See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288392346

Academy-industry
Relationships and Partnerships:
Perspectives for Technical
Communicators

Book · January 2015

CITATIONS READS

7 100

2 authors:

Kirk St.Amant Tracy Bridgeford

Louisiana Tech University University of Nebraska at …
115 PUBLICATIONS 503 11 PUBLICATIONS 30
CITATIONS CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related
projects:

Innovative Approaches to Teaching Technical Communication

View project

Thinking Globally, Composing Locally: Re-thinking Online Writing

in the Age of the Global Internet View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Kirk St.Amant on 28 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Academy-Industry
Relationships
and Partnerships

Perspectives for Technical Communicators

Edited by
Tracy Bridgeford and Kirk St.Amant

Baywood’s Technical Communications Series

Series Editor: Charles H. Sides

Baywood Publishing Company

Amityville, New York
 ACADEMY-INDUSTRY
RELATIONSHIPS AND PARTNERSHIPS
Perspectives for
Technical Communicators

Edited by
Tracy Bridgeford
University of Nebraska at Omaha

and

Kirk St.Amant
East Carolina University

Baywood’s Technical Communications Series

Series Editor: CHARLES H. SIDES

Baywood Publishing Company, Inc.

AMITYVILLE, NEW YORK
Copyright © 2015 by Baywood Publishing Company, Inc., Amityville, New York

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or
by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photo-copying, recording, or by any
information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Printed in the United States of America on acid-free recycled paper.

Baywood Publishing Company, Inc.

26 Austin Avenue
P.O. Box 337
Amityville, NY 11701
(800) 638-7819
E-mail: baywood@baywood.com
Web site: baywood.com

Library of Congress Catalog Number:

ISBN: 978-0-89503-906-4 (cloth)
ISBN: 978-0-89503-907-1 (paper)
ISBN: 978-0-89503-908-8 (e-pub)
ISBN: 978-0-89503-909-5 (e-pdf)
http://dx.doi.org/10.2190AIR

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Academy-industry relationships and partnerships :

perspectives for technical communicators / edited by Tracy
Bridgeford, University of Nebraska at Omaha and Kirk
St.Amant, East Carolina University.
pages cm. -- (Baywood’s technical communications
series)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-89503-906-4 (cloth : alk. paper) -- ISBN
978-0-89503-907-1 (pbk. : paper) -- ISBN
978-0-89503-908-8 (e-pub) -- ISBN 978-0-89503-909-5 (e-pdf)
1. Communication of technical information--Study and
teaching. 2. Technical writing--Study and teaching. 3.
Academic-industrial collaboration. 4. Industrial
efficiency. I. Bridgeford, Tracy, 1960- II. Bridgeford,
Tracy. III. St.Amant, Kirk.
T10.5.B72 2014
601’.4--dc23

p. ii
 Table of Contents

Foreword: Considering Partnerships and Relationships in the Field . . v

Carolyn Rude
Introduction: Rethinking the Nature of Academy-Industry
Partnerships and Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Kirk St.Amant

SECTION I:
PROGRAMMATIC PERSPECTIVES

CHAPTER 1
Stakeholder Theory and Technical Communication Academic Programs . . 11
Jim Nugent and Laurence José
CHAPTER 2
A Technical Communication Venture in Building Academic-Entrepreneur
Relations and Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
John M. Spartz and Ryan P. Weber
CHAPTER 3
Establishing Program-Specific Assessment Standards for Experiential
Learning Courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Kenneth R. Price

SECTION II:
INDUSTRY CONTEXTS

CHAPTER 4
Creating Bridges with Internships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Susan M. Katz
CHAPTER 5
Collaborating with Industry Using Mentoring Programs and Internships . . 97
Herb J. Smith

iii
iv / ACADEMY-INDUSTRY RELATIONSHIPS AND PARTNERSHIPS

CHAPTER 6
Academic/Government Partnerships: Theoretical Underpinnings for
Improving Online Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Barbara A. Heifferon

SECTION III:
ENGAGEMENT VENUES

CHAPTER 7
Engagement Through Emerging Technologies: A Humanistic
Perspective on Academe-Industry Relationships and Partnerships . . . . . . 141
Russell G. Carpenter
CHAPTER 8
Accommodationist and Constructivist Approaches to Academic-Industry
Partnerships in a Usability and User-Experience Facility . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Tharon Howard
CHAPTER 9
Making Space for Community Voices: Rhetoric, Engagement, and
the Possibilities for Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
James M. Dubinsky

SECTION IV:
RESEARCH AND WRITING OPPORTUNITIES

CHAPTER 10
Research Agendas for Technical and Professional Communication
Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Stephen A. Bernhardt
CHAPTER 11
Theorizing a Practical Rhetoric for Virtual Collaboration among
Writers in Academia and Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
Charlotte A. Robidoux, Beth L. Hewett, and David W. Overbey
Afterword: A Neophyte Discovers Technical Writing and
Is On His Own . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
Dan Riordan
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
 FOREWORD

Considering Partnerships and

Relationships in the Field

Carolyn Rude

For strength and sustainability as a field, technical communication requires

close relationships between academia and industry. Our work toward shared
goals is complementary. The most obvious connection is in job placement.
Industry depends on academic classrooms to prepare qualified employees, and
academia depends on industry’s willingness to hire graduates in order to justify
academic programs. Although academics do not define their work primarily
in terms of job placement, the reality is that academic programs in tech-
nical communication would not exist without opportunities for placement of
graduates. Academic programs in most or all disciplines have practice counter-
parts, and when academic programs flounder (often, for example, in English
and other humanities departments), it is partly because the connections with
practice are tenuous.
However, the academia-industry relationship in technical communication
should be stronger than jobs and placement. Other academic fields with research
and practice components, such as engineering and medicine, depend on academic
research to improve practice, and researchers depend on practitioners to help
define the research questions. This work is integral and collaborative, and
that kind of relationship should be the aim for our field as well. Land grant
universities, where many programs in technical communication are located,
have missions to establish partnerships with industry and the community, and
many have offices dedicated to developing and maintaining academy-industry
partnerships. Other universities choose this mission (in his chapter, Russell
Carpenter references 300 “community-engaged” universities).

