Colossal Genuis
Seminar Paper
This is a thesis-driven seminar paper of 15 double-spaced pages,
***This assignment should contain contents of a journal article from the last five years that is related to the readings for a given week. Ill
model the first of these.
Volume 67, Number 3, August 2020 l Technical Communication 5
Applied Research
Practitioners
Takeaway:
Technical Communication (TC)
statistically corresponded with
content related to knowledge and
information management and design.
Overall, both topics appeared in the
sample less frequently than expected.
Other research topics; including
editing, usability, and design; were
also underrepresented throughout
the sample, problematizing what
research content practitioners have
available to them.
Compared to the other four journals,
TC published the least amount of
content directed toward academics.
Instead, the journals content focused
on writers, managers, and designers.
TC was one of three journals to
statistically correspond with content
written by multiple authors.
Content and Authorship Patterns in
Technical Communication Journals (19962017):
A Quantitative Content Analysis
By Ryan K. Boettger and Erin Friess
Purpose: The maturity of technical communication merits a comprehensive,
longitudinal analysis of the content published in its leading journals and the scholars
who produce this research. Although reflexive research is common in the sciences
and social sciences, few studies have analyzed the body of research in technical
communication. Clarity on content and authorship patterns can help position the field
for future relevance and sustainability.
Method: We conducted a quantitative content analysis on 672 articles published in
five leading technical communication journals from 19962017. Articles were coded
on nine content variables related to primary topic, primary audience, and authorship.
We subsequently conducted a correspondence analysis on the variables to identify how
specific content areas associated with the journals.
Results: Content and authorship patterns were near identical to the patterns found
in the field 30 years prior. The journals published content primarily focused on
rhetoric, genre, pedagogy, and diversity. In contrast, field-defining topicsusability/
UX, comprehension, design, and editing and styleappeared in the sample less than
expected. A majority of research was single-authored and written by female first authors;
further, a majority of the first authors had academic affiliations in the United States.
Conclusion: Scholars must consider if these content and authorship patterns are the
products of deliberate choices and, if so, if this is the fields inevitable trajectory for the
next 30 years. We argue that certain topics are being overproduced while other topics
that established the field are being underproduced and, in some cases, being assumed
by other disciplines.
Keywords: content analysis, correspondence analysis, research, technical
communication, technical writing
ABSTRACT
6 Technical Communication l Volume 67, Number 3, August 2020
CONTENT AND AUTHORSHIP PATTERNS
Applied Research
BACKGROUND
State-of-the-discipline studies are common to
many fields, including public administration (Lynn
& Wildavsky, 1990), public policy (Bunea &
Baumgartner, 2014), political science (Kacmar &
Baron, 1999), group communication (Frey, 1994), and
digital studies (Kirschenbaum & Werner, 2014). These
periodic assessments identify the values, boundaries,
and research priorities of a particular field over a
designated timeframe.
Technical communication merits the same analysis
as these other academic disciplines, particularly when
it has been suggested that the field lacks a cohesive
identity. Rude (2009) noted several reasons for the
fields unformed disciplinary identity, including the
placement of our programs (often in traditional English
literature-based departments); how we distinguish our
questions and methods from other, more established
disciplines; and our relative newness as a legitimate
academic discipline with its own interconnecting
theories and practices (p. 177). In fact, technical
communication has been described as a young
discipline for at least the last 30 years (Blakeslee,
2009; Carver, 1998; Garrison, 2014; Haselkorn,
1997; Hayhoe, 2006; Wahlstron, 1988). This youth
has enabled scholars to freeform their definition of
technical communication, the content areas that merit
investigation, and the methods used to expand its body
of knowledge. Rude (2009) extended this observation,
pointing out that scholars are often redefining,
reenvisioning, or rethinking the field. The consistent
use of the prefix re implies an established identity that
should now be modified, but it also reflects a failure
to pin down the characteristics (p. 188). As a result,
technical communication is recognized for its diversity,
but this diversity has proven very difficult to define or
to circumscribe (Rainey, 1999, p. 524).
St. Amant and Melonon (2016) recently argued
that technical communications inability to define
itself has hampered its legitimacy. They described an
incommensurability problem in which nothing seems
shared or common and one that undermines . . .
our power to act, engage, and develop as a field (pp.
34). They suggested that technical communication
was doom[ed] . . . to fail unless we can change
the fields perspective of what we consider common
ground (p. 4). Rude (2009) raised similar concerns
years earlier, motivating her development of four areas
of related research questions that could better define
technical communication as well as distinguish its
scholarship from other disciplines. These four areas
included disciplinarity, pedagogy, practice, and social
change (p. 176).
Disciplinarityor, how shall we know ourselves?
is perhaps most relevant to this study, and the research
focused on disciplinarity can take many forms. Most
of the related technical communication scholarship
focuses on research methods (e.g., Boettger & Lam,
2013; Lam & Boettger, 2017; Melonon & St.Amant,
2018). Rude (2009) acknowledged the value of
methods but cautioned that we borrow them from
so many other disciplines that their study alone does
not always reveal what is unique and disguisable to
technical communication. Our study pivots from
these methods-driven studies, but we use the results
to complement our findings. Instead, we report both
the content (or topic) and authorship patterns within
technical communication journals over a 22-year
period. Rude (2009) too wrote that the study of topics
alone could offer little significance without the presence
specific research questions; however, we argue that these
analyses contribute a more holistic understanding of
where technical communication has been, where the
field is now, and where the field could go. Further, we
believe the scholars who are studying these topics reflect
how the field has developed and perhaps how it might
need to be redefined.
To respond to these areas, we conducted a
quantitative content analysis on a random sample of
672 articles published in the five leading technical
communication journals from 19962017. This
approach and the resulting data is a step toward
determining what the field has published in recent
decades. This current research aims to assess and
contextualize the disciplinarity of the field (and, to a
lesser extent, its pedagogy, practice, and social change)
through an analysis of both the content of the research
and the characteristics of the authors to better frame
the fields visibility, identity, status, and sustainability
(Rude, 2009, p. 207). To explore these issues, we
designed the study to identify the primary content
areas, authorship characteristics, and collaboration
patterns within these journals over the last 22 years.
Volume 67, Number 3, August 2020 l Technical Communication 7
Ryan K. Boettger and Erin Friess
Applied Research
LITERATURE REVIEW
State-of-the-discipline studies are a critical research
component, as they afford the opportunity to assess the
health of a field and to identify patterns for comparative
assessments. Further, state-of-the-discipline studies that
focus on content can identify what is of apparent value
to the field. With relatively few publication outlets
focused exclusively on technical communication, the
content of the research journals is an argument as to
what is of value to the field. At present, our five leading
journals typically publish 46 pieces of scholarship
over the course in each of their four issues every year.
This only allows 80100 opportunities to address the
content demands and alignment issues that are vital to
the future of technical communication.
Additionally, state-of-the-discipline studies that
investigate authorship characteristics such as gender
and professional affiliation can ascertain the degree
to which publications align with a fields claims of
diversity (Eigenberg & Whalley, 2015; Fox et al., 2016;
Gomes et al., 2016; Raptis, 1992; Siddiqui, 1997).
Understanding a fields collaborative patterns can frame
arguments for the acceptance of collaborative work to
promotion and tenure boards who, in some disciplines,
have favored sole-authored work over collaborative
pursuits (Abbasi et al., 2012; Ezema & Asogwa, 2014;
Katz & Martin, 1997; Perianes-Rodrguez et al., 2010).
However, in technical communication, little research
has analyzed the content areas (or the topics) and
authorship characteristics of the fields research.
Technical communication scholars have only
recently begun to reflect on its existing body of
research, in part because the fields age did not provide
a sufficient amount of longitudinal data. Current
studies typically focus on research methods (Boettger
& Lam, 2013; Brammer & Galloway, 2007; Melonon
& St.Amant, 2018). A recent study reported that
37% of articles published in the five leading technical
communication journals over a five-year period were
empirical (Melonon & St.Amant, 2018). This study
built from an early definition of empirical research,
which describes or measures an observable phenomenon
in a systematic way (MacNealy, 1999). The coding for
this current article also applied this definition. Further,
almost 60% of this empirical research was published
in either Transactions on Professional Communication or
Technical Communication. These results are potentially
relevant to the present study as both journals are
affiliated with professional organizations and associated
with content that addresses practitioner audiences
(Smith, 2000a, 2000b). Similarly, specific content
areas are associated with specific research approaches.
Scholarship on collaboration and usability/UX were
typically empirical, whereas scholarship on rhetoric,
pedagogy, and genre were typically non-empirical (Lam
& Boettger, 2017).
The content-related studies (studies that assess
what areas or topics technical communication covers)
produced in technical communication can typically be
organized into two categories. The first encompasses
a collection of self-reflective studies conducted as
integrated literature reviews or anecdotal assessments
(Brammer & Galloway, 2007; Fine, 1996; Forman,
1998; Malone, 2007; Rogers, 1995). Although these
studies have offered focused examinations into specific
content areas and phenomena, they have often done
so without citation analyses, scientometrics, or other
rigorous and replicable means for assessment. The
second category focuses on technical communication
doctoral research. Two studies have examined the
types of doctoral research produced from 19651990
and 19891998, respectively, and found emphasis
on pedagogical, rhetorical, and compositional areas
(Rainey, 1999; Rainey & Kelly, 1992). Additionally,
Cook et al. (2003) conducted a survey in which recent
technical communication doctoral graduates self-
reported the topics of their dissertation research; they
found that rhetoric, culture, and pedagogy were among
the most reported content areas. The results from these
latter studies inform our own analysis as these doctoral
students were likely new tenure-track researchers during
our 22-year time period.
The fields most longitudinal examination of journal
content remains the citation analyses by Smith (2000a,
2000b). Smith conducted a citation analysis on 10
years worth of technical communication publications
(including the same five journals analyzed in the
present study) and found that the content areas were
broadly identified as professional issues (defining
technical communication, pedagogy, and research
methods), rhetoric and the rhetorics of communities,
document design and technology issues, and workplace
communication (p. 427). Smiths analysis also noted
content differences among the five journals. Technical
Communication Quarterly and Journal of Business and
8 Technical Communication l Volume 67, Number 3, August 2020
Applied Research
CONTENT AND AUTHORSHIP PATTERNS
Technical Communication were identified as the leading
publications for authors with academic affiliations
as well as the forums for the fields more theoretical
discussions. As noted earlier, TPC and TC both
associated with scholarship from the point of view of
the practitioner. TPC also associated with research
focused on communication with subject-matter experts
and TC associated with research on design. Additional
rigorous (and contemporary) research on technical
communication content areas are needed to enable
a broader understanding of what, exactly, technical
communication currently is to its scholars.
State-of-the-discipline studies have also investigated
the authorship characteristics (e.g., Gomes et al., 2016;
Raptis, 1992; Siddiqui, 1997) and collaborative patterns
(e.g., Abbasi et al., 2012; Katz & Martin, 1997; Perianes-
Rodrguez et al., 2010). These results summarize the
professional and personal characteristics of a fields
scholars as well as provide insight into the value of
collaborative research and patterns, such as the frequency
that advisees publish with their dissertation advisors.
Only a few technical communication studies
have addressed authorship characteristics. The earlier
cited survey of dissertation authors also examined the
diversity of the authors and found that more women
than men completed technical communication
dissertations, and 93% of these authors self-identified
their ethnicity as White (Cook et al., 2003). Of the
18 schools represented by the respondents, all were
based in the US and all but two were large public
institutions (i.e., more than 20,000 students). In a
study of technical communication research journals
(the same five journals reviewed in this present study),
Smiths (2000a, 2000b) longitudinal citation analyses
found that approximately one third of the data was
produced by more than one author and that more
scholarship was produced by males than females
(Smith, 2000a, 2000b). Authorship statistics of TPC
over a 25-year period found that about a third of the
articles were written by two or more authors with
collaborations trending upward longitudinally in their
sample (Brammer & Galloway, 2007). A subsequent
analysis of four technical communication journals
over a five-year period found that approximately two
thirds of the articles were produced by more than
one author (Lam, 2014). As a contrast, authorship
patterns in JBTC indicated that almost 80% of their
publications were single-authored and 62% of the lead
authors were females (Burnett, 2003). These authorship
patterns suggest variation among the five leading
journals as well as trends that have developed over
the last several decades. Additional rigorous research
is needed to enable a broader understanding of who
authors technical communication research and how
those authorship characteristics align with technical
communications growth area of diversity (Johnson et
al., 2018, p. xix).
Therefore, we continued to explore these issues
through the following research questions:
RQ1. What are the primary content areas covered
in technical communication journals, and who are
the primary audiences that benefit most from this
content?
RQ2. What are the authorship characteristics of
these journal article writers?
RQ3. What are the collaboration patterns among
authors? What patterns prevail in certain journals
and on particular topics?
METHODS
Our primary method was content analysis. We define
content analysis as a research technique for making
replicable and valid inferences from texts (and other
meaningful matter) in the contexts of their use
(Krippendorff, 2012, p. 18). Content analysis has
been modified for qualitative inquiry; however, our
application is quantitative and meaning was identified
through valid measurement rules and relational
inferences via statistical methods (Boettger & Palmer,
2010; Neuendorf, 2016). The general framework for
quantitative content analysis includes identifying the
sample, developing a coding scheme, norming raters,
and analyzing data.
The timeframe for this analysis began with
content published in 1996, which is roughly when
Smith (2000ab) concluded the timeframe for her
bibliometric studies. We concluded the timeframe in
2017, which, at the time of coding, provided the latest
complete volume of each journal. We analyzed content
from five journals: Journal of Business and Technical
Communication (JBTC), Journal of Technical Writing
Volume 67, Number 3, August 2020 l Technical Communication 9
Ryan K. Boettger and Erin Friess
Applied Research
and Communication (JTWC), Technical Communication
(TC), Technical Communication Quarterly (TCQ),
and IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
(TPC). We selected these journals for analysis because
they were all published for the entirety of the designated
time period, were included in Smiths previous studies,
and have been identified as the leading forums for
technical communication scholarship (Boettger & Lam,
2013; Carliner et al., 2011; Lowry et al., 2007; Smith,
2000a, 2000b). The field has expanded its number
of journals, and technical communication scholars
published in other forums but focusing on the five
leading journals provides the parameters necessary for
longitudinal study.
Our sample included 672 articles published in five
leading technical communication journals from 1996
2017. We began with 2,148 articles, or every peer-
reviewed article published during the 22-year period.
Each article was numbered in a MS-Excel spreadsheet,
and we used the random number formula to identify
the sample for analysis. The random selection of
the sample retained the representative number of
articles published by each journal. As an example, TC
published 20.4% of the articles in the population
(n = 439), and the journal represented 19% (n = 127)
of the present studys sample. The remaining sample
included 112 articles from JBTC, 133 from JTWC,
137 from TCQ, and 163 from TPC. We manually
coded 31.3% of the corpus, which is slightly above the
ideal sample size for yielding a 95% confidence level
with a 3.5% margin of error.
We manually coded the sample on nine content
variables: journal, year, primary topic, primary audience,
authorship, gender, affiliation type, geographic affiliation,
and world region. Variables were selected based
on their presence in previous studies in technical
communication and related fields (Boettger et al., 2015;
Boettger & Friess, 2016; Boettger et al., 2014; Boettger
& Lam, 2013; Brammer & Galloway, 2007; Carliner
et al., 2011; Lowry et al., 2007; Juzwik et al., 2006; St.
Clair Martin et al., 2012; Tansey et al., 2012). Table I
includes a description of each variable and its levels.
Operationalization best practices related to survey
and experimental research also apply to measurement
in content analysis. This includes the development
of mutually exclusive coding categories where each
recording unit fits into only one category on a given
score dimension (Neuendorf, 2016). This practice
Table I. Variable and variable levels considered in the present study
Variable Description
Journal Recorded the forum of the article as JBTC, JTWC, TC, TCQ, or TPC.
Year Recorded the year the article was published (e.g., 19962017).
Primary Topic Classified the primary topic of each article as assessment, collaboration, communication strategies,
comprehension, design, diversity, editing and style, genre, professionalization, knowledge and
information management, pedagogy, research design, rhetoric, technology, or usability and user
experience.
Primary
Audience
Classified the primary audience who would most benefit from reading each article as academic,
business owner, consultant, editor, general, manager, student, visual communicator, other, senior
writer/content strategist, or writer/content developer.
Authorship Classified the authorship of each article as single-, co-, or multi-authored.
Gender Classified the first author as either female or male based on the pronouns used in the authors
biography.
Affiliation Type Classified the affiliation of the first author as academic or industry/government.
Geographic
Affiliation
Classified the geographic affiliation of the first author as national or international.
World Region Classified the world region of the first author as Africa/Middle East, Asia, Australia, Central and South
America, Europe, or North America.
10 Technical Communication l Volume 67, Number 3, August 2020
Applied Research
CONTENT AND AUTHORSHIP PATTERNS
enables different coders to arrive at the same results
and provides a common instrument to facilitate data
comparison across multiple studies. In fact, the codes
developed by the researchers for this and earlier studies
have also been applied by other researchers (e.g.,
Hannah & Lam, 2016).
