Adapting Your Style to Emails, Instructions, and Proposals

Chapter

Abstract

So far, this book has focused on scientific papers and reports. What about other types of documents? In engineering and science, a host of different documents exists with a wide range of lengths―from one-page letters applying for jobs to multivolume tomes assessing contamination for a site’s air, water, and soil. In addition, documents in scientific writing vary widely in the style—from the cohesive paragraphs of a white paper to the itemized lists in a set of specifications. In the end, though, how you write each document depends on your analysis of the audience, purpose, and occasion.

References

  1. 1.
    Elizabeth Murchison, “Why I Write,” http://www.nwp.org/cs/public/print/resource/3731 (Berkeley California: National Writing Project, 14 Nov 2011).
  2. 2.
    Marisa Borusiewicz, letter to Dr. David Patzer (20 Jan 2016).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Karen Thole, memo to Professors David Bogard and Michael Crawford (Austin, Texas: University of Texas, 14 April 1991).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Capture and Care Manual: Capture, Care, Accommodation, and Transportation of Wild African Animals, ed. by Andrew A. McKenzie (South African Veterinary Foundation: 1993).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Michael Alley, “Hippopotamus in Chobi National Reserve,” photograph (Botswana: 9 Jun 2017).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Are Magnus Bruaset, Simula Research Laboratory, conversation with author (2006).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    John Wiedemer, Pratt & Whitney, presentation (University Park, PA: Penn State, 2015).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    John D. Reichert, Professor of Electrical Engineering, presentation (Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University, 1978). The fish-counter story in this book is a retelling of a story that Reichert gave in a seminar.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carl Nolte, “800,000 People Trample the Organizers’ Plans,” San Francisco Chronicle (25 May 1987) p. 6, col. 1.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Anthony K. Wright, “Proposal to Research the Effects of Orbital Debris on the NASA Space Program,” submitted to the Undergraduate Engineering Review (Austin: University of Texas, 1991).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    H. A. Baker, Space Debris: Legal and Policy Implications (Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1989).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess., Orbital Space Debris (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    N. L. Johnson and D. S. McKnight, Artificial Space Debris (Malabar, Florida: Orbit Book Company, Inc., 1987).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. DeMeis, “Cleaning Up Our Space Act,” Aerospace America, vol. 27, no. 2 (Feb 1987), pp. 10–11.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Karen A. Thole, David G. Bogard, and J. Whan-Tong, “Generating High Freestream Turbulence Levels,” Experiments in Fluids, vol. 17 (1994), pp. 375–380.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. Byworth, “Design and Development of High-Temperature Turbines,” Rolls-Royce Magazine, vol. 44 (Mar 1986).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    P. Koutmos and J. J. McGuirk, “Isothermal Flow in a Gas Turbine Combustor—a Benchmark Experimental Study,” Experiments in Fluids, vol. 7 (1989), p. 344.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Paul K. Maciejewski and Robert J. Moffat, “Effects of Very High Turbulence on Heat Transfer,” Seventh Symposium on Turbulent Shear Flows (Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University, 21–23 Aug 1989).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. P. Loftus Jr., “Orbital Debris From Upper-Stage Breakup,” Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, vol. 121 (1989), p.12.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    H. Cohen, G. F. C. Rogers, H. I. H. Saravanamuttoo, Gas Turbine Theory, 2nd ed. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1972).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Molly Maleckar and Sam Wall, Proposal of Center for Cardiological Innovation (Oslo, Norway: Simula Research Laboratory, 2011).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lionel Brand, Proposal of VeriSoft: A Norwegian Validation and Verification Center (Oslo, Norway: Simula Research Laboratory, 2011).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chip Heath and Dan Heath, Made to Stick (New York: Random House, 2007).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    William D. Wilson and Robert Gallagher, “The Need for Supercomputers in Nuclear Weapon Design” (Livermore, CA: Sandia National Laboratories, 1985), pp. 10–11.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Karen A. Thole and Nancy Love, “Virginia Tech Advance Program,” proposal to National Science Foundation (Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Tech, 2003).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Michael Alley, Karen Thole, and Christine Haas, “Creating a National Network of Engineering Ambassadors: A Professional Development Program with an Outreach Mission,” proposal to National Science Foundation (University Park, PA: Penn State, 2012).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    State of Texas, Proposed Site for the Superconducting Supercollider (Amarillo, TX: Texas State Railroad Commission, 1985).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stephen E. Toulmin, The Uses of Argument (New York: Cambridge Press, 2003).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Michael Alley, The Craft of Scientific Presentations, 2nd ed. (New York: Springer-Verlag, 2013), chap. 4.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gunnhild Marthinsen, Jan Lifjeld, and Liv Wennerberg, “Population Differentiation in Dunlins Caladris alpine in Northern Europe,” presentation (Oslo, Norway: University of Oslo, 2004).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of EngineeringPenn State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations