoG.LabriolaJ.RuszkiewiczS. (2019). Content strategy in technical communication. Routledge.
25.
GiammonaB. (2004). The future of technical communication: How innovation, technology, information management, and other forces are shaping the future of the profession. Technical Communication, 51(3), 349–366.
26.
GomesE.BarnesB. R.MahmoodT. (2016). A 22 year review of strategic alliance research in the leading management journals. International Business Review, 25(1), 15–27.
27.
HannahM. A.LamC. (2016). Patterns of dissemination: Examining and documenting practitioner knowledge sharing practices on blogs. Technical Communication, 63(4), 328–345.
28.
JordanM. P. (1986). The genre of technical description. Technical Writing Teacher, 13(1), 42–50.
29.
KacmarK. M.BaronR. A. (1999). Organizational politics: The state of the field, links to related processes, and an agenda for future research. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 17, pp. 1-39). JAI Press.
30.
KentT. (1987). Genre theory in the area of business writing. Technical Writing Teacher, 14(2), 323–342.
31.
KimballM. A. (2017). The golden age of technical communication. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 47(3), 330–358.
32.
KirschenbaumM.WernerS. (2014). Digital scholarship and digital studies: The state of the discipline. Book History, 17(1), 406–458.
33.
KynellT.TebeauxE. (2009). The association of teachers of technical writing: The emergence of professional identity. Technical Communication Quarterly, 18(2), 107–141.
34.
LamC. (2014). Where did we come from and where are we going? Examining authorship characteristics in technical communication research. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 57(4), 266–285.
35.
LaRocheC.TraynorB. (2013, July). Technical communication on life support: Content strategy and UX are the reclamation [Paper presentation]. 2013 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia.
36.
LauerC.BrumbergerE. (2016). Technical communication as user experience in a broadening industry landscape. Technical Communication, 63(3), 248–264.
37.
LaurenB.SchreiberJ. (2018). An integrative literature review of project management in technical and professional communication. Technical Communication, 65(1), 85–106.
38.
LowryP. B.HumpherysS. L.MalwitzJ.NixJ. (2007). A scientometric study of the perceived quality of business and technical communication journals. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 50(4), 352–378.
39.
LynnN. B.WildavskyA. B. (1990). Public administration: The state of the discipline. Chatham House.
40.
MasseR. E. (1985). Theory and practice of editing processes in technical communication. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication28(1), 34–42.
41.
MelonçonL.St.AmantK. (2018). Empirical research in technical and professional communication: A 5-year examination of research methods and a call for research sustainability. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 49(2), 128–155.
42.
MooreP. (1996). Instrumental discourse is as humanistic as rhetoric. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 10(1), 100–118.
43.
MooreP. (1997). Rhetorical vs. instrumental approaches to teaching technical communication. Technical Communication, 44(2), 163–173.
44.
MungerR. (2006). Participating in a technical communication internship. Technical Communication, 53(3), 326–338.
45.
NeuendorfK. A. (2016). The content analysis guidebook (2nd ed.). Sage.
46.
ParettiM. C.McNairL. D.Holloway-AttawayL. (2007). Teaching technical communication in an era of distributed work: A case study of collaboration between US and Swedish students. Technical Communication Quarterly, 16(3), 327–352.
47.
RaineyK. T.TurnerR. K.DaytonD. (2005). Do curricula correspond to managerial expectations? Core competencies for technical communicators. Technical Communication, 52(3), 323–352.
48.
RamseyR. D. (1980). Grammatical voice and person in technical writing: Results of a survey. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 10(2), 109–113.
49.
RaptisP. (1992). Authorship characteristics in five international library science journals. Libri, 42(1), 35–52.
50.
RedishJ. C.BarnumC. (2011). Overlap, influence, intertwining: The interplay of UX and technical communication. Journal of Usability Studies, 6(3), 90–101.
51.
RedishJ. C.SchellD. A. (1989). Writing and testing instructions for usability. In FearingB.SparrowW. K. (Eds.), Technical writing: Theory and practice (pp. 63–71). Modern Language Association of America.
52.
RedishJ. C.SelzerJ. (1985). The place of readability formulas in technical communication. Technical Communication, 32(4), 46–52.
RobertsD. D. (1989). Readers’ comprehension responses in informative discourse: Toward connecting reading and writing in technical communication. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 19(2), 135–148.
55.
SchusterM. M. (1989). Non-rhetorical elements of layout and design: Theory and practice. In FearingB.SparrowW. K. (Eds.), Technical writing: Theory and practice (pp. 72–85). Modern Language Association of America.
56.
SiddiquiM. A. (1997). A bibliometric study of authorship characteristics in four international information science journals. International Forum on Information and Documentation, 22(3), 3–11.
57.
SidesC. H. (1991). Collaboration in a hardware technical writing group: A real-world laboratory. Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication, 54(2), 11–14.
58.
SmithE. O. (2000a). Points of reference in technical communication scholarship. Technical Communication Quarterly, 9(4), 427–453.
59.
SmithE. O. (2000b). Strength in the technical communication journals and diversity in the serials cited. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 14(2), 131–184.
60.
SoderstonC. (1985). The usability edit: A new level. Technical Communication, 32(1), 16–18.
61.
SpyridakisJ. H.WengerM. J. (1992). Writing for human performance: Relating reading research to document design. Technical Communication, 39(4), 202–215.
62.
St.AmantK.MelonçonL. (2016a). Addressing the incommensurable: A research-based perspective for considering issues of power and legitimacy in the field. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 46(3), 267–283.
63.
St.AmantK.MelonçonL. (2016b). Reflections on research: Examining practitioner perspectives on the state of research in technical communication. Technical Communication, 63(4), 346–364.
64.
StrattonC. R. (1989). Collaborative writing in the workplace. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 32(3), 178–182.
65.
WattJ.van den BurgS. (1995). Research methods for communication science. Allyn and Bacon.
66.
WilkinsonK. T.MerleP. F. (2013). The merits and challenges of using business press and trade journal reports in academic research on media industries. Communication, Culture & Critique, 6(3), 415–431.