v
vi / ACADEMY-INDUSTRY RELATIONSHIPS AND PARTNERSHIPS

In the 21st century, close academia-industry partnerships in technical com-

munication have been local more than fieldwide, driven usually by indi-
viduals who take the initiative to make connections. Evidence for this claim is
the infrequency with which articles on contemporary practice appear in the
journals to which academics contribute. Ironically, academics have learned more
from industry than the other way around. Several barriers seem to get in the
way of partnerships.
One barrier is the perception that academy and industry interests differ in
ways that preclude partnership. Some writers in this volume reflect a version of
that view. Herb Smith references “theory versus practice,” for example, to explain
the undeveloped potential for mentoring and internships. Charlotte Robidoux,
Beth Hewett, and David Overbey explore the “competing values” of academia
and industry based on their respective allegiances to theory or practice. Jim
Nugent and Laurence José, writing about stakeholder theory, feel unnecessarily
apologetic for any inadvertent implication that they recommend a “managerial”
approach to academic program development. These writers reflect something
much bigger than their own views—a field’s sense that academia and industry
are inherently divided, not just in technical communication but in the values
and cultures that mark the parts of the field as different and only uncomfortably
related. Industry is profit driven, but so are universities in their own ways, and
academics must respect the work of our colleagues in industry in developing
information about the products we all use.
A second barrier is that the development of graduate programs beginning in
the late 1980s may have had the unintended consequence of widening the divide.
The focus of academics somewhat shifted from teaching for developing career
technical communicators to establishing the field’s research. With programs
mostly located in English departments, faculty have followed the humanities
model of pursuing their own research interests rather than trying to define the
needs of the field and establishing the shared research focus that Steve Bernhardt
recommends in this collection. These two approaches to research—driven by
individual interests and driven by a shared research focus—do not have to be
mutually exclusive. We can explore possible contributions of technical communi-
cation knowledge to a wide variety of communication practices through indi-
vidual initiatives while at the same time embracing our responsibility to the field’s
needs and a shared research agenda.
Third, for various reasons, the opportunities for academics and practitioners
to meet in shared forums, especially at the national conference of the Society for
Technical Communication, have diminished. The journals in which academics
most frequently publish, including Technical Communication Quarterly and
the Journal of Business and Technical Communication, rarely feature industry
contributors. Thus, the field is marked by two parallel and infrequently shared
conversations about its directions and concerns. It is hard for academics to
know the needs of the field and to develop research and curricula appropriate
 FOREWORD / vii

to practice if we do not talk with people in industry. At the same time, without
this talk, people in industry have little basis for understanding what academics
can contribute to the field other than teaching potential employees.
These challenges—a habit of thinking of binaries and differences, individually
driven research projects, and lack of shared forums—may compromise academy-
industry partnerships more than any inherent differences between the different
expressions of the work of this field, whether in research and teaching or in
practice. They point to changes that can be made. Perhaps, for example, we
need to stop letting binaries frame our conversations and to foreground
shared interests in such issues as intercultural communication, new media,
and ethics, all of which have theory and practice components. Even when
our approaches, expectations, and values differ, we have much to learn from
each other to warrant the search for common ground and the new knowledge
that will enhance both theory and practice. Conversations about shared
interests and needs should occur at the program level and beyond to determine
foci for research. And we need deliberate and intentional efforts to meet and
talk in order to know more about each other and to define possibilities for
partnerships.
Fortunately, people in several organizations and individuals are acting on
the urgency to establish stronger relationships. The Council for Programs in
Technical and Scientific Communication (CPTSC) established its 2011 con-
ference theme as “Academy-Industry Relationships and Partnerships.” In
addition, the Society for Technical Communication (STC) and CPTSC col-
laboratively organized a preconference workshop attended by members of both
groups. This volume has developed from the papers and discussion at that
meeting. One good sign about this collection is that while the authors are mostly
university faculty, Charlotte Robidoux from Hewlett-Packard has contributed a
chapter in collaboration with two university partners; the chapter reports on a
collaborative book project with two of the authors. Welcoming an industry voice
into a mostly academic publication is a step toward hearing each other that should
be replicated. Collaboration on publication is a great model. In another example
of a professional organization taking the initiative to bring academics and
industry practitioners together, the Center for Information Development
Management invited four academics to its conference in September 2012 and
is pursuing ways to continue dialog among various parts of the field, including
collaborative publication.
Although these examples are encouraging, more needs to be done by more
professional associations and individuals in the academic programs and
industry. We have been talking about academy-industry relationships for at
least three decades, but our talk and the establishment of goals must be accom-
panied by action. If efforts such as joint conferences and collaborative publi-
cation became the norm for our field, we would have a more robust and sus-
tainable field. The stakes are high.
viii / ACADEMY-INDUSTRY RELATIONSHIPS AND PARTNERSHIPS

This collection provides some ideas for how to proceed. Stephen Bernhardt’s
suggestion that each of the graduate academic programs define a shared
research focus can start the conversation about what our field, not just individual
researchers within it, might need to know and how to find out. James Dubinsky
invokes the concept of “engagement” from land-grant universities to suggest
that academics build relationships with industry not with the mindset of expert
problem solvers but as participants who want to help document a community’s
assets. He insists that we talk openly and civilly about issues. Herb Smith, Susan
Katz, and Kenneth Price affirm the bridges established by internships, mentoring,
and experiential learning, which not only prepare students for their lives after
graduation but also benefit academic programs. Students can bring back valuable
knowledge about practice from these experiences that can inform teaching and
curriculum. Russell Carpenter offers details on an industry-academia-community
partnership to show how a service-learning project helps partners make con-
nections in a rural area with emerging technologies as a means of connection.
All these authors offer advice about implementing such programs.
An encouraging feature of the collection as a whole is the number of detailed
reports of successful academy-industry partnerships in both teaching and
research. All these successes reflect the need for negotiation and flexibility
regarding expectations and procedures as well as mutual respect, but in the
end the partnerships accomplish goals that neither academics nor industry
practitioners could accomplish on their own. The authors provide good
models for academics who might be tentative about entering into partnerships
with industry.
Charlotte Robidoux, Beth Hewett, and David Overbey explore the theory-
practice binary, but instead of using it to dismiss the possibility of collaboration,
they open up the discussion by examining the differences between theory and
practice through the canons of rhetoric. Their chapter also affirms the idea that
recognition of shared interests (in this case, virtual collaborative writing) is a
motivation for working through divides.
Tharon Howard reports on a partnership in which an academic center pro-
vides research on usability for industry partners. Significantly, the relationship
is reciprocal, and the university center changes and adapts as industry needs
change from an accommodationist to a constructivist approach to usability
testing or from evaluation of products to assessing users to support product
innovation. Howard’s chapter describes practices that build trust among part-
ners and offers guidelines for formal arrangements to protect partners from
expectations that are not feasible.
Barbara Heifferon describes a consulting situation that required a reframing
of the client’s plan. She demonstrates “theory in action” as she uses theory
to reframe the situation. She enters her industry teaching assignment with the
attitude not of expert but of partner in drawing on the local knowledge of
the participants.
 FOREWORD / ix

John Spartz and Ryan Weber expand the definition of what academy-industry
partnerships might mean by exploring the relationship between technical com-
munication and entrepreneurs. They have investigated “the types of documents
functioning entrepreneurs produce, the types of communication and writing
skills considered important for business founders, and the types of writing
tasks entrepreneurs perform to fund, start, maintain, and grow their businesses.”
They project excitement at the opportunities awaiting academics who venture
into this area of business writing, which should result not just in curriculum
but also in contacts.
Although this collection originates in a problem to be solved and one that
has resisted solution for a long time, the tone overall is optimistic. The authors
are realistic about challenges, but they offer evidence of methods and attitudes
to manage the challenges in the detailed examples of success. The successes
depend on personal initiative, mutual respect, flexibility, and adaptability.
Congratulations to the editors and authors for making visible both the need
to pay attention and the evidence that efforts can result in mutually beneficial
partnerships. I hope the ideas and stories in this collection will open the path
for other successes to follow.
 INTRODUCTION

Rethinking the Nature of

Academy-Industry Partnerships
and Relationships

Kirk St.Amant

Tell someone that you work in the area of “technical communication,” and
chances are you’ll receive a curious, somewhat confused look in response. It
doesn’t matter if you’re an academic researcher or an industry practitioner; the
look is almost always the same. And we’ve all seen it at some point or another
in our careers—it’s that expression of “I kind of know what that is/what you
mean, but I’m not 100% sure.”
Here’s where the really interesting part happens: How do you respond to
the inevitable question, “So what exactly is that?” or “So what exactly do
you do?” It’s at the point when we respond to such questions that things really
begin to differ.
Academic researchers might begin by explaining what rhetoric is and how it
relates to approaches individuals use to convey technical information to different
audiences. Industry practitioners, however, might respond with an overview of
content-management practices or a summary of what usability (or user experience
design) is. These differing responses to the same questions—the ones we all seem
to get regardless of the area in which we work—reveal fundamental differences
in how the field of technical communication is viewed by its members. And
these differences often come down to an internal (i.e., within-the-field) binary
related to how technical communicators perceive, conceptualize, and discuss
the field, both among themselves and with others.

