Oh yeah! Blogs are public.

Clay Spinuzzi responded to my blog post about using him as my role model. I'm simultaneously embarrassed and thrilled. He very nicely gave me advice about how everything's productive--even failures. You can read and benefit from his wisdom here. It's excellent advice, and I should probably post to his blog and thank him. Maybe I could even offer to buy him a cup of coffee (although that would involve crossing the river.) My conscious mind knows that what he says is true, but fear isn't rational. Becky never said a truer thing when she pointed out that we all fear being exposed as the charlatans we are. I feel better that so many of us are in the self-doubt boat together, but it's not like the crowd is encouraging me to jump out and swim. So while I'm definitely going to take Spinuzzi's advice to heart, I'm still sticking with the mantra to deal with the irrational part of my brain--be more like Spinuzzi--be more like Spinuzzi.

Reading List for Kendall Kelly
* denote items I had read when I submitted my reading list to my committee

Technical Communication

*Aristotle. “From Rhetoric” The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present. Eds. Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001. 179-242.

Bitzer, Lloyd. “The Rhetorical Situation.” Contemporary Rhetorical Theory: A Reader. Eds. John Lucas Lucaites, Celeste Michelle Condit, and Sally Caudill. New York: Guilford Press, 1999. 217-231.

*Blakeslee, A. M., & Spilka, R. (2004)The state of research in technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 13, 73-92.

*Charland, Maurice. “Constitutive rhetoric : the case of the peuple Québćois .” In T. Benson (Ed.) Landmark essays on rhetorical criticism (208-232). Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press, 1993.

*Doheny-Farina, S. (1991). Creating a text/creating a company: The role of a text in the rise and decline of a new organization. In C. Bazerman, & J. Paradis (Eds.), Textual dynamics of the professions: Historical and contemporary studies of writing in professional communities (pp. 306-335). Madison: U of Wisconsin P.

*Dombrowski, P. M. (2000). Ethics in technical communication. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

*Dragga, S. (1997) A question of ethics: Lessons from technical communicators on the job. Technical Communication Quarterly, 6, 161-178.

*Farrell, K., & Young, M. (2005). The situational perspective. In J. Kuypers (Ed.), The art of rhetorical criticism (pp. 33-55). Boston, MA: Pearson.

*Foucault, M. (1988). The ethic of care for the self as a practice of freedom: An interview translated by J.D. Gauthier. In J. Bernauer, & D. Rasmussen (Eds.), The final Foucault (pp. 1-20). Cambridge, MA: MIT.

*Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish : The birth of the prison (1st American ed.). New York: Pantheon Books.

*Foucault, M. R., Paul. (1984). The Foucault reader (1st ed.). New York: Pantheon Books.

*Foucault, Michel. “From The Order of Discourse.” In P. Bizzell and B. Herzberg (Eds.) The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present (1460-1470) New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001.

*Gross, A. G., & Walzer, A. (1997). The challenger disaster and the revival of rhetoric in organizational life. Argumentation, 11(1), 85-93.

*Herndl, C., Fennell, B., & Miller, C. R. (1991). Understanding failures in organization discourse: The accident at Three Mile Island and the shuttle challenger disaster. In C. Bazerman, & J. Paradis (Eds.), Textual dynamics of the professions: Historical and contemporary studies of writing in professional communities (pp. 279-305). Madison: U of Wisconsin P.

*Horton, William. (1997). Secrets of user-seductive documents. Arlington, VA: Society for Technical Communications.

*Johnson-Eilola, J. (1996). Relocating the value of work: Technical communication in a post-modern economy. Technical Communication Quarterly, 5(3), 245.

*Katz, S. B. (1992). The ethic of expediency: Classical rhetoric, technology, and the holocaust. College English, 54(3), 255-275.

*Koerber, A. (2006). Rhetorical agency, resistance, and the disciplinary rhetorics of breastfeeding. Technical Communication Quarterly, 15(1), 87-101.

*Kynell, T. (1999). Technical communication from 1850-1950: Where have we been? Technical Communication Quarterly, 8(2), 143.

*Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.

*Lyotard, J. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge (G. Bennington, B. Massumi Trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
*Miller, C. R. (1979). A humanistic rationale for technical writing. College English, 40(6), 610-617.

*Mirel, B. and R. Spilka. (2002). Reshaping technical communication : New directions and challenges for the 21st century. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

*Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and literacy : The technologizing of the word. New York: Methuen.

*Paradis, J. (1991). Text and action: The operator's manual in context and in court
textual dynamics of the professions: Historical and contemporary studies of writing in professional communities. In J. Paradis, & C. Bazerman (Eds.), Textual dynamics of the professions: Historical and contemporary studies of writing in professional communities (pp. 256-278). Madison, WI: U of Wisconsin.

*Randall, N. and I. Pedersen. “Who exactly is trying to help us? The ethos of help systems in popular computer applications.” ACM SIGDOC Sixteenth Annual International Conference on Computer Documentation, Proceedings, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada, September 23-26, 1998. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 1998. 63-69.

*Sauer, B. J. (2002). The rhetoric of risk : Technical documentation in hazardous environments. Mahwah, N.J: L. Erlbaum Associates.

*Selzer, J. (2004). Rhetorical analysis: Understanding how texts persuade readers. In C. Bazerman, & P. Prior (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it (pp. 279-308). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

*Slack, J., Miller, D. J., & Doak, J. (1993). The technical communicator as author: Meaning, power, authority. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 7, 12-36.

Slack, J. (2003). The Technical communication as author? A Critical postscript. In G. Savage & T. Kynell-Hunt (Eds.) Power and legitimacy in technical communication (pp. 193-208.) Amityville, NY: Baywood.

*Staples, K. (1999). Technical communication from 1950-1998: Where are we now? Technical Communication Quarterly, 8(2), 153.

*Steehouder, M.; Loorbach, N. “How can we make user instructions motivational?” 2004 International Professional Communication Conference Proceedings, Minneapolis, MN September 29-October 1, 2004. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, 2004. 101-8.

*Steehouder, M. “Author and Reader in Instructions for Use” 1997 International Professional Communication Conference Proceedings, Salt Lake City, UT October 22-25, 1997. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, 1997. 77-90.

*Walters, N.J.and C.E. Beck. (1992) A discourse analysis of software documentation: implications for the profession. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communications 35 (3), 156-67.

*Wheelan, C. (2003). Naked economics : Undressing the dismal science. New York: W. W. Norton.

*Winsor, D. (1988). Communication failures contributing to the challenger accident: An example for technical communicators. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 31(3), 101-107.

*Winsor, D. (2000). Ordering work. Written Communication, 17 (2), 155-185.



Intercultural Communication and Globalization


*Andrews, D. C. (2007). Intercultural communication: A contextual approach. Technical Communication, 54(3), 376-377.

Andrews, D., & Starke-Meyerring, D. (2005). Making connections: An intercultural virtual team project in professional communication. 2005 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference, IPCC 2005, 26-31.

Arasaratnam, L. (2007). Empirical research in intercultural communication competence. Australian Journal of Communication, 34(1), 105-117.

Baoming, L., & Zhongming, W. (2006). Cross-cultural communication among Chinese-Canadian business in Canada. 2006 IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology, 151-153.

