Scientific and Technical Communication: Theory, Practice and Policy

Rhetorical Purpose

Why are you writing this text? Texts are designed in order to achieve specific goals, but the purposes for writing are as varied as each writing situation. Your ideas begin to achieve greater clarity and depth as you consider why you are writing, who you are trying to persuade, how the information will be used, and how you will design the document to achieve those ends. Some rhetorical purposes include:

Showing your alliance with members of a group;
Transmitting plans and initiatives from the managers of an organization to the workers (or the reverse);
Translating the ideas and interests of one group, electrical engineers, to another group, marketers;
Making a name for yourself;
Legitimating your ideas and position with a group;
Bringing new perspectives to bear on an old problem.

The idea that the goal of scientific and technical writing is simply to inform the reader or render an objective presentation fails to consider how language shapes the needs of the audience. If the reader is not given an alternative, they will read your document within the guidelines of their own professional language. For example, let's say you are the manager of a medium sized company drafting a new set of sexual harassment policies. While the employees are generally receptive to your ideas, in this case they are generally uniformed. You cannot simply draft the policies hand them out and say, "Follow these policies or else." One of your rhetorical purposes is to educate the audience. And in educating the audience, you must show how these policies meet their needs, not just federal, state and corporate mandates. In order to establish rhetorical purpose, you must help crate the context in which these policies are interpreted.

Context

What are the sets of circumstances influencing the meaning or rhetorical effect of the document? Generally hese circumstances remain unexplored in science and technology. The context in which experimentation and observation took place was seen as unimportant to the findings. However, as individuals and members of institutions, our communication practices are embedded within historical, social, philosophical, psychological, economic and rhetorical contexts. These contexts are impossible to avoid. We are all social beings existing in a moment of history with access to different economic resources. We all think in different ways, but share problem solving abilities and techniques with similarly trained members in our chosen fields. We all use language and concepts uniquely, but communicate by sharing those concepts in our practices.

In writing to familiar audiences, it is easy to forget how shared assumptions affect the way we communicate. And it is easier still to forget that other audiences don't share those same assumptions. By understanding scientific and technical writing in context, you begin to critically examine the element affect your writing, and with a knowledge of those elements can construct new contexts for diverse audiences. You need to know where the audience is, and through your knowledge of the contexts affect the communicative situation, convey a shared sense of need and purpose.

Drafting

In the process of drafting, you choose a format for text, begin writing and begin designing visual aides. Drafting is a unique process for each writer. But we all face common fears, constraints and objectives when writing.

Writers move from inventing and planning a text to drafting sentences and paragraph in different ways. Some writers refer only briefly to notes and begin writing; others follow detailed outlines in a ritual manner. Some writers rush to complete the first draft quickly; others revise as they go. It is a mistake, however, to try and compose a flawless first draft in one sitting. If you are a thoughtful writer, you will see how maddening (and impossible) it is to start, stop, do further research, revise ideas, sentences and word choice in one session with a pad of paper, or facing a computer screen. Begin with modest expectations of your first draft.

It is difficult, if not impossible determine when a writer is "ready" to draft a document. Faced with a blank piece of paper or blank computer screen we get nervous, and often abandon the elements we put together in planning the document. We look for distractions, urgent errands we must run, urgent dishes we must clean, urgent telephone calls we must return. Finding distractions is, for some, a part of the drafting process, a habit you need to account for in meeting deadlines. To get over the hump in drafting a text you must simply do it. But truy to do it quickly and consistently.

Once you begin to draft a text, don't stop. Set a time limit, an hour, and work without stopping. If you hit a snag, leave a note in the text and get back to it later. If an idea comes out of the blue, include it. Don't revise, change word choice, correct spelling or check grammar, just write. Write a phrase or sentence, then write another phrase or sentence. Get the raw materials with which you can work on paper (or disk). Draw associations. Wander through the ideas you generate and make connections where you can. "Mistakes" "errors" or "accidents" in the drafting process often reveal connections among ideas you may not have considered. "Errors" and free associations are the raw materials that are refined to produce a final document. When you reach the end of the time limit, either stop in the middle of a sentence or paragraph, or write yourself a note specifying what comes next. This will give you something with which to work upon returning to the draft. If you are prone to writer's block, stopping in mid-thought or sentence can give a place from which to begin the next round of drafting.

