My wife came on this one this morning.
If you're anxiously anticipating something do you say...
"I can't hardly wait," or
"I can hardly wait"?
Grammatically it's sort of like the confusion with "could/n't care less", but in the reverse. In this case, the thing you need to do is wait. So if can wait you'd just say "I can wait." If you can't wait, you have two choices for expressing that.
"I can't wait" or
"I can hardly (or barely or other synonym) wait"
Waiting is what you're supposed to do and you do it, but just barely.
Saying "can't hardly" is a sort of double-negative. "Can't" negates the "hardly".
Unfortunately, there are songs and movies titled "Can't Hardly Wait". But don't trusty Hollywood for grammar lessons.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Top of the head...
Just a few editable items that are coming to mind today...
1) Literally: This means "actually". It's not a term of emphasis. It's OK to say "The kids I work with are literally young enough I could be their father" (in writing this would be superfluous, but in conversation it would be fine). It's not OK to say "I literally died when I thought of how young these kids are." If you died you wouldn't be saying it. Rather "I could have died..." or "I wanted to die..."
2) Fewer v. less: This is screwed up all the time, even in reputable outlets. Think of it this way: If you can individually count something, you say "fewer", but if you can't count individual units (e.g., you would measure the amount on a continuous scale that could have fractions and decimals), you say less. Examples below.
Correct: "I spend less money now than before"
Wrong: "I spend fewer money..."
Correct: "I spend fewer dollars..."
Correct: "I write fewer checks..."
Correct: "I get fewer bills..."
Correct: "Thus I have less debt overall and owe fewer creditors."
Get it?
Correct: "There was less water than last year"
Correct: "There were fewer water molecules..."
Correct: "Fewer students passed the exam this year"
Wrong: "Less students passed..."
Correct: "Fewer teachers reported satisfaction with their job this year because fewer students passed the exam."
1) Literally: This means "actually". It's not a term of emphasis. It's OK to say "The kids I work with are literally young enough I could be their father" (in writing this would be superfluous, but in conversation it would be fine). It's not OK to say "I literally died when I thought of how young these kids are." If you died you wouldn't be saying it. Rather "I could have died..." or "I wanted to die..."
2) Fewer v. less: This is screwed up all the time, even in reputable outlets. Think of it this way: If you can individually count something, you say "fewer", but if you can't count individual units (e.g., you would measure the amount on a continuous scale that could have fractions and decimals), you say less. Examples below.
Correct: "I spend less money now than before"
Wrong: "I spend fewer money..."
Correct: "I spend fewer dollars..."
Correct: "I write fewer checks..."
Correct: "I get fewer bills..."
Correct: "Thus I have less debt overall and owe fewer creditors."
Get it?
Correct: "There was less water than last year"
Correct: "There were fewer water molecules..."
Correct: "Fewer students passed the exam this year"
Wrong: "Less students passed..."
Correct: "Fewer teachers reported satisfaction with their job this year because fewer students passed the exam."
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
Writing tips for scientific, technical, and workplace writing
I've given the same writing/editing advice so much that I'm starting this blog post to summarize them. This is inspired by Rod Little's "style manual", which is one of the best short pieces of guidance on writing academic papers (statistical and research papers in particular; see it here http://sitemaker.umich.edu/rlittle/files/styletips.pdf).
This is a draft of some of the sections and points I want to include. There's some duplication and typos I'm sure. I'm also starting a log of problems I find in my own writing while editing, so I'll add these over time. For now I'll keep it all in one blog post and update it periodically. Feel free to share and suggest edits.
1) Writing resources, including books, websites, etc.
