By Sarah M. Buttram | STC Member
There have been times in my editing career where I have forgotten that my chosen profession has not always been recognized or found to be prestigious. This lack of recognized historic value has caused strife when working in industries with recognized rules, such as engineering firms (Staples, 1998). Finding a way to change the rules in an old, established game can be difficult, but the result can be highly rewarding. Learning how to guide engineers and government officials is not something for the editor who is quick to quit. Time and dedication, along with patience and understanding, are necessary to teach these highly educated people that technical editors are here to help. This is one place where petting egos will pave the way to prosperous careers.
Looking Back—A Historical Perspective
To better understand why editing is so often overlooked, I researched the history of technical editing. What I found was shocking. When I began my career as a technical writer/editor in 2007, the U.S. Department of Labor still did not formally recognize my job title. In fact, the technical writing profession was not officially recognized until the 2010 edition of the Occupational Outlook Handbook.
Evolved from a Need for Accuracy—Editing as a Collateral Function
Despite its recent official recognition, the technical communication profession has been around since the invention of the printing press and the press’s ability to quickly produce books in great numbers. This speed increased the number of errors; and the accuracy, or inaccuracy, of a book affected the reputation of the printing companies (Malone, 2006). With the printing companies’ reputation at stake, a newfound endeavor for accuracy created the opportunity for the first editors. Yet even in this essential role working toward the accuracy of printed works, technical editors were held at a lower status to that of engineers or doctors. Most technical editors performed editing as a collateral function to that of their primary prestigious career.
Although editors continued to hold positions in the printing industry, the role grew rapidly alongside the technological advances society was making after World War II and the signing of the G.I. Bill. These advancements required documentation, which started as a secondary responsibility of the technologist since highly educated engineers deemed the task of writing to be unworthy of their time (Pringle & Williams, 2005).
This disdain for technical editing was apparent within the community of college-educated writers as well. At this time, classically educated writers found writing technological documentation to be beneath them. Since they could not receive recognition and accolades for this type of work, they avoided these positions (Staples, 1998).
Prestige in Academia—Technical Communication in the Curriculum
The lesser prestige of technical writing was apparent not only in industry, but also in academia. Universities taught technical communication as “Engineering English,” and the responsibility of teaching these classes was relegated to student teachers or professors lacking tenure. In the 1800s, technical writing began to surface as a necessity for medicine, agriculture, and other scientific texts (Pringle & Williams, 2005). Slowly, the profession grew to require more education in English as well as a rudimentary understanding of the sciences. An increase in engineering students caused an increase in technical communication course participants (Staples, 1998). This continued to progress—albeit slowly—into a full-fledged curriculum, degree field, and eventually the inclusion of the profession in the Occupational Outlook Handbook, thanks in part to the efforts of the Society for Technical Communication.
Gaining Acceptance in Reluctant Professional Sectors
Despite the acceptance of the profession by the Department of Labor, many sectors still find it difficult to include an editor when writing large documents. Government industry is often one of these sectors. Filled with highly educated individuals, authors tend to find themselves pulled in multiple directions, and they struggle to devote the necessary time to documentation. When time is limited, the first person to feel it tends to be the editor. Even as an editor embedded within a specific programmatic department, I find my authors often do not respect the amount of effort it takes to review their work. However, it is because I am embedded that I can help guide them from the document’s inception. The most effective editors today are working with authors and subject matter experts from a document’s inception in order to create the most effective document possible. Moreover, creating a mutually beneficial relationship where the editor and the author collaborate well and understand each other’s responsibility to the document will help to further relieve the reluctant author. Yet, even still, there are other things that can help when working in the government sector.
Creating Leverage with the Proper Tools—Using Templates and Style
When working in a field where documentation is something derived from requirements, rules, and upper management, editors can find themselves viewed as part of the problem. Busy professionals may not see how their rush to complete a document causes it to have flaws in content and form. Therefore, I find it best to stay present in projects. I rely on the professionals, as my subject matter experts, to write the technical content, but I provide them with tools to do so more easily. Creating templates and style guides can grease the wheels of an otherwise reluctant system. In the past ten years, I have created templates for numerous document types including procedures, plans, manuals, letters, and reports. I have created simple templates for trip reports and complex templates for lengthy manuals. These templates have helped me to guide the writing process and provide direction on what the authors need to discuss in the different document types. Authors who rush through their day running from meeting to meeting tend to find that the templates and early guidance can alleviate much of the complication in writing their documents. After working in a field long enough, you can learn to anticipate the sections needed in a document type. For example, a plan would require an introduction, a section on roles and responsibilities, and the description of the plan itself. Having a template with these sections preformatted will allow the author to quickly understand exactly what they need to effectively complete the document. I have found that these simple templates can be used for a multitude of similar documents. A program may require a systems engineering plan, an issues management plan, a baseline review plan, and other plans similar in nature but vastly different in purpose. Using the templates can help to ensure all necessary sections are filled out efficiently.
Furthermore, style guides can help to create consistency both within a document as well as within a department, division, or company. It may be necessary to have numerous levels of style guides to create the overarching consistency that a larger company may be looking for. These style guides should not be so prescriptive that they constrain the author uncomfortably, but they instead should be quick access guides to consistency. I work with three levels of style guides: the Executive Secretariat published by the executive office; The Chicago Manual of Style, 16th Edition, as prescribed by the executive office; and the department’s style guide that we have assembled to fill in the gaps of the two previous guides. It is this departmental-level guide that allows me the leverage needed when authors struggle to adhere to the chosen guidelines. The department style guide delineates heading styles for numerous levels, bullet styles, numbering styles, captions guidelines, and paragraph spacing. It also goes into the use of acronyms and initialisms, describing how and when to spell them out and the need to avoid dual meanings for specific acronyms. Most of these guidelines do not bother the authors; however, how we list names in a concurrence sheet and the number of spaces between sentences can become hot topics. Having a published and approved style guide along with approved templates quickly nullifies many issues stemming from personal style.
