NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge

Diffusion Research Project

/

NASA Technical Memorandum 110253

Report Number 47

Survey of Reader Preferences Concerning the Format of

NASA Langley-Authored Technical Reports -

Results of the Phase 1 Mail Survey

Thomas E. Pinelli

NASA Langley Research Center

Hampton, Virginia

Rebecca O. Barclay

Knowledge Transfer International

Portsmouth, Virginia

John M. Kennedy

Indiana University

Bloomington, Indiana

August 1996

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Department of Defense

INDIANA UNIVERSITY

SURVEY OF READER PREFERENCES CONCERNING THE FORMAT OF

NASA LANGLEY-AUTHORED TECHNICAL REPORTSRESULTS OF THE PHASE 1 MAIL SURVEY

Thomas E. Pinelli, Rebecca O. Barclay, and John M. Kennedy

ABSTRACT

The U.S. government technical report is a primary means by which the results of federally

funded research and development (R&D) are transferred to the U.S. aerospace industry. However, little is known about this information product in terms of its actual use, importance, and

value in the transfer of federally funded R&D. Little is also known about the intermediarybased system that is used to transfer the results of federally funded R&D to the U.S. aerospace

industry. To help establish a body of knowledge, the U.S. government technical report is being

investigated as part of the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. In this

report, we summarize the literature on technical reports, present a model that depicts the transfer

of federally funded aerospace R&D via the U.S. government technical report, and present the

results of research that investigated aerospace knowledge diffusion vis-a-vis the technical report.

To learn more about the preferences of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists concerning the

format of NASA Langley Research Center-authored technical reports, we surveyed 133 report

producers (i.e., authors) and 137 report users. Questions covered such topics as (a) the order

in which report components are read, (b) components used to determine if a report would be

read, (c) those components that could be deleted, (d) the placement of such components as the

symbols list, (e) the desirability of a table of contents, (f) the format of reference citations, (g)

column layout and right margin treatment, and (h) and person and voice. Mail (self-reported)

surveys were used to collect the data. The response rates for report producers (i.e., authors)

was 68% and for users was 62%.

INTRODUCTION

NASA and the DoD maintain scientific and technical information (STI) systems for

acquiring, processing, announcing, publishing, and transferring the results of governmentperformed and government-sponsored research. Within both the NASA and DoD STI systems,

the U.S. government technical report is considered a primary mechanism for transferring the

results of this research to the U.S. aerospace community. However, McClure (1988) concludes

that we actually know little about the role, importance, and impact of the technical report in the

transfer of federally funded R&D because little empirical information about this product is

available.

We are examining the system(s) used to diffuse the results of federally funded aerospace

R&D as part of the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. This project

investigates, among other things, the information-seeking behavior of U.S. aerospace engineers

and scientists, the factors that influence the use of STI, and the role played by U.S. government
technicalreports in the diffusion of federally funded aerospace STI (PineUi, Kennedy, and

Barclay, 1991; Pinelli, Kennedy, Barclay, and White, 1991). The results of this investigation

could (a) advance the development of practical theory, (b) contribute to the design and

development of aerospace information systems, and (c) have practical implications for

transferring the results of federally funded aerospace R&D to the U.S. aerospace community.

The project fact sheet is Appendix A.

In this report, we summarize the literature on technical reports, provide a model that depicts

the transfer of federally funded aerospace R&D through the U.S. government technical report,

and present the results of a survey of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists that solicited their

opinions concerning the format of NASA Langley Research Center-authored technical reports,

we surveyed 133 report producers (i.e., authors) and 137 report users. Mail (self-reported)

surveys were used to collect the data. The response rates for report producers (i.e., authors)

was 68 % and for users was 62 %. Questions covered such topics as (a) the order in which report

components are read, (b) components used to determine if a report would be read, (c) those

components that could be deleted, (d) the placement of such components as the symbols list, (e)

the desirability of a table of contents, (f) the format of reference citations, (g) column layout and

right margin treatment, and (h) and person and voice.

THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

Although they have the potential for increasing technological innovation, productivity, and

economic competitiveness, U.S. government technical reports may not be utilized because of

limitations in the existing transfer mechanism. According to Ballard, et al., (1986), the current

system "virtually guarantees that much of the Federal investment in creating STI will not be paid

back in terms of tangible products and innovations." They further state that "a more active and

coordinated role in STI transfer is needed at the Federal level if technical reports are to be better

utilized."

Characteristics of Technical Reports

The definition of the technical report varies because the report serves different roles in

communication within and between organizations. The technical report has been defined

etymologically, according to report content and method (U.S. Department of Defense, 1964);

behaviorally, according to the influence on the reader (Ronco, et al., 1964); and rhetorically,

according to the function of the report within a system for communicating STI (Mathes and

Stevenson, 1976). The boundaries of technical report literature are difficult to establish because

of wide variations in the content, purpose, and audience being addressed. The nature of the

report--whether it is informative, analytical, or assertive -- contributes to the difficulty.

Fry (1953) points out that technical reports are heterogenous, appearing in many shapes,

sizes, layouts, and bindings. According to Smith (1981), "Their formats vary; they might be

brief (two pages) or lengthy (500 pages). They appear as microfiche, computer printouts or

2
vugraphs,andoften theyarelooseleaf (with periodic changesthat needto be inserted)or have

a paper cover, and often contain foldouts. They slump on the shelf, their staplesor prong

fastenerssnagotherdocumentson the shelf, and theyarenot neat."

Technicalreportsmayexhibit someor all of thefollowing characteristics(GibbandPhillips,

1979;Subramanyam,1981):

• Publication is not through the publishing trade.

• Readership/audience is usually limited.

• Distribution may be limited or restricted.

• Content may include statistical data, catalogs, directions, design criteria,

conference papers and proceedings, literature reviews, or bibliographies.

• Publication may involve a variety of printing and binding methods.

The SATCOM report (National Academy of Sciences - National Academy of

Engineering, 1969) lists the following characteristics of the technical report:

• It is written for an individual or organization that has the right to require such

reports.

• It is basically a stewardship report to some agency that has funded the research being

reported.

• It permits prompt dissemination of data results on a typically flexible distribution basis.

• It can convey the total research story, including exhaustive exposition, detailed tables,

ample illustrations, and full discussion of unsuccessful approaches.

History and Growth of the U.S. Government Technical Report

The development of the [U.S. government] technical report as a major means of communicating the results of R&D, according to Godfrey and Redman (1973), dates back to 1941 and

the establishment of the U.S. Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD). Further,

the growth of the U.S. government technical report coincides with the expanding role of the

Federal government in science and technology during the post World War II era. However,

U.S. government technical reports have existed for several decades. The Bureau of Mines

Reports of Investigation (Redman, 1965/66), the Professional Papers of the United States

Geological Survey, and the Technological Papers of the National Bureau of Standards (Auger,

1975) are early examples of U.S. government technical reports. Perhaps the first U.S.

government publications officially created to document the results of federally funded (U.S.)

3
R&D were the technical reports first published by the National Advisory Committee for

Aeronautics (NACA) in 1917.

Auger (1975) states that "the history of technical report literature in the U.S. coincides

almost entirely with the development of aeronautics, the aviation industry, and the creation of

the NACA, which issued its first report in 1917." In her study, Information Transfer in

Engineering, Shuchman (1981) reports that 75% of the engineers she surveyed used technical

reports; that technical reports were important to engineers doing applied work; and that

aerospace engineers, more than any other group of engineers, referred to technical reports.

However, in many of these studies, including Shuchman's, it is often unclear whether U.S.

government technical reports, non-U.S, government technical reports, or both are included

(Pinelli, 1991a).

The U.S. government technical report is a primary means by which the results of federally

funded R&D are made available to the scientific community and are added to the literature of

science and technology (President's Special Assistant for Science and Technology, 1962).

McClure (1988) points out that "although the [U.S.] government technical report has been

variously reviewed, compared, and contrasted, there is no real knowledge base regarding the

role, production, use, and importance [of this information product] in terms of accomplishing

this task." Our analysis of the literature supports the following conclusions reached by

McClure:

• The body of available knowledge is simply inadequate and noncompamble to determine

the role that the U.S. government technical report plays in transferring the results of

federally funded R&D.

• Further, most of the available knowledge is largely anecdotal, limited in scope and

dated, and unfocused in the sense that it lacks a conceptual framework.

• The available knowledge does not lend itself to developing "normalized" answers to

questions regarding U.S. government technical reports.

THE TRANSFER OF FEDERALLY FUNDED AEROSPACE R&D AND THE

U.S. GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL REPORT

Three paradigms -- appropriability, dissemination, and diffusion -- have dominated the

transfer of federally funded (U.S.) R&D (Ballard, et al., 1989; Williams and Gibson, 1990).

Whereas variations of them have been tried within different agencies, overall Federal (U.S.) STI

transfer activities continue to be driven by a "supply-side," dissemination model.

4
The Appropriability Model

The appropriability model emphasizes the production of knowledge by the Federal government that would not otherwise be produced by the private sector and competitive market pressures to promote the use of that knowledge. This model emphasizes the production of basic research as the driving force behind technological development and economic growth and assumes

that the Federal provision of R&D will be rapidly assimilated by the private sector. Deliberate

transfer mechanisms and intervention by information intermediaries are viewed as unnecessary.

Appropriability stresses the supply (production) of knowledge in sufficient quantity to attract potential users. Good technologies, according to this model, sell themselves and offer clear policy

recommendations regarding Federal priorities for improving technological development and economic growth. This model incorrectly assumes that the results of federally funded R&D will

be acquired and used by the private sector, ignores the fact that most basic research is irrelevant

to technological innovation, and dismisses the process of technological innovation within the

firm.

