TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
Karla McMaster wrote:
This whole debate makes me want to state one of my core beliefs.
As I see it,any one person, given desire and a minimal amount of
basic intelligence, can learn to do any other person's job.
Thinking otherwise is elitist.
If I wanted to be a programmer, I could. If the programmer (or
hardware engineer) wanted to be a writer, he/she could. The only
thing that separates us is desire. I want to write. He or she
wants to "engineer." That puts us on equal footing, doesn't it?
Your core belief is noble and could be true, but there are a
couple of important factors that it does not address. Experience
and talent. Maybe an engineer could learn to be a writer, but to
equal the quality of the writing of an experienced writer, that
engineer would have to devote an equal amount of time to learning
the profession.
The level of talent provides an exception to this theory.
If engineer had an innate talent for writing and the experienced
writer didn't, he or she could develop into a better writer in
less time. But most likely, this case is rare. People tend to
follow their innate strengths in choosing professions..
Sue McCullough
Sr. Tech Writer
Glaxo, Inc. RTP. NC
McCullough~SO -at- Glaxo -dot- com
