Kt presentation1 ipcc_7_16

540 views

Published on

Presentation given at 2008 IEEE

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
540
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Complete survey Enter survey data View presentation Review survey Discuss responses Review responses mapped Brainstorm constructs Brainstorm weightings Brainstorm demographics Barker, Kline, Henschel
  • Complete survey Enter survey data View presentation Review survey Discuss responses Review responses mapped Brainstorm constructs Brainstorm weightings Brainstorm demographics Barker, Kline, Henschel
  • the relationship between academia and industry needs to be seen in terms of site-specific knowledge artifacts and transfer behaviors rather than in general terms as it has been conventionally seen in the literature. Barker, Kline, Henschel
  • Perspectives On The Body Of Knowledge The body of knowledge in technical communication is represented by a grouping of issues that are addressed from various perspectives, each reflecting a literature and set of issues pertinent to the identification of knowledge creation and knowledge transfer that is a core concern of both the academic and professional communities. Literature that informs the constructs: Barker, Kline, Henschel
  • describes the characteristics used to identify knowledge activities for both sites. presents an inventory that may be used to identify and plot relationships between academic and industry sites. Barker, Kline, Henschel
  • Such a system is of potential value to academic practitioners who attempt to inform and update current curricula so as to produce the kind of educational product useful to persons entering the profession through a liberal arts education. It will help academics identify sources of best practices industry, how to partner with industry professionals in aligning course content, and the relationship of research to classroom teaching. Such a system is also of potential value to industry practitioners who attempt to create a productive transfer of knowledge to academia, maximize the benefits of best practices and processes, grow the professional knowledge base in their organizations, and engage in research with academic colleagues. Barker, Kline, Henschel
  • MESSY Didn’t give us a way to measure or quantify. Assumption: some sites or programs would exhibit moree or less kc or kt characteristics This could be pout on a scale. Barker, Kline, Henschel
  • We brainstormed for EXAMPLES of what would characterize a workplace or program that had knowledge creation. Identified a scale. The limits of the scale are HIGH and LOW: Barker, Kline, Henschel
  • We repeated this process looking for EXAMPLES of what would characterize a workplace or program that had Knowledge Transfer. Barker, Kline, Henschel
  • Handout – inventory questions here… Barker, Kline, Henschel
  • MESSY Examining the limits of KC and KT, we developed Four possible categories: 1. We placed workplaces and academic sites on the same grid. 2. Both are part of the same professional knowledge system. Barker, Kline, Henschel
  • Go to live grid on web site. Barker, Kline, Henschel
  • describes the characteristics used to identify knowledge activities for both sites. presents an inventory that may be used to identify and plot relationships between academic and industry sites. Barker, Kline, Henschel
  • describes the characteristics used to identify knowledge activities for both sites. presents an inventory that may be used to identify and plot relationships between academic and industry sites. Barker, Kline, Henschel
  • Kt presentation1 ipcc_7_16

    1. 1. Mapping the Body of Knowledge Knowledge Creation and Transfer in Technical Communication Thomas Barker, PhD, Texas Tech University Joel Kline, Lebanon Valley College Sally Henschel, Midwestern State University
    2. 2. Presentation Overview <ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Project Overview </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Activity One: Brainstorm constructs </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Activity Two: Brainstorm weightings </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Activity Three: Brainstorm demographics </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>Barker, Kline, Henschel IPCC July 2008
    3. 3. Project Overview <ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Conversation </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Scholarly Perspectives </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Purpose </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Method </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Situating Knowledge Exchange </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Measures of KC </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Measures of KT </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Four Possible Categories </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Classifying Programs and Workplaces </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Inventory Questions </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Grid </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Primary Research (Pilot Studies) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>Barker, Kline, Henschel IPCC July 2008