1
2 / ACADEMY-INDUSTRY RELATIONSHIPS AND PARTNERSHIPS

PERCEPTIONS OF THE FIELD

As a field, technical communication is often viewed as composed of two
different spheres. One sphere, that of academia, is generally thought of in terms of
the educational and research contexts associated with universities and colleges.
The other sphere, industry, is usually seen as encompassing workplace contexts
that exist outside of educational settings. Within this framework, the academic
realm tends to be associated with more theoretical and abstract approaches to
technical communication. Industry, in turn, is often viewed in terms of the
concrete and the applied. This split perception of the field often leads to the
question, What is the nature of the relationship between these two spheres?
Responding to this question is not easy, because it requires one to examine a
range of attitudes that seem to span a spectrum of opinions. To some individuals,
the perceived academy-industry difference in the field constitutes a split or a
divide that is a source of tensions and disharmony. According to this perspective,
members of one segment of the field often view the other with suspicion and,
in some cases, contempt. To others, these two spheres represent an opportunity
for collaboration across a greater expanse of ideas and approaches. For these
individuals, the “other side” constitutes potential opportunity, but the question
is how to recognize it.
The solution to addressing this situation involves finding the topics around
which or the areas in which mutual interest can allow collaboration to take
place. In each case, the issue to address is how to create effective academic-
industry interactions and partnerships that maximize potential benefits and
minimize prospective conflicts. The answer lies in finding models and methods
that let the members of both spheres effectively establish and maintain such
relationships. The answer also lies in identifying common contexts in which each
side can benefit from interaction with the other, often in relation to a common
cause or a mutually recognized objective. The entries in this volume represent
11 different approaches to achieving this goal.

THE ORIGINS OF THIS COLLECTION

The ideas for this volume took shape during the 2011 annual meeting
(i.e., conference) of the Council for Programs in Technical and Scientific Com-
munication (CPTSC). The theme of that year’s meeting was “Academy-Industry
Relationships and Partnerships,” and the event represented multiple points of
synergy across the field. First, a number of panels were composed of academia
and industry participants who had come together to discuss approaches for
fostering effective relationships between these two areas. Second, the organ-
izers of that year’s annual meeting worked with members of the Society
for Technical Communication (STC)’s Academic Special Interest Group (SIG)
to coordinate an STC-sponsored and STC-organized “preconference,” which
featured presentations and discussions involving members of academia and
 INTRODUCTION / 3

industry. These factors, and the discussions and the presentations that came
out of these two colocated events, allowed for key conversations to take
place across the academy-industry spheres. These discussions, moreover,
focused on how members of all parts of the field could create relationships
beneficial to students.
This book project emerged from a desire to capture the energy, ideas, and
approaches coming from these conversations.
Several of the chapters in this collection began in the form of short (5–7
minute) and informal presentations given at the 2011 CPTSC annual meeting.
Others came from the discussions that occurred in the months following this
event. And each of these entries presents different ideas that continue to shape
the synergistic discussions that began at that 2011 meeting. These chapters also
represent a relatively broad range of approaches members of the field can use to
foster academy-industry partnerships and relationships within various contexts.
They include everything from internship models to community outreach practices
to new perspectives on the nature of research in the field. In so doing, the entries
in this collection examine such partnerships from a variety of levels—from
individual activities to group/class projects to new ways of envisioning programs
and curricula. The key in all of these cases is balance. That is, members of the
field need to find ways to maximize the benefits each area can contribute to a
given process (generally, an educational one) through an increased understanding
of and a mutual respect for the “other” side.

THE OBJECTIVES OF THIS COLLECTION

The examination of a complex subject often starts with a series of small actions.
For this reason, this text should be thought of as an overview of one piece of the
greater, multifaceted puzzle that is the field of technical communication. The
overarching concept behind this text is not to present a comprehensive analysis of
this overall topic area. (Such a treatment would require several volumes.) Rather,
the goal of this collection is to provide a sampling of approaches readers can use
when considering how they, as members of academia or industry, might approach
this idea of collaborating within different contexts.
The objective of this book is thus not to serve as a definitive source on how we,
as members of the technical communication field, consider such relationships.
Instead, readers should view this book as a tool, or a reference, individuals can
use to explore or to think about such relationships in a way that best addresses
the academic or the industry context of the reader. To this end, the editors
encourage readers to consider how to apply, expand upon, or contribute to the
ideas presented in the chapters contained here. Readers are also encouraged to
use this text as a mechanism for continuing the discussion of relationships and
partnerships started at the 2011 CPTSC annual meeting.
4 / ACADEMY-INDUSTRY RELATIONSHIPS AND PARTNERSHIPS

THE STRUCTURE OF THIS VOLUME

To examine various ideas and approaches to fostering academy-industry
relationships, the editors have organized this collection into four sections. Each
section represents a general category readers might consider when thinking about
establishing different kinds of partnerships within the field. Within this context,
there is no particular order in which readers should move through the four
sections. Rather, each section should be viewed as a different, general approach
to engaging in academy-industry relationships, and it is the reader’s decision to
consider which approach might most interest or best work for her or him.
That said, the four sections have, to a degree, been organized according to the
idea of contexts or settings in which interactions might take place. (The idea
being that these contexts can be fertile ground for examining such relation-
ships.) The collection begins by looking at the educational (or the programmatic)
contexts in which members of academia and industry can collaborate. From there,
the examination shifts to approaches for introducing students and faculty into
different industry contexts via mechanisms such as internship and mentoring
programs as well as on-site industry training opportunities. The entries in the
next major section looks at the role centers, labs, and outreach programs—entities
often associated with making connections to the local community—can play in
establishing different contexts for academy-industry relationships. The collec-
tion’s final section presents ideas on how the research and writing processes
can create a context in which members of academia and industry might col-
laborate to investigate topics of mutual interest and to share information across
the field. This approach can help readers better identify the different context(s)
available to them and begin to explore approaches to fostering cross-field rela-
tionships in that setting or those settings.
With these ideas in mind, let’s take a look at the four sections.