Our codebook was finalized after 12 drafts and
norming sessions with a separate sample and among
three researchers. Previous research describes the
development of these codebooks, particularly how we
developed and refined the mutually exclusive codes
for primary topic and primary audience codes (Boettger
et al., 2015; Boettger & Friess, 2016; Boettger et al.,
2014). For example, identifying mutually exclusive
categories for primary topic proved challenging. We
initially coded a small sample using four different
schemas before arriving at the final approach. When our
first codebook was developed, the classification scheme
for the STC Body of Knowledge (and later applied in
Carliner et al., 2011) was still evolving and contained
several coding options. The large number of possible
codes proved challenging to sort into mutually exclusive
categories, norm across multiple raters, and analyze
for noticeable patterns. We encountered similar issues
with the coding scheme used by the eServer Technical
Communication Library (tc.eserver.org). In addition,
we considered the keywords that prospective authors
choose to classify their submissions to journals using the
ScholarOne Manuscript system (e.g., audience analysis,
linguistic research, listening persuasion/proposals). We
found these keywords proved helpful to each journal
in identifying appropriate manuscript reviewers but
more difficult to apply usefully and consistently to all
the major journals in technical communication. In the
end, our aim was to create a codebook that addressed
the diversity of scholarship in the field across multiple
publication venues.
We acknowledge that a piece of technical
communication scholarship does not always neatly fit
into a single category, but the abstraction and isolation
of variables is a vital step to any scientific method. No
one study can address every nuance of a phenomenon;
however, our results include a consistent application
of codes that were developed with attention to validity
and reliability. Therefore, these codes can be applied
to other data samples for comparison, contributing to
the growth rather than the stagnation of a particular
research conversation.
For this study, we collapsed the earlier developed
codes of gender and intercultural communication
codes into a more encompassing diversity code. This
update was in response to the focus on diversity
and inclusion in recent technical communication
scholarship. Twenty percent of the current sample was
re-coded for inter-rater reliability. Agreement between
the studys authors was 84.6% (using Krippendorffs
alpha coefficient) and within the recommended range
(Watt & van den Burg, 1995).
Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics,
contingency table analyses, and correspondence
analyses. Contingency table analyses correlate
multivariate frequency distributions, allowing
researchers to statistically compare distributions of
non-numerical data. For this study, we ran a binomial,
a type of contingency table analysis that tests the
statistical significance of deviations from theoretically
expected distributions in two categories. We also ran
the chi-square test to test two-way table associations.
Correspondence analysis (or CA) is a geometric
technique used to analyze multi-way tables containing
some measure of correspondence between the rows
and columns (Greenacre, 2007). The most useful
component of CA is its ability to visually organize the
data into central and peripheral instances. CA is not an
inferential measure and does not determine statistical
significance. Statistical output provides a chi-square
value that reflects the overall interaction between the
rows and columns, but the researchers must consult
other statistical output to properly interpret the results.
Throughout this paper, we only report CAs that had a
significant chi-square value of 0.05, and, like previous
researchers, we reviewed other output to determine
between-variable relationships (e.g., Boettger & Friess,
2016; Boettger & Lam, 2013; Friess, 2018; Lam &
Boettger, 2017).
RESULTS
The results are organized around the three research
questions.
RQ1: Content and Audience
What are the primary content areas covered in technical
communication journals, and who are the primary
audiences that benefit most from this content?
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftc.eserver.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7CRyan.Boettger%40unt.edu%7C937fa9d849b04d6a87f208d6a19bdca3%7C70de199207c6480fa318a1afcba03983%7C0%7C0%7C636874088136990296&sdata=hjP%2BMXvC9OBPvYrRsJJ6DcistXRLh1A7DRfPCUBJyaw%3D&reserved=0
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftc.eserver.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7CRyan.Boettger%40unt.edu%7C937fa9d849b04d6a87f208d6a19bdca3%7C70de199207c6480fa318a1afcba03983%7C0%7C0%7C636874088136990296&sdata=hjP%2BMXvC9OBPvYrRsJJ6DcistXRLh1A7DRfPCUBJyaw%3D&reserved=0
Volume 67, Number 3, August 2020 l Technical Communication 11
Ryan K. Boettger and Erin Friess
Applied Research
Primary topic
Overall, the journals published content primarily
focused on rhetoric, pedagogy, and genre (see Table
II). A contingency table analysis determined how
evenly distributed the primary topics were across
the journals. Our null hypothesis assumed that if all
topics were evenly distributed, 44.8 articles on each
topic would have appeared within the 22-year period.
This number was derived by dividing the sample
size by the number of primary topics (i.e., 672/15).
As hypothesized, not every content area was equally
represented in the journals, and it is this result that
focuses much of our analysis. The far-right columns of
Table II list the observed frequencies of the topics and
the related p-values.
