Technical Writing

205

10

Writing with Collaborators

10.1 Introduction

When writing substantial documents, and sometimes even brief ones, you

will have to work with others. In writing, as in any group endeavor, collabo-

ration can be challenging. These challenges include noticeable and distract-

ing variations in writing style, the mechanics of managing and tracking each

other’s changes, and occasionally negative interpersonal dynamics.

The severity of these problems increases as the team size grows because

the number of interactions between people increases. In fact, the growth of

the number of interactions is exponential. To see this, let n be the number of

people in the group. The number of pairwise interactions is given by

n n

n n

·

−

( )

=

−

1

2 2

2

(10.1)

Equation 10.1 can be visualized in Figure10.1.

Of course, any one of these interactions can become toxic. I have experi-

enced collaborative writing projects with one or more co-authors, including

absentee co-authors, and a mix of cooperative, uncooperative, and encour-

aging partners. I have also edited many books, journals, papers, and other

projects involving dozens of contributors at a time. I have learned that the

challenges of large writing projects are manageable if you approach them

with a positive attitude and a willingness to compromise. You will have to

manage egos (including your own) and share credit, even when credit may

not be due.

Tools such as Wikis, a special kind of website with access control mecha-

nisms and version control, may be employed to help manage the group

writing process. But in the end, completing large collaborative writing

projects is not about tools—it is about managing schedules, expectations,

and egos.

206 Technical Writing: A Practical Guide for Engineers and Scientists

10.2 Writing in Different Voices

One of the most common problems in collaborative writing involves a notice-

able difference in writing style (“voice”) from one section of the document

to another. It is preferable that the writing appear to be by the same person

throughout the document.*

Let’s say that you and three co-authors are assigned to draft different

parts of the document. Your plan is to assemble these pieces and make one

or two nal editing passes. But when you and your co-authors deliver your

work and put it together, the result is terrible. Each section clearly looks

like it was written by a different person. Important information is missing

but some ideas appear duplicated in places. I call the problem of differ-

ent voices the “writing homogenization problem.” Let’s see how you might

solve this problem.

* An exception is a contributed book with each chapter written by a different expert.

Two people, one interaction ree people, three interactions

Five people, 10 interactions

FIGURE 10.1

The number of pairwise relationships in groups grows exponentially according to Equation

10.1.

Writing with Collaborators 207

10.2.1 Using Metrics to Detect Nonhomogeneous Writing

In Chapter 3 I mentioned the Flesch–Kincaid metrics computed by Microsoft

Word. These metrics can be computed for different sections of a draft docu-

ment to see if a dramatic change in writing style occurs from one section to

the next. If such a noticeable change is identied, then editing efforts can be

directed toward homogenizing the writing.

Here is an example of what I mean. For a section of text I wrote for this

book, Word computed the values for the Flesch–Kincaid statistics shown in

Figure10.2. The gure shows a Flesch Reading Ease of 40.3, and a Flesch–

Kincaid Grade Level indicator of 12.1 (my writing tends to be in the Grade

Level range of 10.5 to 12.5). Suppose another section of text had a Reading

Ease of 25 and a Grade Level of 8. This suggests that the other section was not

written by me and that this writing style difference would be noticeable to a

reader. Therefore, editing of one or both sections is required. After editing, the

reading statistics can be compared again. The cycle continues until the writing

statistics are similar for all text sections, for example, within a 20% difference.

10.2.2 Dealing with Different Voices

Another possible attack on the “writing homogenization” problem is to have

several rounds of circular revision. For example, suppose Fred, Sue, and

FIGURE 10.2

Readability statistics for a draft section of this book.