Barker Chapter 7 - Useful Reviews

One word could sum up Barker's chapter seven on useful reviews: inclusiveness. What exactly do we mean by inclusiveness? It's the process of bringing a wide variety of stakeholders (reviewers) together in the documentation process. Bringing these stakeholders together allows the document's author/originator to produce a piece that is truly for the user. During this process, the document goes through a procedure of envisioning, planning, designing, revising, and editing--all on a realistic schedule. But in order to produce a quality document, honest input from all those who are part of the review team will allow the final product to achieve maximum utility. 

The Review Process

Reviews can be time consuming. A thorough review process begins with a statement of intent that the document's authors can circulate at the initial stages of the review. This statement puts the document in the proper context for the review team.

The authors can offer the review team a variety of review types:

• Managerial
  
• User
  
• Technical
  
• Subject Matter
  
• Editorial 
  
• Sponsor
  

See Table 7. 4 for a description of these review types

In order to keep the reviewer on task, it is best to give each reviewer a list of specific questions to complete which are pertinent to their area of involvement only. This will keep the reviewer focused on their area of responsibility.

Time is important to the process and schedule, thus it is important to make sure the reviewer has enough time to complete their own portion of the review.

When you send the document to the review team, there are a couple of options for distribution. Each of these options has its advantages and disadvantages. For a complete listing of the attributes of each distribution channel, please consult the text. 

1. Sequential circulation - begins with one reviewer who subsequently passes the document on to the next reviewer in an orderly fashion. Usually there is a routing note attached to the document so that the order of review is pre-determined. This is a less expensive way to do things (only one copy is needed) but it can be very time consuming if the document become buried on one of the reviewer's desks.
2. Simultaneous circulation - involves the distribution of multiple copies of the document to be reviewed circulated at the same time to all reviewers. This method, of course, can be faster because each reviewer works independently at the same time.
   

The most significant difference between the two methods is the manner with which the reviewers supply their remarks. In sequential circulation, the reviewer will see the marks of the previous reviewer thus limiting the amount of marks that come back to the author. In simultaneous review, the reviewer is free to mark up all the aspects of the document. It seems that simultaneous review might yield a more thorough examination because each participant starts at the same point and must look at the entire document (free of other's remarks).

Be personal

The document's author/originator must always be aware of the fact that those people who make up the review team are doing him/her a valuable favor by lending their time to the review process. Because of this commitment from the reviewers, the originator of the document must keep a few things in mind:

1. Explain your review goals thoroughly when distributing the document for review
   
2. Reinforce the relationship you have with the review team (complement and thank them often)
   
3. Explain the benefits of participation on the review team (the final product benefits from each reviewers expertise)
   
4. Describe how you would like the reviewer to comment i.e.) marks, colors for each reviewer
   
5. Give the reviewers a firm date to return the draft to you
   
6. When the review is returned, make sure that you acknowledge each reviewer's particpation
   

Figure 7. 4 provides a good example of a review sheet that can be given to the review team

Final Discussion

It's imperative to know what you're asking for from the review team. Make sure that each reviewer understands the differences between:

1. Reviewing - uncontrolled environment with many comments
   
2. Testing - controlled environment with few participants
   
3. Editing - professional environment with a single editor
   

This chapter focuses on review only. Reviews provide the document's author with a quality end product because all of the project's stakeholders (reviewers) will have had the opportunity to comment on the document and the project will be kept on a tight schedule that management will appreciate.

The earlier you begin the review process, the better it will go because the important background information will be discussed more often with the team before the project becomes too involved.

Keep your review team informed and engaged and they will probably work hard for you. If differences arise amongst the reviewers, you must be diplomatic and fair because you will need the reviewers in the future. You can't afford to alienate your team.

Finally, consider doing a walkthrough with the review team at some point during the project. The walkthrough brings all the stakeholders together for a intensive, one hour meeting. The walkthrough, if kept on task, will allow the document's author/originator the opportunity to record and compile a great deal of information in a short time. This will shape and refine the document and give all reviewers the opportunity to collaborate. Most likely, the greatest benefit of the walkthrough involving many reviewers is the opportunity to shape the document in such a way that it will elicit minimal negative feedback in the final stages of review.

