Full report

Original page 1

NASA Technical Memorandum t09164 . (NASA-TM-I09164) NASA/OOD AEROSPACE KNOWLEDGE DIFFUSION RESEARCH PROJECT. REPORT 29: A COMPARISON COMMUNICATIONS OF THE TECHNICAL PRACTICES OF JAPANESE AND US AEROSPACE ENGINEERS SCIENTISTS (NASA. Lang]ey G3/82 0038870 AND Research Center) 54 p i_iiiii_i_iiiiiiiiiiii

Original page 2

INTRODUCTION Rapidly changing patterns of international cooperation and collaboration and revolutionary technological and managerial changes are combining to influence and transform the communication of technical information in the workplace. To contribute to our understanding of workplace culture, organization, and communications exploratory study was conducted that investigated at the national and international levels, an the technical communications practices of aerospace engineers and scientists in Japan and in the United States (U.S.). Previous work includes exploratory studies of the technical communications practices of aerospace engineers and scientists in Israel [1], selected Western European countries [2], Russia [3], and the Netherlands [4]. The data reported herein were collected through self-administered (self-reported) questionnaires undertaken as a Phase 4 activity of the NASA/DoDAerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. The Japanese/U.S. study included the following objectives: 1. To solicit the opinions of aerospace engineers and scientists regarding the importance of technical communications to their profession, 2. To determine the use and production of technical communications by aerospace engineers and scientists, 3. To seek their views about the appropriate content of an undergraduate course in technical communications, 4. To determine their use of libraries and technical information centers, 5. To determine their use and the importance of computer and information technology to them, 6. To determine their use of electronic networks, and 7. To determine their language (ability to read and speak) skills and their use of foreign and domestically produced technical reports.

Original page 3

BACKGROUND Aerospace engineering exhibits particular characteristics which make it an excellent platform for studying technical communications in the international workplace. The aerospace industry is becoming more international in scope and increasingly collaborative in nature, thus creating a multinational manufacturing environment. International industrial alliances will result in a more rapid diffusion of technology in order to enhance innovation and increase productivity. Aerospace producers will feel growing pressure to push forward with new technological developments, to maximize the inclusion of those developments into the research and development (R&D) process, and to maintain and improve the professional competency of aerospace engineers and scientists. Meeting these objectives at a reasonable cost depends on a variety of factors, but largely on the ability of aerospace engineers and scientists to acquire, process, and communicate scientific and technical information (STI). Although studies indicate that access to STI can increase productivity and innovation and help engineers and scientists maintain and improve their professional skills, these same studies demonstrate that little is known about how aerospace engineers and scientists find and use STI or how aerospace knowledge is diffused. To learn more about this process, the Indiana University Center for Survey researchers at the NASA Langley Research Center, Research, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and institutions in selected countries are studying aerospace knowledge diffusion. These studies comprise the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. The project fact sheet is Appendix A. Phase 1 of the project investigates engineers and scientists and places particular the information-seeking behavior of U.S. aerospace emphasis on their use of federally funded aerospace

Original page 4

R&D and U.S. government technical reports. Phase 2 examines the industry-government interface and emphasizes the role of information intermediaries in the aerospace knowledge diffusion process. Phase 3 concerns the academic-government interface and focuses on the relationships between and among the information intermediary, faculty, and students. Phase 4 explores patterns of technical communications among non-U.S, aerospace engineers and scientists in selected countries [5]. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY Data were collected through self-administered (self-reported) questionnaires. The instrument used to collect the data had been used previously in several Western European countries and in the Netherlands and Russia in slightly adapted form. The Japanese-language version of the instrument is Appendix B. English-language questionnaires were distributed to 558 aerospace engineers and scientists at the NASA Ames and NASA Langley Research Centers in the U.S., and 340 were received by the established cut-off date for a completion rate of 61%. A follow-up survey containing additional questions about technical communications training, technical report use, and language skills was distributed to the U.S. respondents. Two hundred eighty-seven of the 340 U.S. respondents completed and returned the survey for an adjusted rate of 48%. The U.S. survey was conducted during July and August of 1992 with a follow-up in December 1992. Japanese-language questionnaires were sent to 13 Japanese aerospace engineers and scientists. We sent multiple questionnaires to each member of the sample and asked that each recipient distribute the survey to colleagues. We received 94 of the 110 surveys by the established cut-off date. The Japanese survey was conducted during March and June of 1994. 3

Original page 5

PRESENTATION OF THE DATA This report presents selected results from the Japanese and U.S. studies, with the Japanese responses presented first, followed by the U.S. responses. Demographic data are presented first, followed by data dealing with language proficiency, the importance of technical communications, workplace use and production of technical communications, appropriate course content for an undergraduate course in technical communications, use of libraries and technical information centers, use of computer and information technology, use of electronic networks, and use of foreign and domestically produced technical reports. Demograohic Information About the Survey Respondents Survey respondents were asked to provide information regarding their professional duties, years of professional work experience, educational preparation, current professional duties, and gender. These demographic findings appear in table 1. A comparison of the two groups reveals more differences than similarities. The two groups differ significantly in terms of organizational affiliation, gender, and current professional duties; they are similar in years of professional work experience, academic preparation, and professional society membership. The following "composite" participant profiles were based on the demographic data. The Japanese survey participant works as a researcher (33%), has a master's degree (45%), was trained as an engineer (95%) and currently works as an engineer (100%), has as an average of 15 years professional work experience, (89%). The U.S. survey participant works and is a member of a professional/technical society as a researcher (82%), has a master's degree (46%), was trained as an engineer (80%), currently works as an engineer (69%), has an average of 17 years of professional work experience, and belongs to a professional/technical society (78%).

Original page 6

Table 1. Demographic Findings ii/ii__ '!iiii,i iiii!ii!_i__i/ill'ill!i:i ;ii/i iiiiiiiii: Demographics Professional Duties Design/Development Administration/Management Research Service/Maintenance Teaching/Academic Organizational Affiliation Academic Government Industrial Professional Work Experience 1 - 5 years 6 - 10 years 11 - 20 years 21 - 40 years 41 or more years Japan U.S. Mean 15 17 Median 12 14 Education Doctorate Master's Degree Bachelor's Degree Educational Preparation Engineer Scientist Mathematician Computer Science Current Duties Engineer Scientist Other Member of A Professional/ Technical Society Gender Female Male •5 Japan U.S. % (n) 31 (29) 6 (21) 4 (4) 11 07) 33 (31) 82 (279) 0 (0) 1 (3) 32 (30) 0 (0) 46 (43) 0 (0) 45 (42) 100 (340) 9 (9) 0 (0) i6 (16) 15 (52) 26 (24) 22 (74) 32 (30) 25 (95) 26 (24) 34 (115) 0 (o) 1 (4) 32 (39) 27 (91) 45 (33) 46 (158) 23 (22) 27 (91) 95 (89) 80 (273) 5 (5) 17 (58) 0 (0) 2 (7) 0 (0) 1 (2) 100 (94) 69 (234) 0 (0) 27 (92) 0 (0) 4 (14) 89 (84) 78 (265) 1 (1) 85 (290) 99 (93) 15 (50)

Original page 7

Surveyrespondentswerealsoaskedto provide information about their foreign language skills, specifically their reading and speaking competencies in the languages used by major international aerospace producers. These findings appear in table 2. The Japanese respondents read and speak English. Both Japanese and U.S. respondents reported limited fluency in foreign languages. The mean (X) ability to read and speak French and German was the same for both groups. The mean (X) ability to read Russian, although low for both groups, was higher for the U.S. group, while the mean (X) ability to speak Russian was slightly higher for the Japanese group. Table 2. Foreign Language Fluency Among Japanese and U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists Japan n = 94 Language Read % Speak % English 100 99 French 30 22 German 71 40 Japanese 100 b 100 b Russian 18 10 U.S. n = 340 Ability a Read% Speak% Ability a 3.8 3.0 100 b 100 b 1.7 1.6 32 22 1.7 1.6 • 1.7 1.6 21 15 1.7 1.6 3 5 1.7 1.7 1.3 1.6 6 5 1.6 1.5 aA 1 tO 5 scale was used to measure ability with "1" being passably and "5" being fluently; hence, the higher the average (mean) the greater the ability of survey respondents to speak/read the language. b This is the native language for these respondents. Importance of and Time Spent on Technical Communications Approximately 94.7% of the Japanese respondents and 90.6% of the U.S. respondents indicated that the ability to communicate technical information effectively is important. (Importance was measured on a 5-point scale with I = very unimportant and 5 = very important; 6

