Are We Missing the Boat? A Roundtable Discussion on Research Methods and How They Define Our Field

Researcher’s note (June 2026). With Erin Friess, Kim Sydow Campbell, and Chris Lam, I took part in this roundtable on why technical communication so often struggles to match its questions to appropriate research methods. Our shared argument was that a field is defined by the methods it accepts—what we count as quality evidence, how we study the workplace, and which approaches we are willing to try—and that our field had grown too comfortable with a narrow set. That conviction still drives my current work on AI in writing and assessment, where the methods we choose decide what we can credibly claim to know.

Abstract

Despite continued sustainability as an academic field of study, researchers of technical communication have struggled with employing appropriate research methods in their studies. In this panel, the panelists will each discuss an aspect of this struggle framed within their own experiences and expertise. Topics will include the quality of evidence in research studies; quality of methodology in workplace studies; current trends in technical communication research; and alternative methods for answering technical communication’s research questions. We will then facilitate a discussion with the attendees to further explore this ongoing concern in the field.

Index Terms - Methodology, research challenges, research methods, research quality, technical communication.

Introduction

In a recent editorial in Communication Design Quarterly, Claire Lauer lamented the state of research methodology in the journals of professional and technical communication. She related how she is often asked to critique submissions for well-respected journals and often must reject submissions “largely because of a failure of methods” [1].

We have had similar experiences. We often review submissions that ask excellent, pertinent, and timely questions, only to find that the wrong type of data was collected. Or the submission might have great data, but the submission asks mundane, irrelevant questions. Or the questions and the data might be appropriate, but the wrong type of analysis was conducted. Or maybe the right type of analysis was conducted, but it was done to such a poor degree that the findings of the research are entirely questionable.

We are left to wonder: what kind of research methodology training are the authors receiving, if any? As Lauer noted: “Research methods are taught inconsistently and incompletely across programs and specializations, often without an emphasis on quantitative and mixed-methods. It is hardly the fault of novice researchers when their research falls short of rigorous peer review” [1].

Panel Structure

In this panel, we will continue and expand on the notions that Lauer presents in her editorial. Each member of the panel will address a specific issue based on the panelist’s experiences and expertise.

I. Qualtiy of evidence: Dr. Kim Sydow Campbell

As the editor of the IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication for 10 years and an editorial review board member for several journals for more than 20 years, I have grown accustomed to the disappointment of realizing the authors of a submission did not know how to reach conclusions about workplace practices or teaching methods based on quality evidence. The quality of evidence tells us what people should believe — what we know — about technical communication. I’ll spend my time in this panel session outlining the common qualities for assessing evidence: authoritative, verifiable, representative, complete, timely, and relevant.

II. Workplace research: Dr. Erin Friess

A critical focus of technical and engineering communication is the communication that occurs in the workplace. Yet much workplace research merely skims the periphery of workplace communication, leaving many phenomena underexplored or, worse yet, simply undiscovered. Despite our efforts to teach our students best workplace communication practices, we often do so while lacking in-field research about what is actually happening within workplaces. In my presentation, I will discuss why we as a field must work to overcome the barriers to successful workplace research and why we must expect more and more from workplace research to enable both academic researchers and industry practitioners.

III. Current research trends: Dr. Chris Lam

Technical communication research methods are highly varied in the field’s journals, and the accuracy to which those methods are employed are highly variable as well [2]. I’ll spend my time discussing the variety and distribution of research methods in current technical communication research as published in the five most prominent technical communication journals (IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, Journal of Business and Technical Communication, Technical Communication Quarterly, Technical Communication, and Journal of Writing and Technical Communication). I’ll briefly describe gaps in methodology and discuss potential steps forward for filling those methodological gaps.

IV. Alternative research approaches: Dr. Ryan Boettger

For three decades, professional communicators have questioned if we’re using the right research methods to answer our questions. Research suggests that technical communicators typically use methods associated with qualitative approaches, research focused on discourse or texts, and historical research [2]. These approaches reflect the notion that technical communication is part of the humanities. However, a growing number of researchers consider the field a social science that deals with human behavior and improving communication. In turn, this perspective encompasses a host of new methodological approaches. I’ll spend my time outlining methods that are not commonly used in technical communication as well as discuss how these alternate approaches could further demonstrate our value to other academic disciplines and practicing professional communicators.

V. Discussion

After these commentaries, we will facilitate a broader discussion with the session attendees about issues they are concerned about regarding research methods for technical and engineering communication. Some possible topics might include

• What research methods should be taught to students who intend to be engineering and technical communication practitioners?
• What methods should be taught to students who intend to be engineering and technical communication academics?
• What kinds of problems are we seeing in the research because of methodology issues?
• How can we head off these problems to improve the overall health of research in our field?
• What kinds of research methods do we hope will be standard/prevalent in 5-10 years?
• Calls like Lauer’s to re-imagine the research methods of the field aren’t new. Where does resistance to rigorous methodology come from? Individuals? Institutions?

References

[1] C. Lauer, “Re-considering research: why we need to adopt a mixed-methods approach to our work,” Commun. Design Quart., vol. 4, no. 3, pp.46-50, 2016.

[2] A. M. Blakeslee, “The technical communication research landscape,” J. Bus. Tech. Commun. vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 129-173, 2009.