Technical and scientific writing is often seen as cold and distant when compared to fiction, for example. However, it seems to me that technical writing, even in academic publishing, has a shorter emotional range with which to engage the reader, not a nonexistent one. On the one hand, one can write arrogantly, with a sense of finality, and unclearly—almost to intimidate—which makes the reader sceptical, frustrated, and even angry; this, I think, is the more common kind of scientific writing. On the other hand, one can write with humility, adopting a subtle and tentative attitude, with the primary intention and gentle care of making the work understandable and useful to the reader, taking extra care to slow things down, to break them down, and to acknowledge limitations with grace. Essentially, the goal is to come across as a caring friend who happens to know more than you on a specific matter, rather than as a condescending prodigy. This approach is rarer, and it evokes a sense of warmth that encourages continued engagement with the work, openness to the ideas, and even a desire to meet the researcher in person and have a conversation.

These qualities are reflections of the researcher’s personality. In writing, there is a saying that if you want your true voice to come through, you should read aloud what you have written and check whether it feels like something you would actually say. Therefore, just as in fiction writing, it may be helpful to read technical prose aloud after it is put on paper or into print, as a way of checking for the presence of personality on the page.