Re: Liberal Arts Grads Can't "Grasp?" Give me a break.

["Wing, Michael J" <mjwing -at- INGR -dot- COM>]

You solicited responses.  Therefore, I'll give you one.

First I'll explain that I'm a hybrid.  I have both a humanities degree
(Music Education) and a scientific degree (Electrical Engineering).  I
find that the humanities background gives me the tools to organize,
present, and disseminate information.  The scientific background gives
me tools to start my understanding of the technology of which I am
documenting at a higher starting point than those Tech Writers of a pure
liberal arts/humanities background who also lack experience.  Note that
I specified a lack of experience.  A writer of any background applying
themselves to technologies introduced to them gains skills as they gain
experience.  IMO, as these skills accumulate and grow, the curriculum
studied in college becomes a diminishing factor.

Further comments are interspersed with your post (below).

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> A person whose training is geared too much toward liberal arts or a
> technical field is not going to be a great technical writer.
>
> Pure techies tend to downplay the softer side of technical writing
> (user-friendly wording, attractive layout, etc.) which are required in
> good documentation, while pure liberal arts folks tend not to fully
> grasp what they are talking about. That's not intended as an
> insult...it just reflects a lack of training in a certain area. Many,
> many writers without much technical training often "just don't get"
> what they're writing about, and it takes a techie to catch such
> errors.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Best laugh I've had all morning. Unfortunately, not only is this
> patently false, but it's also a mode of thinking that's dangerously
> prevalent among many a high-tech companies (or companies who fancy
> themselves as "cutting edge."). For these reasons, I respond.  You're
> serious when you assert that a liberal arts major "can't grasp"
> things? Wow. I haven't heard a stereotype like this in a long time.
>
Actually, this person said PURE liberal arts people "just don't get"
what PURE techies are telling them.  It is still a generalization, but
it does not seem to be the broad "Liberal Arts types cannot grasp
anything (including Liberal Art subjects)" generalization that you have
taken umbrage with.  I guess it begs the question, "If a pure Liberal
Arts person grasps a technical subject, are they still a pure Liberal
Arts person?".   This person was arguing extremes, but did not emphasize
that they were arguing extremes (whether done purposefully or not, who
knows?),

> Last time, in fact, I heard it was during a job interview. A local
> internet service provider was looking for a customer service rep who
> could also write a company newsletter. He seemed pleased with my
> technical experience but was troubled by my liberal arts background.
> His fear, he said, was that English majors tended hang out in "la-la"
> land. The fact that I'd been a published writer -- stories and several
> screenplays -- didn't help my case. And final straw was the fact that
> I'd received two MA's -- one in English, one in Writing. He was
> visibly agitated with my academic experience -- so much so that he
> wondered I'd wasted my time in grad school.
>
My guess is that you did not set out in college to become a Technical
Writer and that you decided sometime after graduation that technical
writing is a possible field in which to earn a living.  I'm also
guessing that going back to school to retool was not the most favorable
option.  Therefore, because Writer is half the job title, you made a go
at trying to convince hiring managers that backgrounds in English and
Writing were adequate to force a fit.  If I assumed wrong, I apologize.

> Obviously, I didn't get the job, and of course, I wouldn't have wanted
> it had I gotten it. It's unfortunate, but there's still a smattering
> of anti-intellectualism in the workplace, particularly among those
> employers who, as I say, fancy themselves "cutting edge." It's both an
> anti-intellectualism and a troubling insularity brought on no doubt by
> the belief that there's nothing beyond the workplace and that culture
> (as we Americans tend to think of 'culture') is a waste of time.
>
I also wonder if the multiple advanced degrees without XX years of
experience (assuming that you went this route soon after college) were
what the hiring manager balked at.  An entry level Tech Writer does not
earn nearly what an entry level Engineer earns (by brother-in-law the
Engineer earns 11k/year more than me and he only has 3 years experience;
I have 15).  The hiring manager may think, "This writing candidate has
more education than most of my Engineering staff.  The money is not what
a person with advanced degrees should be earning; however, that's what
we pay starting writers.  He also has quite an interest in creative
writing (why else would he get advanced degrees in English and
Writing?), this job will bore the tears out of him.  Plus, I need
someone more "down to earth" that won't be dissatisfied with the lack of
creative writing and leave within the year".

> Many people -- both techies and non-techies alike -- don't grasp the
> fact that a good liberal arts background makes you a creative thinker.
> That's what counts -- or what should count among enlightened managers
> -- in today's workplace.
>
I would argue that the creative thinking capability is already there.  A
Liberal Arts program - as wells as a computer science program - may just
bring it to the surface.  The program does not create whatever was not
there to begin with.

Also, IMO, managers want the right fit for the right money.  This fit
includes experience in products, tools, and working environment similar
to what they (the hiring company) need.  The price must also be right.
They may want a strong writer, but also one who has experience in
similar technologies.  The division of the company for which I now work
makes mapping software.  I did not document mapping software at my last
company; however, we made geological surveying and measuring
instruments.  The background was similar, therefore, they felt that my
learning curve would be easier than a pure Liberal Arts type or an
experienced Tech Writer with a dissimilar background.  The fact that I
could program sealed the job because the mapping software is automated.
I could do the programming manuals and write the example code.

