What is the value of audience to technical communicators?:
A Survey of Audience Research

Rob Houser
User First Services, Inc.
rob.houser@pobox.com

This paper attempts to answer two questions that are often taken for granted in articles about technical communication: (1) What is audience?, and (2) What is the value of audience to technical communicators? To answer the first question, I trace the historical treatment of audience by rhetoric and technical communication. To answer the second question, I suggest that audience helps communicators learn to be more user-centered, it helps improve design, it helps plan future usability investigations and set usability standards, and it helps build a theory of audience. By surveying what has been said about audience, I hope to identify some new directions for research about audience and technical communication.

Introduction

In the field of technical communication, audience has been classified, analyzed, imagined, interviewed, surveyed, observed, tested, categorized, and even ignored. Audience is the center of our profession. However, since the late 1980s, audience has not been discussed in much detail by technical communicators. Although the value of audience may seem self-evident to experienced technical communicators, we are still asked by our co-workers why audience should be considered during product design, why groups other than sales and marketing need to interact with a real audience, and why technical communicators claim to know so much about audience.

In this paper, I summarize the history of audience as it relates to technical communication and discuss the value of information about audience. For experienced communicators, this survey should serve as a springboard for new research and as a reminder of what we may have internalized over the years. For newer communicators, this survey should provide a historical perspective of how our profession has struggled to understand audience.

What is audience?

Audience refers to the real and the imagined readers (users) who use texts (products) to do something in their own environment. Audience is the real, flesh-and-blood people that we can interview in their workplace and observe doing their jobs. Audience is also the imagined interpreters of our products whose questions we attempt to anticipate when designing; they are the voices in our heads guiding our decisions during the design process. In technical communication, the main trait that our audiences share is that they are trying to do their jobs using our products: completing tasks, learning new skills, making decisions, and fixing problems. The final part of the definition is the rhetorical situation. Audiences interact with products in their own environment, which influences their behavior, their perceptions, and their problem-solving strategies. When we design, we design for, imagine, and collaborate with audience to create usable products.

Our relationship with our audience is constantly changing throughout the design process. At first, our audience may be categories of users based on organizational roles or level of experience. After some field studies, our audience may be particular users we interviewed or observed. When we write, the audience is an imagined user whose voice we hear in our heads as we make design decisions. When we evaluate our designs for usability, our audience is real users who we can observe and interview. Finally, when we start a new project, our audience will include all of our previous experiences with audience – both real and imagined. None of these audiences is "the audience." Instead, all of these audiences come together to create an understanding of audience that is evolving constantly from project to project.

The following graphic was created by Robert Johnson to explain how the four factors – audience/users, writer/designer, task/action, and situation/context – relate to each other in a user-centered design process [Johnson, 59].

In this paper, I use audience and users interchangeably. I use writer, designer, and technical communicator interchangeably as well, which is a reflection of my workplace (and, I hope, yours). I also use texts, documents, and products interchangeably to represent the output of our design efforts (whether a printed manual, an online help system, a web page, or a user interface).

How has rhetoric treated audience?

In order to gain an historical understanding of audience, this section summarizes the major movements in rhetoric and explain how they treated (or ignored) audience [Ede and Lundsford, 1984; Keene and Ostrander, 1985; Coney, 1987; Porter, 1992].

Classical Rhetoric

Audience was an important consideration of classical rhetoric, especially to Aristotle, who identified audience as one of the three elements that created the speech (speaker, subject, and audience). Aristotle wrote that it was "the hearer, that determines the speech’s end and object" [Aristotle, I.2.1358b]. In his Rhetoric, Aristotle classifies audiences and describes the different approaches a speaker should use with each audience. Aristotle was concerned with real people as the audience. Roman rhetoricians such as Cicero and Quintilian examined how different audiences required different stylistic approaches.

