: How should I respond to a supervisor/editor who thinks my technical writing is "too conversational?" My team and I are drafting a technical report to summarize the methods and results of a pilot

May I take a stab as analyzing your sup's advice?

You:

When the difference between unique observations was greater than 10% water cover, or when cover percentages did not equal 100%, points were discarded.

Him:

To reduce sampling bias, input data points were removed when variance was greater than 10% between independent observations. Input data points were also removed if the percent cover class did not equal 100%.

I believe that these changes are worth their weight. Here are a few stabs:

To reduce sampling bias (him, added)

...establishes the purpose of the action taking place in this sentence. The original sentence requires the reader to interpret the statistics purpose based on the implications of 10% water cover and not equaling 100%... not a clear connection in my mind.

"Variance... between independent observations" (him) vs. "difference between unique observations" (you)

This is an example of using well-defined terms within a given technical lexicon / knowledge domain (such as variance and independent) to serve Occam's razor: why introduce a new term to the lexicon when the existing term is just as good?

"Difference ... ... ... greater than 10% water cover" (you) vs. "variance greater than 10%" (him)

He has brought the > 10% to within one word of its modifier, whereas in yours the > 10% is four words away. I find percentages awfully ambiguous, and it is always good to fight that.

"10% water cover" (you) vs. "10%" (him)

This is your sup's bet that for the purpose of this sentence, it is not helpful to specify what the physical component is reflected by the measurement, and that it's better to focus on the statistical aspects.

"Cover percentages" (you) vs. "cover class" (him)

Using the expression X percentage of Y% includes a redundancy: "percentage" and the % sign. By introducing the word "class" your sup has improved the specificity of this value without increasing wordiness.

1 sentence (you) vs. 2 sentences (him)

Using one sentence, as you had done, for the two clauses diminishes the specificity of the mutual clause, "points were discarded". It also adds opaqueness because the reader has to interpret two cases before hearing about the action. With your sup's version, the action is paired with a case more quickly, followed by another similar case-action pair. This is easier to understand.

I hope you find this analysis useful! I certainly don't think you are wrong in your reaction, but I hope you always look for continuous improvement in your writing!

---

(0)

I'm sorry, but your supervisor's version is much better, least by your stated criteria.

Your version:

When the difference between unique observations was greater than 10% water cover, or when cover percentages did not equal 100%, points were discarded.

What are "points"? Why are you discarding these "points"? Are you scoring the observations? Ironically, this is an example of the "impenetrable academic writing style" you lamented. Without knowledge of what you're doing, or an understanding of why you're doing this, lay people struggle to make sense of what you're saying.

Your supervisor's version:

To reduce sampling bias, input data points were removed when variance was greater than 10% between independent observations. Input data points were also removed if the percent cover class did not equal 100%.

Although this is longer, it is actually less complex, and easier to understand. Notice it did not use any more technical terms than yours. The added words only serve to clarify what these "points" are and why you discarded them. It actually reduced sentence complexity, by breaking your sentence into two simpler halves.

So in fact, this is the opposite of "add extra words just to sound smart". It is adding simple words to enable lay people to understand what you're talking about without further context.

At the root of this question, I think, is a confusion over the relationship of complexity and simplicity.

I believe that sometimes (always?), simple language is best . . . The higher word counts, more complex sentence structures, and lack of additional meaning in the revisions were a clear sign (to me, at least) that he was taking things in the wrong direction.

More is not more complex. Brevity is not simplicity. In fact, it's usually the exact opposite. The more ideas you try to fit into the same length, the more the degree of complexity increases in order to accommodate the information.

Your version is shorter, but your sentence is longer than each individual sentence from your supervisor's version. What's more, your sentence is also more complex - you used a compound-complex sentence; he used two complex sentences.

---

(0)

Write formatted text, that cannot be mistaken for spoken conversation.

Instead of listing multiple alternatives, examples, reformulations and additional explanations inline, write it like:

multiple alternatives
examples,
reformulations and
additional explanations.

Use many short sentence that are to the point. When in doubt, use simple language. When necessary, do what is needed, but try to get a simple style that is good for technical documents.

For example:

When the difference between unique observations was greater than 10% water cover, or when cover percentages did not equal 100%, points were discarded.

Becomes:

NOTE: When the difference between initial unique observation was


greater than 10% water cover; or when
cover percentages did not equal 100%


we discarded the points.

Observe that only the format has changed! Additionally, I doubt anyone would confuse the latter for 'conversational'.
I also think that the text doesn't become less readable.

---

(0)

Your supervisor is ultimately going to be responsible for the quality of your work, and he seems more familiar with the domain knowledge, so you should do everything you can to try to understand his point. If necessary you should work with him more closely, perhaps with specific examples, so you can understand his reasoning. It is possible that part of that conversation will involve him softening his stance a bit, but you have to be willing to follow his lead, as he is the supervisor.
I feel the need to point out that technical language exists for a reason; it often conveys a meaning that is specific within a specialized knowledge domain. When I review your two examples, I see several ambiguities in meaning that are resolved by your supervisor's changes.

