The CCCC Outstanding Dissertation Award in Technical Communication, 2004–2022: Doctoral Research Topics, Methods, and Implications for the Field

References

• Agboka, G. Y. (2014). Decolonial methodologies: Social justice perspectives in intercultural technical communication research. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 44(3), 297–327. https://doi.org/10.2190/TW.44.3.e
   Google Scholar
• Agbozo, G. E. (2022). Spatial technologies, (geo)epistemology, & the global south: Addressing the discursive materiality of GhanaPostGPS through technical communication [ Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Michigan Technological University.
   Google Scholar
• Andersen, R. (2014). Rhetorical work in the age of content management: Implications for the field of technical communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 28(2), 115–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651913513904
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersen, R. (2016). Teaching visual rhetoric as a close reading strategy. Composition Studies, 44(2), 15–38. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/24859527
   Google Scholar
• Artemeva, N. (2006). Becoming an engineering communicator: A study of novices’ trajectories in learning genres of their profession [ Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. McGill University.
   Google Scholar
• Baniya, S. (2020). Managing environmental risks: Rhetorical agency and ecological literacies of women during the Nepal earthquake. Enculturation, 32. http://enculturation.net/managing_environmental
   Google Scholar
• Bartholomae, D., & Petrosky, A. (Eds.). (2010). Ways of reading: An anthology for writers (9th ed.). Bedford/St. Martin’s.
   Google Scholar
• Berkenkotter, C. (1991). Paradigm debates, turf wars, and the conduct of sociocognitive inquiry in composition. College Composition and Communication, 42(2), 151–169. https://doi.org/10.2307/358196
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Blakeslee, A. M. (2009). The technical communication research landscape. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 23(2), 129–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651908328880
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blakeslee, A. M., & Spilka, R. (2004). The state of research in technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 13(1), 73–92. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15427625TCQ1301_8
   Google Scholar
• Blythe, S., Lauer, C., & Curran, P. G. (2014). Professional and technical communication in a Web 2.0 world. Technical Communication Quarterly, 23(4), 265–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2014.941766
   Google Scholar
• Boettger, R. K., & Friess, E. (2020). Content and authorship patterns in technical communication journals (1996–2017): A quantitative content analysis. Technical Communication, 67(3), 4–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breimer, D. D., Damen, J. C. M., Freedman, J. S., Hofstede, M., Katgert, J., Noordermeer, T., & Weijers, O. (2005). Hora est! On dissertations. Universiteitsbibliotheek Leiden. https://hdl.handle.net/1887/17795
   Google Scholar
• Cannon, P., & Walkup, K. L. (2021). Re/Producing knowledge in health and medicine: Designing research methods for mental health. Technical Communication Quarterly, 30(3), 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2021.1930184
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carradini, S. (2020). A comparison of research topics associated with technical communication, business communication, and professional communication, 1963–2017. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 63(2), 118–138. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2020.2988757
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CCCC. (2022a). CCCC Outstanding Dissertation Award in Technical Communication. https://cccc.ncte.org/cccc/awards/techcommdissertation
   Google Scholar
• CCCC. (2022b). CCCC grants and awards. https://cccc.ncte.org/cccc/awards
   Google Scholar
• Cole, S. (2005). Action ethnography: Using participant observation. In B. W. Ritchie, C. A. Palmer, & P. M. Burns (Eds.), Tourism research methods: Integrating theory with practice (pp. 63–72). CABI Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Cunningham, D. H. (2004). The founding of ATTW and its journal. Technical Communication Quarterly, 13(1), 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15427625TCQ1301_11
   Google Scholar
• Ding, H. (2009). Rhetorics of alternative media in an emerging epidemic: SARS, censorship, and extra-institutional risk communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 18(4), 327–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572250903149548
   Google Scholar
• Ding, H. (2014). Rhetoric of a global epidemic: Transcultural communication about SARS. Southern Illinois University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ding, H. (2019). Development of technical communication in China: Program building and field convergence. Technical Communication Quarterly, 28(3), 223–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2018.1551576
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Downs, D. (2010). Teaching first year writers to use texts: Scholarly readings in writing-about-writing in first-year comp. Reader: Essays in Reader-Oriented Theory, Criticism, and Pedagogy, (60), 19–50. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/teaching-first-year-writers-use-texts-scholarly/docview/918725535/se-2
   Google Scholar
• Duin, A., Moses, J., McGrath, M., & Tham, J. (2016). Wearable computing, wearable composing: New dimensions in composition pedagogy. Computers and Composition Online. http://cconlinejournal.org/wearable
   Google Scholar
• Faber, B. (1996). Rhetoric in competition: The formation of organizational discourse in Conference on College Composition and Communication abstracts. Written Communication, 13(3), 355–384. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088396013003003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frost, E. (2013a). Theorizing an apparent feminism in technical communication [ Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Illinois State University.