New Rhetoric

Audience became de-emphasized as considerations of style and arrangement became more important by rhetoricians such as Peter Ramus (16th century), Hugh Blair (18th century), and George Campbell (19th century). According to new rhetoric, if writers followed the proper form to express an existing truth, then audiences were expected to respond favorably. The 20th century expression of new rhetoric was in the increasing numbers of handbooks to help writers ensure their style and usage was formally correct.

Expressivist Rhetoric

In response to the restrictive, rules-based approach of New Rhetoric, some 20th century rhetoricians such as Peter Elbow, Donald Murray, and E.B. White emphasized that the most important audience for the writer was the self. Following this expressivist approach, if writers discovered their true voice and communicated their ideas clearly, then audiences would be interested in reading what they wrote [Murray, 140; Elbow, 50]. Expressivist rhetoric holds that writing is an art, a means of self-discovery and expression, that is endangered by considerations of audience.

Neo-Classical Rhetoric

Responding to the expressivists, rhetoricians such as Chaim Perelman, I.A. Richards, Wayne Booth, and James Kinneavy returned to the classical roots of Aristotle’s rhetoric where audience (and the rhetorical situation) played an important role in the creation of effective texts. Some of these neo-classical rhetoricians believed in the concept of a universal audience that could be addressed by the writer while others believed readers should be considered as real people. Rhetoricians such as Stanley Fish, Daniel Wilson, and Walter Ong applied knowledge from reader-response criticism to discuss the role of audience in creating meaning, the differences between real readers and imagined readers, and the presence of implied readers in texts.

Other contemporary movements such as poststructuralism and social construction further influenced new rhetoric. Poststructuralism argued against the notion of a universal audience and pointed out the persuasive aspect of all writing, including technical communication. Social construction argued that audience creates meaning in conjunction with the writer as well as other audiences. Rhetoricians such as Michel Focault and Kenneth Burke developed the concept of discourse communities, where audiences, writers, and texts converge to take up a conversation already in progress following the pre-established conventions of that community [Rafoth, 1990]. The social approach to audience emphasized the reader as authority (rather than the writer) and explored the ethical responsibilities of writers to do more than force a message on their readers [Bruffe, 1986; Roth, 1990].

How has technical communication treated audience?

All of these rhetorical theories are significant because they inform the way technical communicators approach audience – whether we see audience as real or imagined, whether we see the writer as communicating a message or the audience and the writer creating a message together, whether we start to create a text with considerations of style or investigations of audience. Technical communicators have synthesized these various approaches to writing and borrowed from other fields to build a new body of theories and practices.

Audience is central to effective design. This statement may sound obvious to many technical communicators. However, the idea that audience somehow plays a significant role in the design process is relatively new to our field [Rude, 1992].

In the 60’s and 70’s, technical communication research focused primarily on issues of classical audience analysis and treatment of style such as identifying audience demographically and ensuring that texts were written clearly to the correct type and level of reader [Mitchell and Taylor, 1979; Pfister and Petrick, 1980]. Audience was grouped organizationally by job function or by level of experience. Writers were told to consider their audience and were given questions to get them to think about audience characteristics. The writer’s job was to adapt the text to the audience.

In the 80’s and 90’s, technical communication borrowed from cognitive psychology and reader response theory to emphasize the use of documents by users to do something. This approach lead to a focus on arrangement (how texts were organized and what signals were provided to visually aid the reader) [Wright, 1983; Sticht, 1985; Rosenbaum and Walters, 1986; Carroll and Rosson, 1987; Redish, 1988; Duin, 1989; Redish, 1993]. Audience was treated as doers and learners. Writers were told to learn about how readers learn, how they do their work, and how they interacted with texts. The writer’s job was to design a text that met the functional needs of the audience.

