Good news and bad news
When it comes to the relationship between engineering and technical writing, there is good news and bad news. First, the good news comes in a message of continuity – as long as there are products to be designed, companies will need engineers. Similarly, as long as products are engineered, writing (status reports, white papers, presentations, product brochures, operations manuals, and much more) must support the products. On the other side, the bad news seated in many engineers’ attitude of writing plagues may technical writers.
Neither of these issues are new. In her 1990 article Engineering Writing/Writing Engineering, Dorothy Winsor reported on the existence of attitudes that I have encountered throughout my years of working with engineers. Just as she observed, I have encountered engineers that have seen their job as only designing products – not writing reports or manuals. Some engineers have pigeon-holed writing as “secretarial work.” A few engineers have insisted on only providing short answers in personal interviews and data sheets as input to manuals and reports that I have written for them.
Although some of these engineers would never admit it, most of engineers would agree with Ms. Winsor’s assessment of engineers’ reliance on writing. That is, “while … writing is not the final product, it is an essential means by which that product is created because it is the essential means by which engineering knowledge is created” (343). These engineers would most likely also agree that the layout, writing style, and formatting used in many of their reports are based only on engineering department tradition that is only perpetuated in order to prove that the engineer is an engineer. Therefore, the need for trained technical communicators who know to focus on the needs of the user should be painfully obvious. Through the research of James Paradis as expressed in his Text and Action, it is.
Mr. Paradis discusses how task-oriented literature (user guides, operations manuals … ) must be used make technology useable by people. As both positive and negative proof of this contention, he points out:
· Some of the benefits of textual delivery of technical information. For example, texts can deliver a cost-effective teacher/student ratio (p. 368, first paragraph) or break down complex events or objects (373).
· A few of the drawbacks of poorly written instructions. One such drawback occurs when the linearity of written instructions and the need to reduce complex situations results in the omissions, vagueness, and misunderstanding (368). Another happens as technology becomes more complex and thereby forces the operationalization of human behavior.
· The textual elements of object, agent, conditions, and action (367) used in task-oriented text. As I mentioned in my first bullet, the use of action to break down complex events or objects (373) is a very effective tool of writers. However, as Paradis points out, engineers often ignore this tool. Therefore, this points to the need for technical writers.
· Studies of two court cases centering on accidents involving stun guns. The weaknesses in the manuals (produced as an afterthought by personnel whose primary role was not one of writing for the user) was found to be a major causal factor in the accidents.
Finally, Mr. Paradis observes that “in the legal context, operational discourse takes on the social and material consequences of liability” (375). Similarly, I have considered how the greatest portion of my writing is used to protect my employer from lawsuits (for example, when I write manuals describing the safe operation of equipment).
Gloomy Good News
So technical writers can expect a good job forecast for the foreseeable future. Also, before I finish this post sounding like glass-half-empty pessimist, I have to mention that there are indications that things are improving (and those indications will be discussed later).
References
Paradis, J. (1991). Text and action: The operator's manual in context and in court. Textual dynamics of the professions: Historical and contemporary studies of writing in professional communities, 256-278.
Winsor, D. A. (1990). Engineering writing/writing engineering. College Composition and Communication, 41(1), 58-70.