> Creative problem solving is the key to technical communication and, in
> fact, is probably the key in any endeavor, technical or no. In fact,
> I've often remarked to coworkers, managers, and employers how much
> computer programming is like writing a short story, screenplay, or
> novel. You start with nothing and in the process of creation are
> forced to confront a variety of obstacles. Several employers have
> looked at me with incredulity in their eyes when I've suggested this:
> "You've got to be kidding." They can't make the conceptual leap
> between two highly creative endeavors.
>
To me it's innovative thinking.  Creative thinking implies creating
something that has never been made before.  Innovative thinking means to
make the best (and clearest) out of the available information and within
the constrictions of the job.  Artists are creative; technologists are
innovative.

> Bottom-line: most anyone can learn technical specifics. You sit down
> with me for five hours and tell me about your latest widget. I'll ask
> a bunch of questions, think about it for a bit, and then I'll
> internalize it . Two, three, four days (hours?) later, I can start
> cranking out a manual or brochure. I'll learn the <expletive deleted>
> widget inside and out.  Complex? No problem. Let me fiddle with it,
> ask questions, and I'll write something that will communicate its
> importance, ease of use, and effectiveness to any end-user. Kid in
> fourth grade? No sweat. To a manager too busy to read all but the
> shortest abstract? Simple.
>
That's a dream scenario.  I've rarely documented anything that was
complete enough to fiddle with (without getting wrong/unexpected
results, crashing the computer, and so forth).  And forget about playing
with it when it's done.  That's ship time!!  Most of my documentation is
done simultaneously with development.  I must extrapolate from technical
specs, home-made simulations of the software functionality (to get by
hurdles), white papers, dragging information from Engineers and so
forth. You're right, anyone can sit down and document something complete
and working.  Now try documenting on the fly!

> But you can't teach most anyone *creative thinking* or new ways of
> solving problems.  You can't *teach* problem solving. The benefit of a
> liberal arts education (if it's done properly) is a gradual awareness
> of how to approach problems and how the same problems have existed for
> many, many, many years. For many people, this comes as a shock. Read
> Plato, for example, and tell me that we don't debate his same concerns
> -- good, evil, love, justice -- every day of our lives. Maybe he
> didn't solve these problems, but that's not imporant. The key is never
> the answer -- it's always the question. If you know enough to ask good
> questions, your education is complete.
>
To me, asking good questions is only a third of the solution.  The
second third is understanding the answers.  The last third is
transcribing them in the document.

> The anti-intellectualists tend to ask the same questions over and
> over, require the same amount of work from their employees, and don't
> have the smarts enough to make leap. Product is not always the key --
> process is sometimes where it's at.
>
Process is an ends to the means.  Improving the process is improving the
efficiency.  The product (unless you're a services company) is still the
means.

> Such insularity, as I say, is especially troubling to me. Many
> managers tend to poo-poo anything not directly related to their
> industry. They downplay the links between science, culture, math,
> technology, etc. What these people tend to forget is that creativity
> isn't borne in a vacuum.  If all technical writers did was write
> technical manuals, they'd grow stale and unoriginal. My advice to
> anyone embarking on a technical writing career with a liberal arts
> background is to stress your ability to simplify complex problems. You
> bring creative solutions to the mix, and if your liberal arts
> background is a good one, you will most likely be the creative focal
> point for any project.
>
My advice is to get some technical experience/education and prove that
you can apply this "creative thinking" to a concrete item.  This may
mean a few years in the less than ideal job.

Don't tell them that you can simplify complex problems, show them a
complex problem that you have simplified!!!  I had in interview in which
the manager discussed handling difficult documents.  I told him how I
was presented with a multi-configurable instrument to document back in
1988.  The problems in making a reconfigurable document were challenging
(this was when word processors were still pretty much computerized
typewriters).  I then showed him the modularized manual I developed.  I
then described the challenges and the solutions while showing him the
proof.  I didn't have to tell him I'm a problem solver, I showed him.

> I once had a computer science teacher who every year read all of
> Dickens. He told our class that the key to genius is the ability to
> one minute concentrate on the big picture, and the next minute on the
> small picture. This, he maintained, was the key to creativity. Dickens
> did this as a novelist -- as did Tolstoy, James, and Proust. They were
> able to see the microcosm in the macrocosm and vice versa. To all
> "techies" who think themselves enlightened, ask yourself if you, too,
> can approach a problem like this. If you can look at the big picture,
> concentrate on the specifics, look at the big picture again, and then
> again on the specifics. If you lack the ability to switch modes, and
> solve problems in each mode, then you'll lack much of the power that
> enables you to do your job as efficiently and as creatively as
> possible.
>
True, switching modes is an important skill.  But again, it is only part
of the solution.  You must have some technical comprehension.  Being
able to write in the style of Dickens or Proust may be admirable, but
neither of them documented 10,000 lines of C++ code.  In there areas of
interest, they are giants. But if I'm a hiring manager with a position
open for a writer to document programming code, I want someone who at
least understands the rudiments of C++ (VB, Java, or whatever).

> My two cents. To those who disagree, please respond. I'm interested.
>
I just did.

Mike Wing

Michael Wing (mailto:mjwing -at- ingr -dot- com)
Principal Technical Writer
Intergraph Corporation; Huntsville, Alabama
http://www.ingr.com/iss/products/mapping/
(205) 730-7250

"But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good"
-- Paul (1 TH 5:21)

 TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot-  Send commands
   to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
  Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/  or search and
browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html