The topic I have selected for my literature review is technical communication and children. I realize not much has been published in the past 5 years on this, and so I am investigating the ways in which the work of technical communicators intersects childhood research.
A rough outline:
Intro
Definition of technical communication
Definition of childhood
Specific areas of interest
Conclusion
Bibliography
Showing posts with label Research Ideas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Research Ideas. Show all posts
2.25.2009
Research Proposal for English 5389
Title: Collaboration in the Editorial Review Process: A Pilot Study
I will perform a pilot study to collect information from editors on their processes for collaborative editing and editorial review. The purpose of the research at this stage is data collection in determining what processes editors use to collaborate between editors and with authors, and what technologies assist them with this collaboration. One of the goals of the study is to attempt a small-scale study in order to test the research questions so that they can then be adjusted appropriately for future research.
I will perform a pilot study to collect information from editors on their processes for collaborative editing and editorial review. The purpose of the research at this stage is data collection in determining what processes editors use to collaborate between editors and with authors, and what technologies assist them with this collaboration. One of the goals of the study is to attempt a small-scale study in order to test the research questions so that they can then be adjusted appropriately for future research.
Timeline
This research will be conducted in stages as follows:
Stage 1: Submit a request to Texas Tech University
Stage 2: Literature review and further development of the data collection process. This is expected to be completed by 15 March 2009.
Stage 3: Actual collection of the data; expected to be completed by 1 April 2009.
Stage 4: Analysis of the data; expected to be completed by mid-April.
Stage 5: The results of the research will be documented in a written report. The report will likely consist of the following sections: abstract, introduction, background/literature review, methodology, data analyses, and reflections/conclusions/proposed further research. The report is expected to be completed by 22 April 2009.
Research Problem and Motivation
The field of technical communication encompasses a large body of knowledge, including the work of scholars and professionals in such areas as communication, technical writing, usability, editing, illustration, design, and translation, just to name a few. Magazines and journals publishing articles in the field of technical communication have the advantage of diverse subject matter from which to choose, yet editors cannot possibly be experts in all of these related areas. How do editors of peer-reviewed journals assess the manuscripts they receive? What methods do editors use to work collaboratively (both with other editors and with authors)?
Method(s)
For this research project, I will survey journal editors who work in a collaborative environment about how they see their job in terms of field vs. journal, how they use collaboration in the editorial process, and what technologies aid them in their work. I will conduct a pilot study, surveying the editors of one peer-reviewed journal, Kairos, about their use of collaborative editing techniques and technologies in the editorial review process. I have chosen Kairos in particular because it already uses collaborative editing techniques. Kairos is an online-only peer-reviewed journal, and therefore the editors are already familiar with technologies and collaborative techniques that uniquely qualify them to provide data for this study.
Participants: Volunteer participants will be recruited from approximately 30 editorial staff and 50 editorial board members at Kairos.
I will gather data through the following methods: email surveys to participants and existing literature review. Questionnaires will be administered to gain an understanding of the work and processes of the editors.
Sample questions include:
- How long have you worked with this journal? What is the nature of your experience working in publishing? Have you worked for any other magazine or journal besides Kairos?
- What are your chief duties with the journal?
- Describe the interactions you regularly have with other Kairos editors and board members.
- Describe the interactions you regularly have with Kairos authors. Do you work mostly with scholars or professionals/practitioners or a combination of the two?
- What are editorial meetings like? When do you communicate using the telephone, email, etc. as opposed to face-to-face?
- Did you receive any training when you started working with the journal (technology, teamwork, customer relations, procedures, etc.)?
- During your tenure with the journal, what have you seen change? Are there things that do or don’t work well for you? Is there any part of the process that you like or don’t like in particular?
- What technologies do you use to complete your work with Kairos? Do you use technological artifacts such as computer interfaces, software, mobile devices, etc.?
- As an editor or editorial board member, how do you measure editorial success? Do you use reader surveys or other methods?
- Editors often encounter difficulties (such as losing an author, having trouble communicating a vision, or missing a production date). As you think about your work with Kairos, what sorts of difficulties stick out in your mind?
- If you work at another job besides Kairos (such as in academia or industry), how do you see your job(s) in terms of field vs. journal? How do you balance the needs of your field with the needs of a successful journal?
