The broadest definition of a technical writer is someone who compiles large quantities of information into a useful, easily digested form for a specific audience. A journalist for Scientific American is a technical writer; the person who writes instruction manuals for Mathematica or Doom II is a technical writer. So are you, if you've written scientific papers (although the "easily digested" part doesn't apply as much).
In the San Francisco Bay Area where I live, most technical writers write manuals and online help files documenting computer software and hardware, although more jobs are becoming available in other fields such as biotechnology.
I work for the life science division of a large analytical instrument company that is the world's leading provider of DNA synthesis and analysis equipment and the reagent kits that are used on the equipment. I write instruction manuals for the reagent kits, which have specific applications such as DNA sequencing, human identification from forensic evidence, and food testing for Salmonella.
Why Tech Writing Is a Great Move
Here are some reasons why technical writing is a good career transition for scientists:
- You don't have to stop being a scientist. You still have daily contact with scientists and discuss their work with them. Besides, it's impossible to stop being a scientist. It's in the blood and it's how we were trained to think. I often refer to myself as a "recovering scientist," because I left research but will always be a scientist.
- You have instant credibility with "subject-matter experts." Because you're also a scientist, the scientists and engineers with whom you work think automatically that you know what you're doing. They don't think that way about all tech writers, which is a downside of the field. It's up to you to maintain that credibility by the way in which you perform your job.
- You don't have to do lab work. The endless repetition of experiments is one reason many of us left research. As a writer, you get to learn about new scientific methods and new software without having to do the grunt work of repetition and method validation. The thrill of learning is why I became a scientist, not the drudgery that can go along with it. When a tech writing project is done, you go on to the next project. You don't have to keep doing the same thing for years on end.
- You can still do some lab work if you want. The best way to learn about a new product is to test it, whether it's a reagent kit or piece of software. In fact, the product team will respect you greatly if you take the product for a test drive.
- You resemble the customers. As a biotechnology writer, I have a lot in common with the end users of my company's products, who are research scientists and technicians. One of my coworkers, another Ph.D. chemist, got her first job because she used certain computational software extensively. The software company needed a new manual at the same time her post-doc funding was running out. Because you resemble the customers, you understand their concerns and can write about what they want to know.
- Your will have a less-steep learning curve than will most writers. You already know a lot of science and you have the background to learn more science easily. And don't forget that you're more computer literate than 95% of the population. Scientists use computers to collect their data, analyze it, and write up the results.
- Your work ethic will be appreciated. Most scientists work hard, are inquisitive, and pay close attention to detail. These are all useful qualities in technical writers. We need to go out and learn as much as possible about our subject, then make sure that we write carefully and accurately.
Common Personality Traits of Tech Writers
Lifelong learning is the most important trait of a technical writer. You should be interested in almost everything and willing to learn as much as you can about it. If you're excited about your subject, your writing will be interesting as well.
You have to like writing. I realized that one of the things I consistently enjoyed about science was seeing my work in print. I also enjoyed explaining my work to my nonscientist friends, who always said that I was good at making science understandable. I discovered that there were people, called technical writers, who did this for a living. The idea of being paid good money to write was appealing.
You must enjoy working with people. Most of the information you use to write documentation comes from interviewing subject-matter experts singly or in groups. Even if you are given a written draft of a procedure, you will still have to talk with its author to clarify and complete it. The networks you establish by trading information and favors are very important in getting your job done (more on networking later). It's not necessary to be a complete extrovert, but you have to be able to talk to many different kinds of people. Take an interest in them and learn about them, too. It's part of what makes the job fun.
Pursue knowledge actively and be tenacious. You have to go out and find what you need, rather than waiting for it to come to you and to be dropped over your cubicle wall. If you don't get what you need the first time, go back and bother the necessary people again and again until they give you what you want just to get rid of you. They have their priorities, but so do you.
Pay close attention to detail, but don't be consumed by it. Your grammar and spelling must be flawless and your content as accurate as possible, but don't try to write a perfect document. That takes too much time, and the product has to get out the door to make money so that everyone gets paid.
The ability to handle multiple tasks and projects simultaneously is crucial. It's common to work on several projects at once, each with its own issues and deadlines. Even if you work on only one or two large projects at once, each can have many chapters and bits of information to juggle.
Finally, it is actually good that I have a short attention span. I'm interested in almost everything, learn quickly, and get bored quickly. In grad school, I had trouble staying focused on the same project for years. Now, I work on several projects at once, and finish 10 or 15 projects per year, ranging from 30-page reagent kit protocols to 250-page user's manuals. Mostly, I write shorter documents. When something is done, I move on.
Some tech writers prefer the opposite way. They like to work on the same large project for 6 months, a year, or longer. What would be anathema to me works for them? Still other tech writers fall somewhere between the two extremes and work on a variety of projects.
