White Papers

Article

Rhetorical Move Structure in High-Tech Marketing White Papers

Kim Sydow Campbell 1

and Jefrey S. Naidoo 1

Abstract White papers are commonly produced by for-profit organizations to market high-tech products and services and are often created by technical writers. But writers of this genre have little evidence-based research to guide them. To fill this void, the authors tested a rhetorical move structure with a sample of 20 top-rated marketing white papers and found that, despite the lack of industry standards for white papers, those written for marketing purposes display similar rhetorical moves: introducing the busi- ness problem, occupying the business solution niche, prompting action, establishing credibility, and providing disclaimers or legal considerations. Based on the results of this study, the authors advance guidelines for writers of this genre and suggest areas for future research.

Keywords empirical qualitative research, genre, linguistic theory and professional com- munication, marketing communication, pedagogy

1 Culverhouse College of Commerce, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA

Corresponding Author:

Kim Sydow Campbell, Department of Technical Communication, University of North Texas,

1155 Union Cir, Denton, TX 76203, USA.

E-mail: [email protected]

Journal of Business and Technical Communication

2017, Vol. 31(1) 94-118 ª The Author(s) 2016

Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1050651916667532 jbtc.sagepub.com

White papers are commonly used documents within corporate contexts. Ziff

Davis Enterprise, an information technology (IT) publisher, reported in

2010 that white papers were used by 84% of commercial IT buyers, who read more than three of them per month on average (Pisello, 2010).

Recently, the Content Marketing Institute (2016) surveyed individuals from

more than 3,700 organizations in North America, representing a range of

sizes and industries, and found that 71% of them used white papers as a marketing tactic. And the IEEE Spectrum (2015) Web site, which hosts

industry-produced white papers, has claimed that 79% of registered visitors make purchasing decisions for their company.

White papers have rarely been mentioned within business and technical

communication although Willerton (2007) found that 85% of the technical writers he surveyed agreed on the need to be familiar with them. McNair

and Paretti (2010) noted that engineering students were collaborating to

create white papers. Further, during her investigations of disciplinary gen-

res, Mackiewicz (2012) found that white papers were important for support-

ing a disciplinary writing program for business students. Finally, Willerton

(2012) outlined a white paper writing assignment for business communica-

tion students.

Unfortunately, McPherson (2010) found that ‘‘significant gaps do exist

between academic representation of the white paper and the workplace

artifact’’ (p. 1). Little research is available that would provide evidence-

based guidance for writers of the genre. We believe that if consultants and

educators had a deeper understanding of white papers, they could better aid

professionals and prepare students, many of whom will be asked to write

such documents by their employers. Toward that end, we first describe the

context within which white papers are produced and then discuss the avail-

able guidance for writers of marketing white papers. Next, we explain our

approach to studying the genre, describe our methodology for investigating

rhetorical structure in high-tech marketing white papers, and present the

results of that investigation. Finally, we offer five guidelines for writers of

this genre and suggestions for future research.

Reading and Writing White Papers

Our search uncovered little research specifically focused on white papers. We

located only three peer-reviewed articles (Willerton, 2007, 2008, 2012), one

dissertation (McPherson, 2010), and one report from an industry expert

(Stelzner, 2007a). In general, these sources agree that white papers represent

an important interaction between organizational actors within the technology

Campbell and Naidoo 95

marketplace. As one industry expert says, ‘‘Any B2B vendor selling anything

relatively new, relatively complex or relatively costly could likely benefit

from a white paper’’ (G. Graham, n.d.). Thus, the quality of a white paper is

commonly measured via the value of sales leads it generates for the sponsor-

ing organization (Stelzner, 2007a; Willerton, 2007).

Industry sources overwhelmingly connect white papers with marketing.

The report from the Content Marketing Institute (2016) shows that North

American companies use several genres for business-to-business (B2B)

marketing more often than they use white papers:

� 93% used social media (other than blogs) � 82% used case studies � 81% used blogs � 81% used eNewsletters � 81% used in-person events � 79% used articles on corporate Web sites � 79% used videos � 76% used illustrations/photos � 71% used white papers

But in an industry report specific to B2B technology companies (Regalix,

2015) in which marketing genres are broken down by product life cycle,

white papers are listed among the top five genres used to present mature

technology products to potential buyers (see Figure 1).

Unfortunately, definitive answers to the most fundamental questions

about the purpose of documents labeled as white papers are unclear (Will-

erton, 2007). For instance, in her analysis of hundreds of white papers,

McPherson found that the documents were produced by a variety of orga-

nizations and that in addition to marketing technology products and ser-

vices, they functioned as

� guides to working within regulations or standards � reports on progress or the state of affairs on a topic or issue � projections about the future of a field or a research agenda with

recommendations

� statements of an organization’s position on an issue

McPherson classified white papers based on her assessment of their audi-

ence (business and finance, education and training, government and policy,

etc.) rather than purpose. She settled on the quality of nonroutine as the white

paper’s ‘‘essentially defining feature’’ (McPherson, 2010, p. 160).

96 Journal of Business and Technical Communication 31(1)

Although they talk exclusively about high-tech marketing white papers,

the leading industry experts still provide somewhat different classifications

of the documents’ purposes. Stelzner (2007b) divided them into two basic

classes: business benefits and technical. G. Graham (n.d.), on the other

hand, classified them into three types:

1. Backgrounder white papers describe the technical features and ben-

efits of a product or service.

2. Numbered-list white papers provide a light and lively roundup of

highlights about some issue.

Figure 1. Percentage of business-to-business companies using different genres for high-tech marketing by product life cycle (Regalix, 2015).

Campbell and Naidoo 97

3. Problem/solution white papers recommend a new, improved solu-

tion for a nagging business or technical problem.

When answering the question of whether there are any industry standards

for white papers, Graham wrote, ‘‘In a word, no. Anyone can call anything a

white paper. And they do.’’

White paper writers can be in-house technical communicators or other

employees inside the sponsoring organization, but more often they are

freelance writers (Stelzner, 2007a). Authorship of white papers can vary

significantly:

Some white papers might be generic ‘‘overview documents’’ . . . and these

might be created by a single person in the way that an academic report is

produced. Other white papers, however, will need to serve multiple goals for

multiple audiences, and technical communication educators need to prepare

students to deal with those complex situations involving multiple authors and

competing ideals. (Willerton, 2007, p. 197)

Only Willerton’s research has addressed white papers from the reader’s

perspective (Willerton, 2008). Investigating how high-tech companies use

white papers, he found that the documents both inform and persuade read-

ers, primarily identified as prospective customers, and that most individuals

‘‘seek out white papers after hearing of a trend in the industry or after being

prompted by a question from a client’’ (p. 375). He also found that white

papers are used by consultants to support their recommendations to clients.