I will limit this pilot study to an email questionnaire, however, examinations of artifacts that the editorial board and staff editors use in their work and contextual inquiry are potential further research in this area. Artifacts I would expect to examine include such tools as manuals, checklists, documentation, etc. The research would also benefit from visiting editors in their work environment and from interviewing and/or surveying authors about the editorial process.
Aims, Benefits, and Importance of Knowledge Obtained:
Because this is a pilot study, this research should provide insight not just into this particular case, but more broadly into how editorial and collaborative teams work together, how they communicate, how they use technology, and what sorts of communicative problems they face, particularly ones related to technology and online environments.
This research also seeks to shed light and further detail on collaborative editing techniques in peer-reviewed online journals in particular in order to:
1. provide editors and potential authors with solid recommendations for improving editorial teamwork/collaboration, including ways to better use existing technology in editorial work
2. provide researchers with further insights into how collaborative teams work, how they communicate, and how they use technology
3. help potential authors understand the collaborative publication process and what to expect
4. provide individuals who make decisions about promotion or tenure with a clearer description of the rigorous review procedure some online journals use so that they might give more credence to publication in these journals during the review process.
This study has implications for publishing, editing, writing, management, communication, documentation design, training, professional development, and study methodology.
Deliverable
I expect to deliver a formal report documenting and summarizing my research, data, and analysis. The report will likely consist of the following sections: abstract, introduction, background/literature review, methodology, data analyses, and reflections/conclusions/proposed further research. I plan to use this report to develop and refine further research. I also propose that feedback and responses from the editors on my conclusions would be a method for sharing any knowledge gained and validating any assertions made.
2.24.2009
Research Proposal and Readings for the Week
I was struck by the organization of all the articles we read this week. I found them very helpful while working on my research proposal. Each article included some of the following elements:
- abstract/summary
- an introduction and some background
- a description of the plan or case/reasons/motivation for the study
- a description of the "users"
- the methods and process(es) used for conducting the study
- results/analysis/interpretation of the data collected
- reflections/thoughts for action/further research/conclusion
"Your proposal seems to missing what you plan to do with the data. In other words, your procedure is only data collection. Are your analysis techniques dependent on the data you collect?"I think the answer to this questions is yes, and I hope this is something I can address further in my research proposal.
2.18.2009
IRB Reflections
In her comment to my IRB proposal, Becky asked me to make some more reflective blog posts, asking, "How did revising this make you feel? How did you focus in on your idea? How do you see your work fitting into the larger discipline? Why did you choose the methods you did? etc."
So here goes:
I chose my idea for the IRB because I've worked as an editor for an academic peer-reviewed journal, a university press, a trade book publisher, and a professional magazine, and I'm fascinated by the different styles and work methods editors use in each of these cases. I currently edit Intercom, which is a membership magazine that does not use a peer-review process (although I sometimes feel as though a publication sent to all members of STC is in many ways "peer-review" because many STC members are quite vocal!). As a solitary editor, I sometimes feel as though I work in a vacuum, even though (or especially because?) the TC field is quite diverse.
Because I'm sensitive to this issue, I've recently established and been collaborating with members of an Editorial Advisory Panel, who assist me with ideas for topics and authors, but I am curious about how larger groups of editors, especially for online journals, conduct collaborative editing. I'd eventually be interested in expanding this research beyond Kairos, but for time and focus considerations, I really needed to begin with a micro or pilot study. For methods, I've chosen only a questionnaire for now because I really need to focus on data collection, but I would like to try a survey or interviews with editors, including site visits and artifact collection at a later point.
I think this study has the potential to make solid recommendations for better editorial work methods. And I see this study being useful to editors in all disciplines, not just TC. I think TCers and academics would find the research enlightening, especially since editors are, in many ways, responsible for promoting a body of knowledge that represents the field. And also because tenure and promotion decisions are frequently made based on publication, so individuals making those decisions need to know the publication's assessment process to determine the worthiness of a particular publication.
More reflection to come....
So here goes:
I chose my idea for the IRB because I've worked as an editor for an academic peer-reviewed journal, a university press, a trade book publisher, and a professional magazine, and I'm fascinated by the different styles and work methods editors use in each of these cases. I currently edit Intercom, which is a membership magazine that does not use a peer-review process (although I sometimes feel as though a publication sent to all members of STC is in many ways "peer-review" because many STC members are quite vocal!). As a solitary editor, I sometimes feel as though I work in a vacuum, even though (or especially because?) the TC field is quite diverse.
