Introduction & Organizational Summary

As explored in the previous creative challenge on key terms and research methods in professional and technical communication (PTC), different scholarly and professional communities have distinct epistemological foundations, research practices, and genre conventions. They have conflicting ideas about what knowledge is, how knowledge claims should be constructed or found, and how and when research questions and citations should be introduced. Thus, the research works these communities compose — their research genres — tend to be quite different from one another. For instance, the ethnographer’s study may read like a narrative, while the scientist’s lab report follows a more structured IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) format.

However, despite these differences, researchers across various fields also share a number of common values (especially an emphasis on critique, peer review, information literacy, critical literacy). They also share discourse conventions when it comes to conducting and presenting their work. For example, there is a general agreement among serious researchers and scholars that research should be guided by research questions, informed by relevant scholarly literature, and properly attributed through citation practices.

The goal of this creative challenge is for students to investigate the shared as well as unique rhetorical moves and discourse conventions employed by researchers across diverse methodological communities. The assignment is divided into three main parts:

1. The creative challenge itself, which tasks students with analyzing published research studies from a selected PTC journal.
2. An exploration of the information literacy perspectives that researchers share across methodological approaches, including scholarly/theoretical, design/creative, and empirical (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods) methods.
3. An analysis of how researchers from these different disciplinary backgrounds present their work, highlighting both the commonalities in their scholarly practices as well as the distinct ways they frame their research questions, engage with the literature, and communicate their findings.

By investigating these shared and unique rhetorical strategies and discourse conventions, students will develop a nuanced understanding of the broader research landscape in professional and technical communication.

Introduction to Key Terms

To conduct the challenge outlined below, you will need a basic understanding of the following terms.

Literature

In the context of the research community, the term “literature” refers to the body of published, peer-reviewed work that is relevant to a particular field of study or research topic. This includes:

• Journal articles
• Conference proceedings
• Books and monographs
• Dissertations and theses
• Reports and white papers
• Other formal academic publications

Literature Review

A literature review is a systematic survey and synthesis of existing peer-reviewed works related to a specific research topic or question. It serves multiple purposes and can be understood in two primary contexts:

1. As a Genre of Discourse: A literature review is a distinct genre of discourse that focuses on synthesizing and critically analyzing the existing body of scholarly work on a particular topic. As a genre, it has its own conventions, rhetorical appeals, and expectations that distinguish it from other forms of research genres, such as empirical research articles or theoretical papers.
2. As a Section within a Research Study: Within the structure of a research study or paper, the literature review typically represents a dedicated section or chapter. It provides an overview and analysis of the relevant literature, contextualizing the current study, identifying gaps or areas that require further investigation, and establishing the rationale and significance of the research being undertaken.

Key Functions and Characteristics of Literature Reviews

1. Context and Background: Provides a thorough overview of the current state of knowledge in the field, establishing the context for the new research.
2. Identifying Gaps: By synthesizing existing research, it helps identify gaps in current knowledge, unanswered questions, or areas that need further exploration.
3. Theoretical Framework: Helps in developing or refining the theoretical framework for the study by examining how others have approached similar research questions.
4. Methodology Insight: Provides insights into effective methodologies used in the field and potential pitfalls to avoid.
5. Justification: Justifies the need for the current study by demonstrating how it will contribute to filling gaps or extending existing knowledge.
6. Avoiding Duplication: Ensures that the research doesn’t unnecessarily duplicate existing work.
7. Critical Evaluation: Involves critically evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of existing research, not just summarizing it.
8. Synthesis: Synthesizes information from multiple sources to create a coherent narrative about the state of the field.
9. Demonstrating Expertise: Demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with and understanding of the field, thereby appealing to authority
10. Reference Point: Provides a reference point for comparing and contrasting the findings of the current study with previous research in the discussion section.

Introduction to Rhetorical, Textual, & Citation Analysis

Rhetorical, textual, and citation analysis are essential scholarly methods and critical thinking strategies used across various methodological communities. These techniques help researchers critically evaluate and interpret texts, understand the underlying arguments, and assess the credibility and relevance of sources. By applying these methods, professional and technical communicators can effectively engage with relevant literature, identify gaps in knowledge, and contribute to scholarly conversations with well-supported and persuasive arguments. These skills are crucial for conducting rigorous research and producing high-quality academic work in any field of study.

Rhetorical Analysis

Rhetorical Analysis refers to the practice of analyzing a rhetorical situation. When applied to research, rhetorical analysis might involve:

1. Evaluating the Exigency: Examining the problem being investigated and questioning whether the investigators chose the most appropriate methods to analyze the problem.
2. Analyzing the Audience: Identifying who the audience is for the research and questioning whether the research question or argument addresses gaps in the literature and the current status of scholarly conversations on the topic. This involves identifying how the study interacts with canonical texts within the discipline or questioning how the study responds to current discussions and perspectives on the topic.
3. Assessing the Researchers: Determining whether the researchers have the qualifications and expertise necessary to conduct the study. This includes checking for ethical lapses and conflicts of interest. For example, if an investigator is researching tobacco and they work for a cigarette company, you would be wise to question the veracity of their review of literature, methods, claims, and results.
4. Analyzing the Journal: Recognizing that not all journals or publishing companies are equal, and understanding the reputation and rigor of the journal where the research is published.

