Definition of Tech Writer, was STC is broken

[Ned Bedinger]

Sam Beard wrote:
> Lauren,
> 
>    To say that technical writing doesn't require research is just
> patently wrong. First off, there's the research in learning about new
> technologies and new ideas. Then, there's the research that comes
> part-and-parcel with certain types of technical writing or technical
> writing jobs.

For the sake of defining the terms we're using in these debates, I'll 
take on this one: doing research is what "digging out and organizing all 
information resources" can be called.

example: When I'm researching, I don't feel like I can stop looking when 
I've picked the low hanging fruit in the team's documentation share.

Research has to be thorough. I'm not sure there is such a thing as doing 
some research. If you've done the research, you've been thorough, to 
your standards. If research is like gathering fruit, then when I am 
researching I will shake the tree. I will shake the tree hard, 
disruptively so, and then get a long stick and whack around blindly up 
in the leaves and high branches.

I think the fruit tree metaphor for information storage witnesses the 
fact that we have arboreal ancestors, and that what we call research can 
be traced back to arboreal survival skills.

The workplace, on the other hand, pretends to be organized in a more 
civilized metaphor, with file drawers instead of fruit trees. How easily 
I could do thorough research, if the file drawers held it all. 
Unfortunately, having roots in the trees means not really filing very 
well. A lot of information that belongs in the file drawers remains up 
in the branches with its "owners." Tracking that info down and 
successfully getting it is what a tech writer's research means to me.


 > writing jobs. I had a job where I had to research different equipment
 > from multiple companies, how it was used, where it was used, and which
 > places used what types and levels of technologies. Then, I had to parse
 > it all together, write a report detailing that information, and publish
 > it after getting approval from my supervisor. Even if the reports DIDN'T
 > include the technical information I researched (which they did), the
 > whole concept lends itself to being called technical writing. Why? For
 >

You could be describing a strategic document known as 'Competitive 
Analysis', a business-class document if ever there was one. Nice work if 
you can get it.

Competitive analysis is business intelligence--it is used to scope out 
the competition. For example, when making decisions about what market to 
enter, what features to offer, etc, you might order a competitive 
analysis as one type of decision support.

FWIW, I'd say the value of thorough research here is high, while less 
than thorough research could be potentially disasterous if an investor 
went ahead with plans based on incomplete research.


Ned Bedinger
doc at edwordsmith.com