Because I'm sensitive to this issue, I've recently established and been collaborating with members of an Editorial Advisory Panel, who assist me with ideas for topics and authors, but I am curious about how larger groups of editors, especially for online journals, conduct collaborative editing. I'd eventually be interested in expanding this research beyond Kairos, but for time and focus considerations, I really needed to begin with a micro or pilot study. For methods, I've chosen only a questionnaire for now because I really need to focus on data collection, but I would like to try a survey or interviews with editors, including site visits and artifact collection at a later point.
I think this study has the potential to make solid recommendations for better editorial work methods. And I see this study being useful to editors in all disciplines, not just TC. I think TCers and academics would find the research enlightening, especially since editors are, in many ways, responsible for promoting a body of knowledge that represents the field. And also because tenure and promotion decisions are frequently made based on publication, so individuals making those decisions need to know the publication's assessment process to determine the worthiness of a particular publication.
More reflection to come....
2.17.2009
IRB Proposal
Proposal for Activity Using Human Subjects
Dr. Rebecca Rickly, PI
Liz Pohland, Co-PI
I. Title of Research Project: Collaboration in the Editorial Review Process
II. Rationale: Describe the problem, the state of present knowledge relevant to the problem, and the aims of the proposed study. This section should clearly state the potential benefits of the work to the subjects involved and/or the importance of the knowledge to be obtained. The greater the potential risk, the more detail is needed to justify the proposal.
Problem: The field of technical communication encompasses a large body of knowledge, including the work of scholars and professionals in the areas of communication, technical writing, usability, editing, illustration, design, and translation, just to name a few. Magazines and journals that publish articles in the field have the advantage of diverse subject matter from which to choose. Some editors of these publications work in a solitary environment (i.e., there is one editor who makes all editorial decisions and assessments for the publication). However, there are other editors who publish TC-related articles who rely heavily on collaboration to assess this large and growing field. For this research project, I would like to survey editors who work in a collaborative environment about how they see their job in terms of field vs. journal, how they use collaborative analysis in the editorial process, and what technologies aid them in their work. A list of questions I’d like to answer is provided in Attachment B.
For this research project, I will conduct a pilot study, surveying the editors of Kairos about their use of collaborative editing techniques and technologies used for the editorial review process. I have chosen Kairos in particular because it is already established as an online peer-reviewed journal, and the editors in this environment are familiar with technologies and collaborative techniques that uniquely qualify them to provide data for this study which may result in solid recommendations for improving collaborative teamwork, including ways to better use existing technology for editorial work.
In addition, authors of accepted submissions assign to Kairos the right to publish and distribute their work electronically, and authors are encouraged to place a Creative Commons license on their work, which supports collaboration and sharing of intellectual property. For both of these reasons, Kairos seems like an ideal journal to begin this study.
Furthermore, this study should provide insight not just into this particular case, but more broadly into how editorial and collaborative teams work together, how they communicate, how they use technology, and what sorts of communicative problems they face, particularly ones related to technology and online environments.
Present Knowledge: Technical communication is concerned with how people communicate at work, particularly in collaborative teams, and how that work relates to technological changes. According to its website (http://kairos.technorhetoric.net /), the online journal Kairos “promotes original and challenging electronic work, exploring the possibilities afforded by contemporary digital venues.” Kairos publishes “webtexts,” which are projects developed with specific attention to the World Wide Web as a publishing medium.
“Since its first issue in January of 1996, the mission of Kairos has been to publish scholarship that examines digital and multimodal composing practices, promoting work that enacts its scholarly argument through rhetorical and innovative uses of new media. Now in its 12th year of continuous publication, Kairos is one of the leading peer-reviewed journals in English Studies, made so by its dedication to academic quality through the journal’s extensive peer-review and editorial production processes.”
The most unique feature of Kairos may be the rigorous editorial review process, which according to Kairos’ website, includes three distinct tiers, or stages, of review.
1. Tier One: When the editors receive a submission, they evaluate it, deciding if it is indeed appropriate for Kairos and if it is of sufficient quality and scholarly value to merit entering it into a formal editorial review process. If the co-editors agree, then they promote the submission to Tier Two.