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/rlittle/files/styletips.pdf
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/rlittle/files/writestatsrev.pdf
http://www.plainlanguage.gov/
http://www.wendybelcher.com/pages/Writing_Your_Journal_Article_in_Twelve_Weeks.htm
2) General writing guidelines, grammar, efficiency tips etc.
a) Research v. Writing: Research and writing are two distinct but overlapping acts. You should be doing a little writing while you research and vice versa, but you want to setup a system for your lit review, library research, data analysis, etc., that is somewhat independent of your writing. That is you want to be able to progress on it without "writing" in the full sense. Remember to allow enough time for those pre-steps
b) Getting words out: Writing and editing are two separate steps. I prefer a method that involves writing a lot and then editing later. I feel like it me get more ideas and better phrases out. However, to do this, you have to be willing to cut and edit severely latter. Some would call this "free writing", but what I usually do is a little more structured than true free writing. I've seen seen some colleagues struggle with getting ideas out b/c they feel that they can't move on until each sentence and paragraph is perfect. If that's your problem try this. Or try true free-writing in which you try writing on a single topic (and whatever comes to mind about it) consistently (without stopping to edit) for a fixed amount of time (e.g., 5-15 min).
c) Outlining: Yet writing takes a lot of time. More time that you would think (even if you are a quick typist). Time yourself and see. Instead of writing full sentences, consider doing an outline. You can outline with short phrases of topics, full sentences, or both. Outlining helps you get more out in a fixed amount of time (compared to free writing).
d) Reverse outlining: If you're stuck with a document that's partially done and you can't decide what to do with it, try reverse outline first. For each paragraph, write a phrase or sentence that describes it. Then look at that outline. Does it look like the document you want to write? If not, move the text around or delete text to make it fit the outline. You can use RO to learn from good writers, too. Take a favorite paper and reverse-outline it. What does it show you about its structure.
e) Scope, organization, and style
-Know your audience: You may need to present the exact same research findings differently for difference audiences (e.g., for a conference presentation v. for a publishable article v. for a technical report v. for a press release).
-Know (and state your goal)...either explicitly (as in a technical document or scientific paper), or in a way relevant for the type of document you're writing. For shorter writing like web pages and press releases, you may not even have time to "state your goal" or purpose. Only the driest government press releases start with "This press release is to inform the public..." (what else would it be doing?). Press releases often just lead with the story/headline (e.g., "Researchers at UCLA find that X predicts Y" or better "X predicts Y, according to UCLA researchers"). That brings us to the next topic.
-Lead with the finding/story: Even in academic writing, lead with the take-home message as much as possible. Repeat it in key places. Somewhere in schooling many of us learned that we're supposed to first setup an argument, then say what we did, then reveal the finding as if it's some surprise that the reader shouldn't hear too early. Try to avoid that. Respect your reader and their time by giving them the punchline first. If it's what they need, they'll read the whole paper (and maybe cite you if you're lucky). If it's hard to tell what the punchline is, they may ignore your paper.
-Use a copy editor or trusted colleagues/friends for comments
-Share early and often: Whether in draft, outline, or just statistical output. I have a hard time with this rule, which is why I'm reminding you...to remind me, too! If you're nervous sharing working with bosses or advisors, see the previous point. A note to grad students (and workers, too, I guess), if you're uncomfortable sharing outlines and drafts with your advisor talk to them about it NOW. It will be hard to get your work done if you can't share it with your closest advisors, even when it's rough (which is when it needs the most review). Sometimes hesitancy to share can be due to assumptions about what the advisor wants or expects (e.g., I shouldn't have any spelling or meth errors, I should be creative, It should be complete, I should have summarized all the existing research perfectly). When you talk to your advisor about it, you can find out what their personal preferences are (i.e., when do they want to see drafts and what do they expect...what bugs them in particular and what doesn't). They will also often give you advice on how to be a better writer.
-Aim for parsimony in later drafts, but verbosity in earlier drafts: What gets published needs to bee succinct and to the point (as much as possible for the given outlet and goal of the work). Yet in earlier drafts, you may want to write more to get your ideas out. I usually work this way. It has trade-offs as discussed above.
-Separate content generation from content editing: In other words write first, edit later.
