Yesterday I mused about a standard for the communication skills of an expert writing for generalists in a democracy. I proposed this standard: If you can't talk usefully to generalists about your expertise, you are not a proper expert. For me, this implies a service ethic that should not be pushed aside by either the love of money or the love of research. At least part of the time, experts in a democracy should serve people besides themselves.

I can think of two quick ways to unpack that idea--by looking at kinds of audiences they write for and the kinds of documents they write for those audiences.

First, the matter of audience. When experts write for other experts, the air will probably always fill with shop talk. This is often efficient, though Edward Tufte has made a thought-provoking habit of questioning the clarity of expert-to-expert communication. But I'm talking about experts writing for other audiences: for managers and politicians who must decide about policies without being technical experts in the matters under review, and for citizens who need to cast ballots thoughtfully on issues with technical and scientific layers outside of their training and experience. In a democracy, experts shouldn't expect these audiences to dig their toes in the ground and say, "Aw, shucks, you experts go ahead and decide everything for us."

The ethical dilemma is clear: these two audiences need experts to serve them rather than manipulate them. They need public writing by experts who intend, at least part of the time, to instruct and inform rather than merely to win the day for their side. They need experts who value truth, inquiry, and democracy at least as much as they value victory. In a democracy, experts need to serve other people's purposes part of the time.

In the next posting, a consideration of the kinds of documents experts write for these audience. From there, some conclusions about the kinds of training in writing and public speaking that experts should have in order to be good citizens in a democracy.