Our thoughts

The key to effective document review is a cohesive review team. Keeping the team informed in all phases of the review process will create a more comprehensive and usable document in the end. People like to be heard and it's not difficult to allow this to happen if you plan the review process from the beginning.

In summary, follow these five steps as review process guidelines:

1. Ask politely for involvement from reviewers
   
2. Explain why they are important to the project
   
3. Keep the team informed (always) not just when you need them
   
4. Thank the reviewers when they have completed their task
   
5. Show the reviewers the final product with changes
   

Thank you, Vanda and Lance (Team 7)

"Frameworks for the Study of Writing in Organizational Contexts" by Teresa M. Harrison (Central Works... Article 17)

Preface
Harrison comments that, nearly two decades after this article was first written, she realizes "that the primary activities of communication theorists are to derive and synthesize" (p. 255). She recognizes not only how much of this essay was based upon other research but also that this essay was one part of an evolving communication theory that has since become "the status quo" (255).

Introduction
Most professional writing is done within the context of organizations. While the amount of writing varies in different fields, most college-educated working adults do some writing on the job.

Writing that is done on the job tends to reflect the writer's analysis of organizational policies and procedures, understanding of readers, and awareness of social and environmental constraints.

Studying writing in organizational contexts helps us to understand the relationship between how organizations work and how its members write. It might also help us to develop broader theories about the impact of social context on the act of writing. Finally, it helps students of writing to better analyze and prepare for writing in and for their organizations.

One major challenge to studying organizational writing is the necessity for interdisciplinary research. It requires an understanding of both composition theory and organization theory. This article presents several approaches to studying writing in organizational contexts.

The Nature of Context
Much of the research on writing has focused on the social aspect of writing. This includes not only studying the relationship between the writer and the reader, but also studying the environment in which the writer and reader interact. Whether an organization should be considered a rhetorical context depends upon which approach the researcher takes.

Context as Situation
In a traditional approach such as Bitzer's, rhetorical context is considered "a situation that constitutes an occasion for rhetoric" (257). The elements of audience, exigence, and constraints trigger an appropriate rhetorical response. In this approach, situations are objective and set. The people experiencing the situation are constrained by and respond to the situation.

In this approach, there is no need to analyze organizational context because rhetorical situations are isolated events that occur between individuals. However, Harrison contends that organizations do influence rhetorical situations because their unique policies, procedures, and members may limit the kinds of situations that may occur.

Context as Community
In the New Rhetoric, reality is not seen as objective. Instead, knowledge arises from rhetorical activity or social interaction; it doesn't exist outside of the knower. The knower's assumptions influence the way they view or understand an experience.

Individuals who share assumptions make up communities, and community knowledge may different depending upon the context of each community. When individuals communicate within a community, they are demonstrating that they belong or identify with others in that community. Because of shared assumptions, individuals within a community can understand each other, and that understanding further reinforces the sense of community.

While rhetorical activity can unite communities, it can also exclude other individuals. Those that don't share their knowledge or behaviors may be excluded. Because of this, shared meanings that are reinforced within communities can be analyzed.

In this approach, academic disciplines, such as science or composition, can be viewed as unique communities with specific characteristics. If this is so, then organizations too can be considered communities with unique characteristics that should be examined for rhetorical context.

Organizations as Rhetorical Contexts
From an organizational theorist's perspective, organizations are seen "as a social phenomenon constructed through the interaction of symbol-using organisms" (260). They are viewed as cultures. Therefore, a number of researchers have used ethnographic methods to study organizations just as they would different ethnic groups.

Two perspectives in particular are helpful for analyzing an organization's rhetorical context: viewing organizations "as systems of knowledge" or viewing them as "patterns of symbolic discourse" (260).

Organizations as Systems of Knowledge
One approach to studying organizational culture views it as a " 'system of cognitions or a system of knowledge and cognitions' " (260). As individuals interact in the organizational environment, they create and reinforce the beliefs around which their culture is based. In this approach, researchers attempt to understand how an organization's members create knowledge and how that knowledge is used to guide behavior.

