**Why it is Important to Effectively Communicate Technical Information,
and Strategies for Doing So**

by David Herring

**Introduction**

As science and technology increasingly affect our everyday lives, the
lay public's need to understand science, and its applications, also
increases. In order to function in today's society---to improve career
options, to pursue higher education degrees, to make sound public policy
decisions concerning the use and distribution of new technology---lay
people must grasp basic scientific and mathematical principles. But,
according to critics, many scientists and science writers are not
effectively communicating their messages. These critics, including best
selling science fiction author Michael Crichton, complain that
scientific writing often overwhelms readers with poor grammar, vague
scientific jargon, cumbersome sentence structure, and unimaginative
style. It's no wonder lay readers balk at the thought of reading
scientific journals or textbooks and, consequently, distance themselves
from the subject.

Moreover, poor writing is an obstruction not only to lay readers, but to
scientists in other fields as well. Over the last two centuries, the
physical and medical sciences split into different disciplines and,
increasingly, those disciplines divided into specialties. With each
successive generation of scientists, specializations have grown even
more remote from one another. Today, scientists tend to read journals
related to their own fields and disregard publications in other fields
because they are difficult to understand. Isaac Asimov recognized this
trend and, in 1965, wrote:

> The publications of scientists concerning their individual work have
> never been so copious---and so unreadable for anyone but their fellow
> specialists. This has been a great handicap to science itself, for
> basic advances in scientific knowledge often spring from the cross
> fertilization of knowledge from different specialties.1

It is important for scientists to be aware of what other scientists
specializing in other areas are doing so that they may enhance their own
work; and so that they do not repeat work that is already being, or has
been, done. Concerning the abundance of poorly-written scientific text,
Michael Crichton observes, "It is impossible to guess the cost here in
wasted time, duplicated findings, and buried pearls."2

Poor scientific writing may be attributed partly to the fact that some
scientists simply do not choose to make their writing more easily
readable. These writers do not have their readers' needs or expectations
in mind when they compose. Some critics argue that dense scientific text
is not necessarily meant to educate; it is meant to impress the reader
and to display the author\'s acumen. In \"Jarring Jargon,\" a letter to
the editor of *Scientific American*, K.A. Boriskin gives examples of
scientists using terms to display their acumen. He writes, \"I have yet
to see definitions of such terms as modality, methodology or dynamical
that distinguish them in any significant way from mode, method or
dynamic, respectively. These terms appear to be no more than the pitiful
efforts of some scientists to sound more \'scientifical\'.\"3

Other critics offer another perspective: that scientific writing is
often weak because most scientists never receive formal training in
writing. These scientists typically emulate older scientists\' writing
styles either because they learned from them, or because the older
scientists are accomplished and respected in their fields.4 Hence, bad
writing habits are perpetuated from generation of scientists to the
next.

Whatever its cause, the effect of poor writing is that it fails to
effectively transmit the message to its target audience. Even
popularized science magazines sometimes have problems bridging the gap
between science and lay readers. There are some recurring, easily
recognizable symptoms of poor writing, but the underlying theme is
failure to adapt the style and contents of text for intended readers.
Consequently, lay readers perceive the subject as irrelevant to their
lives. The following sections contain discussions on how to write more
effectively, while avoiding some of the more common pitfalls of poor
writing.

**Inappropriate Treatment of Content**

There exists a communication gap because there is a cultural gap between
scientists and the lay public.5 In their writing, scientists tend to
focus primarily on results, which can be boring and hard to understand
for lay readers. By focusing their writing on their results, scientists
remove the human element and render the material abstract. In contrast,
lay readers tend to focus on people and their actions, thoughts, and
emotions. Lay readers do not readily relate to abstract images, such as
the physics of subatomic particles; rather, they relate better to people
and *their perceptions* of subatomic particles.