   Google Scholar
• Frost, E. (2013b). Transcultural risk communication on Dauphin Island: An analysis of ironically located responses to the Deepwater Horizon Disaster. Technical Communication Quarterly, 22(1), 50–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2013.726483
   Google Scholar
• Frost, E. (2015). Apparent feminism as a methodology for technical communication and rhetoric. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 30(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651915602295
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Getto, G., Labriola, J., & Ruszkiewicz, S. (Eds.). (2019). Content strategy in technical communication. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Gonzales, L. (2018). Sites of translation: What multilinguals can teach us about digital writing and rhetoric. University of Michigan Press. https://www.press.umich.edu/9952377/sites_of_translation
   Google Scholar
• Grabill, J., & Simmons, W. M. (1998). Toward a critical rhetoric of risk communication: Producing citizens and the role of technical communicators. Technical Communication Quarterly, 7(4), 415–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572259809364640
   Google Scholar
• Gurak, L. J. (2018). Ethos, trust, and the rhetoric of digital writing in scientific and technical discourse. In J. Alexander & J. Rhodes (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of digital writing and rhetoric (pp. 124–131). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Haas, C. (1996). Writing technology: Studies on the materiality of literacy. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Hallenbeck, S. (2009). Writing the bicycle: Women, rhetoric, and technology in late Nineteenth-Century America [ Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of North Carolina.
   Google Scholar
• Hallenbeck, S. (2016). Claiming the bicycle: Women, rhetoric, and technology in Nineteenth-Century America. Southern Illinois University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hardy, C., Harley, B., & Phillips, N. (2004). Discourse analysis and content analysis: Two solitudes? Qualitative & Multi-Method Research, 2, 19–22. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.998649
   Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. (2011). Disciplines and discourses: Social interactions in the construction of knowledge. In D. Stark-Meyerring, A. Paré, N. Artemeva, M. Horne, & L. Yousoubova (Eds.), Writing in knowledge societies (pp. 193–214). The WAC Clearinghouse/Parlor Press. https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/books/winks/chapter10.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Jones, N. N., Moore, K. R., & Walton, R. (2016). Disrupting the past to disrupt the future: An antenarrative of technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 25(4), 211–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2016.1224655
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, N., Savage, G., & Yu, H. (2014). Tracking our progress: Diversity in technical and professional communication programs. Programmatic Perspectives, 6(1), 132–152.
   Google Scholar
• Kessler, M. M., Breuch, L. A. K., Stambler, D. M., Campeau, K. L., Riggins, O. J., Feedema, E., Doornink, S. I., & Misono, S. (2021). User experience in health & medicine: Building methods for patient experience design in multidisciplinary collaborations. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 51(4), 380–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472816211044498
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kirsh, G., & Sullivan, P. A. (Eds.). (1992). Methods and methodology in composition research. Southern Illinois University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kynell-Hunt, T., & Savage, G. (2003). Power and legitimacy in technical communication. Volume I: The historical and contemporary struggle for professional status. Baywood Publishing Company. Eds. https://doi.org/10.2190/PL1.
   Google Scholar
• Lam, C. (2014). Where did we come from and where are we going? Examining authorship characteristics in technical communication research. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 57(4), 266–285. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2014.2363892
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lam, C., & Boettger, R. K. (2017). An overview of research methods in technical communication journals (2012–2016). In 2017 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference (ProComm) proceedings (pp. 1–4). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IPCC.2017.8013953
   Google Scholar
• Lanius, C., Weber, R., & Robinson, J. (2021). User experience methods in research and practice. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 51(4), 350–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472816211044499
   Google Scholar
• Lauer, J. M. (1997). Graduate students as active members of the profession: Some questions for mentoring. In G. A. Olson & T. W. Taylor (Eds.), Publishing in rhetoric and composition (pp. 229–236). SUNY Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lauer, C., & Brumberger, E. (2016). Technical communication as user experience in a broadening industry landscape. Technical Communication, 63(3), 248–264.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lay, M. M. (2004). Reflections on Technical Communication Quarterly, 1991–2003: The manuscript review process. Technical Communication Quarterly, 13(1), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15427625TCQ1301_10
   Google Scholar
• Logie, J. (2022). Writing in the clouds: Inventing and composing in internetworked writing spaces. Parlor Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lund, B. (2021). The structure of information behavior dissertations 2009–2018: Theories, methods, populations, disciplines. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 53(2), 225–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000620935499
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacNealy, M. S. (1992). Research in technical communication: A view of the past and a challenge for the future. Technical Communication, 39(4), 533–551.