Guidance on Writing Marketing White Papers

In addition to the research we have noted, a handful of additional sources

provide guidance to white paper writers based on personal industry expe-

rience rather than research evidence (Bly, 2010; G. Graham, n.d.; Klariti,

2015; Stelzner, 2007b). All these sources focus on white papers created for

marketing purposes. Developing content for white papers is the area they

mention most, and nearly all of them recommend determining a specific

marketing goal. Stelzner’s (2007a) survey of writers found that generating

sales leads was the most popular marketing aim, but Willerton (2008)

reported that there is tension between informing and persuading readers.

The engineering professionals he studied ‘‘stated that papers focusing more

on selling than explaining are likely to get tossed aside’’ (p. 377). All

sources agreed that effective marketing white papers adopt a soft-sell

98 Journal of Business and Technical Communication 31(1)

approach in which persuasion is secondary to informing readers. Neverthe-

less, their success is determined by marketing measures such as the number

of sales leads generated (Stelzner, 2007a; Willerton, 2007).

One universal recommendation is to do good secondary research, and

almost all the advice suggests the importance of explicitly citing the sources

of that research. These industry experts agreed that interviewing subject-

matter experts is essential; Stelzner’s (2007a) survey found that highly

experienced white paper writers dedicated significantly more time to inter-

views. Most of the industry sources mention the need for informative, not

superfluous, graphics to support the verbal content of a white paper. Finally,

a couple of sources mention the time-sensitive nature of white papers; for

instance, Willerton (2008) found that readers believed that marketing white

papers have a limited shelf life.

These sources offer less guidance about organizing content, but they

almost universally mention (a) describing the reader’s problem or challenge

before offering the solution or product that is being marketed and (b) using

an effective and efficient document design to help readers navigate the

content.

Overall, we found relatively little guidance available to help novices

write a marketing white paper, and little of that guidance is based on more

than personal experience. To address this lack of evidence-based guidance

for white paper writers, we pursued genre analysis research.

Our Genre Analysis Approach

There are three approaches to genre analysis (Flowerdew & Wan, 2010;

Hyon, 1996). Two approaches grew out of applied linguistics: the English

for specific purposes (ESP) approach (Askehave & Swales, 2001; Swales,

1990) and the Sydney School approach (Martin, 1992). The third approach,

new rhetoric, grew out of North American ethnographic research (Freed-

man & Medway, 2004). We used the ESP approach for our genre analysis

because of its clearly articulated pedagogy. For example, rhetorical move

structure has been used to craft an array of exercises for building rhetorical

awareness of a genre: (a) reconstructing a text from jumbled chunks repre-

senting individual moves, (b) analyzing model texts or peer drafts, or (c)

planning an original text (Flowerdew, 2000).

While some novice writers of white papers might intuitively absorb rheto-

rical structures by learning about the context within which the documents

appear and by reading successful instances of the genre, many more will need

the kind of help that makes the structure explicit for them. Although explicit

Campbell and Naidoo 99

instruction in foundational writing concepts has been a controversial peda-

gogical choice in the United States since the 1970s (Freedman, 1993; Villa-

nueva, 2003), explicit teaching is connected to writing quality (S. Graham &

Perin, 2007; Parr & Timperley, 2010). We have witnessed the impact of

explicit instruction in our own classrooms for many years. The fact that

genres are a ‘‘moving target’’ means that developing guidance for writing

them is a challenge. This challenge may be especially great with high-tech

marketing white papers. But as educators and trainers, we refuse to accept

that the difficulty of the challenge absolves us from our responsibility to

attempt it.

Methodology

Our methods involved collecting a sample of white papers for which we

developed a rhetorical move structure that we tested using a coding protocol.

Sample Collection

To develop evidence-based guidance, we conducted an analysis of the

rhetorical move structure in a sample of 20 white papers drawn from Tech-

Republic, an online trade publication site targeting IT professionals. This

sample size is consistent with other studies involving rhetorical move struc-

ture in the ESP tradition (Flowerdew & Wan, 2010; Yeung, 2007; Zhou,

2012). While others have noted that documents referred to as white papers

have diverse purposes and content (McPherson, 2010), our study tackles

one type, the high-tech marketing white paper. Identified by industry

experts as ubiquitous and important (G. Graham, n.d.; Stelzner, 2007a), it

is a genre that many business and technical communication students will be

asked to write by their future employers (Willerton, 2012).

To meet our inclusion criteria, each paper in our corpus needed to both

fall within the topic area of security or business intelligence and be included

among the top-ranked white papers in spring of 2014. We limited the topic

area to control for its impact on our findings and chose only top-ranked (as

determined by TechRepublic readers) white papers as a proxy for document

quality.

We took two additional steps to make our sample representative. First, in

our procedure for building a corpus, we avoided oversampling from specific

organizational sponsors by limiting each to two white papers per topic area.

Second, we reviewed the 20 documents to ensure that each was designed (a)

for B2B marketing and (b) to be read prior to a sale (G. Graham, n.d.).

100 Journal of Business and Technical Communication 31(1)

All white papers were written in English and produced as PDF files for

free download by registered users. Although we had hoped to include white

papers from the other leading syndicators, KnowledgeStorm and BitPipe

(G. Graham, n.d.; Stelzner, 2007b), they did not allow us to filter by rating,

popularity, or other measures of white paper quality.

Table 1 summarizes the details of the corpus we tested. These top-rated

marketing white papers were sponsored by 14 different organizations, and

seven of the white papers listed an authoring agency external to the spon-

soring organization. The mean document length was 12.2 pages (6.12 SD)

and 2,739 words (1,111.3 SD). The mean page length was 286 words per

page (163.04 SD), with text density ranging from 37 to 565 words per page.

Preliminary Move Structure

We developed a preliminary move structure by completing three activities.