Moreover, in presenting their work as a process scientists are showing
the reader how scientists think and why they think as they do, as
opposed to telling the reader what the reader should think. There, too,
is an important distinction. Avoid simply telling readers what to think
because if they do not understand, they may conclude that they cannot
understand because they are not smart enough.5

Perhaps scientists and science writers could learn a lesson from sports
announcers---let readers in on the play. While watching John Madden
diagram a football play on television using X\'s, O\'s, and arrows, Ben
Patrusky, a science writer, realized that \"those depictions of
collisions and in-the-clear arrows looked very much like the pictures
produced when nuclear particles are made to collide in \'atom
smashers\'.\"6 He rhetorically asks why millions of viewers can follow a
complicated football diagram, yet if they were presented with a diagram
of particle collisions, \"the collective channel clicks would register
eight or higher on the Richter Scale?\"6 The answer, Patrusky concludes,
is that the lay public is afraid of science, and their fear comes from
not knowing the complete story about how science actually happens.

In addition to focusing on the products of science, scientists tend to
present only the newest information in a subject. The problem here is
that newcomers to the subject cannot understand the significance and
relevance of a discovery if they do not have the proper context in which
to place it. Victor Weisskopf states, \"I cannot understand how one can
talk about particle physics to a public without using the concept of the
quantum ladder that describes the relation between atomic, nuclear, and
subnuclear physics.\"7

Weisskopf notes interesting characteristics that contrast scientists\'
writing from that of science writers. Scientists, he observes,
frequently oversimplify what they shouldn\'t, and do not simplify what
they should. Science writers are just the opposite---they know what lay
readers need to know to understand a topic, but many of them do not know
what is relevant in a new development and how it connects with the rest
of science.7

**Does Style Matter?**

In \"Tailoring Science Writing to the General Audience,\" Funkhouser and
Maccoby recount the results of an experiment in which they found that
science reporting can be \"styled\" to maximize its effectiveness.8 They
also found that changing style without changing information content can
have measurably different effects on educated lay audiences. They
presented three different styles of the same science article to three
levels of readers: low science aptitude (junior college students),
medium science aptitude (students at a \"prestige\" university), and
high science aptitude (professional scientists). Whereas the high
science readers equally enjoyed all three articles, medium and low
science readers preferred the two \"easier\" versions of the article.8
Writers can therefore reach a wider audience, maximizing their
effectiveness, by paying more attention to style.

**Passive versus Active Voice**

Focusing on the abstract is a *content* problem that contributes to one
of the most common *stylistic* problems in science writing---using
passive instead of active verbs. When we write in the passive voice, we
do four things:

(*a*) We either delete the original subject or put it at the end of the
sentence with \"by\" before it;

(*b*) We transfer the direct object to the subject slot;

(*c*) We substitute the past participle of the verb in the verb slot;

(*d*) We add a form of the verb \"be\" as auxiliary to the past
participle.9

The following sentence is written in the active voice (although its verb
is past tense, which is different from passive voice):

> Albert Einstein wrote the Theory of Relativity.

Now, consider the following revision of that sentence, written in
passive voice:

*b d c a*

> The Theory of Relativity was written by Albert Einstein.

As Jon Franklin concisely states, the verb is the most powerful
transmitter in the sentence---it carries the emotion and the image---and
the sentence\'s message is pulled along by the verb.5 Active verbs
render text more dynamic and more interesting to read; therefore,
science writers should employ active verbs to capture readers\'
attention. Yet, scientists frequently use passive verbs in their writing
to mask action and sidetrack readers\' attention to objects rather than
active agents.

