Designing a Sound Research Study

 

I learned a lot about the process of designing a sound research study this semester in Research Methods in Technical Writing and Digital Rhetoric. Most importantly, I learned to keep it simple so I can keep it solid. I tend to overcomplicate my work. I discovered, pretty late in the game, that I really needed to simplify my research design. More importantly, to commit to a methodology. I wanted to do a UX focused project, but when my professor took a look at my outline, she made it pretty clear to me that my project fits more cleanly into usability studies. Once I decided to commit to usability studies' methodology, I could begin to bring the clarity and focus my project design needed. While there is a lot of overlap between UX and usability studies, the purpose of my study is not make sense of the crossover. Essentially, I can sidestep the controversy by focusing on one methodology for my project. 

Additionally, the weeks we covered quantitative research methods expanded my thinking about research. The standards of rigor are impressive in quantitative research. It had been way too long since I took statistics, so I benefitted greatly from the refresher course. While, I am impressed by quantitative research methods, the lessons about qualitative research methods were also inspiring. What is cool is not doing a big expensive quat study necessarily, what is cool is knowing enough about research methods to be able to choose a research design that is most ideal for answering a study's research questions and achieving the study's purpose.

Gratitude to the class for all of the support, feedback, and guidance that has helped me to refine my process. I have a clear picture now of where I am heading with my study.

My Plan for Project Design Refinement

I plan to refine my project design and proposal with a few key adjustments. First, my literature review has been edited by my professor and is ready for revision. I will move the literature review introduction to the beginning of the project proposal report and expand it to encompass the rest of the report sections. Then I will develop a brief introduction for the literature review that forecasts its sections.

To expand and details in my methods section. I have a meeting with the Master of Athletic Training coordinators and project chair to review my research design with the intention of finalizing what will be allowed for my study. From this feedback, I can build the remaining details for my methods section and apply for IRB approval. Further development of my research design's limitations is also on my list. Once I have the methods section defined, it will become possible to discover what potential weaknesses might be inherent in my approach.

Next, I want to collect more evidence to justify why usability and UX research are appropriate methods for my research design. Essentially, why I chose them and why other researchers use them. The research I did while writing the literature review revealed other scholars have done research with clinicians working with EMRs, but I want to develop greater understanding of how my study fits into the fields of technical communication, user experience (UX) research, and medical pedagogy.

Finally, I need to outline the potential implications of my research—such as supporting student clinicians’ orientation to patient documentation in electronic medical records (EMR) through the development of curriculum designed from local experience data with solutions customized to specific environments of practice. 

Technical Communication in User Experience: A Research Gap

While researching user experience (UX) for a literature review for my capstone project proposal, I discovered Hunter (2024) who did a content analysis of UX related articles from technical and professional communication (TPC) from 2013 to 2022. Hunter’s (2024) work is noteworthy as it identifies a significant gap between TPC’s version of UX research and the field of UX itself. This gap is problematic for TPC scholars who want to move into UX. Hunter (2024) identifies part of the problem as stemming from “a significant terminological comingling of user experience and usability within TPC scholarship,” yet the field of UX has long since moved passed usability principles (p.333). This is somewhat embarrassing as technical communicators are known for using the most accepted terminology for whatever industry they are working with.

Hunter (2024) points to the need to clarify and align TPC with UX terminology. This is especially important in TPC pedagogy. If TPC wants to be part of UX, which many TPC scholars advocate for—it’s past time to make a defined commitment to the UX industry and its terminology. By aligning with UX terminology, and by extension how TPC teaches UX, the field of TPC can bolster its place and its value in UX and prepare its graduates for the reality they will face.

I appreciate Hunter' (2024) argument that, while TPC pedagogy will need to address terminology issues to better align with UX, TPC does have something of value to offer back to UX. He writes “TPC-UX is a hybridization of TPC and UX that offers several key affordances to UX design: an attunement to network power dynamics, a theoretically rich understanding of multimodality, and a wealth of strategies for navigating contextual complexities” (Hunter, 2024, p. 326). I think this is a good base for TPC pedagogy to build from.

I appreciate Hunter’s (2024) work for identifying the gap between TPC’s version of UX and the field of UX. I agree with addressing the confusion to stop TPC from distancing itself further from the field of UX. Working to address the UX gap in TPC pedagogy would likely improve technical communicators’ acceptance on UX teams.