The evolutionary model focuses on "the organizational-level processes by which knowledge is constructed" (260). It argues that organizations retain interpretations of experience that are positive or useful, and these meanings become the shared knowledge of the organization.

The social information processing model focuses on "the social processes by which knowledge is established and shared" (260). Organization members interact with each other, sharing their perspectives and attitudes about the organization. These shared ideas become a system of knowledge, referred to as a "paradigm" (260).

The basis of this approach is the belief that thinking and acting are related. Studying organizational knowledge can provide insight into members' beliefs and roles. A major challenge, however, is understanding how organizational knowledge affects the actions of individual members.

Organizations as Patterns of Symbolic Discourse
Another approach views the organization as a context for making and using symbols. Symbols may include the words and images developed around the unique actions, events, or objects of an organization. Studying the symbols that are commonly used in organizations can provide insight into the relationships between and the actions of an organization's members.

Symbols such as images and metaphors can reveal much about an organization's beliefs and even the way its members think. One example is the use of war metaphors to represent corporate takeovers.

Common words may take a unique meaning for members of an organization because of shared understanding. Examples are slogans, stories, or sagas that illustrate the beliefs and values that guide the actions of an organization.

In summary, the New Rhetoric expands the definition of rhetorical context beyond the rhetorical situation. It includes the larger environment, such as an organization, that sets the stage for rhetorical situations to occur. This consideration is necessary because an organization influences the beliefs of and symbols used by its members.

Implications for Research
One recommendation for applying these approaches is to examine the shared knowledge of an organization and how that influences the writing done by its members. The culture of an organization might influence or limit the writing methods used by members.

Researchers may also examine organization's policies regarding how to write, what to write, and who writes. Deviations from established policies might also reveal something about the individual writer's rhetorical choices.

The symbols used by an organization can be analyzed to understand the rhetorical choices that are available to an organization's members. Symbols can also be analyzed to understand how they contribute to the creation and maintenance of the organization itself.

Implications for Writing in Organizations
Writing for an organization can be challenging. Organizational writing requires that the writer learn about the culture of the organization. Without an understanding of the values, goals, and beliefs of an organization, a writer might not be able to effectively communicate with the intended audience. The organization may also have written or unwritten rules about writing that must be considered.

Considering an organization as a culture is helpful for performing audience analysis. If members of an organizations share beliefs and symbols, then the writer can better plan how to approach such an audience. The writer can also consider the characteristics of those who are not organization members and can write appropriately for that audience as well.

Analyzing an organization's culture is helpful for both new and old members. Those new to an organization can analyze its culture to better integrate into the organization and develop writing appropriate for the organization. Long-standing members of an organization can benefit from understanding the underlying beliefs of the organization and can better target the desired audience.

Finally, analyzing organizational culture can help writers of all kinds understand the social environment. Analyzing an organization's symbols as if they were text helps writers to understand the shared meanings that influence the interactions of an organization's members.

Conclusion
Both rhetorical and organizational theories can be used to understand writing in organizations. Both theories believe that discourse is based on social interaction. Discourse unites individuals with shared beliefs into communities, and the common knowledge shared by a community's members allows them to understand each other.

Writers can benefit from approaching organizations as rhetorical contexts because it allows them to better appreciate the unique beliefs and symbols used by each organization. They can understand both the shared culture of those in the organization and the differences of those outside of the organization. This is especially important for technical writers who interact with both technical specialists and the general public. It is also important for others who write for organizations because it helps them to understand assumptions, to challenge them if necessary, and to create new knowledge.

Submitted by Team 1

Campbell Chapter 7 - What's the Secret to Creating Good Manuals and Handbooks

What's the Secret to Creating Good Manuals and Handbooks


What to Put in a Manual or Handbook

Ultimately there is no formula for writing a manual. The manual will be written for a certain purpose and a certain audience. How do you present the manual? You want to present it in a way that the user will find it easy to use by not spending endless time looking for answers in it. the content must be in logical order, with a reference systme that's quick and easy.



