Plain Language as an Ethical Tool: Reconsidering Ethics and Audiences

By Russell Willerton | Senior Member

Over several decades, members of the technical communication community have written and thought about the ethics of technical communication. Practicing professionals, academic instructors, and those who span both groups have discussed the ethics of technical communication in articles, books, conference presentations, and classrooms.

Many of these discussions have focused on what technical communicators should do in specific workplace situations. Textbooks, such as those by Mike Markel (2001) and by Lori Allen and Dan Voss (1997), provide detailed cases to analyze and discuss. Indeed, this column has provided many such cases over the years. Instead of focusing on a specific case, however, I would like to discuss a general approach to behaving ethically toward others—especially those in our audiences.

Sam Dragga (1997) writes that philosophers of ethics have ordinarily espoused one of two basic perspectives: one focusing on character and the other on behavior. Dragga says that classical ethicists tend to focus on character, answering the question, “Who will I be?” From the Renaissance onward, however, Dragga says ethicists have often focused on analyzing ethical dilemmas and determining appropriate behavior; they answer the question, “What will I do?”

As we might imagine, the answer to the first question profoundly affects our answers to the second. Our values and our character actively reinforce each other. As we think about how we behave toward our audiences and about the values that influence our behavior, I would like to describe the dialogic approach to ethical communication proposed by philosopher Martin Buber.

I and Thou

In I and Thou (1970), Buber describes two relationships one can have with others. In I-It relationships, one person speaks down to the other; there is no true relationship between them. In I-You (or I-Thou) relationships, two parties share a reciprocal relationship; I and You act on each other and complement each other. While not every relationship is I-You and relationships will not always stay in the I-You state, the I-You relationship is ideal.

Buber’s dialogic ethics appear in the literature on technical communication ethics. Michael J. Salvo (2001) describes how design processes that involve and respect users of technological systems reflect dialogic ethics. Dragga (2011) describes how a dialogic approach can make employee codes of conduct more reader-oriented, humane, and ethical instead of company-focused and coercive. Steven B. Katz and Vicki W. Rhodes (2010) describe how a dialogic approach can make individuals’ relationships with technology—and with their employers, who often influence their uses of technology—more humane and ethical.

“You” and Audience

If I see my audience as You and not It, how might that affect my behavior? Perhaps it gives me more empathy for my audience, more drive to thoroughly understand the challenges they face. Perhaps it empowers me to be a more effective user advocate. Perhaps it leads me to seek out more feedback from the audience, even if an effective method for gathering feedback is not already in place. Perhaps it helps me recognize that without an audience, I am not a communicator.

If an organization continually regards its audience as Its and not Yous, a strong sense of mistrust can develop between them and push them farther apart. As technical communicators, we often describe our work in terms of helping a non-technical or novice audience understand something technical or specialized. We use metaphors of translating or of building bridges; I recently heard someone use the metaphor of creating a crosswalk. To treat our audiences as Yous, we must do our best to create effective translations, bridges, and crosswalks.

In many instances, the organization with the technical knowledge holds more power than its audience does. A company creating a software application or providing an Internet service holds power over its users, especially in its use of their personal data. A bank holds power over its customers who take out a mortgage or open a credit card account. In situations like these, customers often agree to terms they do not fully understand and sometimes find themselves exploited.

Buber proposes that if two separated groups regard each other as You and not It, they can meet on a “narrow ridge” between them. A narrow-ridge dialogue does not mean that involved parties must compromise or give in to the other’s demands. It does mean that the parties respect each other and work together.

One way an organization can treat its audience as Yous and not Its is to communicate in appropriately plain language. Plain language helps create a narrow ridge that helps organizations and their audiences share genuine dialogue. A plain-language document of any kind—a printed form, a website, a PDF, a video—contains information that readers can easily find, understand, and use.

Testing and Empathizing

Tyanna K. Herrington recommends applying the axis-of-power test to determine how to communicate ethically. According to this test, those who have power to communicate information to others also have a responsibility to communicate honestly, without masking information or misleading people. If withholding certain information will mislead readers or conceal information vital to them, then the communicator cannot pass the axis-of-power test in that scenario (2003). Documents that are appropriately plain are less likely to mislead or confuse readers.