Bardhan, N. (2003). Rupturing public relations metanarratives: The example of india. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15, 225-248.

Beamer, L., & Varner, I. (2008). Intercultural communication in the global workplace (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

L. Beamer, Directness in Chinese Business Correspondence of the Nineteenth Century, Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 17:2, pp. 201-232, 2003.

Campbell, C. (1998). Beyond Language: Predisposition in Business Correspondence. Presentation at Region 5 STC. February 20, 1998. Fort Worth ,Texas. http://infohost.nmt.edu/~cpc/internationalethos.html

Carbaugh, D. (2007). Cultural discourse analysis: Communication practices and intercultural encounters. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 36(3), 167-182.

*Constantinides, H. (2001). Organizational and intercultural communication: An annotated bibliography. Technical Communication Quarterly, 10(1), 31-58.

Davies, Paul (2004). What's this India business? offshoring, outsourcing, and the global services revolution. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

*Dragga, S. (1999). Ethical intercultural technical communication: Looking through the lens of Confucian ethics. Technical Communication Quarterly, 8(4), 365-381.

Du-Babcock, B. (2007). Language-based communication zones and professional genre competence in business and organizational communication: A cross-cultural case approach. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 17(1), 149-171.

*Evia, C. (2008). The changing face of technical communication in the global outsourcing economy. In C. Evia, & B. Thatcher (Eds.), Outsourcing technical communication (pp. 1-7). Amityville, NY: Baywood.

Farrell, D., & McKinsey Global Institute. (2006). Offshoring : Understanding the emerging global labor market. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press.
Fougère, M., & Moulettes, A. (2007).

The construction of the modern west and the backward rest: Studying the discourse of Hofstede's culture's consequences. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 2(1), 1-19.

*Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat : A brief history of the twenty-first century (1st ed.). New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Ganesh, S. (2007). Outsourcing as symptomatic: Class visibility and ethnic scapegoating in the US IT sector. Journal of Communication Management, 11(1), 71-83.

*Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures; selected essays. New York: Basic Books.

Ghemawat, P. (2007). Managing differences: The central challenge of global strategy. Harvard Business Review, 85(3), 58-68.

*Gibson, K. (2008). Outsourcing technical communication: The policy behind the practice. In C. Evia, & B. Thatcher (Eds.), Outsourcing technical communication (pp. 185-201). Amityville, NY: Baywood.

Goby, V. P. (2007). Business communication needs: A multicultural perspective. Journal of Business & Technical Communication, 21(4), 425-437.

Greene, W., & United States International Trade Commission. (2006). Growth in services outsourcing to India propellant or drain on the U.S. economy?http://purl.access.gpo.gov.libproxy.txstate.edu/GPO/LPS71225; http://purl.access.gpo.gov.libproxy.txstate.edu/GPO/LPS71225

*Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture (1st ed.). Garden City, N.Y: Anchor Press.

*Hofstede, Geert H. Hofstede,Gert Jan. (2005). Cultures and organizations : Software of the mind (Rev. and expanded 2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

*Honold, P. (1999). Learning how to use a cellular phone: Comparison between German and Chinese users. Technical Communication, 46(2), 196-205.

Hunter, M. G., & Beck, J. E. (2000). Using repertory grids to conduct cross-cultural information systems research. Information Systems Research, 11, 93-101.

Inoue, Y. (2007). Cultural fluency as a guide to effective intercultural communication: The case of Japan and the U.S. [electronic version] Journal of Intercultural Communication, (15), 4.

Jameson, D. A. (2007). Reconceptualizing cultural identity and its role in intercultural business communication. Journal of Business Communication, 44(3), 199-235.

*Jameson, F. M., Masao. (1998). The cultures of globalization. Durham: Duke University Press.

Jiazu Gu. (2008). Theorizing about intercultural communication: Dynamic semiotic and memetic approaches to intercultural communication (A commentary). China Media Research, 4(2), 86-88.

Kehal, H. S., & Singh, V. P. (2006). Outsourcing and offshoring in the 21st century : A socio-economic perspective. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Pub.

Kiesling, S. F., & Paulston, C. B. (2005). Intercultural discourse and communication : The essential readings. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.

*Kim, H., Hearn, G., Hatcher, C., & Weber, I. (1999). Online communication between Australians and Koreans: Learning to manage differences that matter. World Communication, 28(4), 48-68.

Kim, M., & Hubbard, A. S. E. (2007). Intercultural communication in the global village: How to understand "the other". Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 36(3), 223-235.

*Kim, Y. Y. (2007). Ideology, identity, and intercultural communication: An analysis of differing academic conceptions of cultural identity. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 36(3), 237-253.

Kobayashi-Hillary, M. (2004). Outsourcing to India : The offshore advantage. Berlin ; New York: Springer.

Kramer, T., Spolter-Weisfeld, S., & Thakkar, M. (2007). The effect of cultural orientation on consumer responses to personalization. Marketing Science, 26(2), 246-258.

Kronenfeld, D. (2008). Cultural models. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(1), 67-74.

Ladegaard, H. J. (2007). Global culture - myth or reality? perceptions of "national cultures" in a global corporation. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 36(2), 139-163.

Levine, T. R., Park, H. S., & Kim, R. K. (2007). Some conceptual and theoretical challenges for cross-cultural communication research in the 21st century. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 36(3), 205-221.

Littlefield, R. S., McRoberts, D. A., Novak, J. M., & Spiering, K. L. (2007). Visualising the other. Journal of International Communication, 13(2), 31-50.

Loane, S., Bell, J., & McNaughton, R. (2006). Employing information communication technologies to enhance qualitative international marketing enquiry. International Marketing Review, 23, 438-455.

Lustig, M. W., & Koester, J. (2003). Intercultural competence : Interpersonal communication across cultures (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Mann, R. (2006). Reflexivity and researching national identity. [Electronic version] Sociological Research Online, 11 (4), 20.

Manning, P. (2007). A world of others' words: Cross-cultural perspectives on intertextuality. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 17(2), 301-303.

*Melton, J. (2008). Language, culture, and collaboration in offshore outsourcing: A case study of international training team communication competencies. In C. Evia, & B. Thatcher (Eds.), Outsourcing technical communication (pp. 123-145). Amityville, NY: Baywood.

Mosco, V. (2005). Here today, outsourced tomorrow: Knowledge workers in the global economy. Javnost: The Public, 12, 39-55.

Narayan, S. (2007). Off work: Bangalore. ForbesLife, , 48.

*Natarajan, P., & Pandit, M. (2008). Technical communication and IT outsourcing in India--past, present, and future. In C. Evia, & B. Thatcher (Eds.), Outsourcing technical communication (pp. 11-30-11-30). Amityville, NY: Baywood.
Oetzel, J., Dhar, S., & Kirschbaum, K. (2007). Intercultural conflict from a multilevel perspective: Trends, possibilities, and future directions. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 36(3), 183-204.

Okabe, R. (2007). The concept of rhetorical competence and sensitivity revisited: From western and eastern perspectives. China Media Research, 3(4), 74-81.