The Dissemination Model

The dissemination model emphasizes the need to transfer information to potential users and

embraces the belief that the production of quality knowledge is not sufficient to ensure its fullest

use. Linkage mechanisms, such as information intermediaries, are needed to identify useful

knowledge and to transfer it to potential users. This model assumes that if these mechanisms

are available to link potential users with knowledge producers, then better opportunities exist for

users to determine what knowledge is available, acquire it, and apply it to their needs. The

strength of this model rests on the recognition that STI transfer and use are critical elements of

the process of technological innovation. Its weakness lies in the fact that it is passive, for it does

not take users into consideration except when they enter the system and request assistance. The

dissemination model employs one-way, source-to-user transfer procedures that are seldom

responsive in the user context. User requirements are seldom known or considered in the design

of information products and services.

The Knowledge Diffusion Model

The knowledge diffusion model is grounded in theory and practice associated with the

diffusion of innovation and planned change research and the clinical models of social research

and mental health. Knowledge diffusion emphasizes "active" intervention as opposed to

dissemination and access; stresses intervention and reliance on interpersonal communications as

a means of identifying and removing interpersonal barriers between users and producers; and

assumes that knowledge production, transfer, and use are equally important components of the

R&D process. This approach also emphasizes the link between producers, transfer agents, and

users and seeks to develop user-oriented mechanisms (e.g., products and services) specifically

tailored to the needs and circumstances of the user. It makes the assumption that the results of

federally funded R&D will be under utilized unless they are relevant to users and ongoing

relationships are developed among users and producers. The problem with the knowledge diffu5
sion model is that (a) it requires a large Federal role and presence and (b) it runs contrary to the

dominant assumptions of established Federal R&D policy. Although U.S. technology policy

relies on a "dissemination-oriented" approach to STI transfer, other industrialized nations, such

as Germany and Japan, are adopting "diffusion-oriented" policies which increase the power to

absorb and employ new technologies productively (Branscomb, 1992; Branscomb, 1991).

The Transfer of CU.S.) Federally-Funded Aerospace R&D

A model depicting the transfer of federally funded aerospace R&D through the U.S.

government technical report appears in figure 1. The model is composed of two parts -- the

informal that relies on collegial contacts and the formal that relies on surrogates, information

producers, and information intermediaries to complete the "producer to user" transfer process.

When U.S. government (i.e., NASA) technical reports are published, the initial or primary

distribution is made to libraries and technical information centers. Copies are sent to surrogates

for secondary and subsequent distribution. A limited number of copies are set aside to be used

by the author for the "scientist-to-scientist" exchange of information at the collegial level.

Surrogates serve as technical report repositories or clearinghouses for the producers and

include the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), the NASA Center for Aero Space

Information (CASI), and the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). These surrogates

have created a variety of technical report announcement journals such as CAB (Current AwareSurrogates

• DTIC

• CAB

• DROLS

•CASI

• STAR

• RECON

• NTIS

oGRA & I

• NTIS file

Informal (Collegial)

Producers

• DoD

• NASA

• DoD/NASA

contractors

& grantees

Information

Intermediaries

• Librarians

• Gatekeepers

• Linking

agents

• Knowledge

brokers

Formal

Users

• Aerospace

engineers

and scientists

• Aerospace

engineering

faculty and

students

Figure I. The U.S. Government Technical Report in

a Model Depicting the Dissemination of Federally Funded Aerospace R&D.

6
ness Bibliographies), STAR (Scientific and Technical Aerospace Reports), and GRA&I

(Government Reports Announcement and Index) and computerized retrieval systems such as

DROLS (Defense RDT&E Online System), RECON (REsearch CONnection), and NTIS On-line

that permit online access to technical report data bases. Information intermediaries are, in large

part, librarians and technical information specialists in academia, government, and industry.

Those representing the producers serve as what McGowan and Loveless (1981) describe as

"knowledge brokers" or "linking agents." Information intermediaries connected with users act,

according to Allen (1977), as "technological entrepreneurs" or "gatekeepers." The more

"active" the intermediary, the more effective the transfer process becomes (Goldhor and Lund,

1983). Active intermediaries move information from the producer to the user, often utilizing

interpersonal (i.e., face-to-face) communication in the process. Passive information intermediaries, on the other hand, "simply array information for the taking, relying on the initiative

of the user to request or search out the information that may be needed" (Eveland, 1987).

The overall problem with the total Federal STI system is that "the present system for

transferring the results of federally funded STI is passive, fragmented, and unfocused;" effective

knowledge transfer is hindered by the fact that the Federal government Hhas no coherent or

systematically designed approach to transferring the results of federally funded R&D to the user"

(Ballard, et al., 1986). In their study of issues and options in Federal STI, Bikson and her

colleagues (1984) found that many of the interviewees believed "dissemination activities were

afterthoughts, undertaken without serious commitment by Federal agencies whose primary

concerns were with [knowledge] production and not with knowledge transfer;" therefore, "much

of what has been learned about [STI] and knowledge transfer has not been incorporated into

federally supported information transfer activities."

Problematic to the informal part of the system is that knowledge users can learn from collegial contacts only what those contacts happen to know. Ample evidence supports the claim that

no one researcher can know about or keep up with all the research in his/her area(s) of interest.

Like other members of the scientific community, aerospace engineers and scientists are faced

with the problem of too much information to know about, to keep up with, and to screen. Further, information is becoming more interdisciplinary in nature and more international in scope.

Two problems exist with the formal part of the system. First, the formal part of the system

employs one-way, source-to-user transmission. The problem with this kind of transmission is

that such formal one-way, "supply side" transfer procedures do not seem to be responsive to the

user context (Bikson, et al., 1984). Rather, these efforts appear to start with an information

system into which the users' requirements are retrofit (Adam, 1975). The consensus of the

findings from the empirical research is that interactive, two-way communications are required

for effective information transfer (Bikson, et al., 1984).

Second, the formal part relies heavily on information intermediaries to complete the knowledge transfer process. However, a strong methodological base for measuring or assessing the

effectiveness of the information intermediary is lacking (Beyer and Trice, 1982). In addition,

empirical data on the effectiveness of information intermediaries and the role(s) they play in

7
knowledgetransferare sparseand inconclusive. The impactof information intermediariesis

likely to be strongly conditionalandlimited to a specificinstitutionalcontext.

Accordingto RobertsandFrohman(1978), most Federal approaches to knowledge utilization

have been ineffective in stimulating the diffusion of technological innovation. They claim that

the numerous Federal STI programs are "highest in frequency and expense yet lowest in impact"

and that Federal "information dissemination activities have led to little documented knowledge

utilization." Roberts and Frohman also note that "governmental programs start to encourage

utilization of knowledge only after the R&D results have been generated" rather than during the

idea development phase of the innovation process. David (1986), Mowery (1983), and Mowery

and Rosenberg (1979) conclude that successful [Federal] technological innovation rests more

with the transfer and utilization of knowledge than with its production.

BACKGROUND

This research replicates, in large part, an earlier study that examined the preferences of

readers concerning the format of NASA-authored technical reports The 1981 study included a

survey of engineers and scientists at the NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC) and in academia and industry. The study was conducted to determine the opinions of readers concerning

the format (organization) of NASA technical reports and usage of technical report components.

A survey questionnaire was sent to 513 LaRC engineers and scientists and 600 engineers and

scientists from three professional/technical societies. The response rates were 74% and 85%,

respectively (Glassman and Cordle, 1982). The questionnaire contained 14 questions covering

12 survey topics which included the order in which users read report components, the

components reviewed or read to determine whether to read a report, report components which

could be deleted, the desirability of a table of contents, the desirability of both a summary and

abstract, the location of the symbols list and glossary, the integration of illustrative material, the

preferred format for reference citations, column layout and right margin treatment, and person/

voice.

Conclusions were drawn from the 14 questions which were grouped into 12 survey topics.

The results of the reader preference survey indicated that the conclusion was the component most

often read by survey respondents. The summary, conclusion, abstract, title page, and

introduction were the components used most frequently to determine if a report would actually

be read. Participants in the 1981 study indicated that the summary as well as the abstract should

be included, that the definition of symbols and glossary of terms should be located in the front

of the report, and that illustrative material should be integrated with the text rather than grouped

at the end of the report. Citation by number was the preferred format for references. A onecolumn, ragged right margin was preferred. Third person, passive voice was the style of writing

preferred by the respondents.

8
RESULTS OF THE PHASE 1 READER PREFERENCE SURVEY

This research is a Phase 1 activity of the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. (See Appendix A.) Survey participants consisted of NASA LaRC report producers (i.e., authors) and report users. Report producers were those individuals who had

authored a NASA I_aRC technical report in 1993 and 1994. Surveys were sent to 192 LaRC

authors; 137 usable surveys were received. The response rate for the "internal" participants was

71%. Individuals on the supplemental distribution list NASA LaRC-authored reports formed

the report user sample. Surveys were sent to 221 report users; 133 usable surveys were received. The response rate for the "external" participants was 60%. The surveys were conducted

in March-April 1996 timeframe.

The 1981 questionnaire was modified slightly for use in this research. The 1996 instrument

contained 16 questions concerned with the format of NASA LaRC-authored technical reports.

An additional 15 questions, included in the questionnaire, pertained to the technical quality and

accuracy of data contained in NASA LaRC-authored technical reports. The responses to these

questions are not included in this report. The survey instrument is Appendix B.

Survey Demographics

The following "composite" participant profile was developed for the internal respondents:

works in government (100%), has a master's degree (54%), performs duties as a researcher

(84.7%), was educated as and works as an engineer (78.1%; 73.7% %), and is a male (83.9%).

The following "composite" participant profile was developed for the external respondents:

works in industry (100%); has a master's degree (41.4%); performs duties in design/

development (27.1%), management/supervision (27%), and research (22.6%); was educated as

and works as an engineer (81.2%;75.2%), and is a male (94.7%).

Order in Which Users Read or Review Report Components

Survey respondents were asked to use the technical report provided and to number a list of

report components to indicate the chronological sequence in which these components are generaUy read. The question as it appeared in the questionnaire is shown below. Tables 1 and 2

summarize the responses of the internal and external respondents.