A recent article by Alan Siegel and Irene Etzkorn (2013) highlights some of the challenges people face when dealing with overly complicated documents and systems: Credit card contracts or insurance plan descriptions can reach 20,000 words and require 90 minutes to read—for each document. Users routinely “click” to agree to long, complicated agreements for Web services without reading or understanding them. The “fine print” in long contracts costs customers billions of dollars in hidden fees and unexpected charges.

Siegel and Etzkorn are both longtime advocates for plain language, especially in areas affecting consumers. While their article is about the problems of complexity in a broad sense (not just complex documents), their responses to complexity have a lot in common with principles of plain language. To change complexity to simplicity, Siegel and Etzkorn suggest empathizing (perceiving others’ needs), distilling (reducing something to its essence), and clarifying (making it easier to understand and use).

Over several decades, advocates for plain language have empathized with readers, distilled complicated ideas, and created documents that are clear and easy to use. Plain-language documents have accessible language, include helpful design features, and reflect improvements found through testing with users. The website PlainLanguage.gov, for example, shows examples of revised U.S. government documents that are easier for citizens to use and understand. These documents support dialogue between the government and its citizens. In fields such as health literacy, plain language documents help patients to better understand their illnesses, their options for treatment, and the choices they can make to improve their health. Health literacy creates a narrow ridge between patients and the medical bureaucracy.

Supporters of plain language acknowledge that the approach does not solve all communication problems. In some cases and for some audiences, plain language might not be effective. But in many other situations, plain language is an approach that writers—and the organizations that employ them—can use to do ethical work to create a narrow ridge between an organization and its constituents.

Organizations behave ethically when they treat their constituents as Yous, not Its. Writers behave ethically when they empathize with their audiences and create documents that their readers can easily understand and use.

Russell Willerton is a Senior Member of STC and an associate professor at Boise State University. He joined STC as a student member of the Texas Tech University Chapter. He is writing a book on plain language and ethics with support from the Arts and Humanities Institute at Boise State. 

References and Recommended Reading

Allen, L., & D. Voss (1997). Ethics in Technical Communication: Shades of Gray. New York: Wiley.

Buber, M. (1970). I and Thou. (W. Kaufmann, trans.). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. (Original work published 1923).

Dragga, S. (1997). A Question of Ethics: Lessons from Technical Communicators on the Job. Technical Communication Quarterly 6.2: 161–178.

Dragga, S. (2011). Cooperation or Compliance: Building Dialogic Codes of Conduct. Technical Communication 58.1: 4–18.

Herrington, T. K. (2003). A Legal Primer for a Digital Age. New York: Pearson Longman.

Katz, S. B., & V. W. Rhodes (2010). Beyond Ethical Frames of Technical Relations: Digital Being in the Workplace World. Pp. 230–256 in R. Spilka, ed., Digital Literacy for Technical Communication. New York and London: Routledge.

Markel, M. (2001). Ethics in Technical Communication: A Critique and Synthesis. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.

Plain Language Action and Information Network (n.d.). Plain Language: Improving Communications from the Federal Government to the Public,
www.plainlanguage.gov.

Salvo, M. J. (2001). Ethics of Engagement: User-centered Design and Rhetorical Methodology. Technical Communication Quarterly 10.3: 273–290.

Siegel, A., & I. Etzkorn (30 March 2013). When Simplicity Is the Solution. Wall Street Journal, C1.

Editorial Note

The consideration of plain language in documentation can be traced to the 1950s. In the 1970s, however, plain language became an official governmental concern when President Jimmy Carter issued Executive Orders calling for cost-effective, easily understood government documents. Since then, we’ve seen much robust discussion on plain language and its impact on document design in both government and academic forums. Dr. Willerton’s essay here considers how plain language entwines with ethical concerns. In it, he offers an overview of dialogic ethics and considers how re-envisioning our audiences might help us become more ethical communicators.

What are your experiences with plain language and ethics? Has there been a time when you think that a reconsideration of your audience’s needs and expectations would result in more usable documentation? Does your organization make plain language a priority, and, if so—or not—do you think that it helps you to be a more ethical communicator? Let us know what you think about the intersection of plain language and ethics, or send us your own ethics cases or column ideas. Please send your responses to derek.ross@auburn.edu. Responses will be printed in an upcoming issue of Intercom as space permits.

—Derek G. Ross, Column Editor

This column features ethics scenarios and issues that may affect technical communicators in the many aspects of their jobs. If you have a possible solution to a scenario, your own case, or feedback in general, please contact Derek G. Ross at dgr0003@auburn.edu.