kt presentation1 ipcc_7_16

Mapping the Body of Knowledge

Knowledge Creation and Transfer in Technical Communication

Thomas Barker, PhD, Texas Tech UniversityJoel Kline, Lebanon Valley College

Sally Henschel, Midwestern State University

Presentation Overview

− Project Overview− Activity One: Brainstorm constructs− Activity Two: Brainstorm weightings− Activity Three: Brainstorm demographics

Barker, Kline, Henschel IPCC July 2008

2

Project Overview− Conversation− Scholarly Perspectives− Purpose− Method− Situating Knowledge Exchange− Measures of KC− Measures of KT− Four Possible Categories− Classifying Programs and Workplaces− Inventory Questions− Grid− Primary Research (Pilot Studies)


3

The Conversation

− Revision of the Standard Occupational Classification, “technical writer,” in the Occupational Outlook Handbook: technical communicator

− BOK effort undertaken by the Society of Usability Professionals

− STC Academic/Industry Summit 2007 and creation of BOK Task Force

− TC Knowledge Portal, Spring 2008

Body of knowledge (BOK) efforts:


4

Scholarly Perspectives− Certification

− Knowledge Management

− Curriculum and Assessment

− Academia/Industry (A/I) Relations


5

Purpose

− To provide a way for individual academic

programs and industry worksites to assess

their engagement in the creation and

transfer

of knowledge (KC/KT) in our field

− To stimulate research in KC and KT


6

Method− Identify the elements of KC/KT in technical communication

− Develop inventory questions for measuring the

elements of KC/KT in specific workplace and academic communities

− Construct a model of how these elements relate to one another to form the knowledge system of our profession


7

Situating Knowledge Exchange

PathwaysA to I and I to A

FormsS = StudentR = ResearchBP = Best Practices


8

Assessing KC Industry (Worksite)

(KC) To what extent are best practices cultivated, identified, and shared systematically, or does the workplace lack a systematic structure for identifying best practices?(KC) Is the structure of the workplace one of silos of productivity or shared, collaborative teamwork?

Academic (Program or Department)

(KC) Does the academic site place a high or low priority on research?(KC) Does the academic site have a record of grant awards and

publications?


9

Industry(KT) Is workplace assessment integrated with academic partners or based mostly on industry standards?(KT) Does the workplace hire TC graduates or promising professionals from non-TC fields that get retrained?

Academic(KT) Do researchers actively seek industry partners? (KT) Is assessment carried out using primarily institutional standards, or is it based on collaboration with industry?

Assessing KT


10

Brainstorm Inventory Questions

Industry(KC) To what extent are best practices cultivated, identified, and shared systematically?(KC) Is the structure of the workplace one of silos of productivity or shared, collaborative teamwork?(KC) Do industry professionals engage in research activities? (KC) Other?(KT) Is workplace assessment integrated with academic partners or based mostly on industry standards?(KT) Does the workplace hire TC graduates, or promising professionals from non-TC fields that get retrained?(KT) Do industry professionals teach in academic settings or participate in academic program review structures?(KT) Have industry professionals taken (or are now taking) classes at academic institutions?(KT) If present, are research activities partnered with academic researchers or mostly proprietary?(KT) Do industry professionals read academic journals regularly?(KT) Are industry professionals active in academic-based professional organizations?(KT) Other?

Academic(KC) Does the academic site place a high priority on research?(KC) Does the academic site have a high grant getting and publication rate?(KC) Does the site develop and implement assessment measures to assure high-quality teaching and research?

(curriculum mapping, program assessment)(KC) Other?(KT) Do researchers actively seek industry partners? (KT) Is assessment carried out using primarily institutional standards, or is it based on collaboration with industry?(KT) Is the teaching primarily academic and theoretical, or does it have elements of workplace practice?(KT) Does the academic site use industry advisory boards?(KT) Do academics have professional experience?(KT) Do academics do consulting in industry?(KT) Are academics active in practitioner-based professional organizations?(KC) Other?


11

Four Possible Categories

Measure Academic Industry

Low TransferHigh Creation

Research-based University

Mature High Tech Company

High TransferHigh Creation

*Integrated University

*Integrated Workplace

Low TransferLow Creation

Composition-based State College

Trade-oriented Consulting Company

High TransferLow Creation

Industry-oriented Community College

Technical Communication Consulting Company


12

13

High

High

Knowledge Creation (KC)

Knowledge Transfer (KT)

Low





KC/KT on a Grid


Activity Task One:

Brainstorm constructs

− Suggest inventory questions

− How: Notes on the back of your handout


14

Activity Task Two:

Weighting inventory questions

− Select or write in 2 in each (KC/KT) category



15

Activity Task Three:

Brainstorm demographics

− Suggest demographics



16

17

Obstacles and Future Work

− Collect KC data

− Collect additional KT data

− Determine how to scale inventory

questions

− Weight inventory questions


Thank you

Thomas Barker, PhD

[email protected]

Joel Kline

[email protected]

Sally Henschel

[email protected]

18

19

Primary Research (Pilot Studies)

Industry: Survey and interviews of 89 New Zealand practitioners. The study sought to capture the state of the relationship between the academic and practitioner communities. One question asked respondents to identify academic journals they read.

Academia: An industry involvement survey of 99 academics. The study attempted to capture a picture of how the experience of technical communication practitioners is reflected in classroom teaching and the curriculum. One question asked respondents to identify elements of the TC workplace that they routinely use in their teaching.