-Separate content generation from formatting: In other words, get the text out first and format it in a later step. If the pre-formatted text of Word, or table cells being mis-aligned by millimeters distracts you from writing, try writing in a text editor (e.g, Notepad, Notepad++, Textpad). LaTeX fans will tell you that separating writing v. formatting is major benefit of using LaTeX, but you can do that in Word, too. You just have to be disciplined and learn when it's the right time to write and the right time to format.
-Work from a model: If a format is not provided for you, ask if there is one. If not, you have freedom to use formatting features to highlight content in your document. Formatting can take time, so don't let it get in the way of writing. For research papers and articles, find a model paper and use it as a "template" for order, style of writing, graphics and tables, etc. (writing your own words of course).
-Use headers and sub-headers to direct the reader to relevant info
3) More recommendations specific to scientific writing
a) Example writing phase guidelines: This will likely change as I develop my own style. Talk to others about how they do it (and share to this blog if you can).
First, the heart of the idea: When you first have an idea, do some free-writing, take a quick outline, or write an abstract, doing whichever flows best for you at the time. Take an audio note if you think better that way. Save it somewhere you know you'll find it later when you have time to work on it.
Second, the skeleton: When you get down to working on the new idea, make your first goals to write an abstract and outline (topic or sentence). I think we're all taught to write the abstract last. Of course you will have to updated it after you have findings, but writing a draft abstract can help you decide what your story is (or what you want it to be). If you have access to data, run a key table or figure or two and include them in the outline. If you don't have access to data (or if recoding would take time), create a key table/figure or two. Make this something you could fill in data. Draw hypothetical figures demonstrating findings you expect. Doing these things will often help your thinking and shape the outline and analysis. Remember that you don't have to include everything that you write in this phase in the final paper. Sometimes I will include an "argument" statement and 3 bulleted take-home messages. These text stay in the draft to remind me what my original goals were (you could keep them in your notes if that's easier and you have your notes easily available when needed).
Third, the meat: Once you have some initial findings you (or you and colleagues) like, then start putting a lot of time and effort into detailed analyses and detailed writing. Add references as you type (or at least notes to remind you where you need to add them and what you need to add, e.g., CITE GROVES 1989). Use comments and tracked changes (if in Word) to help you keep track of things and remind yourself what you need to do next. When you break, write "START HERE DOING..." so when you come back to it, you can search for "START HERE" and pick up where you left off.
Fourth, desert: The treat is sending the work for publication. Save your methods section to the end, putting only bullets and short sentences of what would be needed to understand the analysis in interim drafts. I say this because every journal cares about the story but they vary widely in what they require for details on methods. You will probably always have more details about the methods than you will publish, and you can spend a lot of time writing and editing text that will just be removed when you're trying to cut length. Also, it's easy (but deceiving) to write the methods section. It's relatively concrete, and the info is easy to find. Finish with a final review for journal style, grammar, and typos.
-Style: Just because it's an intellectual paper doesn't mean it has to be pedantic or obtuse.
-Word choice: Don't use big words for the sake of it. Be down-to-earth and use the "right" word, not the biggest one. Yet don't be casual as if you're writing an email. As an example of word choice, see the bullet above. "Pedantic" and "obtuse" are somewhat "fancy" words, but they're not too rare, and best describe what I mean there.
-Focus: State the research question or questions clearly and everything should flow from that (lit, methodological details, etc).
-Orientation: Decide whether your paper is going to be primarily theoretical/conceptual, primarily empirical, or some combination of the two (most are a combination). In the social sciences, a good empirical or applied paper has a conceptual tie to theory, and a good theoretical paper draws on empirical work if not presents its own.
-Scope: You won't solve all the problems of your field in one paper, even if it's a grand review or theoretical paper. You won't even solve all the problems related to your chosen research question (or even all the problems you could solve with the data you have). Starting with a clear story and outline can keep you from getting distracted by all the potentials of your data and related tangents cited by the authors you read (or that co-authors and advisers bring up).