    4. 4. The Conversation <ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Revision of the Standard Occupational Classification, “technical writer,” in the Occupational Outlook Handbook : technical communicator </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>BOK effort undertaken by the Society of Usability Professionals </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>STC Academic/Industry Summit 2007 and creation of BOK Task Force </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>TC Knowledge Portal, Spring 2008 </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>Body of knowledge (BOK) efforts: Barker, Kline, Henschel IPCC July 2008
    5. 5. Scholarly Perspectives <ul><ul><ul><li>Certification </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Knowledge Management </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Curriculum and Assessment </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Academia/Industry (A/I) Relations </li></ul></ul></ul>Barker, Kline, Henschel IPCC July 2008
    6. 6. Purpose <ul><li>To provide a way for individual academic </li></ul><ul><li>programs and industry worksites to assess </li></ul><ul><li>their engagement in the creation and transfer </li></ul><ul><li>of knowledge (KC/KT) in our field </li></ul><ul><li>To stimulate research in KC and KT </li></ul>Barker, Kline, Henschel IPCC July 2008
    7. 7. Method <ul><ul><li>Identify the elements of KC/KT in technical </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>communication </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Develop inventory questions for measuring the </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>elements of KC/KT in specific workplace and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>academic communities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Construct a model of how these elements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>relate to one another to form the knowledge </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>system of our profession </li></ul></ul>Barker, Kline, Henschel IPCC July 2008
    8. 8. Situating Knowledge Exchange <ul><ul><li>Pathways </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>A to I and I to A </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Forms </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>S = Student </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>R = Research </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>BP = Best Practices </li></ul></ul></ul>Barker, Kline, Henschel IPCC July 2008
    9. 9. Assessing KC <ul><li>Industry (Worksite) </li></ul><ul><li>(KC) To what extent are best practices cultivated, identified, and shared </li></ul><ul><li>systematically, or does the workplace lack a systematic structure for </li></ul><ul><li>identifying best practices? </li></ul><ul><li>(KC) Is the structure of the workplace one of silos of productivity or </li></ul><ul><li>shared, collaborative teamwork? </li></ul><ul><li>Academic (Program or Department) </li></ul><ul><li>(KC) Does the academic site place a high or low priority on research? </li></ul><ul><li>(KC) Does the academic site have a record of grant awards and publications? </li></ul>Barker, Kline, Henschel IPCC July 2008
    10. 10. <ul><li>Industry </li></ul><ul><li>(KT) Is workplace assessment integrated with academic partners or </li></ul><ul><li>based mostly on industry standards? </li></ul><ul><li>(KT) Does the workplace hire TC graduates or promising professionals </li></ul><ul><li>from non-TC fields that get retrained? </li></ul><ul><li>Academic </li></ul><ul><li>(KT) Do researchers actively seek industry partners? </li></ul><ul><li>(KT) Is assessment carried out using primarily institutional standards, or </li></ul><ul><li>is it based on collaboration with industry? </li></ul> Assessing KT Barker, Kline, Henschel IPCC July 2008
    11. 11. Brainstorm Inventory Questions <ul><li>Industry </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(KC) To what extent are best practices cultivated, identified, and shared systematically? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(KC) Is the structure of the workplace one of silos of productivity or shared, collaborative teamwork? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(KC) Do industry professionals engage in research activities? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(KC) Other? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(KT) Is workplace assessment integrated with academic partners or based mostly on industry standards? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(KT) Does the workplace hire TC graduates, or promising professionals from non-TC fields that get retrained? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(KT) Do industry professionals teach in academic settings or participate in academic program review structures? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(KT) Have industry professionals taken (or are now taking) classes at academic institutions? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(KT) If present, are research activities partnered with academic researchers or mostly proprietary? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(KT) Do industry professionals read academic journals regularly? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(KT) Are industry professionals active in academic-based professional organizations? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(KT) Other? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Academic </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(KC) Does the academic site place a high priority on research? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(KC) Does the academic site have a high grant getting and publication rate? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(KC) Does the site develop and implement assessment measures to assure high-quality teaching and research? (curriculum mapping, program assessment) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(KC) Other? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(KT) Do researchers actively seek industry partners? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(KT) Is assessment carried out using primarily institutional standards, or is it based on collaboration with industry? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(KT) Is the teaching primarily academic and theoretical, or does it have elements of workplace practice? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(KT) Does the academic site use industry advisory boards? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(KT) Do academics have professional experience? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(KT) Do academics do consulting in industry? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(KT) Are academics active in practitioner-based professional organizations? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(KC) Other? </li></ul></ul>Barker, Kline, Henschel IPCC July 2008
    12. 12. Four Possible Categories Barker, Kline, Henschel IPCC July 2008 Measure Academic Industry Low Transfer High Creation Research-based University Mature High Tech Company High Transfer High Creation *Integrated University *Integrated Workplace Low Transfer Low Creation Composition-based State College Trade-oriented Consulting Company High Transfer Low Creation Industry-oriented Community College Technical Communication Consulting Company
    13. 13. High High Knowledge Creation (KC) Knowledge Transfer (KT) Low Low Transfer High Creation High Transfer High Creation High Transfer Low Creation Low Transfer Low Creation KC/KT on a Grid Barker, Kline, Henschel IPCC July 2008
    14. 14. Activity <ul><ul><li>Task One: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Brainstorm constructs </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Suggest inventory questions </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>How: Notes on the back of your handout </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul>Barker, Kline, Henschel IPCC July 2008
    15. 15. Activity <ul><ul><li>Task Two: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Weighting inventory questions </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Select or write in 2 in each (KC/KT) category </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>How: Notes on the back of your handout </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul>Barker, Kline, Henschel IPCC July 2008
    16. 16. Activity <ul><ul><li>Task Three: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Brainstorm demographics </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Suggest demographics </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>How: Notes on the back of your handout </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul>Barker, Kline, Henschel IPCC July 2008
    17. 17. Obstacles and Future Work <ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Collect KC data </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Collect additional KT data </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Determine how to scale inventory questions </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Weight inventory questions </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul>Barker, Kline, Henschel IPCC July 2008
    18. 18. Thank you <ul><li>Thomas Barker, PhD </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>Joel Kline </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>Sally Henschel </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul>
    19. 19. Primary Research (Pilot Studies) <ul><li>Industry: Survey and interviews of 89 New Zealand practitioners. The study sought to capture the state of the relationship between the academic and practitioner communities. One question asked respondents to identify academic journals they read. </li></ul><ul><li>Academia: An industry involvement survey of 99 academics. The study attempted to capture a picture of how the experience of technical communication practitioners is reflected in classroom teaching and the curriculum. One question asked respondents to identify elements of the TC workplace that they routinely use in their teaching . </li></ul>Barker, Kline, Henschel IPCC July 2008
    20. 20. Barker, Kline, Henschel IPCC July 2008
    21. 21. Academic Knowledge Transfer Barker, Kline, Henschel IPCC July 2008
    22. 22. High High Knowledge Creation (KC) Knowledge Transfer (KT) Low Low Transfer High Creation High Transfer High Creation High Transfer Low Creation Low Transfer Low Creation KC/KT on a Grid Barker, Kline, Henschel IPCC July 2008