Original page 8

percentages = combined "4" and "5" responses.) The Japanese aerospace engineers and scientists spent an average of 15.89 hours per week communicating technical information to others; U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists spent an average of 16.98 hours per week. Japanese aerospace engineers and scientists spent an average of 10.07 hours per week, and U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists spent an average of 13.97 hours per week working with communications received from others (table 3). Table 3. Mean (Median) Number of Hours Spent Each Week By Japanese and U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists Communication Activity Communication With Others Working with Communications Received From Others Approximately 60% of the Japanese Communicating Technical Information Japan U.S. 15.89 (14.00) 16.98 (15.00) hours/week hours/week 10.07 (10.00) 13.97 (12.00) hours/week hours/week respondents and 70% of the U.S. respondents indicated that the amount of time they spent communicating technical information had increased over the past 5 years (table 4). Twenty-five percent of the Japanese respondents and 24% of the U.S. respondents indicated that the amount of time they spent communicating technical information had stayed the same over the past 5 years. Only 15% of the Japanese respondents and 6% of the U.S. respondents indicated that the amount of time they spent communicating technical information had decreased over the past 5 years.

Original page 9

Table4. Changesin the Past 5 Years in the Amount of Time Spent Communicating Technical Information by Japan and U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists Change % Increased 60 Stayed The Same 25 Decreased 15 Japan U.S° (n) % (n) (56) 70 (239) (24) 24 (80) (14) 6 (21) As they have advanced professionally, 35% of the Japanese respondents have increased the amount of time they spend communicating technical information. Conversely, 65% of the U.S. respondents indicated that, as they have advanced professionally, they have increased the amount of time they spend communicating Table 5. Changes in the Amount technical information (table 5). of Time Spent Communicating Technical Information as a Part of Professional Advancement by Japanese and U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists Change % Increased 35 Stayed The Same 34 Decreased 31 Japan W°S. % (n) (33) 65 (221) (32) 26 (87) (29) 9 (32) The Production and Use of Technical Communications The process of collaborative writing was examined as part of this study. Survey participants were asked whether they wrote alone or as part of a group (table 6). Approximately 21% of the Japanese respondents and 15% of the U.S. respondents write alone. Although a higher percentage of the U.S. respondents than the Japanese respondents writes with a group of

Original page 10

2 to 5 people or with a group of 5 or more people, writing appears to be a collaborative process for both groups. Table 6. Collaborative Writing Practices of Japanese and U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists Collaborative Practices I Write Alone I Write With One Other Person I Write With A Group Of Two To Five People I Write With A Group Five Or More People * Percentages do not total 100 Japanese and U.S. aerospace engineers of group participation on writing productivity and 32% of the U.S. respondents indicated Japan %* (n) X% (n) 70.1 21 (20) 61.1 15 (50) 12.8 57 (54) 20.7 72 (246) 14.9 53 (50) 15.6 61 (208) 2.2 11 (10) 2.1 14 (47) and scientists were asked to assess the influence (table 7). Only 35% of the Japanese respondents that group writing is more productive than writing alone. Eighteen percent of the Japanese respondents and 32% of the U.S. respondents found that group writing is about as productive as writing alone, and 26% of the Japanese respondents and 20% of the U.S. respondents found that writing in a group is less productive than writing alone. Table 7. Influence of Group Participation on Writing Productivity For Japanese and U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists Group Participation A Group Is More Productive Than Writing Writing Alone 18 (17) 32 (107) A Group Is About As Productive As A Group Is Less Productive Than Writing I Only Write Alone Japan U.S° % (n) % (n) Alone 35 (33) 32 (110) Alone 26 (24) 20 (68) 21 (20) 15 (5o) 9

Original page 11

Of the respondentswho did not write alone,48% of the Japanesegroup and47% of the U.S.groupworked with the samegroupwhenproducingwritten technicalcommunications(table 8). The averagenumberof peoplein the Japanesegroup was X = 5.11 andthe averagenumber of people in the U.S. group was X = 3.21. Thirty-one percentof the Japaneserespondents worked in an average(mean)numberof 3.10 groups,eachgroup containingan averageof 3.14 people. Forty percentof the U.S. respondentsworked in an average(mean)numberof 2.82 groups,eachgroup containingan average(mean)of 3.03 people. Table 8. Productionof Written TechnicalCommunications as a Functionof Numberof Groupsand GroupSizeFor Japanand U.S. AerospaceEngineersandScientists Groupsand GroupSize Worked With SameGroup Yes No I Only write Alone Number of People in Group Mean Median Number of Groups Mean Median Number of People in Each Group Mean Median Japan U.S. % (n) % (n) 48 (4)5 47 ' (161) 31 (29) 38 (129) 21 (20) 15 ' (50) 5.11 (45) 3.21 (161) 3.00 (45) 3.00 (161) 3.10 (29) 2.82 (129) 3.00 (29) 3,00 (129) 3.14 (29) 3.03 (129) 3.00 (29) 3.00 (129) From a prepared list, both groups were asked to indicate the number of times they had prepared, either alone or as a member of a group, specific technical information products. As 10

Original page 12

individual authors, the Japanese respondents most frequently prepared letters, trade/promotional literature, technical proposals, drawings/specifications, and in-house technical reports (table 9). As part of a working group, these Japanese aerospace engineers and scientists most frequently prepared in-house technical reports, drawings/specifications, letters, technical proposals, and technical manuals. For these products, the mean number of persons per group ranged from a high of X = 7.00 to a low of X = 2.20. Table 9. Mean (Median) Number of Technical Information Products Produced in the Past 6 Months by Japanese Aerospace Engineers and Scientists Average Number of Persons Per Alone In a Group Group Information Product Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Abstracts Journal Articles Conference/Meeting Papers 3.37 (2.00) 2.14 (1.00) 2.79 (2.50) 1.62 (1.00) 2.62 (2.00) 2.62 (2.00) 2.21 (2.00) 3.53 (1.50) 2.66 (2.00) Trade/Promotional Literature 10.60 (10.00) 2.88 (2.50) 2.75!(2.50) Drawings/Specifications Audio/Visual Materials 8.22 (4.00) 8.62 (3.00) 3.28 (3.00) 2.33 (1.00) 2.00 ** 3.00 ** Letters 17.92 (10.00) Memoranda Technical Proposals Technical Manuals Computer Program Documentation AGARD Technical Reports In-house Technical Reports Technical Talks/Presentations ** Median cannot be calculated. As individual authors, U.S. respondents drawings/specifications, audio/visual materials, 11 5.63 (3.00) 3.00 (2.50) 6.00 (4.00) 2.00 (2.00) 2.50 (2.50) 9.36 (3.00) 4.15 (2.00) 5.20 (3.00) 4.00 (2.00) 4.00 (2.00) 3.67 (3.00) 3.75 (2.00) 3.80 (5.00) 2.20 (2.00) 5.50 (5.50) 2.00 ** 7.00 ** 6.05 (2.00) 9.86 (3.00) 3.72 (3.00) 1.69 (1.00) 3.80 (2.00) 3.15 (3.00) most frequently prepared memoranda, letters, and technical talks/presentations (table 10). As