-More on Focus: Write so that you have 2-3 clear take-home points for readers. Those could be findings from a lit review/summary or empirical findings from your own research. It's not the reader's job to sift through your tables or drivel to find the take-home messages. Try to make them clear.
-Causal statements: Be sure to use causal statements. Some students (and senior people who don't write a lot or read scientific research) seem to think that scientific writing is supposed to be neutral and not make claims to causation unless they are clearly and unambiguously supporoted. That kind of writing can be uninteresting and boring in my opinion. Neutral writing belongs more in technical manuals and journalism. Most scientific work assumes that you're seeking causal relationships, so you should address them in your paper to make a better scientific story. Of course you have to be careful with this advice. Don't write beyond your method (e.g., concluding causation from comparisons between non-randomized groups). If your method doesn't support causal inference discuss that in your conclusions and limitations.
-More on causal statements: Be sure to support causal statements. Some people do not realize they are making causal statements without support. Words like "will" should be replaced with "will likely" and "should" unless there is overwhelming evidence. On the other hand, too much couching in "should" and "likely" can make the writing sound uncommitted. This where style and experience come in. There is a fine balance between too strong and too soft of a style. When you want to make strong statements, references should always be given unless the statement describes a matter of clear fact that would be obvious to readers of the outline.
-Be sure to have a goal: Like the bias against causal thinking, some students think that scientific writing should be exploratory because science is exploratory. They write as if they can't have an opinion about a topic and just need to document all the previous work done, or run every possible analysis they can with their data. We read previous research to develop hypotheses. A hypothesis isn't an opinion (4th grade science class taught you that), but there can be a fine line between an expert opinion and a hypothesis. As you read scientific papers, you begin to develop opinions (ideas, hypotheses) about how A is related to C,the best methods to study them,etc. You should write that into your paper. In other words, you have a goal to show that A is related to C. Maybe past research has only included A and C, but never B. You think B should be included (for some good reason), and so you design your study and paper around that "research gap." This is how science grows.
-Think like a lawyer or detective: Build a case with evidence
-Detail: Include enough detail that someone could at least visualize, if not completely reproduce your work. Unlike technical writing, scientific writing is about the findings first and methods second. This varies widely across journals so know what the journal expects before writing too much.
-Abstract: I like abstracts that tell the whole story; motivation, hypotheses, findings, conclusions. They are enjoyable to read and respect my time.
4) Recommendations for technical research writing
-You have freedom to be less concise, but you still need to be readable: Comprehensiveness is the premium, not length. Yet you should use structure and references (e.g., glossaries, appendices) to make the document readable to someone with a basic knowledge of the topic.
-Detail: Include enough detail that someone could visualize, if not completely reproduce your work.
-Think like a historian: Unlike the detective you played when doing scientific writing, think like a historian, trying to document all the minuted details of the process or product you're describing.
5) Recommendations for business "workplace" writing
-Always include an executive summary that highlights the problem, method, and findings. This is like an abstract in scientific writing, but longer.
This is a draft of some of the sections and points I want to include. There's some duplication and typos I'm sure. I'm also starting a log of problems I find in my own writing while editing, so I'll add these over time. For now I'll keep it all in one blog post and update it periodically. Feel free to share and suggest edits.
1) Writing resources, including books, websites, etc.
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/rlittle/files/styletips.pdf
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/rlittle/files/writestatsrev.pdf
http://www.plainlanguage.gov/
http://www.wendybelcher.com/pages/Writing_Your_Journal_Article_in_Twelve_Weeks.htm
2) General writing guidelines, grammar, efficiency tips etc.