While the process of drafting should be free of the concerns of the later stages of the writing process, you need to prepare to the draft so as to use it. Here are some hints for preparing usable first drafts:

Leave yourself enough space so you can expand the document, add ideas and revise sentences. If drafting on paper or note cards, skip lines. If drafting using a word processing program skip lines and use a readable font. Use space to help organize and provide transition among ideas.

Consider using different writing media. Many writers rely solely on computers in drafting texts. And computers offer several advantages. However, people forget how the physical act of writing can facilitate drafting a text. If you use computers exclusively and are stuck putting together a first draft, try hand writing. The motion of the hand across the page can help generate ideas. If you are still stuck and must type, shift positions and move the key board. In moving from one draft to the next, writers using computers often like to look at the hard copy of drafts. Seeing printed prose lends you different perspectives on how the ideas are organized and developed. If you stare at a computer screen (or piece of paper) for hours, you lose the visual cues a draft has to offer.

Start with what you know. Drafts often begin in the middle with a topic or idea the writer knows well. Writers forget what is often assumed by them is not assumed by their audience. Fleshing out the details of a subject with which you are familiar can lead to related ideas. No rule exists that you must "begin at the beginning" and draft a text straight to the conclusion.

Draft the introduction last. The weakest part of most documents is the introduction. Writers drafting a document from start to finish often try to "predict" what they will say in the body of the text. Then, as with a self-fulfilling prophesy, the writer drafts the text to fit the prediction in the introduction. The result is a text that relies on developing generalities. And those generalities usually survive to the final draft. Since the elements of the introduction are based on points elaborated in the body, it is helpful to know what points have been made rather than predict what points you will make.

Revising

Once you have completed a draft, let it rest. You are too close to it to be able to assess what elements to revise. Try to give yourself as much time away from the draft as possible. Do other things and forget about the draft. Distance from your work is necessary in order to revise anything deeper than spelling errors and awkward sentences. In order to figure out how much "down" time to give yourself and your document, realistically assess the patterns and characteristics of your writing process. Then return to the draft.

Revising is as idiosyncratic as planning and drafting the document. Again, taking into account your own habits, consider the following techniques.

When you return to your draft concentrate initially on organization and coherence. Keep in mind that none of the components of a draft are exclusive to one another, so revising organization will likely make the draft more coherent. In scientific and technical communication, one of the nice things about having a standard format for many documents is that the format can serve as a template for organizing your draft. Be forewarned, however. Many scientific and technical writers, in their strict devotion to these templates, neglect the content and style of their writing. Writing becomes, as a result, an exercise in plugging in the appropriate response to the requirements for a particular document. The ability to "plug and chug" is often the strength of many mathematicians, scientists, and engineers. But it is a weakness if the other aspects of writing are neglected. Nevertheless the templates for scientific and technical documents provide a good organizational outline, as well as providing topics for headings.

Organization

To check organization initially look at the headings in the text. Keeping your audience(s) in mind, see if they offer a logical progression for the document. Also, consider the headings in reference to the requirements to be fulfilled for a specific document such as a proposal or set of instructions. Organizing principles for documents are provided in specific Rhetoric chapters. Looking at the length of each section under each heading get a sense of the emphasis you have given each topic in the document. In the drafting stage you may have either outlined more topics than you substantively address, or may have given extensive treatment to topic that you may wish to divide into subheadings. If you have outlined more topics than you substantively address, consider whether you need the section at all. If not, eliminate it. If so, you need either to combine undeveloped topics into a broader topic, or independently develop the topic. Let the detail and treatment of each topic reflect your emphasis. By sight, the audience may make an immediate determination about whether you have covered a topic sufficiently, and what is the point of the document.

Coherence

Upon organizing your document, start at the beginning of the document and read each paragraph. Look to see if each paragraph has a central point, topic sentence or argumentative claim. A paragraph is coherent when each sentence clarifies and explains the idea expressed in the central point, topic sentence or argumentative claim. Determine which questions or ideas each paragraph addresses for the reader. One strategy for doing this is to list, on a separate piece of paper, these questions and ideas in as few a words as possible. Then ask the following:

Does each paragraph have a central issue or answer a specific question? If not, eliminate it.

Does each paragraph "deliver" on its promise to present an issue or answer a question? If not, either flesh out the details or abandon the idea or question.

Does each paragraph have more than one issue or answer more than one question? If so, split the paragraph into each separate ideas and questions. Either develop each idea or question fully or eliminate them.

