I am setting forth ten commandments for writers in the public sector, based on my dissertation and on standards for clear writing. The commandments will each appear as a Word of the Week.

Fourth commandment:

Use clear and distinctive terms.

When terms in text don’t stand out clearly from each other, the text becomes more difficult. In my research, subjects repeatedly wondered what different versions of service meant in a document that included service chain, service network, service model, and so on.

The subjects found it difficult to understand the meaning of these terms and their relationship. A good term should be transparent. The reader should be able to get an idea about what it refers to even if unfamiliar with the topic. Writers have to consider which is more important for readers: strict orthodox terminology, or actual comprehension. Specialized shades of meaning aren’t obvious to the ordinary person.

The subjects also mentioned that terms in the original text resembled each other. For example, service network and service model turned out to be too close in appearance and in meaning . In choosing a term, you should make sure it clearly stands out from other terms, especially ones that will appear in the same context. Words that are too similar confuse readers just as words that are too specialized do.

Before inflicting a new term on your reader, consider whether an existing one can do a better job.

I am setting forth ten commandments for writers in the public sector, based on my dissertation and on standards for clear writing. The commandments will each appear as a Word of the Week.

Third commandment:

Optimize the length of the text.

Style guides are careful not to give specific rules about the length of a written piece. I avoid that as well. I prefer to talk about optimizing the length. In part, optimizing means you should remove any content and expressions that fail to add value for the reader. A good example of low-value content is repetition, which unfortunately is very typical in official documents.

Deletion isn’t a goal on its own. You shouldn’t remove words and expressions that improve comprehension. An illustrative example can help the reader grasp the main point. Conjunctions (if, when, but) and connectives (therefore, thus, moreover) highlight the relationship between different topics or issues.

Official documents often feature a great deal of citations of policy and legal references. Some writers feel the additional length and density are the proper form for such documents. They want to document their work and so include evidence of their process: research they did, references they consulted, options they considered. The aim is to make visible the entire working process, not its results.

We’d get interesting viewpoints about the length of documents if we asked citizens and policy-makers to say how long they think things like agendas, news releases, and reports should be. For online text, this would be easy to add at the end of each item, “Was the length of this piece too short, about right, or too long?” Another source of data: measuring how long readers spend on a page, as well as the point at which they quit. Many publications now include an estimate for average reading time

All these techniques are tools that the providers of text can use to consider length – and to optimize the reader’s experience.

I am setting forth ten commandments for writers in the public sector, based on my dissertation and on standards for clear writing. The commandments will each appear as a Word of the week.

Second commandment:

Present the main point at the beginning.

Administrative documents used to start with history lessons. If the city council was about to decide on next year’s tax rate, the related documents would begin with extensive background before revealing the proposed figure. Most readers would understand the details sooner if they knew from the start whether the motion would be for an increase, a decrease, or no change.

Jakob Nielsen’s expression “interaction cost” refers to how much work the user of a website has to do to achieve the purpose for which he came to the site. One way to lower the similar barrier for a reader is to write so that the text quickly answers the reader’s needs.

Administrative documents overwhelmingly put the main point at the end. This longstanding pattern is often considered “correct” and “required,” despite its hampering the public’s ability to comprehend. Many who write this way even believe this stylistic tradition is legally required, when far too often it’s simply the way things have always been done.

The subjects in my research decided to change the order of the documents they were editing. They moved the main point to the beginning and the background to the end, in the same way we compose news articles and press releases.

I am setting forth ten commandments for writers in the public sector, based on my dissertation and on standards for clear writing. The commandments will each appear as a Word of the Week.

First commandment:

Write from the viewpoint of a member of the public.

You need to move from your desk to wherever local residents face issues in everyday life.

Here’s a good route to that point of view: ask residents to read your draft and discuss it with you. You’ll find out what terms are unfamiliar to them, and you in turn will learn expressions that they use. Reviewing a draft with three to five people can uncover many barriers to communication.

A user-centric tone is deeply connected to content choice, and the writer of the original text is in a critical position. Editors lack the time, the authority, and often the expertise to make major changes that increase the focus on the user. For real improvement on a large scale, you need to increase the communication skill and the language awareness of the expert authors. Today, unfortunately, quality control is left to secretaries and publicists.

The subjects in my research emphasized the public’s point of view, both in terms of content and of presentation order. They removed terminology and administrative classifications (local versus centralized services) and instead used familiar everyday words (library, dental clinic).