Section I: Programmatic Perspectives

In essence, effective education centers around programmatic factors. That is,
the value students gain from their educational experiences is closely linked to
how the academic programs in which they study connect ideas and practices
across different courses, options, and opportunities in an overall program. It
is for this reason that academics and industry practitioners alike so often speak
of education in terms of good programs (e.g., “this is a good program to apply
to” or “this is a good program to have graduated from”) versus an individual
class or instructor. Establishing effective and sustainable academy-industry
relations in an educational context therefore requires one to think of how such
relationships can be forged and thought of in terms of programs. The entries
in this section examine different approaches to and perspectives for facilitating
academy-industry relationships on a programmatic level.
 INTRODUCTION / 5

In this section’s first entry, Jim Nugent and Laurence José discuss how the
idea of stakeholders can provide insights into how we think about academic
programs in the field, who may participate in such programs, and at what
levels. In so doing, Nugent and José explain how stakeholder theory can help
members of the field think of educational programs as opportunities for
individuals in academia and industry to contribute to and to shape educational
experiences in meaningful ways. Next, John M. Spartz and Ryan P. Weber
examine how a focus on entrepreneurship, at a course and a curricular level,
can help technical communication programs become contexts for collaboration
and interaction across the academic and industry segments of the field. In
so doing, Spartz and Weber present the results of a research project used to
reconsider the nature of such relationships in terms of the teaching of technical
communication as related to entrepreneurship. The section then concludes
with Kenneth R. Price’s review of how experiential learning projects and
classes, including service-learning projects and internship experiences, can
become effective mechanisms that members of academia and industry can use
to collaborate via developing and using assessment practices. The successes
of such relationships, Price notes, are connected to assessment practices that
allow all involved parties to contribute in ways that recognize the benefits
each brings to such activities.

Section II: Industry Contexts

Quite often, academics view the industry context in terms of some oft-
mentioned but little understood space in which students apply the ideas covered
in their classes. An understanding of that space, however, is essential to every-
thing from developing academic programs that prepare students for life after
graduation to providing funding for initiatives to examining research topics of
mutual interest. Thus, the more academics can collaborate with industry partners
in this space, the better they can pursue such undertakings. Education—writ
broadly—can provide a range of opportunities to cultivate such relationships
within an industry context. These opportunities can involve everything from
formal internship programs to informal industry mentoring to conducting work-
shops in industry venues. In all of these cases, the key to forging relationships
and partnerships involves a willingness of all parties to collaborate in an
industry setting. Through such interactions, both sides (academia and industry)
can learn how they might complement one another. The entries in this section
examine this context (and the prospects for collaborating in it) in terms of
educational activities that can bring the two sides together around a topic of
mutual interest: students.
This section begins with Susan M. Katz’s overview of the internship program
at one particular institution, North Carolina State University (NC State), and
6 / ACADEMY-INDUSTRY RELATIONSHIPS AND PARTNERSHIPS

a discussion of how internship programs such as this one can help academics
and students gain a better understanding of industry contexts. In presenting the
different aspects of NC State’s internship program, Katz also provides ideas and
frameworks readers can use to create new internship programs or modify existing
ones to better facilitate discussions, collaborations, and relationships across
academic and industry spheres. Herb J. Smith’s entry expands upon this idea of
internships as a venue for academy-industry partnering by providing a rubric
for fostering the relationships discussed by Katz in her chapter. In so doing, Smith
discusses pairing internships with mentoring activities (i.e., pairing students with
a mentor working in industry) to further develop such relationships by providing
other methods for understanding the industry context. In the section’s final entry,
Barbara A. Heifferon discusses how academics can enter into and contribute
meaningfully to industry contexts in the form of industry training sessions.
Heifferon’s chapter, which presents her experiences developing and delivering
writing training in an industry setting, provides academics with an example
of how they can use teaching practices as a method of engaging with and
collaborating with industry colleagues in settings outside of the conventional
university, college, or community college classroom.

Section III: Engagement Venues

Educational, government, and (sometimes) business institutions often house
entities that focus on outreach to and collaboration with the local community
or the greater regional area. These entities often exist in the form of centers,
labs, focused programs, or offices that offer individuals, generally students or
volunteers, different approaches to and opportunities for engaging with partners
from academia and industry. In some instances, these units send students out
into the community to apply what they have learned in their classes in different
local settings. In others, they invite members of industry into academic environ-
ments via projects with which students can engage. In almost all of these cases,
the objective is the application of classroom-derived knowledge to extracurricular
projects. And through such processes, created by academy-industry partnerships,
participants can apply ideas within broader social contexts. This section examines
the kinds of contexts associated with such partnerships.
In the section’s lead entry, Russell G. Carpenter analyzes a partnership that
linked the Noel Studio for Academic Creativity at Eastern Kentucky University
(EKU) with a middle school and the Bluegrass Army Depot (BGAD) in
Richmond, Kentucky. In so doing, Carpenter uses a humanistic lens to examine
how emerging technologies can facilitate academy-industry partnerships across
different regions, including rural areas where forging such partnerships can be
more difficult. Tharon Howard’s entry, in turn, provides a retrospective of the
academic-industry partnerships that emerged from a usability testing facility/lab
 INTRODUCTION / 7

over the course of almost two decades. In reviewing the evolution of such
relationships, Howard describes how his lab’s focus changed over time to
address the new contexts in which industry partners were operating and how
managing such change can help develop fruitful collaborations across academia
and industry. James M. Dubinsky then concludes this section with a discus-
sion of how community-based engagement projects can provide a forum that
members of academia and local industry can use to build community capacity and
encourage creative leadership. In discussing this project, Dubinsky reveals how
understanding the power of “place” (i.e., local context), in combination with an
engagement approach, can engender academy-industry relationships that meet
the technical, social, and human challenges of a community.

Section IV: Research and Writing Opportunities

In many ways, the topic of research can be a central area of synergy for
academy-industry partnerships. In these relationships, academics bring new
theories and models to test and apply, and industry practitioners bring new
materials for analysis or new questions that need answers via research. Similarly,
the process of sharing results and ideas through collaborative writing can facili-
tate relationships based on mutual interest in examining a common topic. In both
instances, success involves finding a common interest and then identifying—and
appreciating—what the “other side” can contribute to the study of that shared
interest. Through such recognition of common goals and differing contributions,
individuals in academia and industry can examine topics and explore ideas in a
more complete and holistic way. The entries in this section examine approaches
to such relationships as they relate to research (information seeking) and writing
(information sharing) practices.
In the section’s lead entry, Stephen A. Bernhardt examines approaches to
setting programmatic research agendas that have been successful. In so doing,
he identifies ways academic programs can define and engage in research
activities that benefit departments and are valued in various industry contexts.
Bernhardt’s entry thus brings the discussion back to the collection’s initial exam-
ination of programmatic contexts and helps readers reconsider such contexts
from the perspective of shared research interests. The question then becomes
what activities can both sides undertake to pursue this kind of collaboration?
One answer is provided in the section’s second entry by Charlotte A. Robidoux,
Beth L. Hewett, and David W. Overbey. These authors analyze the experience
of using online media to coordinate a collaborative writing project that involved
22 writers affiliated with either academia or industry. The collaborative process
described by the authors provides an example of how individuals from academia
and industry can work together to develop and share information on a topic of
mutual interest.
8 / ACADEMY-INDUSTRY RELATIONSHIPS AND PARTNERSHIPS

