Abstract
This study explores the characteristics of authors who have published in technical communication journals between 2008 and 2012 to generate insights into who is actively contributing to scholarship in the field. These insights drive a broader discussion regarding programmatic implications and interdisciplinary approaches to research. Research questions: (1) Who is publishing in technical communication journals? In which departments are they housed and in which departments did they receive their Ph.D. training? (2) What relationship exists between an author's departments (current and Ph.D.) and the publication venues he or she chooses? (3) What relationship exists between an author's department (current and Ph.D.) and the type of research he or she produces? (4) What relationship exists between an author's department (current and Ph.D.) and collaboratively authored articles? Also, is there a relationship between doctoral training outside the US and collaboratively authored articles? (5) Among authors with Ph.D.'s in technical communication, is there a relationship between doctoral program and research output (collaboratively authored articles and research method)? Literature review: All disciplines, especially maturing disciplines, must examine and evaluate the research its scholars produce in order to identify trends that signal growth and areas that require additional growth. Previous research indicates that departments in which people trained and where they work influence the research profiles of individuals, and by extension, the field. This is particularly true in technical communication, whose research features a plurality of methods, a positive attribute of the field. However, an uneven distribution of research methods used in the field also presents potential areas for growth. Methodology: A data set of 674 authors who have published in the IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication (TPC), Technical Communication Quarterly, and Journal of Business and Technical Communication (JBTC), between 2008 and 2012 was coded for current department, Ph.D. department, department with a technical communication degree program, research method, and collaboratively authored articles. Data were analyzed using contingency table analysis and correspondence analysis. Results and discussion: Authors from English departments constitute nearly 30% of the sample; authors from information systems and technology departments and management, business, and economics departments made up more than 20% of the total sample. A little over 20% of the sample received a Ph.D. degree in technical communication. Authors from information systems and technology departments and management, business, and economics departments are highly associated with TPC. Authors from English departments and writing departments were associated with TCQ and JBTC. TC is associated with authors from education departments and human-centered design departments. Authors from information systems and technology departments and management, business, and economics departments were associated with surveys and experiments. Authors from English departments were associated with case study and mixed methods research. Non-US authors and ones from engineering, computer science, linguistics, information systems and technology, and management, business, and economics departments were all highly associated with collaboratively authored articles. These results provide insights into which disciplines are most influential and opportunities to consider the approaches and training of our diverse population of scholars in an effort to build a cohesive body of research. The results are limited by the time frame of the study, and future studies could examine a more extensive sample to examine shifts in authorship characteristics over time.