The following section presents excerpts from a proposal on Edocs, an online environment for collaborating, created by a research team in Qatar. One of the team members believes Edocs facilitates collaboration among professional groups working from different countries. However, their clients (Qatar Foundation researchers) found the proposal arrogant and quick to point blame on colleagues. In the challenges that follow, try to consider the options presented so that the developers can make the most effective case for their audience.

Directions:
Identify and improve text that can make the report more effective, in terms of its metadiscourse, nominalizations, and concision.

Challenge 1: Using Nominalizations

Your Goal

Reducing the clarity of a situation or softening the negativity!

Using Nominalizations

1. Protecting the person or thing associated with the negativity in negative situations (softening negativity)

Less Protection

One colleague could not understand the purpose of this activity.

More Protection

One colleague was having a difficult time understanding the purpose of the activity.

2. Reducing the clarity of a situation to sound less direct (may mean more polite depending on audience)

More clear/direct

Please suggest ways we can improve our activities.

Less clear/direct

Please give us suggestions on how to improve our activities.

Comments on Response Options

Problem Text

Although teams were managing to meet on Skype each week, despite their location’s time difference, their meetings were finishing before they planned the next steps of the project.

Option A

“without a plan for”

This is a great option that detaches the team members from the negativity (not planning), which protects them. This would be appropriate if your purpose is to describe problems without pointing blame.

Option B

“without a decision for planning”

This option uses a nominalization which slightly detaches the team members from the negativity (not planning). However, it still uses an action (decision) which implies the team made the decision not to plan. This would also work well if your purpose is to describe the problem without pointing blame, while making a tone slightly more direct than the first option.

Option C

“without deciding”

This option does not use a nominalization, and instead most directly connects the team members to the negativity (not planning), which emphasizes the blame on the team rather than the situation itself. This would only work well in a context where you do not feel the need to protect anyone and had to make your point quickly.