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.
Subject:Re: What Matter Subject Matter? From:Beverly Parks <bparks -at- HUACHUCA-EMH1 -dot- ARMY -dot- MIL> Date:Thu, 30 Mar 1995 07:10:53 MST
I recognize that SME, or subject matter expert, is the standard
jargon; however, I agree with John that "matter" is extraneous.
It's the kind of language that editors and writers are taught to
watch for and eradicate. So why do we perpetuate it?
To take this a step farther, some people have spoken out in
defense of there being a difference between SME and expert;
the arguments have been along the lines of "the SME is the
person who is the expert on the subject I'm writing about, I am
the expert on writing."
Seems to me, folks, that even tech writers are SMEs. It's just
that the subject matter you are expert in is writing. So the
term "SME" doesn't really differentiate anybody from anybody
else.
As John says, the best approach is to just say what the subject
is: bird brain expert, widget interface expert, technical
writing expert. If the subject is obvious from the context, just
say expert.
Finally, "subject expert" may sometimes be justified, but
"subject MATTER expert" is always wordy.
End of dissertation.
=*= Beverly Parks =*= bparks -at- huachuca-emh1 -dot- army -dot- mil =*=
=*= "Unless otherwise stated, all comments are my own. =*=
=*= I am not representing my employer in any way." =*=
=========================
John Gear wrote--
(snip)
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?