   Google Scholar
• Madden, S., Eodice, M., Edwards, K. T., & Lockett, A. (Eds.). (2020). Learning from the lived experiences of graduate student writers. Utah State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Malone, E. A. (2007). Historical studies of technical communication in the United States and England: A fifteen-year retrospection and guide to resources. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 50(4), 333–351. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2007.908732
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maylath, B., & Grabill, J. (2009). The Council for Programs in Technical and Scientific Communication at 35 years. Programmatic Perspectives, 1(1), 29–44.
   Google Scholar
• McKoy, T. (2019). Y’all call it technical and professional communication, we call it #ForTheCulture: The use of amplification rhetorics in Black communities and their implications for technical and professional communication studies. [ Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. East Carolina University.
   Google Scholar
• McMurrin, J. (2016). Negotiating the supermarket: A critical approach to nutrition literacy among low-income consumers. [ Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Texas Tech University.
   Google Scholar
• Melonçon, L., Rosselot-Merritt, J., & St.Amant, K. (2020). A field-wide metasynthesis of pedagogical research in technical and professional communication. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 50(1), 91–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281619853258
   Google Scholar
• Melonçon, L., & St.Amant, K. (2019). Empirical research in technical and professional communication: A 5-year examination of research methods and a call for research sustainability. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 49(2), 128–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281618764611
   Google Scholar
• Moretti, F. (2000). Conjectures on world literature. New Left Review, 1, 54–68. https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii1/articles/franco-moretti-conjectures-on-world-literature
   Google Scholar
• Moretti, F. (2009). Style, Inc.: Reflections on seven thousand titles (British novels, 1740–1850). Critical Inquiry, 36(1), 134–158. https://doi.org/10.1086/606125
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mueller, D. (2017). Network sense: Methods for visualizing a discipline. The WAC Clearinghouse. https://wac.colostate.edu/books/writing/network/
   Google Scholar
• Murdock, P. (1986). Doctoral dissertations in technical writing: An annotated bibliography. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 16(1), 175–182. https://doi.org/10.2190/RE95-LFB5-D2JB-Y9Q3
   Google Scholar
• Pantelides, K. L. (2017). Graduate students “show their work”: Metalanguage in dissertation methodology sections. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 47(2), 194–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281617692072
   Google Scholar
• Pearsall, T. E., & Warren, T. L. (1996). The Council for Programs in Technical and Scientific Communication: A retrospective. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 26(2), 139–146. https://doi.org/10.2190/168U-Y025-X4W3-JVUV
   Google Scholar
• Pflugfelder, E. (2012). In measure of the world: Advancing a kinesthetic rhetoric [ Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Purdue University.
   Google Scholar
• Rainey, K. T. (1999). Doctoral research in technical, scientific, and business communication, 1989–1998. Technical Communication, 46(4), 501–531.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rainey, K. T., & Kelly, R. S. (1992). Doctoral research in technical communication, 1965–1990. Technical Communication, 39, 552–570.
   Google Scholar
• Reid, L. (2018). Disciplinary reading in basic writing graduate education: The politics of remediation in JBW, 1991–2015. Journal of Basic Writing, 37(2), 6–34. https://doi.org/10.37514/JBW-J.2018.37.2.02
   Google Scholar
• Richards, I. A. (1924/2001). Principles of literary criticism. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203278901
   Google Scholar
• Rickly, R. (2007). Messy contexts: Research as a rhetorical situation. In H. A. McKee & D. N. DeVoss (Eds.), Digital writing research: Technologies, methodologies, and ethical issues (pp. 377–397). Hampton Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rickly, R., & Cargile Cook, K. (2017). Failing forward: Training graduate students for research––an introduction to the special issue. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 47(2), 119–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281617692074
   Google Scholar
• Rude, C. D. (2009). Mapping the research questions in technical communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 23(2), 174–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651908329562
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Savage, G., & Matveeva, N. (2011). Toward racial and ethnic diversity in technical communication programs: A study of technical communication in historically Black colleges and universities and tribal colleges and universities in the United States. Programmatic Perspectives, 3(1), 58–85.
