Eeek! A technical writing question

[Roxanne Appleby]

In a scholarly type document, what's the proper way to describe a laundry list of items within a paragraph, as opposed to using indented bullets or some such? For example, I don't think this is correct:

. . . the survey showed that the top five reasons they gave for choosing their mates include 1)”cute as a bug”; 2) “great sex;” 3) “clever and funny”; 4) “good with kids“; and 5) “nice to animals.”

I'm hoping to get not opinions but authoritative knowledge.

Thanks, all.

 

[impressive]

I was taught:

. . . the survey showed that the top five reasons they gave for choosing their mates include: (1) cute as a bug; (2) great sex; (3) clever and funny; (4) good with kids; and (5) nice to animals.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I was taught:

. . . the survey showed that the top five reasons they gave for choosing their mates include: (1) cute as a bug; (2) great sex; (3) clever and funny; (4) good with kids; and (5) nice to animals.

You're pretty authoritative - thanks. That's what I'm going with unless directed otherwise by someone who is even more authoritative.

 

[tickledkitty]

In a scholarly type document, what's the proper way to describe a laundry list of items within a paragraph, as opposed to using indented bullets or some such? For example, I don't think this is correct:

. . . the survey showed that the top five reasons they gave for choosing their mates include 1)”cute as a bug”; 2) “great sex;” 3) “clever and funny”; 4) “good with kids“; and 5) “nice to animals.”

I'm hoping to get not opinions but authoritative knowledge.

Thanks, all.

This is according to the American Association for Medical Transcription Book of Style. (It's what I have handy.)

run-on (horizontal) lists

Enclose arabic number in parentheses. Use commas or periods at the end of each, depending on usage or preference (note use of initial lower-cased or capital letter, depending on whether commas or periods separate entries).

Her past history includes (1) diabetes melitus, (2) cholecystitis, (3) hiatal hernia.

or

Her past history includes: (1) Diabetes Mellitus. (2) Cholecystitis. (3) Hiatal hernia.

I know this pertains to medical reports, but I would think it would be the same for any type of "sholarly type document." Anyway, hope it helps.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Oh, that's sounds perhaps more authoritative. OK, out with the semis, in with the commas. Unless otherwise directed by an even greater authority.

Thanks, Kitty.

 

[tickledkitty]

Oh, that's sounds perhaps more authoritative. OK, out with the semis, in with the commas. Unless otherwise directed by an even greater authority.

Thanks, Kitty.

Any time.

 

[impressive]

Oh, that's sounds perhaps more authoritative. OK, out with the semis, in with the commas. Unless otherwise directed by an even greater authority.

Thanks, Kitty.

I've been out-authoritatived.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I've been out-authoritatived.

Was it good for you?

 

[impressive]

Was it good for you?

Not particularly. However, once I finish Big Gulp #2, I intend to rectify that situation.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Not particularly. However, once I finish Big Gulp #2, I intend to rectify that situation.

Ok then. Go rectum the sitiation!

 

[Huckleman2000]

Here are some good rules for survey reporting: Separate items in a list with semi-colons. Identify the proportion of responses, usually by a percentage figure. Percentages should add to 100%, or the reason why they don't should be clearly stated. Results should be given in order from most-frequent to least-frequent. Actual wording of the response options should appear in quotes.

In my experience with survey research reporting, when you're actually quoting the response options given to the respondents, you should use the quotes. If you're paraphrasing for the sake of readability, then you don't. It's tricky, because often the survey questions don't lend themselves to easy summations in a single, readable sentence. When there is confusion, I believe it's best to resort to a table, which you can then refer to, with various options to paraphrase. In cases of especially onerous survey wording, I've even resorted to putting the question and option wording in a footnote, just to be able to report the results in a way that readers could follow. Accuracy and readability are often at odds, so you should try to give your reader the option to look directly at the survey questions. Invariably, one of the first challenges will be, "How was that question worded?"

This becomes especially cumbersome when you're discussing interesting sub-groups, e.g., "DINKs". Most market researchers would recognize that as "Dual-income-no-kids". Technically, those are respondents who answered several different questions in a particular way, e.g.: "Do you live with a spouse or partner?" (yes); "Are you employed?" (yes); "Is your spouse/partner employed?" (yes); "Are there dependent children age 17 or under in your household?" (no). Implicit in that definition is that the couple is usually of non-retired age, but it doesn't differentiate between married, co-habiting, or same-sex couples. So, even a non-exhaustive reference is going to become several lines of prepositional blarf unless the report writer defines some type of shorthand in the beginning. And, unless you're working within the oeuvre of a well-established and successful body of research, the wording and definitions of questions and sub-groups will shift slightly over time.

If you're writing for a very specific audience, e.g. results of drug trials, there are technical standards that I really can't point you towards, because I don't know what they are. I know they exist, though; I've just never had to write that type of report. I'm certain that there is a style guide for reporting drug studies, and it makes the reports almost incomprehensible unless the reader is familiar with the style.

In reporting research and survey results, I've had different expectations in each job I've had, and when I've had assigned editors, no two have used the same guidelines. I think the best way to approach the topic is to anticipate the objections, questions, or challenges that a critical reader might have to your reporting of the survey results. Then balance addressing those as directly as you can, while still reporting the survey findings in an easily understandable manner.

It ain't easy. And poor examples of survey reporting just compound the distrust of surveys in general. If you lay out, in detail, how your study takes a non-biased scientific survey of a given population, your audience will glaze over. If your study has valid, but provocative findings, critics will use cheap obfuscations to dismiss surveys in general (like, "statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics"). I do that myself, on occasion, out of frustration.

 

[tickledkitty]

I've been out-authoritatived.

It wasn't intentional. It took me a while to type that whole thing. I didn't realize someone else had already answered. There are probably a lot of ways to do it that would be considered correct anyway.

 

[impressive]

It wasn't intentional. It took me a while to type that whole thing. I didn't realize someone else had already answered. There are probably a lot of ways to do it that would be considered correct anyway.

S'okay, kitty.