Content Analysis,Construct Validity,and Artificial Intelligence: Implications for Technical and Professional Communication and Graduate Research Preparation
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2024
Content Analysis,Construct Validity,and Artificial Intelligence: Implications for Technical and Professional Communication and Graduate Research Preparation
Artificial intelligence tools are being increasingly used to do content analysis in technical and professional communication (TPC). The authors consider some of the affordances and constraints of these tools and suggest that construct validity is an underdiscussed form of validity within TPC research that will become more important as artificial intelligence research tools become increasingly prevalent. But construct validity is an important idea for graduate programming on research methods regardless of the type of method, technique, or tool used—whether qualitative or computational. Thus, training in construct validity is important for strengthening graduate research preparation in TPC.
AlbersM. J. (2017). Quantitative data analysis—in the graduate curriculum. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 47(2), 215–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281617692067
4.
BoettgerR. K.FriessE. (2014). What are the most common title words in technical communication publications?2014 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference (IPCC), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/IPCC.2014.7020350
5.
BoettgerR. K.PalmerL. A. (2010). Quantitative content analysis: Its use in technical communication. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 53(4), 346–357. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2010.2077450
6.
BrüggemannM.ElgesemD.BienzeislerN.GertzH. D.WalterS. (2020). Mutual group polarization in the blogosphere: Tracking the hoax discourse on climate change. International Journal of Communication, 14, 24. https://doi.org/10.46300/9107.2020.14.5
7.
DingH.KongY. (2019). Constructing artificial intelligence in the U.S. and China: A cross-cultural, corpus-assisted study. China Media Research, 15(1), 93–105.
8.
FancherP.FarisM. J. (2022). Social network analysis and feminist methodology. In VanKootenC.Del HierroV. (Eds.), Methods and methodologies for research in digital writing and rhetoric: Centering positionality in computers and writing scholarship (Vol. 1, pp. 135–162). The WAC Clearinghouse; University Press of Colorado. https://doi.org/10.37514/PRA-B.2022.1541.2.06
9.
FangQ.NguyenD.OberskiD. L. (2022). Evaluating the construct validity of text embeddings with application to survey questions. EPJ Data Science, 11(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjds/s13688-022-00353-7
10.
GallagherJ. R.BeveridgeA. (2022). Project-oriented web scraping in technical communication research. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 36(2), 231–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/10506519211064619
GrahamS. S. (2021). The opioid epidemic and the pursuit of moral medicine: A computational-rhetorical analysis. Written Communication, 38(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088320944918
13.
GrahamS. S.HopkinsH. R. (2022). AI for social justice: New methodological horizons in technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 31(1), 89–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2021.1955151
14.
HarawayD. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066
15.
HarlowR. M. (2022). Snowpocalypse 2021: Understanding stakeholder topoi in the 2021 Texas power grid failure. Technical Communication, 69(1), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.55177/tc350749
16.
HayhoeG. F.BrewerP. E. (2021). A research primer for technical communication: Methods, exemplars, and analyses (2nd ed.). Routledge.
17.
JenkinsM. C.MorenoM. A. (2020). Vaccination discussion among parents on social media: A content analysis of comments on parenting blogs. Journal of Health Communication, 25(3), 232–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2020.1737761
LauerC.BrumbergerE.BeveridgeA. (2018). Hand collecting and coding versus data-driven methods in technical and professional communication research. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 61(4), 389–408. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2018.2870632
20.
LelaurainS.GuignardS.Schleyer-LindenmannA.BertoldoR. (2021). From risk to legislative innovation: The trajectory of marine submersion through the French Media. Environmental Communication, 15(8), 1127–1143. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2021.1954538
21.
MajdikZ. P.WynnJ. (2023). Building better machine learning models for rhetorical analyses: The use of rhetorical feature sets for training artificial neural network models. Technical Communication Quarterly, 32(1), 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2022.2077452
22.
MillerB. (2022). Distant readings of disciplinarity: Knowing and doing in composition/rhetoric dissertations. Utah State University Press.
23.
SchäferM. S.HaseV. (2023). Computational methods for the analysis of climate change communication: Towards an integrative and reflexive approach. WIRES Climate Change, 14(2), e806. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.806
24.
SmagorinskyP. (2008). The method section as conceptual epicenter in constructing social science research reports. Written Communication, 25(3), 389–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088308317815
25.
ThayerA.EvansM.McBrideA.QueenM.SpyridakisJ. (2007). Content analysis as a best practice in technical communication research. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 37(3), 267–279. https://doi.org/10.2190/TW.37.3.c
26.
TilleryD.BloomfieldE. F. (2022). Hyperrationality and rhetorical constellations in digital climate change denial: A multi-methodological analysis of the discourse of watts up with that. Technical Communication Quarterly, 31(4), 356–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2021.2019317