O'Regan, J. P., & MacDonald, M. N. (2007). Cultural relativism and the discourse of intercultural communication: Aporias of praxis in the intercultural public sphere. Language & Intercultural Communication, 7(4), 267-278.

Padmanabhan, P. (2007). Technical communication outsourcing: The twelve driver framework. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 50(2), 109-120.
Prahalad, C. K. (2005, Jun 8). The art of outsourcing. Wall Street Journal, pp. A.14.
Qingwen Dong, Day, K. D., & Collaço, C. M. (2008). Overcoming ethnocentrism through developing intercultural communication sensitivity and multiculturalism. Human Communication, 11(1), 27-38.

Samovar, L. A., Porter, R. E., & McDaniel, E. R. (2006). Intercultural communication : A reader (11th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.

Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (1995). Intercultural communication : A discourse approach. Oxford, UK ; Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.

Sigrid Norris. (2007). The micropolitics of personal national and ethnicity identity. Discourse & Society, 18(5), 653-674.

*Singh, N., & Boughton, P. D. (2005). Measuring website globalization: A cross-sectional country and industry level analysis. Journal of Website Promotion, 1(3), 3-20.

*Sriussadaporn, R. (2006). Managing international business communication problems at work: A pilot study in foreign companies in Thailand. Cross Cultural Management, 13(4), 330-344.

*St. Amant, K. (2002). Commentary: When cultures and computers collide: Rethinking computer-mediated communication according to international and intercultural communication expectations. Journal of Business & Technical Communication, 16, 196-214.

*St. Amant, K. (2008). The privacy problem related to international outsourcing: A perspective for technical communicators. In C. Evia, & B. Thatcher (Eds.), Outsourcing technical communication (pp. 147-184). Amityville, NY: Baywood.

*St. Amant, K. R. (2003). Designing web sites for international audiences. Intercom, 50(5), 15.

*St. Amant, K. (1999). When culture and rhetoric contrast: Examining English as the international language of technical communication. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 42(4), 297-300.

*St. Amant, K. S. (2001). Cultures, computers, and communication: Evaluating models of international online production. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 44(4), 291-295.

*St. Amant, K. S. (2003). Making contact in international virtual offices: An application of symbolic interactionism to online workplace discourse. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 46(3), 236-240.

*St. Amant, K. S. (2005). A prototype theory approach to international image design. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48(2), 219-222.

*Amant, K. S. (2005). A prototype theory approach to international web site analysis and design. Technical Communication Quarterly, 14(1), 73-91.

*Sun, H. (2004). Expanding the scope of localization: A cultural usability perspective on mobile text messaging use in American and Chinese contexts. (Ph.D., Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute).

Sunaoshi, Y. (2005). Historical context and intercultural communication: Interactions between Japanese and American factory workers in the American south. Language in Society, 34(2), 185-217.

*Thatcher, B. Intercultural rhetoric, technology transfer, and writing in U.S.–Mexico border maquilas. Technical Communication Quarterly, 15, 385-405.

*Thatcher, B. L. (2000). Writing policies and procedures in a U.S./South American context. Technical Communication Quarterly, 9(4), 365-399.

*Thatcher, B., & Garza-Almanza, V. (2008). Approaching outsourcing in rhetoric and professional communication: Lessons from U.S.-owned maquilas in mexico. In C. Evia, & B. Thatcher (Eds.), Outsourcing technical communication (pp. 87-105). Amityville, NY: Baywood.

*Tomlinson, J. (1999). Globalization and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Trompenaars, A. (1994). Riding the waves of culture : Understanding diversity in global business. Burr Ridge, Ill: Irwin Professional Pub.

Voss, D., & Flammia, M. (2007). Ethical and intercultural challenges for technical communicators and managers in a shrinking global marketplace. Technical Communication, 54(1), 72-78.

Wang, J. (2008). Toward a critical perspective of culture: Contrast or compare rhetorics. Journal of Technical Writing & Communication, 38(2), 133-148.

*Wang, J. & Baake, K. (2006). Offshoring and serving the needs of Indian technical communicators with online technical communication programs: A feasibility study. Technical Communication, 53(4), 427-438.

*Warren, T. L. (2004). Increasing user acceptance of technical information in cross-cultural communication. Journal of Technical Writing & Communication, 34(4), 249-264.
Winkler, J. K., Dibbern, J., & Heinzl, A. (2008). The impact of cultural differences in offshore outsourcing--case study results from German-Indian application development projects. Information Systems Frontiers, 10(2), 243.


Call Centers

Alferoff, C., & Knights, D. (2008). Customer relationship management in call centers: The uneasy process of re(form)ing the subject through the ‘people-by-numbers’ approach. Information and Organization, 18(1), 29-50.

*Ali, S. (2006, Oct 30). Leadership (A special report); if you want to scream, press...: Do call centers have to be so infuriating? Wall Street Journal, pp. R.4.

*Bailor, C. (2005). 5 elements to consider after you've outsourced. Customer Relationship Management, 9(7), 24-29.

Baker, C. D., Emmison, M., & Firth, A. (2005). Calling for help : Language and social interaction in telephone helplines. Amsterdam ; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co.

Baxi, P. (2006). Globalizing identity? voices of call center workers from Gurgaon, India . Unpublished master’s thesis, California State University, East Bay, Hayward, CA.

Bharadwaj, N., & Roggeveen, A. L. (2008). The impact of offshored and outsourced call service centers on customer appraisals. Marketing Letters, 19(1), 13-23.

Budhwar, P. S., Varma, A., Singh, V., & Dhar, R. (2006). HRM systems of Indian call centres: An exploratory study. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(5), 881-897.

*D'Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2007). Technical call centres: Beyond 'electronic sweatshops' and 'assembly lines in the head'. Global Business Review, 8(1), 53-67.

*D'Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2006). Being professional: Organizational control in Indian Call Centers. Social Science Computer Review, 24 (3), 342-361.

Edward, L. U. C. E. (2004, Sep 27). Call centres ring the changes INDIA: Edward Luce analyses the runaway success of an industry and looks at its problems. Financial Times, pp. 4.

*Fleischer, J. (2006). It's NOT the COST it's the PRODUCTIVITY. Call Center Magazine, 19(4), 12-14.

Ganesh, S. (2007). Outsourcing as symptomatic: Class visibility and ethnic scapegoating in the US IT sector. Journal of Communication Management, 11(1), 71-83.

Giere, N. M., & American Society for Training and Development. (2000). Call center training. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training & Development.

Hymowitz, C. (2006, Feb 27). Everyone likes to laud serving the customer; doing it is the problem. Wall Street Journal, pp. B.1.

*Kurtz, R. (2004). The problem: Angry customers. language issues. phone static. maybe outsourcing the help desk wasn't such a great idea after all. Inc, 26(7), 48-49.
London, S., Merchant, K., & Skapinker, M. (2002, Oct 7). Trying to keep the customer happy: CALL CENTRES PART II: Quality of service is a core strategy in Salt Lake City and Bombay, report Khozem merchant, Simon London: Financial Times, pp. 10.

Lyon, D. (1993) An electronic panopticon? A sociological critique of surveillance theory. Sociological Review, 41 (4), 652-678.

Mahesh, V. S., & Kasturi, A. (2006). Improving call centre agent performance: A UK-India study based on the agents' point of view. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 17(2), 136-157.