The format for a typical NASA l_.aRC technical report appears below. Please number IN ORDER, the components

you generally read/review. (For example, if you read the "ABSTRACT" first, number it with a "1." Do not

number those components you skip.

a. Title Page i. Description of Research Procedure

b. Foreword j. Results and Discussion

c. Preface k. Conclusions

d. Contents 1. Appendixes

e. Summary m. References

f. Introduction n. Tables

g. Symbols List o. Figures

h. Glossary of Terms p. Abstract

9
II

m

N

,<

E

0

o

<,

L

©

[-,

o_

6

E

°o.°°o,_ .... o°°°

°o°ooo.o ooo°.°°o

• ,_,oo°. .oo°°°oo

°°°o._°o °°°°°°°o

°°°°°°o° °°°°°o..

°°o°°°°. o.°°°°o,

o.°°°.° oo°°°oo. °

..... o°o °.°.o°o°

o°°ooo°o

oo°o.°o. °°o°o°°°

°°.°°°,° °o°°.o,._

°o.°°°o° oo°.o°°

oo°°°°.° o°°°o.o°

oo°oO.°.

,oo..°oo °°.o°ooo

E _6

I0
II

°

v _

c=o _

_ oo

0

_ t_-

rj _ _

o

0

l--

L _

o _

_J

E

0

• o°, .... °°°°°o°°

,°°_°oo° °°,°°°°°

°°°..°.° °°°°°°o°

o°°o°°°° °oo°°°o°

...... • ° °°o°o°oo

......... °°°°o°°

° • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

o°°o°°°

• ° • .... •

°°°° .... o°°°_°°,

L_

11
0

E0

0

"0

0

tO

0

H

q._

.=_

0

II

II

o°°°°.°°°

o ._

_o

0 "" 0

o _ _ ._-_

e- _. .°°oo°0

.o

r_

°°°0°°o°°

o _

°°°°°_°0°

e_

.o

_ __-_ _._

12
The data in Tables 1 and 2 were used to construct Table 3 which shows, for each

component, the percentage of survey respondents who indicated they read that component at

some stage in the use sequence. The report components are listed in Table 3 in descending

frequency of use. For the internal respondents, the components read by the highest percentage

of readers were the results and discussion and the conclusions Other components read by more

than 80% of the internal respondents were the introduction, description of the research

procedure, and the title page. For the external respondents, the components read by the highes[

percentage of readers were the conclusions and the summary. Other components read by more

than 80% of the external respondents were the title page and the abstract. Components read by

80% of both groups were the conclusions (94.7%), results and discussion (87.6%), introduction

(83.1%), title page (82.5%), and the summary (82.2%).

Conversely, certain components were read by very few respondents in either survey group.

The foreword and preface had very low usage rates: internal respondents 15.9%/15.2 and

external respondents 38.9%/32.9%. (With the exception of NASA Special Publications, NASA

technical reports generally do not include a foreword or preface.) Other components read by

less than half of both groups include preface (24.1%), foreword (27.4%), glossary of terms

(29.1%), and the symbols list (37.5%).

To clarify sequence of use of report components, a weighted average ranking was calculated

and is presented in Table 4. Weighted average rankings were used to determine the order of

use of the 16 report components. The weighted average rankings were obtained by assigning

weights based on specific order of use. A weight of 16 was assigned for the component read

first, 15 for components read second, decreasing sequentially to 1 for components read sixteenth.

The weighted was calculated by the formula

ni w_

n_

where ni was the number of users reading a component in the

"ith" position, wi was the weight assigned for the "ith" position,

and n t was the total number of users who read that component in

any position.

When both groups were combined, the resulting mean sequence for the first six components

read was title page, abstract, summary, introduction, conclusions, and table of contents. Examined separately, the internal and external groups showed the exact overall patterns in sequential

positions. Although the abstract appears on the last page of a NASA report, this component was

read by about 74 % of the internal and 82 % of the external respondents. Moreover, the abstract

was the second report component read by both report producers and users.

Components Reviewed or read to Determine Whether to Read the Full Report

The respondents were asked to indicate which components (up to five) listed in Question 1

(see p. 9) were used to decide whether to read the report. Respondents were asked to indicate

the order in which these components were read. Summaries of the results from the internal and

external respondents are given in Tables 5 and 6, respectively.

13
]

o

<,

r..)

.o

o_

L

©

_3

.=

a3

.<

,.c

oo

o_

,.o

r_

r.)

r..)

_3

• • • • • ° o ° o o o o • = o .

N

_--_ 0 _- "_ _- ''_ 0 _ _ U.-- r" I

__--=_ _ =_-=_--=_--_ = _ _ _-__=<___ "_

14
.0 ,

E"

E_

o°°°o°°°

0

L.

¢;

_°

0

E

0

.=_

0

0

0

¢)

¢;

cO

E

0

oo°.oo°0 • • o , 0 o ° o

°°oo°o°°

°o.°,,.o

.... o0o.

o ° ...... • o ° ° o ° °

E "86

¢)

0

"'1

15
O,

o_

°°°oo.O°

I..,,

0

E

0

,,6

¢

°

o

r_

oo°°.oo. °o°°°°.°

°°O°o°o.

M

o..°o°°. o°..o°°°

E "66 o

16
Table 7 lists the five components most frequently used by survey respondents in reviewing

reports for possible reading and the percentage use by each group. Respondents from both

groups identified the abstract (71.6%/67.7%) as the component most often reviewed to determine

if a report would actually be read. The summary (65.7%) was the component utilized second

(most often) by the respondents to the internal respondents as a screening tool. The conclusions

(57.9%) was the component utilized second (most often) by the respondents to the external

respondents as a screening tool. Internal respondents indicated the summary, title page,

conclusions, and introduction (listed decreasing frequency of use) as the components most often

reviewed to determine if a report would actually be read. External respondents indicated the

conclusions, title page, summary, and introduction (listed decreasing frequency of use) as the

components most often reviewed to determine if a report would actually be read.

Table 7. Components Most Commonly Used to Review/Read

I_aRC-Authored Technical Reports

Component

Abstract

Summary

Title Page

Conclusions

Introduction

Percentage of respondents indicating

use of a report component

Internal Survey

n = 137

71.6

65.7

57.7

54.9

36.7

External Survey

n = 133

67.7

47.7

57.2

57.9

34.0

Table 8 gives a weighted average ranking for order of use of the five components most

frequently reviewed in deciding whether to read a report. This table shows that the most

common sequence used by combined surveys was: rifle page, abstract, summary, introduction,

and conclusions. The use pattern for both internal and external groups was the same as that for

the combined surveys (i.e., both internal and external users).

Report Components Which Could Be Deleted

Survey respondents were asked to list any NASA langley-authored report components (up

to five) that could be deleted. Table 9 contains a summary of the results tabulated for this

question. The most dispensable components were thought to be the foreword and preface by

both survey groups. About 70% and 64% of the internal respondents suggested deleting the

preface and foreword, respectively. About 39% and 38% of the external respondents suggested

the foreword and the preface as components that could be deleted. About 23 % of the internal

respondents indicated deleting the table of contents. On the other hand, only about 5 % of the

external respondents suggested that the table of contents could be deleted.

17
Table 8. WeightedAverageRanking: Orderin Which ComponentsAre Reviewedin

DecidingWhetherto Reada LaRC-Authored Technical Report

Internal Survey

(n = 137)

Weighted

Component n avg. rank*

Title page 113 15.8

Abstract 103 14.5

Summary 110 13.5

Introduction 125 12.4

Conclusions 131 11.5

External Survey

(n = 133)

Component n

Title page 112

Abstract 109

Summary 113

Introduction 102

Conclusions 127

Combined Surveys

(n = 270)

Weighted

avg. rank*

15.6

13.9

13.5

12.2

11.3

Component n

Title page 225

Abstract 212

Summary 223

Introduction 227

Conclusions 258

Weighted

avg. rank*

15.7

14.2

13.5

12.3

11.4

*Highest number indicates component was read first; lowest number indicates component was

read last.

Table 9. Opinions of Respondents Concerning Which Components Could Be Deleted

from LaRC-Authored Technical Reports

Component

Title page

Foreword

Preface

Table of contents

Summary

Introduction

Symbols list

Glossary of terms

Description of research

procedure

Results and discussions

Conclusions

Appendixes

References

Tables

Figures

Abstracts

None

Percentage (number) of respondents suggesting deletion

Internal respondents External respondents

(n = 137) (n = 133)

% n % n

1.5

63.9

70.1

23.4

21.2

0.0

6.6

28.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

5.8

94.9

2

95

96

32

29

0

9

39

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

8

130

0.8

37.6

39.1

5.3

14.3

1.5

9.8

12.8

3.0

0.8

0.0

0.0

0.8

1.5

5.3

3.8

43.6

1

50

52

7

19

2

13

17

4

1

0

0

1

2

7

5

58

18
Desirability of a Table of Contents

Survey participants were asked a question concerning the need for and or desirability of a

table of contents in NASA Langley-authored technical reports. Summaries of the results from

the internal and external respondents are given in Table 10.

Table 10. Opinions of Respondents Concerning the Desirability of a Table of Contents

in All LaRC-Authored Technical Reports

[Response

Yes, all should

No, only long reports

need it

Internal respondents

(n = 137)

%

21.2

78.8

29

108

External respondents

%

53.4

46.6

(n = 133)

n

75

58

About 21% of the internal respondents indicated that all NASA Langley-authored technical

reports (regardless of length) should contain a table of contents; however, of the external

respondents, 53.4% expressed the need for a table of contents in all NASA langley-authored

technical reports. Thus, although about 79% of the internal respondents indicated that only long

reports need a table of contents, about twice as many (53.4%) external (non-NASA Langley)

respondents expressed the desire for this component in all NASA Langley-authored technical

reports than did their internal counterparts.

