1

Writing Science for Comprehension: A Literature Review

Laura E. Ditto

Department of Liberal Studies, Alaska Pacific University

WRIT 201: Writing and Research 2: Inquiry

Dr. Meredith Marchioni

April 29, 2021

 2

Abstract

Communicating technical topics like science can pose some issues, especially when being

written for an audience outside of the scientific community; however, there are plenty of ways to

improve scientific writing that will result in higher comprehension. This literature review brings

together six different authors and their works that cover important facets of writing which help

create greater understanding in a public audience. These authors cover topics such as font choice,

outlining writing, the use of language, and writing style. As writers implement advice from the

literature covered here, technical writing can become more inviting to the reader and aid them in

grasping complex subjects. Using the methods provided by these authors could influence the way

public audiences interact with science and create a higher level of understanding outside

exclusive scientific groups.

Keywords: Technical writing, scientific communication, literature review, writing,

typeface, outline, jargon, comprehension

 3

Writing Science for Comprehension: A Literature Review

Effective communication is an integral part of the scientific process. However, useful

resources on the subject can be hard to find and tend to cover niche topics. In this literature

review, I have compiled useful articles, papers, and books that contain valuable information

pertaining to writing for reader comprehension with a focus on communicating science to a

public audience. Within the literature, three major themes emerged: structure and composition,

language and word choice, and writing science as a story. These three themes have multiple

elements that can be implemented together to create writing that is easier for audiences to

interpret and comprehend.

The section on structure and composition will give important insight to shaping technical

writing. This includes information on outlines, headers, and fonts, and how they can affect the

reading experience.

The topic of word choice is emphasized by Hirst (2003, 2013), Van Woerkum (2007),

and Baron (2010), which shows how influential the language of a paper can be. Most authors

have a strong focus on how to correctly utilize technical jargon, while others touch on the use of

language to make writing more inviting and comprehensible.

Lastly, writing science as a story is a theme that pertains to how science can be written in

a more exciting way that engages the audience better than a classic scientific paper.

Structure and Composition

Outlines

The structure and composition of a piece should be kept in mind from the very beginning

of the writing process depending on how the author wants to display information and how that
 4

information should be conveyed. At the start of the writing process, it is important to have a

strong idea of what the final piece will look like, and Baker (1994) encourages the use of an

outline to help organize ideas.

As Baker (1994) suggests, the structure of writing helps guide a reader from beginning to

end, and having a clear outline helps the audience receive and store information more efficiently.

Baker endorses creating an outline before writing a paper, as it helps improve the quality of

writing. Creating an outline and applying clear headers can aid readers in creating a mental map

of the paper, and therefor make the information easier to process (Baker, 1994). Baker uses three

quick steps for creating an outline: (1) write a functional title, (2) determine the categories

required for the paper, and (3) organize the selected categories. Baker suggests creating a

working title to focus the information within the writing. In creating categories for longer

documents, Baker suggests splitting up main sections into smaller categories for ease of reading.

According to Baker, “longer documents need more categories because readers comprehend better

if they can read smaller chunks of material rather than one huge mass of information” (1994, p.

3). Lastly, it is important to arrange the categories in a hierarchy that helps support the purpose

of the document by organizing information from least to most specific.

Using an outline does not automatically ensure that the writing will be improved; first,

one must check that the outline makes sense. Baker introduces an important aspect of outlining

that is referred to as the “Structured-Text Evaluation Process” (1994, p. 3). STEP covers the

importance of ordering sections and subsections so that writing has a meaningful organization

and allows writers to double check the quality of their outline before implementing it into their

paper (Baker, 1994). STEP has five parts that Baker defines for ensuring the quality of an

outline. First there is the “inclusion test” that makes sure all subjects are present. Second is the
 5

“exclusion test,” which reminds the writer to check for topics that do not belong within the text.

The third test checks that all categories are within a reasonable hierarchy, and any subcategories

are placed in an appropriate sequence. The fourth test looks at the sequence of categories and

explains different structures that create logical order. Lastly there is the “language test,” that

checks to make sure the wording within the headers of sections is parallel to one another (Baker,

1994). Once STEP has been completed, Baker has further information for how to aid readers in

the body of the text.

