Framework for Tech Comm Research Methodologies Critique

Appearing within the section of Critical Power Tools titled, “Research,” Jeffrey Grabill’s article, “The Study of Writing in the Social Factory: Methodology and Rhetorical Agency,” presents a practical framework for being critical of the cultural and ideological underpinnings of the tech comm field. Building upon the conceptual ideas found in Bernadette Longo’s chapter four article, Grabill explains how critical research methodologies need to develop through community based projects that are, as Longo would put it, “firmly grounded in coherent theoretical rationale” (p. 127), so that material and theoretical culture can develop together to promote better practices in tech comm classrooms (p. 155-156).

Grabill first helps readers understand his argument by clarifying the definitions for the terminology he is borrowing as components from, and for, a framework for critical analysis. Using James Porter and Patricia Sullivan’s critical research framework (p. 153), Grabill elaborates their framework’s distinction between method and methodology in order to show where the complexities of having methodologies lies, focusing on the fact that particular approaches to different situations are already really on a dominant ideology (p. 154). This is important as it allows Grabill to establish where a gap in the research occurs. Mainly, he identifies a lack of application of rhetorical cultural studies to the tech writing field, a field Grabill identifies as key to the formulation of the professional environments we enter.

Grabill continues examining the lack of critique present in research methodologies by claiming the importance of agency to those who will participate in professional communications after their studies (p. 159). The author therefore wishes that tech writings and communicators will be able to critical examine the research they do and understand how their own research, and the agency that accompanies the act of generating new research, reflects the ideology and reality as researchers perceive them. To understand how methodology impacts research practice, Grabill asks readers to focus on seven categories to determine the extent to which a given piece of research might be jaded by the biases and ideologies of a researcher.  Two of the suggested areas of focus warrant discussion on behalf of the author as crucial to the development of the other points. By understanding how research methodologies are initiated, how accessible they are, who participates in the research, how to understand audience, consider local politic, promote effective communications, and encourage ideas for sustaining the validity of one’s research, Grabill believes one can attain, “new and different understandings of a project and should be understood to have epistemological value, not just procedural value” (pp. 161,166).

The main realization I believe Grabill wishes for readers to gain is one that recognizes the usefulness of applying theoretical frameworks to practical situations in order to critically understand the factors that determine the true meaning of a given context for tech comm. In focusing on the development of ideas surrounding access and community, this article comes to a close with an example of why it is so important we understand our role as participants in the cultural construction of the communities we work in by expressing the drawbacks of miscommunication and a lack of communal understanding (pp. 163, 165). Since research is always already tied to methodology and ideology, the importance of a critical approach becomes evident as scholars work to enhance methods for understanding and studying “rhetorics of the everyday” (p. 167).

What I am left wondering is how might Grabill suggest tech comm pedagogy change in order to reflect a new or more developed understanding of the way our methodologies of teaching, and research, reflect our own ideologies and perceptions? In other words, is there a concrete method for reassessing our various practices that moves beyond just making us realize we have agency (power) and extends into more informed, responsible, ethical decisions as educators? How might I blend my need to assist students in becoming critically aware thinkers with the need to provide them with clear instruction on seemingly formulaic structures and forms for communication?

I suppose with more than one semester’s time to teach students about critically aware tactics of tech comm we as educators would be in a position that would allow for a greater depth of development regarding what is taught and how it is being taught. I tend to imagine the tech comm classroom as one that is already overwhelmed with the varying needs of students as they pertain to the copious amount of scenarios they should be familiarized with before they graduate and enter the workforce.