First, we reviewed the available guidance from industry experts concerning

content and arrangement (G. Graham, n.d.; Stelzner, 2007b). Second, we

reviewed move structures that researchers developed for potentially similar

genres that were identified in discussions with white paper writers (Will-

erton, 2007). These move structures included research article introductions

(Swales, 1990), research article literature reviews (Kwan, Chan, & Lam,

2012), research grant proposals (Connor, 2000; Connor & Mauranen,

1999), business proposals (Lagerwerf & Bossers, 2002), and business

reports (Yeung, 2007). And third, we examined a training set of four white

papers, which were not a part of our tested sample, against the information

we had gleaned through the first two activities. Then, using an iterative

process similar to the grounded theory approach that requires moving

between the data and the analytical framework (Glaser & Strauss, 1967),

we derived a rhetorical structure of five moves and 18 subordinate steps (see

Table 2).

Coding Procedure

The move structure shown in Table 2 served as the skeleton for our code-

book, and we added specific examples and further definitions to the code-

book for greater clarity. The coding was conducted in fall 2014 by two

raters who were familiarized with the coding protocol and trained on how to

apply the coding guidelines.

First, we conducted a preliminary test of the coding procedures, in which

each rater independently coded two papers that were not included in the

Campbell and Naidoo 101

T a b

le 1 .

C o rp

u s

o f H

ig h -T

e ch

M ar

k e ti n g

W h it e

P ap

e rs

.

N o .

T o p ic

T it le

Y e ar

S p o n so

r N

o . o f

P ag

e s

W o rd

C o u n t

M e an

N o . o f

W o rd

s p e r

P ag

e

1 B I

B u ild

in g

Y o u r

E co

m m

e rc

e S tr

at e gy

: F o u r

S te

p s

fo r

G e tt

in g

S ta

rt e d

2 0 1 3

R ac

k sp

ac e

1 4

2 ,6

1 3

1 8 7

2 B I

T am

in g

th e

D at

a B e as

t: In

te gr

at e d

S ys

te m

s an

d A

p p lic

at io

n s

fo r

a B e tt

e r

B u si

n e ss

2 0 1 2

D e ll

9 2 ,3

3 0

2 5 9

3 B I

T h e

R is

k s

o f U

si n g

S p re

ad sh

e e ts

fo r

S ta

ti st

ic al

A n al

ys is

2 0 1 3

IB M

1 2

4 ,1

4 3

3 4 5

4 B I

T u rn

in g

D at

a In

to K

n o w

le d ge

2 0 1 4

H P

8 1 ,6

0 5

2 0 1

5 B I

M an

ag in

g Y

o u r

E rr

o r-

P ro

n e

S p re

ad sh

e e ts

2 0 1 3

IB M

8 2 ,6

2 2

3 2 8

6 B I

O p ti m

iz in

g S to

ra ge

W it h

A ll-

F la

sh S o lu

ti o n s

2 0 1 3

ID C

6 3 ,3

8 8

5 6 5

7 B I

E x p an

d in

g B I’ s

R o le

b y

In cl

u d in

g P re

d ic

ti ve

A n al

yt ic

s 2 0 1 3

S A

P 4

2 ,1

4 4

5 3 6

8 B I

R e ap

in g

th e

B e n e fi ts

o f N

e x t

G e n e ra

ti o n

D as

h b o ar

d s

2 0 1 0

S A

P 4

2 ,1

5 3

5 3 8

9 B I

T h e

V al

u e

o f S o ci

al D

at a:

In te

gr at

e d

S o ci

al an

d E n te

rp ri

se D

at a ¼

E n h an

ce d

A n al

yt ic

s 2 0 1 3

O ra

cl e

1 7

1 ,6

1 6

9 5

1 0

B I

T yp

e s

o f E le

ct ri

ca l M

e te

rs in

D at

a C

e n te

rs 2 0 1 3

S ch

n e id

e r

E le

ct ri

c 1 4

4 ,1

4 0

2 9 6

1 1

S A

vo id

in g

th e

P it fa

lls o f O

u td

at e d

D is

as te

r R

e co

ve ry

P la

n s

2 0 1 3

IB M

1 2

3 ,9

5 6

3 3 0

1 2

S G

e tt

in g

th e

M o st

O u t

o f Y

o u r

N e x t

G e n e ra

ti o n

F ir

e w

al l

2 0 1 3

C is

co 6

3 ,3

1 6

5 5 3

1 3

S S am

su n g

K N

O X

: A

n O

ve rv

ie w

fo r

B u si

n e ss

C u st

o m

e rs

2 0 1 3

C e n tr

if y

1 6

3 ,1

0 7

1 9 4

1 4

S B e st

P ra

ct ic

e s

G u id

e fo

r IT

G o ve

rn an

ce &

C o m

p lia

n ce

2 0 1 2

D e ll

1 4

5 ,5

1 9

3 9 4

1 5

S P o st

-b re

ac h

S u rv

iv al

G u id

e 2 0 1 3

IN e tU

1 4

1 ,3

6 8

9 8

1 6

S B u ild

in g

a B e tt

e r

N e tw

o rk

S e cu

ri ty

S tr

at e gy

2 0 1 4

H P

6 1 ,7

3 7

2 9 0

1 7

S IT

S e cu

ri ty

: F ig

h ti n g

th e

S ile

n t

R e tr

e at

2 0 1 3

K as

p e rs

k y

L ab

1 9

2 ,3

4 5

1 2 3

1 8

S W

h o ’s

S p yi

n g

o n

Y o u : N

o B u si

n e ss

Is S af

e F ro

m C

yb e re

sp io

n ag

e 2 0 1 3

K as

p e rs

k y

L ab

1 8

3 ,1

0 5

1 7 3

1 9

S N

e tw

o rk

in g

fo r

C lo

u d

C o m

p u ti n g

2 0 1 3

IB M

1 4

2 ,4

8 7

1 7 8

2 0

S S ym

an te

c In

te lli

ge n ce

R e p o rt

: Ja

n u ar

y 2 0 1 4

2 0 1 3

S ym

an te

c 2 9

1 ,0

8 0

3 7

N o te

. B I ¼

b u si

n e ss

in te

lli ge

n ce

; S ¼

se cu

ri ty

; IT ¼

in fo

rm at

io n

te ch

n o lo

gy .

102

T a b

le 2 .