Within the actual writing, there should be frequent reminders of the outline by using

headings and other devices (Baker, 1994). Using clues within writing to reveal the structure can

help aid reader comprehension and retention. Baker suggests using clear, complete headings;

typography formatting to show heading hierarchy; addressing the structure of the paper early in

the writing; frequent reminders of the structure; and paragraphs that only cover one developed

topic. Even small sentences that serve as transitions between topics can serve the reader by

indicating how the information ties together (Baker, 1994). By using a mix of these cohesion

techniques readers will be able to recognize the structure and understand the material with ease.

Typefaces

While outside the realm of structure and often overlooked, an important aspect of

composing a piece of writing is finding an appropriate font. MacKiewicz (2004) introduces how

different fonts can affect reader comprehension, and the author gives insight to the nuances of

choosing a suitable typeface. Fonts carry different personalities and can convey feelings and

moods based on the styles that are chosen (MacKiewicz, 2004). While typefaces could seem

inconsequential, MacKiewicz points out that some fonts carry history with them and may want to

be avoided. Examples of this include Fette Fraktur and Helvetica, used for Nazi propaganda and
 6

IRS tax forms respectively; as such, these should be avoided due to the negative emotions tied

with them (MacKiewicz, 2004).

It is also important to think of the readability of a font; if words are hard to make out,

then the font should be avoided—especially for long passages. MacKiewicz (2004) shares a

helpful pointer that ties the use of fonts into Baker’s information on outlines. MacKiewicz

explains that serif typefaces are commonly used for long stretches of body text, as they help lead

the reader’s eye onward for extended amounts of time, while the plain sans-serif fonts are saved

for headings, diagrams, or tables (2004). Combining this information with Baker’s outline format

would help create a paper that easily conveys a tactful structure and keeps writing organized and

readable.

Language and Word Choice

An aspect of science writing that Hirst (2003, 2013), Van Woerkum (2007), and Baron

(2010) agree on is the use of technical language. Hirst argues that while technical language can

be useful for professionals in the field, it must be adapted for the intended audience (2003). Van

Woerkum tends to agree, describing technical writing as a “translation task” (2007, p. 183).

When writing science to communicate with the general public, the average reader may not have

background knowledge on the subject and likely requires a simpler version without heavy use of

technical language (Baron, 2010).

Furthermore, the excessive use of jargon could come off as pretentious or burdensome

(Hirst, 2013). Hirst suggests that the reduction of technical language diminishes the mental labor

of reading and will help create a more human voice. The idea of finding a more engaging writing

voice is also discussed by Van Woerkum (2007). This author encourages reading writing aloud

to help understand how the audience will interpret it. Van Woerkum comments that writers
 7

should take the reader’s orality into account. When thinking of an audience, make note of words

that could be outside their common vocabulary, what previous knowledge they might have, and

what reader’s interests are. When a reader has access to writing with their active vocabulary,

they can process it faster and more effectively (Van Woerkum, 2007).

Limiting the use of jargon does not only help readers decode the writing, but also helps

them relate writing to a “we-group” rather than a “they-group.” Writing from a more personal

perspective often creates a more positive response and will be perceived as more relevant and

understandable (Van Woerkum, 2007). The consensus is to keep the reader in mind and opt out

of using language that could be confusing to the audience, as this will help make the writing

easier to understand, and more inviting.

Writing Science as a Story

One topic that branched away from the other themes but was mentioned by two different

authors was the idea of finding a story within science. Schimel (2012) suggests that finding a

story within science could create a greater connection with readers. Schimel makes it clear why

communicating science matters, for if it cannot be conveyed effectively, science will be

“ignored, misunderstood, or misrepresented in the public arena and in policy decisions” (2012, p.

10). Writing about science in a format that grabs readers attention can create higher public

interest in the topic (Baron, 2010).

