An Australian technical writing consultancy, Abelard, have prompted a great deal of debate in the last couple of weeks by asking technical writers to take part in a survey to suggest an alternative name for our profession. The Abelard survey was accompanied by a thoughtful article in their free magazine for technical writers, in which the pros and cons of a name change were discussed. The survey form suggested a range of possible alternatives, such as Content Provider, Documenter, and Technical Communicator, and also allowed survey participants to make their own suggestions.
When I took the survey I spent a few moments wondering exactly what I should call myself. I know that my business cards describe me as a technical communications and information design consultant, and that I am a member of two professional organisations that use the words communication and communicators in their official names. I know that the STC has been working with the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) since 2007 to update their definition of the technical communications profession. (They have recently succeeded in getting the agreement of the BLS that technical writers are a distinct profession, which is progress of a kind.)
In the end, my decision was based on what I see as the commercial reality of my working life. When I speak to students I am tutoring, and when I speak to my fellow technical writers, we can argue the nuances of writing, communication, information design and so on. But in a commercial context, that’s a bit of a luxury. I can do business only by selling something that people want to buy, and in my experience that’s technical writing services. That’s what people ask for, and that’s what job adverts look for. That’s the description that is most easily recognised by my potential clients, and that’s what I decided to stick with as my answer in the survey. I’m looking forward to seeing the results of the survey to see if anyone else has agreed with me.
-
David Farbey, Technical Writer
Technical Communication and Information Design Most Influential Tech Comm Bloggers
I've been listed by MindTouch as one of the top 25 Most Influential Tech Comm Bloggers!
License
David Farbey's Web Site and Blog by David Farbey is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Copyright © David Farbey, Technical Writer
Built on Notes Blog Core
Powered by WordPress
I’ve been going through a similar identity crisis myself with the title ‘information designer’. I reached this crisis because of a number of factors:
1) whenever I meet people they ask what an information designer is, and I feel like having to explain it is contrary to the whole point of my job.
2) when I explain to people, more than half the description revolves around the importance of language. And as ‘designers’ aren’t generally regarded as safe with words I feel focusing on being a ‘designer’ doesn’t explain the full range of what I do.
3) the term ‘information designer’ seems to have been pinched by web designers to describe the information architecture side of things.
The problem I’ve found is that anything I come up with as an alternative makes me sound like I’m involved with telecoms!!!
It’s a dilemma.
Amongst my colleagues, I say that I am a tech author, or a science author, or an editor (depending on the group of colleagues, or the context)
However, the About text on my website says: Alice Jane Emanuel … publishes articles about specialized writing, editing, and information design … [and] … provides documentation and publishing solutions for technology, science, and business… .
And when I introduce myself to anyone else, I find that the shortest route to comprehension is to say that I am a science and technology writer and editor, which is to say that I explain complicated things in easy terms for everyone to understand them — despite their difficult beginnings.
In fact, I don’t care what I am called, so long as I can continue to do the work that I love.
Anyway, explaining what we do in easily graspable terms (albeit sometimes annoying, since we have to do it all the time) is part of our expertise. So I can cope with it.
My title is Technical Writer. I work in the US. At my company, I write and do many other things, too. I like my title. I write and I AM proud of it.
David, I identify with this post. Although I wear many hats these days and often adopt the title of the moment, at the core I am a proud technical writer.
I acknowledge that what many bloggers write about the changes in our profession are true. Some companies are increasingly turning to moderated, user-generated documentation for software products.
Regardless, pundits seem to assume that software documentation is the only market for technical writing. Sure, it’s a significant market, but there are other markets that require precise, professional technical writing written by experienced writers. For example, highly regulated industries where safety is a concern will not likely have users writing their documentation. Likewise, governments are unlikely to have consumers writing their policies and procedures.
I consider myself a technical writer and that’s how I responded on the survey. I objected vehemently at the 2007 STC conference to the proposed definition of Technical Communicator touted by STC because nowhere in that entire verbose definition does it mention writer or writing. My protests fell on deaf ears. At least the US BLS decided to continue with the term Technical Writer. Looking at job listings, I rarely see a listing for a Technical Communicator. Hiring managers are looking for Technical Writers, not Technical Communicators (even though the person they’re looking for will likely have to do far more than just write).
I had to respond again. Your post continues to resonate with me. I identify with this post.
I am a technical writer. My job title is Technical Writer. I am proud of my job title. I like what I do, I like to think I am good at it, and I look forward to doing it every day.
How many people can honestly say that?
I’m also proud to be a technical writer. Like all of you, I understand the value of what I do, which in my case involves a lot more than just writing.
