Goubil-Gambrell, P. (1992). A practitioner’s guide to research methods. Technical Communication,
39, 582-591.
Graham, M. L., Ward, B., Munro, G., Snow, P., & Ellis, J. (2006). Rural parents, teenagers and
alcohol: What are parents thinking? Rural Remote Health, 6(1), 383.
Gurak, L., & Lay, M. M. (Eds.). (2002). Research in technical communication. Westport, CT:
Praeger.
Haas, C., & Witte, S. P. (2001). Writing as an embodied practice: The case of engineering stan-
dards. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 15, 413-457.
Hayhoe, G. (1997). What research do we need, and why should practitioners care? Technical
Communication, 44, 19-21.
Higginbottom, G. M. A. (2004). Sampling issues in qualitative research. Nurse Researcher,
12(1), 7-19.
Hoddinott, P., & Pill, R. (1999). Qualitative study of decisions about infant feeding among
women in east end of London. British Medical Journal, 318, 30-34.
Hughes, M. A., & Hayhoe, G. F. (2007). A research primer for technical communication. New
York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Johnson-Eilola, J., & Selber, S. A. (2004). Central works in technical communication. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Katz, S. M. (2002). Ethnographic research. In L. Gurak & M. M. Lay (Eds.), Research in tech-
nical communication (pp. 23-46). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Lindlof, T. R. (1995). Qualitative communication research methods: Vol. 3. Current commu-
nication: An advanced text series. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
MacNealy, M. S. (1999). Strategies for empirical research in writing. New York: Addison
Wesley Longman.
Mays, N., & Pope, C. (2000). Assessing quality in qualitative research. British Medical
Journal, 320, 50-52.
Murphy, D. J. (2002). Surveys and questionnaires. In L. Gurak & M. M. Lay (Eds.), Research
in technical communication (pp. 93-110). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Paskiewicz, L. S. (2001). Pregnant adolescents and their mothers. A shared experience of teen
mothering. American Journal of Maternal Child Nursing, 26(1), 33-38.
Porter, L. R., & Coggin, W. (1995). Research strategies in technical communication. New
York: John Wiley.
PubMed [Data file]. Retrieved in 2007 from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez
Rickly, R. (2007). Messy contexts: Research as a rhetorical situation. In H. A. McKee & D. N.
DeVoss (Eds.), Digital writing research: Technologies, methodologies, and ethical issues
(pp. 377-398). Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Savage, G. J. (2003). The process and prospects for professionalizing technical communica-
tion. In T. Kynell-Hunt & G. J. Savage (Eds.), Power and legitimacy in technical commu-
nication: Vol. 1. The historical and contemporary struggle for professional status
(pp. 137-168). Amityville, NY: Baywood.
Simmons, V. (2002). Exploring inconsistent breastfeeding advice: 2. British Journal of
Midwifery, 10, 616-619.
Spilka, R. (2000). The issue of quality in professional documentation. Technical
Communication Quarterly, 9, 207-220.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Koerber, McMichael / Qualitative Sampling Methods 19