DISCIPLINARY PRACTICE(S)

IN BUSINESS COMMUNICATION,
1985 TO 2004

Margaret Baker Graham

Iowa State University

When I began teaching in the English Department at Iowa State University in the
mid-1980s, Carol David, a senior colleague, told me to join the Association for
Business Communication (ABC), present at its conferences, and serve as chair
for a regional conference. Although Carol David has a quiet personality, she can
also be quietly implacable. I complied. Consequently, I have been a member of
the ABC for 20 years now. The ABC—its journals, its conferences, and its
members—is unquestionably the forum that has done the most to foster my own
research.
Research is inevitably a collaborative effort. As Charie Thralls (1992) con-
cluded, “all writing, whether authored by individuals or groups, is collaborative”
(p. 79; see also Rogers, 1993). Research is developed from reading the works of
others. It is shaped by conversations with and suggestions from others. The entire
peer-review system of our refereed journals is built on the notion that the ideas of
others should shape an author’s text. Although the support of family and coworkers
has been vital to the development of my career, today I would like to reflect on what
the ABC as a professional forum has offered me—and continues to offer to others.
Despite multidisciplinary tensions, to which I will allude later, the ABC rep-
resents the idea (e.g., Toulmin, 1972) that research is not a disembodied endeavor
but a practice embedded in the values of people who come together in sites or
forums. To describe how this concept of forum works, I propose to identify a
series of lessons I have learned from the people in the ABC. The specific purposes
of this somewhat meandering lesson-learned approach is not so much to discuss
my own research as it is to (a) demonstrate how one person’s research is influ-
enced by the research of others, (b) describe the breadth of research the ABC has
fostered, and (c) pinpoint key issues in conducting business communication
research.

Margaret Baker Graham is a professor of English at Iowa State University. Correspondence concern-
ing this article should be addressed to Margaret Baker Graham, Iowa State University, 203 Ross Hall,
Ames, IA 50011-1201; e-mail: mgraham@iastate.edu.

Journal of Business Communication, Volume 43, Number 3, July 2006 268-277

DOI: 10.1177/0021943606288777
© 2006 by the Association for Business Communication
 Graham / DISCIPLINARY PRACTICE(S) 269

METHOD

In 1985, following Carol David’s orders and my own genuine interest in business
communication research, I conducted a quantitative analysis of the relationship
between sentence structure and letter type, which I later presented at my first
ABC conference. When I asked a colleague in the English Department to give me
some feedback on the manuscript, his response on reading it was “Very interest-
ing, but could you take the numbers out?”

Lesson Learned 1: Methodology is discipline based.

THE HUMANITIES PERSPECTIVE

After I had completed that research on sentence structure and letter type, I heard
JoAnne Yates and Kitty Locker speak on their separate research, historical analy-
ses of business discourse. JoAnne Yates’s analysis of Dupont led to an article in
JBC (Yates, 1985) as well as a book (Yates, 1989). Kitty Locker, who talked on
the correspondence of the British East India Company, published in JBC an
analysis of pre-20th-century dunning letters (Locker, 1985). Both women subse-
quently won the ABC’s Outstanding Researcher Award.

Lesson Learned 2: The humanities perspective can richly inform business communication
research.

Like many business communication researchers of my generation, I was trained in

literature, and in my graduate program, I specialized in a social historical perspec-
tive. When I was introduced to Kitty Locker’s and JoAnne Yates’s work, I realized
that I did not have to abandon that training or interest. Although I have continued
to do some modest quantitative research, my inclination is qualitative and histori-
cal. Under the title “The Business of Everyday Living,” I analyzed the written dis-
course of a 19th-century landlady (Graham, 1999). I recently published an article
in the Journal of Business and Technical Communication that in part analyzes his-
torical narrative as an argument for current policies affecting the Missouri River
system (Graham & Lindeman, 2005). I’m not sure I would have begun these pro-
jects were it not for the influence of JoAnne Yates and Kitty Locker.

QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH

Survey research (e.g., Harcourt & Krizan, 1989) has supported the long-taught
advice that recruiters prefer one-page resumes for recently graduated applicants.
However, in JBC, Elizabeth Blackburn-Brockman and Kelly Belanger (2001),
analyzing the decisions made by recruiters who were given one- or two-page
270 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

resumes of similar content, reported that almost 82% of the recruiters hired newly
graduated candidates who had two-page resumes.