Does more than one paragraph address the same issues or questions? If so, either combine paragraphs or eliminate the redundancy. 6

Paragraph Revision

Paragraphs are a group of sentences organized around a central issue or theme that contributes to the development of the whole document. Paragraphs are organized much like short documents. In the opening of a paragraph, readers look for short opening segment. This segment introduces general issues or themes discussed by the rest of the sentences in the paragraph. The opening segment then narrows to a central point. Most textbooks and handbooks call this opening segment the topic or thesis sentence, but fail to recognize that the issues a paragraph addresses is usually expressed in more than one sentence. Still, the issues presented must be short and recognizable. A good analogy to the opening segment of a paragraph is a musical overture.

An overture is a piece of instrumental piece of music composed as the introduction to an opera or symphony, for example. The overture previews melodies and musical themes which are developed later in the piece. During the course of the opera or symphony, the elements of the overture, which listeners recognize, are woven into other aspects of the music. These elements are the basis for improvisation, and always remain recognizable at some level. As the musical piece unfolds, you begin to anticipate where a certain melody will occur. When you anticipate the melody correctly, or are surprised by recognizable changes, the music holds your interest. But if a melody occurs at irregular intervals, or is dropped from the piece, you become frustrated.

Writing and reading a paragraph is much the same. You introduce an issue or theme which serves as a basis from which you can improvise. Then you offer a central point. The supporting sentences in the paragraph explain, extend, support and qualify the issues and themes you introduce. Like the elements in the overture, the issues and themes you introduce remain recognizable at some level. And the reader comes to anticipate when issues and central points will be introduced and which issues follow from the next. Readers look for issues and central points in two places; at the opening and at the end of the paragraph. These two patterns of development reflect deductive, a general point leading the paragraph followed by corollary points, and inductive, a series of specific points with a general point at the end of the paragraph, reasoning.

Generally, paragraphs are organized around a central issue with four to six supporting sentences. But the number of sentences and length of a paragraph is a function of audience and purpose. Like long sentences, long paragraphs require more effort from the reader. Several one- or two- sentence paragraphs, however, suggest the writer does not have enough to say about a subject, or that several ideas require combining. Paragraphs are usually classified as transition or body paragraphs. Transition paragraphs summarize the point of the previous paragraph and show how it relates to the point of the next paragraph. Transition paragraphs are usually short, three or four sentences and are often used for introducing another element in the document (e.g., long quotes, visual aids, sets of instructions, lists of items). Body paragraphs support the document's main point and fully develop a central idea. By integrating transition and body paragraphs, as well as varying paragraph lengths, the reader is carried through the document.

Scientific and technical writing reflects the reading habits and reasoning processes employed in science. When we read say, an essay in a popular magazine, we tend to begin and the beginning and go to the end. Articles in scientific and technical journals are rarely read that way. The main points usually appear at the end. Readers may flip to the conclusion or results section to cut to the chase. Induction is the mainstay of scientific reasoning and paragraphs reflect that type of thinking, supporting points leading to a generalization. Let's look at the opening and closing paragraphs of Darwin's chapter "Struggle for Existence" from The Origin of Species:

Before entering on the subject of this chapter, I must make a few preliminary remarks, to show how the struggle for existence bears on Natural Selection. It has been seen in the last chapter that amongst organic being is a state of nature there is some individual variability: indeed I am not aware that this has ever been disputed. It is immaterial for us whether a multitude of doubtful forms be called species or sub-species or varieties; what rank, for instance, the two or three hundred doubtful form of British plants are entitled to hold, if the existence of any well-marked varieties be admitted. But the mere existence of individual variability and some few well-marked varieties, though necessary as the foundation for the work, helps us but little in understanding nature. How have all those exquisite adaptations of one par of an organisation to another part, and to the conditions of life, and of one organic being to another being been perfected? We see these beautiful co-adaptations most plainly in the woodpecker and the mistletoe; and only a little less plainly in the humblest parasite which clings to the hairs of a quadruped or feathers of a bird; in the structure of the beetle which dives through the water; in the plumed seed which is wafted by the gentlest breeze; in short, we see beautiful adaptations everywhere and in every part of the organic world.

...

It is good thus to try in imagination to give to any one species an advantage over another. Probably in no single instance should we know what to do. This ought to convince us of our ignorance on the mutual relations of organic beings; a conviction as necessary as it is difficult to acquire. All that we can do, is to keep steadily in mind that each organic being is striving to increase is a geometric ratio; that each at some period of its life, during some season of the year, during each generation or at intervals, has to struggle for life and to suffer great destruction. When we reflect on this struggle, we may console ourselves with the full belief, that the war of nature is incessant, that no fear is felt, that death is generally prompt, and that the vigorous, the healthy, and the happy survive and multiply.

