Building Rapport

If you are homeless in Vancouver and you want to live in public housing, there is a paper wall to keep you out:

• The basic application form is 13 pages long.
• The additional form required of those who have been homeless is 9 pages long.
• And then you must complete a form for each individual housing project that you might live in.
• Supplemental forms like an application for a copy of a birth certificate.

Picture a destitute family about to lose their housing. Someone in the family must be calm and collected and literate enough to fill out 2 of the forms above. The 2nd form must be completed for each of the housing projects they might qualify for.

Picture a destitute person who has been sleeping under a bridge for month or years. She must complete all three sets of forms–while she is anxious, hungry, and weary.

You see the wall there?

Have you heard of situational limited literacy? That’s when the context or the circumstances are so stressful or overwhelming that whatever literacy skills you have had in the past, they are not available to you in the present moment.

Since so few people get over that wall, a local group has formed for the purpose of documenting the homeless in their neighborhood and completing the application forms.

I have not seen these forms so I can’t tell you whether they are in plain language but I would say the odds are against it.

I’d like to invite you to join me in a conversation on how recent discoveries in cognitive psychology and neuroscience affect how we go about producing plain language and how we define or describe it.

Twenty years ago, we were saying to training groups that “recent brain research” was changing what we knew about how people process language. Now we are being told that the research in the past 10 to 15 years has dramatically changed what we know about memory and thinking processes.

The volume of that research has now reached a point that it can be consolidated and applied to practical fields—like plain language writing. Luckily for me, articles are now being written that can be understood by those of us who are not scientists. As these articles begin to popularize these new concepts and their practical applications, we need to reinterpret “plain language”.

I’d like to start that discussion here and now. We can’t wait for papers to be delivered at biennial conferences.

I am not a scientist, so I could only summarize what I have read. I would prefer to exchange ideas and interpretations with my peers before stating anything with a sense of certainty. And I welcome you to invite any cognitive psychologist to join our discussion.

First, here are a few definitions:

“..Psychological research on meta-cognition: thoughts about other thoughts. Whether or not something is easy to think about—cognitive fluency—is one important type of meta-cognition, with all sorts of benefits accruing to things that are easily processed…”

http://www.spring.org.uk/2010/03/8-studies-demonstrating-the-power-of-simplicity.php

“Processing fluency is the ease with which information is processed in the mind. The ease with which perceptual stimuli are processed is perceptual fluency; the ease with which information can be retrieved from memory is retrieval fluency.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_fluency

The current notion seems to be that writing that uses familiar words and concepts and presented in familiar formats will be quickly and easily processed by using a default method of thinking.

Julia Baker describes the 2 mental processes:

Psychology – and cognitive theory in particular – recognize two unique systems for information processing. The first system is the “associative system,” which operates by comparing a novel stimulus with known information about the world. This system of analysis is based primarily on probabilities and assessing new stimuli by referencing previously perceived objects. This system is often characterized by quick, automatic reasoning decisions based on inferences.

The second system is referred to as a “rule-based,” product, or analytic system. It allows for a conscious consideration of the stimulus in decision-making situations. By actively considering multiple options, explanations and deviations, this system attempts to describe the world through logical analysis. Decisions made via this system can produce thorough reasoning, rather than mere predictions as offered by the associative system, which relies on known experiences.

Fluency plays a role in determining which mental operation is used for information processing. In familiar situations, individuals are likely to employ System 1 processing. Because an analogy can be formed from past experience, the more detailed analysis of System 2 is not needed. Importantly, the root of the analysis (and system choice) is the formulation of a confidence judgment, based on fluency, about how known or familiar a new stimulus seems. Where the stimulus is novel or “disfluent,” the problem solver will likely opt to use a System 2 analysis and thoroughly.

Julie Baker also describes the tactic of moderating fluency:

Fluent writing inspires feelings of ease, confidence, and trust in readers (while legalese is “disfluent,” engendering feelings of dislike and mistrust).

(I’ll give you Baker’s citation Monday)

So sometimes, when our purpose is to invoke analytical thinking or to be persuasive, we may choose more difficult, less fluent language that will engage the logical system of thought processing. This suggests we can “moderate the fluency” of writing to produce the most effective writing by engaging the anyalytical processing level when we want readers to learn or make important decisions.

I will be giving you links to current articles that might serve as a basis for our conversation. These items starting with the most popular in style. Wikipedia does have some articles on this. Each day, I will introduce you to a new article. And please tell us about the ones that you find.

The must-read article today:

Easy = True

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/01/31/easy__true/?page=full

Many companies try to communicate calm to their shareholders to keep them from panic.  As often as not they produce the opposite results. Here is a case-study.

