Survey Critique: “Visual Communication in the Workplace: A Survey of Practice”

Reference

Brumberger, E. (2007). "Visual Communication in the Workplace: A Survey of Practice." Technical Communication Quarterly. Vol. 16 (4). pp. 369-395.

Summary

Brumberger's purpose for this article is to report the findings of an online survey that inquires as to the degree of importance visual communication has for professional writing practitioners in the workplace. To collect this data, Brumberger developed an online survey that asked three types of questions: "typical workplace tasks, the extent and type of visual communication work, and the acquisition of visual communication skills" (373). The survey was sent to the techwr-l listserve. Brumberger calculated that 200 of the 5000 subscribers were most active on the listserve; thus, she used 200 as her sample size. She received 140 surveys, giving the project a 70% return rate. In her findings, Brumberger found that indeed practitioners are actively using visual communication skills in various forms. She found that a majority of participants worked with print documents, but 43% reported working primarily with electronic documents.  (377-378). 78% of the participants said they designed documents (which Brumberger classifies as visual communication) and even when their visual communication specialists respondents still do visual communication tasks. On average, respondents spend one to one and half hours working on visual communication tasks. When asked about decision making responsibilities, 72% of participant reported working on visual design for new projects, but major decisions about company standards and templates were most likely decisions of the managers and visual communication specialists (379-381). Brumberger's study also found that most respondents learned visual communication skills on the job, followed by on-the-job training. Only 2% received formal education and 2% reported learning at seminars and workshops (383-384). Finally, 72% of participant report that visual communication skills are beneficial to their work; however, 75% claimed that visual communication skills would not be beneficial to receiving promotion at their workplace (384-385). Despite the lack of promotion potential, 94% of respondents felt that professional writing curricula should emphasize visual communication. Based on this data, Brumberger emphasizes that visual communication should be a priority and "primary area of study" in the curricula. Furthermore, instruction needs to include theory and practice and give particular attention to "rhetorical decision making regarding the design and layout of print documents" (388). However, she emphasizes that print documentation is still the central focus of professional writing and still needs to "take precedence" in programs' curriculum (388-389).

Critique

The findings of this study are certainly relevant and applicable to the field. There are, however, a few problems with the methodology and reporting of this study. Although Brumberger uses a convenience sample (and admits the limitations of such sample), the sample is problematic. First, although only 200 participants actively post to the listserve does not mean that they were the majority of respondents to this survey. Brumberger emphasizes that she understands the limitations of the survey, but follows this with the assumption that "they reflect a very well-seasoned body of practitioners in traditional technical writing positions" (375). Thus, she treats this sampling as if it were representative of a larger population without having to take into account margin of error or confidence interval measurements. 

The design of the survey was clear and concise for the participants, making sure to define terms when necessary and is accessible to the sample group. Brumberger also emphasizes that she used cross-tabulation analysis as well as regression analysis, t-test, and chi-square tests to "determine the statistical significance of data" (373). Based on the careful evaluation of her work, there is no reason to believe that the analysis of the survey data is flawed. However, the execution of the report is difficult to decipher. At times, Brumberger contradicts herself in reporting findings. This is partly a result of survey questions that ask participants to "check all that apply" which makes it difficult to analyze the percentages that Brumberger uses to describe the data. Furthermore, because she is looking for trends while allowing for variations in circumstance, the data seems disorganized. For instance, when discussing the findings of visual communication skills acquisition, she has two illustrations (a bar graph and pie chart) showing the locations where participant reported learning their visual communication skills. However, they are not differentiated between participants who have been formally educated in professional and technical writing and those who have not. Thus, the illustrations seem inaccurate as she is generalizing the trends for the whole population. These situations make it difficult to understand the data presented.

To Brumberger's credit, she does acknowledge the limitations of the study and provides potential areas of focus for future studies to give more accurate insight into the state of visual communication in the workplace and professional/technical writing academic programs. Thus, the audience can see this report as a starting point for research rather than the conclusion of the research.