*Marquez, J. (2006). Union cites high stress at call centers in India. Workforce Management, 85(21), 14.

*McLuhan, R. (March 18, 2004). Calling India. Marketing, 23-25.

*Pal, M., & Buzzanell, P. (2008). The Indian call center experience: A case study in changing courses of identity, identification, and career in a global context. Journal of Business Communication, 45(1), 31-60.

Perez, K. (2005). 1-800-(re)colonize : A feminist postcolonial and performance analysis of call center agents in India performing U.S. cultural identity
Poster, W. R. (2007). Who's on the line? Indian call center agents pose as Americans for U.S.-outsourced firms. Industrial Relations, 46(2), 271-304.

*Sandberg, J. (2007, Feb 20). 'It says press any key; where's the any key?'; India's call-center workers get pounded, pampered. Wall Street Journal, pp. B.1.

*Shastri, R. (2004). The economics of Indian call center models. Customer Inter@ction Solutions, 23(5), 58-60.

Tabordon, N., Université catholique de Louvain, & Faculté des Sciences Économiques, Sociales et Politiques. (2002). Modeling and optimizing the management of operator training in a call center. Louvain-la-Neuve: CIACO.

*Taylor, P., & Bain, P. (1999). `An assembly line in the head': Work and employee relations in the call centre. Industrial Relations Journal, 30(2), 101-117.

*Taylor, P., & Bain, P. (2005). India calling to the far away towns’: the call centre labour process and globalization. Work, Employment, Society, 19(2), 261-282.

*Tehrani, R. (2006). Keeping up with the call center. Customer Inter@ction Solutions, 24(11), 14-16.


Linguistics and Genre

*Austin,J L . (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

*Baake, K. (2003). Archaeology reports: When context becomes an active agent in the rhetorical process. Technical Communication Quarterly, 12(4), 389-403.

*Barton, E. (2004). Linguistic discourse analysis: How the language in texts works. In C. Bazerman, & P. Prior (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it (pp. 57-82). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

*Bazerman, C. (2004). Intertextuality: How texts rely on other texts. In C. Bazerman, & P. Prior (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it (pp. 83-96). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

*Bazerman, Charles. Speech Acts, Genres, and Activity Systems: How Texts Organize Activity People. In C. Bazerman, & P. Prior (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it (pp. 309-339). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

*Benoit, W. (2005). Generic rhetorical criticism. In J. Kuypers (Ed.), The art of rhetorical criticism (pp. 85-106). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Berkenkotter, C. & Huckin, T. (1995). Genre knowledge in Disciplinary Communication, Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

*Bitzer, Lloyd. The Rhetorical Situation. Contemporary Rhetorical Theory: A Reader (217-231) Eds. John Lucas Lucaites, Celeste Michelle Condit, and Sally Caudill. New York: Guilford Press, 1999.

Black, E. (1978). Rhetorical criticism : A study in method. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

*Black, Edwin. The Second Persona. In T. Benson (Ed.) Landmark essays on rhetorical criticism (161-172). Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press, 1993.

Buell, M. (2004). Code-switching and second language writing: How multiple codes are combined in a text. In C. Bazerman, & P. Prior (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it (pp. 97-122). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

*Burns, A., & Coffin, C. (2001). Analysing English in a global context : A reader. London: Routledge in association with Macquarie University and the Open University.
Burroughs, N. F. (2008). Raising the question #10 non-native speakers of English: What more can we do? Communication Education, 57(2), 289-295.

Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric : Cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing. Cambridge England ; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Connor, U. (2002). New Directions in Contrastive Rhetoric. TESOL, 36(4), 493-510.

Covarrubias, P. (2007). (Un)biased in western theory: Generative silence in American Indian communication. Communication Monographs, 74(2), 265-271.

Dalmau, M. S. i., & Gotor, H. C. i. (2007). From “Sorry very much” to “I'm ever so sorry”: Acquisitional patterns in L2 apologies by Catalan learners of English. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(2), 287-315.

Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2005). ‘‘Yes, tell me please, what time is the midday flight from athens arriving?’’: Telephone service encounters and politeness. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2(3), 253-273.

*Farkas, D. (1998). The logical and rhetorical construction of procedural discourse. Technical Communication, 46 (1), 42-54.

Fetzer, A. (2007). Non-acceptances in context. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(4), 493-520.

Forey, G. (2004). Workplace texts: Do they mean the same for teachers and business people? English for Specific Purposes, 23(4), 447-469.

*Forey, G., & Lockwood, J. (2007). “I’d love to put someone in jail for this”: An initial investigation of english in the business processing outsourcing (BPO) industry. English for Specific Purposes, 26(3), 308-326.

*Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic : The social interpretation of language and meaning. Baltimore: University Park Press.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

Jackendoff, R. (2007). Conceptual semantics and natural semantic metalanguage theory have different goals. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(3), 411-418.

Leander, K., & Prior, P. (2004). Speaking and writing: How talk and text interact in situated practices. In C. Bazerman, & P. Prior (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it (pp. 201-238). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Liu, J. (2008). The generic and rhetorical structures of expositions in English by Chinese ethnic minorities: A perspective from intracultural contrastive rhetoric. Language & Intercultural Communication, 8(1), 2-20.

*Luzon, M. (2005). Genre Analysis in Technical Communication. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48(3), 285-295.

*Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151-167.
*Miller, C. R. (1993). Signs, genres, and communities in technical communication. RSQ: Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 23(2), 63-65.

Rude, C. D. (2004). Toward an expanded concept of rhetorical delivery: The Uses of reports in public policy debates, TCQ, 13 (3), 271-288.

*Rude, C. D. (1995). The report for decision making. Journal of Business & Technical Communication, 9(2), 170-206.

Panetta, C. G. (2001). Contrastive rhetoric revisited and redefined. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Pennycock, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics : A critical introduction. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum.

Searle, J. R. (1970). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. London: Cambridge U.P.

*Spinuzzi, C., & Zachry, M. (2000). Genre ecologies: An open-system approach to understanding and constructing documentation. ACM Journal of Computer Documentation, 24(3), 169-181.

*Spinuzzi, C. (2003). Tracing genres through organizations : A sociocultural approach to information design. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis : English in academic and research settings. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Swales, J. (2000). LANGUAGES FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 59-76.

Methodology

Bazerman, C. (2008). Handbook of research on writing: history, society, school, individual text. New York: Erlbaum.

Begley, C. M. (1996). Triangulation of communication skills in qualitative research instruments. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 24, 688-693.

Beyer, H. H., Karen. (1998). Contextual design : Defining customer-centered systems. San Francisco, Calif: Morgan Kaufmann.

Black, E. (1978). Rhetorical criticism : A study in method. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Blakeslee, A. & Fleischer, C. (2007). Becoming a writing researcher. New York: Erlbaum.

*Carliner, S. (2006). Introduction: Current challenges of research in information design and document design. In S. Carliner, J. P. Verckens & C. de Wael (Eds.), Information and document design: Varieties on recent research (pp. 1-24).
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.

*Charney, D. (1996). Empiricism is not a four-letter word. College Composition and Communication, 47(4), 567-593.

