Research

Whenever I think about research, I always ponder how much I don’t know. Most of my research uses critical theory, so I’m not as well schooled in the methods Cornelissen describes as I feel I should be, especially now. I’m currently writing and introduction to an edited collection about teaching professional and technical communication. I am planning to conduct a survey about teacher preparedness and to do that I need to write the survey, get IRB approval (which I’ve never done and need to have CITI training), post the survey, and then analyze the results. I have never done this kind of research, and I find that I’m learning as I go along. It seems to me that with all the methods Carnelissen describes, what is true to all of them is know your audience. I think I have written my survey about four times, and I’m still wondering if I’m on the right track. I’m lucky to have colleagues willing to help me through this process. I’m glad Cornelissen uses the word, cycle, to talk about the stages of research. I think, for the most part, that all the stages happen at the same time because as researchers we’d constantly thinking about the planning, execution and measurement and evaluations as well as revising the our objectives. In some ways, I’m feel like I’m already writing the introduction and that I know what to expect from the survey results. I hope to be pleasantly surprised by the outcomes. I’m looking forward to reading your seminar papers at the end of the semester. I don’t usually get to teach a seminar so I don’t get to see seminar papers very often. I’ll be interested in how you go about your research so feel free to talk about that when you write your End-of-Semester Reflection.

Strategy

One of you made a comment in a previous post that Cornelissen sounds like he agrees with the content. That’s the problem with textbooks—they need to present information objectively (of course, there’s no such thing) and, in doing so, take on a passive type of stance. I don’t think Cornelissen necessarily agrees with everything he is writing, we’d have to read his articles to see his real arguments, but he does understand what he’s talking about and how it should b—at least theoretically. For example, he said that communicators should be in on the strategic planning and not just the implementation of a strategy. This is absolutely correct, but how common is that? If it’s not common, I suspect that one reason is that situating an employee at the strategic level means paying that person more. He says on page 94 that there are two types of communicators: communication technicians and communication managers. This is the difference, I think, of what’s viewed as practical and what’s viewed as theoretical. If you’re a technician, you’re doing rote work—grammar and spelling checker, fact checker, and so on. But if you’re a manager, you are paid to think bigger and more theoretical: he says that “corporate leaders do feel that corporate communication as an area of practice, “will be more valued when advice is offered by professionals who have the background, knowledge and standing that will enable them to contribute to decision-making at the highest levels” (p. 95). As long as they think of a communicator as a mere technician—or wordsmith (I hate that term), they will never make more money or be as respected.

He does point out, however, that many technicians lack the knowledge and skill of business, finances, and the strategy-making process. This is not a bad point (although I think communicators need strategy skills to write well), which is one of the reasons I want you all to write an industry report, to discover what you need to know in order to work in a particular industry. It’s not enough to simply know how to communicate; you need to know how to communicate in a particular context. I’m hoping the reports (which will be shared among all of us) will shed some light on an area you’ve been thinking about for your future. What most people know about a business comes from advertising, but each industry has trade magazines that tell you a lot more than simply why to buy their product.

On page 113, Cornelissen says that a message style involves “the creative concept that articulates the appeal of the message and brings it to life through the use of catchy slogans and visual stimuli (pictures, images, logos, and the typographic setting of a message).” Creative thinking is essential for critical thinking. But this statement seems to suggest that creative people make things pretty and come up with catch phrases. I get this perspective a lot because I do document and information design. But design grows out of content, so one has to have an understanding of the message in order to do the communication, which if you take my Information Design class next fall, you’ll learn all about that. But does this perspective add to the idea of “fluff”?

Stakeholders and Corporate Identity

Cornelissen’s overall discussion of stakeholder theory brings to mind the current policital campaigns, especially big money’s attachment to them. It’s easy to see that the stakeholders in the election are from corporations that have a vested interest in where federal money goes and how laws are written. It’s difficult from this perspective to see the ways corporations attend to other stakeholders such as customers. My personal opinion is that the focus on money at the top takes away from the ability of customers to purchase goods, which brings down profits. In that vein, CEOs and shareholders take money away from employees. Stakeholder theory makes me wonder how meaning is constructed in some of these companies, especially the big ones. For example, I heard that Fox news has specifically instructed news anchors to avoid using certain terminology for certain issues. It’s obvious that the stakeholders in this situation are the CEO and shareholders.  What dominant logic are they using when they relay their instructions to what is suppose to be an objective account of happenings?