FINAL THOUGHTS

There are numerous ways to create and to maintain effective academy-industry

partnerships and relationships. The entries in this collection represent but a
sampling of such approaches. The next step is for individuals to consider how
they might employ or build upon the approaches presented here—or even
contribute new models for interaction. The editors thus encourage readers to view
these chapters as prompts for thinking about the nature of these relationships
and to do so in ways that can foster further discussion across the field. The editors
also encourage readers to consider how they might combine the ideas covered
in this collection with their (the readers’) own experiences in order to contribute
to an ongoing examination of such ideas within the field. After all, the key to
successful relationships is conversation, and the more we can talk with each
other—across the different spheres of the overall field—the better all members
of the field can move forward more effectively and more evenly.
And so the conversation begins.
 Index

Abbot, C., 20 Assessment and evaluation, 238

Academy-industry relationships and constituents, 56–57
partnerships, v–ix, 1–8, 142–143, methods, 62–65
236–240 of internships, 57, 112
barriers to, vi–vii on-site needs-assessment studies, 164
binary of academy and industry, 2, 11–15 program-specific standards for
Council for Programs in Technical and experiential learning courses, 55–72
Scientific Communication standards, problems from absence of,
conference, October 2011, vii, 2–3, 57–58
214 students, self-evaluation of, 62
humanistic perspective on, 6, 141, supervisor evaluations, 63, 64t
143–144, 149–155 Association of Teachers of Technical
industry contexts, 5–6 Writing (ATTW), 98
programmatic and educational perspec- AT&T, 160, 174
tives, 4–5, 7 Audience, 121, 127–128, 219–220, 223
research agendas, 7
values of academy and industry,
217–218, 223–229 Barber, Benjamin, 188–189
Ackermann, F., 19 Barker, R., 99
Acrolinx software, 222–223 Barker, T., 12
Activity theory, 239 Barnum, Carol, 157–158
Act of Reading, The (Iser), 169–170 Bay, Jennifer, 78
Affordable Care Act, 207 Beard, Fred, 79
Agee, Nancy, 188 Beason, L., 45
Albers, M., 45 Becoming Native to this Place (Jackson),
Allen, Jo, 56 182
Althusser, Louis, 169 Bekins, L., 33
American Institutes for Research, 174 Bellah, R. N., 188
Document Design Center, 206 Belmont University, 38
Anderson, P. V., 19, 35 Berlin, J. A., 26–27
Andrews, Debby, 204 Bernhardt, Stephen A., vi, viii, 7, 237,
Aristotle, 100, 191 239
“Ask a Question” online service, Berry, Wendell, 179
117–119, 127–129 Betts, S. C., 144

245
246 / ACADEMY-INDUSTRY RELATIONSHIPS AND PARTNERSHIPS
BGAD. See Bluegrass Army Depot
Blakeslee, A. M., 128, 199
Bloom, Benjamin, 59, 60t–61t, 69
Bluegrass Army Depot (BGAD),
Richmond, Kentucky, 6, 141–142,
147–154
Blue Ridge Plateau, 186
BOB interface (Microsoft), 165
Bosley, D., 97, 146
Bowdon, M. A., 141, 143
Bowers, T., 33
Boyte, Harry, 184
Branch, S., 99
Brent, D., 120
“Bridging the Workplace and Academy”
(Blakeslee), 128
Brockmann, J., 35, 204
Brown, S. G., 124
Brumm, T., 33
Bryson, J. M., 19
Building Communities from the Inside
Out (Kretzmann and McKnight), 183
Burgoyne, D., 129
Burke, K., 120–121, 123
Burton D. Morgan Center for
Entrepreneurship, 48
Business and industry
funding for research and development
in universities, 142–143
See also Academy-industry relation-
ships and partnerships;
Entrepreneurship programs
Business ethics
and business decisions, 24–25
and stakeholder theory, 12, 15–17,
23–25
Business plan writing, 36–38, 37t, 47
See also Entrepreneurial writing
Campus Compact, 180
Career guidance, 82–85, 88–90, 101–108,
112–114, 239
Carnegie, T.A.M., 20
Carnegie Community Engagement
Elective Classification, 180
Carnegie Mellon University, 206
Carpenter, Russell G., v, viii, 6, 143,
237–238
Carrick, T. H., 191
Case studies, 237
Cates, C., 145
CCGs. See Course Content Guides
Cedercreutz, K., 145
Center for Information Development
Management (CIDM), vii, 231
Center for Student Engagement and
Community Partnerships (CSECP),
180
Central Florida University, 205
Chen, X., 44
Ciafalo, Andrew, 78
CIDM. See Center for Information
Development Management
City University of New York-Baruch
(CUNY-Baruch), 38
Civic engagement. See Engagement
Clarkson University, 207
Clemson University, 205, 238
Masters of Arts in Professional Com-
munication (MAPC), 158–160, 174
See also Usability Testing Facility
(UTF) at Clemson
Cocke, Dudley, 187
Cognitive domain verbs, 60t–61t
Coles, Robert, 191
Collaborative writing, 7, 228
overview of, 214–215
See also Virtual collaborative writing
projects, theorizing practical rhetoric
for
Comic Sans font, 165
Community engagement. See
Engagement
Community Voices (CV) project and
engagement approach, 179–192
and SustainFloyd (SF) initiative,
186–187
dialogic work, 187–190
goals of, 182–183, 188
problem statements, 181–184
regional issues, 184–186
stakeholders, 188
strategic plan, 188
 INDEX / 247