Original page 13

a group,U.S. aerospaceengineersandscientistsmostfrequently preparedaudio/visualmaterials, letters,memoranda,drawings/specifications,andtechnicaltalks/presentations.Fortheseproducts, the meannumberof personsper group rangedfrom a high of X = 3.46 to a low of X = 2.50. Table 10. Mean(Median)Numberof TechnicalInformationProducts Producedin the Past6 Monthsby U.S.AerospaceEngineersandScientists Average Number of Persons Per Alone In a Group Group Information Product Mean Median Mean Median Abstracts Journal Articles Conference/Meeting Papers Trade/Promotional Literature Drawings/Specificarlons Audio/Visual Materials Letters Mean Median 1.67 (1.00) 1.81 (1.oo) 2.67 (2.00) 1.33 (1.00) 1.75 (1.oo) 2.74 (2.00) 1.90 (1.00) 1.54 (1.oo) 2.79 (3.00) 2.00 (1.oo) 1.00 (1.oo) 2.50 (2.50) 7.21 (3.00) 3.83 (3.00) 3.02 (2.00) 5.73 (4.00) 5.82 (2.oo) 2.95 (2.00) 9.96 (6.00) 5.95 (3.00) 2.32 (2.00) Memoranda 16.06 (9.00) Technical Proposals 5.14 (3.50) 2.55 (2.00) 2.17 (2.00) 2.64 (1.5o) 2.61 (2.00) Technical Manuals 2.11 (1.oo) (1.oo) 3.11 (3.00) 3.43 (2.00) 2.20 (1.5o) 2.35 (2.00) Computer Program Documentation AGARD Technical Reports 2.34 (2.00) 1.80 (1.00) 2.89 (2.00) In-house Technical Reports 2.11 1.08 (1.00) 1.43 (1.00) 3.43 (3.00) Technical Talks/Presentations 3.54 (2.00) (2.00) 3.46 (3.00) U.S. Government Technical Reports Letters, conference/meeting papers, documentation, and drawings/specifications frequently used by these Japanese aerospace they used 22 letters, 18 conference/meeting 3.07 1.2o (1.oo) 1.57 (1.oo) 2.73 (2.00) trade/promotional literature, computer program were the technical information products most engineers and scientists (table 11). On the average, papers, 15 computer program documentation, 15 trade/promotional literature, 14 drawings/specifications in a 6-month period. Audio/visual 12

Original page 14

material,technicaltalks/presentations,AGARD technicalreports,abstracts,andU.S.government technicalreportswerethe technicalinformationproductsleastfrequentlyusedby theseJapanese aerospaceengineersandscientistsduring a 6-monthperiod. Memoranda,letters,abstracts,journal articles,and conference/meetingpaperswere the technicalinformation productsmostfrequentlyusedby U.S. aerospaceengineersandscientists. On the average,they used25 memoranda,17 letters,16 abstracts,16journal articles,and 15 drawings/specificationsduring a 6-monthperiod. Agard,technicalproposals,in-housetechnical reports,technicalmanuals,andU.S.governmenttechnicalreportswerethetechnicalinformation productsleast frequently used by U.S. aerospaceengineersand scientistsduring a 6-month period. Table 11. Mean (Median) Numberof TechnicalInformationProducts Usedin the Past6 Monthsby Japaneseand U.S. AerospaceEngineersandScientists Information Product Abstracts Journal Articles Conference/Meeting Papers Trade/Promotional Literature Drawings/Specifications Audio/Visual Materials Letters Memoranda Technical Proposals Technical Manuals Computer Program Documentation AGARD Technical Reports In-house Technical Reports Technical Talks/Presentations U.S. Government Technical Reports 13 Japan U.S. Mean Median Mean Median 7.77 (5.00) 16.43 (lO.OO) 10.72 (5.00) 16.55 (lO.OO) 17.66 (lO.OO) 12.00 (lO.OO) 15.08 (lO.OO) 11.78 (6.00) 13.71 (5.00) 15.48 (5.00) 3.50 (3.00) 14.60 (5.00) 22.28 (lO.OO) 17.28 (9.00) 10.38 (5.00) 25.45 (lO.OO) 10.28 (5.00) 5.89 (2.00) 11.63 (5.00) 7.66 (S.O0) 14.84 (lO.OO) 14.57 (S.O0) 4.67 (3.00) 3.31 (3.oo) 13.68 (5.00) 6.93 (5.oo) 3.87 (3.00) 10.25 (6.00) 9.70 (5.00) 8.05 (5.00)

Original page 15

The types of technical information engineers and scientists included basic most frequently produced by the Japanese aerospace scientific and technical information, experimental techniques, product and performance characteristics, government rules and regulations, and computer programs (table 12). The types of technical information least frequently produced by these Japanese aerospace engineers and scientists included patents and inventions, in-house technical data, codes of standards and practices, economic information, and technical specifications. Basic scientific and technical information, product and performance characteristics, experimental techniques, computer programs, and government rules and regulations were the kinds of technical information most frequently produced by U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists. In-house technical data, codes of standards and practices, patents and inventions, economic information, and technical specifications were the kinds of technical information least frequently produced by U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists. Table 12. Types of Information Produced by Japanese and U.S. Aerospace In = 94; 340] Information Type Basic Scientific And Technical Information Experimental Techniques Codes Of Standards And Practices Computer Programs In-house Technical Data Product and Performance Characteristics Technical Specifications Patents And Inventions Government Rules And Regulations Economic Information Engineers and Scientists Japan U.S° % % 70 92 68 65 17 9 56 61 2 4 63 86 42 32 1 9 57 45 37 25 14

Original page 16

The types of technical information most frequently used by the Japanese aerospace engineers and scientists included basic scientific and technical information, experimental techniques, computer programs, government rules and regulations, and product and performance characteristics (table 13). The types of technical information least frequently used by these Japanese aerospace engineers and scientists included patents and inventions, in-house technical data, codes of standards and practices, economic information, and technical specifications. Basic scientific and technical information, product and performance characteristics, computer programs, experimental techniques, and government rules and regulations were the types of technical information most frequently used by U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists. Economic information, patents and inventions, codes of standards and practices, in-house technical data, and technical specifications were the types of technical information least frequently used by the U.S. survey participants. Table 13. Types of Information Used by Japanese and U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists [n = 94; 340] Information Type Basic Scientific And Technical Information Experimental Techniques Codes Of Standards And Practices Computer Programs In-house Technical Data Product And Performance Characteristics Technical Specifications Patents And Inventions Government Rules And Regulations Economic Information Japan O°S. % % 90 97 72 82 49 36 69 89 33 52 68 90 67 63 15 19 69 69 31 12 15

Original page 17

Content for an Undergraduate Course in Technical Communications Japanese and U.S. survey participants were asked their opinions regarding an undergraduate course in technical communications for aerospace majors. Approximately 26% of the Japanese respondents and 71% of the U.S. respondents indicated that they had taken a course(s) in technical communications/writing. (Approximately 74% of the Japanese respondents and 29% of the U.S. respondents indicated they had not taken a course in technical communications/writing.) Approximately 2% of the Japanese participants had taken a course(s) as undergraduates, approximately 19% had taken a course(s) after graduation, and about 5% had taken a course(s) both as undergraduates and after graduation. Approximately 20% of the U.S. respondents had taken a course(s) as undergraduates, approximately 19% had taken a course(s) after graduation, and 32% had taken a course(s) both as undergraduates and after graduation. Of the 26% (24 respondents) of the Japanese engineers and scientists who had taken coursework in technical communications/writing, all of them (24 respondents) indicated that doing so had helped them to communicate technical information. Of the 71% (241 respondents) of the U.S. engineers and scientists who had taken a course(s) in technical communications/writing, about 69% (233 respondents) indicated that doing so had helped them to communicate technical information. Japanese and U.S. participants were asked their opinion regarding the desirability of undergraduate aerospace majors taking a course in technical communications. Approximately 71% of the Japanese respondents and 96% of the U.S. participants indicated that aerospace majors should take such a course. Approximately 44% of the Japanese participants and about 90% of the U.S. participants indicated that the course should be taken for credit (table 14). 16

Original page 18

Table 14. Opinions Regarding an Undergraduate Course in Technical Communications for Aerospace Majors Opinions Taken For Credit Not Taken For Credit Don't Know Should Not Have To Take Course In Technical Communications Japan U.S. % (n) % (n) 44 (41) 90 (259) 15 (14) 4 (11) 13 (12) 2 (6) 28 (27) 4 (11) The Japanese and U.S. participants were asked if undergraduate aerospace engineering and science majors should take a course in technical communications and, if so, how the course should be offered. About 71% (67 respondents) of the Japanese participants and 96% (276 respondents) of the U.S. participants indicated "yes," that students should take a course in technical communications. About 19% of the Japanese respondents indicated that the course should be taken as part of a "required" course, about 43% thought the course should be taken as part of an "elective" course, none thought it should be taken as a "separate" course, about 10% did not have an opinion, but only 29% of the Japanese respondents indicated that undergraduate aerospace engineering and science students should not have to take a course in technical communications/writing. About 82% of the U.S. respondents indicated that the course should be taken as part of a "required" course, about 12% thought the course should be taken as part of an "elective" course, none thought it should be taken as a "separate" course, about 2% did not have an opinion, but only 4% of the U.S. respondents indicated that undergraduate aerospace engineering and science students should not have to take a course in technical communications/writing. A simple majority of both the U.S. respondents (51%) indicated that 17