Lesson Learned 3a: Relying solely on survey research can be problematic because such
research identifies what people think they do rather than what they actually do.
Lesson Learned 3b: Nonetheless, quantitative analysis can indeed be useful.

The richer results that can come from

using multiple methodologies and
methods can be seen in research
recently published in JBC.

Although this lesson learned on the usefulness of numbers may seem self-evident
to those who define their disciplines from a social science perspective, it is less
readily apparent to those who come from a humanities perspective. For example,
College Composition and Communication, an important journal for those of us
who teach writing in English departments, published an essay titled “Empiricism
Is Not a Four-Letter Word” (Charney, 1996). The title alone suggests English
faculty members’ long-held distrust of empirical research, especially number
crunching. The author, Davida Charney, chided English department researchers
for misunderstanding and dismissing quantitative studies. She also argued, “The
diametric opposition that is sometimes drawn between qualitative and quantita-
tive methods is difficult to sustain. It is more productive to view these methods as
complementary or even as overlapping” (p. 582).
The richer results that can come from using multiple methodologies and meth-
ods can be seen in research recently published in JBC. For example, Jim Suchan’s
(1998) research on high-impact writing in bureaucracies uses both qualitative and
quantitative analyses; so too does Jensen Zhao’s (2000) research on international
business negotiation. Moreover, recent articles that use only quantitative or qual-
itative research have often used multiple methods. For example, Teresa Carter
(2002), in her qualitative analysis of women at midcareer, used telephone con-
versations, self-reflective writing, and in-depth interviews. Lamar Reinsch
(1997), in his study on telecommuting workers and their managers, drew numer-
ical data from questionnaires and interviews.

REAL-WORLD PRACTICES

In the late 1980s at an ABC conference, I heard Pris Rogers discuss her findings
of a site-based study of dealer contract reports. She found that dealers used a
 Graham / DISCIPLINARY PRACTICE(S) 271

narrative style instead of the problem-solution approach recommended in busi-

ness communication textbooks and in the house rules of the automobile company
itself. Sitting in the audience, I waited for Pris to discuss how we could make
dealers see the error of their ways, but she didn’t do that. Rather, she challenged
us to consider why narrative might be the more useful approach. She discussed
the implications of this research in JBC, concluding, “Examining real manager-
ial documents will foster approaches which are mindful of the complex environ-
ments in which managers write” (Rogers, 1989, p. 211).
A little later, at another ABC conference, I heard Ron Dulek share his and John
Fielden’s theory that principles for writing business correspondence should con-
sider if the writing is going inside or outside an organization, what the power and
personal relationships are between the writer and the reader, and what the inher-
ent risks are in the rhetorical situation. In 1990, they published a groundbreaking
textbook based on this theory (Dulek & Fielden, 1990).

Lesson Learned 4: More of our pedagogy needs to be based on research and sound
theory.

These presentations by Pris Rogers and Ron Dulek not only changed my peda-
gogy; their ideas were also influential in a series of articles Carol David and I were
writing on the effect of power in actual managerial communication. Using both
management theory and linguistic politeness, we argued that the sales model for
letter writing is not necessarily appropriate for interoffice memos, because the
sales model does not account for the issue of power (e.g., Graham & David, 1994).

METHODOLOGY REVISITED

In 1993, Carol David and I were co-chairs of the regional meeting of the Midwest
Association for Business Communication in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. As you know,
ABC members are typically generous and polite to all presenters. Well, not at
one presentation given by members of the English Department of Iowa State
University. One of my colleagues spoke on Mikhail Bakhtin and another on
the philosopher Donald Davidson. After the presentation, an ABC member in the
audience said that such presentations did not belong at ABC meetings. They were,
he said, for the Modern Language Association. The presenters were then accused
by two members of the audience of using high theory to distort practical work.

Lesson Learned 5: There is a deep schism in the ABC concerning the kinds of
research we do and the reasons we do that research.