While Schimel’s (2012) writing talks more about the idea of needing a story, there are

also some small bits of advice that could help scientists find the story within their work. Schimel

suggests that lead characters can be found from the questions and issues covered in the study,

and the data become the supporting actors. Schimel provides several exercises to aid with the
 8

discovery of the story such as analyzing published papers and writing a short article on one’s

own work (2012).

Baron (2010) delves further into the methods of how to create a science story worth

reading. Baron brings forward the perspective of journalists in writing science, and how applying

the mindset of a journalist could help create technical writing that is more intriguing to the public

(2010). Journalists often begin their writing with a punchy lead before going on to explain how

the information can be applied, which catches readers attention. Baron also suggests that

understanding journalism practices could help ease tension between scientists and public

communicators. According to Baron, a science story should include one or more of the following

to be successful: novelty, passion, mystery, adventure, overturning conventional wisdom,

conflict, or a wow factor (2010). Within the text, Baron breaks down these facets to explain why

they matter and how they affect audience interest.

Beyond numbers and methods, people are interested in why the science matters (Baron,

2010). This ties into what Van Woerkum (2007) suggests about finding elements of the reader’s

interest. Van Woerkum says that writing “must fit in with existing manifest interests (or raise

latent interests)” as it will heighten reader engagement (2007, p. 187). Baron suggests the use of

a “message box” which breaks down a complicated subject into five sections: the issue, the

solution, the benefit, the problem, and why it matters (2010). Van Woerkum touches on this as

well, stating that contextualizing the topic and words can hold reader’s attention, else they may

feel lost or out of place (2007). Together, Schimel (2012), Baron (2010), and Van Woerkum

(2007) conclude that effective writing must be understandable, memorable, and relevant.

Conclusion
 9

Clear, interesting, and comprehensible writing is extremely important when it comes to

communicating technical topics such as science. While applicable literature on the topic can be

difficult to find and parse through for valuable information, there are resources available that

inform writers how to make their writing more effective. Within available literature, points arose

around the topic of improving scientific writing that ranged from typeface to writing style.

Baker (1994) suggested the use of an outline for aiding in reader’s retention. MacKiewicz

(2004) wrote on the importance of choosing a suitable typeface that imparts the nature of a

project to a reader. Hirst (2003, 2013) and Van Woerkum (2007) both touched on how to be

more inclusive with writing by taking out excessive jargon and applying the lens of a reader

while you write. And lastly, Baron (2010) and Schimel (2012) created comprehensive guides to

rethinking how we write science to make it more intuitive to a public audience. However,

Baron’s book covered many of these topics, not just writing science as a story; this includes

insight on word choice within technical writing, and new ways to structure scientific literature.

These topics can be brought together by scientific writers to enhance the way the world

converses, and aid in the comprehension of difficult topics. By broadening the understanding of

how a public audience interacts with writing, a better communication system can be born that

brings to light the importance of science, why it matters to the public, and how we can exact

change from research. Hopefully, there will soon be a surge within scientific communication that

helps involve the public in worldwide change and reinvigorates people’s interest in scientific

research.
 10

References

Baker, W. (1994). How to produce and communicate structured text. Technical

Communication, 41(3), 456-466. Retrieved February 19, 2021, from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/43088473

Baron, N. (2010). Escape from the ivory tower: A guide to making your science matter. Island

Press.

Hirst, R. (2003). Scientific jargon, good and bad. Journal of Technical Writing and

Communication, 33(3), 201–229. https://doi.org/10.2190/J8JJ-4YD0-4R00-G5N0

Hirst, R. (2013). Improving scientific voice in the science communication center at UT

Knoxville. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 43(4), 425–435.

https://doi.org/10.2190/TW.43.4.e

MacKiewicz, J. (2004). What technical writing students should know about typeface

personality. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 34(1) 113–131.

https://doi.org/10.2190/NMDQ-XBVH-Q79J-M749

Schimel, J. (2012). Writing science: How to write papers that get cited and proposals that get

funded. (pp. 3–15). Oxford University Press.

Van Woerkum, C. M. J. (2007). Orality and the process of writing. Journal of Technical Writing

and Communication, 37(2), 183–201. https://doi.org/10.2190/J181-TW15-7215-6271