Press Release: 3-31-2011

Wanderport Corp. (PINKSHEETS: WDRP) today announced that procurement authorization has been granted and approved for the remaining equipment and provisions, which were quoted by engineering and design partners for its microwave energy tankless water heater (MHU).

In conjunction with said engineering and design partners, the Company is well within the end process of procurement in order to complete the single cavity MHU.

“This is significant because the pieces of the puzzle are finally coming together and it symbolizes the transition of my long held vision into reality,” said Robert Simoneau, Wanderport’s Technical Advisor and Product Licensor.

The procurement list includes the advanced heat exchanger unit fabricated using a ceramic type material and customized to exact specifications. This unique enclosure or chamber was designed using thermal dynamic techniques and forms an integral and key component of the baseline single cavity unit. Other items include the metal enclosure, tubes and fittings for plumbing and some miscellaneous items.

“This juncture has been long awaited, as we take the final steps to producing the MHU expected this April 2011. Proceeding with a single cavity ‘point of use’ MHU provides a premise to evaluate the function of our product prior to expansion toward a ‘Point of Entry’ MHU,” said Wanderport’s CEO, Richard Martel. “Suddenly, the immense ‘point of use’ revenue steam is within sight, while we anticipate preparations toward a ‘Point of Entry’ MHU and the considerable market it represents,” further added Mr. Martel.”

After receiving this release, one shareholder posted online:

…it would be nice if the company would just speak to investors in plain language. Once again, they have chosen words which can and are being interpreted differently by different investors. I don’t understand why they have to choose words which cause confusion. A PR is a company’s opportunity to create excitement and generate public interest. Although they have provided some information they have also created doubt.

Many of you know I’ve been here for over a year and am a long-term investor. I’m not a trader and and don’t flip anything here. I believe in the potential of this product and would be thrilled if this PR left me warm and fuzzy…but it doesn’t. Today, one of my friends who invested in the company at my recommendation asked me if there is something wrong after reading today’s PR. Another said that much of it was just mumbo-jumbo. That is not what a PR should instill in someone invested in the company. ..

What is the value of plain language? Part 2

Don’t expect me to wax philosophic. I am not taking this up as a deep subject. This is practical. We plain language professionals want to be reasonable but we don’t want to be exploited for our naiveté. But some clients are clueless about how much effort goes into plain language. They undervalue our results.

Years ago, a friend did a revision and reduction of a 14-page standard form. She billed $10,000 for 3 month’s work. In the year that followed, the company saved $100,000 in printing costs due to the new form. But when asked to fund the second stage of the project, the company declined. I’d say the value of plain language was 10 times its cost. And they passed.

Let me give you a personal example. Another friend, a lawyer, was asked to comment on a draft plain-language description of procedures in his agency. Members of the public, who would be in distress, were the intended readers. He asked me to do a better rewrite. He would pay me himself and take credit.

I worked on it at an hourly rate and billed him fairly for $1000.

It turned out the agency has a plain language explanation of its new legislation on its website. But the draft procedures used different terminology for the same things. I knew enough from my previous experience to look for that.

The agency was pleased with “his” effort and gave him an honorarium of $250.00. which in no way represented the effort at HIS hourly rate.

I don’t know what we can do to make clients appreciate our value.

I try to inform individual clients what I do for them. I have always included in a proposal an outline of the steps I will need to take. When working on a project, I always provide a work plan and schedule to the client at the start.

What do you suggest?

I am not going to write here about the benefits of using plain language, which include costs savings and other bottom-line advantages. My complaint here is about those clients who do not understand how much time and effort we expend to transform their drab, wordy documents into plain language. First, I have to discuss what is actually involved.

South African Dr Sarah Slabbert, of the Plain Language Institute, has said:

“Editing or translation: First of all, the ‘linguistically complex document’, i.e. the document that needs to be converted into plain language, is rewritten or translated into plain language. During this phase, the document is analysed and the linguistic structure of the document is simplified, while taking care that the meaning is not distorted. Formal words are substituted with less formal words; for example, ‘accomplish’ will be replaced with ‘do’”

Quoted at http://www.enterpriserisk.co.za/forum/topics/what-is-plain-language-and-why

This may be what most general editors think should happen first. Plain Language is more than an editing job following the guidelines seen here and there. Maybe she incorporates this (below) when she says the document is analyzed.

Here: PlainLanguage.gov http://www.plainlanguage.gov/howto/guidelines/bigdoc/fullbigdoc.pdf

There:
• using short sentences and clear language
• using words consistently
• using the active voice
• avoiding strings of synonyms
• avoiding unnecessarily formal language
• replacing “legalese” and jargon with familiar terms and phrases

The PlainLanguage.Gov site does remind its users that plain language involves organization and design as well as language. But something is still missing from the early stage. Guidelines are fine as they are, but mine are more like these Writing Guidelines: http://plainlanguage.com/newintro.html#guide

What is in the magic?