2. Tier Two: The entire editorial board discusses the submission for two weeks, coming to a collaborative assessment of its quality and potential to be published in Kairos. After the board discussion, three editorial board members are chosen by the editors to write formal review letters for the authors based on the full-board conversation. The editors will compile these review letters along with an overview pointing out specific areas of critique to focus on and send this information to the authors (typically within two months of submission). NOTE: If a text is accepted (or accepted with revisions), the webtext proceeds to Tier Three. If the text is not accepted, authors who are asked to revise and resubmit may elect to work directly with an editorial board member to ready their text for resubmission to Tier One. (Working with an editorial board member during a revise-and-resubmit assumes that the author will resubmit to Kairos but does not guarantee publication.)
3. Tier Three: The editors work with authors, as needed, to guide/facilitate revisions based on the editorial board’s comments and evaluation. While advancement to this editorial stage is not a guarantee of publication, it does reflect a significant investment in the submission. Our intention is to publish the webtext if the author or authors complete the revisions requested in consultation with the editors.
Aims, Benefits, and Importance of Knowledge Obtained: This research seeks to shed light and further detail on collaborative editing techniques in peer-reviewed online journals in particular in order to:
1. provide editors and potential authors with solid recommendations for improving editorial teamwork/collaboration, including ways to better use existing technology in editorial work
2. provide researchers with further insights into how collaborative teams work, how they communicate, and how they use technology
3. help technical communicators who want to get published understand the collaborative publication process and what to expect
4. provide individuals who make decisions about promotion or tenure with a clearer description of the rigorous review procedure some online journals use so that they might give more credence to publication in these journals during the review process.
This study has implications for publishing, editing, writing, management, communication, documentation design, training, professional development, and study methodology.
III. Participants: Describe (a) state the specific population of human subjects involved including inclusion/exclusion criteria, and (b) how they will be recruited (e.g., by letter, oral presentation, advertising). Submit as appendices the following as relevant: Scripts for person-to-person solicitation, and/or copies of newspaper ads, fliers, notices, etc.
Type: Kairos consists of approximately 30 editorial staff and 50 editorial board members from a variety of academic communities.
Recruitment: Volunteer participants will be recruited from all editors and board members at Kairos. The following recruitment tools are attached:
• Email to potential participants (Attachment A). As soon as I have IRB approval, I will ask all editors of Kairos to agree to participate in the research by responding to this email letter of consent (see Attachment A).
• Email questionnaire to participants (Attachment B). This email will be sent to all editors who have chosen to volunteer and have responded in the affirmative to the consent email.
IV. Procedures: (a) Describe step-by-step all procedures involving these subjects. (b) Identify and assess all potential risks (physical, psychological, privacy, social, etc.), if any, with an estimate of their frequency, severity, and reversibility. Include only risks of more than negligible probability and/or severity including possible delayed effects. Finally, include any precautions that will be taken to avoid such risks (including breeches of confidentiality), and actions to be taken if these risks materialize. (c) Describe any compensation for subject participation.
Procedures and Potential Risks: From 1 March 2009 to 1 April 2009, I will gather data through the following methods: email surveys to participants and existing literature review. I will limit this pilot study to an email questionnaire, however, examinations of artifacts that the editorial board and staff editors use in their work would be a potential case study for a future research project. Examinations of artifacts used in the work would allow me to become familiar with the artifacts and technologies the workers use. I would expect to examine such tools as manuals, checklists, documentation, etc.
Questionnaires will be administered to gain an understanding of the work and processes of the editors. These surveys will be emailed and will offer minimum disturbance to the participants’ work. A sample email questionnaire is attached (Attachment B).
All email questionnaires and correspondence will be confidential and kept on a password-protected personal computer. When I report results, I may describe specific incidents and include direct quotes, but I will not use a participant’s name in order to protect anonymity, and I will not include characteristics that would identify any volunteer.
V. Attachments: Attach recruiting materials, questionnaires, interview schedules, etc., requests for waivers of consent, a copy of the related grant proposal, if any, and other relevant information. Incorporate all attachment into one document. Do not staple the document.