a) Research v. Writing: Research and writing are two distinct but overlapping acts. You should be doing a little writing while you research and vice versa, but you want to setup a system for your lit review, library research, data analysis, etc., that is somewhat independent of your writing. That is you want to be able to progress on it without "writing" in the full sense. Remember to allow enough time for those pre-steps
b) Getting words out: Writing and editing are two separate steps. I prefer a method that involves writing a lot and then editing later. I feel like it me get more ideas and better phrases out. However, to do this, you have to be willing to cut and edit severely latter. Some would call this "free writing", but what I usually do is a little more structured than true free writing. I've seen seen some colleagues struggle with getting ideas out b/c they feel that they can't move on until each sentence and paragraph is perfect. If that's your problem try this. Or try true free-writing in which you try writing on a single topic (and whatever comes to mind about it) consistently (without stopping to edit) for a fixed amount of time (e.g., 5-15 min).
c) Outlining: Yet writing takes a lot of time. More time that you would think (even if you are a quick typist). Time yourself and see. Instead of writing full sentences, consider doing an outline. You can outline with short phrases of topics, full sentences, or both. Outlining helps you get more out in a fixed amount of time (compared to free writing).
d) Reverse outlining: If you're stuck with a document that's partially done and you can't decide what to do with it, try reverse outline first. For each paragraph, write a phrase or sentence that describes it. Then look at that outline. Does it look like the document you want to write? If not, move the text around or delete text to make it fit the outline. You can use RO to learn from good writers, too. Take a favorite paper and reverse-outline it. What does it show you about its structure.
e) Scope, organization, and style
-Know your audience: You may need to present the exact same research findings differently for difference audiences (e.g., for a conference presentation v. for a publishable article v. for a technical report v. for a press release).
-Know (and state your goal)...either explicitly (as in a technical document or scientific paper), or in a way relevant for the type of document you're writing. For shorter writing like web pages and press releases, you may not even have time to "state your goal" or purpose. Only the driest government press releases start with "This press release is to inform the public..." (what else would it be doing?). Press releases often just lead with the story/headline (e.g., "Researchers at UCLA find that X predicts Y" or better "X predicts Y, according to UCLA researchers"). That brings us to the next topic.
-Lead with the finding/story: Even in academic writing, lead with the take-home message as much as possible. Repeat it in key places. Somewhere in schooling many of us learned that we're supposed to first setup an argument, then say what we did, then reveal the finding as if it's some surprise that the reader shouldn't hear too early. Try to avoid that. Respect your reader and their time by giving them the punchline first. If it's what they need, they'll read the whole paper (and maybe cite you if you're lucky). If it's hard to tell what the punchline is, they may ignore your paper.
-Use a copy editor or trusted colleagues/friends for comments
-Share early and often: Whether in draft, outline, or just statistical output. I have a hard time with this rule, which is why I'm reminding you...to remind me, too! If you're nervous sharing working with bosses or advisors, see the previous point. A note to grad students (and workers, too, I guess), if you're uncomfortable sharing outlines and drafts with your advisor talk to them about it NOW. It will be hard to get your work done if you can't share it with your closest advisors, even when it's rough (which is when it needs the most review). Sometimes hesitancy to share can be due to assumptions about what the advisor wants or expects (e.g., I shouldn't have any spelling or meth errors, I should be creative, It should be complete, I should have summarized all the existing research perfectly). When you talk to your advisor about it, you can find out what their personal preferences are (i.e., when do they want to see drafts and what do they expect...what bugs them in particular and what doesn't). They will also often give you advice on how to be a better writer.
-Aim for parsimony in later drafts, but verbosity in earlier drafts: What gets published needs to bee succinct and to the point (as much as possible for the given outlet and goal of the work). Yet in earlier drafts, you may want to write more to get your ideas out. I usually work this way. It has trade-offs as discussed above.
-Separate content generation from content editing: In other words write first, edit later.
-Separate content generation from formatting: In other words, get the text out first and format it in a later step. If the pre-formatted text of Word, or table cells being mis-aligned by millimeters distracts you from writing, try writing in a text editor (e.g, Notepad, Notepad++, Textpad). LaTeX fans will tell you that separating writing v. formatting is major benefit of using LaTeX, but you can do that in Word, too. You just have to be disciplined and learn when it's the right time to write and the right time to format.