Corring, D. J., & Cook, J. V. (2007). Use of qualitative methods to explore the quality-of-life construct from a consumer perspective. Psychiatric Services, 58, 240-244.

*Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design : Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications.

Cheryl Geisler, Charles Bazerman, Stephen Doheny-Farina, Laura Gurak, et al. IText: (2001). Future directions for research on the relationship between information technology and writing, Technical Communication Quarterly 15 (3), 269-309.

Goering, P. N., & Streiner, D. L. (1996). Reconcilable differences: The marriage of qualitative and quantitative methods. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry-Revue Canadienne De Psychiatrie, 41, 491-497.

Hayhoe, G. & Hughes, M. (2008). A Research primer for technical communication: methods, exemplars, and analyses. New York: Erlbaum.

Holtzblatt, K. B., Hugh. (1996). Contextual design : Understanding work. Harvard, MA: InContext Enterprises Inc.

Huckin, T. (2004). Content analysis: What texts talk about. In C. Bazerman, & P. Prior (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it (pp. 13-32). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hunter, M. G., & Beck, J. E. (2000). Using repertory grids to conduct cross-cultural information systems research. Information Systems Research, 11, 93-101.

*MacNealy, M. S. (1999). Strategies for empirical research in writing. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Mullings, B. (1999). Insider or outsider, both or neither: Some dilemmas of interviewing in a cross-cultural setting. Geoforum, 30, 337-350.

Myers, M. D. (1997). Qualitative research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 21, 241-242.

Neale, H., & Nichols, S. (2001). Theme-based content analysis: A flexible method for virtual environment evaluation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 55, 167-189.

Ramanathan, V. (2005). Some impossibilities around researcher location: Tensions around divergent audiences, languages, social stratifications. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 4(4), 293-297.

Sandelowski, M. (2000). Combining qualitative and quantitative sampling, data collection, and analysis techniques in mixed-method studies. Research in Nursing & Health, 23, 246-255.

*Schnieders, G. (2006). Between customer and computer: Discursive effects of the use of computers in telephone complaints. In S. Carliner, J. P. Verckens & C. de Wael (Eds.), Information and document design: Varieties on recent research (pp. 231-250-231-250). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.

Sofaer, S. (1999). Qualitative methods: What are they and why use them? Health Services Research, 34, 1101-1118.

*Spilka, R. (1993). The value of a flexible, cautionary approach to data gathering in qualitative research. Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication, 56, 40-41.

*Sullivan, Patricia Porter,James E. (1997). Opening spaces : Writing technologies and critical research practices. Greenwich, Conn: Ablex Pub. Corp.

Sullivan, M. L. (1998). Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods in the study of developmental psychopathology in context. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 377-393.

Thatcher, B. (2001). Issues of validity in intercultural professional communication research. Journal of Business & Technical Communication, 15, 458-489.

Thomas, G. F. (2007). How can we make our research more relevant? Journal of Business Communication, 44(3), 283-296.

Ting-Toomey, S. (2007). Researching intercultural conflict competence. Journal of International Communication, 13 (2), pp. 7-30.

White, M. D., & Marsh, E. E. (2006). Content analysis: A flexible methodology. Library Trends, 55, 22-45.

Winsor, D. A., & Spilka, R. (1993). What makes good qualitative research? analyses of four excellent qualitative studies. Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication, 56 (3), 39-41.

Extreme lethargy

Be more like Spinuzzi--it's my new mantra. Right now I'm suffering from a combination of lethary and paralyzing fear. I need to start on what's hopefully my final dissertation proposal, but it's not actually due until December 15th. In the mean time, I've got a bunch of papers to grade, a proposal to submit, and--the thing that's really driving me crazy--fake a research journal for my ARG for freshman English. For some reason, I'm having a hard time faking a research journal. It really scares me. I think it's creative, and it needs to be long enough, and I can't get my hands on the original materials the guy used to write the article. Maybe I'll just outline the article and that will get me started and then I'll ease into faking the journal. Regardless, my new mantra is be more like Spinuzzi. This guy puts out so much stuff there's no way he could be slowed down by self doubt, anxiety etc. so everytime I get so anxious I want to throw up or eat an entire pint of ice cream, I'll just chant--be more like Spinuzzi--be more like Spinuzzi. It might get me out of the funk. It's worth a shot anyway.

Kendall

Dissertation proposal

Here's my preliminary dissertation proposal. It was accepted as a preliminary proposal, but with the caveat that it would require more work to be my final dissertation proposal to be filed with the college.

Cultural Factors that Influence Intercultural Telephone Calls:
An Analysis of Indian Call Centers

In the customer service blog created by a large computer seller (referred to as Byron Computers in this document) to improve customer service, one customer pleads

Before reading this blog and finding out that you are working on the problem, I had decided on AB[B]-- anything but -- this despite the fact that all of your products have given me excellent service. I just couldn't face the prospect of dealing with technical help. I find the outsourcing unbearable. The people are nice enough, and I think that they are trying hard. However, when I can't understand them and they seem to be reading from some script that dictates that they say my name repeatedly while trying to placate me with politeness (ordinarily something I treasure), I want to pull my hair out-- slowly, one by one.... Make me want to buy another [Byron], please! (Weinberger 2006).

Another customer asks more succinctly, “Does this mean you’ll be moving your call centers back to a native-English speaking country?” (Waters 2006). The general tone of the blog intended to deal with customer support is rife with complaints about Indian call center workers. And these customers aren’t the only ones that have noticed the Indian call centers. Numerous industry publications have identified the frustration many consumers have with Indian call centers (Bailor 2005), (Sandberg 2007), (Fleischer 2005), (Ali 2006). Clearly Byron hasn’t been entirely successful at outsourcing their support operations to India.

Byron hires primarily well-educated, native or fluent English speakers (India has 40 million native English speakers, and more English fluent English speakers than the U.S. (Natarajan and Pandit 2008).) and trains them on both their products and American accents, yet customers still complain that they can’t understand call center workers. Although undoubtedly difficulties understanding accents and vocabulary may create communication problems, the extent of communication problems that occurs cannot be explained by accents and vocabulary issues alone (Forey and Lockwood 2007), (Kim 1999,) (Warren 2004). Rather, cultural differences interfere with the communication between these call center workers and their customers to the degree that the consumers believe that they are speaking with non-native English speakers. Furthermore, these communication difficulties have created a consumer bias so that some consumers believe that their communication with the call center is unsatisfactory before it even begins, if the call center worker has a foreign accent. Both Ali (2006) and Sandberg (2007) describe call center situations in which consumers insisted on speaking with Americans. Clearly, the cultural differences between Indian call center workers and the U.S. customers they serve are compromising call center workers’ ability to provide the technical information that consumers need. This situation raises the question: what are the cultural differences that interfere with telephone communication between Indian call center workers and their U.S. clients?


Call Centers and Technical Communication

At first glance, call centers don’t fit traditional definitions of technical communication. One associates technical communication with broadcast forms of media. In the past, technical communication dealt primarily with print media, but since the Internet became public, technical communication has expanded to electronic media, because electronic media provides a myriad of advantages for both consumers and manufacturers. For example, electronic media allows manufacturers to update documentation during a product’s life cycle, not between product iterations, while saving overhead costs associated with shipping and printing. For consumers, electronic media allows them to read documentation before they purchase the product and to access lost documentation as well as receive updates to documentation. Electronic documentation provides advantages for both consumers and manufacturers.