Consider the following passages Lewis Thomas wrote on the same
topic---injecting papain (meat tenderizer) into rabbits\' ears. The
first appeared in a medical journal:

> A substance has been demonstrated in solutions of crude papain
> which\...results in complete collapse of both ears\... It is
> concluded, tentatively, that the ear collapse phenomenon is not due to
> the crystalline papain protease \[an enzyme that breaks down protein\]
> or lysozyme \[an enzyme-like substance\].10

The second article appeared in Thomas\' professional autobiography:

> We noted that the rabbits, for all their display of good health,
> looked different and funny. Their ears, instead of standing upright at
> either side, rabbit-style, gradually softened and within a few hours
> collapsed altogether, hanging down like the ears of spaniels. A day
> later, they were up again.10

The first passage is passive; an abstract object---\"substance\"---is
its subject, and here the subject is receiving the action. The first
passage is verbose and awkward; and, because it has no human character
with whom the reader can identify, it is boring. The second passage is
in the active voice; it is more concise and straightforward. Also,
because it contains a human personality---Thomas tells us the rabbits\'
ears looked funny---it is more interesting.

**Nominalizations**

Turning a verb into a noun is called a nominalization. (The term
\"nominalization\" itself is a nominalization.) We nominalize a verb
(and adjectives) by adding \"y\", \"tion\", or other such constructs, so
that \"Discover\" becomes \"discovery,\" \"investigate\" becomes
\"investigation,\" \"apply\" becomes \"application,\" and so on. The use
of nominalizations both contributes to and is a symptom of the use of
passive voice. In short, don\'t write that \"a discovery was made when
the investigation was conducted in which the application of chemical x
onto substance y was found to cause symptom z.\" Instead, more clearly
write that \"John Doe investigated chemical x. He applied chemical x to
substance y and discovered that it causes symptom z.\"

**Poor Sentence Structure**

A common criticism of scientific texts is that their sentences are hard
to understand because they are too long. However, \"too long\" does not
mean too many words. A sentence is too long when its structure gets in
the way of reader comprehension. In \"The Science of Scientific
Writing,\" Gopen and Swan assert that the misplacement of old and new
information within each sentence is the No. 1 problem in American
professional writing today.11 They state that science writers can
increase the odds that readers will correctly interpret their text by
placing old, understood information in the topic position (or beginning)
of a sentence, and by placing new information in the stress position.12
Placing old information in the topic position helps readers keep new
information in perspective and follow the logical flow of the text.
Gopen and Swan conclude that a sentence is too long when it has more
candidates for stress positions than there are stress positions
available.11

Scientists often compound the structural problems in their sentences by
interrupting the subjects and verbs with lengthy modifiers. Readers
expect to subjects to be followed closely by verbs. Any phrases that
come between subject and verb are regarded as an interruption and,
therefore, as having less importance that the information in the stress
position. Consequently, readers may miss the value of the interruptive
modifier.

Michael Crichton points to the following introductory paragraph in an
article published by the *New England Journal of Medicine* as an example
of poor information flow caused by poor sentence structure:

> Toluene is an aromatic hydrocarbon that has widespread industrial use
> as an organic solvent. Inhalation or \"sniffing\" of
> toluene-containing substances, including paint sprays, paint and
> lacquer thinners and household and model glues, has become
> increasingly frequent in recent years. In spite of extensive exposure
> to toluene by industrial workers and \"solvent sniffers,\" remarkably
> little serious toluene toxicity has been reported among such workers.
> A possibly life-threatening complication of toluene
> sniffing---reversible renal tubular acidosis with serious electrolyte
> abnormalities---occurred in the two patients described below.2

At first, the passage appears to be about toluene. But then, as each
sentence begins with a new subject or idea, the text jumps from topic to
topic, leaving the reader unsure as to its specific point. Woe be unto
the author particularly if the point of this passage is to teach the
reader the physical symptoms of toluene inhalation! That information is
contained in an interruptive modifier in the last sentence, and is
therefore likely to be missed.