Desirability of a Summary in Addition to an Abstract

Respondents were asked a question concerning the need for a summary (appearing in the

front) in addition to the abstract, which appears as back matter on the Report Documentation

Page (RDP) of NASA Langley-authored technical reports. Summaries of the results obtained

from the internal and external respondents are given in Table 11.

Table 11. Opinions of Respondents Concerning the Desirability of a Summary in Addition

to an Abstract in All LaRC-Authored Technical Reports

Response

Yes, include a summary, too

No, don't bother with it

Internal respondents

(n = 137)

n

50.4 69

49.6 68

External respondents

(n = 133)

n

60.2 80

39.8 53

19
Internalrespondentswere aboutevenlydivided aboutwhetherthe moredetailedsummary

shouldbe includedin NASA Langley-authored technical reports in addition to the abstract. A

slight majority (50.4%) favored inclusion of both components. Among external respondents,

however, 60.2% indicated that NASA Langley-authored technical reports should have a

summary in addition to an abstract.

Location of the Definition of Symbols and Glossary of Terms

Survey respondents were asked to indicate where in a NASA Langley-authored technical

report the definition of symbols and glossary of terms components should appear. Summaries

of the results from the internal and external respondents are given in Tables 12 and 13.

Table 12. Opinions of Respondents Concerning the Location of the Symbols List

in I.aRC-Authored Technical Reports

Response

After Contents

After Introduction

As an Appendix

Near front of report AND

where symbols appear

Near back of report AND

where symbols appear

NO Symbols List needed; just define the

symbol where it appears in the report

Internal respondents

(n = 137)

% n

10.2 14

39.4 54

13.9 19

15.3 21

5.8 8

15.3 21

External respondents

(n = 133)

%

25.6

10.5

19.5

20.3

10.5

13.5

n

34

14

26

27

14

18

Concerning the location of the Symbols List, the response patterns from the internal and

external respondents were different. The largest percentage of internal (39.4%) and external

(25.6%) respondents chose the response, "after Introduction" and "after Contents." The second

highest percentages of both groups (15.3 %) and (20.3 %) chose "near front of report AND where

symbols appear." Thus, when results from these two responses were combined, a preference

(64.9% for internal respondents and 56.4% for external respondents) was evident for the

Definition of Terms to be located near the front of the report as opposed to being located as

back matter.

Regarding the location of the Glossary of Terms, the response patterns from the internal and

external respondents were different. The largest percentage of the internal (46.7%) respondents

selected "no glossary of terms needed; just define the term where it appears in the report." The

largest percentage of external respondents (30.8%) chose the response, "as an Appendix." The

20
Table 13. Opinionsof RespondentsConcerningtheLocationof the Glossaryof Terms

in I.aRC-AuthoredTechnicalReports

Response

After Contents

After Introduction

As an Appendix

Near front of report AND

where terms appear

Near back of report AND

where terms appear

NO Glossary of Terms needed; just define

the term where it appears in the report

Internal respondents

(n = 137)

% n

4.4 6

7.3 10

24.8 34

9.5 13

7.3 10

46.7 64

External respondents

(n = 133)

%

15.0

3.8

30.8

11.3

12.8

26.3

n

20

5

41

15

17

35

second highest percentage (24.8%) of the internal respondents and external respondents (15%)

chose "after Contents." Thus, when results from these two responses were combined, a

preference (32.1% for internal respondents and 43.6 % for external respondents) was evident for

the glossary of terms to be located near the back of the report as opposed to being located as

front matter.

When Appendix Material Is Read

Survey respondents were asked a question concerning when they read appendix

material--before, with, or after the text. Summaries of the results from the internal and external

respondents are given in Table 14.

Table 14. When Respondents Usually Read Appendix Material

in LaRC-Authored Technical Reports

Response

Before the text

With the text

After the text

Internal respondents

(n = 137)

% n

2.2 3

24.8 34

73.0 100

External respondents

(n = 133)

%

0.0

23.3

76.7

0

31

102

21
The internal and external responses were very similar. A strong majority (73 % internally

and about 77 % externally) indicated that the appendixes were read after the text. About 25 % of

the internal respondents and about 23 % of the external respondents stated that the appendixes

were read with the text. About 2% of the internal and 0.0% of the external respondents

indicated that the appendix material was read prior to reading the text.

Location and Use of Illustrative Material

Internal and external respondents were asked three questions concerning the location and use

of illustrative material (such as tables, graphs, and photographs) in NASA Langley-authored

technical reports. A summary of the results from the internal and external respondents is

presented in Tables 15, 16, 17, and 18.

About 47% of the internal and about 36% of the external respondents indicated that a list

of figures or tables should ONLY be included in NASA Langley-authored technical reports when

there is a lot of illustrative material (e.g., over 10 figures, photos, or tables). About 34% of

the internal respondents and about 29% of the external respondents reported that "No List of

Figures and Tables Needed" in NASA Langley-authored technical reports. About 22 % of external respondents indicated that NASA Langley-authored technical reports should always contain

a list of figures or tables whenever a report contains illustrative material.

Table 15. Opinions of Respondents Concerning the Need for a List of Figures or Tables

in LaRC-Authored Technical Reports

Response

Only when illustrative material is

integrated with the text

Only when illustrative material is separate from

the text; at the end of the report

Only when there is a lot of illustrative material

(e.g., over 10 figures, photos or tables)

Always; whenever a report contains

illustrative material

No List of Figures and Tables needed

Internal respondents

(n = 137)

n

4.4 6

5.8 8

47.4 65

8.0 11

34.3 47

External respondents

(n = 133)

%

6.8

6.0

36.1

21.8

29.3

n

9

8

48

29

39

Internal and external respondents were asked about the integration of illustrative material as

opposed to group it at the end of the report (Table 16). The survey results show that about 77%

of the internal and about 80 % of the external respondents preferred that the illustrative material

be integrated with the text as opposed to being grouped in the back matter.

22
Table 16. Opinionsof Respondents Concerning Integration of Illustrative Material

in LaRC-Authored Technical Reports

Response

Integrated with text

Separate from text; at end

of report

Internal respondents

(n = 137)

%

77.4

22.6

n

106

31

External respondents

%

79.7

20.3

(n = 133)

106

27

Table 17 contains the responses to the third question concerning the placement of illustrative

material. About 31% of the internal and about 50% of the external respondents indicated that

integration of tables and figures did not interrupt their reading no matter how much illustrative

material the report contained. The illustrative-page/text-page ratio which interrupted reading was

placed at two by about 49 % of the internal respondents and about 35 % of the external respondents; at three by about 14% of internal and 9% of external respondents; and at four or more

by about 6% of internal and 6% of external respondents.

Table 17. Opinions of Respondents Concerning the Amount of Illustrative Material

That Can be Integrated with the Text of LaRC-Authored Technical Reports

Without Interrupting the Reader

Response

!Yes, when there are two pages of

illustrative material for every page

of text

Yes, when there are three pages of

illustrative material for every page

of text

Yes, when there are four or more

pages of illustrative material for

every page of text

No, I always prefer to have illustrative

material integrated in text

Internal respondents

(n = 137)

%

48.9

13.9

5.8

31.4

External respondents

(n = 133)

n

67 35.3

19 9.0

8 6.0

43 49.6

% n

47

12

8

66

23
Finally, respondentswereaskedwhentheyreadtheillustrativeincludedin NASA Langleyauthoredtechnicalreports. Summariesof the internaland externalresponsesarepresentedin

Table 18.

Table 18. When RespondentsUsually ReadIllustrative Material

in LaRC-AuthoredTechnicalReports

Response

Beforethe text

With the text

After the text

Internalrespondents

(n = 137)

n

16.8 23

80.3 110

2.9 4

External respondents

(n = 133)

%

18.0

79.7

2.3

n

24

106

3

Most respondents (80.3 % internally; 79.7 % externally) indicated that the illustrative material

was read with the text. Some respondents (16. % internally and 18% externally) indicated that

the illustrative material was read before the text. Only a few respondents (4% internally and

2.3 % externally) indicated that the illustrative material was read after the text.

Format of Reference Citations

Survey respondents were asked to specify their preference between three formats for

reference citations in NASA langley-authored technical reports. Summaries of the internal and

external respondents' responses are presented in Table 19.

Table 19. Preferences of Respondents Concerning the Format of Reference

Citations Used in LaRC-Authored Technical Reports

Response

Cited in text by author/year

(e.g., Jones 1978) but with an

alphabetic list in back of report

Cited in text by number (e.g., reference 16)

with a numbered list in back of report

Cited in text by footnote (e.g., Jones 12)

with a numbered list in back of report

Internal respondents

(n = 137)

n

27.7 38

52.6 72

19.7 27

External respondents

(n = 133)

%

27.8

55.6

16.5

n

37

74

22

24
About53% of theinternalrespondentsandabout56% of theexternalrespondentspreferred

referencesin the text to be cited by number(e.g., reference16)with a numberedlist in back

of report. About 28% of the internalrespondentsand about28% of the externalrespondents

preferredreferencescited in text by author/year(e.g., Jones1978)but with an alphabeticlist

in back of report. About 20% of the internal respondentsand about 17% of the external

respondentspreferredreferencescited in text by footnote(e.g., Jones12)with a numberedlist

in backof report.

Specifications of Units for Dimensional Values

Respondents were asked to specify their preferences regarding the use of the International

System (S.I.) units and U.S. Customary units for dimensional values in NASA langley-authored

technical reports. Table 20 contains the results of the survey responses concerning this question.

Table 20. Preferences of Respondents Concerning Units for Dimensional Values Specified

in LaRC-Authored Technical Reports

Response

The International System (S.I.) units

(e.g., meter, kilogram)

U.S. Customary units (e.g., foot,

pound)

S.I. units with U.S. Customary units

in parentheses

U.S. Customary units with S.I. units

in parentheses

Internal respondents

(n = 137)

% n

24.1 33

38.0 52

15.3 21

22.6 31

External respondents

(n = 133)

%

26.3

22.6

18.8

32.3

36

30

25

42

There was no overall agreement among either survey groups as to how dimensional values

should be specified in NASA Langley-authored technical reports. Thirty-eight percent of the

internal respondents selected U.S. Customary units (e.g., foot, pound) followed by the International System (S.I.) units (24.1%), and U.S. Customary units with S.I. units in parentheses

(e.g., meter, kilogram) (22.6%). About 32% of the external respondents selected U.S. Customary units with S.I. units in parentheses, followed by the International System (S.I.) units

(e.g., meter, kilogram) (26.3%), and U.S. Customary units (e.g., foot, pound) (22.6%).