Also in the 80’s and 90’s, technical communication was influenced by social construction which emphasized the active role of the reader in creating meaning as well as the collaboration between writer and reader. The social approach emphasized situation/context, ethics, and cultural/organizational influences that affect writers and readers and texts [Bazerman, 1983; Harrison, 1987; Simpson, 1989; Bocchi, 1991; Blakeslee, 1993; Selfe and Selfe, 1996]. Social theory was also applied to uses of hypertext to create meaning and collaboration through computers. Audience was treated as collaborators. Writers were told to observe and interact with users in their workplace and to work with them in creating texts. The writer’s job was to design a text with the user while being aware of the organizational and situational influences on the both the writer and the reader.

When we speak of audience, we must consider all of these approaches. Much of the new research is focused on user-centered approaches such as participatory design, ethnographic studies, and usability testing – ways in which writers can observe and interact with users in their own environment. Still, technical communicators often move back and forth through these various approaches to audience.

The following graphic is intended to illustrate how technical communicators move back and forth between imagined (invoked) and real (addressed) audience throughout the development process.

 

Illustration of how designers move between imaginary and real audiences

The purpose of the graphic is not to oversimplify the nature of iterative design or to imply a prescribed number of cycles during a design cycle. I also do not want to suggest that certain methods of usability investigations are applicable only at the beginning or end of the development process. Of course, every design cycle is highly situational and may employ any number of approaches to audience. The point is that communicators must deal with real-life audience members as well as imagined audience throughout the writing/design process.

In her new book, Dynamics in Document Design, Karen Schriver identifies three methods of analyzing audience which writers may employ (and combine) subconsciously: (1) classification-driven, (2) intuition-driven, and (3) feedback-driven [Schriver, 160]. The classification-driven approach attempts to create profiles of audience using questions to get the writer to reflect on the characteristics of the audience and using research to gather demographic data about the audience. The intuition-driven method relies on the fact that the writer’s experience with audience and texts will result in an improved product because the imagined audience in the writer’s head will guide decisions made about the final product. The feedback-driven model incorporates methods for studying real audiences such as usability testing and ethnographic studies to collect information about how an audience interacts with a product.

These terms are helpful when observing how technical communication has treated audience historically. Classification-driven audience analysis was the first to be introduced to technical communication through questions we could ask about our audience in order to define them. Intuition-driven may be the least discussed approach in our field; however, its treatment of the imagined audience by the writer and the implied writer in the text provides a fresh way to analyze audience [Goodwin, 1991; Simpson, 1989]. Feedback-driven audience analysis is focused on observing the real user in the act of solving problems [Dieli, 265; Hix, 125; Schoff, 17]. Through observing user behavior, we can make more informed design decisions to improve our products being tested.

To extend my previous illustration of the development cycle, I would like to add Schriver’s three approaches to audience to the graphic.

Illustration of how the three approaches to audience interact

Although Schriver does not make this claim, I believe that classification-driven methods may still be the way we begin many design cycles, especially with products where we know little about or have restricted access to audience. These more traditional methods allow us to start a project by stating our assumptions about audience, which may identify usability investigations needed to continue the project. Through feedback-driven methods, we can test and refine our assumptions about audience as well as our product. When we create, we often employ intuition-driven methods of audience analysis as we respond to and interact with the invoked audience that drives our design decisions. Feedback-driven and intuition-driven methods work together to develop our understanding of audience and guide our design decisions; they also enhance the classification-driven methods that we may use again when starting the next project.

What is the value of information about audience?

Information about audience can help technical communicators (and others) learn to be more user-centered, it can actually improve design, it can be used to plan future usability investigations and to set usability standards, and it can help build more significant theories of audience.

Learning to be more user-centered

Without exposure to audience, we cannot design effective, user-centered products. "You cannot fully understand what people are doing or why they are doing it unless you can see – and perhaps experience – the interrelated conditions in which these people work or use the products in question" [Raven and Flanders, 2]. Seeing and experiencing the context of the users’ workplace is important to creating user-centered designs [Roen, 1988; Bodker, 1989; Johnson, 1990]. Through analyzing information about audience, we can gain valuable insights into their problems, preferences, and situations that can later influence our design decisions.