Consequently, the media for technical communication shifted from print to electronic media, and technical communicators shifted with it. Similarly technical communication is shifting to synchronous, individualized forms of communication. While real-time synchronous technologies such as the telephone allow manufacturers to offer consumers both immediate assistance as well as assistance tailored to their individual need, in the past, relying heavily on synchronous media to deliver technical information to their consumers was cost prohibitive both because synchronous technology like telephones were too expensive to use, and because labor costs were too high. Consumers were frequently required to pay a fee for such synchronous help or, at least, were required to wait in long telephone queues. As the operations costs of technologies such as the telephone declined and new technologies like instant message arose, they allowed both access for consumers as well as labor arbitrage to operate them. These technologies have become both more ubiquitous but more complicated, and the need for synchronous technical communication tailored to the individual need of the consumer increased. In other words, technological advances simultaneously allowed manufacturers to provide a superior level of service to their customers, while creating a need for this superior level of service. And just as technical communication expanded to include electronic as well as print media, it must also expand to include synchronous media as well.

And yet, while synchronous, the media of the call center call is not free from text. Call center workers are trained extensively using the texts developed by technical communicators. Furthermore, these workers rely on scripts and decision trees also written by technical communicators. Finally much of their job as call center workers is reading the electronic documentation to consumers. So, in part, an analysis of call center calls is really an examination of how the same information a consumer can find in the electronic formerly print documentation is reframed and repackaged in a different media—a task that Johnson-Eilola (2004) identifies as the core of technical communication .

Technical communicators have traditionally been advocates for the audience/consumer during the production and delivery of products and services. In fact, technical communicators are frequently the only advocates for the audience/consumer. In the twenty first century, producers use media and staff to communicate with their customers in ways not imagined by technical communicators at the beginning of technical-communication professionalization at the beginning of the twentieth century. When early engineers began writing documentation to assist the consumers of their products, print was the most efficient way to communication with consumers (Kynell 1999). Now a variety of print and electronic, synchronous and asynchronous media is available to the twenty-first century technical communicator. Technical communicators have a variety of technology they may use to convey information to consumers and decisions about the best media to use are rhetorical and practical. To continue the traditional role of technical communicators as consumer advocates in the global and technologically-enriched twenty first century, technical communicators must expand their field of inquiry to include all communication between consumers and providers regardless of media, format, culture, or geography. While this research will certainly benefit companies that seek to provide services at lower cost by international outsourcing, also known as offshoring, its primary goal is to continue the role of technical communicator as consumer advocate in the twenty first century.

Pitfalls for Call Center Communication

So, technical communicators should understand that communication processes they had managed via print in the twentieth century are not moving to just electronic media, but real-time media as well. And while the media and format have changed, the lessons technical communicators have learned about communicating with consumers should still apply to these new formats and media. A cursory examination of literature in technical communication reveals that first, communication tends to break down when trying to communicate across fields. Secondly communication fails when trying to convey bad news (Winsor 1988, Sauer 2003, Herndl et.al. 1991).

If a technician tells a consumer that the solution to fixing his or her laptop or desktop is to reformat the hard drive, a time consuming and difficult process that usually results in the loss of some data, he or she is not going to be inclined to reject such advice and be dissatisfied with the results of their technical support call.

These lessons serve to illustrate that communication failures generally do not come from routine failures of grammar and syntax. Rather communication failures result from the complex nature of communication that relies not only on the words themselves but the context that those words reside in.

Cultural Context

And all words reside in their cultural context. In fact, some researchers would say that the words are part of the blocks that build the culture. Tomlinson (1999) defines culture essentially as communication i.e the signs and symbols we use to communicate. Hofstede (1991) explains that culture is the internal programming—the software if you will—that we use to interpret the world around us. Geertz (1973) has a more complex and ultimately I believe a more useful definition of culture. He explains culture is not language, signs, symbols, habits, practices, and ritual, but rather the matrix of meaning we build around such things. For example, to imply that mere knowledge of the name of the professional football team that plays in Dallas, TX is to understand the culture of people living in Dallas is to reduce culture meaninglessly to its individual pieces. It’s to equate dots of paint on canvas to the Mona Lisa.

The society we live in trains us to both create and interpret the meanings of these cultural signs. In his book Discipline and Punish Foucault (1977) discusses the ways in which institutions apply almost covert pressure to conform by watching and correcting. Society’s panoptic eye functions to apply subtle pressure to its members to adopt particular communication expectations and strategies. Consequently, these cultural differences create conflicting communication methods that make intercultural communication difficult (Sriussapadorn 2006) (Walker 2003) (Ulijn and Campbell 2001).


Yet many Indian call centers have focused on the trivialities that Geertz dismisses as the signs to interpret not the interpretation itself. A quick walk down the cube farm in an Indian call center reveals long lists of the professional sports teams in all the major cities in the United States. Clearly, companies understand that cultural factors are inhibiting communication, but they don’t know how to train their workers to account for these cultural factors. And, if culture is understanding everything from football to food, it seems unlikely that Byron Computers or any other company can successfully fill in the culture gaps. However, Indian call center workers and the consumers they serve do have a common culture—that of Byron Computers and the telephone, and that’s the common culture that call center workers can develop and trade on to bridge the communication culture gap.


Methodology

Until recently most technical communicators relied upon the work of Hall (1976) and Hofstede (1991) to explain the intercultural dissonance between call center staff and their intercultural clients. First, I’d like to briefly explain their systems, why they no longer apply to many technical communication texts, and how we might find new methodologies to improve intercultural technical communication. In the past, most technical communication has been via broadcast media initially print and now electronic media. However, the improvement of broadband technologies and globalization have created opportunities for companies to provide more targeted, frequently individualized, often real-time synchronous modes for technical communication. Unfortunately, such targeted communications are more difficult because participants may not have the characteristics of the larger cultural group they belong to and communicators using many of these new, or at least improved, broadband technologies don’t have the benefit of visual feedback and, in e-mail and IM, not even aural feedback. So, these new technologies have allowed manufacturers to provide consumers with technical information in more personalized and timely methods, but these methods require them to understand the consumers they serve. This understanding becomes even more difficult when provider and consumer are from different cultures.

In his book, Beyond Culture, Hall (1976) explains his theory of high context and low context communication. As the name implies, high context communication relies on the context of the conversation—the previous relationship of the speakers, shared knowledge etc.--to derive meaning. Countries typically associated with high context communication styles are China, Japan, and India. However, if the wife and the husband live in a low context country such as the United States, the wife might find that she will have better luck achieving her desires if she overtly describes what she would like. Using this model, low context countries like the U.S., Australia, and Germany may have difficulties communicating with high-context countries like India, China, and Japan, but people from low context countries find it easier to communicate with people from other low context countries and vice versa.