Column Layout and Right margin Treatment

Respondents were asked to state their preferences concerning one or two column layouts and

ragged or justified right margins. Table 21 summarizes the results of survey respondents.

25
Table 21. Preferences of Respondents Concerning Column Layout and Right Margin

Treatment in LaRC-Authored Technical Reports

Response

Two columns; justified right margin

Two columns; ragged right margin

One column; justified right margin

One column; ragged right margin

Mixed format; one and two columns

intermixed as mathematical

material dictates

Internal respondents External respondents

(n = 137) (n = 133)

% n

40.9

8.0

12.4

17.5

21.2

56

11

17

24

29

% n

24.1 32

6.0 8

33.8 45

17.3 23

18.8 25

About 41% of the internal respondents preferred two columns; justified right margin,

followed by a mixed format; one and two columns intermixed as mathematical material dictates

(21.2%). About 34% of the external respondents preferred one column; justified right margin

followed by two columns; justified right margin (24.1%). Overall, a two column format

(48.9%) was preferred by internal respondents and a one column format was preferred by

external respondents (51.1%). Justified right margins were preferred over ragged right margins

by about 53 % of the internal respondents and about 63 % of the external respondents.

Person and Voice

Survey respondents were asked to specify their preference in regard to person and voice in

NASA langley-authored technical reports. Table 22 summarizes the results of the internal and

external respondents.

Table 22. Preferences of Respondents Concerning Person and Voice for

LaRC-Authored Technical Reports

Response

Passive voice, third person

Active voice, third person

Active voice, first person

Internal respondents

(n = 137)

% n

64.2 88

14.6 20

21.2 29

External respondents

(n = 133)

%

47.4

17.3

35.3

n

63

23

47

26
Among both groups, the passivevoice, third personoption was chosenmost often asthe

preferred writing style. Among internal respondents,about 64% selectedthis preference.

Among externalrespondents,about 47% selectedthis preference.Consideringvoice alone,

internal respondentspreferred the passivevoice (64%) over the active voice (35%). On the

otherhand,externalrespondentspreferredtheactivevoice(53%)overthepassivevoice (47%).

The majority of bothinternal(78.8%)andexternal(64.7%)respondentspreferredthat third

personbe usedrather thanfirst personin NASA langley-authoredtechnicalreports. It should

be noted, however, that a higher percentageof externalrespondents(35.3%) preferred first

personthandid theinternal group(21.2%).

FINDINGS

Order in Which Users Read or Review Report Components

For the internal respondents, the components read by the highest percentage of readers were

the results and discussion and the conclusions Other components read by more than 80% of the

internal respondents were the introduction, description of the research procedure, and the title

page. For the external respondents, the components read by the highest percentage of readers

were the conclusions and the summary. Other components read by more than 80% of the

external respondents were the title page and the abstract. Components read by 80% of both

groups were the conclusions (94.7 %), results and discussion (87.6 %), introduction (83.1%), title

page (82.5%), and the summary (82.2%).

When both groups were combined, the resulting mean sequence for the first six components

read was title page, abstract, summary, introduction, conclusions, and table of contents. Examined separately, the internal and external groups showed the exact overall patterns in sequential

positions. Although the abstract appears on the last page of a NASA report, this component was

read by about 74% of the internal and 82% of the external respondents. Moreover, the abstract

was the second report component read by both report producers and users.

Components Reviewed or Read to Determine Whether to Read the Entire Report

Respondents from both groups identified the abstract (71.6 %/67.7 %) as the component most

often reviewed to determine if a report would actually be read. The summary (65.7%) was the

component utilized second (most often) by the respondents to the internal respondents as a

screening tool. The conclusions (57.9%) was the component utilized second (most often) by the

respondents to the external respondents as a screening tool. Internal respondents indicated the

summary, title page, conclusions, and introduction (listed decreasing frequency of use) as the

components most often reviewed to determine if a report would actually be read. External

respondents indicated the conclusions, title page, summary, and introduction (listed decreasing

frequency of use) as the components most often reviewed to determine if a report would actually

be read.

27
ComponentsWhich Could be Deleted

The most dispensable components were thought to be the foreword and preface by both survey

groups. About 70% and 64 % of the internal respondents suggested deleting the preface and

foreword, respectively. About 39 % and 38 % of the external respondents suggested the foreword

and the preface as components that could be deleted. About 23 % of the internal respondents

indicated deleting the table of contents. On the other hand, only about 5% of the external

respondents suggested that the table of contents could be deleted.

Desirability of a Table of Contents

About 21% of the internal respondents indicated that all NASA Langley-authored technical

reports (regardless of length) should contain a table of contents; however, of the external

respondents, 53.4% expressed the need for a table of contents in all NASA langley-authored

technical reports. Thus, although about 79% of the internal respondents indicated that only long

reports need a table of contents, about twice as many (53.4%) external (non-NASA Langley)

respondents expressed the desire for this component in all NASA Langley-authored technical

reports than did their internal counterparts.

Desirability of a Summary in Addition to an Abstract

Internal respondents were about evenly divided about whether the more detailed summary

should be included in NASA Langley-authored technical reports in addition to the abstract. A

slight majority (50.4%) favored inclusion of both components. Among external respondents,

however, 60.2% indicated that NASA Langley-authored technical reports should have a

summary in addition to an abstract.

Location of the Definition of Symbols and Glossary of Terms

Concerning the location of the Symbols List, the response patterns from the internal and

external respondents were different. The largest percentage of internal (39.4%) and external

(25.6%) respondents chose the response, "after Introduction" and "after Contents." The second

highest percentages of both groups (15.3 %) and (20.3 %) chose "near front of report AND where

symbols appear." Thus, when results from these two responses were combined, a preference

(64.9% for internal respondents and 56.4% for external respondents) was evident for the

Definition of Terms to be located near the front of the report as opposed to being located as

back matter.

Regarding the location of the Glossary of Terms, the response patterns from the internal and

external respondents were different. The largest percentage of the internal (46.7 %) respondents

selected "no glossary of terms needed; just define the term where it appears in the report." The

largest percentage of external respondents (30.8%) chose the response, "as an Appendix." The

second highest percentage (24.8%) of the internal respondents and external respondents (15%)

chose "after Contents." Thus, when results from these two responses were combined, a

28
preference(32.1%for internalrespondentsand43.6% for externalrespondents)wasevidentfor

the glossaryof terms to be locatedneartheback of the report as opposedto beinglocatedas

front matter.

When Appendix Material Is Read

The internal and external responses were very similar. A strong majority (73 % internally

and about 77% externally) indicated that the appendixes were read after the text. About 25% of

the internal respondents and about 23 % of the external respondents stated that the appendixes

were read with the text. About 2% of the internal and 0.0% of the external respondents

indicated that the appendix material was read prior to reading the text.

Location and Use of Illustrative Material

About 77% of the internal and about 80% of the external respondents preferred that the

illustrative material be integrated with the text as opposed to being grouped in the back matter.

Most respondents (80.3% internally; 79.7% externally) indicated that the illustrative material

was read with the text. Some respondents (16. % internally and 18% externally) indicated that

the illustrative material was read before the text. Only a few respondents (4 % internally and

2.3% externally) indicated that the illustrative material was read after the text.

Format of Reference Citations

About 53 % of the internal respondents and about 56% of the external respondents preferred

references in the text to be cited by number (e.g., reference 16) with a numbered list in back

of report. About 28% of the internal respondents and about 28% of the external respondents

preferred references cited in text by author/year (e.g., Jones 1978) but with an alphabetic list

in back of report. About 20% of the internal respondents and about 17% of the external

respondents preferred references cited in text by footnote (e.g., Jones 12) with a numbered list

in back of report.

Specifications of Units for Dimensional Values

There was no overall agreement among either survey groups as to how dimensional values

should be specified in NASA Langley-authored technical reports. Thirty-eight percent of the

internal respondents selected U.S. Customary units (e.g., foot, pound) followed by the International System (S.I.) units (24.1%), and U.S. Customary units with S.I. units in parentheses

(e.g., meter, kilogram) (22.6%). About 32% of the external respondents selected U.S. Customary units with S.I. units in parentheses, followed by the International System (S.I.) units

(e.g., meter, kilogram) (26.3%), and U.S. Customary units (e.g., foot, pound) (22.6%).

29
Column Layout and Right Margin Treatment

About 41% of the internal respondents preferred two columns; justified right margin,

followed by a mixed format; one and two columns intermixed as mathematical material dictates

(21.2%). About 34% of the external respondents preferred one column; justified right margin

followed by two columns; justified right margin (24.1%). Overall, a two column format

(48.9%) was preferred by internal respondents and a one column format was preferred by

external respondents (51.1%). Justified right margins were preferred over ragged right margins

by about 53 % of the internal respondents and about 63 % of the external respondents.

Person and Voice

Among both groups, the passive voice, third person option was chosen most often as the

preferred writing style. Among internal respondents, about 64% selected this preference.

Among external respondents, about 47% selected this preference. Considering voice alone,

internal respondents preferred the passive voice (64%) over the active voice (35%). On the

other hand, external respondents preferred the active voice (53 %) over the passive voice (47%).

The majority of both internal (78.8%) and external (64.7%) respondents preferred that third

person be used rather than first person in NASA Langley-authored technical reports. It should

be noted, however, that a higher percentage of external respondents (35.3%) preferred first

person than did the internal group (21.2%).