**Scientific Jargon**

Each scientific and technical field has its own particular jargon. As
these field grow increasingly remote, as new discoveries are made and
new technology is developed, the language describing these things is
modified or added to. Sometimes new terms are invented---frequently as
noun strings that eventually become acronyms. Most likely, only a
geologist or someone specializing in technology for burning coal to
produce energy would know what a \"stable equilibrium fracture failure
formation\" is. If it is necessary to include this term, writers should
at least edit it to make it more understandable. If no background
information is given, readers are forced to decide for themselves
whether \"stable\" describes \"equilibrium,\" \"fracture,\" or
\"formation\". Writers should use the following guidelines to render
noun strings easier to read:

> • Add hyphens in order to group words into grammatical units that best
> describe the technology;
>
> • Re-order the noun string by adding one or more prepositions, thereby
> emphasizing unstated relationships;
>
> • Use acronyms to replace strings.13

Using these guidelines, \"low cost fuel handling and storage systems\"
becomes \"low-cost systems for handling and storing fuel.\" Or, \"small
atmospheric fluidized bed combustors\" could be \"small AFB
combustors\".13

However, scientists should use acronyms sparingly, and should always
define them. Too many acronyms in a single passage can be confusing.

**Vague Pronoun Reference**

Avoid using vague pronouns (e.g., it, they, that, this, something, one,
etc.) especially at the beginning of a sentence. It (science writing)
can be hard enough to understand, without them (readers) having to guess
what she (the author) meant by it (her text). Enough said here.

**Enough Don\'ts, Here Are Some Dos**

You don\'t have to be a good cook to know your food tastes good. By
analogy, you know when you\'re reading good writing. Pay closer
attention to style whenever you encounter good writing and write down
clever techniques that you might use later in your writing.
Additionally, here are some outstanding popularizers of science you
might seek out: David Attenborough, James Burke, Stephen Jay Gould, Carl
Sagan, and Lewis Thomas. These popularizers of science, each with
distinctly different backgrounds from one another, all excel at adapting
their writing for lay readers.

**Qualifying Phrases**

Jo Allen examined Lewis Thomas\' methods for tailoring text for specific
audiences by comparing and contrasting two essays he wrote on
cancer---one for scientists and the other for nonscientists. She
compares Thomas\' use of qualifying phrases in each essay. Allen defines
a qualifying phrase as \"any term that prevents the information from
being interpreted as fact.\"13 She notes that although the scholarly
essay is 1,140 words shorter than the essay for nonscientists, Thomas
uses 18 more qualifying phrases in the scholarly piece.13 Thomas\'
purpose in the scholarly essay is to present additional research
*possibilities*, not to repeat what scientists already know about
cancer. Conversely, his purpose in the essay for nonscientists is to
present what scientists already know about cancer and present evidence.
Allen concludes that his contrasting use of qualifying phrases
demonstrates Thomas\' awareness of his audience and his sense of purpose
as a writer.13

**Figurative Language**

Popularizers of science do more than merely relay the complexities of
natural phenomena as observed by scientists. Stephen Jay Gould, for
example, often uses figurative language to weave his writing into a
tapestry, rich in substance and colored with humor, excitement, and
drama:

> A hungry black widow spider is also a formidable eating machine, and
> courting males must exercise great circumspection. On entering a
> female\'s web, the male taps and tweaks some of her silk lines. If the
> female charges, the male either beats a hasty retreat or sails quickly
> away on his own gossamer. If the female does not respond, the male
> approaches slowly and cautiously\... The male often throws several
> lines of silk about the female, called, inevitably, I suppose, the
> bridal veil\...and copulation, as they like to say in the technical
> literature, \"then ensues.\" The male, blessed with paired organs for
> transferring sperm, inserts one palp, then, if not yet attacked by the
> female, the other. Hungry females may then gobble up their mates,
> completing the double-entendre of a consummation devoutly to be
> wished.14

Here, Gould shows how figurative language can make science interesting,
and even fun to read. The subjects in this passage become vividly alive
through Gould\'s imaginative use of figurative language. Gould uses
techniques more commonly found in poetry; such as personification,
metaphor, and simile. Analogy is another figurative technique that can
help make your subject easier to comprehend.

Figurative language helps us to expand the horizons of our knowledge by
allowing us to experience and understand one thing in terms of
another.15 Figurative language works best when it accompanies literal
paraphrases; thereby introducing some redundancy, which is, in this
case, good. Reynolds and Schwartz demonstrated that people recall
information that has been expressed metaphorically longer than
information expressed literally; yet, readers remember the information
even longer still if it is expressed both ways.16 Sue Jansen eloquently
states that using a figurative style empowers scientific vision; it
provides the scaffolding for arguments, colors the language of
assertion, puts the poetry in the paradigms, and guides inquiry. In
short, it makes the communication of science possible.15

**Conclusion**

Don\'t be afraid to experiment with various styles and techniques.
Keeping in mind, of course, your target audience, as well as the scope
and limitations of your writing assignment, take a scientific approach
to writing. Experiment to see what works and what doesn\'t; and than ask
yourself why. Like most arts, writing takes practice.

Remember: the most important part of the writing process is revision.
During revision, you will learn some of the most important lessons about
writing, as well as the subject you are writing about.

Finally, avoid the pitfall James Grunig, who is by his own definition a
\"constrained decision maker\", fell into---that science can only be
communicated to readers who perceive its relevance.17 The mission of
scientists and science writers today should be to improve their writing
styles so that scientific literature as a genre becomes easier to read
and more desirable by the lay public.18

**References**

1\. I. Asimov, The New Intelligent Man\'s Guide to Science, Basic Books,
New York (1965).

2\. M. Crichton, \"Medical Obfuscation: Structure and Function,\" The
New England Journal of Medicine **293**, 1257-59 (1975).

3\. K.A. Boriskin, \"Jarring Jargon,\" Scientific American **March**, 8
(1992).

4\. M. Alley, The Craft of Scientific Writing, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ (1987).

5\. J. Franklin, \"Translating the Curious Languages of Research,\"
Communicating University Research, National Science Foundation,
Washington, D.C. (1981).

6\. B. Patrusky, \"On an Antidote for Science Phobia,\" Issues in
Science and Technology **Fall**, 94-98 (1988).

7\. V. Weisskopf, \"The Problem of Informing the Public About Basic
Research,\" Communicating University Research, National Science
Foundation, Washington, D.C. (1981).

8\. G.R. Funkhouser and N. Maccoby, \"Tailoring Science Writing to the
General Audience,\" Journalism Quarterly **50**, 220-26 (1973).

9\. J.W. Kirkland, et al., Writing with Confidence: A Modern College
Rhetoric, D.C. Heath & Co., Lexington, MA, pp 324-25 (1989).

10\. A. Gross, \"Does Rhetoric of Science Matter? The Case of the
Floppy- Eared Rabbits,\" College English **53**, 933-43 (1991).

11\. G.D. Gopen and J.A. Swan, \"The Science of Scientific Writing,\"
American Scientist **78**, 550-58 (1990).

12\. T.H. Miles, \"Improving the Readability of Specialized Language in
Emerging Technologies,\" Technical Communication **37**, 126-29 (1990).

13\. J. Allen, \"Dr. Lewis Thomas: Popularizer of Science,\" Technical
Communication **32**, 72 (1985).

14\. A.W. Blanchard, \"Stephen Jay Gould: Master of Popular Scientific
Writing,\" Technical Communication **36**, 175 (1989).

15\. S.C. Jansen, Mind Machines, Myth, Metaphor, and Scientific
Imagination, (ERIC, 1989) 25 (ED 311 522).

16\. R.E. Reynolds and R.M. Schwartz, \"Relation of Metaphoric
Processing to Comprehension and Memory,\" Journal of Educational
Psychology **75**, 450- 59 (1983).

17\. J.E. Grunig, An Axiomatic Theory of Cognition and Writing, (ERIC,
1985) 57 (ED 233 353).

18\. D.D. Herring, A Study of Stylistic Features that Render Scientific
Texts Comprehensible, Master of Arts Thesis presented to the Department
of English, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC (1992).