Consumers of research need to assess the ethos of the investigators to determine whether a study is worth reading. They want to check for bias and conflicts of interest. Subject matter experts want to determine whether the investigators are citing the canonical texts on a subject, and whether the investigators are misrepresenting previously published works and the current status of the scholarly conversation on the topic. Seasoned investigators understand they need to adopt the rhetorical stance expected by the methodological community they are addressing. For instance, before writing a proposal, they want to study past proposals that were funded by the funding agency or business.

Recommended Readings

1. Rhetoric: Exploring Its Definition and Impact on Modern Communication
2. Rhetorical Situation
3. Rhetorical Analysis
4. Rhetorical Reasoning
5. Rhetorical Stance
6. Rhetorical Appeals

Textual Analysis (Research Question & Literature Review)

Textual analysis involves a systematic examination and interpretation of a writer’s style, language, and structural choices in a research study. In this challenge, it requires close reading of published research to understand how investigators introduce and frame their research questions and engage with the scholarly literature. This approach allows for a deep exploration of the textual choices that shape the presentation and reception of research.

Key Elements of Textual Analysis includes

1. Analyzing Genre Conventions:
   Examine the organizational structure of the research studies, including the use of headings, sections, and other formal elements. Analyze the linguistic practices employed by the researchers, such as diction, register, and tone. Focus on how these elements reflect disciplinary or methodological norms and how they contribute to the clarity and effectiveness of the research presentation.
2. Examining Research Questions:
   Focus on the articulation of the central research questions or hypotheses. Analyze where these questions are positioned within the text, how clearly they are expressed, and their scope and significance. Evaluate how well the research questions align with the study’s objectives and their contribution to the broader field.
3. Evaluating Literature Reviews:
   Critically assess how researchers situate their work within the existing body of scholarly literature. Analyze the depth and breadth of the literature review, the selection and integration of sources, and the framing used to position the study within ongoing scholarly conversations. Consider how effectively the literature review establishes the study’s relevance and how it supports the research questions or hypotheses.

Citation Analysis

Citation analysis refers to the systematic examination of the citations and references used within a scholarly text. This type of analysis provides insights into the investigator’s engagement with the broader body of literature and the epistemological foundations of their research. Key aspects of citation analysis include:

• Identify the types of sources (e.g., journal articles, books, reports) referenced by the author.
• Examine the frequency, distribution, and placement of citations within the text.
• Categorize the citations based on the research methods employed (e.g., empirical studies, theoretical frameworks, literature reviews).
• Evaluate the purpose and role of the citations, such as providing background information, positioning the work in ongoing scholarly conversations on the topic, supporting claims, or critiquing previous studies.
• Analyze the interconnections between the cited sources and the author’s own work.
• Identify the canonical texts that have shaped the author’s research.
• Detect gaps in the literature that the author’s study aims to address.

The Creative Challenge

This creative challenge calls for three deliverables:

Deliverable #1 – Research Notes

Working collaboratively in groups of 3, writing for your peers in the class — or other students studying research methods — prepare research notes for nine articles that were published in one PTC journal (see list below). Each group member should try to choose studies that use different research methodologies, especially

1. Scholarly and Theoretical Research (aka Textual Research)
2. Design and Creative Methods
3. Empirical Methods
   • Qualitative Methods
   • Quantitative Methods
   • Mixed Methods.

In your notes summarize how the investigators of the nine studies your group analyzed presented their research questions, reviewed literature, and cited sources. Your group’s analysis should not engage in methodological critique (That’s the focus of the next creative challenge.)

The deliverables for this stage of your work are nine sets of notes, one set for each study, and three tables for each note. Your research notes must be linked to the course sandbox prior to your group’s presentation. Follow this template for your notes:

1. Your Name
2. APA 7 citation for the article being reviewed
3. Identification of the primary research method the study employed and the Methodological Community the research targets.
4. Total Word Count
   [Line Break]
5. Rhetorical Analysis Narrative (100 to 200 words)
   • Rhetorical Analysis Table
6. Research Question Analysis Narrative (100 to 200 words)
   • Research Question Table
7. Literature Review Analysis Narrative (100 to 200 words)
   • Literature Review Table
8. Citation Analysis Narrative (100 to 200 words)
   • Citation Table

Deliverable #2 – Presentation

Working collaboratively, develop a five minute-long presentation to your peers. The goal of your presentation is to synthesize what your group learned about the research practices of investigators in the journal you analyzed. Share what your group learned about how researchers presented their research questions or arguments and how they reviewed/cited literature. Based on the methods the investigators used and your textual analysis, what does your group believe are the values of the journal editors and subscribers? Are they scholars, quantitative empiricists, qualitative empiricists, or designers/creatives?