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The survey results reported in this report relate only to the format for NASA langley

Research Center technical reports. However, the results may also be applicable for other

technical reports that record significant scientific and technical accomplishments and that are

prepared for external distribution. The results support the position that the technical report

reading preferences of producers (writers) differ from the reading preferences of report users.

What would account for the differences assuming, of course, that the data accurately reflect the

reading habits of the two groups? One possibility is that the two groups do indeed have different

reading habits. Another possibility is that the self reported practices do not accurately represent

the actual reading practices of report producers and users. More empirical study is needed to

validate the findings. Nevertheless, the data offer useful insights into the reading preferences

of aerospace engineers and scientists concerning the organization, format, layout, and language

of NASA Langley Research Center technical reports. These findings may also be useful for

editors and document designers, especially those involved in designing electronic publications.

30
REFERENCES

Adam, R.

1975

Allen, T. J.

1977

Auger, C. P.

1975

Ballard, S., et. al.

1989

Ballard, S., et. al.

1986

Berul, L. H., et. al.

1965

Beyer, J. M.

and H.M. Trice

1982

Bikson, T. K.,

B. E. Quint, and

L. L. Johnson

1984

Branscomb, L. G.

1992

"Pulling the Minds of Social Scientists Together: Towards a

Science Information System." International Social Journal 27(3):

519-531.

Managing the Flow of Technology: Technology Transfer and the

Dissemination of Technological Information Within the R&D

Organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Use of Technical Reports Literature. Hamden, CT: Archon

Books.

Innovation Through Technical and

Government and Industry Cooperation.

Books.

Scientific Information:

Westport, CT: Quorum

Improving the Transfer and Use of Scientific and Technical

Information. The Federal Role: Volume 2 - Problems and Issues

in the Transfer and Use of STI. Washington, DC: National

Science Foundation. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA; PB87-14923.)

DoD User-Needs Study, Phase 1. Volume 1: Management Report,

Conduct of the Study, and Analysis of Data. Philadelphia, PA:

Auerbach Corporation. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA;

AD-615 501.

"The Utilization Process: A Conceptual Framework and Synthesis

of Empirical Findings." Administrative Science Quarterly 27:

591-622.

Scientific and Technical Information Transfer: Issues and Option.

Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. (Available from

NTIS, Springfield, VA; PB-85-150357; also available as Rand

Note 2131.)

"America's Emerging Technology Policy." Minerva 30:3

(August): 317-336.

31
Branscomb, L. G.

1991

David, P.A.

1986

Evdand, J.D.

1987

Flanagan, J. C.

1954

Fry, B. M.

1953

Gibb, J. M. and

E. Phillips

1979

Glassman, M. and V.M.

Cordle

1982

Godfrey, L. E. and

H.F. Redman

1973

"Toward a U.S. Technology Policy." Issues in Science and

Technology 7:4 (Fall): 50-55.

"Technology Diffusion, Public Policy, and Industrial Competitiveness." In The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology

for Economic Growth. R. Landau and N. Rosenberg, eds. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Scientific and Technical Information Exchange: Issues and

Findings. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. (Not

available from NTIS.)

"The Critical Incident Technique." Psychology Bulletin 51:4

(July): 327-358.

Library Organization and Management of Technical Reports

Literature. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America

Press.

"Better Fate for the Grey, or Non-Conventional, Literature."

Journal of Communication Studies 1: 225-234.

Survey of Reader Preferences Concerning the Format of NASA

Technical Reports. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and

Space Administration. NASA TM-84502. (Available from NTIS,

Springfield, VA: 82N34300.)

Dictionary of Report Series Codes. (2nd ed.) NY: Special

Libraries Association.

Goldhor, R. S. and

R. T. Lund

1983

"University-to-Industry Advanced Technology Transfer:

Study." Research Policy 12: 121-152.

A Case

Lancaster, F. W.

1978

Mathes, J. C. and

D. W. Stevenson

1976

Critical Incident Techniques. Urbana IL: University of Illinois

Graduate School of Library and Information Science.

Designing Technical Reports. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merill.

32
McClure, C. R.1988

McGowan, R. P. and

S. Loveless

1981

Mowery, D. C.

1983

Mowery, D. C. and

N. Rosenberg

1979

National Academy

of Sciences -

National Academy

of Engineering

1969

Pinelli, T. E.

1991(a)

Pinelli, T. E.

1991(b)

Pinelli, T. E.,

J. M. Kennedy, and

R. O. Barclay

1991

Pinelli, T. E.,

J. M. Kennedy,

R. O. Barclay,

and T. F. White

1991

"The Federal Technical Report Literature: Research Needs and

Issues." Government Information Quarterly. 5(1): 27-44.

"Strategies for Information Management: The Administrator's

Perspective." Public Administration Review 41(3): 331-339.

"Economic Theory and Government Technology Policy." Policy

Sciences 16: 27-43.

"The Influence of Market Demand Upon Innovation: A Critical

Review of Some Recent Empirical Studies." Research Policy 8(2):

102-153.

Scientific and Technical Communication: A Pressing National

Problem and Recommendations for Its Solution. Report by the

Committee on Scientific and Technical Communication.

Washington, DC: National Academy Sciences; AKA the

SATCOM Report.

"The Information-Seeking Habits and Practices of Engineers."

Science and Technology Libraries 11 (3): 5-25.

The Relationship Between the Use of U.S. Government Technical

Reports by U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists and Selected

Institutional and Sociometric Variables. Washington, DC:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA TM102774, January. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA;

N9118898.)

"The NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge diffusion Research

Project." Government Information Quarterly 8(2): 219-233.

"Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research." World Aerospace

Technology '91: The International Review of Aerospace Design

and Development 1(1): 31-34.

33
President'sSpecial

Assistantfor Science

and Technology

1962

Scientific and Technological Communication in the Government.

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; AKA the

Crawford Report.

Redman, H. F.

1965/1966

"Technical Reports: Problems and Predictions." Arizona

Librarian 23:11-17.

Roberts, E. B.

and A. L. Frohman

1978

"Strategies for Improving Research Utilization."

Review 80 (March/April): 32-39.

Technology

Rohde, Nancy F.

1986

"Information Needs." In Advances in Librarianship, Vol. 14. W.

Simonton, ed. NY: Academic Press, 49-73.

Ronco, P. G., et. al.

1964

Characteristics of Technical Reports That Affect Reader Behavior:

A Review of the Literature. Boston, MA: Tufts University,

Institute for Psychological Research. (Available from NTIS,

Springfield, VA PB-169 409.)

Shuchman, H. L.

1981

Information Transfer in Engineering. Glastonbury, CT: The

Futures Group.

Smith, R. S.

1981

"Interaction Within the Technical Report Community." Science

and Technology Libraries 1(4): 5-18.

Subramanyam, K.

1981

Scientific and Technical Information Resources. NY: Marcel

Dekker.

U.S. Department

of Defense

1964

Glossary of Information Handling. Defense Logistics Agency,

Defense Documentation Center. Cameron Station, Alexandria, VA.

Williams, F. and

D. V. Gibson

1990

Technology Transfer: A Communication Perspective.

Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Newbury

34
APPENDIX A

NASA/DoD AEROSPACE KNOWLEDGE

DIFFUSION RESEARCH PROJECT

Fact Sheet

The process of producing, transferring, and using scientific and technical information (STI),

which is an essential part of aerospace research and development (R&D), can be defined as

Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion. Studies tell us that timely access to STI can increase

productivity and innovation and help aerospace engineers and scientists maintain and improve their

professional skills. These same studies indicate, however, that we know little about aerospace

knowledge diffusion or about how aerospace engineers and scientists find and use STI. To learn

more about this process, we have organized a research project to study knowledge diffusion.

Sponsored by NASA and the Department of Defense (DoD), the NASA/DoD Aerospace

Knowledge Diffusion Research Project is being conducted by researchers at the NASA Langley

Research Center, the Indiana University Center for Survey Research, and Rensselaer Polytechnic

Institute. This research is endorsed by several aerospace professional societies including the

AIAA, RAeS, and DGLR and has been sanctioned by the AGARD and AIAA Technical

Information Panels.

This 4-phase project is providing descriptive and analytical data about the flow of STI at the

individual, organizational, national, and international levels. It is examining both the channels

used to communicate STI and the social system of the aerospace knowledge diffusion process.

Phase 1 investigates the information-seeking habits and practices of U.S. aerospace engineers and

scientists, in particular their use of government-funded aerospace STI. Phase 2 examines the

industry-government interface and emphasizes the role of the information intermediary in the

knowledge diffusion process. Phase 3 concerns the academic-government interface and

emphasizes the information intermediary-faculty-student interface. Phase 4 explores the

information-seeking behaviors of non-U.S, aerospace engineers and scientists from Western

European nations, India, Israel, Japan, and the former Soviet Union.

The results of this research project will help us to understand the flow of STI at the individual,

organizational, national, and international levels. The findings can be used to identify and correct

deficiencies; to improve access and use; to plan new aerospace STI systems; and should provide

useful information to R&D managers, information managers, and others concerned with improving

access to and utilization of STI. These results will contribute to increasing productivity and to

improving and maintaining the professional competence of aerospace engineers and scientists. The

results of our research are being shared freely with those who participate in the study.

Dr. Thomas E. Pinelli

Mail Stop 180A

NASA Langley Research Center

Hampton, VA 23681-0001

(804) 864-2491

Fax (804) 864-8311

T.E.Pinelli@ia.re.nasa.gov

Dr. John M. Kennedy

Center for Survey Research

Indiana University

Bloomington, IN 47405

(812) 855-2573

Fax (812) 855-2818

kennedyJ@indiana.edu

Rebecca O. Barclay

Electronic Information Age, Inc.

