Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
background materials. In my view, this is like having a report on the safety of some
equipment that has no written justification for the results, no calculations, and no
supporting evidence. In many contexts, such a report is unprofessional.
Audience
In academic writing, the audience is reasonably well defined: readers are academics,
research students, or, more rarely, coursework students. While the level of expertise
of the audience may vary, the kind of writing expected in a research paper is much
the same regardless of the topic of the work or the likely publication venue.
In other professional writing, the audience is much broader. The single key guide-
line that an author needs to follow is: ensure that your text can be read and understood
by the likely readers. Some people seem to have a knack for this, and effortlessly
shift tone and vocabulary as they switch between producing material for, say, school
children, legal proceedings, and funding agencies. In contrast, most people need to
consciously consider what the knowledge and abilities of the readers are likely to be,
and to adapt their writing appropriately.
It is critical that you know your intended audience; think of specific individu-
als, and write for them. It is also critical to consider who will be affected by the
document and what their reactions to it might be. If you are recommending a shift
to an environment in which some skills will no longer be required, some people's
working lives may be drastically affected; if they are also readers of the document,
they will at the very least expect the recommendations to be argued for with clarity
and independence.
Consider the audience's education and prior knowledge, and howmuch detail they
will need to be given to understand the report's implications; you may also need to
consider how much time they are likely to have to read your document. And, while it
is easy for a technically literate professional to feel superior about their knowledge,
even an unsophisticated reader can be written for as an equal. A common mistake
is that the authors fail to realise that they do not share values or priorities with the
intended audience, that is, there is a cultural division that hasn't been bridged. For
example, a company may have no interest in investing in the technical “cutting edge”
when their existing infrastructure appears to be working well, or when resources are
urgently required elsewhere.
At the beginning of every document, then, the reader and writer should be in
agreement. The opening can be used to state common ground, fromwhich the author
can begin to build a case for the recommendations or outcomes. That is, the pur-
pose of the document is to bring the reader to a certain point of view, or depth of
understanding, starting from a common basis. Continuing the example in the pre-
vious paragraph, what is the value of a recommendation that proceeds from the
assumption that a client may be willing to dump their investment in existing sys-
tems and platforms? Without a persuasive argument from a common basis of shared
values—the need to attain a certain level of reliability, say—the recommendation is
worthless.