When the difference between unique observations was greater than 10% water cover, or when cover percentages did not equal 100%, points were discarded.
To reduce sampling bias, input data points were removed when variance was greater than 10% between independent observations. Input data points were also removed if the percent cover class did not equal 100%.

A "difference greater than 10% water cover" is different from "10% variance." For example, a change from 10% water cover to 12% water cover is a 20% variance but only a difference of 2% water cover. I think (I need more context).

A unique observation is not necessarily an independent observation

A point is not necessarily an input data point

As a general rule, people who are adults and professional in their fields do not "use big words" to impress anyone; they are using them for their purpose, to quickly convey what is often a subtle meaning, something that can be easily missed.

---

(0)

If I were to defend my writing

Why is this an adversarial situation? Your writing is not some fortress under siege by a rampaging editor.

Assuming your supervisor/editor knows what they are talking about (which is not always true admittedly) then do not see this is an attack on your writing. Instead see it as suggestions on how to improve it and try to take that advice on board.

Maybe you disagree with specific changes being suggested, but since you haven't provided any we can't comment on that. Instead of rejecting the changes though ask him why - try to understand the motives behind the changes and what problem they are trying to fix. Drill down to get specific reasons, for example the fuzzy reason "that seems too conversational" might actually mean "this wording is the usual way to describe X in this field and people will expect it, using your wording will make us seem like we are not familiar with Y".

To return to the fortress analogy, your supervisor is not a rampaging army. However if he looks at your castle walls and thinks that some of them are a bit too low you should seriously consider his advice before the real hordes arrive.

---

(0)

In my experience, accepted writing styles tend to fluctuate over generations and professions. I've been criticized, at various times, on both ends of arc as being "too formal" and "too personal", even though my personal style hasn't changed all that much over the years.

To your specific situation, the sentiment, "I want my published documents to reflect that", only works if you are the sole author. Given that you're working with a team, your writing needs to represent and be acceptable to the entire team. That doesn't mean you roll over on all criticism, but it does mean you have no right to insist on your perspective above all others. You will have to compromise.

As other respondents have pointed out, the best approach to resolving the differences is a frank discussion. Instead of using attack language, like "It should be such-and-such because so-and-so", try something like, "I see you want me to add such-and-such here. To me that seems too verbose. Why do you like this wording better?"

Such a discussion can be hard to have 'in the moment', especially if you're getting a lot of feedback at once. At the end of any review discussion, open the door for further discussion with something like, "This has been helpful. Do you have any time tomorrow for a follow up if I have more questions?" This gives you a day to digest and recoup. It also gives you a chance to decide which compromises you are willing to accept and which items you are willing to fight for.

---

(0)

How should you respond? Take a careful and critical look at your own writing, and - in effect - do as your supervisor has suggested.

We all get attached to our own writing, word choice, phrases, and so on. Writers (novelists) are often given the advice to root their favourite, overused phrases and kill them off. As far as academic/technical writing is concerned, the responsibility lies with the author to make it understandable to the reader, and I agree entirely that clear and concise language is to be preferred. But that doesn't mean that the style of writing should be "chatty" or "informal".

To be honest, you sound too wedded to your own writing style; when comments like this come back from a future reviewer of your work - whether that's academic papers, or feedback from the people who read the report - you simply cannot argue with them that they are wrong and you are right. You have to be willing to bend, and to learn from the input of supervisors, editors, reviewers and so forth.

"Too informal" is how - in my experience - I would describe most writing from most undergraduate and graduate students (that, or overly grandiose). Learning to write well takes time, it takes feedback, and it takes humility. If you revise as suggested you are likely to end up with a more solid piece of work - this is my my experience from both sides of this scenario.

---

(0)

One comment he repeated several times was that parts of my text sounded "too conversational." I think meant that I didn't sound professional or academic enough.

You'd be better off asking for clarification instead of guessing at the meaning.

He also suggested revisions that increased the word count and complexity of the sentences without adding any additional meaning. I disagree with those comments and I don't like the suggested edits, and here's why:

You're exactly like me here. I also disagree with pointless elaboration.

However, that doesn't mean that there's never a reason to elaborate. You've been silent on why you were suggested to elaborate. Maybe the supervisor didn't tell you, maybe he did but you don't think it's relevant, maybe you subconsciously omitted that from the question, or maybe you intentionally omitted it.
I'm not here to judge; but it's impossible to review someone's feedback as meaningful if we don't know the problem the feedback is trying to point out.

