CONTEXTS

Book ReviewsPart One goes from the practical to the creative,from legal and ethical issues to gathering and evaluatinginformation, to drafting and sketching. Drafting andsketching entail brainstorming, free writing, and mappingfor idea development; sketching pages and illustrationsfor page layout; and preparing preliminary drafts.The other parts cover the more familiar aspects oftechnical communication of writing and using tables,figures, color, and graphic elements. What makes thisbook different from most technical writing books is theway Lehr handles examples, both graphical and textual,of various documents that are common to technicalcommunicators: instructions, proposals, reports,correspondence, guides and promotional materials, andoral presentations.Descriptions of these documents and theirrequirements are brief but not sparse. Each documentis shown in a graphic while Lehr explains internalcomponents and use of the documents, with topical tipsgiven where applicable. This book will not make youan expert on each document type, but it does ensurethat you will have more than a passing acquaintancewith it. Document layouts are shown with appropriatetextual content. In at least one instance—instructions—includes additional ways an instruction could be wordedand advises on the best version.It is a shame the publisher didn’t use higher qualitypaper, which would make this book a better readingexperience. Faint outlines of text and graphics showthrough the page, and the contrast of text against thepage could be stronger; reading in dim light can betricky. The paper quality is especially disappointing,because the book includes excellent reference materialthat you would likely want to note or highlight. Suchnotes and highlighting will partially obscure the text onthe other side of the page.Overall, the book is an excellent introduction todocument planning and creation for novices and a goodreference book for more experienced writers.Sherry ShaddaySherry Shadday works for Southwest Research Institute inLayton, UT, as a principal instructional specialist creatingprint, stand-up, and Web-based training. An STC member, shereceived a technical communication master’s degree from UtahState University. Previously, she served 21 years in the U.S. AirForce, maintaining aircraft electrical systems.The Restructuring of Scholarly Publishingin the United States 1980–2001: A Resource-Based Analysis of University PressesBarbara G. Haney Jones. 2009. Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press.[ISBN 978-0-7734-4727-1. 424 pages, includes index. US$129.95.]In her meticulous study,Barbara G. Haney Jonesinterviews more than 30directors of university pressesto identify factors that haveinfluenced their restructuringsince 1979 and strategiesemployed to help the pressesstay afloat in spite of financialcuts and a shifting publishingmarket, including changes intechnology such as electronicpublishing avenues. Jones hypothesizes that universitypresses with greater resources would be more apt toexperiment with new modes of advertising, printing,and publishing, whereas smaller presses with fewerresources would stick to business-as-usual in the faceof change. Although Jones basically finds support forher hypothesis, during the interviews she also discovershow even some of the smaller university presses withlimited resources were able to survive because theywere willing to take some risks.Rare is the reader of Technical Communication who isnot aware of the current economic crisis and the effectson our profession. We have all received e-mails fromSTC over the past year about budget constraints andefforts to remedy the financial dearth. What Jones hasdone in her study, though, is to examine some 30 yearsof change and several influences on university presses,all of which have had an impact. Her interviews anddata analysis are based on her dissertation research fromthe mid-1990s.So what are the major factors influencing theconstant restructuring of university presses? Jones saysthe number 1 factor is the “publish or perish” pressureon professors in the social sciences and humanities topublish monographs, which the presses often just can’tsell. Although a couple of decades ago the presses weresubsidized by the university and such monographs weremore viable, today’s market does not lend itself to nicheresearch publishing. Jones cites one press director whoVolume 57, Number 3, August 2010 l Technical Communication 341