R e su

lt s

o f a

R h e to

ri ca

l M

o ve

S tr

u ct

u re

A n al

ys is

o f 2 0

H ig

h -T

e ch

M ar

k e ti n g

W h it e

P ap

e rs

.

M o ve

S te

p

N o . o f W

h it e

P ap

e rs

E m

p lo

yi n g

S te

p

N o . o f W

h it e

P ap

e rs

E m

p lo

yi n g

M o ve

1 In

tr o d u ci

n g

th e

b u si

n e ss

p ro

b le

m 1 a

In tr

o d u ci

n g

th e

te rr

it o ry

2 0

1 b

In tr

o d u ci

n g

p ro

b le

m s

o r

m ar

k e t

d ri

ve rs

fo r

te rr

it o ry

2 0

1 c

R ai

si n g

q u e st

io n s

o r

in d ic

at in

g ga

p s

fo r

ge n e ri

c so

lu ti o n

1 0

1 d

O u tl in

in g

d o cu

m e n t

st ru

ct u re

1 6

2 0

2 O

cc u p yi

n g

th e

b u si

n e ss

so lu

ti o n

n ic

h e

2 a

D e sc

ri b in

g th

e sp

e ci

fi c

so lu

ti o n

1 9

2 b

D e sc

ri b in

g b u si

n e ss

b e n e fi ts

o f th

e so

lu ti o n

1 6

2 c

Il lu

st ra

ti n g

o r

ap p ly

in g

th e

so lu

ti o n

1 3

2 d

D e sc

ri b in

g k e y

fe at

u re

s o f th

e so

lu ti o n

1 8

2 e

S ta

ti n g

lim it at

io n s

o f so

lu ti o n

4 2 f

E st

ab lis

h in

g m

ar k e t

su st

ai n ab

ili ty

o f so

lu ti o n

5 1 9

3 P ro

m p ti n g

ac ti o n

3 a

R e st

at in

g te

rr it o ry

1 2

3 b

R e st

at in

g m

ar k e t

d ri

ve rs

9 3 c

Is su

in g

a ca

ll to

ac ti o n

fo r

sp e ci

fi c

so lu

ti o n

1 5

1 9

4 E st

ab lis

h in

g cr

e d ib

ili ty

4 a

C o n n e ct

in g

to cl

ie n ts

o r

cu st

o m

e rs

o f sp

e ci

fi c

so lu

ti o n

4 4 b

L is

ti n g

so u rc

e o f in

fo rm

at io

n fo

r sp

e ci

fi c

so lu

ti o n

4 4 c

P ro

vi d in

g in

fo rm

at io

n ab

o u t

au th

o r

o r

sp o n so

ri n g

o rg

an iz

at io

n 1 3

1 6

5 P ro

vi d in

g d is

cl ai

m e rs

o r

le ga

l co

n si

d e ra

ti o n s

5 a

P ro

vi d in

g sp

o n so

r in

fo rm

at io

n 4

5 b

L is

ti n g

le ga

l co

n si

d e ra

ti o n s

1 5

1 7

103

sample. Then, to resolve potential problems in the move structure and

support intrarater and interrater reliability, we met with the raters and

reviewed the coding decisions for consistency, discussing their comments

and feedback on the move structure.

After completing the preliminary coding with the training set of white

papers, each rater independently coded the entire data set that was included

in the study sample. We reviewed the coded papers and recorded the indi-

vidual codes for steps in a spreadsheet. Codes for moves were calculated by

counting any subordinate step code as the presence of its superordinate

move code (e.g., a code for Step 1a, 1b, 1c, or 1d in a white paper counted

as a code for Move 1). To determine consistency of coding for each move

and step, we calculated interrater reliability with Cohen’s (1960) kappa (k) using ReCal2 (Freelon, 2010), following recent guidelines for content anal-

ysis (Krippendorff, 2011).

To address low reliabilities for some steps, we added a third rater, who

followed the same procedure for coding all steps in all 20 white papers.

When at least two of the three raters identified a step code in a white paper,

we considered that step (and its superior move) as present in that white

paper. Interrater reliability was recalculated with Cohen’s pairwise k using ReCal3 (Berry & Mielke, 1988). After adding the third rater, we determined

that the interreliability measures for all moves and all but two steps were

above 0.40 (the specific statistics are available from us), the minimum level

that others have deemed acceptable for coding nominal variables during

theory development (Artstein & Poesio, 2008; King, 1994).

Results and Discussion

We discuss our study results according to the five tested rhetorical moves,

highlighting how our findings relate to prior research and industry advice.

We illustrate those findings with unedited examples from our corpus of

white papers. Table 2 summarizes our results.

High-Tech Marketing White Papers Must Introduce a Business Problem (Move 1)

Our raters identified introducing a business problem (Move 1) as the goal of

the first portion of the body of all 20 white papers in our corpus. This

finding corroborates guidance from industry experts on the requirement

to begin a marketing white paper by establishing a business problem (Bly,

2010; G. Graham, n.d.; Stelzner, 2007b).

104 Journal of Business and Technical Communication 31(1)

Of the subordinate steps within this rhetorical move, introducing the

territory (Step 1a) was identified in all 20 white papers—even the white

paper that generated the lowest level of overall agreement:

Meters provide data that offers insight into the operation of the data center

infrastructure (i.e. power and cooling systems) within a data center. Specific

types of meters exist for various reasons, from tracking the use of electricity

to analyzing the power quality in a facility and reporting problems such as

transients and harmonics to measuring the power usage effectiveness (PUE)

of the data center. (no. 18, p. 2)

All 20 of the white papers in our corpus also introduced problems or

market drivers for the territory (Step 1b), as in the following two examples:

As energy initiatives and legislation continue to increase, the necessity for

more in-depth metering to better understand and optimize energy use is also

increasing. (no. 18, p. 2)

The way attackers are going after corporate data and infrastructure these days

means that it’s not a matter of if but when you’ll be forced to buy a ticket for

the postbreach rollercoaster. (no. 15, p. 3)

In our corpus, 10 of the white papers raised questions or indicated gaps in

using a generic solution (Step 1c). Here is an example on which all raters

agreed:

However, because few data-generating applications are designed by the same

vendor with the express purpose of long-term compatibility, this is far easier

said than done. In the same way, because systems may be custom built,

incorporate elements from different verticals, contain legacy structures and

applications, and may not be intended to talk to one another, there are rarely

standardized hooks that facilitate back-end integration. (no. 2, p. 5)

An outline of the document structure (Step 1d) appeared in 16 of the

white papers. Occasionally, these documents contained preview statements

near their beginning:

This Technology Spotlight discusses various aspects associated with deploy-

ing flash technology and explores the role that Hitachi Data Systems and its

full portfolio of flash solutions play in this increasingly important market.