Format: The first slide of your presentation should list group members’ names. The presentation should include a slide that synthesizes the nine notes. One slide should address your group’s findings regarding how research questions are presented; a second slide should clarify how literature reviews are presented; and a third slide should clarify citation patterns. Your group should follow your findings with some slides on implications and takeaways.

Deliverable #3 – Reflection

The reflection has two parts, which you can separate by headings, 1 heading for Methodological Communities and a second for AI and Group Processes.

Working individually, write a 250 to 500 word reflection that reports on

• what you learned about how investigators from diverse methodological communities shape their research questions, literature reviews, and citations
• how you contributed to the group, which collaboration tools you used, and how you used AI.

Why Does this Creative Challenge Matter?

In order to successfully critique or conduct research studies — or determine whether results are credible — professional and technical writers need to

1. learn how to engage in rhetorical, textual, and citation analysis
2. understand the conventions that govern how investigators shape questions, literature reviews, and citations

Recommended Steps for this Creative Challenge

Step 1 – Choose Nine Studies to Analyze

Working in groups of three, identify one journal to analyze from the following list of research journals in professional and technical communication, which was compiled and annotated by Professor Jason Tham, an associate professor of technical communication and rhetoric at Texas Tech (see list below).

Try to choose studies that use different research methods: Scholarly Methods, Quantitative Empirical Methods, Qualitative Empirical Methods, Design & Innovation Methods, Mixed Methods

Note: to log on to many of these journals, if they are locked behind a paywall, you may need to log on to the University’s Library Services portal. Also, please note that each of these journals may speak to multiple methodological communities.

Journal of Business and Technical Communication (SAGE)

• Nature: Theory driven; seems to balance qualitative and quantitative research
• Focus: Technical and business communication practices and pedagogy; discussions about training students to be professionals; some useful teaching strategies and cases
• Notes: Currently one of the top journals in technical communication; arguably most cited; has a strong tie to Iowa State’s professional communication program

Journal of Technical Writing and Communication (SAGE)

• Nature: Slightly less theoretical than JBTC and TCQ but still heavy academic-speak
• Focus: Trends and approaches in technical communication practices and research
• Notes: One of the oldest technical communication journals in the US

Technical Communication (Society for Technical Communication)

• Nature: Arguably more practical than JTWC, JBTC, TCQ, and IEEE Transactions; caters to STC’s professional audience… and it’s associated with the STC’s annual summit
• Focus: Emerging topics, methods, and practices in technical communication; content management, information architecture, and usability research
• Notes: It’s behind a paywall some university libraries may not even access; there is an online version of the journal called Technical Communication Online… but it’s not as prominent as the print journal; seems to have a strong association with Texas Tech’s technical communication program

Technical Communication Quarterly (Association for Teachers of Technical Writing) (Taylor & Francis)

• Nature: Theoretical + pedagogical
• Focus: Teaching methods and exemplary approaches to research; features many exemplary qualitative research cases
• Notes: Another top journal in technical communication; produces many award-winning pieces; associated with ATTW so it has a huge academic following… especially those who also attend the annual Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC)

IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication (Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers – Professional Communication Society)

• Nature: 50-50 theory and practice
• Focus: Engineering communication as professional communication; empirical research
• Notes: Another old journal that has a lot of history; seems to have a strong tie to the University of North Texas’s technical communication department

IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society (IEEE Society on Social Implications of Technology)

• Nature: 30% technical, 70% philosophical discussions about social technologies
• Focus: Computers science, CS education, technical design, social computing
• Notes: Good for interdisciplinary work, digital humanities, and digital education

Communication Design Quarterly (Association for Computing Machinery – Special Interest Group on Design of Communication)

• Nature: Theoretical, methodological
• Focus: Offers many accessible (comprehensible) research reports on design methods, research practices, teaching approaches, and industry trends
• Notes: Open access…yay! Recently pursued an “online first” model where articles are published on a rolling basis; it’s considered the second-tier journal in the academic circle but it’s surely becoming more popular among technical communication scholars

Journal of Usability Studies (User Experience Professionals Association)

• Nature: For academics, this is highly practical
• Focus: Empirical research; mostly quantitative
• Notes: Independent journal not associated with an academic institution

Behaviour and Information Technology (Taylor & Francis)

• Nature: Computer science emphasis… so, experimental + theoretical
• Focus: Human-computer interaction; information design, behavioral science
• Notes: This is a UK journal… provides a nice juxtaposition to US journals and perspectives

Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (SAGE)

• Nature: Similar to BIT, experimental and theoretical
• Focus: Puts emphasis on the human factors and ergonomics discipline; draws from psychology
• Notes: As shown in its name… it’s a journal for the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications (SAGE)

• Nature: Slightly more theoretical than Human Factors
• Focus: Theoretical discussions, experiments, and demonstrations
• Notes: Also an HFES journal