And this lesson brings me full circle to the first lesson: Methodology is
discipline-based. Business communication is cross-disciplinary because it draws
from different disciplines, including communication, rhetoric, management, and
272 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

linguistics. Gary Shaw (1993) called business communication a “hybrid discipline”

(p. 297). It is also multidisciplinary because we put the pieces of this cross-
discipline together differently and use different methodologies to inform our
research. Responding to this multidisciplinarity, a recurring theme in musings on
the state of the profession of business communication is that we are not a discipline
but rather a loose federation of academics and consultants who claim to teach and
research something called business communication. Larry Smeltzer (1996) bleakly
concluded, “Because the discipline originates from so many homes, it ends up
homeless” (p. 10).

Mission-oriented research, as it is
generally conceived by ABC members,
serves business practitioners and
consultants, whereas curiosity-oriented
research serves academics.

One way to see the tension in our field is to examine the purposes of our research.
There is a binary at work, which can be placed on a continuum:

Mission-Oriented Research ⇔ Curiosity-Oriented Research

Gibbons and his coauthors (1994) of the book The New Production of Knowledge
identified “mission-oriented” or “applied” research as research that explicitly
attempts to address or solve a particular problem in society or the world. In
“curiosity-oriented” or “pure” research, on the other hand, new knowledge for its
own sake is valued, even if it has no practical value (p. 23). Although research
often serves both purposes to some degree, researchers generally move their work
in one direction or the other. Mission-oriented research, as it is generally con-
ceived by ABC members, serves business practitioners and consultants, whereas
curiosity-oriented research serves academics. When Lamar Reinsch (1996) stated
that the aim of management communication is “to conduct activities that satisfy
human needs and wants by providing goods and services for private profit”
(p. 28), he was arguing for mission-oriented research. When Mohan Limaye
(1993) argued that “first and foremost, we as academics serve the academy”
(p. 468), he was focusing on curiosity-driven research. When we hear ABC mem-
bers complain that some of our research has no practical value, they are privileg-
ing mission-oriented research. When we hear other ABC members complain that
too much of our research has a technocratic feel, they are arguing against research
that has the primary mission of serving the business world or the classroom.
 Graham / DISCIPLINARY PRACTICE(S) 273

This binary is similar to the one Ron Dulek (1993) set up in his description of
business schools that have horizontal focuses and those that have vertical focuses.

Mission-Oriented Research ⇔ Curiosity-Oriented Research

Horizontal Academic Practices ⇔ Vertical Academic Practices

That is, schools with horizontal focuses “seek ties with the business community”
and offer as their primary degree the M.B.A. (p. 319). Vertically oriented schools,
on the other hand, offer as their primary degree the PhD and define their princi-
pal audience as “academic, not business” (p. 318). I would agree with Ron Dulek
that both kinds of business schools have value. Similarly, I would argue that both
mission-oriented research and curiosity-oriented research are of value to the field
of business communication.
There is the presumption in ABC discussions that research with a mission-
oriented focus furthers the world of business. However, as Jim Suchan (1993)
observed, researchers in business communication might have the mission of
dismantling or disrupting the business world. He stated that

a number of us work in academic departments that are uninterested in management

issues or even hostile to business. The culture and reward systems of these environ-
ments promote research that may be of interest to other academics but is of little
value to business practitioners. . . . Perhaps business communication should not
be housed in these inhospitable environments. (p. 203)

People do indeed use neo-Marxism and cultural studies because they would
like to dismantle or disrupt capitalism and its values. However, I agree with
Cynthia Ryan (2001) that such theoretical frameworks can serve the mission of
furthering the business world. She observed,

Of course the underlying political basis of traditional cultural studies, Marxism, is

not compatible with the capitalist framework driving the activities of individuals
in most business organizations. However, some recent adaptations of cultural
studies . . . align it more closely with the interests of academics and practitioners
of business communication. These current applications of cultural studies theory are
not based on orthodox Marxism, acknowledging instead the global economy in
which we live and the situatedness of students as learners, consumers, and partici-
pants in a capitalist culture. (p. 257)

I have noticed in the years since that conference in Cedar Rapids the follow-
ing uses of humanities-based, high theory in JBC articles, all of which have the
aim of furthering business values:

• phenomenology by authors from an interpersonal communication and public com-

munication program (Krider & Ross, 1997);
274 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

90

80

70

60
Percentages

50

40

30

20

10

0
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04
Years

Quantitative Qualitative Other

Figure 1. Publication Trends in JBC, 1985 to 2004

• narrative theory by an author in a managerial communication program (Jameson,

2000);
• Kenneth Burke by an author in a communication and media management depart-
ment (Livesey, 2001);
• hermeneutics by authors from departments of management (Prasad & Mir, 2002);
and
• Bahktin by authors who teach in a school of management (Yates & Orilikowski,
2002).