(no. 6, p. 1)

Campbell and Naidoo 105

Most often, however, white papers outlined their structure by including a

table of contents. Agreement was lower for this step, which was apparently

the result of one rater’s failure to code table of contents with this step;

agreement between the other two raters was high.

Our findings for Move 1 suggest significant rhetorical similarity in the

initial or introductory sections of white papers, grant proposals (Connor &

Mauranen, 1999), research articles (Kanoksilapatham, 2012), and even

‘‘advertorials’’ (Zhou, 2012). Documents within these genres typically

begin by establishing a territory and a niche, gap, or problem within that

territory.

High-Tech Marketing White Papers Must Present a Solution to a Business Problem (Move 2)

Our raters identified occupying a business solution niche (Move 2) as the

goal of the second portion of the body of 19 of the 20 white papers in our

corpus. In hindsight, we should have eliminated white paper no. 20 from the

corpus because it does not have a clear marketing function. To market a

product or service, a high-tech marketing white paper must present a solu-

tion to a business problem, a required criterion we missed when we initially

developed our corpus.

As for the subordinate steps for this rhetorical move, presenting a spe-

cific solution (Step 2a) appeared in 19 of our white papers. (The exception

again was no. 20.) Here are two examples on which all raters agreed:

IBM SPSS Statistics offers organizations the ability to do robust, in-depth

statistical information analysis without doing any programming. (no. 3, p. 8)

Meters enable you to benchmark the data center’s energy use, identify

improvement opportunities and measure results from energy improvement

projects. (no. 10, p. 2)

Both highly specific solutions (e.g., ‘‘SPSS’’ in no. 3) and less specific

solutions (e.g., ‘‘meters’’ in no. 10) appeared within our corpus, and our

findings reflect the tension between an explicit sales approach and a soft-

sell marketing approach in white papers. As Stelzner (2007b) suggested,

‘‘this means keep the specific solution out of the first few paragraphs and

even the first few pages. When you explain your specific product or service

right away, you send the message that the white paper is a sales document’’

(p. 127).

106 Journal of Business and Technical Communication 31(1)

Describing business benefits of the solution (Step 2b) appeared in 16 of

the white papers. Two of three raters agreed on these two examples:

With Centrify, organizations are reducing the costs associated with identity

lifecycle management and compliance by over 50%. (no. 13, p. 7)

By employing a firewall that combines stateful capabilities with full context

awareness, organizations can strike a balance between the high level of

network security required to support these new business cases and the flex-

ibility they require to maximize their business agility. (no. 12, p. 6)

Again, some benefits were more specific (e.g., no. 13) than were others

(e.g., no. 12).

Illustrating or applying the solution (Step 2c) appeared in 13 of our

white papers. Sometimes this step appeared via an informative graphic

(see Figure 2).

Describing key features of the solution (Step 2d) appeared in 18 of the

white papers in our corpus. In the following example, the features (e.g.,

Figure 2. Graphic example illustrating or applying the solution (Step 2c, no. 14, p. 13).

Campbell and Naidoo 107

‘‘single entry point’’) are combined with business benefits (e.g., ‘‘faster

decision-making’’):

In essence, DaaS becomes a single entry point for public data, with enrich-

ment and capabilities to extract and integrate the right data from the right

sources with the right factoring at the right time, for faster decision-making

and action with core business applications. (no. 9, p. 12)

Stating limitations of the solution (Step 2e) appeared in only four white

papers. Here is one example on which two of the three raters agreed:

Cost remains a key hurdle for many IT managers evaluating flash technology.

Flash is a more expensive storage media than HDDs on a dollar-per-gigabyte

basis. Significant cost justification is required to overcome the price disparity,

especially when purchasing must be cleared through procurement depart-

ments that aren’t technology savvy. (no. 6, p. 5)

The final step within Move 2, establishing market sustainability of solu-

tion (Step 2f), appeared in just five of the white papers in our corpus.

Consider these two examples on which two of the three raters agreed:

Since releasing its initial product in 2005, Centrify has expanded its portfolio

from one product to a suite of software and cloud services that span data

center, cloud and mobile environments with comprehensive support for over

450 systems and 1,500þ applications. (no. 13, p. 7)

All these services are backed by IBM’s significant technological expertise

and our more than 40 years of networking experience. (no. 19, p. 6)

We will address what it means when a rhetorical step occurs rarely

within our corpus in the concluding section of this article. Overall, our

findings for Move 2 strongly suggest that white paper writers must provide

a specific solution for a business problem and should also, at a minimum,

describe the solution’s key features and its business benefits.

High-Tech Marketing White Papers Usually Prompt Reader Action (Move 3)

In 19 of the 20 white papers in our corpus, the raters identified content near

the end of the document that prompted the reader to act (Move 3). Accord-

ing to Stelzner (2007b), this is a key feature of a marketing white paper.

108 Journal of Business and Technical Communication 31(1)

Restating the territory (Step 3a) that had been introduced during Move 1

in the document appeared in 12 of the white papers. All raters agreed on the

following example:

Disaster recovery has never been more important, but too many organizations

are hampered by lack of focus, lack of funding and insufficient skills. In

addition, many organizations do not have the knowledge gleaned from pre-

vious disaster recovery experience to anticipate the myriad things that can go

wrong. (no. 11, p. 10)

In nine of our white papers, market drivers that had been introduced in

Move 1 were restated toward the end of the document (Step 3b). All raters,

for example, agreed on the following example:

Designing, developing and deploying a network that fully supports cloud

computing solutions can be a challenging task. . . . It requires significant

knowledge of the interactions between the network, enterprise storage com-

ponents, enterprise servers and application portfolios. Without this knowl-

edge, experience and expertise, a network may not optimally support the

cloud computing environment. (no. 19, p. 7)

Although less than half of our corpus used this step, we found that white

papers that did so were particularly effective in marketing the solution.