Using the perspective of your intended reader will help you steer your word choice in the right direction.

I wrote earlier that the five-year process with my doctoral dissertation is in its final stages. During the spring, it went through preliminary examination, and in May I got permission for my public defense. So I’ve been making the final corrections and will arrange for layout and printing. Then it goes on display, or as we say, gets nailed on the university bulletin board. The public defense itself takes place at the beginning of August.

This defense is an academic play that follows traditional forms, with faculty, other university staff, family, and friends as the audience. They rise as the characters enter the auditorium: the doctoral candidate first, followed by the Custos – the supervisor of the dissertation – and lastly by the Opponent.

The Custos opens the session, after which I as the doctoral candidate give a lectio praecursoria, a short lecture on the themes of the dissertation. The Opponent follows with a general statement of the work, then begins going through it in detail and posing questions. At the end of the examination, the Opponent gives a final statement and hopefully will propose that my dissertation should be accepted. Finally, the three main characters exit the auditorium in the same order as they entered.

Afterward, a post-doctoral party is also an old academic tradition. The Finnish word for the party is ”karonkka”, which comes to Finnish from the Russian word korona ‘crown’. The stated purpose is to honor the Opponent, though nowadays it is customary to invite relatives and friends as well. It begins formally with a dinner and speeches, but I am planning to extend the festivities by adding a more informal post-karonkka.

The word of the week is going on its usual summer break, and I will start preparing my lectio, defense, and karonkka. I will return in August, hopefully more proficient.

I finally read After the Truth – How the Media Survives in the Time of Algorithms and Bullshit written by Jarno Hartikainen, Hannu-Pekka Ikäheimo, Olli Seuri and Antto Vihma. According to the authors, technological development and the polarization of society are all hallmarks of our “post-truth” times. I had assumed that the book would mainly blame social media, but, refreshingly, the sharpest criticism was directed at the weaknesses of traditional media.

Still, the authors are leery of the equalizing utopia of the online world, an idea for which I once had high hopes.  According to them,  even on the net, power is not evenly distributed; only the rulers have changed. The gatekeepers are no longer press moguls but supranational digi-giants. Google has become a synonym for a search engine and Facebook a synonym for social media. This causes problems like info bubbles, a lack of criticism, and further accumulation of wealth by the wealthy.

The book doesn’t give traditional media a pass. Five cases illustrate how trusted papers and journalists have been deceived so as to act as spokespersons for particular interest groups. Politicians are throwing bait to journalists, boosting hidden agendas into headlines and general discussion. A common tactic is the claim that you’re sharing clearly false information ”to stimulate discussion”. The media repeatedly publishes populist headlines (‘the EU bans X’) even though such stories have repeatedly been shown to be untrue

The traditional media crisis and the loss of subscribers are partly due to the industry’s own operating methods. According to the authors, dialogue with the public, self-criticism and a realistic state of affairs are needed for renewal. The media need to demonstrate its ability to defend the truth and to reveal bullshit.

In a seminar, some non-fiction writers offered skeptical views on the suitability of social media for researchers. I decided to compile a list of researchers who are actively using Twitter in their work. I asked for help on Twitter, which led to a flood of tweets. In fact, it took a couple of days to sort through all the responses. Twitter once again turned out to be a useful tool.

As I create my list, I’m also collecting comments on the advantages and disadvantages of using Twitter in research work.

Pros

• Latest science news
• Leads for articles
• Real-time discussions about research
• International networks
• Communication between researchers
• Collaborative creation of new knowledge
• New perspectives
• Popularization
• Media attention

Cons

• Twitter can take time from research.
• The information is fragmented.
• The format hinders reasoned argument.
• Results are broadcast when only half-finished.
• Discussions are too multifaceted.
• Trolling and hate speech spoil conversations.

My list so far consists of 200 Finnish researchers. You can pick it up as a whole, or search for a suitable contact in the list. Thanks to all commentators.

Public sector documents should be designed in a user-centered manner. Here are some principles that form a foundation for user-centered design:

• Planning begins by understanding users and their environment.
• Users participate in design and development work.
• Planning is guided by user evaluation and feedback.
• Planning takes into account the entire user experience.

Public bodies are beginning to take user feedback into account; this is having an impact on the development of administrative documents and forms. However, a more systematic approach is still needed so that documents focus on the user experience throughout the public sector and not only in certain areas such as healthcare.