"Manual Writer," "Technical Writer" or "Technical Communicator" — What’s in a title?
A reader asked the other day if it’s okay for his customer to address him as a “manual writer.” “Is this really a big deal?” he asked.
My short answer is — yes, it is a big deal and of course it matters, for more reasons than one.
First off, “manual writer” is not correct technically because we do a lot more than writing manuals. The term “manual” itself betrays the sensitivities of a bygone area where most systems were “mechanical” (like cars) and systems were operated and fixed by hand, and thus the term “manual”. In these digital times, we have “guides”, not manuals, unless they are of the kind that describe how to fix things by hand.
Secondly, the phrase “manual writer” frankly reeks a lack of understanding of or respect for the professional expertise we bring to our jobs.
We bring many years of education, training, experience, passion, good taste, care and many other skills that may not be apparent from the outset.
This whole issue eventually becomes a matter of “control” in the sense that if we cannot change the way our customers look at us as (mere) “manual writers” then we won’t be able to get paid at a level we deserve either.
That’s why at every opportunity I emphasize that I’m not “just” writing “manuals” but I’m actually designing an information product and writing is just one part of what I do.
If a potential customer insists on treating me as a “manual writer” I sometimes choose not to do business with that person because I know that I’ll probably have a payment issue at the end.
People who have a low opinion of the professionals they hire also make a lot of fuss when it comes to payment because they always carry the suspicion that what they paid was not “worth it.”
As freelance writers we really have to market our services well. The number one marketing priority should be a refusal to have our clients define our job titles for us. If we cannot control the way our job is defined, what else is there to control?
I’m not a “manual writer”; not even a “tech writer.” I am a “technical communicator” and I say that because I believe that to be 100% true.
Dear reader, what do you think about this issue? Please feel free to contribute.
(Free photo courtesy of https://unsplash.com/)
Truthfully, I wouldn’t care one way or the other. I’m quite okay with people’s face lighting up with comprehension when, after a 10 minute explanation of what I do, I pause and say, “I write manuals”. I really don’t want to spend my life explaining ‘technical communicator’ – I’d rather speak a language the laity understands.
Oh, boy! This is a favorite topic of conversation. Whenever somebody blogs about it, it always draws a lot of comments. (Here’s an especially good blog post from Julio Vazquez.)
It’s a favorite topic because it rings of truth: you’re not a technical writer unless all you do is write. And if all you do is write, there are a lot of people out there who are able and willing to do it for a lot less money that you think you’re worth. If we think that our work has any value it’s important that we think of ourselves as communicators, and that we train others to think of us in the same way.
Nice post! I like getting the other perpseictive, especially since it’s about as opposite as you can get from my own:
Titles have never been something that I’ve put too much weight in: mine, or anyone else’s. You are what you do, sometimes this matches your employee badge and job description, sometimes not.
I’ve worked with “Presidents” who couldn’t couldn’t lead their way out of a cardboard box, much less lead a company across a constantly evolving competitive landscape. I’ve worked with “Graphic Designers” who basically did everything from build websites to run marketing campaigns (print, email, etc…) to build application interfaces.
I doubt my experience is different from most people’s.
I’ve never felt disrespected by “technical writer”…it’s as sloppy a title as any out there; but I don’t necessarily think that “technical communicator” is any better. Who am I to argue though? If you get more respect from your clients and colleagues by having a particular title, or if marketing yourself as peanut “spread” instead of peanut “butter” gets you more gigs, or if you think one title better describes what you do, then go ahead and use the best title you can for your given purpose.
Ambilence for titles and monikers might seem strange coming from a [whatever you want to call me], but it’s actually all the core of what we do/I do. You call me what you want. This shows me what you know & think using language that is familiar to you. From there, we build…
When I first started my career, I was content to be called a ‘manual writer’. It was my primary function. It’s what I got paid to do. But after a few years of experience and the expansion of my role to other aspects such as document design and content analysis I resent the fact that many people treat this profession as ho hum and unimportant. At a previous company they didn’t even have a classification ‘technical writer’.
Not to compare our professions to doctors, but do you think a neuro-surgeon who is the chief of staff at his hospital would be content to be known just as ‘Doctor’? I don’t think so. When he’s talking to people about his job, he’s definitely going to be using his full title because he wants people to recognize and respect the work and level of dedication it takes to do it and when it comes time for his next job interview he wants to be paid like a Chief of Staff neuro-surgeon, not some resident fresh out of med school.
I agree with Ugur that if we don’t force people to think of us as ‘communicators’ as opposed to mere ‘writers’ then all of the dedication and expertise we bring will not lead to the respect and financial compensation that we deserve.
[…] What’s in a title? Yes, this again … […]