International Journal of Human-Computer Studies (Elsevier)

• Nature: Theoretical
• Focus: More interdisciplinary than EID and Human Factors
• Notes: May be one that technical communication researchers feel more comfortable publishing in even if they are not working directly in HCI or computer science fields

Human Technology (Independent journal)

• Nature: Theoretical, philosophical
• Focus: Discusses technological futures and human-computer interaction
• Notes: It’s got less prestige compared to EID and Human Factors

Human Communication & Technology (Independent journal)

• Nature: Theoretical, empirical
• Focus: Communication studies and social technologies
• Notes: It’s fairly new and doesn’t seem to publish multiple issues a year

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (International Communication Association) (Oxford)

• Nature: Empirical; qualitative; quantitative
• Focus: Social scientific approach to computer-based communication; media studies and politics; social media research
• Notes: Top journal for solid communication technologies research

International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development (IGI Global)

• Nature: Empirical; qualitative; quantitative; practical
• Focus: Social scientific approach to technology studies and professional communication; seems catered to practitioner audience
• Notes: Has an interdisciplinary feel to it; one or two special issues are of specific interest to technical communication design

Business and Professional Communication Quarterly (SAGE)

• Nature: Theoretical, pedagogical
• Focus: Workplace communication studies and teaching cases
• Notes: A journal of the Association for Business Communication (ABC); top tiered for business writing and communication research

International Journal of Business Communication (SAGE)

• Nature: Practical, pedagogical, experimental
• Focus: Similar focus to BPCQ
• Notes: Also an ABC journal (I am not sure why there is this other journal)

Programmatic Perspectives (Council for Programs in Technical and Scientific Communication)

• Nature: Programmatic, pedagogical
• Focus: Program and curriculum design; teaching issues; professional development of teachers
• Notes: Smaller journal… not sure how big is the readership but it’s got a good reputation

Xchanges: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Technical Communication, Rhetoric, and Writing across the Curriculum (Independent journal)

• Nature: Pedagogical, beginner research, experimental, teaching cases
• Focus: Technical communication, writing studies, rhet/comp, and everything in between!
• Notes: Open access journal with pretty good editorial support; provides mentorship to undergrad and graduate writing; multimedia friendly

RhetTech Undergraduate Journal (Independent journal) 

• Nature: Beginner research, undergraduate research
• Focus: Writing studies, rhet/comp, technical communication

Notes: Open access; print based (PDF) so not very multimedia-friendly

Step 2 – Engage in Rhetorical, Textual, and Citation Analysis to Prepare Notes

Each group member should choose three articles to analyze, ensuring no group members analyze the same article. Thus, each group must tackle 9 studies. Alternatively, you can divide the work as follows: one group member analyzes the research questions, another the literature reviews, and the third the citations. If you choose this division, the research-question analyst should also contribute by creating the tables and visualizations for the final report due to the lighter workload.

Rhetorical Analysis

In a 100-to-200 word analysis, report on the rhetorical situation for the study. Your analysis should include:

1. Exigency: Evaluate the problem being investigated. Discuss whether the investigators chose appropriate methods to analyze this problem.
2. Audience: Analyze who the audience is for the research. Question whether the research question or argument addresses gaps in the literature and the current status of scholarly conversations on the topic. Identify how the study interacts with canonical texts within the discipline and responds to current discussions and perspectives.
3. Researchers: Assess who the researchers are. Question their ethos. For example, determine whether they have the qualifications and expertise necessary to conduct the study. Check for ethical lapses and conflicts of interest.
4. Journal: Analyze the journal in which the study is published. Is it endorsed by a professional community or university? Evaluate the reputation and rigor of the journal or publishing company.

Table Outline Example: Rhetorical Analysis

Article	Methodological Community	Exigency	Audience	Researchers/Ethos	Journal
Article 1	Scholarly Methods	Problem of AI in decision-making	Scholars in technical communication	Academic researchers with expertise in AI	High-impact, peer-reviewed journal
Article 2	Qualitative Empirical Methods	User perceptions of AI	Practitioners and scholars in qualitative research	Field-experienced researchers	Well-regarded qualitative research journal
Article 3	Mixed Methods	Integration of AI in collaboration	Broad academic audience	Researchers with mixed methods expertise	Renowned journal with broad readership

Textual Analysis (Research Question & Literature Review Analysis)

For each study, provide a 100-to-200 word analysis of the investigator’s research question. Pay particular attention to where and how the research question/argument was introduced. Note whether the research question/argument was repeated throughout the study or limited to certain studies of the study. If no research question is provided, identify and discuss the main argument.

For each study create a table to visually summarize the key findings, such as:

• List the research question or argument
• Note Frequency of research question (e.g., does it appear in an (abstract, introduction, throughout)
• Is the question phrase to address the conventions of scholars, quantitative researchers, qualitative researchers, Designers/creatives? or mixed-methods researchers?

