Technical and professional communication master’s students work with a faculty advisor to complete a three-credit independent research (IR) project, featuring original research. Stakeholders recommended the IR thesis be revised to better communicate IR to industry. Using a writing, activity theory, and genre theory lens, I analyzed what contradictions emerged between academic and workplace activity systems as stakeholders recommended genre revisions. I analyzed faculty and professional advisory board meeting transcripts, alumni and student surveys, and a Graduate School director and thesis examiner interview. Results indicated the thesis’ spectrum of functions, from its strengths encouraging students’ research proficiency to the limiting way it showcases IR as a product, not a process. Stakeholders suggested no thesis changes but recommended IR genre system modifications. As agents of change, students are uniquely positioned to use the IR genre system to address workplace communication problems and help mend our discipline’s academia-industry divide.

This article describes an interdisciplinary partnership that resulted in the introduction of a writing coach into an MBA class on critical and analytical thinking. By examining the response to this role by the writing coaches themselves and by the students enrolled in three sections of this new course, this exploratory study endeavors to answer the question: How can a writing coach best support student writing in an MBA course? Major findings are that students predominantly liked receiving written feedback and mini-lectures by the writing coaches, mini-lectures were met with mixed reviews, and there was a strong perception by participants that their writing had improved.

Background: Previous research suggests that there are advantages to writing in groups or in pairs compared with writing individually, and that men write differently from women. However, as far as we know, no one has yet used new technology to assess published academic articles written in these different modes. Method: We assembled 80 papers from recent issues of the Journal of Educational Psychology as follows: 21 authored by individual men, 21 by individual women, 19 by pairs of men, and 19 by pairs of women. We then used two computer-based measures to assess various textual features of the Abstracts, the Introductions, and the Discussion sections of these 80 papers. Results: Several differences were found between these various parts of the journal articles (e.g., the Discussions were more readable than the Introductions and these in turn were more readable than the Abstracts). However, there were few differences between the writing of pairs or individuals, or between that of men and women. Conclusions: There was no real evidence to support the notion that writing in pairs would lead to better quality articles or that there would be differences between the readability of papers produced by men and women. Such differences may occur, however, before peer review.

The process of academic peer review—i.e., students evaluating each other's work—can help instructors address a host of higher institutional objectives, not the least of which is the total quality management of collegiate teaching. But more is known about this process from the viewpoint of instructors than from the perspective of students. The purpose of this study was to formally examine student views of a specific peer-review system in which undergraduates assigned final grades to each other's term papers. A survey instrument revealed a high degree of comfort with the process, as well as some insights into why a few students were uncomfortable with it.

This article analyzes Herbert C. Hoover's translation of the De Re Metallica (1956) in the context of the 1922 Mine Strikes. The De Re Metallica combines practical instruction in mining techniques with a philosophical justification of the practice of mining. In Book I of the De Re Metallica, Agricola consciously constructs a rationalized science of metallurgy and mineralogy to enable expert miners to profit in a risky enterprise. Analysis of the text thus reveals that Hoover's interest in Agricola's “intellectual achievements” may have been more than technical. The economical and political assumptions that drive Agricola's arguments—justification of mining as a profit-making enterprise, his notions that accidents occur because workers are careless, and his rhetorical use of the notion of scientific expertise—framed many of the early twentieth century debates between mine operators and union organizers. In revisioning Agricola's arguments in the context of Hoover's own Principles of Mining and his statements in the 1922 Mine Crisis, this article demonstrates how technical documents reflect the political ideologies of their writers and how political arguments presented as purely technical debates shape the uses and construction of future technologies.

The research described here examines the problems encountered by people when filling in forms. Subjects were required to complete forms on the basis of a situation sketch, while thinking aloud. From the completed forms, the observations, and the subjects' comments, conclusions could be drawn about the types of problems the subjects had encountered and about the strategies they had used. These conclusions, together with various suggestions found in the literature, provided a guideline for a thorough revision of seven forms. A test showed that, after revision, the number of forms completed unacceptably was reduced by about half.

This article surveys and critiques the literature on using style checkers and the text-editing capabilities of the computer to assist in revising technical writing. The literature on text-editing capabilities is inconclusive because it is largely anecdotal and methodologically flawed. The literature on style checkers is similarly inconclusive. To better assess the value of the computer, we need to examine the basic premise of the research on revising and word processing: that more revising leads to higher-quality writing. We need to be sure that our evaluative techniques for measuring writing improvement are valid; to focus our attention not only on computer novices but also on computer-experienced writers; to examine other factors that affect how writers use word processing and that in turn might affect writing quality; and to examine more carefully the differences among word processors and among the different style checkers to determine their effects on writing behavior and writing quality.

Complicated documents often affect readers the way computer programs affect computers; technical writers are prone to many of the same serious errors that plague programmers. Among the many principles that writers can learn from programming are: 1) Models save money: it is far more economical to develop detailed outlines and mockups than to improvise from a vague outline. 2) Quality demands maintainability: every complicated document will need frequent revision, and only documents designed for ease of change will be kept current. 3) The trouble is in the interfaces: the procedures and tasks in a manual are not as error-prone as the rules for moving from part to part of the book itself. 4) Readers are subject to the laws of physics: many publication economies produce documents that defy the physical powers of the reader. 5) Communication is control: readers must be prevented from getting lost.

This paper summarizes the quality-control methods that the author has used or seen used at five IBM locations that publish various documents. The methods are editing, lead-writer review, peer review, self-review, technical-owner review, reviews by people with special skills, testing, walkthroughs, design review, checklists, mechanical reviews, and user feedback. The author gives his opinions about the advantages and limitations of each method.

The copyright reform bill should become law in January, 1978. Among its major revisions are the extension of protection for life plus fifty years and the mitigation of penalties for either omission of notice or “innocent infringement.” For the first time the law specifically identifies “fair use” and certain other copying practices as user rights. The issues of integrity of text and the use of protected text within computer systems have not been treated. The law's text itself remains general in the hope that it will prove to be a flexible vehicle for the future. An era of informal agreements and litigation between publishers and users can be anticipated. Scientific and technical publishing must be recognized as a special area within the publishing community on the verge of change.

Although you write the proposal before, and the report after, you do the research, both require the application of principles that will demonstrate to the reader two skills needed by every investigator: clear thinking to produce worthwhile research, and clear writing to communicate the results of that research. Sharp delineation of the problem to be addressed, thoughtful preliminary preparation, careful outlining, and concentration on orderly sequence of ideas in the first draft will help produce a unified, coherent proposal. Critical revision, with emphasis on simple, direct, forceful language will enhance the persuasiveness of the proposal.