Original page 19

Original page 20

The Japaneseand U.S. respondentsalso chosefrom a list of specific topics appropriate mechanics to be included in an undergraduate majors. Their responses appear in table 16. technical communications course for aerospace Both groups of respondents placed references, symbols, punctuation, and abbreviations in the top five list for inclusion, although not in the same order of appearance. Japanese respondents included acronyms to complete their top five list, and U.S. respondents included spelling to complete their list. Table 16. Recommended Mechanics for an Undergraduate Technical Communications Mechanics % Abbreviations 66 Acronyms 64 Capitalization 50 Numbers 51 Punctuation 53 References 68 Spelling 44 Symbols 66 Given a list of 13 items, the Japanese appropriate on-the-job communications to communications course. Their responses appear presentations, use of information sources, conference/meeting papers among their top Course for Aerospace Majors Japan U.S, (n) % (n) (62) 55 (187) (60) 52 (176) (47) 54 (182) (48) 48 (163) (50) 74 (251) (64) 80 (272) (41) 55 (187) (62) 64 (218) and U.S. respondents were next asked to select be included in an undergraduate technical in table 17. Both groups included oral technical conference/meeting papers, technical reports, choices, although not in the same order of appearance. It is interesting to note that more similarities than differences exist among their 19

Original page 21

choicesfor the types of written communications that students should learn to produce. These choices may reflect information acquisition and use patterns among aerospace professionals. Table 17. Recommended On-the-Job Communications To Be Taught in an Undergraduate Technical Communications Course for Aerospace Majors On-the-Job Communications Abstracts Letters Memoranda Technical Instructions Journal Articles Conference/Meeting Papers Literature Reviews Technical Manuals Newsletter/Newspaper Articles Oral Technical Presentations Technical Specifications Technical Reports Use Of Information Sources In an attempt to validate the findings, with the top five (on average) communications Japan O.S. % (n) % (n) 48 (45) 85 (289) 27 (25) 61 (208) 25 (23) 60 (204) 59 (55) 62 (212) 48 (48) 64 (217) 78 (73) 67 (228) 21 (20) 5O (169) 56 (53) 43 (147) 9 (8) 15 (50) 72 (68) 92 (311) 60 (56) 45 (152) 70 (66) 81 (274) 60 (56) 72 (244) the top 10 on-the-job communications were paired "produced" and "used" by the respondents (table 18). The on-the-job communications recommended by the Japanese respondents do not appear to closely reflect the types of communications they produce and use, nor do the responses of the U.S. participants appear to reflect the types of communications they produce and use. It is interesting to note that although neither group places technical reports in the top five category of communications produced or used, both groups recommended that technical report writing be taught. 2O

Original page 22

Table 18. Comparisonof JapaneseandU.S. Responses ConcerningTechnicalInformationProducts Produced,Used,andRecommended Japan Produced Letters Trade/PromotionalLiterature Drawings/Specifications TechnicalProposals In-houseTechnical Reports Used Letters ConferenceMeeting Papers Trade/PromotionalLiterature ComputerProgram Documentation Drawings/Specifications Recommended Conference/Meeting Papers Oral Technical Presentations Technical Reports Technical Specifications* Use Of Information Sources* Technical Instructions Technical Manuals Abstracts Journal Articles* Letters* * indicates a tie Use of Libraries and Technical Information U.S. Produced Memoranda Letters Drawings/Specifications Audio/Visual Materials Technical Talks/Presentations Used Memoranda Letters Journal Articles Abstracts Drawings/Specifications Recommended Oral Technical Presentations Abstracts* Technical Reports* Use of Information Sources Conference/Meeting Papers Journal Articles Technical Instructions Letters Memoranda Literature Reviews Centers Almost all of the respondents indicated that their organization has a library or technical information center. Unlike the U.S. respondents (9%), about 43% of the Japanese respondents indicated that the library or technical information center was located in the building where they 21

Original page 23

,i i!/('¸ worked. About 55% of the Japanese and 88% of the U.S. respondents indicated that the library !ii:i!!ii:i: _ or technical information center was outside the building in which they worked but was located nearby. For 52% of the Japanese group, the library or technical information center was located 1 kilometer or less from where they worked. !!i_i i_ ' : :ili::i i_i or technical information center was located H .H . , : ?i:ii!iii!_ : For about 81% of the U.S. respondents, the library 1.0 mile or less from where they worked. Respondents were asked to indicate the number of times they had visited their organization's : : : :i!/,_ -i!:i i library or technical information center in the past 6 months (table 19). Overall, the Japanese respondents used their organization's library ...._!: %1 ' : :: : or technical information center more than their U.S. counterparts did. The average use rate for Japanese respondents was X = 20.9 during the past , ii . : i 6 months compared to X = 9.2 for the U.S. respondents. The median 6-month use rates for the two groups were 10.0 and 4.0, respectively. i!i, i _: ' i: , i Table 19. Use of the Organization's Library in Past 6 Months by Japanese and U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists Visits 0 Times : i! :?/ 1- 5 Times i • i i 6- 10 Times 11 - 25 Times 26 - 50 Times 51 Or More Times Does Not Have A Library Mean Median * p < .05. Japan U°S. % (n) % (n) 12 (11) 11 (37) 16 (15) 43 (145) 29 (27) 21 (72) 19 (18) 14 (49) 16 (15) 7 (22) 6 (6) 1 (4) 2 (2) 3 (11) 22

Original page 24

Respondents were also asked to rate the importance of their organization's library or technical information center (table 20). Importance was measured on a 5-point scale with 1 = not at all important and 5 = very important. organization's library or technical information professional duties. About 73% of the Japanese A majority of both groups indicated that their center was important to performing their present aerospace engineers and scientists indicated that their organization's library or technical information center was important or very important to performing their present professional duties. About 44% of the U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists indicated that their organization's library or technical information center was important or very important to performing their present professional duties. Approximately 7% of the Japanese respondents and approximately 13% of the U.S. respondents indicated that their organization's library or technical information present professional duties. center was very unimportant to performing their Table 20. Importance of the Organization's Library to Japanese and U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists Importance Very Important Neither Important Nor Unimportant Very Unimportant Do Not Have A Library Japan O.S. % (n) % (n) 73.4 (45) 44.4 (232) 17.0 (40) 68.2 (53) 7.4 (7) 12.9 (44) 2.1 (2) 3.2 (11) From a list of information sources, survey participants were asked to indicate which ones they routinely used in problem solving (table which they rely greatly, the U.S. aerospace 21). In addition to personal knowledge, upon engineers and scientists in this study display information-seeking behavior patterns similar to those of U.S. engineers in general. 23

Original page 25

Table 21. Information Sources Used by Japanese and U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists in Problem Solving Source Personal Store Of Technical Information Spoke With A Coworker Or People Inside My Organization Spoke With A Colleague Outside Of My Organization Used Literature Resources Found In My Organization's Library Spoke With A Librarian Or Technical Information Specialist The information-seeking behavior In = 94, 340] Japan U.S. % % 97 (91) 99 (337) 94 (88) 99 (338) 81 (76) 94 (318) 72 (68) 91 (310) 5O (47) , 81 (274) of the Japanese respondents did not vary greatly from that of their American counterparts. U.S. participants used their personal stores of technical information, coworkers in the organization, colleagues outside the organization, a librarian or technical information specialist, and literature resources found in the organization's library. Their Japanese counterparts used their personal stores of technical information, coworkers in the organization, colleagues outside the organization, literature resources found in the organization's library, and a librarian or technical information specialist. Use and Importance of Computer and Information Technology Survey participants were asked if they use computer technology to prepare technical information. Ninety-five percent of the Japanese and 99% of the U.S. respondents use computer technology to prepare technical information. About 35% of the Japanese respondents and about 73% of the U.S. respondents "always" use computer technology to prepare technical information. A majority of both groups (87% and 97%) indicated that computer technology had increased their 24