 Reference

Hunter, P. T. (2024). Toward TPC-UX: UX topics in TPC journals 2013–2022. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 54(3), 324–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472816231191998

My Research Hopes and Context

My hopes for this semester are focused on preparing for my capstone project. I’ve been asked to develop a solution that will help student clinicians better orient themselves to electronic medical records (EMR). My project draws from usability studies, user experience (UX) research, and the rhetoric of health and medicine (RHM).

Usability is one of the ways the field of technical communication is visible in my project design. Usability testing is my collection method for the data I’ll use for solution development. Both interviews and observations will be used.

According to Redish and Barnum’s (n.d.) arguments in “Overlap, Influence, Intertwining: The Interplay of UX and Technical Communication,” technical communication has been coevolving with usability since the 1970s. This was before it was even called usability. This article is great if you need to know how usability and user experience (UX) research are connected to technical communication. The article is from 2011. I hope this means things have continued to improve for technical communicators interested in usability and UX research since then.

My second area of study is UX research. I’ll be using UX methodology in the development and implementation of a solution. 

Technical communication’s connection to UX is more debated. Redish and Barnum (n.d.) highlighted a controversy that has held back technical communicators from contributing their skills to UX teams. The backlash started when the field of UX opened to technical communicators in the 1990s. Redish and Barnum (n.d.) quote Joe Dumas, who wrote a history of usability emerging from human factors engineering. Dumas wrote that “some people with psychology and human factors backgrounds saw this as a watering down of the skills of the profession,” a view Dumas doesn’t agree with (Redish & Barnum, n.d., para. 66).

Redish and Barnum (n.d.) shared how this attitude is counterproductive to UX teams, product development, companies, users, and technical communicators. Technical communicators have struggled to make it onto UX teams, even though technical communicators bring skill sets such as user analysis, user advocacy, team collaboration, multidirectional communication, rhetoric, usability testing, adaptability in complex environments, and an ability to simplify complex information for users.

Not all projects need psychologists or human factors engineers, but UX projects need technical communication skill sets for teams to thrive and make user-friendly products. Some companies have budgets allowing for scientists on their development teams, some don’t. We need more usability and improved user experiences from our tech, hardscapes, and systems so I see plenty of room for those interested in making things better for people.

Redish and Barnum (n.d.) share a call to action to improve interdisciplinary collaboration between UX teams and technical communicators. Their reasoning—why wait until after the development of a less than user-friendly product to then ask technical communicators to fix the issues users will face with the documentation. There are missed opportunities for all parties here, big time.

UX and usability play a key role in human-computer interaction (HCI). HCI was included under sociocultural theories in our first lecture. My capstone project is designed to move me closer to my dream career in HCI—improving usability of assistive technology based on UX research. This is why the controversy between scientific fields in UX and technical communication is important to me. According to Redish and Barnum (n.d.), I have more of an uphill battle than I previously anticipated.

The last area of study in preparation for my project is RHM. The field of rhetoric is visible through RHM. I’m less clear if this also includes digital rhetoric, or how RHM aligns with technical communication. My directed readings course this semester will help me answer these questions. Additionally, during my studies, I’ll be looking for greater clarity on how usability and UX are distinguished from each other and are related to technical communication and digital rhetoric. Feedback to this blog post will likely provide some additional clarity.

Reference

Redish, G., & Barnum, C. (n.d.). Overlap, influence, intertwining: The interplay of UX and technical communication. JUX Journal of User Experience, 6(3), 90-101. https://uxpajournal.org/overlap-influence-intertwining-the-interplay-of-ux-and-technical-communication/

 

Research Topic and Sources

My research topic centers on my capstone project. During my project, I’ll be developing a solution(s) that ideally enables Athletic Training (AT) student clinicians to better orient themselves and properly use electronic medical records (EMR). My data collection methods will be UX research and usability testing of AT student clinicians. I want to interview AT student clinicians who have used the community clinic’s EMR. Then from those interviewed, I’ll select the least experienced student clinicians to observe using the clinic’s EMR. I’m thinking of using one or both of the following methods—observations of use before, during, or after patient services at the community clinic (whatever is normal procedure) and working through simulations with the EMR. Based on the results of the interviews and observations, I’ll develop a solution(s) and then implement the solution(s).

With this project design in mind, I selected the following ten sources to potentially build an annotated bibliography and literature review. These sources were chosen to develop three main categories—UX and usability theoretical foundations, UX research and usability studies methods, and the rhetoric of health and medicine (RHM).

