Characterizing Disciplinarity and Conventions in Engineering Resume Profiles

Catherine G. P. Berdanier ; Mary McCall North Dakota State University ; Gracemarie Mike Fillenwarth Rowan University

Abstract

<bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Background:</b> Resume preparation is a common activity within technical writing classes, but the advent and increased use of resume profile and job-hunting sites, such as Indeed.com, require instructors and researchers to re-think common practices in the teaching of resume writing, particularly for writing instructors with limited disciplinary experience. Prior research for conventional resumes has quantified the disciplinarity of resumes as a function of resume quality using metrics of disciplinary discourse density, which may be useful in analyzing online resumes profiles. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Research questions:</b> 1. How do online engineering resume profiles demonstrate disciplinarity? 2. What formatting and stylistic conventions are observed within engineering resume profiles? 3. How do rhetorical disciplinarity and conventions vary with resume profile quality? <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Literature review:</b> Although past efforts have examined the resume as a critical genre for entering a professional setting, few researchers have sought to interpret the relationships between discursive and stylistic expectations and quality in online resume profiles, while also accounting for aspects of disciplinarity. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Methodology:</b> This study compares engineering (all disciplines) resume profiles from Indeed.com with a corpus of conventional engineering resumes through qualitative genre analysis and quantitative methods for calculating disciplinary discourse density. We also characterize stylistic and rhetorical conventions for resume profiles, and statistically compare these facets as a function of resume quality. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Results and conclusion:</b> Results determined that discursive strategies were significantly different between strong, moderate, and weak engineering resume profiles. Qualitative analysis captured differences in style and form that were also statistically linked with quality. Based on our results, we call for further investigation into resume profiles and reconsideration of current pedagogical approaches.

Journal
IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
Published
2021-12-01
DOI
10.1109/tpc.2021.3110397
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
Closed
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

Cites in this index (11)

  1. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
  2. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  3. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
  4. Technical Communication Quarterly
  5. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
Show all 11 →
  1. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  2. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  3. Technical Communication Quarterly
  4. Written Communication
  5. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  6. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
Also cites 33 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.1177/1080569913501860
  2. 10.2307/j.ctt46nzds.11
  3. 10.1177/108056999706000115
  4. 10.1177/108056999706000114
  5. 10.1109/CONISOFT.2017.00019
  6. 10.1002/j.2161-1920.2007.tb00025.x
  7. 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00288.x
  8. 10.1080/13594320902903613
  9. 10.1177/108056990306600305
  10. 10.1093/oso/9780199256044.001.0001
    Reassembling the social an introduction to actor-network-theory  
  11. 10.1002/j.2161-1920.2015.00055.x
  12. 10.1017/CBO9780511509605
  13. 10.1177/108056999806100302
  14. 10.1177/1080569911413809
  15. 10.1177/002194360103800104
  16. 10.1177/1080569909334015
  17. 10.1080/01973533.2014.894477
  18. 10.1080/13504851.2015.1114571
  19. 10.1177/1080569912459267
  20. 10.2307/378935
  21. 10.1109/IPCC.2016.7740488
  22. 10.1017/CBO9780511619847
  23. 10.1177/108056999706000206
  24. 10.1177/108056999105400303
  25. 10.1177/002194368902600206
  26. 10.1177/002194368602300303
  27. 10.1177/002194368402100401
  28. 10.1177/002194368402100301
  29. 10.1177/002194367301000303
  30. 10.1002/j.2161-1920.2012.00011.x
  31. 10.1089/cyber.2011.0389
  32. 10.1207/s15327884mca1201_2
  33. 10.1017/CBO9780511812774.003