User-centered design is not an issue only for technical communication. Other professions are striving to become more user-centered as well. "Systems engineering, architecture, usability research, and computer documentation, to name a few, are all areas of study which have, to one degree or another, adopted the terminology of user-centered philosophy in order to come to grips with the problem of how to design for users’ needs" [Johnson, 55]. Only through observations of users, feedback from users, and knowledge of users’ situations can these other professions move towards user-centered design [Norman, 1988; Shneiderman, 1992; Nielsen, 1993].

We all need frequent contact with users and their environments if we are to remain focused on their needs and concerns.

Improving Design

We already have plenty of evidence that observations of audience through methods such as usability testing can lead to improvements in a specific product design. Evidence also indicates that observations of audience may also improve future designs.

Research by Karen Schriver has shown that students exposed to observations of real readers interacting with texts show an increased sensitivity to audience. In Schriver’s study, she compared students’ abilities to identify problem areas in a text. She found that students taught using traditional audience analysis techniques did not diagnose textual problems as well as students taught using Protocol-aided Audience Modeling (PAM). The PAM approach had students read written transcripts of talk-aloud protocols to learn the type of questions and problems readers have when reading texts. These writers were: "Better able to diagnose problems from the reader’s point of view. More sensitive to problems caused by visual and verbal omissions. Increasingly aware of problems at the global level of the document." [Schriver, 490].

The impact of the PAM approach is encouraging. Schriver explains that some students "said that they cannot read their draft texts anymore without hearing ‘readers in their heads’ saying, ‘I’m confused! What do you mean by that?’" [Schriver, 204]. Because the students had some knowledge of how real users interact with texts, they were able to hear those readers, now imagined, in their heads when they wrote. Also important is Schriver’s finding that "knowledge of audience acquired in one domain (instructional texts) transferred to another (expository science text)" [Schriver, 179]. This means that designers can benefit from observations of audience, even if it is not their specific audience.

By building our experience through observations of user behavior, even users in other domains, we can become better designers.

Planning Future Usability Investigations and Setting Usability Standards

Information about audience can be invaluable when planning future usability investigations [Dumas and Redish, 120; Rubin, 120; Rosenbaum, 135]. Through an analysis of existing information about audience, test planners can refine their test questions, test their assumptions, and create more accurate user profiles. If the existing body of information about users is not available to new test planners, then they must start their investigation without considering the work that was done before them.

Usability information also helps develop and refine usability standards. When we have access to historical information about the usability of our products, we can better identify trends and set more realistic goals for development. We can begin to define usability standards that might encompass all of our products. Ideally, such information could even be shared across companies to define industry-wide standards of usability [Skelton, 1992].

Effective usability evaluations require that we consider data from previous tests when forming new tests or usability standards.

Building Theories of Audience

In her work with user protocols, Patricia Sullivan points out that information about audience gathered from user protocols not only helps to make decisions about the design of the product being tested but also contributes to long-term theory building. "An understanding of users is something we build, over a period of time, with thought, and with effort" [Sullivan, 262]. If we fail to capture the rich information about audience from methods such as user protocols in a distributable, re-usable format, we cannot study it, which means we sacrifice the long-term benefits of our investment in the costs of usability investigations.

Many technical communicators and human factors engineers have shared the results of their usability tests and other forms of audience investigations with the hopes of identifying guidelines for improving design. Although sharing these results is helpful, the data from the tests are rarely shared. Instead, the experts form guidelines about what users want/need and expect us to accept them at face value. Technical communicators need access to the larger pool of data about users so they can become experts in audience as well as guidelines. They need to hear/read the users’ questions for themselves to make the guidelines real. They need to struggle with analyzing the data themselves because it is the very act of exploring and analyzing the data that leads to insights about audience.