Computer as Theatre, The (Laurel), 170 Dautermann, J., 124

Computer industry, 159–164
user manuals, 161
Conciseness, in writing, 42–43
Consubstantiation, 120–124
Cooper, Alan, 170
Cooperative education, 55, 77
See also Experiential learning;
Internships; Mentoring programs;
Service learning
Corequisite courses, 63
Corporate reputation, 46
Correctness, in writing, 42–43
Council for Programs in Technical and
Scientific Communication (CPTSC),
145, 197, 231, 235
2011 conference on
“Academy-Industry Relationships
and Partnerships,” vii, 2–3, 214
Proceedings of CTPSC, 207, 236
Course Content Guides (CCGs), 59–61
and institutional accreditation, 69
example for internship class, 70t–71t
example rubric, 65–69
Courses
assessment of experiential learning
courses, 55–72
corequisite, 63
in entrepreneurial writing, 36, 45–49
in practical writing, 235
internship, 82–84
introductory professional writing,
13–14
prerequisite, 63
public speaking textbooks, 170–173
See also Course Content Guides
Cragg, W., 20
Creativity, 219
CTPSC. See Council for Programs in
Technical and Scientific
Communication
CUE studies, 158
Culliton, B. J., 142–143
Cultural cues, 170, 172, 176
Culture, value of, 135
Cuppan, Greg, 198
CV. See Community Voices
DeBerg, L., 144
DeJong, Menno, 200
Delivery, 223–224
See also Audience
Democracy, weak, 189
Dice, C. P., 214
Digital media, 227
See also Online media; Online writing
skills
Dobrin, S. I., 124
Dobson, M., 129
Document customization, 43, 45
Dodge, R. B., 85
Doheny-Farina, S., 32, 35
Dombrowski, P. M., 143, 150, 153
Donckels, R., 34
Dray, S. M., 208
Dubinsky, James M., viii, 7, 237–238
Duin, A. H., 145
East California University, 100
Eastern Kentucky University (EKU) Noel
Studio for Academic Creativity, 6,
141–142, 147–154
Eden, C., 19
Editorial style sheets, 58
Ellertson, A., 33
ENG350 Professional Internships, NC
State, 82–84
Engagement
and academy-industry relationships and
partnerships, 6–7, 180
in community building, v, 6–7,
179–180, 186, 190–192
in community partnerships, 141–142,
147–154
See also Community Voices (CV)
project and engagement approach;
Engagement through emerging
technologies
Engagement Academy for University
Leaders (Virginia Tech Center for
Organizational and Technological
Advancement), 180
248 / ACADEMY-INDUSTRY RELATIONSHIPS AND PARTNERSHIPS
Engagement through emerging technol-
ogies, 6, 141–155
community partnerships, 148–151
humanistic perspective, 141–144,
149–155
industry’s role in, 151
integration of technology, 147–148
program design and technical
communication programs, 145–147
stakeholders, 149–150, 152–153
university’s role in, 151
Engineering Advisory Committee
Subcommittee on Industry-
University Partnerships, 142
English Departments
entrepreneurial writing courses, 36
North Carolina State University (NC
State), 5–6, 77, 81–92
research agendas, vi
Southern Polytechnic State University
(SPSU), 101, 103–107, 110–112
University of Delaware, 203, 237
Entrepreneurial writing
and academy-industry relationships and
partnerships, 47–49
in entrepreneurship programs, 34–49
in technical communication courses,
45–49
needs, habits, and traits, 39–44
qualitative research interviews, 35–36
research on, 32–36
success narratives, 44
technical communication research on,
32–33
Entrepreneurship programs, 5, 31–49
business plan writing, 36–38, 37t
entrepreneurship, use of term, 33
See also Entrepreneurial writing
Episteme (knowledge), 98
EServer TC library, 99
Ethics. See Business ethics
Ethos (credibility), 121, 228
Eubanks, P., 20
European Universities, research agendas,
200–202, 237
Evaluation. See Assessment and
evaluation
Experiential learning, 5, 108–109,
113–114
and academy-industry relationships and
partnerships, 55–58
identification of stakeholders, 65
literature on, 56–58
program-specific assessment standards,
55–72
See also Internships; Mentoring
programs; Service learning
Eyler, Janet, 79
Faber, B., 33, 207–208
Fahnestock, Jeanne, 228–229
Federal Partnership for Sustainable
Communities, 185
Fisher, D., 33
Fitchburg State College, Department of
Communications Media, internship
program, 100, 110–112
Flaccavento, Anthony, 187
Flattery, as motivational technique,
127–128
Foucault, M., 120, 127, 239
Freeman, R. Edward, 15–18, 21, 24
Friedland, L., 184
Friere, P., 120–123
Frost, Robert, 191
Fuller, M., 118
Gaitens, Judi, 80
Gander, L., 150
Geertz, C., 120, 124, 126, 239
Geest, Thea van der, 200
Georgia Tech, 205
Glick-Smith, J. L., 100
Google Earth, 148
Goswami, Dixie, 135, 174
Government-academic partnerships,
117–135
Grammatical errors, 45–46, 118, 120,
123–127, 130
examples of, 131t
online grammar checks, 131
taxonomy of, 122t
 INDEX / 249

Grand Valley State University (GVSU), Identification, concept of, 120–124

Allendale, Michigan, 13 Id Software, 166
Grant-Davie, Keith, 168 Inakaga, M., 188
Grant proposals, 181, 183 Industry. See Academy-industry
Greenleaf, Robert, 180 relationships and partnerships;
Business and industry
Inmates are Running the Asylum, The
Haimes-Korn, Kim, 103 (Cooper), 170
Halpern, J., 35 Institutional accreditation, 69
Handbooks on writing style. See Style Insurance industry, writing in, 119, 123
guides and handbooks Integrative Graduate Education and
Haninen, P., 182 Research Traineeship (IGERT)
Hardin, J. M., 182 programs, 207
Harfmann, A. C., 145 Interfaces, 169–170
Hart, Hillary, 100, 103 3-dimensional, 165–166
Hauser, G., 183 Internships, 5–6, 55, 77, 81–95, 97–98,
Hawai’i, Division of Forestry and 238–239
Wildlife, 145 and academy-industry relationships and
Hayhoe, G. F., 11–12, 26, 98, 154 partnerships, 94–95, 113–114
Health care, research and development as gateway experiences, 108–109
opportunities, 207 assessment and evaluation of, 57, 112
Heath, S. B., 124 benefits to hosts, 86–88, 113
Heaton, L. B., 214 benefits to students, 77, 85–86, 95,
Heifferon, Barbara A., viii, 6, 237, 239 112–113
Henry, J., 145 benefits to universities, 89–90
Henze, B. R., 100 challenges of, 90–92
Hess, Peg M., 215, 218 credit or noncredit, 110
Hewett, Beth L., vi, viii, 7, 216, 237, 239 job placement and career guidance,
Higher Education, Emerging Technol- 82–85, 88–90, 112–114
ogies, and Community Partnerships literature on, 78–80
(edited by Bowdon and Carpenter), 143 paid or unpaid, 110–112
Hilligoss, Susan, 174 program models, 109–112
Himley, M., 191 required or optional, 110
Holland, B., 187 sponsoring organizations, 81, 86–88,
Holt, R., 34 113
Honig, B., 45 stakeholder education approach, 112
Howard, Tharon, viii, 6, 237–239 student assignments, 83t
Humanistic perspective on academy- student qualifications for, 111
industry partnerships, 6, 141, See also Experiential learning;
143–144, 149–155 Mentoring programs; Service
“Humanistic Rationale for Technical learning
Writing, A” (Miller), 239 Internships: Theory and Practice (Sides
and Mrvica), 78
Interpellation, 169–170
IBM, 94, 160 Intuit Future of Small Business Report, 32
Ease of Use and Architecture group, Invention, 219
165–166 Iser, Wolfgang, 169–170
250 / ACADEMY-INDUSTRY RELATIONSHIPS AND PARTNERSHIPS