Being Firm but Respectful—Using the Proper Tone with Scientific Authors
In my experience, scientific sectors are often filled with individuals who require a firm voice when being given direction. This includes editorial direction. Highly educated and intelligent individuals may not see the need for an editor, and may be reluctant to allow the editor sufficient time to properly review a document. It has been said that, in general, authors respond better to downgraded, indirect comments (Mackiewicz & Riley, 2003); however, I find the exact opposite true when working with engineers. Subjunctive tones tend to be dismissed by these authors and may even cause a distrust of the editor. Engineers and scientists work in facts and respect individuals who can be direct and courteous. If you present yourself, and your edits, with the same level of regard as they believe they should receive, they will deem your inputs to have greater value. Yet, when doing this, you must also show them the utmost respect. I work diligently to present my authors with suggested edits followed by payoff statements. For example, “Adding a graph here would further illustrate and strengthen your argument.” A strong guiding hand will have much better response than that of someone who downgrades their edits to avoid any possibility of offense. I believe that, in highly technical fields, using too many downgrades when commenting about edits will downplay your authority and diminish the level of respect you have in the office. As an editor, you can be both polite and firm without downplaying the importance and relevance of the modifications that you recommend. Using this type of voice will help you create a stronger rapport with the authors in this type of field.
Yet you may come across authors where this technique does not work in your favor. As editors, we often find that we become counselors. You must get to know your authors: their personalities and quirks, their voice and preferences. Knowing whose work you are editing, while still keeping the audience in mind, will help you tailor your edits to reap the greatest rewards.
Time Constraints and Editing—Explaining the Editing Process
Often I have heard “just do a quick spell check” or “can you just fix the acronym list?” I make note of who has said this so that I can further explain what my job entails. Engineers and the like often do not innately understand the effort that goes into a full edit. One benefit of being an embedded editor is that I can make sure to take the time to explain what I do and how long it takes. I take the time to explain how audience affects tone, how having multiple authors will result in multiple voices, and how certain document types require different sections. However, explaining how long a specific edit may take is best received when discussed in concrete terms. I have found that giving the author the three standard choices (proofreading, copyediting, and substantive editing) along with associated time guidelines helps them comprehend the time necessary for a proper edit. Proofreading tends to move quickly at 6-8 pages per hour. Copyediting (my most commonly requested type of edit) will move at about 3-5 pages per hour. However, when substantive editing is required, I quote at most 1-2 pages per hour. These estimates allow me to juggle multiple interruptions as well as delays due to difficulty reaching the author during the editing process. Working with your author to determine the level of edit required can help you to provide the most appropriate level of work while still satisfying the needs of the intended audience. Of course, once you are working on a document, you may find that it needs much more work than you originally accounted for. Having good rapport with the authors will help you to overcome these obstacles without frustrating them or causing undue stress on yourself.
Becoming an Indispensable Asset—Diversifying Your Role in the Office
Becoming a successfully embedded editor will come with great returns on your investment; however, you must learn how to prove your worth if faced with budget shortfalls. Editors are often seen as superfluous when budgets are tight. Finding ways to diversify your job duties is advantageous and can help protect you from pink slips when the going gets tough. I have found that there are often repetitive reports that need to be written and projects that need to be coordinated. After creating style guides and templates, you must find other ways to continually show your worth if the editing tasks ebb and flow. If you can work as an intermediary for repetitive reports—gathering information, putting it into the necessary forms, and learning the preferred terminology for certain projects—you can relieve burdens from others. These tasks may seem mundane, but they are necessary and will garner appreciation. Furthermore, be proactive. If you see where a document may be helpful, write it. I often write documents that, though lengthy and useful, may not seem impressive to a fellow technical editor. Yet these often catch the eye of other departments that have struggled with the same issue. For example, when new requirements are enforced upon the workforce, confusion and frustration may be apparent. It would behoove you to research and write a document clarifying the new requirements with steps that can be easily applied to the already busy day of your coworkers. Creating these multiple layers of protection against layoffs is always beneficial.
Pulling It All Together
Being a technical editor embedded in a technical, scientific, or government sector can be truly rewarding. If you are looking for a career where you are constantly challenged, always learning, and forever expanding your horizon, this may be the field for you. Yet you must be prepared to stand your ground, guide the authors with an authoritative but respectful tone, and find multiple ways to become indispensable if you are going to be successful in trying to change the rules in this old, established game. My career path was never supposed to be that of an engineer, but I truly enjoy learning from them each day.
Bibliography
Mackiewicz, J., & K. Riley. “The Technical Editor as Diplomat: Linguistic Strategies for Balancing Clarity and Politeness.” Technical Communication 50.1 (2003): 83–94.
Malone, E. A. “Learned Correctors as Technical Editors: Specialization and Collaboration in Early Modern European Printing Houses.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication 20.4: (2006): 389–424.
Pringle, K., & S. Williams. “The Future Is the Past: Has Technical Communication Arrived as a Profession?” Technical Communication 52.3 (2005): 361–370.
Staples, K. “Technical Communication from 1950–1998: Where Are We Now?” Technical Communication Quarterly 8.2 (1998): 153–164.
SARAH M. BUTTRAM (Sarah.Buttram@aggiemail.usu.edu) is a technical writer at Sol Oriens LLC, a small firm focused on managing advanced technologies and concepts with strong potential for military and space application. She is currently completing her Master’s degree in technical communication at the Utah State University.