Attachment A: Consent Email to Participants
To: Editors and Editorial Board Members of Kairos
From: Liz Pohland, PhD Student at Texas Tech University
Date:
Subject: Participating in a research study
Please consider participating in a study about editorial collaboration. Between now and 1 April 2009, I plan to study how you work and communicate in your job as an editor. If you participate, your obligations will be minimal: I will ask you to complete a questionnaire via email. All data I collect will be confidential. When I report results, I may describe specific incidents and include direct quotes, but to protect your anonymity, I will not use your name and I will not include characteristics that might identify you.
__Yes, I’m willing to participate in this study.
__No, I don’t feel comfortable participating in this study.
Please fill in your name.
Name: _________________________________
For more information on the study, feel free to contact me:
Liz Pohland
Texas Tech University
Department of Technical Communication and Rhetoric
Phone: 703-998-5165
Email: liz.pohland@ttu.edu
Attachment B: Email Questionnaire to Participants
NOTE: The emails will be semi-structured; I will follow up promising lines of discussion. However, these are the base questions that I will ask all volunteers.
1. How long have you worked with this journal? What is the nature of your experience working in publishing? Have you worked for any other magazine or journal besides Kairos?
2. What are your chief duties with the journal?
3. Describe the interactions you regularly have with other Kairos editors and board members.
4. Describe the interactions you regularly have with Kairos authors. Do you work mostly with scholars or professionals/practitioners or a combination of the two?
5. What are editorial meetings like? When do you communicate using the telephone, email, etc. as opposed to face-to-face?
6. Did you receive any training when you started working with the journal (technology, teamwork, customer relations, procedures, etc.)?
7. During your tenure with the journal, what have you seen change? Are there things that do or don’t work well for you? Is there any part of the process that you like or don’t like in particular?
8. What technologies do you use to complete your work with Kairos? Do you use technological artifacts such as computer interfaces, software, mobile devices, etc.?
9. As an editor or editorial board member, how do you measure editorial success? Do you use reader surveys or other methods?
10. Editors often encounter difficulties (such as losing an author, having trouble communicating a vision, or missing a production date). As you think about your work with Kairos, what sorts of difficulties stick out in your mind?
11. If you work at another job besides Kairos (such as in academia or industry), how do you see your job(s) in terms of field vs. journal? How do you balance the needs of your field with the needs of a successful journal?
Dr. Rebecca Rickly, PI
Liz Pohland, Co-PI
I. Title of Research Project: Collaboration in the Editorial Review Process
II. Rationale: Describe the problem, the state of present knowledge relevant to the problem, and the aims of the proposed study. This section should clearly state the potential benefits of the work to the subjects involved and/or the importance of the knowledge to be obtained. The greater the potential risk, the more detail is needed to justify the proposal.
Problem: The field of technical communication encompasses a large body of knowledge, including the work of scholars and professionals in the areas of communication, technical writing, usability, editing, illustration, design, and translation, just to name a few. Magazines and journals that publish articles in the field have the advantage of diverse subject matter from which to choose. Some editors of these publications work in a solitary environment (i.e., there is one editor who makes all editorial decisions and assessments for the publication). However, there are other editors who publish TC-related articles who rely heavily on collaboration to assess this large and growing field. For this research project, I would like to survey editors who work in a collaborative environment about how they see their job in terms of field vs. journal, how they use collaborative analysis in the editorial process, and what technologies aid them in their work. A list of questions I’d like to answer is provided in Attachment B.
For this research project, I will conduct a pilot study, surveying the editors of Kairos about their use of collaborative editing techniques and technologies used for the editorial review process. I have chosen Kairos in particular because it is already established as an online peer-reviewed journal, and the editors in this environment are familiar with technologies and collaborative techniques that uniquely qualify them to provide data for this study which may result in solid recommendations for improving collaborative teamwork, including ways to better use existing technology for editorial work.
In addition, authors of accepted submissions assign to Kairos the right to publish and distribute their work electronically, and authors are encouraged to place a Creative Commons license on their work, which supports collaboration and sharing of intellectual property. For both of these reasons, Kairos seems like an ideal journal to begin this study.
Furthermore, this study should provide insight not just into this particular case, but more broadly into how editorial and collaborative teams work together, how they communicate, how they use technology, and what sorts of communicative problems they face, particularly ones related to technology and online environments.
Present Knowledge: Technical communication is concerned with how people communicate at work, particularly in collaborative teams, and how that work relates to technological changes. According to its website (http://kairos.technorhetoric.net /), the online journal Kairos “promotes original and challenging electronic work, exploring the possibilities afforded by contemporary digital venues.” Kairos publishes “webtexts,” which are projects developed with specific attention to the World Wide Web as a publishing medium.
