Typically when I'm writing technical papers,these issues, discussed in chapter three, are what are constantly on my mind. A lot of the ideas seemed quite intuitive, specifically the section containing the context analysis chart. For example, a hypothetical situation in which a factory is proposing a budget plan revolving around toxic waste expulsion from their plant. Any documents generated from this are sure to be concerned with political issues-as some form of government was likely to have imposed relevant laws, economic issues are obvious-does the factory spend more money on updating their process to minimize toxic waste or do they opt to pay monetary ramifications that may result from not doing so, and of course the ethical dilemma is quite apparent.
What is unique, however, is the systematic approach that the book takes to prioritize and organize the content of technical documents. The “Five-W-and-H-Questions”, Guidelines, and tables are great. They should make this step of writing fantastically simple. Something that hadn't crossed my mind before reading this was the idea of secondary, tertiary, and goalkeeper readers. This, I think, will be much more difficult because when, for example, an engineering proposal is written and the primary reader is an accountant-the easier you make it for this accountant to read and understand why this engineering project is required, the more frustrated the secondary readers (who may be other engineers) will become with the lack of technical information. I'm sure there are techniques to deal with this, but this chapter at least provides a somewhat challenging obstacle.
As far as the section on international profiling, the information is interesting, but I'm not sure that it would be a good idea to simply follow the text exactly in these situations. Perhaps I missed it, but there seems to be no mention of specific profiling in the international section. While the generalizations they have presented are useful, they are probably (the only international experience I have is in dealing with scientific journal articles, which are more or less the same regardless of origin) more applicable to local organizations within a given country or region. I would assume that an international corporation would be more, for lack of better terms, flexible or generic with their technical writing styles to accommodate many different cultures. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong-does anyone have any international experience?
Response
I don't have any international experience myself, but I spoke with someone who writes in an international context from a marketing perspective earlier this year about how that context affects her writing. In a sense, I think you're right that an international corporation would be more generic with their writing styles, but that doesn't mean that there's any less consideration of the audience. The writer I spoke with said that the international context forces her to be very deliberate and specific in her word choice because not only does she have to be sure not to offend anyone, but she has to make sure that her writing is void of any colloquial phrases. In addition, when you're writing for an international context, there's always a chance that what you have written will be translated, which may change how you write as well.
Kristin
International Experience
I can't say that I have much international experience. To be truthful, I've never left the country, but I do work for a German-owned company (Bosch) and I have done business with engineers from Japan (Toyota). An international corporation may be more flexible, but I think it really depends on the business situation. For instance, Toyota may consider giving new business to an American company, but Toyota also has plenty of history with many of the Asian suppliers. In a sense, the American company will have to strive to impress Toyota because they want the business. Toyota, however, has the option of falling back on one of their established business partners. Therefore, they may not be as flexible because they aren't on the critical end of the deal.
Reading Response - Week 1
I have to agree with your paragraph regarding international profiling. I have had the experience of working with several different international companies during my internships and every situation was different because all of the cultures are so different. Specifically, one thing that bothers me in terms of dealing with international clients/audiences is that it seems as though our culture is always bending and making sure we are not offending the other culture. If there is something that we are reading that we may not be used to, we have to just deal with it, whereas if we write something that they are going to be reading, we MUST make sure everything we say is politically correct and non-offensive.
Response
I certainly agree that we, as Americans, must bend over backwards to please other cultures more often than most any other country. I believe it’s just something that goes along with the territory of being a leader in any situation. For instance, if you're upper management in a company then you will be held to a higher standard than a low level worker. How you present yourself is scrutinized much more when you are higher up the ladder in any situation. Also, just as it helps to be in the good graces of co-workers and employees for production, it is also good for the U.S. to be in the good graces of other countries. In a way that's what our cultural profile is and what's expected of us.
Shane
Re: Response
I don't necessarily agree that Americans have to bend over backwards more often than those in other countries and cultures. I do however think that most Americans try to be very tolerant and politically correct, which probably has a lot to do with our Nation's struggles in the past with racial injustice. I agree that the higher up in any company or any situation you're in brings more responsibility and more scrutiny. NFL coaches (think Detroit Lions) are fired for their team's losing records even though they never play a single down in any of the games.