In Software of the Mind, Hofstede (1991) also describes several factors that might interfere with communication. For example, he defines collectivist and individualist countries. In collectivist countries—most countries—members of a group—familial or corporate—strive to have the group succeed and to maintain harmony within the group. Individualist countries value the achievements of the individual and conflict isn’t exactly valued, but is acceptable if it is perceived as being honest and goal-oriented. Consequently, communication with collectivist countries can be difficult if one isn’t perceived as being a member of the group, while membership in an exclusionary group can even have negative connotations in an individualist society; other factors such as mutual benefit etc. are generally inducements for communication in individualist countries. However, once one has gained membership into the group, one tends to continue to belong to the group regardless of outside circumstances. In individualist societies, ones relationship with others can frequently depend on the continuation of mutually beneficial circumstances.

While the theories of Hall and Hofstede shed light on intercultural communication in the aggregate—appropriate for broadcast media—they do not apply in more specialized circumstances. Hofstede (1991) cautions against making levels of analysis mistakes by assuming that individuals within a country have the characteristics of that country. Within a country many people may deviate from the norm. It’s quite possible to encounter an individualist within a collectivist society and vice versa. Furthermore, collectivist groups might exist within an individualist society such as the Mafia within the United States. However, as a group, people tend to act according to the characteristics of their country and the institutions within that country tend to support those characteristics.

Using these factors to predict and analyze intercultural communication can be quite seductive because they are well-developed theories that are easy to apply. When planning for a particular intercultural encounter, one can simply look up the countries involved and plan accordingly. Likewise it’s easy to use these factors as a kind of terministic screen to explain communication behaviors between cultures. However, recent technical communication researchers have pointed to problems with these models. Hunsinger (2006) claims that heuristic approaches like Hall’s and Hofstede’s presuppose that culture is a universal thing that grounds cultural identity. Consequently, the “construction and mobilization of cultural identity during discursive exchange tends to be neglected” (37). Hunsinger (2006) offers political, economic, and historical factors as possible influences on communication. Although he alludes to ways in which these extracultural factors might influence communication, he doesn’t provide concrete examples. Rather he explains how the experiences of one expatriate, Chinese acquaintance of his is influenced by different cultural characteristics that he refers to as scapes as in technoscapes, mediascapes etc.

However, I can imagine a more applicable situation in which this view of intercultural communication might inform an internationally outsourced call center function. For example, the United States might bring pressure to bear on India to give up their claim to Kashmir in exchange for Pakistan’s cooperation in the “global war on terror.” Such an occurrence might not predispose Indians kindly towards Americans in telephone exchanges. In his article Hunsinger (2006) is not denying Hofstede’s and Hall’s analysis of culture, but rather pointing out how other factors may and probably will confound communication, because cultural identity is an ongoing and dynamic discursive act. If, as Hunsinger has asserted, culture is separate from cultural identity and, furthermore, constructed during the communication act, how do researchers identify the factors that interfere with cross-cultural communication in any meaningful, generalizable way? Rather than applying a different set of cultural factors to consider when examining cross-cultural interactions, I believe the solution resides in developing techniques for examining typical intercultural situations.

In her dissertation, Hannah Sun (2004) offers both a critique of these theorists and research to illustrate and prove her claim. She examined the use of text messaging among U.S. and Chinese young adults. She demonstrated how the use of this technology deviates from the behavior that would be predicted by Hofstede as well as Honold’s (1999) research. Because China is a collectivist country, Chinese young adults should learn to use new technology by talking to their friends etc. However, she discovered that this new generation of Chinese technology users preferred to use documentation in part because they were unwilling to wait for an opportunity to talk to their friends about the technology. They wanted to use it immediately. Similarly she noted that they tended to use Pinyin—a version of Chinese translated into a western alphabet—to use text messaging rather than the ideograph software available in part because it was difficult to learn. She postulated that subgroups deviated significantly from the norms established by Hall and Hofstede and that analysis of these subgroups was necessary to inform technical communication.

Additionally Sriussapadorn (2006) also rejects the heuristic analysis of intercultural communication and claims that data-driven studies between particular subgroups in particular contexts are the only way to describe, understand, and ultimately improve such exchanges.

Sun (2004) and Sriussapadorn (2006) both suggest methods for understanding intercultural communication quite differently than Hunsinger (2006). Hunsinger (2006), although I’m sure he would disagree, suggests replacing the heuristics of Hall, Hofstede, and others with more transient and immediately present factors in the lives of communicators. Communicators use these factors to construct their discursive cultural identity and that by understanding these factors that contribute to transient and constructed cultural identities we can elucidate communication difficulties that might arise during intercultural communication. Hannah Sun’s research suggests and Sriussapadorn’s research states that research should inform an evidence-based approach to intercultural technical communication that investigates a particular communication exchange between subgroups and identifies intercultural communication difficulties in a particular context. While the work of Hunsinger (2006), Sun (2004), and Sriussapadorn (2006) all critique the heuristics of the past and suggest methodologies for describing intercultural communication in the future, none of them suggest research methodologies likely to yield the predictive models that could result in better training and ultimately communication for intercultural call centers.

However, in their 2007 article about an intercultural call center in the Phillipines that serviced the insurance industry, Forey and Lockwood (2007) relied on a systemic functional linguistic approach to analyze calls. By focusing on the generic nature of calls, they were able to classify types of miscommunication that allowed them to develop training for call center workers. They did this by both identifying the stages of call center calls as well as identifying characteristics of register that created problems. They broke these problems into phonological/lexical choices, clause—interpersonal choices, and discourse choices.

Based on their research, I propose to use systemic functional linguistics to analyze call center calls as well, because they’ve identified two culturally dependent factors, register and genre, that create meaning during the call center telephone call. Furthermore, they’ve developed vocabulary and systems to analyze register and genre. Genre is a staged-goal oriented social process (Martin 2000, 161) (Painter 2000, 167). Register accounts for the context of a conversation and is divided into field (involving the interaction of people with their world), mode (the medium of communication), and tenor. Martin contends that, “You have to use enough signals of register and genre to ensure that your listener can see where you are coming from. Otherwise, you will simply not be fully understood” (Martin 2001, 162). Genre and register are two of the cultural factors that interfere with intercultural communication. By recognizing the ways in which people from a particular culture manipulate register and genre to build meaning, we can train others to recognize genre and register in order to completely understand people from those cultures, as well as, communicate successfully with them.

So, for my study, I propose analyzing intercultural, call center calls just as Forey and Lockwood (2007) did. Unlike Forey and Lockwood, I’ll analyze information technology calls to Indian call centers not insurance calls to call centers in the Philippines and try to describe which uses of genre and register are successful and unsuccessful. I’ll use characteristics of success as defined by Byron Computers such as customer satisfaction, time, repeated calls on the same issue, and amount of products shipped out.

Before analyzing the calls, I propose analyzing two other types of communication that elucidate the call center call. First, I would like to analyze the customer service blogs from Byron Corporation in an effort to understand the problems as perceived by Byron’s customers. To analyze these blogs, I’ll use discourse analysis and categorize the types of complaints that customers have i.e. complaints about adherence to a script, complaints about accent etc. I’ll probably quantify such complaints even though the self-selection of the blog participants would render any quantitative analysis suspect. (It’s possible I lack the imagination to see how quantitative analysis could apply in this situation.)