Articles on rhetoric, pedagogy, genre, and diversity
appeared in the journals at a higher than expected
frequency. In other words, these areas appeared
significantly more often than 44.8 times in the
sample. These topics comprised 49.4% of the overall
sample and were dispersed in all five journals. Articles
on usability/UX, comprehension, knowledge and
information management, research design, design,
and editing and style appeared in the journals less
frequently than expected. In other words, these areas
appeared significantly less often than 44.8 times in the
sample. The remaining five topics were not significantly
distributed and, therefore, appeared within the journals
as frequently as expected.
Primary topic and journal
A correspondence analysis (CA) identified a significant
relationship between primary topic and journal (2 =
171.005 p < 0.00). Seven associations were identified
from the statistical output.
The strongest correspondence was between TCQ
and rhetoric (see Figure I). TCQ published 42.4%
of the rhetoric articles in our sample (see Table I).
Next, TPC corresponded with collaboration and
communication strategies. The journal published
52.8% and 40%, respectively, of the articles on both
topics. JTWC corresponded with genre and pedagogy.
Table II. Frequencies and contingency table analysis results of primary topic and journal
Primary Topic Journal Frequency P binomial
JBTC JTWC TC TCQ TPC
Rhetoric 26 15 9 39 3 92 0.00*
Pedagogy 14 19 7 24 27 91 0.00*
Genre 18 32 11 12 17 90 0.00*
Diversity 8 13 12 16 10 59 0.04*
Communication strategies 7 11 7 5 20 50 396
Professionalization 4 14 13 7 6 44 100
Technology 6 4 12 5 15 42 0.76
Collaboration 8 2 4 3 19 36 0.19
Assessment 5 3 11 9 5 33 0.07
Usability/UX 4 5 9 3 9 30 0.02*
Comprehension 3 5 9 3 8 28 0.01*
Knowledge management 3 0 9 4 11 27 0.00*
Research design 3 3 4 5 6 21 0.00*
Design 1 2 8 1 4 16 0.00*
Editing and style 2 5 2 1 3 13 0.00*
Grand Total 112 133 127 137 163 672
*Significant at 0.05 level
12 Technical Communication l Volume 67, Number 3, August 2020
Applied Research
CONTENT AND AUTHORSHIP PATTERNS
The journal published 35.6% and 20.9%, respectively,
of the articles on both topics. Finally, TC corresponded
with knowledge and information management and
design. The journal published 33.3% and 50%,
respectively, of the articles on both topics. JBTC did
not correspond with a primary topic.
Primary audience
The primary audience category was coded based on
who would benefit most from reading the content
rather than who was most likely to read it. Academic
was identified as the most frequent primary audience,
accounting for 67.3% of the sample (see Table III).
Writer/content developer was the next most frequent
primary audience (9.9%), and the related content
appeared most often in JTWC, TC, and TPC. The
third primary audience was manager (8.5%) and the
related content appeared most often in TC and TPC.
Primary audience and journal
A second CA identified a significant relationship
between primary audience and journal (2 = 219.02 p
< 0.00). Four associations were identified based on the
statistical output (see Figure II).
Figure I. Correspondence analysis between journal and primary topic. The eigenvalues for the first two dimensions are 51.48%
and 23.44%, respectively, indicating that the visualization explains 74.92% of the variation (inertia).
Volume 67, Number 3, August 2020 l Technical Communication 13
Ryan K. Boettger and Erin Friess
Applied Research
The strongest correspondence was between TCQ
and the academic. As indicated in Table III, 93.4% of
the content in the TCQ sample most benefitted this
audience. Academic was the typical audience for all
the journals; however, the frequency of TCQ articles
differed from the other four journals. As a contrast, the
JBTC, JTWC, TPC, and TC sample focused its content
on academics 83.0%, 67.7%, 59.5%, and 34.7%,
respectively, of the time. In addition, TC corresponded
with the senior writer/content strategist and the visual
communicator. The journal published 53.7% and
73.3%, respectively, of the content for both audiences.
TPC corresponded with the manager and published
57.9% of the related content.
RQ2: Authorship Characteristics
What are the authorship characteristics of these journal
article writers?
Authorship
Overall, 59.4% of the sample was single-authored,
26.5% was co-authored, and 14.1% was multi-authored
(see Table IV). When we collapse the two latter
categories, 40.6% of the sample was written by two or
more authors. Three journals best reflected this overall
authorship di
