关于工程师写作的两种刻板印象的调查

Sharon Kowalski, Nawctsd, Orlando
{"title":"关于工程师写作的两种刻板印象的调查","authors":"Sharon Kowalski, Nawctsd, Orlando","doi":"10.1109/IPCC.1997.637074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This statistical study makes use of data gathered during quality-control inspections to examine the validity of two commonly held stereotypes. The first of these is the belief that documents containing superficial errors are likely to be flawed in a more substantial manner; the second is that engineers tend to be especially inept as technical writers. In both cases, the data indicate that the stereotypes are invalid.","PeriodicalId":255103,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of IPCC 97. Communication","volume":"48 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1997-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An investigation of two stereotypes regarding the writing of engineers\",\"authors\":\"Sharon Kowalski, Nawctsd, Orlando\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/IPCC.1997.637074\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This statistical study makes use of data gathered during quality-control inspections to examine the validity of two commonly held stereotypes. The first of these is the belief that documents containing superficial errors are likely to be flawed in a more substantial manner; the second is that engineers tend to be especially inept as technical writers. In both cases, the data indicate that the stereotypes are invalid.\",\"PeriodicalId\":255103,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of IPCC 97. Communication\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1997-10-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of IPCC 97. Communication\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/IPCC.1997.637074\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of IPCC 97. Communication","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/IPCC.1997.637074","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本统计研究利用在质量控制检查期间收集的数据来检验两种普遍持有的刻板印象的有效性。第一种是认为包含表面错误的文件很可能存在更重大的缺陷;第二,作为技术作家,工程师往往特别不称职。在这两种情况下,数据表明原型是无效的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
An investigation of two stereotypes regarding the writing of engineers
This statistical study makes use of data gathered during quality-control inspections to examine the validity of two commonly held stereotypes. The first of these is the belief that documents containing superficial errors are likely to be flawed in a more substantial manner; the second is that engineers tend to be especially inept as technical writers. In both cases, the data indicate that the stereotypes are invalid.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The best of both worlds: combining usability testing and documentation projects Communication and engineers: collisions at the crossroads! Technical communication and distance learning: natural partners Using complexity theory to understand what's happening to technical communication Ethnographic research: students studying their profession within its social context
×
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