Stakeholder theory also got me thinking about students as stakeholders. The only feedback (collaboration?) students can contribute to a class is through course evaluations. But because they are conducted at the end of the semester, student never really get to see the results of their commentary. In fact, I think most students think teachers don’t read or consider their comments with any seriousness. I can’t speak for other teachers, but I know I take them seriously. Most of how I teach comes as a direct result of a student’s comment. It’s not that I change everything just because one student complains or comments. It’s more that I consider the value of the comment in conjunction with what I tried to accomplish in the class. To what extent should students have power in pedagogical decisions? What kind of stakeholders are they or should they be? College is an investment in their future, so it seems like they should at least have a collaborative logic in the makeup of the class. What do you all think?

Cornelissen comments that “organizational identity has a specific strategic purpose in that it cuts across departmental and other group boundaries and aims to foster a common orientation for everyone in the organization” (p. 69).  It is important to foster a common orientation, but when I teach information design, I tell students that the design should grow out of the content. This, then, becomes difficult when we have a department project that involves the English department website or print materials because I’m often asked to suggest a student who might do that kind of work for us. My dilemma is that because UNO is very strict about its branding, the student does not have to make any design decisions, and making decisions is key to teaching students how to design. Design work (like writing) is a process of problem solving. Without a problem to figure out, what is the student learning. And students should insist on problem solving projects. But, then, any organization a student ends up working for will have it’s own branding rules too. Following a style guide is equally important for design work and offers it’s own problem solving dilemmas. This is one of the tightropes that I walk when preparing a class. What kind of tightropes do students walk when preparing to take a class?

Practical v. Theoretical and Instrumental

In 1996 when Argenti wrote his “Corporate Communication as a Discipline” article, he was accurately describing one of the problems with creating a new academic discipline. This problem, which apparently continues today because the author of our textbook, Joep Cornelissen, says that corporate communication is still not fully understood. Argenti also has a corporate communication textbook (6^th edition; copyright 2013) in which he speaks with a voice that assumes the discipline has been established and is thriving. Given that Argenti was the first to offer a definition of corporate communication in an academic journal, this stance is not surprising. (BTW: I choose the Cornelissen over the Argenti because the Argenti costs $125!). But common to both textbooks is the emphasis on the practical versus research (theoretical) perspectives about communication.

Communication (wherever it’s located in academia or industry) has long been viewed as a practical discipline, mainly, I think, because the instruction in communication was always focused on how to communicate effectively. I’m always bothered by the practical versus the theoretical (research) perspective because it suggests that practical does not have a theoretical function. Many people regard communication instruction as the “how to” while the content function (research, theory) as the “how to think.” I’ve thought about this problem quite a bit because my own field, Technical Communication, continues to fight this battle, as you all will see during the second half of the semester. I’m continually conflicted with this battle because one piece of advice I give to students (whether they are English or Technical Communication majors) is that they have to find the industry in which they want to work and learn its ways of being. If someone wants to write instructions for a living, for example, the software industry is an ideal choice. Does this advice suggest that I am separating practical from theoretical? Am I suggesting that the software industry is the theoretical and communication is the practical? I don’t think I am because writing instructions requires theoretical perspectives themselves in addition to the software theoretical perspectives. One would have to know both.

I’m a little bothered by Cornelissen’s voice in the first two chapters. He seems to have taken on what I think of as the distanced textbook voice, presenting information as if it is neutral or objective. At one time, he even cites Van Riel who defined corporate communication as the “instrument of communication.” In my field, we discuss the “instrumentalization” of communication; the term, “instrumental,” objectifies communication as if it can be separated from its context. His discussion about the history of communication as well as his argument for a more integrated approach to communication in organizations lacks a discussion of ethics. Given the copyright (2014), I expected to read something that suggests that the recessed economy and bloated CEO incomes are problematic, separating, I think, a discussion about communication and context. Is it possible to talk about mission, identity, reputation, and strategies without considering the public view of corporations, especially after taxpayers footed the bill for the bailout in 2008. I’m curious to see how you all read his discussion.

Welcome to ENGL 8800/CACT 8610 Professional and Technical Writing. I have designed the class so that we will be engaging in a lot of discussion about corporate communication and technical communication. I include assignments that I think will help you develop as a professional, including an industry report, job analysis, and a resume and cover letter. I hope you find those assignments useful. Totally online courses can seem daunting, so I hope our blog discussions will be fruitful and inviting.

I'm looking forward to the semester and getting to know each of you online. Feel free to come by my office anytime to introduce yourself or chat about the course. Or feel free to make an appointment in person or on Skype. See you online.