Why is Technical Report Writing an Agony? W. H. WALDO Monsanto Chemical Company, St. Louis, Missouri
author is asked to proofread his own report after typing or composing, it is done only out of courtesy. Few authors have the interest t o examine a document critically for errors. Proofreading is hard mental effort and requires an attention discipline seldom evident in technical authors. No greater indictment of the laziness of authors has been levied than the recent enthusiastic reception ghost writing received. Ghost writing of reports is taking away from scientists the responsibility of accounting for their laboratory creations. Although laziness may have the technical author chained, fear has him paralyzed. The absence of positive statements in reports has become a universal criticism. Why? Listen to Aristotle for the timehonored reason: ''It is because there is less opportunity of error in generalities that' soothsayers express themselves in general terms of their subject." Science is known as "exact!" Listen to this modenday example of ourancient soothsayer habit, taken from an actual report: "The wavelengths tentatiuely assigned are thought to have a probable error of less than 0.02 Angstrom units." That tenuous statement is an example of the fear of criticism found in technical communications in our "exact" science of physics! Those who seem to know exclaim that more basic, fundamental research is sorely needed in this country. One answer may he that there are few scientists in the country fearless enough to publish any discovery really new because they remember with fear in their hearts the heating phlogiston took and the laugh universal ether received. They are so afraid of being wrong that they essay nothing. They have no faith in their own scientific observations. If those who call themselves "scientists" would eschew laziness and fear, they would soon find their ineptness in writing disappearing. But let us not hold the authors solely responsible for poor shape in which we find technical communications. Before a telephone communication system is complete, the listener must lit the phone and then must listen. Report readers in industrial management have only begun to provide realistic reporting systems. Many systems are as archaic and inefficient as the mral 1 Presented before the Division of Chemical Literature at the 127th Meeting of the American Chemical Society, Cincinnati, party-line telephone system. Such systems distribute reports t o all types of reader. But the busy executive March, 1955.
N o MATTER what part you play in your report system you probably think of reports as no better than a necessary evil. Frequently, they represent nothing hut an agonizing ordeal. Such is the general attitude of authors, editors, typists, librarians, and report readers. Much has been written and said about how poor technical reporting is, how scientists hate to write reports, how t o write good reports, and how and when reports ought t o he written. But how many have faced the fundamental issue? Why is report writing or reading so distasteful when writing and reading magazines, newspapers, who-done-its, and hooks on mental health have such avid supporters? Ask anyone who writes or reads reports and you get a naive hut honest answer. "I'm just not a good writer," the scientist complains. "Reports are written so poorly," the reader agrees. I n trying to solve these problems, in trying to reduce these subjective complaints t o objective faults of poor grammar, timing, format, style, or jargon, we have overlooked the personality of the other guy-the reader or writer, whichever we are not a t the moment. If we look closely a t the problems and have a h o w l edge of a cross section of the people who contribute to the stormy atmosphere surrounding reports, we are led to a conclusion that can he expressed in two words-no empathy-no projection of yourself into the other fellow's position. The absence of empathy for your readers has given rise t o laziness and fear on the part of inept authors. The absence of empathy for your authors has given rise to stubborn prejudice and juvenile convictions on the part of reactionary readers. No major improvement in technical reporting will he achieved until these attitudes are either changed or widely understood and compensated for. Teclinical authors show their ladness in many ways. There are few organizations that get reports written without a considerable m o u n t of cajoling, and often threats. When the report shows up for typing, it is abominably scribbled, full of fantastically conceived abbreviations, misspelled words, poor grammar and punctuation, and is crudely thrown together. If the
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION says the reports are too long and the co-worker sci- the other to reach the degree of communication necesentist says that they do not give sufficient details. s a y for modern industrial team research. They There is t,oo much "jargon" for the general reader; the should learn both to understand and t o appreciate the specialized reader insists on its presence. The pull-and- other man's point of view. haul instructions given authors are enough to throw fear I n this age of specialization we must all realize and into a Sinclair Lewis. appreciate the vertical type of knowledge most of us Well-meaning executives often fail t o practice what, have. Most of us know a great deal about a few they preach in their attempts t o instruct report writers. things and very little about most things. All A's in Horn frequent,ly have you heard these words? "Avoid school, Nobel-prize winner, or vice-president does not vague statements-be clear and concise." The t m t h mean "all-knowing." The agony of writing will all of the matter usually is that the author thinks his but disappear if you understand and appreciate your writing is as highly specific and free from foggy notions reader. Meet him. Study him. Write for him. and verbosity as he can make it. Criticism should he A little more consideratiou for the other fellow will as rryst,al clear as the critic can make it; and as do more to improve the st,atus of technical commuspecific. nications than ten lessons in grammar or screams for Seither author nor reader has sufficient empathy for clarity and condseness.
'4
N m Chemistry Building. Purdue Unirareitp