I do have a recurring client who gets it. They send me a document and ask me to do my “magic.” Other people can do the magic. Writer or editor, you must know the readers well. Some understand their readers’ needs because they work with the same demographic repeatedly. The rest of us have to do the research to get to know the reader.

My own client does know their readers well. This client often hires academic experts to tell them what they need to teach their readers. The academics usually produce a thorough report using academic language, both jargon and necessary technical language.

So I get the document and do the magic so the information is understandable and usable by a group of readers, like one of these:

1. Women whose families are new immigrants to Canada from war-torn countries, whose first language is not English,
2. Aboriginal women, on reserve or in urban environments
3. Parents, with limited education, living in rural or isolated Northern areas of Canada

After doing the necessary reader research, the plain language editor must try to see the information through the eyes of the ultimate reader.

These days we try to ignore differences between ourselves and others, so we do not discriminate from prejudice. Plain language editors must acknowledge differences between people to benefit from seeing the world from the other person’s perspective.

Good clients understand the making information understandable requires more than editing. Being able to see the world differently, that is the magic.

Now, I will be talking dollar values in the next part of this article.

Recently, you could have seen these two bits of corporate miscommunication online:
1. Monetizing your business”Go Green”  
2.

Corporate jibberish

We know corporate-speak as language that is bland, undifferentiated, and hard to read with its meaning obscured by jargon, waffle, hype, verbiage, legalese and conventionality. Other fields and professions use this same kind of language that at least hinders communication and at worst turns off readers. The infamous Seth Godin recently suggested: Don’t hide behind waffling terms that don’t mean anything.

I started collecting examples of words like monetize that are not standard English or have become trite or are overused or whose meanings are no longer so clear. I am calling for their retirement, Read why here.

This list of more than 500 words and phrases has now been posted to this website as the Bathetic Word List. Some of the words are linked to commentaries that favor the discontinuance of the use of the words.

I’d like to keep building up the list, so I am holding a contest to encourage your contributions. The contest details are here. 

Please help me make people aware of the list and contest.

This is a question to be voted on in late 2011, subject to any big change in our provincial government.

Will you offer a rewite?

“Are you in favour of extinguishing the HST (Harmonized Sales Tax) and reinstating the PST (Provincial Sales Tax) in conjunction with the GST (Goods and Services Tax)?” Yes/No

http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2009-2013/2010AG0027-001402.htm

Too often, we are expected to go faster and faster for political reasons. Too many people think plain language change is quick and easy.

Plain Language in Organizations

To help people cope, Kate Harrison and I wrote Plain Language in Organizations: An Action Plan (ebook) but this plan addresses the plain language change in a single organization. The newest developments apply to an entire industry, a U.S. state, or a national government apparatus.

Delay: Country by country

Recently in South Africa, the plain language trainers, writers aountrynd editors had been rushing to satisfy clients who needed to comply with the approaching deadline set by their new Consumer Protection Act. And businesses spent millions over the 18-month advance period. The original date for effect has now been delayed from October this year to March 2011. Even after 18 months for preparation the government has not filled all the commission posts nor released regulations to guide compliance efforts.

Elizabeth Warren has been given the task of setting up the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by July 2011. Because hers is a temporary appointment, the Bureau won’t be able to publish regulations until a permanent director is approved by the U.S. Congress. Not a bad idea to take some time.

One U.S. government employee is quoted elsewhere saying:

Making plain language a requirement, rather than just a best practice, means agency web managers will be able to make a stronger case for allocating dollars towards content producers and writers… It isn’t easy to simplify some government content, so you need that expertise to be truly successful. Plain language would mean better service for citizens, which is what every federal web manager is striving to provide.

Changing the whole government’s style

Soon the U.S. President will sign the Plain Writing Act 2010 (almost certain since Obama was a sponsor of the previous bill). Another change process will begin as all government agencies scramble to comply. This legislation may run into problems with its deadlines also.

My friend and a plain language advocate, William Dubay , has commented elsewhere on this new Act:

Government interest in plain language began in the 1970s in response to consumer complaints. Most states at that time enacted laws that required plain language in agency regulations and insurance policies. Some of these laws have been very effective. Insurance commissioners regularly enforce the insurance requirements but most of the agency requirements are lacking enforcement and standards.

The message may be loud and clear on jargon, but weak and vague on standards, funding, and enforcement. Managers will be loathe to implement new demands for which no resources have been provided. Americans may be losing money because of poor writing practices, but good writing practices take training, method, and practice, which all cost money.

