Chapters 3, 4, and 5: Solving the Information, Persuasion, and Ethics Problem
We discussed, in the last unit, the importance of the audience for a writer. Assessing the audience's needs will lead to the production of documents that are user friendly and to the point. As part of pre-writing, the writer needs to evaluate what the information needs are before he/she begins to write. Questions such as, "What is the purpose of the document?" "How will it be used?" and others will alert the writer to the needs of the audience. Once that has been established, a level of technicality should be assessed of the particular audience. Often, a document can be useless if misunderstood. Think about IRS directions accompanying income tax forms. They frequently confound and confuse the audience because the level of technicality is not suitable. Is there a so called "average" audience? Studies conducted by the secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare point to the "average" person having a literacy level of eighth grade! Does this mean that we talk down to that "average" audience"? No, it simply means we have to adjust our writing so that we are writing TO them and not AT them. If we evaluate the subject level of literacy an audience has, then we can write so that examples, word choice, etc. are those that they understand and can relate to. As writers, we must remember that different users (of our written information) have different information needs.
The first level of technicality is the technical (highly) document.
Here, the language, examples, etc. are presented
at a specialized level for expert users who want facts and figures
which they will interpret. They will comprehend common terms (no
definitions needed), abbreviations, lab findings, etc. Lannon's example
of the heart attack victim serves to illustrate this concept. Although
this would be highly technical for non-medical professions, those in the
field at a higher level of technicality will understand this. For
those who are semi informed, yet not experts, the next level of technicality
offers that specific group the same information in a different presentation.
The second level of technicality is the semi technical document. To do this, you identify the lowest level applicable to this audience. In this level of document, explanations, definitions, and more information is presented to reach that lowest level while still including relevant facts and figures. This group encompasses a wider range than the first, so greater effort should be given to clarify for all readers. For those who are complete novices, and unaware of any specialized knowledge, the next category will be helpful.
The final level of technicality is that of the non technical document. Here, the writer should be concerned with the overall picture, rather than all the minute details, etc. that would be of no interest, or not be understood, by this group. This type of document is more a generalized summary of information that is presented to the general public.
Once you have what an audience's needs and uses are, you will more often than not have to take a stand on an issue when writing your documents. You will, after all, in the workplace be paid for your expertise. This takes the form of a thesis statement which appears immediately in the beginning of the document. You, the writer, will need to persuade an audience that your thinking is correct. Again, analyzing one's audience will equip the writer to examine how to appropriately persuade his/her audience. Remember, people who haven't made up their minds are more receptive to persuasion that those who have, as Lannon stated. In order to persuade an audience, the writer has to decide which method of connecting with the audience will produce the desired agreement.
The first method is called the Power Connection and, unfortunately, is frequently used by those in authoritarian positions. Most of us remember it from our childhood as the "do it because I said so" method of compliance. It is stated as a command. Usually, it will result in compliance, but in turn, it usually alienates the audience. An example would be "Don't stay out past midnight!" The second connection is the Relationship Connection in which readers are given a choice. Our example again, is reworded here. "Don't stay out past midnight unless you want to be grounded for one month." This method is particularly useful in cross cultural relationships. The audience in the Relationship Connection may agree because of the choice issue, and also, if they find the writer likable, and seemingly, honest. The last type, and most successful, in the Rational Connection because the author indicates respect for his/her audience's intelligence as well as their relationship . "I know you have a good time when you are out, but since we are leaving for vacation very early in the morning, I think it would help if you got enough sleep by coming home before midnight."
When requesting action from an audience, we are cautioned to agree to give-and-take, ask for a specific response, and most importantly, never ask for too much. If an audience feels that they are receiving nothing in return, or worse yet, they don't know that the writer expects or wants, they will be reluctant to respond in a positive manner.
Constraints of the organizational, legal, and ethical variety also can hinder proper communication between the writer and audience. These are constraints, that again, must be recognized by the writer before writing to a specific audience. Recognizing them allows the writer to make decisions as to how to properly handle these constraints within any given situation.
One of the biggest criticism of college students' and new employees'
writing ability is that they fail to support their claims/opinions convincingly.
All of us have opinions. Most of us forget, however, when we express
them that the key to having an audience understand our thoughts and feelings
is that communication take place. Even if the audience eventually
disagrees with the author, they will at least understand why the
author thinks or feels that particular way. They may also, through
effective presentation of evidence, change their mind and agree with us.
Summarizing, using generalities, etc. is NOT the way to go about this.
The writer should be giving evidence that has quality, credible sources,
and is considered reasonable. For example, let's say that I state
that "UFOs are not a figment of someone's imagination, but I believe that
they are real." Immediately, what the audience wants to know is how
or why do I think that? If I blather on about seeing UFOs everywhere
I go, say Joe, from down the street has seen them too, discuss how we feel
they are here to abduct and torture us because that's what they do, and
then say well, just visit Orville's UFO website and see the pictures for
yourself (never mind that you enter the site by passing through an alien's
brain, and the pictures are clearly a frisbee), the audience will shake
their heads in disbelief (and rightly so). Yet, this, unfortunately, is
the kind of evidence that people frequently produce. Instead, if
I make the same thesis statement, then cite facts and figures obtained
from Project Blue Book and the Air Force, then refer the audience to the
SETI web site, even if the audience does not agree, they understand
why I have my own viewpoint.
Therefore, factual statements, statistics, examples, and expert
testimony foster clear communication.
The book's example of the Challenger accident typified a case of
unethical communications. Written succinctly with facts, figures,
etc., the audience should ask what went wrong?
Yielding to social pressure, group think, and self-serving personal bias
were all contributory factors to this tragedy. Being aware of how
detrimental these are may help a writer in making choices during his/her
career. As Lannon points out, there are many potentials for communications
abuse; make no mistake, he is discussing deliberate methods to hinder
communications. If it less than the truth, it hinders honest communications.
Probably no one will ever know how many of these methods occurred regarding
the Challenger. By suppressing, withholding, falsifying, stealing,
misusing, and exploiting information, the writer does effectively impede
honest understanding by the audience.
Summary of Key Points 
Patricia A. Hutchins
\