Table Outline: Example of Research Question Analysis

Article	Research Question or Argument	Presentation of Research Questions	Frequency of Presentation	Methodological Community
Article 1	How does AI influence human decision-making processes in technical communication?	Throughout	5	Scholarly Methods
Article 2	How do users of AI perceive changes in their agency?	Abstract, Introduction	3	Qualitative Empirical Methods
Article 3	What are the impacts of integrating AI on collaborative writing practices?	Introduction, Throughout	4	Mixed Methods

Literature Review Analysis

In a 100-to-200 word analysis, report on the literature review for the study. Your analysis should address the following functions and consider the differences in how methodological communities use literature reviews:

1. Context and Background: Discuss how the literature review provides an overview of the current state of knowledge in the field.
2. Identifying Gaps: Identify gaps in current knowledge that the literature review highlights.
3. Theoretical Framework: Analyze how the literature review helps in developing or refining the theoretical framework for the study.
4. Methodology Insight: Discuss any insights into effective methodologies and potential pitfalls that the literature review provides.
5. Justification: Explain how the literature review justifies the need for the current study.
6. Critical Evaluation: Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the existing research discussed in the literature review.
7. Synthesis: Describe how the literature review synthesizes information from multiple sources to create a coherent narrative about the state of the field.
8. Placement in Study: Note where the literature review is presented in the research study and discuss how this placement aligns with the methodological community (e.g., as a separate section in quantitative studies, integrated throughout in qualitative studies, or both in mixed methods studies).

Table Outline: Literature Review Analysis

Article	Context and Background	Identifying Gaps	Theoretical Framework	Methodology Insight	Justification	Critical Evaluation	Synthesis	Placement in Study
Article 1	Provides a detailed overview of AI in technical communication	Highlights lack of studies on AI in decision-making	Establishes a framework based on cognitive theories	Discusses various quantitative methods used	Justifies study by pointing out the need for empirical data	Critiques limited sample sizes and lack of longitudinal data	Synthesizes studies from various fields to support the framework	Separate section early in the study
Article 2	Discusses user perceptions of AI and related fields	Identifies the need for qualitative data on user experiences	Develops a framework based on user experience theories	Highlights effective qualitative methodologies	Justifies study by addressing the gap in qualitative data	Critiques over-reliance on anecdotal evidence in past studies	Synthesizes qualitative studies to support research questions	Integrated throughout the study
Article 3	Explores integration of AI in collaborative writing	Points out the limited research on collaborative writing	Combines theories from collaboration and technology adoption	Discusses mixed methods used in similar studies	Justifies study by combining multiple perspectives	Critiques inconsistencies in mixed methods approaches

Citation Analysis

In a 250-500 word narrative, discuss how the researchers use citations to build their arguments and support their research questions.

• Analyze the citation conventions followed and how they reflect the expectations of the target audience and the methodological community they are addressing
• Categorize the types of sources employed, such as empirical studies (quantitative and qualitative), and past scholarly conversations.
• Analyze where in the research studies attributions are presented
• Summarize the key findings in a table, categorizing the types of sources cited.

Table Outline: Citation Analysis – What Types of Studies Were Cited & What Were Their Publication Dates?

Article	Quantitative Empirical Studies	Qualitative Empirical Studies	Mixed Methods Studies	Scholarly Conversations
Article 1	3	2	1	5
Article 2	1	4	1	3
Article 3	2	3	2	4

Step 3 – Prepare Presentation

Finally, following the template above, prepare and give a presentation to other students in the class.

Note that the third creative challenge asks you to repeat the process below, only from the perspective of ethics and methodological critique. Thus, when choosing groups, try to find partners whom you can work productively with for this and the next creative challenge.

What Values & Dispositions Do Researchers Share Across Methodological Communities?

It’s true that researchers across methodological communities — scholarly/theoretical, design/creative, and empirical approaches (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods — have different ideas about how to research a topic. They disagree with one another regarding what constitutes a valid knowledge claim. They may even dispute the authority of one’s research methods. For instance, a scientist who solely values positivistic knowledge may reject an educator’s ethnography as frivolous — subjective dribble.

Yet, researchers across professional and academic communities also share many values, dispositions, and practices. According to the ACRL (Association of College and Research Libraries), researchers across methodological communities share six core values:

1. Authority is Constructed & Contextual
2. Information Creation as a Process
3. Information Has Value
4. Research as Inquiry
5. Scholarship as a Conversation
6. Searching as Strategic Exploration

Authority is Constructed & Contextual

Professional researchers are critical readers. They distrust even research studies published in top peer-reviewed journals. They are especially careful to distinguish fact from opinion or speculation. They distrust appeals to ethos and pathos, preferring works grounded in logos. When they across new information, they question its Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, and Purpose.