The opening paragraph is long by our standards, 239 words; the closing paragraph a more manageable 150 words. The average number of words per sentence in the opening is 39; the average number words per sentence in the closing paragraph is 30. Active voice is more frequent in the close than the opening, half the sentences are in passive voice. Aside from readability, these numbers indicate how the ideas develop. Darwin obviously regarded the opening paragraph of this chapter as a transition paragraph; linking ideas from the previous chapter to what he will explain later. The phrase in italics, located at the end of the paragraph, is the central topic. Darwin gives several specific examples leading to the general claim (an inductive pattern), but interestingly the examples are given in descending order, moving from the most general category "organic beings" to the most specific category (and smallest item) "plumed seed."

The closing paragraph follows a similar pattern of reasoning, moving from the specific "individual imagination" to the general "war of nature" and its characteristics. In offering the main points at the end of both paragraphs, Darwin develops the issue along with specific examples and anticipatory points, "individual variability" in the opening, "mutual relations among organic beings" in the close. Darwin's work is example of developmental patterns commonly found in academic, scientific and technical writing. The central point is located at the end of the paragraph. Most readers have difficulty with that type of organization.

Some guidelines for revising paragraphs:

Locate the central idea near the front of the paragraph, after the introductory or transition segment. If you do use an inductive pattern of organization, lead to the main point by making a series of clearly understood minor points.

Support the central point. In some cases, the central point is posed as an assertion, argumentative claim, new idea, proposition, or definition. The support sentences of the paragraph all speak to, or explicate this central topic with specific ideas and details. Given the type of topic sentence the support sentences may be directed toward:

offering evidence for an assertion of fact; giving examples to defend an argumentative claim; giving causes for the development of a new idea; explaining the components of a definition; defending reasons for a proposition.

Other Strategies for Revision

Read your draft aloud as if you were giving an oral presentation. Note where you stumble when you read the text. In so doing, you will highlight sentence fragments, comma splices, lack of agreement between subject and verb, unnecessary repetition and other problems of mechanics and construction. Make the appropriate revisions based on the sound and ease of reading the text.

Find other people to read the draft. As mentioned in the opening of this chapter, the process of writing is recursive, or loops back on itself. When you revise you get the opportunity to return and "see again" the ideas you have presented. At times, however, one pair of eyes is not enough. In significant and necessary ways you will always be too close to your own prose. The document needs to be reviewed by others. In selecting reviewers consider your audience(s). Although peer review and open and blind refereeing are the basis for substantive revisions in certain types of publishing, drafts are often reviewed by experts for experts. Consider the different audiences your draft will reach, and try to solicit views from those different audiences. In addition, consider the wisdom of a reviewer who knows little about your chosen field or profession. People familiar with the current debates in an academic field, or the issues concerning a profession can "fill in the blanks" in your draft. Having a knowledgeable critic can be an advantage in delineating specific, internal points of content in your draft. But shared knowledge and expertise can lead to shared mistakes. Misunderstandings, mistakes or ambiguities can be reproduced within a closed community until they become accepted practices. Chances are the lay reader will admit if they do not comprehend a certain point. Use your judgment to determine if the advice of lay readers is sound.

After restructuring your draft for organization and coherence, reading aloud, having others evaluate the draft and making corrections and revisions, consider your personal standards. You must be comfortable with having your name on the document. Ask yourself if you like the work you have revised, and determine if the draft did not say it better. You also need determine if the document meets the needs and standards of collaborators and of your discipline or profession. Be prepared to negotiate your desires in light of the desires of collaborators and publishers. In some instances you will make sacrifices. This aspect of revision is not easy and illustrates that the production and presentation of knowledge is based on social negotiation. You must decide what you are willing to give up or revise for the sake of the completing and publishing a document.

Editing

Text editing requires that a document is correct, consistent, compete and achieves its purpose. The term editing refers to the work done by an editor, someone other than the author(s), who suggest strategies for revising a document for the reader's understanding and use, and who coordinates publication of a document. Editing practices can be internal to the subject matter and intended audience for the document. For example, the background and practices of editors dealing with technical documents in business, science, medicine and government will be geared toward how documents are used by readers for instruction and information. Of course, the purposes and audiences for documents varies, and editing specific practices are required to meet different needs.