“Since its first issue in January of 1996, the mission of Kairos has been to publish scholarship that examines digital and multimodal composing practices, promoting work that enacts its scholarly argument through rhetorical and innovative uses of new media. Now in its 12th year of continuous publication, Kairos is one of the leading peer-reviewed journals in English Studies, made so by its dedication to academic quality through the journal’s extensive peer-review and editorial production processes.”
The most unique feature of Kairos may be the rigorous editorial review process, which according to Kairos’ website, includes three distinct tiers, or stages, of review.
1. Tier One: When the editors receive a submission, they evaluate it, deciding if it is indeed appropriate for Kairos and if it is of sufficient quality and scholarly value to merit entering it into a formal editorial review process. If the co-editors agree, then they promote the submission to Tier Two.
2. Tier Two: The entire editorial board discusses the submission for two weeks, coming to a collaborative assessment of its quality and potential to be published in Kairos. After the board discussion, three editorial board members are chosen by the editors to write formal review letters for the authors based on the full-board conversation. The editors will compile these review letters along with an overview pointing out specific areas of critique to focus on and send this information to the authors (typically within two months of submission). NOTE: If a text is accepted (or accepted with revisions), the webtext proceeds to Tier Three. If the text is not accepted, authors who are asked to revise and resubmit may elect to work directly with an editorial board member to ready their text for resubmission to Tier One. (Working with an editorial board member during a revise-and-resubmit assumes that the author will resubmit to Kairos but does not guarantee publication.)
3. Tier Three: The editors work with authors, as needed, to guide/facilitate revisions based on the editorial board’s comments and evaluation. While advancement to this editorial stage is not a guarantee of publication, it does reflect a significant investment in the submission. Our intention is to publish the webtext if the author or authors complete the revisions requested in consultation with the editors.
Aims, Benefits, and Importance of Knowledge Obtained: This research seeks to shed light and further detail on collaborative editing techniques in peer-reviewed online journals in particular in order to:
1. provide editors and potential authors with solid recommendations for improving editorial teamwork/collaboration, including ways to better use existing technology in editorial work
2. provide researchers with further insights into how collaborative teams work, how they communicate, and how they use technology
3. help technical communicators who want to get published understand the collaborative publication process and what to expect
4. provide individuals who make decisions about promotion or tenure with a clearer description of the rigorous review procedure some online journals use so that they might give more credence to publication in these journals during the review process.
This study has implications for publishing, editing, writing, management, communication, documentation design, training, professional development, and study methodology.
III. Participants: Describe (a) state the specific population of human subjects involved including inclusion/exclusion criteria, and (b) how they will be recruited (e.g., by letter, oral presentation, advertising). Submit as appendices the following as relevant: Scripts for person-to-person solicitation, and/or copies of newspaper ads, fliers, notices, etc.
Type: Kairos consists of approximately 30 editorial staff and 50 editorial board members from a variety of academic communities.
Recruitment: Volunteer participants will be recruited from all editors and board members at Kairos. The following recruitment tools are attached:
• Email to potential participants (Attachment A). As soon as I have IRB approval, I will ask all editors of Kairos to agree to participate in the research by responding to this email letter of consent (see Attachment A).
• Email questionnaire to participants (Attachment B). This email will be sent to all editors who have chosen to volunteer and have responded in the affirmative to the consent email.
IV. Procedures: (a) Describe step-by-step all procedures involving these subjects. (b) Identify and assess all potential risks (physical, psychological, privacy, social, etc.), if any, with an estimate of their frequency, severity, and reversibility. Include only risks of more than negligible probability and/or severity including possible delayed effects. Finally, include any precautions that will be taken to avoid such risks (including breeches of confidentiality), and actions to be taken if these risks materialize. (c) Describe any compensation for subject participation.
Procedures and Potential Risks: From 1 March 2009 to 1 April 2009, I will gather data through the following methods: email surveys to participants and existing literature review. I will limit this pilot study to an email questionnaire, however, examinations of artifacts that the editorial board and staff editors use in their work would be a potential case study for a future research project. Examinations of artifacts used in the work would allow me to become familiar with the artifacts and technologies the workers use. I would expect to examine such tools as manuals, checklists, documentation, etc.