There are seven design elements referred to as the front matter and the back matter. Many of the items in the list are so common that we do not give them a second thought when writing.



Table of Contents (TOC) Front Matter

An overview of what's in the book. It's the first impression readers have of the manual. If the table gives a good impression it encourages the reader to go on. If it gives a negative impression, such as crowded, confusing, or hard to read, it gives the reader that assumption the rest of the document is the same.


List of Illustration Front Matter

This is placed after the TOC and lists the illustrations and graphics in the manual. This makes it easier for the reader to find exactly what they are looking for instead of paging through the book.


List of Form Front Matter

The list of forms is like the illustrations list. The book also suggests that this could be placed in a forms index.


Introduction Front Matter

"This part of the front matter sets the stage ofr what's coming and orients the reader to certain basics about the manual, such as the purpose and scope."


Glossary Back Matter

This is a list of definitions that is used throughout the manual. It can be placed at the front or the back. Audience analysis can help determine whether you should use a glossary, what type, and how in-dpeth it needs to be.


Appendix Back Matter

Information that supplements the text belongs in this section. This information would otherwise confuse the reader while going through the manual. If the text is at the end of the manual they have decision to back and read through it.


Index

"The index is probably the most valuable "speed tool" you can give the reader" Its an alphabeical list of what's in the manual. When developing an index use terminology the readers use. Stay with realistic language and avoid corporate-speak.


The Production Elements

This is another area that tends to be overlooked because of familiarity. Main items to consider when deciding on production elements are: 1. How readers will use the manual, 2. Under what conditions they'll use it; and 3. How frequently they'll use it. There are six elements to consider.


Size

Standard 8 1/2 x 11 for most manuals. Smaller size manual tend to get lost among regular size materials.


Paper

Using a standard 20 to 24 lb. paper is adequate. If heavy use is expected a heavier paper is suggested such as 24 to 32 lbs. If the manual is being used in a production area, a water resistent or laminate type of page should be used. It is more costly, but it will save the cost of having to replace manuals more often or losing pages of the manual.


Color

3 color issues

1. Page color

2. Section color

3. Binder color

White is mainly used for page color because it is easiest on the eyes. But to make a section stand out, color would be a good choice. The example gives whas the blue pages in a telephone book for the government section. Binder colors also can make a stand out impression. If everyone else uses black, try another color to make yours stand out.


Binders

Inexpensive binders aren't always the way to go. They often fall apart at the seams or the rings break. One must consider the usage it will have when purchasing.


Usage of the binder should also be taken into consideration. a 2" binder requires 2 hands where a 1/2" binders needs 1 hand to pull off the shelf. If a person is on the phone all day the 1/2" binder makes the most sense. Split up the manual into 2 binders.


Always use 3-ring binders when you expect changes in content. Spiral binders can be used if there is to be not changes or minimal changes. Whatever binding system is used, be sure the pages will lie flat and are easy to turn.


Cover

If using a binder, get one that has clear envelope on the front to slip a page into and preferrably one on the spine. Manuals sit on the shelf with only their spines showing, so being able to put a title on the spine ensure that they will be seen and used more.


Dividers

Tabs divide sections. Buy sturdy tabs so they do not break off between section.

Article Summary: Charney’s “Empiricism Is Not a Four-Letter Word”

Do empirical methods have a place in the scholarship of technical and professional writing? At the time this article was written (1996), an influential cadre of technical communication researchers had been calling into question not only the validity of these methods but also the moral and ethical character of those who used them. Basing their rejection of empirical methods on feminism and social constructionism, these scholars successfully forced quantitative research in technical communication out of the mainstream. With this article, Charney’s aim was to expose the logical fallacies of this movement, as he saw them, and to attempt to restore the reputation of quantitative methods. His hope was for a community of scholarship that valued qualitative and quantitative research methodologies in equal measure.