1. Bivens, K. M., Arduser, L., Welhausen, C. A., & Faris, M. J. (2018). A multisensory literacy approach to biomedical healthcare technologies: Aural, tactile, and visual layered health literacies. Kairos. https://kairos.technorhetoric.net/22.2/topoi/bivens-et-al/conclusion.html#1
2. Hanna, M. A., & Arduser, L. (2018). Mapping the terrain: Examining the conditions for alignment between the rhetoric of health and medicine and the medical humanities. Technical Communication Quarterly, 27(1), 33–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2017.1402561
3. Hunter, P. T. (2024). Toward TPC-UX: UX topics in TPC journals 2013–2022. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 54(3), 324-356. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472816231191998
4. 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
5. 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/10.1177/0047281621104449
6. Melonçon, L., Griffith, J., Gubala, C., & Zarlengo, T. (2024). Back to the basics: Uncovering the rhetoric student learning outcome. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 87(1), 152–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294906231213631
7. Rose, E. J., & Schreiber, J. (2021). User experience and technical communication: Beyond intertwining. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 51(4), 343–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472816211044497
8. Tham, J., Howard, T., & Verhulsdonck, G. (2022). Extending design thinking, content strategy, and artificial intelligence into technical communication and user experience design programs: Further pedagogical implications. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 52(4), 428–459. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472816211072533
9. Sauer, G. (2018). Applying usability and user experience within academic contexts: Why progress remains slow. Technical Communication Quarterly, 27(4), 362–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2018.1521637
10. St.Amant, K. (2021). Cognition, care, and usability: Applying cognitive concepts to user experience design in health and medical contexts. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 51(4), 407–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281620981567

 

 

 

Research Hopes and Context

My hopes for this semester are focused on preparing for my capstone project. I’ve been asked to develop a solution that will help student clinicians better orient themselves to electronic medical records (EMR). My project draws from usability studies, user experience (UX) research, and the rhetoric of health and medicine (RHM).

Usability is one of the ways the field of technical communication is visible in my project design. Usability testing is my collection method for the data I’ll use for solution development. Both interviews and observations will be used.

According to Redish and Barnum’s (2011) arguments in “Overlap, Influence, Intertwining: The Interplay of UX and Technical Communication,” technical communication has been coevolving with usability since the 1970s. This was before it was even called usability. 

My second area of study is UX research. I’ll be using UX methodology in the development and implementation of a solution. Technical communication’s connection to UX is more debated. Redish and Barnum (2011) highlighted a controversy that has held back technical communicators from contributing their skills to UX teams. The backlash started when the field of UX opened to technical communicators in the 1990s. Redish and Barnum (2011) quote Joe Dumas, who wrote a history of usability emerging from human factors engineering. Dumas wrote that “some people with psychology and human factors backgrounds saw this as a watering down of the skills of the profession,” a view Dumas doesn’t agree with (Redish & Barnum, n.d., para. 66). 

Redish and Barnum (2011) shared how this attitude is counterproductive to UX teams, product development, companies, users, and technical communicators. Technical communicators have struggled to make it onto UX teams, even though technical communicators bring skill sets such as user analysis, user advocacy, team collaboration, multidirectional communication, rhetoric, usability testing, adaptability in complex environments, and an ability to simplify complex information for users. The Redish and Barnum (2011) article is from 2011, so I hopefully things have improved for technical communicators interested in usability and UX research since then.

Redish and Barnum (2011) share a call to action to improve interdisciplinary collaboration between UX teams and technical communicators. Their reasoning—why wait until after the development of a less than user-friendly product to then ask technical communicators to write documentation to help users with the issues they will encounter. There are missed opportunities for all parties here.

UX and usability play a key role in human-computer interaction (HCI). HCI was included under sociocultural theories in our first lecture. My capstone project is designed to move me closer to my dream career in HCI—improving usability of assistive technology based on UX research. According to Redish and Barnum (2011), I have more of an uphill battle than I previously anticipated.

The last area of study in preparation for my project is RHM. The field of rhetoric is visible through RHM. I’m less clear if this also includes digital rhetoric, or how RHM aligns with technical communication. My directed readings course this semester will help me answer these questions. Additionally, during my studies, I’ll be looking for greater clarity on how usability and UX are distinguished from each other and are related to technical communication and digital rhetoric. Feedback to this blog post will likely provide some additional clarity.

Reference

Redish, G., & Barnum, C. (2011). Overlap, influence, intertwining: The interplay of UX and technical communication. JUX Journal of User Experience, 6(3), 90-101. https://uxpajournal.org/overlap-influence-intertwining-the-interplay-of-ux-and-technical-communication/