Restating territory actually increases marketing effectiveness because it

explicitly reminds readers of the business reasons that support the solution

presented in the white paper. Perhaps the step appears infrequently

because it is a rhetorical device that differentiates great writers from good

ones.

Issuing a call to action for a specific solution (Step 3c) was common,

appearing in 15 of the documents in our corpus. Here is an example on

which all raters agreed:

Call Kaspersky today at 866-563-3099 or email us at corporatesales@kas

persky.com, to learn more about Kaspersky Endpoint Security Business.

(no. 17, p. 18)

We suspect that the desire to use a soft-sell approach makes the call to

action sometimes difficult to identify. For instance, here is a passage on

which raters disagreed:

Campbell and Naidoo 109

From planning to deployment, we’re here to serve you. Whether you need our

Enterprise Cloud Services team to help plan your configuration, Critical

Application Services for guaranteed uptime, or our experienced, Fanatical

Support staff to help manage your server—we’re available. (no. 1, p. 10)

White paper no. 1 accomplishes the soft-sell with an indirect call to action

(Riley, 1988). While two of our raters believed the rhetorical function of

this passage was issuing a call to action for a specific solution (Step 3c), the

other rater identified the rhetorical function as describing the specific solu-

tion (Step 2a). The rhetorical difference between ‘‘we’re here to serve’’ and

‘‘call us today’’ is subtle.

In conclusion, like advertorials (Zhou, 2012), 19 of our high-tech mar-

keting white papers prompted readers to act (Move 3)—even if those

prompts were implied rather than explicit. As Willerton (2008) found based

on his interviews with white paper readers, ‘‘papers focusing more on

selling than explaining are likely to get tossed aside’’ (p. 377). Our findings

suggest that high-tech marketing white papers have more in common with

business proposals, in which an informative rather than overtly persuasive

style is preferred (Lagerwerf & Bossers, 2002). But this finding contradicts

industry-expert advice not to be vague in the call to action: ‘‘So tell them

something specific: Go to this landing page. View a short demo. Take an

online survey. Request a free trial of our product’’ (G. Graham, n.d.).

High-Tech Marketing White Papers Often Attempt to Establish the Author or Sponsor’s Credibility (Move 4)

The content of 16 of our white papers explicitly addressed the credibility of

the author or sponsor (Move 4). A few white papers (four) did so by

mentioning clients or customers of the specific solution offered in the white

paper (Step 4a). Here is an example on which all raters agreed:

This was a critical issue that was resolved for the Georgia Department of

Transportation when they deployed new BI technology with next generation

dashboards. They found one of the main benefits was that, ‘‘People are more

aware that the information they’re looking at is accurate and up-to-date—so

they can make decisions with confidence.’’ (no. 8, p. 4)

Similarly, four of our white papers established credibility by listing sources

of information (Step 4b). For example, one white paper included links to

several case studies as well as a list of links to ‘‘Sources’’ (no. 1, pp. 11–12).

110 Journal of Business and Technical Communication 31(1)

Industry experts consistently recommend that white paper authors list

sources for their research (G. Graham, n.d.; Stelzner, 2007b). Although we

might reasonably assume that readers perceive white papers that include

sources as being higher quality (Willerton, 2008), the rarity of this practice

in our corpus suggests that this rhetorical step requires further investigation

in order to determine its applicability to high-tech marketing white papers.

In our corpus, 13 white papers provided information about the authoring

or sponsoring organization (Step 4c). Often such information consisted of a

physical address, contact information, and a link to an organization’s Web

site. In some cases, the content more overtly established author credibility.

All raters agreed on this example:

HP creates new possibilities for technology to have a meaningful impact on

people, businesses, governments, and society. With the broadest technology

portfolio spanning printing, personal systems, software, services, and IT

infrastructure, HP delivers solutions for customers’ most complex challenges

in every region of the world. More information about HP (NUYSE: HPQ) is

available at hp.com. (no. 4, p. 8)

The content provided in Step 4c, however, must be distinguished from that

provided in Step 2f, establishing market sustainability of the solution.

Whereas Step 4c provides generic information about the author or sponsor-

ing organization (e.g., ‘‘the broadest technology portfolio’’) in order to

establish general credibility, Step 2f provides content specifically related

to the solution offered within the white paper—and sometimes that content

relates to the specific actions of the authoring organization. For example,

white paper no. 19 markets the organization’s networking products and

services by referring to its ‘‘40 years of networking experience,’’ which

we coded as Step 2f. If it had referred more generally to ‘‘40 years of

experience,’’ we would have coded it as Step 4c.

For Move 4, we conclude that, like grant proposals (Connor, 2000;

Connor & Mauranen, 1999), high-tech marketing white papers usually

establish credibility by providing author or sponsor information.

High-Tech Marketing White Papers Often Provide Disclaimers or Legal Considerations (Move 5)

In our corpus, 17 white papers went on record with disclaimers or legal

considerations. More specifically, four of our white papers included dis-

claimers by explicitly providing sponsor information when it differed from

Campbell and Naidoo 111

author information (Step 5a). For example, although authored by Ziff Davis

Enterprise, one white paper included this footer on every page: ‘‘Sponsored

by SAP BusinessObjects’’ (no. 8).

Industry experts (Stelzner, 2007b) have indicated that many white papers

list legal considerations (Step 5b) such as copyright and other legal restric-

tions at the end of the document. Most high-tech marketing white papers in

our corpus (15) listed legal considerations. For example, white paper no. 6

lists permission and licensing restrictions:

Any IDC information or reference to IDC that is to be used in advertising,

press releases, or promotional materials requires prior written approval from

IDC. For permission requests, contact the GMS information line at 508-988-

7610 or [email protected]. Translation and/or localization of this document

requires an additional license from IDC. (no. 6, p. 6)

Writer Guidelines and Suggestions for Future Research

Because white papers command heightened interest within contemporary

organizations that provide high-tech products and services, we want to aid

novices when writing in this genre. Based on our study of 20 white papers,

as well as prior research and industry advice, we offer the writers of high-

tech marketing white papers five guidelines for developing and presenting

their content:

1. Begin a marketing white paper by establishing a business problem.

All of the samples in our corpus included this rhetorical move. Like

many genres that begin by introducing a territory and a niche, gap,

or problem (e.g., grant proposals, research articles), marketing white

papers should introduce the territory and problems or market drivers

for that territory when establishing the business problem.