After analyzing the blogs, I’ll analyze training materials for Indian call center workers to begin to understand why call center workers might respond to customers as they do. Are they following their training, or spontaneously responding to the caller? Just as with the blogs, I’ll use discourse analysis to categorize items of interest. Interesting items within training will be texts specifically identified in the blogs as offensive such as scripts. For items such as scripts or decisions trees, I will analyze them to determine if they attempt to train call center workers to use rhetorical techniques to build ethos and to identify those rhetorical techniques. I also plan to analyze the entirety of both training sets to establish the degree of overlap.

Finally, I’ll analyze the call center telephone calls (from now on referred to as just calls) using systemic functional linguistics. First I’ll perform a pilot in which I’ll transcribe 3-5 calls looking at both genre and register. For genre, I’ll establish the stages of the call center call genre and what the expectations within the genre and then I’ll compare that analysis to the Indian call center calls. For register, I’ll look at grammar, word choice, and discourse style. Grammar will consider things like verb tense. Do callers use present tense or progressive present tense? For example, “I understand you.” vs. “I am understanding you.” Additionally I’ll consider appropriate word choice such as I am very sorry to hear about your husband’s death instead of I apologize for the death of your husband. Finally I’ll consider discourse styles. Do call center workers rearticulate the issue from the caller in a more circular discourse style, or do they state a solution or at least the next step in the procedure as quickly as possible? I’ll use the pilot to articulate these categories more clearly and then analyze an additional twenty calls from each call center. Although 20 calls may appear to be a small data set, Forey and Lockwood (2007) analyzed only 13 calls in their data set, so I believe a small pilot plus an additional 50 calls should be sufficient to identify some problems. Obviously, a larger data set would be desirable, but the time required to transcribe and analyze the calls makes a larger data set untenable.

For the time being, I imagine the organization of my dissertation to be information driven i.e. I’ll organize the dissertation by gathering together similar types of information. However, I realize that as the dissertation develops such an arrangement might not be the most beneficial. Currently I envision the outline of my dissertation as follows:
Chapter 1 Introduction: background, statement of problem and research question, brief overview of methodology and dissertation.
Chapter 2 Literature review
Chapter 3 Methodology: description of how I will apply the methodology as well as an argument for why the methods I’ve chosen are reliable and valid
Chapter 4 Blog analysis: description of the how I collected data from the blogs, the results, and an analysis of the data
Chapter 5 Training material analysis: a description of how I collected data from the training materials, what the data was, and an analysis of the data
Chapter 6 Indian Call Center Calls: a description of how I analyzed the calls, the data this analysis rendered, an analysis of the data, and a description of the parameters of a successful call.
Chapter 7: Conclusion: a discussion of my findings


Tentative schedule

August 2008 Take qualifying exams
Fall 2008 Collect data
Spring 2009 Analyze data and collect any additional data
Summer 2009 Draft dissertation
Fall 2009 Revise dissertation
Spring 2010 Defend dissertation
May 2010 Graduate!!!!!

I’ll revisit and possibly revise this schedule on June 30, 2008.

Ali, S. (2006, Oct 30). Leadership (A Special Report); If You Want to Scream, Press...: Do call centers have to be so infuriating? Wall Street Journal, pp. R.4.
Bailor, C. (2005, July) Five elements to consider after you’ve outsourced. Customer Relationship Management, 24-30.
Fleischer, J. (2005, April) It’s not the cost; it’s the productivity. Call Center Magazine, 12-15.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures; selected essays. New York: Basic Books.
Hall, E.T. (1976) Beyond Culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic : The social interpretation of language and meaning. Baltimore: University Park Press.
Herndl, G., Fennell, B., Miller, C. (1991) “Understanding Failures in Organizational Discourse.” Eds. Bazerman, C. and Paradis, J. Textual Dynamics of the Professions. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press: 279-305.
Hofstede, Geert H. Hofstede,Gert Jan. (2005). Cultures and organizations : software of the mind (Rev. and expanded 2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Honold, P. (1999). Learning How to Use a Cellular Phone: Comparison Between German and Chinese Users. Technical Communication, 46(2), 196-210.
Hunsinger, R. (2006) “Culture and Cultural Identity in Intercultural Technical Communication.” Technical Communicaiton Quarterly. 15 (1), 31-48.

Johnson-Eilola, J. (2004). “Relocating the Value of Work: Technical Communication in a Post-Industrial Age.” In J. Johnson-Eilola and S. Selber (Eds.) Central Works in Technical Communication (pp. 175-192). New York: Oxford UP (reprinted from Technical communication quarterly, 5, 245-70).
Kim, H., Hearn, G., Hatcher, C., & Weber, I. (1999). Online communication between australians and koreans: Learning to manage differences that matter. World Communication, 28(4), 48-68.
Kynell, T. (1999). Technical communication from 1850-1950: Where have we been? Technical Communication Quarterly, 8(2), 143-154.

Locker, K.O. (2000) Business and Administrative Communication (international edition), Boston, MA: Irwin McGraw-Hill.

Martin. J.R. (2000) “Language, Register, and Genre.” In Burns, A. ed. Analysing English in a global context: A Reader. (pp. 149-166) Florence, KY: Routledge.

Miller, Carolyn. (1984) “Genre as Social Action.” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70 151-167.

Painter, C. (2000) “Understanding genre and register: Implications for language teaching.” In Burns, A. ed. Analysing English in a global context: A Reader. (pp. 168-193) Florence, KY: Routledge.
Sandberg, J. (2007, Feb 20). 'It Says Press Any Key; Where's the Any Key?'; India's Call-Center Workers Get Pounded, Pampered. Wall Street Journal, pp. B.1.
Sauer, B. J. (2002). The rhetoric of risk : technical documentation in hazardous environments. Mahwah, N.J: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Schneiders, Guido. (2006) Between customer and computer: Discursive effects of the use of computers in telephone complaints. In S. Carliner, J. Piet Verckens, and C. de Waele (Eds.) Information and Document Design (pp. 231-250). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sriussadaporn, R. (2006) “Managing international business communication problems at work: a pilot study in foreign companies in Thailand.” Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal. 13 (4): 330-344.

Sun, H. (2004). Expanding the scope of localization: A cultural usability perspective on mobile text messaging use in American and Chinese contexts. (Ph.D., Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute).

Tomlinson, J. (1999). Globalization and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Walker, D., Walker, T. and Schmitz, J. (2003) Doing Business Internationally. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Warren, T. L. (2004). Increasing user acceptance of technical information in cross-cultural communication. Journal of Technical Writing & Communication, 34(4), 249-264.
Waters, Matthew. (2002, July 13). Re: No magic wand for customer service. Direct2Dell. http://direct2dell.com/one2one/archive/2006/07/13/433 .aspx#comments (April 23, 2007).
Weinberger, E. (2006, July 13). Re: No magic wand for customer service. Direct2Dell. http://direct2dell.com/one2one/archive/2006/07/13/433.aspx #comments (April 23, 2007).
Winsor, D. (1988) Communication Failures Contributing to the Challenger Accident: An Example for Technical Communicators," IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 31.1: 101-07.

Really funny Onion Article

Everyone with a theory about the Cowboys, check out this great satire.

Jessica Simpson Completes Plan

Kendall

1320 Class Blogs