462 Washington Street

Portsmouth, VA 23704

(804) 397-4644

Fax (804) 397-4635

barclay@infi.net

35
APPENDIX B: SURVEY

PHASE 1 OF THE

NASA/DOD AEROSPACE KNOWLEDGE

DIFFUSION RESEARCH PROJECT

Technical Communications in Aerospace:

The Role of the Technical Report in Aerospace

Knowledge Diffusion

SPONSORED BY THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION AND

THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WITH THE COOPERATION OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY

AND THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS (AIAA)

36
These questions are designed to determine how NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC) technical reports are

read and the preferred format of our readers.

. The format for a typical NASA LaRC technical report appears below. Please number IN ORDER the

components you generally read/review. (For example, if you read the "ABSTRACT" first, number it with

a "1.') Do not number those components you skip.

a. _ Title Page

b. Foreword

c. Preface

d. Contents

e. _ Summary

f. Introduction

g. __ Symbols List

h. _ Glossary of Terms

i. __ Description of Research Procedure

j. _ Results and Discussions

k. Conclusions

1. __ Appendixes

m. References

n. Tables

o. _ Figures

p. _ Abstract

. Referring to the list in Question 1, which NASA LaRC technical report components do you review or read

to determine if you will actually READ THE REPORT? (Please list letter from the above (Q.1) in the order

you review them.)

review review review review review

first second third fourth fifth

3. In your opinion, which of the above technical report components listed in Q.1 could be deleted?

4° Should ALL NASA LaRC technical reports have a Contents (regardless of length of report)?

(Circle number)

1. Yes, all should

2. No, only long reports need it

. Given that NASA LaRC technical reports contain a brief abstract (about 200 words) in the back, do you

ais__._oneed the more detailed summary section (which appears in the front)? (Circle number)

1. Yes, include a summary, too

2. No, don't bother with it

37
6. Where in a NASA/.,aRC technical report should the Symbols List appear?

(Circle ONLY one number)

1. After Contents

2. After Introduction

3. As an Appendix

4. Near front of report AND where symbols or terms appear

5. Near back of report AND where symbols or terms appear

6. NO Symbols List needed, just define the symbol or term where it appears in the report

° Where in a NASA I.aRC technical report should the Glossary of Terms appear?

(Circle ONLY one number)

1. After Contents

2. After Introduction

3. As an Appendix

4. Near front of report AND where terms appear

5. Near back of report AND where terms appear

6. NO Glossary of Terms needed; just define the term where it appears in the report

. When Appendixes appear in a technical report, when do you usually read them?

(Circle ONLY one number)

1. Before the text

2. With the text

3. After the text

. When should NASA LaRC technical reports have a list of figures and tables? (Circle ONLY ONE number)

1. Only when illustrative material is integrated with the text

2. Only when illustrative material is separate from the text; at the end of the report

3. Only when there is a lot of illustrative material (e.g., over 10 figures, photos, or tables)

4. Always; whenever a report contains illustrative material

5. NO list of figures and tables needed

10. Where do you prefer illustrative material (tables, graphs, and photographs) to appear?

1. Integrated with the text

2. Separate from text; at end of report

11. If Ulustrative material is integrated in a technical report, is there a point at which the material interrupts your

reading? (Circle ONLY one number)

1. Yes, when there are two pages of illustrative material for each page of text

2. Yes, when there are three pages of illustrative material for each page of text

3. Yes, when there are four or more pages of illustrativematerialfor each page of text

4. No, I always prefer to have the illustrative material integrated in the text

38
12. When do you usually read the illustrative material in a technical report? (Circle ONLY one number)

1. Before the text

2. With the text

3. After the text

13. Which form of reference citation do you prefer for technical reports? (Circle ONLY one number)

1. Cited in text by author/year (e.g., Jones 1978) with an alphabetical list in back of report

2. Cited in text by number (e.g., reference 16) with a numbered list in back of report

3. Cited in text by footnote (e.g., Jones t2) with a numbered list in back of report

14. How do you prefer to have dimensional values specified in technical reports? (Circle ONLY one number)

1. The International System (S.I.) units (e.g., meter, kilogram)

2. U.S. Customary Units (e.g., foot, pound)

3. S.I. units with U.S. Customary units in parentheses

4. U.S. Customary Units with S.I. units in parentheses

15. Which of the following forms of layout do you prefer for technical reports? (Circle ONLY one number)

1. Two columns; justified right margin

2. Two columns; ragged right margin

3. One column; justified right margin

4. One column; ragged right margin

5. Mixed format, one and two columns intermixed as mathematical material dictates

16. Which of the following writing styles do you prefer for technical reports? (Circle ONLY one number)

1. Passive voice, third person (e.g., Some success has been achieved by using empirical methods.)

2. Active voice, third person (e.g., With empirical methods, investigators have achieved some success.)

3. Active voice, fast person (e.g., With empirical methods, we have achieved some success.)

Please tell us about your use of and your opinion(s) regarding NASA LaRC technical reports.

17. Do you use NASA LaRC technical reports in performing your present professional duties? (Circle number)

1. Yes • GotoQ. 19

2. No • Go toQ. 18

39
18. Why don't you use NASA LaRC technical reports? (Circle ALL that apply)

NASA LaRC technical reports are ...

1. Not available/access_le

2. Not relevant to my research

3. Not used in my discipline

4. Not reliable/technically inaccurate

5. Not timely/current

6. Other (please specify)

-_Go to Q. 25

19. Which, if any, of the following problems have you encountered when using NASA I.aRC technical reports?

(Circle ALL that apply)

1. The time and effort it took to locate the report

2. The time and effort it took to physically obtain the report

3. The accuracy, precision, and reliability of the results

4. The legibility or readability of the results

5. The organization of the results

6. The distn'bution limitations or security restrictions of the report

20. In terms of performing your present professional duties, how important are NASA LaRC technical reports?

(Circle number)

Not at all Important 1 2 3 4 5 Very Important

21. How often do you find out about NASA LaRC technical reports from each of these sources?

(Circle number)

Never Seldom Sometimes Frequently

B_liographic data base search .......................... 1 2 3 4

Announcement journal (e.g., STAR) ....................... 1 2 3 4

Current awareness publication (e.g., SCAN) ................. 1 2 3 4

Cited in a report/_onmal/conference paper ................... 1 2 3 4

Referred to me by a coilesgue ........................... 1 2 3 4

Referred to me by a l_rarian/technical

information specialist ................................ 1 2 3 4

Routed to me by my l_rary ............................ 1 2 3 4

By intentional search of library resources ................... 1 2 3 4

By accident, by browsing, or looking for other material ......... 1 2 3 4

NASA LaRC sends them to me .......................... 1 2 3 4

The author sends them to me ........................... 1 2 3 4

Other (please specify) 1 2 3 4

40
22. How often do you physically obtain NASA LaRC technical reports from each of these sources?

(Circle number)

Never Seldom Sometimes Frequently

NASA LaRC sends them to me .......................... 1 2 3 4

The author sends them to me ........................... 1 2 3 4

I request them from the author .......................... 1 2 3 4

I download them from the Internet ....................... 1 2 3 4

I request/order them from my l_rary ...................... 1 2 3 4

I get them from a colleague ............................ 1 2 3 4

They are routed to me by my l_rary ...................... 1 2 3 4

Other (please specify) 1 2 3 4

3. If you were deciding whether or not to use NASA LaRC technical reports in your work, how important

would the following factors be? (Circle appropriate number)

Very Very

Unimportant Important

Are easy to physically obtain ..................... 1 2 3 4 5

Are easy to use or read ......................... 1 2 3 4 5

Are inexpensive ............................... 1 2 3 4 5

Have good technical quality ...................... 1 2 3 4 5

Have comprehensive data and information ............ 1 2 3 4 5

Are relevant to my work ........................ 1 2 3 4 5

Can be obtained at a nearby location or source ......... 1 2 3 4 5

Had good prior experience using them ............... 1 2 3 4 5

24. How would you rate NASA I.aRC technical reports on each of the following characteristics?

(Circle number)

No Opinion Poor Fair Good Excellent

Quality of information .................... 1

Precision/accuracy of data ................. 1

Adequacy of data/documentation ............. 1

Organization/format ...................... 1

Quality of graphics (e.g., charts, photos, figures) .. 1

Timeliness/currency ...................... 1

"Advancing the state of the art" in your discipline . 1

2 3 4 5

2 3 4 5

2 3 4 5

2 3 4 5

2 3 4 5

2 3 4 5

2 3 4 5

41
25. (Even if you don't use them...) What is your opiniou of NASA LaRC technical reports? (Cirde number)

They are difficult to physically obtain 1 2 3 4

They are difficult to use or read 1 2 3 4

They are expensive 1 2 3 4

They are of poor technical quality 1 2 3 4

They have incomplete data

and information 1 2 3 4

They are irrelevant to my work 1 2 3 4

They must be obtained at a

distant location or source 1 2 3 4

I've had bad prior experiences

using them 1 2 3 4

They are outdated by the time

I receive them 1 2 3 4

5 They are easy to physically obtain

5 They are easy to use or read

5 They are inexpensive

5 They are of _ood technical quality

They have comprehensive data

5 and information

5 They are relevant to my work

They can be obtained at a

5 nea_v location or source

I've had good prior experiences

5 using them

They are current when I receive

5 then',

26. When compared with other technical report literature in my discipline, the prest_e of Langley-authored

technical reports is: (Circle number)

Inferior 1 2 3 4 5 Superior 6 Don't Know 9 Don't Use Them

27. When compared with other technical report literature in my discipline, the adequacy of data in Langleyauthored technical reports is: (Circle number)

Inferior 1 2 3 4 5 Superior 6 Don't Know 9 Don't Use Them

8. When compared with other technical report literature in my discipline, the organization (format) of Langleyauthored technical reports is: (Circle number)

Inferior 1 2 3 4 5 Superior 6 Don't Know 9 Don't Use Them

29. When compared with other technical report literature in my discipline, the quality of visual presentations

(e.g., graphics, photography, type style) in Langley-authored technical reports is: (Circle number)

Inferior 1 2 3 4 5 Superior 6 Don't Know 9 Don't Use Them

30. In terms of "advancing the state of the art" in my discipline, Langley-authored technical reports are:

(Circle number)

Inferior 1 2 3 4 5 Superior 6 Don't Know 9 Don't Use Them

31. How likely are you to use the electronic versions of NASA LaRC technical reports available on the Intemet

from the Langley Technical Report Server (LTRS)? (Circle number)

Not at all Likely 1 2 3 4 5 Very Likely 7 Already Use It

42
32. How likely would you be to use the electronic versions of NASA LaRC technical reports if available on

CD-ROM? (Circle number)

Not at all Likely 1 2 3 4 5 Very Likely

We're asking a few questions for AIAA.

