TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Folks in the training biz always seem to refer to the content folks as
subject matter experts (SME).
I never understood what "matter" added to the descriptor. So I began
calling these people (generically) "subject experts." It gave a few people
pause and then they adopted it readily. Is there any reason to stick
"matter" in there?
And, along those lines, I have taken to naming the expertise rather than
referring to a particular person simply as an SME and then clarifying with
their subject. For example, instead of saying "Pat is the subject matter
expert for the section on avian psychology" I just say "Pat is the bird
brain expert."
Is there something I'm overlooking here or have the terms just become habits
in training and technical writing circles?
John Gear (catalyst -at- pacifier -dot- com)
The thing about Rush Limbaugh is that when he says "feminazi" I can't tell
if he means it as a putdown or a compliment.