Questionnaires will be administered to gain an understanding of the work and processes of the editors. These surveys will be emailed and will offer minimum disturbance to the participants’ work. A sample email questionnaire is attached (Attachment B).
All email questionnaires and correspondence will be confidential and kept on a password-protected personal computer. When I report results, I may describe specific incidents and include direct quotes, but I will not use a participant’s name in order to protect anonymity, and I will not include characteristics that would identify any volunteer.
V. Attachments: Attach recruiting materials, questionnaires, interview schedules, etc., requests for waivers of consent, a copy of the related grant proposal, if any, and other relevant information. Incorporate all attachment into one document. Do not staple the document.
Attachment A: Consent Email to Participants
To: Editors and Editorial Board Members of Kairos
From: Liz Pohland, PhD Student at Texas Tech University
Date:
Subject: Participating in a research study
Please consider participating in a study about editorial collaboration. Between now and 1 April 2009, I plan to study how you work and communicate in your job as an editor. If you participate, your obligations will be minimal: I will ask you to complete a questionnaire via email. All data I collect will be confidential. When I report results, I may describe specific incidents and include direct quotes, but to protect your anonymity, I will not use your name and I will not include characteristics that might identify you.
__Yes, I’m willing to participate in this study.
__No, I don’t feel comfortable participating in this study.
Please fill in your name.
Name: _________________________________
For more information on the study, feel free to contact me:
Liz Pohland
Texas Tech University
Department of Technical Communication and Rhetoric
Phone: 703-998-5165
Email: liz.pohland@ttu.edu
Attachment B: Email Questionnaire to Participants
NOTE: The emails will be semi-structured; I will follow up promising lines of discussion. However, these are the base questions that I will ask all volunteers.
1. How long have you worked with this journal? What is the nature of your experience working in publishing? Have you worked for any other magazine or journal besides Kairos?
2. What are your chief duties with the journal?
3. Describe the interactions you regularly have with other Kairos editors and board members.
4. Describe the interactions you regularly have with Kairos authors. Do you work mostly with scholars or professionals/practitioners or a combination of the two?
5. What are editorial meetings like? When do you communicate using the telephone, email, etc. as opposed to face-to-face?
6. Did you receive any training when you started working with the journal (technology, teamwork, customer relations, procedures, etc.)?
7. During your tenure with the journal, what have you seen change? Are there things that do or don’t work well for you? Is there any part of the process that you like or don’t like in particular?
8. What technologies do you use to complete your work with Kairos? Do you use technological artifacts such as computer interfaces, software, mobile devices, etc.?
9. As an editor or editorial board member, how do you measure editorial success? Do you use reader surveys or other methods?
10. Editors often encounter difficulties (such as losing an author, having trouble communicating a vision, or missing a production date). As you think about your work with Kairos, what sorts of difficulties stick out in your mind?
11. If you work at another job besides Kairos (such as in academia or industry), how do you see your job(s) in terms of field vs. journal? How do you balance the needs of your field with the needs of a successful journal?
1.28.2009
Project Proposal for IRB
From reader comments, I'm still struggling to narrow my focus... but I've come up with the following idea. Any comments would be greatly appreciated!
Title: A Case Study of the Editorial Process: Collaboration techniques used by editors of Kairos, an online journal, in editorial review
How do the editors of the online journal Kairos use collaboration and collaborative analysis in the editorial review process? How do they work with scholars verses professionals and nonacademics? How do they balance the needs of their field with the needs of a successful journal? How do they select material for publication? How do they assess the field?
I’d like to interview Kairos editors (via email survey) about how they see their job in terms of field vs. journal. How do the editors use collaborative analysis in the editorial stage to facilitate this?
Title: A Case Study of the Editorial Process: Collaboration techniques used by editors of Kairos, an online journal, in editorial review
How do the editors of the online journal Kairos use collaboration and collaborative analysis in the editorial review process? How do they work with scholars verses professionals and nonacademics? How do they balance the needs of their field with the needs of a successful journal? How do they select material for publication? How do they assess the field?
I’d like to interview Kairos editors (via email survey) about how they see their job in terms of field vs. journal. How do the editors use collaborative analysis in the editorial stage to facilitate this?