-Work from a model: If a format is not provided for you, ask if there is one. If not, you have freedom to use formatting features to highlight content in your document. Formatting can take time, so don't let it get in the way of writing. For research papers and articles, find a model paper and use it as a "template" for order, style of writing, graphics and tables, etc. (writing your own words of course).
-Use headers and sub-headers to direct the reader to relevant info
3) More recommendations specific to scientific writing
a) Example writing phase guidelines: This will likely change as I develop my own style. Talk to others about how they do it (and share to this blog if you can).
First, the heart of the idea: When you first have an idea, do some free-writing, take a quick outline, or write an abstract, doing whichever flows best for you at the time. Take an audio note if you think better that way. Save it somewhere you know you'll find it later when you have time to work on it.
Second, the skeleton: When you get down to working on the new idea, make your first goals to write an abstract and outline (topic or sentence). I think we're all taught to write the abstract last. Of course you will have to updated it after you have findings, but writing a draft abstract can help you decide what your story is (or what you want it to be). If you have access to data, run a key table or figure or two and include them in the outline. If you don't have access to data (or if recoding would take time), create a key table/figure or two. Make this something you could fill in data. Draw hypothetical figures demonstrating findings you expect. Doing these things will often help your thinking and shape the outline and analysis. Remember that you don't have to include everything that you write in this phase in the final paper. Sometimes I will include an "argument" statement and 3 bulleted take-home messages. These text stay in the draft to remind me what my original goals were (you could keep them in your notes if that's easier and you have your notes easily available when needed).
Third, the meat: Once you have some initial findings you (or you and colleagues) like, then start putting a lot of time and effort into detailed analyses and detailed writing. Add references as you type (or at least notes to remind you where you need to add them and what you need to add, e.g., CITE GROVES 1989). Use comments and tracked changes (if in Word) to help you keep track of things and remind yourself what you need to do next. When you break, write "START HERE DOING..." so when you come back to it, you can search for "START HERE" and pick up where you left off.
Fourth, desert: The treat is sending the work for publication. Save your methods section to the end, putting only bullets and short sentences of what would be needed to understand the analysis in interim drafts. I say this because every journal cares about the story but they vary widely in what they require for details on methods. You will probably always have more details about the methods than you will publish, and you can spend a lot of time writing and editing text that will just be removed when you're trying to cut length. Also, it's easy (but deceiving) to write the methods section. It's relatively concrete, and the info is easy to find. Finish with a final review for journal style, grammar, and typos.
-Style: Just because it's an intellectual paper doesn't mean it has to be pedantic or obtuse.
-Word choice: Don't use big words for the sake of it. Be down-to-earth and use the "right" word, not the biggest one. Yet don't be casual as if you're writing an email. As an example of word choice, see the bullet above. "Pedantic" and "obtuse" are somewhat "fancy" words, but they're not too rare, and best describe what I mean there.
-Focus: State the research question or questions clearly and everything should flow from that (lit, methodological details, etc).
-Orientation: Decide whether your paper is going to be primarily theoretical/conceptual, primarily empirical, or some combination of the two (most are a combination). In the social sciences, a good empirical or applied paper has a conceptual tie to theory, and a good theoretical paper draws on empirical work if not presents its own.
-Scope: You won't solve all the problems of your field in one paper, even if it's a grand review or theoretical paper. You won't even solve all the problems related to your chosen research question (or even all the problems you could solve with the data you have). Starting with a clear story and outline can keep you from getting distracted by all the potentials of your data and related tangents cited by the authors you read (or that co-authors and advisers bring up).
-More on Focus: Write so that you have 2-3 clear take-home points for readers. Those could be findings from a lit review/summary or empirical findings from your own research. It's not the reader's job to sift through your tables or drivel to find the take-home messages. Try to make them clear.
