Resolving Discourse at Technical-Support Helpdesks

Background:

This study examined discourse during the problem resolution process in face-to-face technical-support interactions between technical-support providers and users at a helpdesk. Specifically, this study responds to the limited discourse-based research in technical-support interactions, despite the agreement that exploring communication within these interactions can help to improve them.

Literature review:

Research in technical communication has only begun to systematically explore the microlevel (smaller, moment-to-moment) communication in these interactions, though it has provided a well-established understanding of their macrolevel (genre) structure. Further, research has not completely explored how the two participants in the interaction work discursively to resolve technical problems and what strategies appear to promote user satisfaction.

Research questions:

1. What microlevel discourse do technical-support providers employ to resolve technical problems? 2. What microlevel discourse do users employ when collaborating with technical-support providers to resolve technical problems? 3. What microlevel discourse from both technical-support providers and users appears in satisfactory interactions? 4. What exchange patterns between the two participants appear in satisfactory interactions?

Methodology:

Using speech-act discourse analysis, this study examined 17 helpdesk interactions that resolved problems. These interactions occurred at a large, Midwestern US university helpdesk at which 11 instructors sought help with instructional technologies. Using a post-session survey completed by the users, I compared interactions with above- and below-average levels of user satisfaction to determine which microlevel discourse promoted user satisfaction with the help experience.

Results:

Technical-support providers employed signals announcing their thoughts and actions, gave explanations of the technology, and communicated confirmations or denials to user questions. Users employed inquiries about the technology, gave background information, and communicated confirmations or denials to technical-support provider questions. Statistically significant results about both speakers’ discourse indicate that typical instructional strategies (such as explanations) do not necessarily characterize more satisfactory interactions. Instead, alternate forms of instruction (minimal responses or giving background information from personal experience) contribute toward satisfactory outcomes. Also, users’ facility in asking follow-up questions or in giving further background information even during the problem-resolution stage appears to promote satisfaction. Further, a closer examination of the exchanges reveals how both participants interact in these ways.

Conclusions:

This study provides further insight into the typical instructional strategies identified by other researchers. Specifically, although explanations or directions do characterize problem resolution, these discourse strategies do not necessarily characterize distinctly satisfactory problem resolution. As one of the only studies of the functional discourse within technical-support interactions, this study provides researchers and practitioners further insight into how these important interactions work when technical-support providers resolve problems.