Research Agenda

My current research interests are illustrated by my recent publications included on my résumé. In the list below, I cite my research interests and the relevant article:

     • Rhetoric of Science—“The Missing Metaphor;” Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 31.5 (2001): 373-90.

     • Technical Communication Pedagogy—“Creating Community in the Technical Communication Classroom;” Internet-
        Based Workplace Communication: Industry and Academic Perspectives. Ed. Kirk St. Amant and Pavel Zemliansky.
        Herhsey, PA: Idea Group, 2004. 88-106.

    • Usability—“The Syntax of Readability.” (with Brian Still). Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 35.1 (2005):
         47-70.

Rhetoric of Science
Of these three, my greatest interest is in the rhetoric of science.  My currrent, book-length  manuscript focuses on the role of metaphor in scientific thinking, especially as it relates to how scientific knowledge is created and then disseminated to various audiences. In particular, I focus on how science has communicated breakthroughs in cloning to a public skeptical of science’s ethical allegiances. It is interesting to note, for example, how in his Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin used the breeder metaphor to more readily include his audience’s experience. Darwin, of course, was classically educated. Such an education might include the memorization of over 300 tropes and figures of speech and require the student to be able to use them competently. While I do not argue that we should return to the such an educational experience, I do posit that with science’s greater reliance on quantification, there has grown a distrust of natural language that can be traced back to Copernicus, who created and then hid anagrams to record his theories, but to obscure them from the Church.

Historically, an analogy or metaphor has heralded a scientific breakthrough. For example, Rene Descartes described light as a wave. After witnessing how a prism broke light into different colors, Isaac Newton declared light to be a particle. When nineteenth-century physicist Thomas Young noticed how the double-split experiment broke light into bands, he reverted to the wave metaphor. Today, industry understands light to have a particle-like and a wave-like structure. When beams of light travel down a fiber optic cable, industry thinks of light as a wave. When that beam of light arrives at your computer screen and is broken into pixels, industry thinks of light as a particle. Such a metaphoric understanding contributes to engineering as well as to science, and of course, engineering is still largely the practical application of science.

Technical Communication as a discipline is widely misunderstood in the humanities as an instrument for engineering and business. True, students with undergraduate degrees might get jobs writing software manuals or chainsaw instructions, but technical communication as an academic discipline ultimately concerns itself with science and technology’s cultural implications, whether they are over issues such as those I have described or they are focused on studying how people make use of documents through empirical usability studies.

Technical Communication Pedagogy
The fall semester that I began teaching college writing courses, it seemed that all of my first-year composition students had read a certain George Orwell novel during their senior year of high school. In my 22 years of teaching since then, the most difficult course to teach, and teach well, is the introductory technical communication course. Students who take this course are usually majoring in some aspect of engineering, and engineers are notorious for not thinking of themselves as writers. I think it is partly the challenge of teaching these courses that keeps me at it. From teaching technical communication courses, I have gained a good deal of knowledge about computers, especially how they can be used effectively (and not just as super typewriters) in the technical communication classroom, which has positively influenced ALL of my writing classes. Of course, students expect computers to be used in college courses in general, and grading electronically allows me to express myself more legibly than my handwriting will allow, but what I find most valuable is the way that computers can help to create a discourse community in the writing classroom. The relevant essay I referred to in the introduction to this document explains how I used a list serve to create community in a technical communication class, though these techniques can applied to any class. Since the essay was published, I have been using the message board as a way of creating community. In all of my undergraduate writing classes, there is a facet that requires students to post their essays to the message board. Their classmates then download their essays and respond to them, inserting comments in the text as well as writing a summary comment at the end. Though I have not measured the sense of community generated with this approach, my feeling is that it does a better job of creating community in the classroom than simply having them respond to list serve posts.

The essay itself reports on the application of a survey tool adapted from community psychology research. For gathering data for measuring the sense of community in a classroom, the tool is well-supported since community psychology is a sub-discipline within the field of psychology. However, community psychologists have paid little attention to the classroom in general. This tool’s application could be quite valuable for composition researchers.

Usability
Usability measures how people use documents to accomplish specific goals. As a result, usability is quite empirical in terms of the way data is gathered. My research in usability focuses on readability formulas, the subject of my 1986 master’s degree thesis. More recently, for 2001-02, I was chosen as the Medtronic Research Fellow from a summary, basically, of my thesis research. Medtronic, which pioneered the pacemaker for heart patients (the pacemaker prototype was created in a north Minneapolis garage in the 1950’s) and manufactures other medical technology devices, had named readability as a research subject, and my application was chosen competitively. Like many companies that interact with the government, an FDA office requires that Medtronic’s product support literature (instructions and other expository material) be written on an eighth-grade reading level. The formula typically used is the Flesh Reading Ease since it is readily available with Mircosoft Word, but the Flesh Reading Ease measures prose according to the number of words per sentence and the number of syllable per word. My research uncovered a formula, the Golub Syntactic Density Scale, that evaluates prose according to the complexity of a sentence at the clause and phrase level, a much more in-depth examination. After I completed this research, I recruited Brian Still of Texas Technical University to add his expertise on how this formula, which was created and even computerized in the 1970’s, might be updated for more contemporary computer applications. This research was published in 2005 in the Journal of Technical Writing and Communication.

Overall, I have a fully articulated research agenda, and I look forward to many more productive years. Though I am currently most interested in rhetoric of science, I will always be involved with technical communication pedagogy, and I plan to pursue readability, a usability issue, as long as it remains an issue for technical communicators.
--Tim Giles