100% Say Writing Is Important to Their Work, But What Harm Does This Uncontroversial Finding Obscure? Early Results from a Survey of Scientists and Technical Professionals About Writing and Communication

S. Read
{"title":"100% Say Writing Is Important to Their Work, But What Harm Does This Uncontroversial Finding Obscure? Early Results from a Survey of Scientists and Technical Professionals About Writing and Communication","authors":"S. Read","doi":"10.1109/ProComm53155.2022.00008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper explores preliminary results from an on-going IRB-approved online survey of workers in scientific, academic, technical and industrial contexts on their attitudes about and approaches to writing in their work. The survey collects samples of language use by scientists and technical professionals when talking about writing and communication in their work and careers in order to document how conventional, or regularized and non-controversial, their language choices are (i.e., “Successful writing is clear and concise”). Coding of survey responses for the construct of the Communication Metaphor reveals a multivalent complex of tacit beliefs, assumptions and learned practices that inform and maintain conventional language about professional and technical writing and communication. Documenting this multivalency is the first step in revealing, recognizing, rejecting, and replacing tacit, but harmful, language practices.","PeriodicalId":286504,"journal":{"name":"2022 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference (ProComm)","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2022 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference (ProComm)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ProComm53155.2022.00008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper explores preliminary results from an on-going IRB-approved online survey of workers in scientific, academic, technical and industrial contexts on their attitudes about and approaches to writing in their work. The survey collects samples of language use by scientists and technical professionals when talking about writing and communication in their work and careers in order to document how conventional, or regularized and non-controversial, their language choices are (i.e., “Successful writing is clear and concise”). Coding of survey responses for the construct of the Communication Metaphor reveals a multivalent complex of tacit beliefs, assumptions and learned practices that inform and maintain conventional language about professional and technical writing and communication. Documenting this multivalency is the first step in revealing, recognizing, rejecting, and replacing tacit, but harmful, language practices.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
100%的人说写作对他们的工作很重要,但这个毫无争议的发现掩盖了什么危害?一项对科学家和技术专业人员关于写作和交流的调查的早期结果
本文探讨了一项正在进行的、经irb批准的在线调查的初步结果,调查对象是科学、学术、技术和工业领域的工作者,他们对工作中写作的态度和方法。该调查收集了科学家和技术专业人员在工作和职业生涯中谈论写作和交流时使用的语言样本,以记录他们的语言选择是传统的,还是规范的和无争议的(即,“成功的写作是清晰而简洁的”)。通过对调查结果的编码来构建交际隐喻,揭示了一种由隐性信念、假设和习得实践构成的多重价值复合体,这些信念、假设和习得实践为专业和技术写作和交际提供了信息并维持了传统语言。记录这种多价性是揭示、识别、拒绝和取代隐性但有害的语言实践的第一步。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Development of Technical Communication in China: Program Building and Industrial Trends Teaching Engineering Writing through Rhetorical Genre Studies UX Methods as Transformative Institutional Change: Stacey Abrams’ Georgia Campaign as a Formative Example (Un)housed and (Un)heard: The Power of Narrative in Reimagining Long-Term Crisis Communication Extended Abstract: NSF Merit Review Criteria as Points of Entry for Advancing Social Justice
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1