Original page 26

ability to communicate technical information. About 59% of the Japanese respondents and 80% of the U.S. respondents stated that computer technology had increased their ability to communicate technical information "a lot". From a prepared list, survey respondents were asked to indicate which computer software they used to prepare written technical information (table 22). Word processing software was used most frequently by both groups. With the exception of business graphics, the U.S. respondents made slightly greater use of computer software than did their Japanese counterparts. for preparing written technical communications Table 22. Use of Computer Software by Japanese and U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists to Prepare Written Technical Communications Software Word Processing Outliners And Prompters Grammar And Style Checkers Spelling Checkers Thesaurus Business Graphics Scientific Graphics Desktop Publishing Japanese U.S. % (n) % (n) 94 (88) 96 (327) 12 (11) 14 (46) 23 (22) 30 (103) 67 (63) 88 (299) 14 (13) 37 (127) 32 (30) 15 (52) 49 (46) 91 (308) 25 (23) 48 (162) Survey respondents were also given a list of information technologies and asked, "How do you view your use of the following information technologies in communicating technical information?" Their choices included "already "don't use it and doubt if I will". (See table 23.) use it"; don't use it, but may in the future"; and The Japanese and U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists in this study use a variety of information technologies. The percentages of "I already use it" responses ranged from a high 25

Original page 27

of 92% (FAX or TELEX) to a low of 1% (teleconferencing) for the Japanese respondents, Similarly, the U.S. responses ranged from a high of 91% (FAX or TELEX) to a low of 13% (audio tapes and cassettes). Table 23. Use, Nonuse, and Potential Use of Information Technologies by Japanese and U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists Already Use It Future Will Japan U.S. Japan U.S. Japan Information Technologies Audio Tapes and Cassettes Motion Picture Films Videotape Desktop/Electronic Publishing Computer Cassettes/Cartridge Tapes Electronic Mail Electronic Bulletin Boards FAX or TELEX Electronic Data Bases Video Conferencing Teleconferencing Micrographics and Microforms Laser Disk/Video Disk/CD-ROM Electronic Networks Don't Use It, Don't Use It, But May In And Doubt If % % % % 16 13 36 30 48 57 16 17 26 29 58 54 70 63 26 31 4 6 29 60 65 32 6 8 28 44 51 32 21 24 43 83 54 15 3 2 23 36 68 48 9 16 92 91 5 8 3 1 35 56 60 40 5 4 9 37 72 54 19 8 1 53 73 40 26 7 67 23 18 42 15 25 30 19 66 68 4 13 34 76 63 19 3 5 A list, in descending order, follows of the information technologies most frequently used. Japan U.S. FAX or TELEX 92% FAX or TELEX 91% Videotape 70 Electronic Mail 83 Micrographics and Electronic Networks 76 Micro forms 67 Videotape 63 Electronic Mail 43 Desktop Publishing 60 Electronic Data Bases 35 26

Original page 28

A list, in descending order, follows of the information technologies "that are not currently being used but may be used in the future." Japan U.S. Teleconferencing 73% Laser Disk/Video Disk/ Video Conferencing 72 CD-ROM 68% Electronic Bulletin Boards 68 Video Conferencing 56 Laser Disk/Video Disk/ Electronic Bulletin Boards 48 CD-ROM 66 Micrographics and Desktop/Electronic Publishing 65 Microforms 43 Use and Importance of Electronic Networks Teleconferencing 40 Survey participants were asked if they use electronic networks at their workplace in performing their present duties. Approximately 55% of the Japanese respondents use electronic Table 24. Use of Electronic Networks by Japanese and U.S. Aerospace Percentage of a 40-hour Work Week 0 1 - 25 26 - 50 51 - 75 76 - 99 100 Do Not Use Or Have Access To Electronic Networks Mean % Median % * p < .05. Engineers and Scientists Japan UoS. % (n) % (n) 4 (4) 1 (4) 5O (47) 53 080) 1 (1) 17 (57) 0 (0) 8 (26) 0 (0) 9 (30) 0 (0) 1 (5) 45 (42) 12 (38) 27

Original page 29

networks and about 45% either do not use (30%) or do not have access to (15%) electronic i__ii_!.... networks (table 24). About 89% of the U.S. respondents use electronic networks in performing their present duties and about 12% either i:! ¸ • !! electronic networks. i!i/,¸::•!i ii_• do not use (9%) or do not have access to (3%) Respondents were also asked to rate the importance of electronic networks in performing i _ .i !/ ' their present duties (table 25). Importance was measured on a 5-point scale with 1 - not at all Table 25. Importance of Electronic Networks to Japanese and U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists i_/i _ i?¸ i ! _ i _ Importance • ii Very Important Neither Important Nor Unimportant Very Unimportant Do Not Use Or Have Access To Electronic Networks Mean Japan U.S. % (n) % (n) 34.1 (32) 65.0 (221) 18.1 (17) 11.2 (38) 3.2 (3) 7.6 (43) 44.7 (42) 16.2 (38) 3.8 4.1 important and 5 = very important. The U.S. respondents rated electronic networks almost two times as important as their Japanese counterparts did. More Japanese (18.1%) than U.S. respondents (11.2%) indicated that electronic ii!i!i:! _ i iiii_i!i!I Respondents were asked how they accessed il i ! i networks were neither important nor unimportant. electronic networks (table 26): mainframe terminal, personal computers, and workstations. Access via personal computer was most frequently reported. i!iil_?ii,!_ ii!i/i i Respondents using them were asked to indicate the purpose(s) for which they used i_i_il__i:i_i_i electronic networks (table 27). Although not in the same order, both the Japanese and U.S. respondents indicated that electronic file transfer, electronic mail, remote log in for j i/i! i !ii _i _ _ i !illi/ 28

Original page 30

design/computational tools, and connecting greatest use of electronic networks. Also to geographically distant sites represented their noticeable for both groups is the lack of electronic network use for accessing and searching library catalogs, acquiring (ordering) documents from the library, and searching (bibliographic) data bases. Table 26. How Japanese and U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists Access Electronic Networks Access Mainframe Terminal Personal Computer Workstation Do Not Use Or Have Access To Electronic Networks Table 27. Use of Electronic Japan U.S. % (n) % (n) o.o (o) 13.5 (46) 30.9 (29) 49.1 (167) 13.8 (13) 26.2 (89) 44.7 (42) 11.2 (38) Networks for Specific Purposes by Japanese and U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists Purpose Japan U.S. % (n) % (n) Connect To Geographically Distant Sites 29.8 (28) 53.2 (181) Electronic Mail 42.6 (40) 81.5 (277) Electronic Bulletin Boards Or Conferences 16.0 (15) 36.8 (125) Electronic File Transfer Log On To Remote Computers Control Remote Equipment Access/Search The Library's Catalog Order Documents From The Library 43.6 (41) 83.5 (284) 37.2 (35) 63.8 (217) 5.3 (5) 8.8 (30) 21.3 (20) 29.1 (99) 5.3 (5) 9.4 (32) Search Electronic (Bibliographic) Data Bases 22.3 (21) 33.5 (114) Information Search And Data Retrieval 18.1 (17) 35.9 (122) Prepare Scientific And Papers With Colleagues At Geographically Distant Sites 11.7 (11) 32.9 (112) 29

Original page 31

Surveyparticipantswho usedelectronicnetworkswere askedto identify the groups with whom they exchanged messages or files (table 28). The Japanese respondents did not display a consistent pattern of message and file exchange both within and outside of their organization. Overall, the U.S. group exhibited higher percentages of network use for exchanging messages or files than did their Japanese counterparts. pattern of use as did the Japanese respondents. Table 28. Use of Electronic The U.S. respondents displayed a fairly consistent Networks by Japanese and U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists to Exchange Messages or Files Exchange With -- Members Of Own Work Group Others In Your Organization But Not In Your Work Group Others In Your Organization, Not In Your Work Group, At Geographically Distant Site People Outside Your Organization Do Not Use Or Have Access To Electronic Networks Japan U.S. % (n) (n) 31.9 (30) 81.5 (277) 20.2 (19) 77.9 (265) 17.0 (16) 56.8 (193) 25.5 (24) 58.8 (200) 44.7 (42) 11.2 (38) Survey participants were asked about the likelihood of their using electronically formatted information that has traditionally appeared as paper products (table 29). With minor exception, both groups are more likely to use online systems (with full text and graphics) for technical papers and CD-ROM systems (with full text and graphics) for technical papers than they are to use computer program listings or data tables/mathematical presentations. When asked why they would not use these information products in electronic format, the survey respondents gave the following reasons: (1) 25% of the Japanese formats; (2) 21% of the Japanese and 34% and 28% of the U.S. group prefer print (paper) of the U.S. group cited hardware or software 3O