There are reason to elaborate an explanation:

Legal reasons
Disambiguation that may not seem necessary to you, but may be helpful to people who aren't as knowledgeable about the subject matter.
Rephrasing in order to avoid certain words which could be mistaken as keywords in a tangentially related subject matter (e.g. avoiding the word "class" in a C# educational application)

I get the feeling that you only presented part of the full picture.

I believe that sometimes (always?), simple language is best.

I agree with your intention, but not your statement. Not always. This is very dependent on who your target audience is.

For laymen, simple is most often the best option.
For experts, you should favor precision and disambiguation, even if that entails a higher complexity.
For lawyers and legalese documentation, pedantic precision and utter disambiguation is the standard.

I also believe the impenetrable "academic" writing style of many scientists is a major shortcoming - it only hinders communication among scientists and isolates us from the public, who can't make sense of what we're trying to say.

I have yet to lay eyes on a single document that is written in a way that:

The laymen find it clear and understandable
The experts find it detailed enough to rely on it
The lawyers find it disambiguated enough that there are no reasonable loopholes

If there were a writing standard that could fulfill all of these requirements, it would be the only writing standard that was in use since it has no drawbacks.

As a technical writer, you'll generally be writing documentation for experts. Experts generally don't see linguistic simplicity as the main priority. Therefore, simplicity should not be your main focus when writing.

The higher word counts, more complex sentence structures, and lack additional meaning in the revisions were a clear sign (to me, at least) that he was taking things in the wrong direction.

You're overgeneralizing. More often than not, reducing sentence complexity leads to a higher word count, and reducing the word count leads to increased sentence complexity.

If the supervisor were adding complexity and word count at the same time, his feedback would obviously not be good.

However, we come back to my earlier point that we're only hearing your side of the story. The level of detail and the (apparent) lack of common sense in the supervisor's feedback are not matching up. You are likely omitting a key part of the supervisor's side of the story (this may be unintentional, I'm not accusing you of anything).

I know there's room for subjectivity, but I honestly think the sentences I crafted are just better - and I don't want to trash them.

You tell us they're better, but you don't showcase your point. Since this issue very much hinges on whether the supervisor is correct or not; I'd say it's very relevant to include an actual example so that we can see if his feedback has merit.

If I were to defend my writing, I feel like I'd be calling his own writing skills and workplace authority into question.

Generally speaking, ask for them to explain the feedback instead of arguing why the feedback is wrong in your opinion. Asking for clarification shouldn't be interpreted as calling the other person's skills into question. If anything, asking for his explanation implies that he knows it better than you.

At the same time, I take pride in my writing and I want my published documents to reflect that.

Pride should not come at a cost to the company. If the supervisor's version is objectively more in line with the company's expectations, the supervisor's version should be picked. Regardless of whether your version was only marginally or notably worse.

I don't think we should just "go along with it" and let them sully our writing, especially if our own names will be on the published document.

With the exception of some egregious fringe cases, the customer (in this case the company) gets the product how they want it. If they stress that they want the word "computer" replaced with "puterbox" across the entire document, then that's their choice.

If the company makes demands that you personally cannot live with (e.g. ideological differences), then you can refuse the project; but this will of course have consequences. Depending on the company, this can be seen as insubordination and grounds for firing.

When you refuse a project, you should already have accepted the consequences of your refusal.

---

(0)

When I wrote user manuals and so on, for A Big Company, they had a corporate style guide for technical writing.

Part of it said to minimise the "reading age" or "grade level" of text: to maximise its readability. There was a tool, built-into the word processor software, to evaluate the text's complexity.

It preferred shorter sentences.

One reason it gave, to prefer simpler grammar, was that English might be a second language for many readers.
And in fact, I was working in Italy.
Even if text must use some technical words, it can be direct, and you can prefer simpler non-technical words.

In summary there are automated readability tests, which you might find persuasive or informative -- perhaps they're only approximate but they're independent, impersonal, objective, and cheap.

---

(0)

I'll start with something of a confession - I've been (and often still am) a supervisor who suggests changes to technical reports, instruction manuals and guides to functions which appear to have been written in a conversational style.

It's worth mentioning that there's a huge grey area between obscure and conversational language. In some cases it's as distinct as the formal "set the parameter" as opposed to the conversational "you should set the parameter" (in which case the formal approach is simpler), or using a passive rather than an active voice ("results were observed" instead of "we observed the results"). If your supervisor is suggesting something convoluted, it should be possible to remove that without becoming conversational.

But what this will really come down to is knowledge of the audience. It might be that your supervisor has knowledge of a house style, or the intended audience of the pilot study, which suggests the people reading the study (which may include people inside the organisation) might respond better to a more formal style.

If you believe the audience would respond better to a less formal style, this would be the line of argument that's likely to be the most effective. It's worth pitching this as a positive rather than concentrating on negatives in your supervisor's style - that's rarely a productive approach in a professional environment.

---

(0)