1.12.2009
Research Methods: Project Proposal Ideas
I just started in the PhD program at TTU last semester, and Research Methods is only my second class. I also recently took a new job, as editor of Intercom for the Society of Technical Communication. Even though I feel I am thoroughly immersed in TC these days, I am a little stumped by what project to work on for this class. I have some general interests though:
Because of my editorial background and experience, I'd like to study TCers who consider themselves editors, or editors who consider themselves TCers. I'm curious about the style guides different editors create and use and the choices they make for their work. I think this is also related to global v. English language concerns.
A related topic is to study the various TC magazines to find out what topics we are publishing in order to determine what topics are emergent within the field. Some questions I've asked include: Do the publisher, editor, and reader agree on subject matter? If not, how can readers become more involved in the process? With the advent of electronic editing, have editors become information architects and content managers, and how do authors handle electronic editing? With increasingly detailed computer applications to assist with writing and editing, what are the current perceptions of electronic editing in both the workplace and freelance environments? Do organizational cultures continue to mediate perceptions of electronic editing according to their priorities and established practices? Who is responsible for factual accuracy—editors or authors? Is easy access to potentially faulty information provided on the Internet (e.g., Wikipedia) a factor with editing today? For this project, I could assist STC with conducting a survey of TC and Intercom readers and authors to find out whether they think we are addressing their needs.
On a completely different theme, I'm also interested in studying technical documentation intended for children. Part of my master's degree concentrated on children’s literature, and I am still quite fascinated by documents designed specifically for children—websites, books, magazines, textbooks, instructions. Children’s documents, usually consisting of a collaboration between both visual and verbal elements (picture and pop-up books being interesting exceptions), have been a significant testing ground for innovative document design. Design becomes the framework for the text and illustrations, providing the visual shape of a text. In recent years, graphic designers have had an increasingly important role in the creation of children’s documents by contributing to the overall look, tone, and reception of the text. Why has there been this increase in the role designers are playing? Are there established standards and guidelines for designing children’s documents? How do adult document designers create documents for children? In this project, I'd be interested in examining the often-overlooked function of designers and the influence of design and typographical elements in children’s documents. How do the designer and the design elements contribute to the rhetoric of a children’s document? I believe answers to these questions from the TC community are long overdue.
The next step will be to pass these ideas off to Dr. Rickly to see if she thinks any of these topics would be good avenues to pursue.
Because of my editorial background and experience, I'd like to study TCers who consider themselves editors, or editors who consider themselves TCers. I'm curious about the style guides different editors create and use and the choices they make for their work. I think this is also related to global v. English language concerns.
A related topic is to study the various TC magazines to find out what topics we are publishing in order to determine what topics are emergent within the field. Some questions I've asked include: Do the publisher, editor, and reader agree on subject matter? If not, how can readers become more involved in the process? With the advent of electronic editing, have editors become information architects and content managers, and how do authors handle electronic editing? With increasingly detailed computer applications to assist with writing and editing, what are the current perceptions of electronic editing in both the workplace and freelance environments? Do organizational cultures continue to mediate perceptions of electronic editing according to their priorities and established practices? Who is responsible for factual accuracy—editors or authors? Is easy access to potentially faulty information provided on the Internet (e.g., Wikipedia) a factor with editing today? For this project, I could assist STC with conducting a survey of TC and Intercom readers and authors to find out whether they think we are addressing their needs.
On a completely different theme, I'm also interested in studying technical documentation intended for children. Part of my master's degree concentrated on children’s literature, and I am still quite fascinated by documents designed specifically for children—websites, books, magazines, textbooks, instructions. Children’s documents, usually consisting of a collaboration between both visual and verbal elements (picture and pop-up books being interesting exceptions), have been a significant testing ground for innovative document design. Design becomes the framework for the text and illustrations, providing the visual shape of a text. In recent years, graphic designers have had an increasingly important role in the creation of children’s documents by contributing to the overall look, tone, and reception of the text. Why has there been this increase in the role designers are playing? Are there established standards and guidelines for designing children’s documents? How do adult document designers create documents for children? In this project, I'd be interested in examining the often-overlooked function of designers and the influence of design and typographical elements in children’s documents. How do the designer and the design elements contribute to the rhetoric of a children’s document? I believe answers to these questions from the TC community are long overdue.
The next step will be to pass these ideas off to Dr. Rickly to see if she thinks any of these topics would be good avenues to pursue.
