Oak Ridge National Laboratory scientists' and engineers' perceptions of technical editors

This research was an examination of the attitudes and perceptions that scientists and engineers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) have toward technical editors. The current literature indicated that most engineers and scientists resent having anyone change their work. The purpose of the study was to determine, at least from the perspective of the ORNL scientist and engineer, the depth and/or source of this resentment. Because ORNL is such a large national laboratory and because of the diverse population employed there, it is believed that the findings of the study can be applied nationwide as typical of the attitudes of scientists and engineers toward technical editors.

Information was gained through a mail survey in the fall of 1981. The questionnaire was mailed to 230 members of the technical staff in six research divisions at ORNL, and a 70% response rate was achieved by the end of the two-week closing date.

Most of the scientists and engineers responding indicated that their attitudes toward technical editors were either favorable or highly favorable. However, when asked whether they would allow in-depth or extensive editing and rewriting, only a total of 13% either mildly or strongly favored such detailed editing.

Other findings were as follows:

(1) Overall, scientists and engineers are beginning to see technical editors as professionals.

(2) The services of the technical editor are important to the work of scientists and engineers at ORNL, and

(3) Most scientists and engineers reported that their own writing could be improved if they had more writing courses.

In addition to the scientists and engineers at ORNL, technical editors and division directors were also surveyed. The technical editors were, however, queried on how they felt they (the technical editors) were perceived by scientists and engineers. Comparisons of the technical editors' predictions with the actual responses of the scientists and engineers were reflective of a close working relationship—for the technical editors' responses corresponded closely to the responses of the scientists and engineers.

The division directors' survey, performed in nine research divisions, revealed the following findings:

(1) The technical editor is not only seen as a professional, but the services of the technical editor are important to the work of the division directors, who are frequent users of technical editing sevices at ORNL.

(2) In comparison with the engineers and scientists, the division directors are less opposed to in-depth editing. These division directors, however, would like to see more writing assistance programs made available to scientists and engineers.