Original page 32

C :¸ /:?Y S i, i _ : ( " incompatibility; and (3) 22% of the Japanese computer access was the reason for non-use. :: i?/!i/ ; :{i:i?•!" :!i_i!})i_iiI !i}: and 14% of the U.S. group indicated that lack of Table 29. Attitudes Toward the Use of Information in Specified Formats by Japanese and U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists :/! i_ i_i? _ ? , x ii_i_ i _ i Type of Information Data Tables/Mathematical Presentations i}i! iiill:!}:/¸ Computer Program Listings :(i/• ii Online System (With Full Text And i _ , Graphics) For Technical Papers i ?/iiil):7 CD-ROM System (With Full Text And Graphics) For Technical Papers Likely Use of Information in Electronic Format a Japan U°S. (n) % (n) 53.2 (50) 57.0 (194) 48.9 (46) 55.6 (189) 73.4 (69) 69.7 (237) 66.0 (62) 57.6 (196) a Likely use was measured on a 1 to 5 point scale with "1" being very unlikely and "5" being very likely. Percentages include combined "4" and "5" responses. i ii i:!il : Use of Foreign and Domestically Produced Technical Reports ii!ilij i_ To better understand the transborder migration of scientific and technical information (STI) via the technical report, survey participants were asked about their use of foreign and domestically i/I produced technical reports (table 30) and the importance of these reports in performing their } professional duties (table 31). Both groups make the greatest use of their own technical reports (87% • ii!i : }! of the Japanese respondents use NAL reports and 97% of the U.S. group use NASA technical reports). In addition to their own reports, the Japanese respondents use NASA (89%); AGARD (60%); German DFVLR, DLR, and MBB (53%); and British ARC and RAE (48%) technical reports. In addition to their own reports, the U.S. group uses AGARD (82%) and British ARC and RAE (54%) technical reports. Neither group makes great use of Indian NAL, Dutch NLR, ESA, 31

Original page 33

Table 30. Use of Foreign and Domestically Produced Technical Reports by Japanese and U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists Country/Organization AGARD British ARC And RAE ESA Indian NAL French ONERA German DFVLR, DLR, And MBB Japanese NAL Russian TsAGI Dutch NLR U.S. NASA or Russian TsAGI technical reports. Survey Japan U,S. % (n) (n) 59.6 (56) 82.2 (236) 47.9 (45) 54.0 (155) 24.5 (23) 5.9 (17) 3.2 (3) 6.3 (18) 39.4 (37) 41.1 (118) 53.2 (50) 36;2 " (104) 87.2 (82) 11.5 (33) 2.i (2) 8,4 (24) 23.4 (22) i9.9 (57) 89.4 (84) 96.5 (277) participants were also asked about their access to these technical reports series. Overall, the U.S. group appears to have better access to foreign technical reports than do their Japanese counterparts. Both groups have about equal access to NASA technical reports. Technical report importance was measured on a 5-point scale with 1 = very unimportant and 5 = very important. Both groups were asked to rate the importance of selected foreign and domestic technical reports in performing their present professional duties. The average (mean) importance ratings are shown in table 31. The Japanese respondents rated the importance of U.S. NASA reports (X = 4.46) followed by AGARD C_ = 3.67), and German DFVLR, DLR, and MBB reports CX = 3.15). The U.S. group rated NASA reports most important (_ = 4.26) followed by AGARD C_ - 3.42) and British ARC and RAE reports (X = 2.89). 32

Original page 34

Table 31. Importance of Foreign and Domestically Produced Technical Reports to Japanese and U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists Country/Organization AGARD British ARC And RAE ESA Indian NAL French ONERA German DFVLR, DLR, And MBB Japanese NAL Russian TsAGI Dutch NLR U.S. NASA Japan O°S. Rating a Rating a X (n) x (n) 3.67 (85) 3.42 (282) 3.12 (85) 2.89 (266) 2.78* (79) 1.44" (242) 2.02* (52) 1.40" (241) 2:97* (79) 2.25* (257) 3.15" (84) 2.20* (247) 3.94" (93) 1.63" (239) 2.23* (43) 1.60" (231) 2.65* (60) 1.81" (246) 4.46 (92) 4.26 (285) a 1 to 5 point scale was used to measure importance with "1" being the lowest possible importance and "5" being the highest possible importance. Hence, the higher the average (mean) the greater *p < .05. DISCUSSION the importance of the report series. Given the limited purposes of this exploratory study, the overall response rates, and the research designs, no claims are made regarding the extent to which the attributes of the respondents in the studies accurately reflect the attributes of the populations being studied. A much more rigorous research design and methodology would be needed before any claims could be made. Nevertheless, the findings of the studies do permit the formulation of the following general statements regarding the technical communications practices of the aerospace engineers and scientists who participated in the two studies: 33

Original page 35

1. The ability to communicate technical information effectively is important to Japanese and U.S. aerospace scientists and engineers. _ i: ¸<¸11¸i!7< 2. As the Japanese and U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists in these studies have advanced professionally, the amount of time they spend producing and working with technical communications has increased for over one-third (35%) of the Japanese respondents and slightly less than two-thirds (65%) of the U.S. respondents. 3. The Japanese and U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists in these studies write more < i i<i iii_ii¸ frequently in small groups than alone. The Japanese respondents find collaborative writing about as productive as individual writing, while the U.S. respondents find collaborative writing more productive than writing alone. Both groups of respondents frequently produce about the same types of materials whether they write as members of a group or as individuals. 4. Approximately 26% of the Japanese and 71% of the U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists in these studies had taken a course in technical communications. All of the Japanese and about <iii<:i 71% of the U.S. respondents indicatedthat such a course had helped them communicate technical information. _ 5. Although the percentages vary for each item, there was considerable agreement among the Japanese and U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists in these studies regarding the on-the-job communications to be included in an undergraduatetechnical communications course for aerospace and science students. There was also considerable agreement on the appropriate i i <!!) principles and mechanics that should be included in such a course. .... i _ : • < • L>I n: .... 6. The Japanese and U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists in these studies make use of << i personal knowledge, discussions with colleagues within their organization, and discussions with colleagues outside their organization for solving technical problems. The U.S. group, much more than the Japanese group, places greater reliance on librarians or technical information specialists for ascertaining information used in problem solving. 7. Although important to both Japanese and U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists, libraries and technical information centers were used much more by and were more important to Japanese (, respondents. More Japanese aerospace engineers and scientists had a library or technical information center located in their building than did their U.S. counterparts. • i I _ i_ 8. Both groups made considerable use of computer technology to prepare technical information. About 87% of the Japanese respondents, and 97% of the U.S. respondents indicated that iiill computer technology had increased their ability to communicate technical information. j:_<i < 9. With the exception of business graphics, U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists made somewhat greater use of computer software than did their Japanese counterparts. L!P• . i:!iiil<:<i 34

Original page 36

1. There were notable similarities between the two groups in terms of the information technologies presently being used and those / H'" 11. U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists that might be used in the future. made greater use of electronic networks than did their Japanese counterparts and rated the use of electronic networks almost twice as important as their Japanese counterparts rated electronic network use. Both groups reported similar use of electronic networks. U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists made greater use of electronic networks to access/search the library's catalog, read electronic (bibliographic) data bases, and retrieve information than did their Japanese counterparts. 12. U.S. and Japanese respondents make the greatest use of NASA technical reports and rank them highest in terms of importance in performing their professional duties. Both groups make extensive use of (and consider important) AGARD technical reports. 13. Apart from English, both groups reported Dutch, German, and Russian. limited fluency (reading and speaking) in French, CONCLUDING REMARKS Despite the limitations of this investigation, these findings contribute to our knowledge and understanding of the technical communications practices among aerospace engineers and scientists at the national and international levels. The findings reinforce some of the conventional wisdom regarding the nature and importance of technical communications and the amount of time that engineers and scientists devote to communicating technical information and raise questions about their use of information sources and resources, particularly in light of current technologies. The results of this study should prove useful to R&D managers, library and information science professionals, curriculum developers, and technical communicators. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors express their thanks to Dr. Robert A. Kilgore for his support of this research. The authors also express their thanks to the Japanese and U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists for their participation. 35