Jablonski, J., 33 Macduff, Nancy, 214–215, 218

Jackson, Wes, 182 Macedo, D., 120–123
Jacobi, T., 191 MacIntosh, Fred, 235
James, Janice, 158 Mack, R., 158
Jennings, J. E., 44 Madsen, R., 188
Jennings, P. D., 44 Management, academic discipline of, 12
Job searches and placement, v, 84–85, Mara, A., 32
88–89 Martens, M. L., 44
Johnson, T. R., 214 McCulley-Cuppan, LLC, 198
Johnson-Eilola, J., 12, 33, 207–208 McEachern, R. W., 144–145
Jones, O., 34 McKeough, M., 85
José, Laurence, vi, 237 McKnight, John, 183
Journal of Business and Technical McPherson, A., 34
Communication, vi Mehlenbacher, Brad, 206
Mentor, use of term, 100–101
Mentoring programs, 6, 97–115
Katz, Susan M., viii, 5–6, 237–238 and academy-industry relationships and
Kilmurray, Avila, 188 partnerships, 113–115
Kline, J., 12 career guidance, 101–108, 112–114
Kolb, David A., 135n guidelines for, 107–108
Kotha, S., 44 in STC chapters, 101–103
Kretzmann, John, 183 mentee perspectives, 105
Kvale, Steiner, 36 mentor perspectives, 106–107
tax laws affecting, 103
See also Experiential learning;
Land grant universities, v, 158, 180, Internships; Service learning
190 Michigan State, 205
Lanier, Jaron, 189–191 Mickelson, S., 33
Latour, B., 124 Microchannel architecture, 161
Laurel, Brenda, 170 Microsoft’s BOB interface, 165
Learning Miller, Carolyn R., 12, 35, 118, 143, 150,
dialogical practice in, 122–123 153, 216, 224–227, 229, 239
objectives, taxonomy of, 59, 69 Miller, R., 145
situated learning, 120 Miller, Thomas, 12
See also Experiential learning; Mirel, Barbara, 199
Internships; Mentoring programs; Mnemotechnics, 166
Service learning Mobile devices, 147
LeBlanc, D., 129 Molich, Rolf, 158
Lee, R., 34 Morton, Linda, 79
Levine, P., 184 Mrvica, Ann, 78, 99–100, 114
Lewin, Kurt, 135 Mullen, Edward J., 215, 218
Lewis, M. W., 145 Munger, Roger, 78
Little, Sherry Burgus, 57, 100, 110,
239
Local knowledge, 120, 124–127, 190 Narrative construction, 46
Lockheed Martin, 146 National Science Foundation (NSF),
Lutz, J., 118 207

NCR Corporation, 158, 160–161
3360 study, 161–162
Neilson, J., 158
Netting, Ellen, 214–215, 218
New River Valley, 179, 181, 184–187
New York Law School, 24
Noel Studio for Academic Creativity,
Eastern Kentucky University (EKU),
6, 141–142, 147–154
North Carolina State University (NC State)
College of Humanities and Social
Sciences (CHASS), 81–82, 84, 89–90
ENG350 Professional Internships
course, 82–84
English Department internship
program, 5–6, 77, 81–92
English Department Interns’ Scholar-
ship Fund, 89
research agenda, 206
Northwestern University, 38
NRV Planning District Commission
(NRVPDC), 185
NSF (National Science Foundation), 207
Nugent, Jim, vi, 5, 237
Nunally, P., 33
Obenshain, Beth, 187
O’Connor, E., 46
Odell, L., 35
Ohio State, 205
Olbrechts-Tyteca, Lucie, 215, 217
Online media, use in collaborative
writing, 7, 217, 222–223
Online Writing Lab (OWL), Purdue
University, 131
Online writing skills, theoretical
underpinnings for improving, 6,
117–135
context of partnership, 118–119
homework, 132t
lessons learned from case study, 134
literature review, 120–127
project layout, 117–118
theoretical lenses, 120–127
workshops and handbook creation,
127–134
INDEX / 251
Overbey, David W., vi, viii, 7, 237, 239
“Overlap, Influence, Intertwining: The
Interplay of UX and Technical
Communication” (Redish and
Barnum), 158
Palvetzian, T., 145
Parker, L., 151
Paul, D., 99
Penn State, 205
Perelman, Chaim, 215, 217
Place, role in community building, 186
Place knowledge, 182
Plain English Foundation, 206
Plato, 128
Popham, S., 119–120
Posttests, 62
Practical writing courses, 235
Practice versus theory, 97–98, 214–215,
217–229
Praxis, 12, 135, 215
Prerequisite courses, 63
Presidents’ Fourth of July Declaration on
the Civic Responsibility of Higher
Education (Campus Compact), 181
Pretests, 62
Price, Kenneth R., viii, 5, 237–239
Proceedings of CTPSC (Council for
Programs in Technical and Scientific
Communication), 207, 236
Professional writing, introductory courses
in, 13–14
Public speaking courses, textbooks for,
170–173
Pulaski County (Virginia) Board of
Supervisors, 185
Purdue University
Online Writing Lab (OWL), 131
Professional Writing Program, 32, 48
Putnam, Robert, 188
Quake (video game), 166
Readability, 219
Red Hat, 94
252 / ACADEMY-INDUSTRY RELATIONSHIPS AND PARTNERSHIPS

Redish, Ginny, 157–158 Servant leadership, 180, 189

Redish, Janice, 206 Service learning, 5, 55, 144–145, 174,
Reputation, 46 238
Research agendas for technical and in academy-industry relationships and
professional communication partnerships, 144–145
programs, v, 197–210, 237 Risk, Reciprocity, and Reflection,
at European Universities, 200–202, 237 190–192
connecting to work settings, 205–209 See also Experiential learning;
departmental, 203–204, 209–210 Internships; Mentoring programs
funding, 201–203 Sexton, D., 34
individual freedom in research and Sides, Charles, 78, 99–100, 114
publishing projects, 202 Siegle, Bob, 183
pharmaceutical industry consulting, Single-sourcing documents, 45
201 Siriani, C., 184
science model, application for Situated learning, 120
humanities, 203 SMEs. See Subject Matter Experts
shared research agendas, vi Smith, Herb J., viii, 6, 237–239
stakeholders, 210 Social protocols, 169–170, 172, 176
Research questions, 237 Society for Technical Communication
Rhetoric and rhetorical theory, 239 (STC)
canons of, 218–224 Academic Special Interest Group
See also Virtual collaborative writing (SIG), 2, 231
projects, theorizing practical rhetoric Body of Knowledge initiative, 24
for conferences, vi, vii
Rhyason, D., 150 Education Mentoring Program website,
Richmond, Kentucky, 150–153 102
Robidoux, Charlotte A., vi, viii, 7, 216, Guidelines for Mentoring Programs,
227, 237, 239 101
Rose, M., 124 Lone Star chapter, 102
Rude, Carolyn D., 18, 20, 146, 209 mentoring programs, 99
Ruebottom, T., 34 Orlando Central Florida chapter’s
Mentoring Program, 99, 101–103,
106
Saad, S., 33 priority list of needed research, 206
Sanders, L., 188 Rochester, New York chapter, 102
Sandy, M., 187 Silicon Valley chapter, 102
Santoro, M. D., 144 Toronto chapter, 102
SAS, 94 Usability and UX SIG, 174
Savage, G. J., 100, 110 Willamette Valley Chapter, Portland,
Scholarship Fund, NC State internship Oregon, 102
program, 89 Socrates, 127–128
Schriver, Karen, 206 Southern Polytechnic State University
Science communication and literacy, 207, (SPSU), Department of English,
228 Technical Communication, and
Seible, M. K., 100, 110 Media Arts, 101
Senge, Peter, 188 internship program, 110–112
Separation thesis, 24–25 mentorship program, 103–107

