Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

So much in this technical writing course has been new to me; or rather, I’m learning to approach writing differently. In part, I think it’s an indication of how much things have changed since I was last in an academic setting. It’s challenging to re-think, and rollback, deeply ingrained habits. But, it’s been a valuable experience.

Stand-out new skills included giving/receiving peer review, and writing with “You” attitude; with each placing emphasis on the audience. I’ve begun to write with “You” attitude in my professional life; in donor relations, we always consider the interests, preferences, and sensitivities of a supporter.

My writing has always been “wordy”. The tools learned for self-editing, for example, removing unnecessary words, passive voice, etc., are helpful. There is still work to, but I’m coming away with a sharper eye on the editing process, and a deeper understanding of the economy of words.

I’m still not 100% satisfied with the design of my web folio. I attempted (again) to play around with different templates, widgets, images, and colors. But, I’m not sure that I’ll ever be 100% satisfied, because I’m not sure we ever get to completion.

One of the things that I’ve valued about returning to university, is the ability to collaborate with a younger generation. It’s interesting to explore their work, and for them to explore mine. They’ve been exposed to a technical skill set that wasn’t around when I first entered university; I’ve learned so much from observing them.

The challenge with writing is that it’s often difficult to know when to a piece is complete. But, I believe, we never really reach completion. We can always do more revising, self-editing, learning, and attempt new things.

This is approaching completion.

This website was initially developed for UBC’s technical writing course. The idea was to design a website where I could reflect on the course material. Technical writing is precise; words are used thoughtfully, and sparingly. In contrast, reflection involves a ‘restrained free-flow of words’, of a sort. Recently, I realized that my website would evolve into the highly anticipated web folio.

I reconsidered my website’s design. I love the photo of the flowering almond tree against the clean, blue sky backdrop. It’s colorful, uplifting, and evokes feelings of renewal. It was a great centerpiece for reflecting on my writing. But, now with the approaching completion of the web folio, I wondered if it represents where I am going, professionally. I checked out several examples of web folios online, and tried out a few other WordPress templates.

I love getting rapt up in creative projects. In my work life, I have had many opportunities to craft compelling content that is also visually appealing. However, my experiences have taught me that it’s very easy to get caught up in the small things. For me, the small things are often the visual components.

The web folio is the endgame of this technical communications course; a tremendous effort has gone into writing technical definitions, peer reviews, proposals, formal reports, letters and memos, and an application package. Although I revised my work along the way, now that I am approaching the course conclusion, I feel that there was still so much more to review. Plus, my natural writing style tends to be quite “wordy”; so, self-editing is imperative. I decided that polished content is my prime objective; any time I have leftover can be dedicated to design.

Plus, I really do like my flowering almond tree.

My Formal Report breaks down, and suggests solutions for, a problem that affects my daily work life. My problem is a “hot topic” in the nonprofit sector; many struggle with inefficient internal communication and information systems, compounded by tight budgets and time-stretched employees.

Image by 453169 from Pixabay

The interviews with management, program managers, and other nonprofit professionals were open and instructive. Blog and discussion fora posts on the subject are plentiful, although they often led to a Pandora’s box of adjacent issues that nonprofits, and for-profit organizations, struggle with; I had to remind myself to stay focused, and not get side tracked. No matter the solution, there were a few clear takeaways: the right solution must fit an organization’s culture; all employees must agree, and learn to use, a new system; and, the success of any system will only be achieved with management’s support. (Please see the Final Formal Report for an analysis of the issue and proposed solutions.)

I found the writing component to be the most challenging aspect of this project; in limiting information the reader already knows; using ‘You’ attitude; and, organizing the body into logical headings and subheadings. Another challenge is finding or designing tables and figures that add to the report, instead of just filling it. Also, since I have been out of academic life for a couple of decades, I’ve had to brush up on referencing and using citations.

The peer review process was especially helpful in guiding where I am on the right track, and where I need to improve; Christine’s feedback was instructive, as was looking at how she is organizing her report and what kinds of information, tables, and figures she included. Peer review is a valuable tool that I wish I had more of in my professional life.

I setup my LinkedIn profile 2 years ago, but I never maximized its potential. At work, I create content for social media; I really enjoy it. However, posting from my personal profile makes me squeamish; although, I know that stepping outside my comfort zone can lead to enriching experiences. Certainly, a LinkedIn presence is essential for today’s job market. During this technical writing course, I’ve learned valuable tips for optimizing LinkedIn that provided the impetus to “boost” a dormant account. In a way, it was exhilarating.

The proposal for conducting a comparative and feasibility analysis for improving program tracking and information sharing between departments at the Daniel Centers, is personally meaningful because it will directly affect my work life. I am pleased with the pace of the research, but I am cognizant that there are many side issues involved. I have to remain focused on the specific issue outlined in the proposal.

The peer review activities have been extremely educational. In 20 years of professional life, I’ve rarely had the opportunity to give or receive a comprehensive peer review; certainly not in written form. Communicating sensitively and intelligently is an important skill. An added bonus is having younger teammates that bring a fresh perspective. Angela’s suggestion to switch from negative to positive tone, wherever possible, was especially helpful. I’ve begun to consider different audiences and objectives. In grant writing, we try to be persuasive by emphasizing the negative; I’m re-thinking this approach.

This work is enriching and important, especially for those already in the work force; it’s important to develop new skills and sharpen existing ones. Thank you.

The technical definitions assignment and peer review was really enlightening.

Image by Free-Photos from Pixabay

I have been writing in a professional environment for many years, and most of my work involves communicating with non-industry people. Since I am the only native English speaker on staff, I rarely have the opportunity to get feedback on my writing, or to give feedback to others (they write in Hebrew). This assignment made me realize how much peer review can enrich my writing – and work life.

I chose to define Donor Development Cycle, a concept that is fundamental to the nonprofit world. I found it pretty easy to come up with the parenthetical, sentence, and two visual definitions. However, with the last two expansion methods, I realized that each stage of the cycle would need to be broken down further.

I attempted to create two expanded definitions using combined methods that included visuals; #3 included an example, and #4 was a FAQ document; both were meant to be stand alone definitions. Even as I posted the assignment, I felt that that they lacked something.

Christine’s peer review was so helpful. Her feedback confirmed my own impressions; expanded definitions 3 & 4 lacked coherency. She suggested that the addition of the same visuals that I had used for expanded definitions 1 & 2 was repetitive. She also suggested that I include titles and the expansion methods used for each; it wasn’t clear to her that I had attempted to combine methods. This made sense to me. I realized how much the audience needed clear headings and explanations.

I was so focused on the chosen term, that I didn’t notice that other undefined industry terms had crept into the donor development cycle definitions. Christine pointed out some examples. We become so used to industry terms that we don’t realize that they are unfamiliar to a non-industry audience.

Another challenge was to find quality reference materials. The study of nonprofits is not really academic and most of the resources online are commercial in nature. There were  a lot of visuals to choose from, but text definitions were often promotional materials.

I enjoyed reading Christine’s definitions and providing feedback. It might seem intuitive to provide positive feedback with criticism, and to communicate with the right tone. We have to be extra aware when we communicate in writing,rather than in person. I found that the guidelines in the text were a helpful reminder and, I think, I was able to convey feedback in a respectful manner.