Unfortunately for us, HR people in the USA use the Standard Occupational Classification System (SOC) to determine pay for a job type. HR people typically know very little, if anything, about the value we add. Because there are so many occupations, they have to decide salary ranges based on the SOC. Do any of you honestly think an HR Department is likely to assign a high pay range to a role that, as far as they know, only “Writes technical materials, such as equipment manuals, appendices, or operating and maintenance instructions. May assist in layout work?”
Like I said before, I’m proud to be a technical writer, but I’m sick and tired of our being undervalued in most organizations. As long as HR departments only see a lower-order description of what we do, companies are unlikely to consider us to be valuable. Less valuable means lower pay and status, earlier layoffs, etc.
To bring the perception of our field into the 21st century, I think we have no choice but to work to update how it is officially defined. I certainly can “assist with layout work,” but I also can help with “product design, usability, and information architecture” and “develop online help, e-learning, and other multimedia job aids.”
I love Alice’s positive attitude about “explaining what we do in easily graspable terms,” but we can’t count on having one of us available to explain what we do to every HR Department. So, in my opinion, updating the official occupational definitions remains extremely important to the future of our profession.
David, this is a great post! I’m late to the party but found my way via Tom Johnson’s mention of this article.
I am *not* a technical writer, but if I were, I would agree with Mike Starr and poopcan “technical communicator” at every opportunity. (What is that anyway, a Star Trek device?) I do have formal education in “technical communication” and to be sure that coursework is grounded in good writing, but I followed the user-centered design track in school and have wore so many hats under the user experience domain since then that UX designer fits me pretty well. But even that has it’s problems; in our circles (UXers) the same questions about titles are debated.
I would guess that one reason STC favors “technical communicator” is because they try and appeal to many disciplines (me, for example) to bolster their ranks. You only have to consider the SIGs to see this (graphic designers, usability specialists, etc.). But it doesn’t work. Outside of a few notable names in the usability camp, for example, most professionals in these domains are *not* STC members and never would be. To me it doesn’t make sense for STC to keep barking up an empty tree, or more to the point, keep trying to promote a useless job title (again, “technical communicator”).
Sure, technical communication is what many kinds of people do, in a broad sense, but that’s where it stops. Technical writers write technical content. Usability professionals conduct usability studies. Graphic designers design visual presentations. Et cetera. I can’t help but speculate that one reason STC has stumbled is because it’s refusing to accept the true color of it’s skin — a society for technical writers. Ninety-eight percent of all conversation in the society is around tech writing subjects anyway, so why fight it? It should return to those roots, simplify, reduce in size for the sake of moving forward with renewed vigor and clearer focus. Why not a new organization name like The Society for Technical Writing. It seems to me that would be doing tech writers a huge service, much more so that the current state of things. Sure, that would be back-pedaling by the society, but they shouldn’t have fore-pedaled to begin with.
On the other hand, I would drop my membership in that case, but I’m in the 1% minority in the society and sit on the fence of renewal every year anyway so that’s no biggie. Ha-ha!
Seriously, though, the usability people would go to UPA, the graphic designers would go to AIGA, the UXers would have IAI, IxDA, etc. There’s something out there for each specific domain and that’s how it should be. People could stay in “STW” if they wanted too, but the organization ideally wouldn’t make any pretenses to being something it’s not. There’s nothing out there that specifically says an organization for “technical writers.” Is there? If not, that’s going to be increasingly problematic for you “proud” guys as the landscape keeps changing. Otherwise, flexibility and adaptability is likely the name of the game.
Destry,
It is true that many, if not most, STC members are primarily technical writers. But many of us do much more than that. I personally think that my strong research, writing, graphic design, and usability skills enable me to do my job much more effectively than if the only thing I could do was “write.” Conversely, I find it hard to believe than anyone could be an effective UX person without strong language and design knowledge.
I expect HR people to “pigeonhole” me, but am disappointed that someone like yourself finds it appropriate to do so. I not only write technical content, but also design visual presentations — and have participated in usability studies. It has nothing to with “pride” but rather helping my employers in ways that I am able to help, as they require.
As President of the Philadelphia Metro STC Chapter, I can safely say that we design our programs to appeal to our members and understand that any artificial attempt to “bolster our ranks” in the manner you imply will hurt us more than help.
Here’s a postscript (7th April 2010).
Julie Norris at 2moroDocs has this week blogged about this same topic – see http://www.2morodocs.com/2010/04/tech-writer-or-tech-communicator/
Pay particular attention to the comment I have left on her site – which only goes to prove – I’m not sure what it proves!