    23. 23. Literature Review <ul><li>Agrawal, Ajay. “University-to-Industry Knowledge Transfer: Literature Review and Unanswered Questions.” International Journal of Management Reviews 3.4 (2001): 285–302. </li></ul><ul><li>Allen, Nancy, and Steven T. Benninghoff. “TPC Program Snapshots: Developing Curricula and Addressing Challenges.” Technical Communication Quarterly 13.2 (2004): 157-185. </li></ul><ul><li>Beyer, J. M., and H. M. Trice. The Utilization Process: A Conceptual Framework and </li></ul><ul><li>Synthesis of Empirical Findings. Administrative Science Quarterly 27(1982): 591-622. </li></ul><ul><li>Birchall, D., and Chanaron, J. (2004), Industry & Academic Institutions Partnerships, Final Report of the Working Group #4, Leonardo Da Vinci-ELAN 2, The European Learning Automotive Network 2001-2005. </li></ul><ul><li>Blakeslee, Ann M. “Bridging the Workplace and the Academy: Teaching Professional Genres through Classroom-Workplace Collaborations.” Technical Communication Quarterly 10.2 (2001): 169-192. </li></ul><ul><li>Chauvel, D. and Charles Despers. “A Review of Survey Research in Knowledge Management: 1997-2001.” Journal of Knowledge Management 6.3 (2002): 207-223. </li></ul><ul><li>Clark, David. “Is Professional Writing Relevant? A Model for Action Research.” Technical Communication Quarterly 13.3 (2004): 307-323. </li></ul><ul><li>Cohen, W. and R. Florida, L. Randazzese, L. and J. Walsh. “Industry and the Academy: Uneasy Partners in the Cause of Technological Advance.” Ed. R. Noll Challenges to Research Universities . Washington D.C: Brookings Institution Press, 1998: 171-199. </li></ul><ul><li>Cooke, L. and S. Mings. “Connecting Usability Education and Research with Industry.” IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 48.3 (2005): 296- 312. </li></ul><ul><li>Hart, H. & Glick-Smith, J.L. “Training in Technical Communication: Ideas for a Partnership between the Academy and the Workplace.” Technical Communication 41.3 (1994): 399-405. </li></ul><ul><li>Kinsella, William J. “Rhetoric, Action, and Agency in Institutionalized Science and Technology.” Technical Communication Quarterly 14.3 (2005): 303-310. </li></ul><ul><li>Mara, Andrew. “Using Charettes to Perform Civic Engagement in Technical Communication Classrooms and Workplaces.” Technical Communication Quarterly 15. 2 (2006): 215-236. </li></ul><ul><li>Maxwell, J. A. Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005. </li></ul>Barker, Kline, Henschel IPCC July 2008
    24. 24. <ul><li>Mirel, B. and R. Spilka, eds. Reshaping Technical Communication: New Directions and Challenges for the 21st century . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2002. </li></ul><ul><li>Palmer, J. and M.J. Killingsworth, M.J. “Research and Consulting in Technical Communication.” Technical Communications Quarterly 11.4 (2002): 389-409. </li></ul><ul><li>Pan, S. and Scarbrough, Harry. “Knowledge Management in Practice: An Exploratory Case Study.” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 11.3 (1999): 359-375. </li></ul><ul><li>Reynolds, A. “Ashes or Phoenix? Technical Communication or Information Design?” </li></ul><ul><li>STC 2002 Conference Proceedings . 2002. http://www.stc.org/confproceed/2002/PDFs/STC49-00002.pdf. </li></ul><ul><li>Rynes, S.L., J.M. Bartunek, and R.I. Daft. “Across the Great Divide, Knowledge Creation and Transfer between Practitioners and Academics.” Academy of Management Journal 44.2 (2001): 340-355. </li></ul><ul><li>Scott, J. Blake. “Rearticulating Civic Engagement through Cultural Studies and Service-Learning.” Technical Communication Quarterly 13.3 (2004): 289-306. </li></ul><ul><li>Spilka, R. “The Issue of Quality in Professional Documentation: How can Academia </li></ul><ul><li>Make More of a Difference.” Technical Communications Quarterly , 9.2 (2000): 207-220. </li></ul><ul><li>Thelwall, Mike. “Can the Web Give Useful Information about Commercial Uses of Scientific Research?” Online Information Review 28.2 (2004): 120-130. </li></ul><ul><li>Thrush, E. A., & Hooper, L. “ How Team-teaching Brings Two Worlds Together.” Technical Communicati on, 53(3) (2006): 309-316. </li></ul><ul><li>Tovey, Janice. “Building Connections between Industry and University: Implementing an Internship Program at a Regional University.” Technical Communication Quarterly 10. 2 (2001): 225-239. </li></ul><ul><li>Turner, Roy K., and Kenneth T. Rainey. “Certification in Technical Communication.” Technical Communication Quarterly 13.2 (2004): 211-234. </li></ul><ul><li>Waldman, D., L Atwater, L. A. Link. “Toward a Model of The Effective Transfer of Scientific Knowledge from Academicians to Practitioners: Qualitative Evidence from the Commercialization of University Technologies.” Journal of Engineering & Technology Management 21 (2004): 115-142. </li></ul><ul><li>Williams, Julia M. “Transformations in Technical Communication Pedagogy: Engineering, Writing, and the ABET Engineering Criteria 2000.” Technical Communication Quarterly 10.2 (2001): 149-167. </li></ul><ul><li>Wojahn, Patricia, Julie Dyke, and Linda Ann Riley. “Blurring Boundaries between Technical Communication and Engineering: Challenges of a Multidisciplinary, Client-Based Pedagogy.” Technical Communication Quarterly 10.2 (2001): 129-148. </li></ul><ul><li>Graphics </li></ul><ul><li>Wright, Thurle Memory Box by. Creative Mapping. http://creativemapping.blogspot.com/2007/02/memory-box-thurle-wright. </li></ul><ul><li>McClure. Map of the World . Creative mapping. http://mocoloco.com/art/archives/ </li></ul>Barker, Kline, Henschel IPCC July 2008

    ×