2. Present a product or service as a solution to a business problem only

after establishing a business problem. In our corpus, 19 white papers

displayed this rhetorical move. Using a soft-sell marketing approach

might mean introducing the solution in a generic rather than a spe-

cific way before describing the solution (19 white papers), including

its key features (18 white papers) and its business benefits (16 white

papers).

3. Issue a call to action in order to prompt readers to reach out to the

sponsoring organization. Although 19 of our white papers included

112 Journal of Business and Technical Communication 31(1)

this rhetorical move, the call was often indirect, using an informa-

tive style that was more like a business proposal than a sales

brochure.

4. Establish credibility by mentioning clients or customers, providing

information about the authoring or sponsoring organization, or

listing information sources. In our corpus, 16 of the white papers

included this rhetorical move.

5. Provide disclaimers or legal considerations such as copyright. Of the

20 white papers in our corpus, 17 implemented this rhetorical move.

Because of the limitations of our study, four areas of research should be

pursued to expand these guidelines. First, our study involved a relatively

small sample within two topic areas at one point in time, so future research

could examine other corpora of white papers in different topic areas from

other time periods.

Second, further research could focus on the rhetorical steps with low

occurrence from our study (i.e., those appearing in less than half of our

corpus). In particular, six steps deserve further scrutiny in order to retain

them within a rhetorical move structure for high-tech marketing white

papers:

1. Stating the limitations of the solution (Step 2e). The low occurrence

of this step within our corpus might mean that it is not central to the

genre. After all, these documents are marketing tools, so explicit

mention of the solution’s limitations might not fit the rhetorical

context.

2. Establishing market sustainability of the solution (Step 2f). This step

probably has a low occurrence because developing and communi-

cating market sustainability of the solution require considerable

efforts, and explicitly claiming such sustainability requires that the

solution is indeed sustainable.

3. Restating market drivers when prompting action (Step 3b). This step

likely appears in only the highest quality documents. Authors who

have put in the effort to develop and restate market drivers have

probably created a more persuasive marketing white paper.

4. Connecting the specific solution to clients or customers (Step 4a).

Again, this step probably appears in only the highest quality docu-

ments, and its occurrence is a sign of more effective communication.

Developing such content requires coordination with clients and

Campbell and Naidoo 113

customers, making content development more complex for white

paper authors.

5. Listing source of information for solution (Step 4b). This step’s low

occurrence is simply the result of less thorough content development.

6. Providing sponsor information (Step 5a). The low occurrence of this

step might simply reflect the relative rarity of white papers produced

by a named author other than the sponsoring organization.

For all of these steps, the connection between their occurrence and docu-

ment quality requires further investigation.

Third, future research could elucidate differences in the ecosystem of

related genres. For instance, future work could explore the relationship

between high-tech marketing white papers and other subgenres of white

papers (McPherson, 2010). Research could also investigate the relation-

ships between white papers and other genres (e.g., proposals, case studies,

brochures). We presume that industry experts do no identify proposals as a

marketing genre because they are written for one specific organization even

though they appear to include most of the same rhetorical moves as white

papers do. Specifying white paper similarities and differences with other

genres would be valuable in training business and technical communicators.

In addition, because case studies are mentioned as a top marketing genre in

industry reports, more research on them is clearly needed.

A post hoc review of information design in our corpus suggested that

high-tech marketing white papers are typically designed to look like con-

ventional business reports, with a design that is somewhat sophisticated but

not as refined as that of brochures. In fact, all of the 20 white papers in our

corpus used at least two colors, and more than half of them used a multiple-

column layout. But all printed on standard-size paper (8.5’’ � 11’’ or A4) although one printed as a booklet with a single page folded in half, 13

included a cover page, and 17 appeared in portrait orientation, 2 used land-

scape orientation (i.e., as slide decks), and 1 used mixed orientations. The

text density of three white papers in our corpus raised flags because they

averaged fewer than 100 words per page, suggesting that they might be

perceived as brochures. One industry expert explained the difference

between these genres:

A white paper is something between a marketing piece and a scholarly essay.

It’s not a brochure, so it shouldn’t be as slick and colorful as one. But it’s got

to be more visually appealing than a report cranked out of Word. (G. Graham,

n.d.)

114 Journal of Business and Technical Communication 31(1)

Thus, differentiating white papers from brochures also warrants further study.

And fourth, further study could respond to the limitation inherent in our

choice to adopt an ESP approach to investigating rhetorical move structure

in white papers. Findings from studies using different approaches are

needed. For instance, as we just mentioned, information design analysis

is needed to differentiate white papers from other genres such as brochures.

And reader-focused methods (De Jong & Schellens, 2000) could provide

insight into quality, including credibility, that our descriptive study could

not provide. Although we purposely chose top-rated white papers for our

corpus, those ratings are not likely to mean that all documents were equally

persuasive to readers at TechRepublic. The inclusion of several rhetorical

steps hinges on a better understanding of their influence on readers’ judg-

ments of white paper quality. Finally, lexical analysis methods (Tausczik &

Pennebaker, 2009) could advance our understanding of the stylistic choices

that white paper writers make and the psychological significance of those

choices. This might be an especially fruitful avenue for addressing hard-sell

versus soft-sell approaches to marketing in white papers.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the reviewers for their thoughtful comments and sugges-

tions. They also want to acknowledge the exemplary work of their research assis-

tants, Cameron Twilley and Kellie Wesser.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,

authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or pub-

lication of this article.

References

Artstein, R., & Poesio, M. (2008). Inter-coder agreement for computational linguis-

tics. Computational Linguistics, 34, 555–596. doi:10.1162/coli.07-034-R2

Askehave, I., & Swales, J. M. (2001). Genre identification and communicative

purpose: A problem and a possible solution. Applied Linguistics, 22, 195–212.

Berry, K. J., & Mielke, P. W. Jr. (1988). A generalization of Cohen’s kappa agree-

ment measure to interval measurement and multiple raters. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 48, 921–933.

Campbell and Naidoo 115

Bly, R. W. (2010, March). Writing white papers for fun and profit: How to get

these ‘‘plum assignments’’ that blend elements of articles and brochures.

The Writer, 38.

Cohen, J. A. (1960). Coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.

Connor, U. (2000). Variation in rhetorical moves in grant proposals of US humanists

and scientists. Text, 20, 1–28.