In various fields, researchers understand that authority is not a given; it is shaped by context and the specific circumstances in which information is produced:

• Scholars, such as historians and philosophers, look closely at the sources of information, considering who created it, why, and how it reflects the time and place of its creation.
• Quantitative empiricists, like scientists and social scientists, rely on data and rigorous methods to determine whether a source is trustworthy. They assess whether the methods used to collect and analyze data are sound.
• Qualitative empiricists, such as sociologists and educators, emphasize understanding the perspectives of individuals or groups. They recognize that authority can also come from lived experiences, not just from formal credentials.
• Designers and creatives value imagination and innovation but also rely on usability studies, focus groups, and customer discovery to evaluate authority. They determine whether the information or product meets the needs and expectations of its intended audience.
• Mixed-methods researchers draw from these diverse perspectives, understanding that authority is constructed differently depending on the method and context of the inquiry.

[ Read more about Scholarship as a Conversation – The Conversation of Humankind ]

Information Creation as a Process

All researchers agree that information is not static but is created through a dynamic and iterative process of inquiry, analysis, and synthesis. Although research studies are often presented as if the research question was clear from the outset, in reality, investigators frequently rephrase and refine their questions as they delve deeper into their topics.

• For scholars, particularly those in the humanities, the research process often involves continuous engagement with texts and theories. As they write, they may integrate new sources and perspectives, allowing their arguments or theories to evolve and mature over time.
• Quantitative empiricists, who rely on data-driven methods, may revise their hypotheses as they collect and analyze data. The initial hypotheses serve as starting points, but the interpretation of results often leads to new questions and refinements, demonstrating that information creation is a process of discovery and adjustment.
• Qualitative empiricists, working inductively, engage in “hypothesis generation” rather than hypothesis testing. Through immersive fieldwork and deep exploration of social contexts, they uncover nuanced understandings that emerge gradually, shaping their research focus and the information they create.
• Designers and creatives, much like qualitative empiricists, prioritize the creation of innovative solutions or products over proving a hypothesis. Their process is inherently iterative, with ideas and designs evolving in response to feedback, user experiences, and emerging needs.
• Mixed-methods researchers recognize that information creation is a multifaceted process, blending various methodologies to address complex questions. By integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches, they acknowledge the dynamic nature of research, where information is continually shaped by diverse perspectives and methods.

Information Has Value

Across disciplines, scholars and researchers recognize that information possesses both intellectual and economic value. Citations are essential in this process, enabling researchers to trace the development of ideas, differentiate between established theories, significant findings, and emerging concepts, and contribute to the broader intellectual dialogue. Copyright and intellectual property rights safeguard the financial interests of creators, ensuring that their contributions are properly acknowledged and compensated. The value of information lies not only in its capacity to inform, challenge, and advance human understanding but also in its potential to drive economic growth. New knowledge can lead to the development of innovative products, services, and solutions, generating economic returns and fostering further advancements.

Research as Inquiry

Scholars and researchers across all methodological communities embrace inquiry as a fundamental process in their work. They begin by formulating research questions that arise from gaps in existing knowledge or from the need to reexamine conflicting information. Whether addressing simple or complex issues, they determine the appropriate scope of investigation, breaking down intricate questions into manageable parts. Inquiry requires them to use a variety of research methods tailored to their needs and circumstances.

As they gather and analyze information, researchers monitor for gaps in understanding or weaknesses in others’ studies. They synthesize ideas from multiple sources, drawing reasonable conclusions based on their interpretation of the data. Across disciplines, whether in quantitative or qualitative fields, inquiry is a dynamic, iterative process that involves critical thinking, strategic exploration, and the continual refinement of scholarly conversations and methods to advance knowledge.

Scholarship as a Conversation

Scholars and researchers across methodological communities engage in sustained discourse, recognizing that research is an ongoing conversation enriched by varied perspectives and counterarguments. This dialogue involves formulating, debating, and weighing ideas, with studies often attempting to replicate results across different subjects and contexts. By incorporating diverse methodologies, researchers aim to ensure that their work is inclusive and reflective of broader realities. In this dynamic exchange, they contribute to advancing knowledge, understanding that new insights emerge over time through critical evaluation and the integration of multiple viewpoints.

Searching as Strategic Exploration

Searching for information, whether in peer-reviewed literature, social media, or other sources, requires a strategic approach similar to how an apprentice learns by studying a seasoned expert. Scholars and researchers across disciplines recognize that effective searching is not a straightforward process; it involves refining search strategies based on the scope of the inquiry and the types of sources available. This process demands flexibility, as initial searches may not always provide the desired results. By employing a variety of search techniques and tools, such as controlled vocabulary, keywords, and natural language, researchers can navigate different information systems more effectively. Successful searching also involves self-reflection, allowing researchers to adjust their strategies as they uncover new information, ensuring their search is both thorough and targeted.

How Do Different Methodological Communities Compose Research Questions, Literature Reviews, & Citations?

Different methodological communities — scholarly/theoretical, design/creative, and empirical approaches (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods — have unique conventions for framing research questions, conducting literature reviews, and using citations. These methodological communities also have their own channels of communication, including specific scholarly, peer-reviewed journals and publishers. To exemplify these differences, below is a summary of how investigators from these discourse communities would likely research the effects of AI on human agency.