Clear definitions still to come

For all of these programs, one challenge is to decide what sort of efforts or results will satisfy the expectation of plain language. An agreeable definition is hard to come by. The international, non-government Plain Language Working Group of experts is still working on this too. Even agreement amongst plain language advocates is hard to reach.

Managing change

Dominique Joseph, a language analyst in Ottawa, has provided some links for support on managing change:

• Kotter’s 8-step change model: http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newPPM_82.htm
• Website based on Kotter’s “Heart of Change” book: http://www.theheartofchange.com/
• Chip and Dan Heath (in their book “Switch”), also talk about the importance of using both “feeling” and “thinking” to create the motivation for change.
• A favorite story — Gloves on the boardoom table: http://www.theheartofchange.com/ It’s wonderful

Still, for a mere $15 Plain Language in Organizations is a good guide for use within a department or division of a larger entity.

picture credit: Cover image of a foundational text of the plain language movement, the 1966 Gobbledygook Has Gotta Go by Bureau of Land Management employee John O’Hara; via the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

Language-Change Index

Oxford University Press reports that the third edition of Garner’s Modern American Usage has a most interesting new feature: the Language-Change Index categorizes the level of acceptance of changes in adoption of new usages for words or phrases.

Five stages of language change

Stage 1 – rejected except by a minority of the language experts

Stage 2 – rejected by those who insist on “standard usage” but spreading fast

Stage 3 – used widely, even among the well-educated, but still avoided by the language mavens

Stage 4 – ubiquitous, meaning virtually universal, but still argued against by grammar police

Stage 5 – fully accepted by rational people

Evolving English

For another perspective on changing usage, we can turn to Robert Levy’s blog Save the Semicolon:

The Six Stages of Word Grief http://savethesemicolon.com/2010/05/11/the-six-stages-of-word-grief/
You will have to read his post for the explanations.

The Six Stages of Word Grief

1. Confusion

2. Amusement

3. Annoyance

4. Exasperation

5. Acceptance when OTHER people do it

6. Complete Acceptance or death

And, in “Very Unique” is Here to Stay, http://savethesemicolon.com/2007/07/29/unique-and-monique/

Robert says:

I think that there are at least two phases after a word becomes well-known, but before it becomes really standard.

The first is when people who care about these things (and even people who don’t, but who consider themselves educated) would never use it that way, and in fact, they sort of judge people who do use it. They roll eyes, or cringe a bit, or get annoyed when they hear role-models (like politicians) use it. They consider the usage a pet-peeve, or laughable.

The second is when the people who care about these things would still not use the word, but they accept that even educated, intelligent, well-read people do use it the new way. They start to feel curmudgeonly, or pedantic, if they insist that others avoid the new usage. They recognize that they’re on the way out.

So, for my call to action: Pick the stage with which you are comfortable, write there, and stop your belly-aching.

That prescription-drug info from the pharmacy can fall short

The LA Times has reported that the legally required type of medical information given out by pharmacies is not doing the job of communciating risk.

Researchers at the University of Florida found shortcomings in the written information for on “directions for use” and “comprehensibility/legibility”.

They wrote: “Many leaflets failed to meet the minimum requirements, such as provision of a complete list of absolute contraindications, and more than half lacked specific directions that would allow patients to manage problems. Because CMI [consumer medical information] was the sole written information dispensed, some patients had no information about the risk of lactic acidosis associated with metformin or related warning signs or action steps. The high reading level required to comprehend the presented information and the inadequate formatting suggest additional shortcomings.”

Drugstores are for ‘One-Document Solution’ for patient information

The National Association of Chain Drug Stores says pharmacy and consumer groups should collaborate with the government to develop a “one-document solution” for information provided to patients regarding prescription drugs.

NACDS submitted its letter in response to an August 9, 2010, article in the newspaper that was critical of such information. NACDS President and Chief Executive Officer Steven C. Anderson says:

“Pharmacy is working with the government to help provide enhanced user-friendly information to patients about their prescription drugs. The National Association of Chain Drug Stores submitted a Citizen Petition to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2008. Seven additional organizations, including other pharmacy and consumer groups, joined in the petition.

“The petition requests FDA guidance describing the parameters for a voluntary, FDA-approved, concise, plain-language document for patients. Such a format could consolidate and replace the multiple written communications pharmacies must now distribute to patients.

“This ‘one-document solution’ could harmonize multiple documents that arise from different FDA-imposed legal requirements or information interpretations, and from different offices and constituencies within FDA.

The Los Angeles Times article is available by clicking here http://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la-heb-prescription-information-20100809,0,3840303,print.story