Johnson says that technical communication needs qualitative data about audience before we can formulate principles through more quantitative tests. "By using the findings of usability research to build strategies for documentation writers, we gain knowledge about users and put this toward the practical purpose of giving documentation writers strategies for developing more usable documents" [Johnson, 208]. We should view this effort to develop guidelines as an ongoing process, not as isolated activities where new guidelines ignore data about audience that was previously gathered.

Technical communicators need access to usability information to build and test their own theories of audience.

Conclusion

In sum, audience means:

All of these seemingly contradictory ideas make up the concept of audience.

Literature in technical communication adequately answers the question "how do we learn more about audience;" however, it leaves several other questions unanswered. What is our responsibility to audience? What is our relationship to audience? How does our interaction with audience move between the real and imagined audience? Is there a universal approach to audience that moves beyond document design? If so, what should we do with information gathered about audience?

References

Bazerman, Charles. (1983) "Scientific Writing as a Social Act: A Review of the Literature of the Sociology of Science." In New Essays in Technical and Scientific Communication: Research, Theory, Practice. Paul V. Anderson, R. John Brockmann, and Carolyn R. Miller (Eds.). Farmingdale: Baywood Publishing Company.

Blakeslee, A.M. (1993) "Readers and authors: Fictionalized constructs or dynamic collaborations?" Technical Communication Quarterly, 2, 23-35.

Bocchi, J.S. (1991) "Forming constructs of audience: Convention, conflict, and conversation." Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 5, 151-172.

Bodker, Susanne. (1989) "A Human Activity Approach to User Interfaces." Human Computer Interaction, 4, 171-95.

Bruffe, Kenneth A. (1986) "Social Construction, Language, and the Authority of Knowledge: A Bibliographical Essay." College English. Vol. 48 (8), 773-790.

Carroll, J.M. and M.B. Rosson. (1987) "The paradox of the active user." In Interfacing thought: Cognitive aspects of human-computer interaction. J.M. Carroll (Ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 80-111.

Coney, Mary B. (1987) "Contemporary Views of Audience: A Rhetorical Perspective." Technical Writing Teacher. Vol 14 (3), 319-336.

Dieli, Mary. (1988) "A Problem-Solving Approach to Usability Testing." IPCC 1988 Proceedings. 265-267.

Duin, A.H. (1989) "Factors that influence how readers learn from text: Guidelines for structuring technical documents." Technical Communication. 36, 97-101.

Dumas, Joseph S. and Janice C. Redish. (1993) A Practical Guide to Usability Testing. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Ede, Lisa and Andrea Lundsford. (1984) "Audience Addressed/Audience Invoked: The Role of Audience in Composition Theory and Pedagogy." College Composition and Communication. 35 (May 1984), 155-71.

Elbow, Peter. (1987) "Closing My Eyes as I Speak: An Argument for Ignoring Audience." College English. 49 (Jan. 1987), 50-69.

Flower, Linda, and J.R. Hayes. (1980). "The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem." College of Composition and Communication. 31, 21-32.

Goodwin, David. (1991) "Employing the Reader: Motivation and Technical Documentation." Journal of Technical Writing and Communication. 21, 99-115.

Harrison, Teresa M. (1987) "Frameworks for the Study of Writing in Organizational Contexts." Written Communication. Vol. 4(1), 3-23.

Hix, Deborah. (1993) Developing User Interfaces: Ensuring Usability Through Product and Process. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Johnson, Robert R. (1990) "User-Centeredness, Situatedness, and Designing the Media of Computer Documentation." SIGDOC 1990 Proceedings. 55-61.

Johnson, Robert R. (1994) "The Unfortunate Human Factor: A Selective History of Human Factors for Technical Communicators." Technical Communication Quarterly 3(2), 195-212.

Keene, M.L. and Marilyn Barnes-Ostrander. (1985) "Audience analysis and adaptation." Research in Technical Communication: A Bibliographic Sourcebook. Michael G. Moran and Debra Journet (Eds.). Westport, CT: Greenwood. 163-91

Mitchell, R. and M. Taylor. (1979). "The integrating perspective: An audience-response model for writing." College English, 41, 247-271.