Connor, U., & Mauranen, A. (1999). Linguistic analysis of grant proposals:

European Union research grants. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 47–62.

Content Marketing Institute. (2016). B2B Content Marketing: 2016 Benchmarks,

Budgets, and Trends—North America. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.

net/CMI/b2b-content-marketing-2016-benchmarks-budgets-and-trends-north-

america?ref¼http://www.slideshare.net/CMI/slideshelf De Jong, M., & Schellens, P. J. (2000). Toward a document evaluation

methodology: What does research tell us about the validity and reliability of

evaluation methods? IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 43,

242–260. doi:10.1109/47.867941

Flowerdew, J., & Wan, A. (2010). The linguistic and the contextual in applied genre

analysis: The case of the company audit report. English for Specific Purposes,

29, 78–93. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2009.07.001

Flowerdew, L. (2000). Using a genre-based framework to teach organizational

structure in academic writing. ELT Journal, 54, 369–378.

Freedman, A. (1993). Show and tell? The role of explicit teaching in the learning of

new genres. Research in the Teaching of English, 27, 222–251. doi:10.2307/

40171225

Freedman, A., & Medway, P. (2004). Genre and the new rhetoric. London, England:

Taylor and Francis.

Freelon, D. G. (2010). ReCal: Intercoder reliability calculation as a Web service.

International Journal of Internet Science, 5, 20–33.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies

for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Graham, G. (n.d.). The white paper FAQ. Retrieved November 8, 2014, from http://

www.thatwhitepaperguy.com/

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adoles-

cent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445–476. doi:10.1037/

0022-0663.99.3.445

Hyon, S. (1996). Genre in three traditions: Implications for ESL. TESOL Quarterly,

30, 693–722. doi:10.2307/3587930

IEEE Spectrum. (2015, January 18). Retrieved from http://www.spectrum.ieee.

org/

116 Journal of Business and Technical Communication 31(1)

Kanoksilapatham, B. (2012). Research article structure of research article introduc-

tions in three engineering subdisciplines. IEEE Transactions on Professional

Communication, 55, 294–309. doi:10.1109/TPC.2012.2223252

King, N. (1994). The qualitative research interview. In C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds.),

Qualitative methods in organizational research: A practical guide (pp. 14–36).

London, England: Sage.

Klariti. (2015). Seven ways to use white papers to drive sales. Retrieved March 14,

2015, from http://www.klariti.com/business-writing/more-guidelines-white-

papers

Krippendorff, K. (2011). Agreement and information in the reliability of coding.

Communication Methods and Measures, 5, 93–112. doi:10.1080/19312458.

2011.568376

Kwan, B. S. C., Chan, H., & Lam, C. (2012). Evaluating prior scholarship in

literature reviews of research articles: A comparative study of practices in two

research paradigms. English for Specific Purposes, 31, 188–201. doi:10.1016/j.

esp.2012.02.003

Lagerwerf, L., & Bossers, E. (2002). Assessing business proposals: Genre conven-

tions and audience response in document design. Journal of Business Commu-

nication, 39, 437–460. doi:10.1177/002194360203900403

Mackiewicz, J. (2012). Relying on writing consultants: The design of a WID pro-

gram for a college of business. Journal of Business and Technical Communica-

tion, 26, 229–258. doi:10.1177/1050651911429924

Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. Amsterdam, the Nether-

lands: Benjamin.

McNair, L. D., & Paretti, M. C. (2010). Activity theory, speech acts, and the

‘‘Doctrine of Infelicity’’: Connecting language and technology in globally net-

worked learning environments. Journal of Business and Technical Communica-

tion, 24, 323–357. doi:10.1177/1050651910363275

McPherson, C. (2010). Examining the gap between workplace white papers and

their representation in technical communication textbooks. Unpublished doc-

toral disseration, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX.

Parr, J. M., & Timperley, H. S. (2010). Feedback to writing, assessment for teaching

and learning and student progress. Assessing Writing, 15, 68–85. doi:10.1016/j.

asw.2010.05.004

Pisello, T. (2010). Do white papers still engage? Retrieved March 14, 2015,

from http://blog.alinean.com/2010/09/do-white-papers-still-engage-they-do-

if.html

Regalix. (2015). State of B2B product marketing. Retrieved March 12, 2015, from

http://www.regalix.com/by_regalix/research/reports/state-of-b2b-product-mar

keting-2015/

Campbell and Naidoo 117

Riley, K. (1988). Speech act theory and degrees of directness in professional

writing. Technical Writing Teacher, 15, 1–29.

Stelzner, M. A. (2007a). White paper writer industry report (2nd ed.). Poway, CA:

WhitePaperSource.

Stelzner, M. A. (2007b). Writing white papers: How to capture readers and keep

them engaged. Poway, CA: WhitePaperSource.

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings.

Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Tausczik, Y. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2009). The psychological meaning of words:

LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social

Psychology, 29, 24–54. doi:10.1177/0261927X09351676

Villanueva, V. (Ed.). (2003). Cross talk in comp theory: A reader (2nd ed.). Urbana,

IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Willerton, R. (2007). Writing white papers in high-tech industries: Perspectives

from the field. Technical Communication, 54, 187–200.

Willerton, R. (2008). Proceeding with caution: A case study of engineering

professionals reading white papers. Technical Communication, 55, 370–382.

Willerton, R. (2012). Teaching white papers through client projects. Business

Communication Quarterly, 76, 105–113. doi:10.1177/1080569912454713

Yeung, L. (2007). In search of commonalities: Some linguistic and rhetorical fea-

tures of business reports as a genre. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 156–179.

doi:10.1016/j.esp.2006.06.004

Zhou, S. (2012). ‘‘Advertorials’’: A genre-based analysis of an emerging hybridized

genre. Discourse & Communication, 6, 323–346. doi:10.1177/1750481312446265

Author Biographies

Kim Sydow Campbell completed the research reported here while on the faculty of

the Culverhouse College of Commerce at the University of Alabama. She is now a

professor and chair of technical communication at the University of North Texas.

She served as editor of the IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication for

10 years.

Jefrey S. Naidoo is an assistant professor of management communication in the

Culverhouse College of Commerce at the University of Alabama, where he coordi-

nates the communication course that serves 2,000 business undergraduates per year.

He is a former management consultant and project manager.

118 Journal of Business and Technical Communication 31(1)