-Causal statements: Be sure to use causal statements. Some students (and senior people who don't write a lot or read scientific research) seem to think that scientific writing is supposed to be neutral and not make claims to causation unless they are clearly and unambiguously supporoted. That kind of writing can be uninteresting and boring in my opinion. Neutral writing belongs more in technical manuals and journalism. Most scientific work assumes that you're seeking causal relationships, so you should address them in your paper to make a better scientific story. Of course you have to be careful with this advice. Don't write beyond your method (e.g., concluding causation from comparisons between non-randomized groups). If your method doesn't support causal inference discuss that in your conclusions and limitations.
-More on causal statements: Be sure to support causal statements. Some people do not realize they are making causal statements without support. Words like "will" should be replaced with "will likely" and "should" unless there is overwhelming evidence. On the other hand, too much couching in "should" and "likely" can make the writing sound uncommitted. This where style and experience come in. There is a fine balance between too strong and too soft of a style. When you want to make strong statements, references should always be given unless the statement describes a matter of clear fact that would be obvious to readers of the outline.
-Be sure to have a goal: Like the bias against causal thinking, some students think that scientific writing should be exploratory because science is exploratory. They write as if they can't have an opinion about a topic and just need to document all the previous work done, or run every possible analysis they can with their data. We read previous research to develop hypotheses. A hypothesis isn't an opinion (4th grade science class taught you that), but there can be a fine line between an expert opinion and a hypothesis. As you read scientific papers, you begin to develop opinions (ideas, hypotheses) about how A is related to C,the best methods to study them,etc. You should write that into your paper. In other words, you have a goal to show that A is related to C. Maybe past research has only included A and C, but never B. You think B should be included (for some good reason), and so you design your study and paper around that "research gap." This is how science grows.
-Think like a lawyer or detective: Build a case with evidence
-Detail: Include enough detail that someone could at least visualize, if not completely reproduce your work. Unlike technical writing, scientific writing is about the findings first and methods second. This varies widely across journals so know what the journal expects before writing too much.
-Abstract: I like abstracts that tell the whole story; motivation, hypotheses, findings, conclusions. They are enjoyable to read and respect my time.
4) Recommendations for technical research writing
-You have freedom to be less concise, but you still need to be readable: Comprehensiveness is the premium, not length. Yet you should use structure and references (e.g., glossaries, appendices) to make the document readable to someone with a basic knowledge of the topic.
-Detail: Include enough detail that someone could visualize, if not completely reproduce your work.
-Think like a historian: Unlike the detective you played when doing scientific writing, think like a historian, trying to document all the minuted details of the process or product you're describing.
5) Recommendations for business "workplace" writing
-Always include an executive summary that highlights the problem, method, and findings. This is like an abstract in scientific writing, but longer.
Brass "Tax"
I just learned the meaning of "brass tacks" (as in "let's get down to brass tacks"). In fact, until I researched it, I thought the phrase was "brass tax" (as in a tax on brass items). From context I gathered that it means "important issues".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass_Tacks
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/get-down-to-brass-tacks.html
But I think I've been hearing people using it wrong in some sense. The phrase means "the basic facts of a situation". It's not one of the cited origins I found, but a good image for me is a detective putting pictures and info on a bulletin board with brass tacks. They're taking account of and surveying the basic facts of their case.
In context I've heard people use it to mean "bottom line", or "the most important take-away." That seems quite different from "the basic facts" since summaries and take-aways often involve interpretation beyond facts and opinion.
What do you think?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass_Tacks
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/get-down-to-brass-tacks.html
But I think I've been hearing people using it wrong in some sense. The phrase means "the basic facts of a situation". It's not one of the cited origins I found, but a good image for me is a detective putting pictures and info on a bulletin board with brass tacks. They're taking account of and surveying the basic facts of their case.
In context I've heard people use it to mean "bottom line", or "the most important take-away." That seems quite different from "the basic facts" since summaries and take-aways often involve interpretation beyond facts and opinion.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)