Spartz, John M., ix, 5, 237–238
Speck, B., 214
Spilka, Rachel, 35, 198–199
Spivey, B., 99
Stakeholders
and internships, 112
in experiential learning, 65
in partnerships, 149–150, 152–153, 188
in research agendas, 210
use of term, 15–17
Stakeholder theory, 5, 11–27, 237
and business ethics, 12, 15–17, 23–25
and technical communication
programs, 18–27
identification of stakeholders, 19–23
salience, 20–23
scholarship on, 15–18
St.Amant, K., 20, 100
Stanford Research Institute (SRI), 16
Stanley, Tal, 182
Starke-Meyerring, D., 145
STC. See Society for Technical
Communication
Steehouder, Michael, 200
Stout State University, 235–236
Stowers, R., 99
Strategic Management (Freeman), 16
Students
and openness, 239–240
learning outcomes, 56–58
middle school, 147–148
role in academy-industry partnerships,
5–6
self-evaluation, 62
See also Experiential learning;
Internships; Mentoring programs;
Service learning
Style guides and handbooks, 58–59,
127–133, 221–222
Subject Matter Experts (SMEs), 121, 123,
127
Sullivan, P., 35
Sullivan, W. M., 188
Supervisor evaluations, 63, 64t
Surveys, 237
Sustainable social change, 182–183
SustainFloyd (SF), 186–187
INDEX / 253
Swarts, J., 45
Swidler, A., 188
Techne (craft or art), 98, 191
Technical communication
academy-industry binary, 2, 11–15
perceptions of the field, 1–2
profession of, 236
See also Academy-industry relation-
ships and partnerships
Technical communication academic
programs
and stakeholder theory, 18–27
experiential learning courses, 55–56
graduate programs, vi, 198–210
Technical Communication Quarterly, vi
Technology
access to, 142
and virtual collaborative writing,
224–225, 227–229
descriptions, 45
virtual, 225
See also Engagement through emerging
technologies; Online media
Texas Tech University, 146, 205
Textbooks, content development, 170–173
Theory
activity theory, 239
importance of, 135
rhetorical, 239
versus practice, 97–98, 214–215, 217–229
See also Online writing skills,
theoretical underpinnings for
improving; Stakeholder theory;
Virtual collaborative writing projects,
theorizing practical rhetoric for
Think-aloud protocols, 124, 164,
166–168, 171, 175
Tipton, S. M., 188
Tovey, J., 100, 144–145
Underwood, C., 151
University of Arizona, 205
University of Central Florida (UCF), 99,
101–102, 146
254 / ACADEMY-INDUSTRY RELATIONSHIPS AND PARTNERSHIPS
University of Delaware, Department of
English, 203, 237
University of Hawai’i, 145
University of Minnesota, 205
University of North Carolina, Chapel
Hill, 235
University of Phoenix, 25
University of Twente, Enschede, The
Netherlands, 200
University of Utah, 36
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee,
199
University of Wisconsin-Stout, 236
UPA. See Usability Professional
Association
Upton, N., 34
Usability, viii, 1, 129, 198, 208
testing, 6–7
See also Usability Testing Facility;
User experience design
Usability Professional Association
(UPA), 158
Usability Testing Facility (UTF) at
Clemson, 157–176, 205
3-dimensional interface designs,
165–166
accomodationist approach, 157,
159–165, 167, 170, 172
aesthetic choices, information on, 170,
172, 176
and academy-industry relationships and
partnerships, 174–176
BOB interface (Microsoft), 165–166
constructivist approach, 157, 165,
167–174
cultural cues, information on, 170, 172,
176
diary studies, 164, 171
eye-tracking studies, 175–176
laboratory infrastructure, 175
NCR 3360 study, 161–162
on-site needs-assessment studies, 164
planning for, 174–175
social protocols, information on,
169–170, 172, 176
think-aloud protocols, 164, 166–168,
171, 175
U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency,
153
User-experience design, 1, 129–130, 157,
159, 165, 167–176, 200, 208
and academy-industry relationships and
partnerships, 174–176
U.S. Small Business Administration,
31–32
UTEST (online community), 158
UTF. See Usability Testing Facility
Virginia Tech, 146, 181n, 190, 209
Center for Organizational and
Technological Advancement,
180
Virtual Collaborative Writing in the
Workplace (Hewett & Robidoux),
214
Virtual collaborative writing projects,
theorizing practical rhetoric for, 7,
213–231
acrolinx software, 222–223
arrangement, 220–221
audience, 219–220, 223
best practices, 229–230
canons of rhetoric, 218–224
creating a core writing team,
216–217
creativity, 219
delivery, 223–224
epideictic perspectives, 227
invention, 219
listservs, 217
memory, 222–223
readability, 219
style, 221–222
technology’s role in, 224–225,
227–229
theory versus practice, 214–215,
217–229
tools for, 217, 222–223
values of academics and industry,
217–218, 223–229
wikis, 217
Virtual technology, 225
Voss, D., 99, 146
 INDEX / 255

Wagner, Jon, 182 [Writing]

Waters, A. J., 182 style guides and handbooks, 58–59,
Weber, Ryan P., ix, 5, 237–238 127–133, 221–222
Wharton School, University of workshops and writing projects, 6–7,
Pennsylvania, 16 134–135
Whiteside, A., 146 See also Entrepreneurial writing;
Wikis, 217 Grammatical errors; Online writing
Williams, S., 33 skills; Virtual collaborative writing
Woolgar, S., 124 projects
Writing
business plan writing, 36–38, 37t,
47 Yao, X., 44
conciseness in, 42–43 You are Not a Gadget (Lanier), 189
correctness in, 42–43
courses, 13–14, 235
informal versus formal, 121, 126 Zachary, L. J., 102
in insurance industry, 119, 123 Zimmerman, B. B., 99
In Praise…
The eleven essays in this collection, contextualized by the splendid foreword and
afterword by Carolyn Rude and Dan Riordan, offer observations and insights about
ways that the academy and the world of practice can collaborate to the advantage
of our profession. Academy-Industry Relationships and Partnerships includes
contributions by relative newcomers and veterans, academics and practitioners,
and suggests ways that technical communicators who are teachers, students, and
industry employees can gain from one another’s expertise. The topics are wide-
ranging and diverse: the application of stakeholder theory to academic programs,
examples of intriguing partnerships between the academy and businesses and
governmental organizations, and ways that research can influence practice, to name
just a few. I enthusiastically recommend Tracy Bridgeford and Kirk St.Amant’s
collection for its valuable contribution to this important conversation.
— George Hayhoe, Ph.D.
Department of Technical Communication
Mercer University School of Engineering

As higher education faces public scrutiny of its costs versus benefits, this compilation
on partnerships includes some gems for leaders of technical communication
programs who face tough questions about the value of such programs. The
collection also demon­strates that the antagonism between academe and industry
is by no means universal. From internships and service-learning to consulting and
research, technical communication faculty and students are engaged in meaningful
collaborations with industry and government organizations. That is good news for
all of us.
— Kim Sydow Campbell, Ph.D.
Professor and Derrell Thomas Faculty Fellow
Culverhouse College of Commerce at The University of Alabama

Bridgeford and St.Amant have put together an important, timely volume that
delivers new thinking on relationships between the academy and industry. At my
own university, these partnerships are becoming central and essential to what
we do, and the essays in this collection not only deliver models for new kinds
of partnerships but theorize and rethink the very nature of those partnerships. I
plan on using this text in my own courses, particularly in graduate seminars on
pedagogy and program administration.
— Dave Clark, Ph.D.
Associate Professor and Chair
Department of English
University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee

View publication stats