   Google Scholar
• Sawyer, P. R., Laurent, D., Balzhiser, D., Bokor, M. J. K., Elzie, D., Gresham, M., Keller, E. J., & Mattson, K. (2015). 2015 ATTW bibliography. https://attw.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2015-ATTW-Bibliography.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Scott, J. B., & Melonçon, L. (2018). Manifesting methodologies for the rhetoric of health & medicine. In L. Melonçon & J. B. Scott (Eds.), Methodologies for the rhetoric of health & medicine (pp. 1–23). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Selber, S. (2004). The CCCC Outstanding Dissertation Award in Technical Communication: A retrospective analysis. Technical Communication Quarterly, 13(2), 139–155. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15427625tcq1302_2
   Google Scholar
• Shah, A. (2017). Ethnography? Participant observation, a potentially revolutionary praxis. HAU: A Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 7(1), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.14318/hau7.1.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shelton, C. D. (2019). On edge: A techné of marginality. [ Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. East Carolina University.
   Google Scholar
• Sherill, J. T. (2019). DIY feminism in post-industrial spaces. [ Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Purdue University. https://doi.org/10.25394/PGS.8306492.v1
   Google Scholar
• Shipka, J. (2009). Negotiating rhetorical, material, methodological, and technological difference: Evaluating multimodal designs. College Composition and Communication, 61(1), W343–W366. https://library.ncte.org/journals/CCC/issues/v61-1/8326
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, B. H. (2016). What was “close reading”?: A century of method in literary studies. The Minnesota Review, 2016(87), 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1215/00265667-3630844
   Google Scholar
• Smith, E. O. (2000a). Points of reference in technical communication scholarship. Technical Communication Quarterly, 9(4), 427–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572250009364708
   Google Scholar
• Smith, E. O. (2000b). Strength in the technical communication journals and diversity in the serials cited. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 14(2), 131–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/105065190001400201
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spilka, R. (Ed.). (2010). Digital literacy for technical communication: 21st Century theory and practice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203866115
   Google Scholar
• St.Amant, K., & Melonçon, L. (2016a). Addressing the incommensurable: A research-based perspective for considering issues of power and legitimacy in the field. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 46(3), 267–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281616639476
   Google Scholar
• St.Amant, K., & Melonçon, L. (2016b). Reflections on research: Examining practitioner perspectives on the state of research in technical communication. Technical Communication, 63(4), 346–364. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/stc/tc/2016/00000063/00000004/art00006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan, P., & Spilka, R. (1992). Qualitative research in technical communication: Issues of value, identity, and use. Technical Communication, 39(4), 592–606. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43090168
   Google Scholar
• Sun, H. (2006). The triumph of users: Achieving cultural usability goals with user localization. Technical Communication Quarterly, 15(4), 457–481. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15427625tcq1504_3
   Google Scholar
• Swacha, K. (2017). ‘I could probably live to be 100’: A rhetorical analysis of aging, agency, and public health. [ Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Purdue University.
   Google Scholar
• Tofteland-Trampe, R. (2017). Crossing the divide: Implications for technical communication user advocates. Technical Communication, 64(2), 141–153.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trauth, E. (2014). A ‘natural’ miscommunication: An examination of front-of-package label claims and user-centered food labeling practices. [ Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Texas Tech University.
   Google Scholar
• Tuhiwai Smith, L. (2021). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples (3rd). Zed Books (Bloomsbury Publishing). https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350225282
   Google Scholar
• Turner, H. N. Key-notes: A content analysis of ATTW conferences 1998–2018. (2022). Technical Communication Quarterly, 31(4), 401–415. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2022.2034975
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vijayakumar, J. K., & Vijayakumar, M. (2007). Importance of doctoral theses and its access: A literature analysis. Grey Journal, 3(2), 67–75. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/11886203.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Walton, R., Moore, K. R., & Jones, N. N. (2019). Technical communication after the social justice turn: Building coalitions for action. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• White, M. D., & Marsh, E. E. (2006). Content analysis: A flexible methodology. Library Trends, 55(1), 22–45. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2006.0053
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, K., Rumsey, S. K., & Amidon, S. (2016). Are we “there” yet? The treatment of gender and feminism in technical, business, and workplace writing studies. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 46(1), 27–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281615600637
   Google Scholar
• Williamson, M., & Huot, B. (2012). A modest proposal for common ground and language for research in writing. In K. M. Powell & P. Takayoshi (Eds.), Practicing research in writing studies (pp. 31–58). Hampton Press.
   Google Scholar