The Mischaracterization of Science

Although many critics of science merge objectivity, positivism, rationalism, and materialism (among other terms), Charney notes that these concepts can and should be separated and that many notable scholars have upheld some, but not all, of these ideas. Nevertheless, critics equate the quantitative approach with an ethos of self-interest and political status quo. By eliminating the richness of human experience from their research, empiricists are viewed as misrepresenting the true nature of the world as reducible and fully describable.

A key accusation against empiricism is that it is inherently sexist. Some scholars charge that empiricism reinforces masculine modes of knowledge and shuts out other, feminine, paths, such as intuitions, traditions, and personal experience. Charney counters that, contrarily, the pervasiveness of sexism in our culture has often been revealed through quantitative analyses and that empiricism has probably opened the door to many more people to join in the production of knowledge than were allowed to in cultures that privileged the elitist few. Because science is open and repeatable, it allows anyone to challenge it and add to it.

Indeterminacy

Critics also point to the fundamental contradiction in science that so-called “objective” methods are not really objective at all. In every data set, there is variance; in all methods, there are indeterminate sources of error. How, then, can scientists claim absolute objectivity? Charney concedes that “scientific knowledge and methods are, at least in part, socially constructed.” However, he says, this does not invalidate the central rationality of science. Science is a process, not a discrete, monolithic entity. Imperfect tools are used to continually improve our understanding and to create new tools that are less imperfect than their predecessors. Science is self-critical and self-examining—nothing stands that is shown to be false. To Charney, empiricism is what prevents a totalitarian ethic because it promotes a free and open exchange of ideas. This is in direct contrast to the characterization of science by the opposing side as an upholder of oppressive power structures.

What’s Really Objective about Objectivity?

As noted, critics often charge that science is not objective because its methods are socially constructed and inherently indeterminate. However, to philosophers of science, there is no contradiction between social construction and objectivity—it is largely a misperception of science that leads people to reject it. The social constructivist roots of science are evident in the way that scientific ideas and methods are tested and re-tested. No one individual holds absolute authority. Knowledge is arrived at through consensus via a community-based process. Most scientists do not see their own results as fixed, immutable truths, but rather as probabilities that lean in one direction or another. As a result, scientific articles are best viewed as rhetorical devices to disseminate results and attempt to convince one’s peers of the value of one’s work. This process results in ever-improving methods and knowledge claims. It is precisely this aspect of science, and not the “supposed neutrality or disinterestedness of individual scientists,” that defines objectivity in science.

How Researchers Treat Their Participants

Another critique of empiricism is the cold manner in which quantitative researchers approach their research participants. Critics equate distance with uncaringness, objectivity with amorality. Charney points out that “these characterizations smack of the worst kind of exclusionary identity politics” in that “they essentialize the researchers on the basis of their methods.” In contrast, many quantitative researchers care deeply for their research participants—deeply enough to remain distant and “cold.” This distance is what allows them to report accurately on what they observe, and what allows others to reproduce their studies and validate their results. The methods one uses cannot be used as a gauge of the moral character of those who use them. In that light, the supposed caring and compassionate nature of qualitative researchers cannot be ascertained purely through their own descriptions of their participants. Their reports are just as calculated as those of quantitative researchers—they must assume a particular “voice” in order to appeal to their readers (primarily, other qualitative researchers).

Objectivity Reinforces Collective Authority

Qualitative analyses are inherently situated in the place they were conducted. Studies that rely on qualitative methods are not generalizable to broader contexts, and the validity of these studies cannot be independently verified. Paradoxically, this lends absolute authority to the individual researchers because they are the only ones who can make claims about their own research. Although qualitative research is often viewed as democratizing and collectivist, the opposite is true. Quantitative research, conversely, relies on the community for its credence. And because quantitative research leads toward generalizability, the results of multiple studies build upon one another to form an interconnected web of understanding.

Toward a Synthesis of Qualitative and Quantitative Methods

Neither qualitative nor quantitative methods alone are sufficient to create a robust field of scholarship in technical communication. Both reveal knowledge in their own way, and both reveal different kinds of knowledge. Charney believes that, as a field, we should embrace all methods that have the capability of leading us to our collective goals.