Not coincidentally, the authors of all of these articles used discourse analysis or
other qualitative methods. Part of the concern toward using so-called humanities-
based high theory is, I think, methodological. That is, empirical research that
comes out of such theories is less likely to be quantitative. And, indeed, publica-
tion trends in JBC over the past 20 years suggest that qualitative research is play-
ing an increasingly important role in our field.
As you can see from Figure 1 on articles published in JBC, quantitative
research in 1992 was published far more often than qualitative research. Since
then, quantitative research has declined, whereas qualitative research has grown
in prominence. To show this contrast between qualitative and quantitative
research, I counted twice research that used both methodologies. Nineteen per-
cent of empirical research in JBC from 1985 to 2004 used both qualitative and
quantitative methods. Thus, for some years, the total percentage exceeded 100%.
 Graham / DISCIPLINARY PRACTICE(S) 275

“Other” research represents theoretical articles, articles describing pedagogical

practice, and commentaries. Editorials, letters to the editor, reports, and book
reviews are not included in the figure.
JBC has been proactive in fostering this move toward qualitative research. In
a 1984 article in JBC, Daniel Cochran and Janet Dolan called for qualitative
research in business communication. In 1993, JoAnne Yates argued that qualita-
tive research may be more appropriate for research questions about communica-
tion and may be more appropriate for those of us who have been trained in the
humanities. In 1995, JBC published a forum on qualitative research in the field,
which concluded, “the opportunity it provides to get in touch with the feelings,
concerns, and needs of the business community makes its undertaking important
to business communication research” (Tucker, Powell, & Meyer, 1995, p. 396).
In January 2002, Sharon Livesey edited a special issue for JBC on qualitative
research.
I believe that this increasing use of qualitative methods represents some of the
“convergence” that Pris Rogers (2001) called for when she stated that “our
research agenda must be driven by our common purpose and less by our discipli-
nary or institutional affiliations” (p. 22). Despite this call for convergence, it is
important that we recognize the political exigencies we face in our respective
departments or colleges, exigencies that may push us toward curiosity-oriented
research or mission-oriented research, or even toward research that calls into
question basic business values. It is important that we continue to publish articles
that report quantitative research drawn from the social sciences perspective. It is
important that we continue to publish theoretical articles drawn from the human-
ities perspective. However, qualitative research, among other advantages, repre-
sents a way in which empirical research and high theory can meet—converge—in
the same article. In explaining why it has been difficult to achieve true interdisci-
plinary research, Kitty Locker (1994) stated, “When we work in different para-
digms, we disagree about what kind of data is relevant, what kind of analysis is
convincing, and indeed what research questions are important” (p. 139). In using
qualitative research, though, we have found a shared lens, which can help move
us from cross-disciplinary and multidisciplinary approaches to true interdiscipli-
nary research.

REFERENCES

Blackburn-Brockman, E., & Belanger, K. (2001). One page or two? A national study of CPA
recruiters’ preferences for resume length. Journal of Business Communication, 38, 29-57.
Carter, T. J. (2002). The importance of talk to midcareer women’s development: A collaborative
inquiry. Journal of Business Communication, 39, 55-91.
Charney, D. (1996). Empiricism is not a four-letter word. College Composition and Communication,
47(4), 567-593.
Cochran, D. S., & Dolan, J. A. (1984). Qualitative research: An alternative to quantitative research in
communication. Journal of Business Communication, 21, 25-32.
276 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION

Dulek, R. E. (1993). Models of development: Business schools and business communication. Journal
of Business Communication, 30, 315-331.
Dulek, R. E., & Fielden, J. S. (1990). Principles of business communication. New York: Macmillan.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new pro-
duction of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London:
Sage Ltd.
Graham, M. B. (1999). The business of everyday living: Letters from a nineteenth-century landlady.
In J. M. Perkins & N. Blyler (Eds.), Narrative and professional communication (pp. 181-193).
Stamford, CT: Ablex.
Graham, M. B., & David, C. (1994). The rhetoric of power: Political issues in management writing.
Technical Communication Quarterly, 3(2), 165-178.
Graham, M. B., & Lindeman, N. (2005). The rhetoric and politics of science in the case of the
Missouri River System. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 19, 422-448.
Harcourt, J., & Krizan, A. C. (1989). A comparison of resume content preferences of Fortune 500 per-
sonnel administrators and business communication instructors. Journal of Business Communication,
26, 177-190.
Jameson, D. (2000). Telling the investment story: A narrative analysis of shareholder reports. Journal
of Business Communication, 37, 7-38.
Krider, D. S., & Ross, P. G. (1997). The experiences of women in a public relations firm: A phenom-
enological explication. Journal of Business Communication, 34, 437-454.
Limaye, M. R. (1993). A letter to the editor: Relevance versus significance in business communica-
tion research. Journal of Business Communication, 30, 463-471.
Livesey, S. (2001). Eco-identity as discursive struggle: Royal Dutch/Shell, Brent Spar, and Nigeria.
Journal of Business Communication, 38, 58-91.
Locker, K. O. (1985). “Sir, this will never do”: Model dunning letters, 1592-1873. Journal of Business
Communication, 22, 39-45.
Locker, K. O. (1994). The challenge of interdisciplinary research. Journal of Business Com-
munication, 31, 137-151.
Prasad, A., & Mir, R. (2002). Digging deep for meaning: A critical hermeneutic analysis of CEO
letters to shareholders in the oil industry. Journal of Business Communication, 39, 92-116.
Reinsch, N. L. (1996). Business communication: Present, past, and future. Management
Communication Quarterly, 10(1), 27-49.
Reinsch, N. L. (1997). Relationships between telecommuting workers and their managers: An
exploratory study. Journal of Business Communication, 34, 343-37.
Rogers, P. (1989). Choice-based writing in managerial context: The case of the dealer contract report.
Journal of Business Communication, 26, 197-216.
Rogers, P. (1993). What is a researcher? Journal of Business Communication, 30, 204-206.
Rogers, P. (2001). Convergence and commonality challenge business communication research.
Journal of Business Communication, 38, 14-23.
Ryan, C. (2001). The challenge of inclusion: Reconsidering alternative approaches to teaching and
research. Journal of Business Communication, 38, 256-260.
Shaw, G. (1993). The shape of our field: Business communication as a hybrid discipline. Journal of
Business Communication, 30, 297-313.
Smeltzer, L. R. (1996). Communication within the manager’s context. Management Communication
Quarterly, 10(1), 5-26.
Suchan, J. (1993). Why do we do irrelevant research? Journal of Business Communication, 30,
202-203.
Suchan, J. (1998). The effect of high-impact writing on decision making within a public sector
bureaucracy. Journal of Business Communication, 35, 299-327.
Thralls, C. (1992). Bakhtin, collaborative partners, and published discourse: A collaborative view of
composing. In Janis Forman (Ed.), New visions of collaborative writing (pp. 63-92). Portsmouth,
NH: Boynton/Cook.
 Graham / DISCIPLINARY PRACTICE(S) 277

Toulmin, S. (1972). Human understanding. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Tucker, M. L., Powell, K. S., & Meyer, D. (1995). Qualitative research in business communication:
A review and analysis. Journal of Business Communication, 32, 383-399.
Yates, J. (1985). Graphs as a managerial tool: A case study of Du Pont’s use of graphs in the early
twentieth century. Journal of Business Communication, 22, 5-33.
Yates, J. (1989). Control through communication: The rise of system in American management.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Yates, J. (1993). The opportunity of qualitative research. Journal of Business Communication, 30,
199-200.
Yates, J., & Orilikowki, W. (2002). Genre systems: Structuring interaction through communicative
norms. Journal of Business Communication, 39, 13-35.
Zhao, J. J. (2000). The Chinese approach to international business. Journal of Business
Communication, 37, 209-237.