Original page 37

REFERENCES [1] Barclay, R. O.; T. E. Pinelli; D. Elazar; and J. M. Kennedy. "An Analysis of the Technical Communications Practices Reported by Israeli and U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists." Paper presented Conference (IPCC), The Sheraton [2] at the International Professional Communication World Resort, Orlando, FL, November 1, 1991. Kohl, J. R.; R. O. Barclay; T.E. Pinelli; M. L. Keene; and J. M. Kennedy. "The Impact of Language and Culture on Technical Communication." Technical Communication 40:1 (First Quarter, February 1993): 66-79. [3] Pinelli, T. E.; J. M. Kennedy; and R. O. Barclay. A Comparison of the Technical Communications Practices of Russian and U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA TM-107714, January 1993. (Available from NTIS, Springfield, VA; 93N18160.) Barclay, R. O.; T. E. Pinelli; and J. M. Kennedy. A Comparison of the Technical Communication Practices of Dutch and U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA TM-108987, July 1993. (NTIS Pending.) [5] Pinelli, T. E.; J. M. Kennedy; and R. O. Barclay. "The NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project." Government Information Quarterly 8:2 (1991): 219-233. 36

Original page 38

APPENDIX A !i}!i:i ,iii'i_ NASA/DoD AEROSPACE KNOWLEDGE DIFFUSION RESEARCH PROJECT Fact ,{{:}{'i!ii?:_ i_i_i, Sheet The process of producing, transferring, and using scientific and technical information /¸:,:!{4 :!!i 31¸ (STI), which is an essential part of aerospace research and development (R&D), can be defined as Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion. Studies tell us that timely access to STI can increase productivity and innovation and help aerospace engineers and scientists maintain and improve their professional skills. These same studies indicate, however, that we know little about aerospace knowledge diffusion or about how aerospace engineers and scientists find and use STI. To learn more about this process, we have organized a research project to study knowledge diffusion. Sponsored by NASA and the Department of Defense (DoD), the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project is being conducted by researchers at the NASA Langley Research Center, the Indiana University Center for Survey ,/ / ),i:!i/_ Research, and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. This research is endorsed by several aerospace professional societies including the AIAA, RAeS, and DGLR and has been sanctioned by the AGARD and AIAA Technical Information Panels. This 4-phase project is providing descriptive and analytical data about the flow of STI at the individual, organizational, national, and international levels. It is examining both the channels used to communicate STI and the social system of the aerospace knowledge diffusion process. Phase 1 investigates the information-seeking habits and practices of U.S. i_ & ili_ , aerospace engineers and scientists, in particular STI. Phase 2 examines the industry-government _i, _i _ , their use of government-funded aerospace interface and emphasizes the role of the information intermediary in the knowledge diffusion process. Phase 3 concerns the academic- , iii: • , government interface and emphasizes the information intermediary-faculty-student interface. Phase 4 explores the information-seeking behaviors of non-U.S, aerospace engineers and scientists from Western European nations, India, Israel, Japan, and the former Soviet Union. o, The results of this research project will help us to understand the flow of STI at the individual, organizational, national, and international levels. The findings can be used to identify and correct deficiencies; to improve access and use; to plan new aerospace STI systems: and should provide useful information to R&D managers, information managers, and others concerned with improving access to and utilization of STI. These results will contribute to increasing productivity and to improving and maintaining the professional competence of aerospace engineers and scientists. The results of our research are being • i( _• 7•' shared freely with those who participate in the study. Dr. Thomas E. Pinelli Dr. John M. Kennedy Rebecca O. Barclay Mail Stop 180A Center for Survey Research Dept. of Language, Lit. & Communication NASA Langley Research Center Indiana University Hampton, VA 23681-0001 Bloomington, IN 47405 (804) 864-2491 (812) 855-2573 Fax (804) 864-8311 Fax (812) 855-2818 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Troy, NY 12180 (804) 399-5666 Fax (804) 397-4635 T.E.Pinelli@larc.nasa.gov kennedy@isrmail .soc.indiana.edu barclay@infi.net 37

Original page 39

APPENDIX B SURVEY I_ <W$ 1 2 1 :_ #,_ t'. 2 2a 5 t,, 3 _ "o t'Z b L. 7z ;_ o 3 tit o Yr. INSTRUMENT _ =-__., ,o 3 4 5 38

Original page 40

) % % ( " 6 [-,'-'J. "2@@_ "9 :__:i!:}!;:ii:::ti:::ii?:::::i::!!}iii:i;:i/}ii:!:;iii::i!;/!!':i'ii ¸¸:::c{ : :}.;/C:/::I_v:/:_x? : ' " • • " :".... " -:.i :¸ •......... .... • ..... : " : , • •

Original page 41

_W IIIII IIIIl W I l i o • I K ." m CD + o') o [] _w o D _W _W _K o n-n " _m _ • K • _ I . • __ • • _ _ I "

Original page 42

1 1. _ o "e I_I_) (_ _ • _ - -' _ 'I ¢:¢{I................................. 1 2 )Y ........................................... 1 2 . t_J] • ii /. ................................. 1 2 :a >, ' .. -- # _ _ " _ A ............................. 1 2 }iCJ:i • • i ..................................... i_i _ _ '-- _ ................................... 1 2 1 2 2, i • f_ff'! ................................. 1 2 i i: _ _ ........................................... __: ......................................... _ ............................................... 1 2 1 2 1 2 __¢ ................................. _ 2 ) ........................................... 1 2 __'" __ ................................. 1 2 ::t,Wl2'--#"'o :9",A ............................. 1 2 J}iCfi_i_ • i ..................................... 1 2 _ llt _ _ _ '- ' ................................... 1 2 ¢ • 'l_ff ¢ ................................. 1 2 - i!ff- e_ ........................................... J {_ O: 1_ _: ......................................... _ ............................................... 1 2 1 2 1 2 41

Original page 43

: • :-- •.... : ::::::...........::: :::, ,:........ : ::...... : ::: ,: ::::::i.:::::!: i:::¸¸ : ::__:/:! :: ::/: ::,i:::::i_.i::i::iii<i_::`/::i:!?:;!!!::i::i::iiii!!i!:i_ii:iii_i_i !ii:<,? :i i:i::: : !i:: 1 2 3 ii: !ili!i: i-, _ i_ii :i,i _ i;!i _ " 4 ::i: %, _ ilia, / 5 i(i.,il _ i :: : i i :!I_I ,'- • 1 4. i.,! i :: ' 1 5. i, _ H : 1 15 I_ • <:::: • 2 _ _ . ! / 1 6. 1 : i!i)!!i!iiii!i 2 3 i 1 ii!Ii_ill':i 2 3 i _ i: i iiii_i i_ ii U'_I _ 1 5 (om 19 (_eo_e) 42

Original page 44

% • 1 8. iiiii!ill__ ii!:i_ iiii!!}kll_5__ii?'_ i_ii!il_ f_!: :: i<i?i:<ii!'ii 1 2 3 4 1 9. <Y: . ! ! i _ i: ¸ : </ !_:iiii_il " i< _ @m ................................. 1 2 ___ ................................... >4 __ ........................................... __ (, , ) __ ........................................... 1 2 1 2 ..................... 1 2 1 2 ]-- b 9 • ] ............................. 1 2 • ' ..................................... i!ii !i • dl _ > • • : • H; i!iil,<i _ ............................................. 1 2 1 2 N_N (N : NAS A) ............................. 1 2 < i, _ ............................................. < i _ _!(iii ___ ................................... i!ii!iiii::411 _!iiiiiilI i<i <i __ ......................................... _ ............................................... _71 i< i ¸ • :ii:!:I: _ ,i¸ :_i_iii 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 43