33. Are you are an AIAA member? (Circle number)

1. Yes _ Go to Q. 34

2. No ), Go to Q. 41

34. How important were the following in making your decision to join AIAA? (Circle Number)

Least Most

Important Important

1 Professional development .. 1 2 3 4 5

2. Technical information ..... 1 2 3 4 5

3. Networking ............ 1 2 3 4 5

4. Conferences ............ 1 2 3 4 5

5. Publications 1 2 3 4 5

6. Corporate membershi oo eeOOpOOOe* 1 2 3 4 5

7. Membership benefits ..... 1 2 3 4 5

8. Other (please specify) ..... 1 2 3 4 5

35. In terms of your professional development, how important are the following AIAA products and services?

(Circle Number)

Least Most

Important Important

1. Conferences ............ 1 2 3 4 5

2. Journals . eo eoeeo*io*om 1 2 3 4 5

3. Aerospace America ....... 1 2 3 4 5

4. Committees ............ 1 2 3 4 5

5. Local sections .......... 1 2 3 4 5

6. International activities ..... 1 2 3 4 5

7. Continuing education

courses .............. 1 2 3 4 5

8. Membership benefits ...... 1 2 3 4 5

9. Corporate sponsorship

benefits .............. 1 2 3 4 5

1O. Books 1 2 3 4 5

11. Document''-"'delivery ::::::: 1 2 3 4 5

12. Other (please specify) ..... 1 2 3 4 5

43
36. How effective are the following communications in informing you about upcoming AJAA conference?

(Circle Number)

Not At All Very

Effective Effective

1. Call for Papers ..................... 1 2 3 4 5

2. Advertising in AJAA publications ........ 1 2 3 4 5

3. Advertising in non-AIAA publications ..... 1 2 3 4 5

4. Direct mail 1 2 3 4 5 o* o*e oo eoeeoooooeoeo*

5. The Internet ..."" . .. 1 2 3 4 5 o m oe •

6. Aerospace America .................. 1 2 3 4 5

7. AIAA Bulletin ...................... 1 2 3 4 5

37. How effective are the following communications in informing you about new AIAA information products

such as new book titles? (Circle Number)

Not At All Very

Effective Effective

1. Advertising in AIAA publications ....... 1 2 3 4 5

2. Advertising in uon-AZAA publications ..... 1 2 3 4 5

3. Direct mail ....................... 1 2 3 4 5

4. The Intemet ....................... 1 2 3 4 5

5. Aerospace America .................. 1 2 3 4 5

38. Considering the last AIAA conference you attended, how important were each of the following factors in

making your decision to attend? (Circle Number)

Least Most

Important Important

1. The opportunity for professional development 1 2 3 4 5

2. Encouragement (i.e., monetary support)

from my employer ................. 1 2 3 4 5

3. The exhibits ....................... 1 2 3 4 5

4. I could combine conference attendance

with my vacation .................. 1 2 3 4 5

5. The location (i.e. city) of the conference .... 1 2 3 4 5

6. Conference agenda/content ............. 1 2 3 4 5

7. The opportunity to network ............. 1 2 3 4 5

8. The caliber and selection of the speakers ... 1 2 3 4 5

9. The committee meetings .............. 1 2 3 4 5

10. The opportunity to present a paper ....... 1 2 3 4 5

11. Other (please specify) ................ 1 2 3 4 5

44
39. Please rank the following continuing education courses in terms of your interest in attending each. Please

enter an "8" for the course you have the highest interest in attending, a "7" for the course having the next

highest interest, and so on. Please enter a "0" for any course for which you have NO interest in attending.

°

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Introductory course on a new topic

Fundamental theory course

State of the art reviews

Advanced technology course on new topics

Applications oriented course

Hands-on workshops

Classified industry briefings

Other (please specify)

0. Please indicate how important each of the following reasons would be in making your decision to attend

AIAA-sponsored continuing educations courses. (Circle Number)

Least Most

Important Important

1. Relevance of course to your job ......... 1 2 3 4 5

2. Reputation of the course lecturer/inslnlctor.. 1 2 3 4 5

3. Tuition fee ....................... 1 2 3 4 5

4. Only source of course ................ 1 2 3 4 5

5. Employer provided tuition reimbursement

and travel ....................... 1 2 3 4 5

6. Length of the course (e.g., 2-3 days) ...... 1 2 3 4 5

7. Format of the course (e.g., home ........

study, satellite) ................... 1 2 3 4 5

8. Reputation of the course sponsor ........ 1 2 3 4 5

These data will be used to determine whether people with different backgrounds have different opinions

concerning NASA LaRC technical reports.

41. Your gender: (Circle number)

1. Female

2. Male

42- Your age: (Enter number)

43. The highest college degree yon hold: (Circle number)

1. No college degree 4. Doctorate

2. Bachelor's 5. Post-Doctorate

3. Master's 6. Other (please specify).

45
44. Your primary professional duties: (Circle ONLY ONE number)

1. Teaching/Academic (may include research)

2. Research

3. Design/Development

4. Manufacturing/Production

5. Quality Assurance/Control

6. Service/Maintenance

7. Marketing/Sales

8. Private Consultant

9. Management/Supervision

10. Other (please specify).

5. Type of organization where you are employed: (Circle ONLY ONE number)

1. Academic 4. Industry

2. Government (civilian) 5. Private Consultant

3. Government (military) 6. Other (please specify).

6. Was your academic preparation as an (Circle number)

1. Engineer

2. Scientist

3. Other (please specify).

47. In your present position, do you consider yourself primarily an (Circle number)

1. Engineer

2. Scientist

3. Other (please specify).

8. Is English your first (native) language? (Circle number)

1. Yes

2. No

49. Your years of permanent (full-time) aerospace employment: (Enter number)

50. Is any of your current work funded by the federal government? (Circle ONE number)

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know

THANK YOU_

Mail re:

NASA/DoD Aerespace Knowk.dge Diffusion R_mrch Project

NASA Langley Research Center

MaR Stop 180A

Hampten, VA 23681-0001

46

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE _o,_o_

OMB No. 0704-0188

Publicreportingburdenforthis collec_ottof intormR_onis estin'_Uedto average1 hourperresponse,includingthe timeforreviewinginstrucUons,searcttingeodsttngda_asources

gatheringand maintainingthe data needed,and comp(etingand rev_ the collectionof information.Send commentsregardingthis burdenes_rnaleof any ob_eraspectof trd.,

collectionof information,includingsugges'_onsforreducingthisburden,toWashingtonHeedquartersServices,D(rectorateforInformationOperationsand Reports,1215 Jeffersor

Davis Highway,Suite 1204, Arlington,VA22202-4302. andto theOfficeof Managemecdand Budget,PaperworkReductionProject(0704-0188).Washington,DC 20503,

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORTDATE la. REPORTTYPE AND DATES COVERED

August 1996 I Technical Memorandum

4. TITLE AND SU,',i I iLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

Survey of Reader Preferences Concerning the Format of NASA LangleyAuthored Technical Reports--Results of the Phase 1 Mail Survey*

WU 505-90

6. AUTHOR(S)

Thomas E. Pinelli, Rebecca O. Barclay, and John M. Kennedy

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS{ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

NASA Langley Research Center

Hampton, VA 23681-0001

9. SPONSORING/MONFrORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, DC 20546-0001 NASA TM- 110253

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOil:$

*Report number 47 under the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. Thomas E. Pinelli:

Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA; Rebecca O. Barclay: Knowledge Transfer International, Portsmouth, VA;

John M. Kennedy: Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. See also NASA TM-84502.

12a. Dt$11_IBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Unclassified-Unlimited

Subject Category 82

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

13. AB,_ACT (Maximum 200 words)

The U.S. government technical report is a primary means by which the results of federally funded research and

development (R&D) are transferred to the U.S. aerospace industry. However, little is known about this information

product in terms of its actual use, importance, and value in the transfer of federally funded R&D. Little is also

known about the intermediary-based system that is used to transfer the results of federally funded R&D to the U.S.

aerospace industry. To help establish a body of knowledge, the U.S. government technical report is being investigated as part of the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. In this report, we summarize the

literature on technical reports, present a model that depicts the transfer of federally funded aerospace R&D via the

U.S. government technical report, and present the results of research that investigated aerospace knowledge diffusion vis<i-vis the technical report. To learn more about the preferences of U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists

concerning the format of NASA Langley Research Center-authored technical reports, we surveyed 133 report producers (i.e., authors) and 137 report users. Questions covered such topics as (a) the order in which report components are read, (b) components used to determine if a report would be read, (c) those components that could be

deleted, (d) the placement of such components as the symbols list, (e) the desirability of a table of contents, (f) the

format of reference citations, (g) column layout and right margin treatment, and (h) and person and voice. Mail

(self-reported) surveys were used to collect the data. The response rates for report producers (i.e., authors) was 68%

and for users was 62%.

14. SUBJEU_ _I=I1MS

Knowledge diffusion; Aerospace engineers and scientists; Information use; and U.S.

government technical reports

;17. SECUHi l_r CLASSIFICATION

OF REPORT

Unclassified

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OFTHIS PAGE

Unclassified

NSN 7540-01-280-5500

19. SECURrrY CLASSIFICATION

OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

47

16. PRICE CODE

A03

20. uMrrATION

OF ABSTRACT

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)

Prescribedby ANSI Std.Z39-18

298-102