Murray, Donald M. "Teaching the Other Self: The Writer’s First Reader." College Composition and Communication, Vol. 33, No. 2, 140-147.

Nielson, Jakob. (1993) The Usability Engineering Lifecycle. Boston: AP Professional.

Norman, Donald A. (1988). The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Doubleday Currency.

Pfister, F.R. and J.F. Petrik (1980). "A heuristic model for creating a writer’s audience." College Composition and Communication, 31, 213-220.

Porter, James E. (1992). Audience and Rhetoric: An Archaeological Composition of the Discourse Community. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Rafoth, B.A. (1990) "The Concept of Discourse Community: Descriptive and Explanatory Adequacy." A Sense of Audience in Written Communication. Gesa Kirsch and Duane H. Roen (Eds.). Newbury Park: Sage. 140-151.

Raven, M.E. and A. Flanders. (1996) "Using contextual inquiry to learn about your audiences." Journal of Computer Documentation. 20, 1-13.

Redish, J.C. (1993) "Understanding Readers." Techniques for Technical Communicators. Carol M. Barnum and Saul Carliner (Eds.). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. 15-41.

Redish, J.C. (1988) "Reading to learn to do." Technical Writing Teacher. 15, 223-233.

Roen, D.H. and R.J. Willey. (1988) "The effects of audience awareness on drafting and revising." Research in the Teaching of English. 22, 75-88.

Rosenbaum, Stephanie and R. Dennis Walters. (1986) "Audience Diversity: A Major Challenge in Computer Documentation." IEEE Transactions of Professional Communication. Vol. PC 29, No. 4, 48-55.

Roth, Robert G. (1990) "Deconstructing Audience: A Post-Structuralist Rereading." A Sense of Audience in Written Communication. Gesa Kirsch and Duane H. Roen (Eds). Newbury Park: Sage. 175-187.

Rubin, D.L. and B.A. Rafoth. (1986) "Social cognitive ability as a predictor of the quality of expository and persuasive writing among college freshmen." Research in the Teaching of English. 20, 9-21.

Rude, Carolyn. (1992) "Changing Concepts of Audience in the Academy." IPCC 1992 Proceedings. RT2.1/86-90.

Schoff, Gretchen H. and Patricia A. Robinson. Writing and Designing Manuals: Operator Manuals, Service Manuals, Manuals for International Markets. 2nd edition. Chelsa, Michigan: Lewis Publishers.

Schriver, Karen A. (1997) Dynamics in Document Design. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Schriver, Karen A. (1992) "Teaching Writers to Anticipate Readers’ Needs: A Classroom-Evaluated Pedagogy." Written Communication. Vol. 9, No. 2, 179-208.

Selfe, Cynthia L. and Richard J. Selfe, Jr. (1996) "Writing as Democratic Social Action in a Technological World: Politicizing and Inhabiting Virtual Landscapes." Nonacademic writing: Social theory and technology. A.H. Duin and C.J. Hansen (Eds.). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 325-358.

Shneiderman, Ben. (1992) Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction. 2nd Edition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

Simpson, Mark. (1989) "Users Invoked: How Documents Help Readers Assume User Roles." SIGDOC ’89 Proceedings. 85-92.

Skelton, T.M. (1992) "Testing the Usability of Usability Testing." Technical Communication. 39 (3), 343- 359.

Sticht, T. (1985) "Understanding Readers and Their Uses of Texts." Designing Usable Texts. T.M. Duffy and R.H. W. Waller (Eds.). New York: Academic Press. 315-340

Sullivan, Patricia. (1988) "User Protocols: Tools for Building an Understanding of Users." IPCC 1998 Proceedings. 259-263.

Wright, Patricia. (1983) "Manual Dexterity: A User-oriented Approach to Creating Computer Documentation." CHI ‘83 Proceedings.