Original page 45

(_ 0) ............................. .__

Original page 46

yxx i 24. iipil/i_:iiiiiii ix:ii!ii x x • • !) : :} 2i:i _ i (0 7"9 b#q- • ' ;.,', ........................... 1 2 ii}/ii: iiili ;x 4 p ,- .,- ,--. .................................. 1 2 __ _ _ -- (THESAURUS) ........................ 1 2 +' >13t''4 : ............................... 1 2 > q)" f _ / /" "_ ' 4 "y' ............................. 1 2 -'x I" ".>'"]'7 ") '-" ......................... 1 2 !i/ !i! 25. +/ :i } /i/i /:q+ X_ _" -- _" ............................ .............................. 2::: o ............................... ( 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 _' ' _*" ) ' " )" " ................. 1 2 3 x { 51i2:i/i I- • ;O--l-) , ................. 1 2 3 --V (E-MAIL) ......................... _ ................................. ++..... • } i, • ...1++ ;ii: • •i _ _ ................................. :--# ........................... 1 2 3 1 2 3 I.. ++.....+ +.. 1 2 3 .++ .++++.....+ 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 ]I/_k........................... 1 2 3 •/21 • x: x d _ _ • CD-ROM ................... 1 2 3 i I -- 1 2 3 / • +-.i....+... +++ .++.i ..+ ++ + /i •i{ 45

Original page 47

i_iii_iiii__:ii_Iii!:,,i 2 6. i:I iii" ?:, I) 1 : Ii 2 II_ I_ 2_ ii:j::ill ¸I¸ : t+ 3 2 7. i_i_il,i: ( t1__ t,- 0 "-e 32 (_ -0 e _ ) 1 ., -'f 9" :7 t." -- ./a a)/' -- . "-)-sl,, :b,5 2 .,' -- J -)- ,l,, -, 9' g .. -- , ;b 6 3 D'--:_ :x -y--- _ _ ,I-"b"6 28. 1 2 29. . . i _ i i : _ _ i_ _ : i: i L_ i ii . 3 4 5 1'" 1_._= _ 46

Original page 48

[] +,, P 0 P /. tli o ..q. I,-, • • • • • • | • • • • P @ • • _ • _ • _ : • _ ._ • ":_ o • _ • _ • _ @ . • @ : 2 @ "1, : +,, • 2 N • _ • ' 1 @ 0 0 • i ...... _ ii _ : : @ k I. 0,1 0,1 I 1 ---" "-'<-'< _ 0 1 .. ,._ 0 •I_ I ._r',, .1 • :k I ! ii . : !

Original page 49

zg [] g[=l_ * ,Itz g (@ I_I._0 :)

Original page 50

• .... _ : :: • .......•75::: •: •:i......i f::::L/¸¸•%:&::: /:)/5 :!)>:::):::::::i:LI::;i¸¸5:::::::-I:::Y?iT:)::: 1 AGARD il:-- b .................... 1 2 9 2 ]©ARC.LgRAE li_-- F ........ I 2 9 3 E S A li_-- ]-........................ I 2 9 4 4" :I"F'¢) N A L fluff-- b ................ I 2 9 5 :_ "Y :X©ON E R A li-b .......... i 2 9 6 F4"©DFVL R, D L R, Tfl MB B l_ff-- ]-........................ I 2 9 7 I__k©NA L Iz-- ]-.................. I 2 9 8 _ :r©T s AG I Iz-- l-............ I 2 9 9 ]'>'©NL R I_-- [-.............. I 2 9 I0 ,]¢) N A S A l_ff-- F ................ I 2 9 (0) I AGARD --b .................. I 2 3 2 ©AR C_RAE -- 4 5 9 b ...... 1 2 3 4 5 9 3 ESA --b ...................... I 2 3 4 5 9 4 F©N AL--F .............. 1 2 3 5 © ONERA--b 6 F©D FVL R, D L R, _ MBB --b ...................... 4 5 9 ........ 1 2 3 4 5 9 I 2 3 4 5 9 7 R_NA L--F ................ 1 2 3 4 5 9 8 7_T sA G I I,,'-- b .......... 1 2 3 4 5 9 9 __© NL R I.'_-- b ............ 1 2 3 4 5 9 10 NA SA I---- b .............. 1 2 3 4 5 9 49

Original page 51

< 1 _ ................................ I 2 3 4 5 9 2 :79 >'; .......................... 1 2 3 4 5 9 3 b+4 _ ............................ I 2 3 4 5 9 4 Ft. .............................. 1 2 3 4 5 9 5 9 7 ............................ I 2 3 4 5 9 6 {© I _ ................................ 2 'g>':x. .......................... 3 b+4 _ ............................ 4 _ ;g .............................. 5 5_ ............................ 6 4 3. _lJo (O'C) ] 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 1 2 3 4 5 9 50

Original page 52

4 4. o (0) 2 A 3 _±T 4 ±T 5 © {P_I I.. TT 8 ,'.) 4 6. o (O) 2 _ 0) 1 _ 2 " 3 J . 5 : 6 = 7 @-a _- _" I=_91: 9 51

Original page 53

....... x : : ....... : i : / : < :<v:i¸ /: ;: 7_i}/:Zi::ill 5i&i :L/!iL_!iii_i_i_i_iii1Z_2_£ii1 4 8. o (0) 1 I -'-'i, 3 ¢0 1 T@$ 3 -r: a) ? • @$, _ _ O'-e I_I) 52

Original page 54

•ii ¸ !• ,i,!_i!_ii!! ¸ _, i.... ,i

Original page 55

Original page 56

REPORT DOCUMENTATION | PAGE ] FormApproved OMB No. 0704-0188 I Publicrepo,_;,burdenfor this coll,v;;u_of ;,i',,,=o_is astimatecl to average1 hour per response,includingthe time for reviewinginstructions,searchingexistingdata source. gatheringand maintainingthe data needed,and completing and reviewingthe collection ofinformation.Sendcommentsregardingthis burdenestimateor any otheraspect ofth coflec'donof information,includingsuggestionsfor reducingthis burden,to WashingtonHeadquartersServices, Directoratefor InformationOperationsand Reports, 1215 Jeffersc DavisHighway,Suite1204, Arlington.VA 22202-4302, andto theOfficoof Managementand Budget,PaperworkReductionProject(0704-0188), Washington,DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE December 1994 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED Technical Memorandum 5. FUNDING NUMBERS A Comparison of the Technical Communications Practices of Japanese and U.S. Aerospace Engineers and Scientists* 6. AUTHOR(S) WU 505-90 Thomas E. Pinelli, Rebecca O. Barclay, and John M. Kennedy 7. PERFORMING ORGANZAT1ON NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA 23681-0001 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER 9. SPONSORIING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) !10. SPONSORING/MONITORING National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, DC 20546-0001 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES AGENCY REPORT NUMBER NASA TM-109164 *Report number 29 under the NASA/DoD Aerospace Knowledge Diffusion Research Project. Thomas E. Pinelli: Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA; Rebecca O. Barclay: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Troy, NY; and John M. Kennedy: Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. 12a. DI: i HIBUTION/AVAILABIUTY STATEMENT Unclassified--Unlimited Subject Category 82 Availability: NASA CASI (301) 621-0390 13. AB.TP, ACT (Maximum 200 words) As part of Phase 4 of the NASA/DoD Aerospace 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE Knowledge Diffusion Research Project, two studies werei conducted that investigated the technical communications practices of Japanese and U.S. aerospace engineers and scientists. Both studies have the same seven objectives: first, to solicit the opinions of aerospace engineers and' scientists regarding the importance of technical communications to their profession; second, to determine the use 13 and production of technical communications by aerospace engineers and scientists; third, to seek their views about the appropriate content of an undergraduate course in technical communications; fourth, to determine aerospace engineers' and scientists' use of libraries, technical information centers, and on-line data bases; fifth, to determine the use and importance of computer and information technology to them; sixth, to determine their use of electronic networks; and seventh, to determine their use of foreign and domestically produced technical reports. A self-administered questionnaire was distributed to aerospace engineers and scientists in Japan and at the NASA Ames Research Center and the NASA Langley Research Center. The completion rates for the Japanese and U.S surveys were 85 and 61 percent, respectively. Responses of the Japanese and U.S. participants to selected questions are presented in this report. 14. SUBJECT =-HMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES 53 Knowledge diffusion; Aerospace engineer and scientist; Communication practices 17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 16. PRICE CODE A04 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION ]19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE Unclassified Unclassified NSN 7540-01-280-5500 OF ABSTRACT OF ABSTRACT Unclassified Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) Prescribedby ANSI Std. Z39-18 298-102