Generally, text editing can be classified in two ways:

1. Substantive editing, in which an editor makes choices in collaboration with the author(s) whether to amend the content, organization and style of a document with respect to the intended readers and purpose, and to ensure that the document meets institutional policies;

2. Copy editing, in which an editor makes sure the document is correct in terms of language, mechanics, style, page design, consistency and correspondence among appendixes, figures, footnotes, indexes, tables and references.

Most editors are also responsible for managing the administrative and production aspects of publishing which is known as coordination editing.

Like the writing process, the process of editing is best understood as a series of tasks, none of which are followed in a linear fashion and none of which are mutually exclusive of the others. Accordingly, the process of editing can be seen as occurring in two stages, development and production. In the development stage the editor determines the intended audience, and the purpose, scope and format of the document. After the authors research, write and revise the text, editors suggest substantive changes. After making these changes, the manuscript is submitted to reviewers outside the publishing house or journal. Given the reviewer's approval, the document goes into the production stage. The document is copy edited, proofread and typeset (or printed from typewritten pages). The document is then printed, bound and distributed.

Collaborative Writing

In science and engineering, multiple authorship is common. In certain science disciplines as many as 80 to 85 percent of the articles are co-authored. Studies estimate that as much as 75 to 85 percent of the writing done in the workplace involves collaboration with one or more people.7 Many colleges and universities require collaborative writing for senior design projects and theses. Increased collaboration reflects a recognition of increasing professional specialization and access to information, and a realization that knowledge is a socially organized and distributed.

Disciplines and professions are becoming more specialized. Even with more access to information, individual practitioners are reduced to lay persons on an increasing number of issues. Greater specialization leads to inefficiency in the way knowledge and information is used and produced. Overlapping research projects, unread journal articles, the split between theoreticians and practitioners (or hardware and software designers) are symptoms of specialization. As specialties increase, the number of practitioners within each new field tends to decrease.

Collaborative writing attempts to address this problem by having more people involved in planning and producing documents. By breaking down personal and social barriers, collaboration helps improve communication, and teaches people how things to get things done in an efficient manner. Group members can bounce ideas off one another and learn different ways to solve problems. However, the homogeneity of a group of authors can prohibit the free flow of ideas. Members in a well-defined specialty with established procedures often succeed in confirming each other's biases and reinforcing familiar methods. What is done locally, in a specific lab or branch of a corporation, sometimes needs explaining from an outsider's perspective. In writing a proposal, for example, it is quite clear to you and the people with whom you collaborate why you need funding for new computers, but a government agency of corporate headquarters may not share your sympathy. While two or more heads are better than one, you need to be aware of the purpose you want collaboration to serve.

Collaboration gives writers a wider range of experiences from which to draw. The cognitive and social aspects of the writing process are magnified when we collaborate. People exchange different ideas about how to plan, write and edit a document. And depending on the writing situation, you may want to magnify different aspects of the writing process. In examining its purposes, advantages and disadvantages, let's look at collaborative writing in the context of the writing process.

Advantages and Disadvantages

Collaborative writing takes place within and between two broadly defined groups: people from the same background or discipline and people from different backgrounds and disciplines. In science and technology, collaboration takes place in the context of specialization, the rapid pace of scientific change, and shifting patterns of government funding. Collaborative writing emerges out of the tension among an individual's self-interest, the interests of the group, the interests of the profession and the interest of larger society. These competing interests require a balanced consideration which is often only available when "outsiders" and "insiders" meet to discuss their needs.

The history of science attests to the advantages and disadvantages of having similarly trained people, sharing a world view, working on a defined set of problems. With scientific problems, methods and standards for success historically defined, practitioners know what they must do achieve their goals. Accordingly, social roles and standards are explicitly defined. For example, in a laboratory with a senior head, assistant professors, graduate students and laboratory assistants, the responsibility and credit for research corresponds to academic rank. In collaborative research and writing, the laboratory head is the final authority. He or she approves the experimental results, edits the research, and is usually lead author of the paper. How tasks and responsibilities are assigned, who coordinates writing and presentation, and who has final say about a document is largely defined by the social structure of the research community.

There are several other advantages to working with similarly trained people. In many important ways you share the same beliefs. Your choice of profession implies that you embrace certain ideals. Lifestyles and work habits are often common to members of the same profession. Because you are similarly trained, you can count on a certain level of shared knowledge. Consequently, you can make a number of assumptions, based on the needs of the audience, about how to approach the collaborative writing process.