Research Questions

Researchers from different methodological communities frame their research questions in different ways because they have different topics, methods, and assumptions about how inquiry should be conducted.

• Scholars tend to structure their work around arguments rather than explicit research questions, presenting a thesis or central claim, developing a theoretical framework, analyzing texts, concepts, or cultural phenomena, and constructing logical arguments to support their position. When they do formulate research questions, they often explore how specific theories (e.g., can be applied to understand or interpret particular phenomena. For example, “How does postcolonial theory shed light on the narrative structure of a particular literary work?”
  
• Quantitative Empiricists formulate specific, measurable research questions that can be tested statistically, usually presented as hypotheses or null hypotheses in the introduction or methodology section.
  
• Qualitative Empiricists often generate hypotheses inductively, seeking to explore subjective experiences and interpretations through open-ended, exploratory questions. Sometimes, they may not even start with a specific research question, focusing instead on the broad aim of understanding a phenomenon.
  
• Designers/Creatives frame their research questions with a strong emphasis on understanding the target users, their needs, behaviors, and pain points. Questions are often centered around how users interact with a product or service, what their experiences are, and how the design can be improved to better meet their requirements. For example, “What problems do you face when you doing “X task”?
  
• Mixed Methods researchers combine elements of both quantitative and qualitative approaches, posing multiple research questions that address different aspects of the study, presented in the introduction or methodology section.

Below, e.g., are some examples of how researchers fro particular methodological communities might frame a research question related to how the rise of generative AI tools are likely to impinge on human agency.

Community	Example Research Question
Scholars	What are the philosophical implications of AI for human free will and autonomy?
Quantitative Empiricists	To what extent will generative AI systems make particular fields of research obsolete, such as writing teachers, lawyers, or designers?
Qualitative Empiricists	How do individuals perceive and describe their experiences of agency when interacting with AI systems?
Designers/Creatives	How can we design AI interfaces that preserve or enhance users’ sense of agency?
Mixed Methods	How does AI usage impinge on time on task for particular composing behaviors, such as invention, revision or editing?

Key Differences in Research Question Phrasing

• Specificity: Quantitative questions tend to be more specific and measurable, focusing on precise aspects that can be quantified. In contrast, qualitative questions are broader and more exploratory, seeking to understand deeper meanings and experiences.
• Language: Quantitative questions often use terms like “correlation,” “relationship,” “impact,” or “difference,” reflecting their focus on measurable outcomes. Qualitative questions, however, frequently employ words like “explore,” “understand,” “describe,” or “interpret,” indicating a focus on in-depth exploration.
• Variables: Quantitative questions typically identify specific variables to be measured and analyzed statistically. Qualitative questions, on the other hand, concentrate on broader concepts or phenomena, aiming to gather detailed, contextual insights.
• Hypothesis: Quantitative studies usually include explicit hypotheses that can be tested and confirmed or refuted through statistical analysis. Qualitative studies may not start with a hypothesis, as they often aim to generate new hypotheses inductively from the data.
• Positioning in Research Studies:
  • Introduction: The overarching research question(s) for all types of studies are often presented in the introduction to set the stage for the research.
  • Literature Review: Research questions may be refined or sub-questions introduced based on gaps identified in the existing literature.
  • Methodology: In empirical studies (quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods), specific research questions guiding the study design are commonly presented in the methodology section. Quantitative studies typically include hypotheses in this section as well.

Literature Reviews

Researchers across all disciplines need to inform their readers about why their investigation is important and how it fits into the existing body of knowledge. This is typically done through a literature review, which addresses seven key functions:

1. Context and Background: Provides an overview of the current state of knowledge in the field, establishing the context for new research.
2. Identifying Gaps: Helps identify gaps in current knowledge, unanswered questions, or areas needing further exploration.
3. Theoretical Framework: Aids in developing or refining the theoretical framework for the study.
4. Methodology Insight: Offers insights into effective methodologies used in the field and potential pitfalls to avoid.
5. Justification: Justifies the need for the current study by demonstrating how it will contribute to filling gaps or extending existing knowledge.
6. Critical Evaluation: Involves critically evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of existing research.
7. Synthesis: Synthesizes information from multiple sources to create a coherent narrative about the state of the field.

However, as discussed below, the approach to literature reviews varies significantly across different research communities, reflecting their unique values, methodologies, and goals.

Scholars

Scholars, particularly in the humanities and some social sciences, prioritize theoretical frameworks and philosophical analyses. They often engage with canonical texts and other scholars’ works throughout their entire manuscripts, rather than having a distinct “literature review” section. This approach reflects their emphasis on hermeneutics and the ongoing scholarly conversation of humankind. Scholars immerse their readers in scholarly conversations, weaving discussions of relevant theoretical debates and philosophical considerations into the fabric of their arguments.