20

Industry Knowledge Transfer

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Participants (N=89)

KT Actitvity: Pubs Read

(n=18)


0

5

10

15

20

25

Respondents (N=99)

I. Activity (N=23)

21, 120, 2

10, 12

15, 8

5. 4

0, 2

21

Academic Knowledge Transfer


22

High

High

Knowledge Creation (KC)

Knowledge Transfer (KT)

Low





KC/KT on a Grid


Literature ReviewAgrawal, Ajay. “University-to-Industry Knowledge Transfer: Literature Review and Unanswered

Questions.” International Journal of Management Reviews 3.4 (2001): 285–302.Allen, Nancy, and Steven T. Benninghoff. “TPC Program Snapshots: Developing Curricula and Addressing

Challenges.” Technical Communication Quarterly 13.2 (2004): 157-185.Beyer, J. M., and H. M. Trice. The Utilization Process: A Conceptual Framework andSynthesis of Empirical Findings. Administrative Science Quarterly 27(1982): 591-622.Birchall, D., and Chanaron, J. (2004), Industry & Academic Institutions Partnerships, Final Report of the

Working Group #4, Leonardo Da Vinci-ELAN 2, The European Learning Automotive Network 2001-2005.

Blakeslee, Ann M. “Bridging the Workplace and the Academy: Teaching Professional Genres through Classroom-Workplace Collaborations.” Technical Communication Quarterly 10.2 (2001): 169-192.

Chauvel, D. and Charles Despers. “A Review of Survey Research in Knowledge Management: 1997-2001.” Journal of Knowledge Management 6.3 (2002): 207-223.

Clark, David. “Is Professional Writing Relevant? A Model for Action Research.” Technical Communication Quarterly 13.3 (2004): 307-323.

Cohen, W. and R. Florida, L. Randazzese, L. and J. Walsh. “Industry and the Academy: Uneasy Partners in the Cause of Technological Advance.” Ed. R. Noll Challenges to Research Universities. Washington D.C: Brookings Institution Press, 1998: 171-199.

Cooke, L. and S. Mings. “Connecting Usability Education and Research with Industry.” IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 48.3 (2005): 296- 312.

Hart, H. & Glick-Smith, J.L. “Training in Technical Communication: Ideas for a Partnership between the Academy and the Workplace.” Technical Communication 41.3 (1994): 399-405.

Kinsella, William J. “Rhetoric, Action, and Agency in Institutionalized Science and Technology.” Technical Communication Quarterly 14.3 (2005): 303-310.

Mara, Andrew. “Using Charettes to Perform Civic Engagement in Technical Communication Classrooms and Workplaces.” Technical Communication Quarterly 15. 2 (2006): 215-236.

Maxwell, J. A. Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005.


23

Mirel, B. and R. Spilka, eds. Reshaping Technical Communication: New Directions and Challenges for the 21st century. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2002.

Palmer, J. and M.J. Killingsworth, M.J. “Research and Consulting in Technical Communication.” Technical Communications Quarterly 11.4 (2002): 389-409.

Pan, S. and Scarbrough, Harry. “Knowledge Management in Practice: An Exploratory Case Study.” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 11.3 (1999): 359-375.

Reynolds, A. “Ashes or Phoenix? Technical Communication or Information Design?”STC 2002 Conference Proceedings. 2002. http://www.stc.org/confproceed/2002/PDFs/STC49-00002.pdf.

Rynes, S.L., J.M. Bartunek, and R.I. Daft. “Across the Great Divide, Knowledge Creation and Transfer between Practitioners and Academics.” Academy of Management Journal 44.2 (2001): 340-355.

Scott, J. Blake. “Rearticulating Civic Engagement through Cultural Studies and Service-Learning.” Technical Communication Quarterly 13.3 (2004): 289-306.

Spilka, R. “The Issue of Quality in Professional Documentation: How can AcademiaMake More of a Difference.” Technical Communications Quarterly, 9.2 (2000): 207-220.

Thelwall, Mike. “Can the Web Give Useful Information about Commercial Uses of Scientific Research?” Online Information Review 28.2 (2004): 120-130.

Thrush, E. A., & Hooper, L. “ How Team-teaching Brings Two Worlds Together.”Technical Communication, 53(3) (2006): 309-316.

Tovey, Janice. “Building Connections between Industry and University: Implementing an Internship Program at a Regional University.” Technical Communication Quarterly 10. 2 (2001): 225-239.

Turner, Roy K., and Kenneth T. Rainey. “Certification in Technical Communication.” Technical Communication Quarterly 13.2 (2004): 211-234.

Waldman, D., L Atwater, L. A. Link. “Toward a Model of The Effective Transfer of Scientific Knowledge from Academicians to Practitioners: Qualitative Evidence from the Commercialization of University Technologies.” Journal of Engineering & Technology Management 21 (2004): 115-142.

Williams, Julia M. “Transformations in Technical Communication Pedagogy: Engineering, Writing, and the ABET Engineering Criteria 2000.” Technical Communication Quarterly 10.2 (2001): 149-167.

Wojahn, Patricia, Julie Dyke, and Linda Ann Riley. “Blurring Boundaries between Technical Communication and Engineering: Challenges of a Multidisciplinary, Client-Based Pedagogy.” Technical Communication Quarterly 10.2 (2001): 129-148.

GraphicsWright, Thurle Memory Box by. Creative Mapping.

http://creativemapping.blogspot.com/2007/02/memory-box-thurle-wright.McClure. Map of the World. Creative mapping. http://mocoloco.com/art/archives/Barker, Kline, Henschel IPCC July 2008

24

kt presentation1 ipcc_7_16

Education

academic kc

kt barker

academic partners

academic researchers

industry partners

industry standards

academic communities

academic settings