The disadvantages to collaboration, within the context of specialization, are intellectual inbreeding, self-deception and self-interest. Even though many people are involved in the collaborative process, the content of a document may not reflect intellectual diversity. Usually, our first rule of thumb in recommending policy or procedural changes is if it ain't broke, don't fix it. But from an internal group perspective, it is frequently hard to tell if it is "broke." Collaborators with similar beliefs and backgrounds, even peer reviewers, may simply confirm group biases and patterned ways of thinking. If personal self-interest is served within the context of a group, there is no motivation to see beyond it. But if self-interest is not served, collaboration may suffer as a result. For example, if I am a nuclear physicist, I want unlimited funding for my field. And my allegiance to my research and specialty is tempered by the funding it receives. If funding dries up, as the pace of scientific change often dictates, I may try to define myself in other ways, as a researcher with many, applicable interests, to keep my laboratory alive. My need for collaboration, then, may primarily reflect what is in my best interest, or the interest of my immediate field. Even in the process of collaboration there is a tendency to see one's own research as the center of all that is worthwhile.

In the framework of collaborative writing, specialists are confronted by non-specialists who ask, "Why do you do it that way?" Procedures considered successful are usually never questioned; unless witnessed by a naïve observer. When scientists are confronted by non-scientists, patent attorneys, insurance representatives, marketing agents, or laypersons, they must provide explanation of why they do what they do. The historian of science Derek de Solla Price (1986) found that the perceived success of science and technology in universities corresponded to how well ideas and techniques are spread to people working outside of the university. The process of collaborative writing, then, involves determining how to investigate and spread knowledge to diverse audiences.

In collaborating and making policy decisions, you need to force yourself to see your interests as not an end in themselves, but as part of much larger projects. But you cannot see the "big picture" alone, you need people from outside your discipline or profession to lend their insights as well. By examining the needs of others in light of your own needs, you gain a better understanding of different audiences and a basis for self-reflection. When people from different backgrounds and training collaborate on a document, the process is more difficult to organize, but the impact is often more widespread.

Collaborating and Composing

Individual writers have uniquely defined ways of approaching the writing process, but individual styles must be situated within the group dynamic. Many writers, for example, are shy about sharing their work with others, fearing rejection or personal insult. In collaborative writing, however, sharing work and ideas is a necessary part of the writing process. Keep in mind that writing is a recursive process. But in some parts of the writing process collaboration is more effective than in others.

Why collaborate?

What is the reason for collaboration? Clearly there are several overlapping purposes for assembling a group of people to write a document including personal choice, initiating new employees, the circumstances of the work, and management directives (or classroom assignment). There are general three reasons are cited for collaboration: ⁸

The subject and purpose of the project;
The process and product of writing;
The interpersonal benefits.

The Subject and Purpose of the Project

Ironically, specialization makes lay persons of us all. Nevertheless the trend in government funding of science and technology is granting the largest sums of money for "big science" projects requiring interdisciplinary cooperation. For these two reasons, scientific and technical writers depend on collaboration. Let's say you want a government grant to develop new computer technologies for assisting people who are physically impaired. In writing the proposal, you may need help from computer, electrical and mechanical engineers, experts on the need of the physically impaired, and perhaps a professional technical writer. Expertise in all of these areas is not usually found in any one person. Consequently, a reciprocal relation exists between the subject of the document and the members participating in the group. Reasons for collaboration roughly correspond to the purpose for writing the document. These reasons also influence the selection of collaborators. For instance, if, among others- your purpose is to:

Peport the group's actions and ideas with a group of laypersons;
Propose funding from an agency outside your organization;
Publish a paper in an interdisciplinary journal;
Draft new policies to employees (if you represent management);
Assemble a progress report on the efficiency of your department for the university or corporate headquarters.

You need collaborators from the "outside" you specialty to lend you the perspective to reach out to your audience. However, if the purpose of writing is to:

Report the group's actions and ideas with another group of experts;
Purpose funding from an agency within your organization;
Publish a paper in a journal in your own field;
Draft new policies among other managers;
Assemble a progress report evaluating the efficiency of other employees for the laboratory head or manager.

You may need collaborators to gather information and put the document together. Consequently, you may want collaborators familiar with the information in your field.

Writing Scientific and Technical Texts
Chapter 3: Part 2

James H. Collier with David M. Toomey

Book Contents

Chapter 3: Part 2

Writing Scientific and Technical Texts Chapter 3: Part 2

James H. Collier with David M. Toomey

Book Contents

Chapter 3: Part 2

Writing Scientific and Technical Texts
Chapter 3: Part 2