Quantitative Empiricists

Quantitative Empiricists prioritize statistical data, large sample sizes, and replicable studies. These researchers often present a brief literature review at the beginning of their work, highlighting the key empirical studies that inform their hypotheses and research questions. They then integrate references to relevant literature into their conclusions, where they discuss how their findings contribute to or challenge the existing body of knowledge. This approach is driven by their goal of establishing empirical generalizations and building a cumulative understanding of the phenomena under investigation.

Qualitative Empiricists

Qualitative Empiricists emphasize rich, descriptive data from in-depth studies of individuals or small groups. Their literature reviews tend to be sparse, often appearing at the end of their work, given the inductive, hypothesis-generating nature of their research. However, when relevant, they may review past ethnographies or case studies that provide contextual insights into the culture/phenomenon they are studying. This approach reflects their focus on understanding the nuanced, context-dependent experiences of their research participants.

Designers/Innovators

Designers and Creatives focus on practical examples, user feedback, and applied principles. They may not include a traditional literature review at all but rather showcase specific examples of successful (or unsuccessful) design solutions, along with insights gained from user testing and iteration. This approach is driven by their goal of developing and refining practical, user-centered solutions to real-world problems.

Mixed Methods Researchers

Mixed Methods researchers integrate both quantitative and qualitative literature, reviewing empirical studies and theoretical works in equal measure to provide a comprehensive background that supports the combination of both approaches. This holistic approach reflects their aim to capture the complementary insights that can be gained from integrating different methodological perspectives.

Literature Review Conventions by Methodological Community

Research Community	Approach to Literature Review	Key Sources	Typical Review Structure
Scholars	Continuous engagement with texts	Philosophical works, theoretical frameworks, historical texts	Integrated throughout the work
Quantitative Empiricists	Brief, focused review at the beginning, references integrated into conclusions	Recent empirical studies, meta-analyses, statistical reports	Distinct section at beginning, references in discussion
Qualitative Empiricists	Contextual, often sparse, reviews past ethnographies or case studies when relevant	Ethnographies, case studies, narrative accounts	Often at end, or integrated into findings
Designers/Creatives	Practical, applied focus, showcasing specific examples of design solutions and user feedback	Case studies, user feedback, industry reports	May not have formal review; examples integrated throughout
Mixed Methods Researchers	Comprehensive, integrative review of both quantitative and qualitative literature	Empirical studies, theoretical works, methodological papers	Structured to reflect both quantitative and qualitative aspects

Citations

The discussion below provides an overview of the unique ways Scholars, Quantitative Empiricists, Qualitative Empiricists, Designers/Creatives, and Designers/Creatives tend to weave primary and secondary sources into their works.

Scholars

Scholars tend to weave references to canonical texts and other scholars’ works throughout their texts, using citations to demonstrate their mastery of the conceptual terrain, engage with divergent theoretical perspectives, and trace the genealogy of ideas. Citation, for Scholars, is a means of legitimizing their contributions by aligning their work with recognized authorities and established lines of inquiry.

Quantitative Empiricists

Quantitative Empiricists provide citations to acknowledge the empirical studies that inform their research questions and hypotheses. These researchers often provide a succinct literature review at the outset, followed by selective citation of relevant studies in their results and discussion sections. Quantitative Empiricists use citations to demonstrate how their work builds upon or challenges the existing empirical evidence, emphasizing the accumulation of generalizable findings over deep engagement with conceptual debates.

Qualitative Empiricists

Qualitative Empiricists may not even use citations, preferring instead to keep the focus on their primary research, When they do use citations, then tend to do to establish the context for their work. Citations, for Qualitative Empiricists, function as a means of enriching the interpretive framework rather than as a mechanism for staking out conceptual territory or amassing empirical evidence.

Designers/Creatives

Designers and Creatives tend to quote, paraphrase, and summarize what their users have to say. They may not even have a traditional literature review, as noted above. If they do engage in citation, it may be from competitors website’s or user manuals.

Mixed Methods Researchers

Mixed Methods researchers may follow the citation practices of scholars, quantitative, or qualitative researchers.

Table: Citation Practices by Research Community

Research Community	Citation Approach	Key Characteristics
Scholars	Conceptual/Integrative Citation	Scholars tend to cite scholarly monographs published by university presses, seminal theoretical works, and journal articles. They are more likely to cite older literature than quantitative researchers because they like to situation their work in ongoing scholarly conversations/canonical texts.
Quantitative Empiricists	Findings-Oriented/Supportive Citation	Quantitative researchers are likely to cite recently published, peer-reviewed, empirical studies.
Qualitative Empiricists	Context-Setting Citation	Qualitative researchers may cite other scholars to substantiate the credibility of their research methods. They may cite works scholarly quantitative, or qualitative sources
Designers/Creatives	Example-Driven/Inspirational Citation	Designers/creatives may cite user manuals, websites showcasing successful design solutions, user feedback, or other designers who have developed methods for testing usability or designing products.
Mixed Methods Researchers	Hybrid Citation	Mixed-methods researchers are likely to cite a range of scholarly, quantitative, and qualitative sources