Book Reviews: Technical and Scientific Communication
Topics: Writing, editing, speaking, and presenting in engineering and scientific contexts across print and digital media
How to Write Reports and Proposals: Create Attention-grabbing Documents That Achieve Your Goals
Patrick Forsyth. New York, NY: Kogan Page Inc. 2026. 146 pages.
Index Terms — Communication, reports, proposals, documents, writing
Reviewed by Mickella Rast, Chenega Corporation, Chesapeake, VA 23320 (mickellarast@gmail.com).
Review posted 29 April 2026
Although Patrick Forsyth aims How to Write Reports and Proposals: Create attention-grabbing documents that achieve your goals at those writing reports and proposals, it is a useful instruction for anyone who wants to author clear, effective documents. At a brisk 146 pages, it is easily digestible for any audience and structured in the straightforward manner one would hope for in a book about clear communication. Forsyth covers characteristics of good business writing, the power of language, document layout and presentation, and how-to topics like creating a good report; preparing to write; making numbers clear; and making persuasive proposals. Each chapter includes practical exercises, case studies or examples, and summary points at the end.
I will make three clarifications about my review. First, Forsyth’s book is written based on the assumption that readers are already familiar with reports and proposals. Anyone seeking to use this book to facilitate a deeper understanding (or even basic understanding) of those documents will be disappointed. Second, although Forsyth has separate chapters addressing reports and proposals, the advice provided is applicable across both document types. This review will represent that advice as inclusive of both. Finally, Forsyth’s advice is applicable beyond reports and proposals to other professional documents. He focuses on reports and proposals specifically because he claims they are common and permanent instead of “more transient means of communication” (p. 23). Forsyth also argues that reports and proposals are disproportionately more powerful than other business documents in terms of both the action they can prompt and how they reflect on the professional identity of the authors. Regardless, the advice Forsyth provides can be easily adapted across any type of professional communication. How to Write Reports and Proposals is useful for anyone who has to author professional documents. In this review, I use “documents” interchangeably with “reports” and “proposals.”
Forsyth states that effective communication prompts action and understanding. It follows that well-written reports and proposals should prompt the same. To achieve this, Forsyth encourages authors to strive for clarity in their writing and objectives. He argues the former is not capable without the latter: “Everything that follows, what you write, how you write it and how you arrange it, is dependent on this first premise – a clear objective is literally the foundation upon which a good report [or proposal] is based” (p. 28, brackets added). To clarify objectives, Forsyth suggests using the SMART principle: specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and timed. When developing objectives, he reminds authors to center their objectives on the audience (readers) and that “objectives are not what you wish to say, they are what you wish to achieve” (p. 40).
Once intention is clear, Forsyth addresses clarity in writing. He focuses first on broad topics of document organization and writing approach before moving into specifics like language and number use, methods of persuasion, and presentation styles. Forsyth argues on the importance of these components: “Exactly how you put things has a direct bearing on how they are received; and that in turn has a direct bearing on how well a report [or proposal] succeeds in its objectives” (p. 59, brackets added).
The author recommends a straightforward shape and structure, shape referring to the pacing of a document and structure referring to its organization. The most recognizable document shape is a beginning (introduction), middle (body), and end (summary or conclusion). Content should be structured to follow a clear argument: describing a situation or problem, its applications, reviewing possibilities or solutions, and making recommendations. Forsyth also touches on layout and presentation and suggests authors pay specific attention to page layout, typeface, type size, numbering, graphic components and exhibits, and packaging. Each of these minor components can drastically impact how content is received.
For writing itself, Forsyth suggests the following six-step approach to writing, “recommended only by its practicality” (pp. 45–55):
- List all information or points to include;
- Sort information into an order of presentation;
- Arrange information into final organizational structure;
- Review and amend planned outlines as needed;
- Write; and
- Edit.
To make this process as efficient as possible, Forsyth emphasizes the importance of research and preparation before embarking on Step 1. Within this broad approach to writing, he encourages writers to find specific methods that work for them.
Shifting from content format to the content itself, Forsyth recognizes that writing styles are “partly taste, style and also partly habit,” guided by influences such as professional settings or genre requirements (p. 59). He encourages authors to keep readers (their needs, expectations, and so on) at the forefront of document development at all times and references commonly, yet ever relevant, methods such as KISS: Keep It Simple, Stupid. Forsyth advises writers to avoid generalizations and focus on facts, evidence, and other quantifiable information; without these, reports and proposals will fail the test of effective communication and facilitate neither action nor understanding. Such advice must be balanced against the threat of “number blindness,” however, which Forsyth suggests can be prevented using the following actions: select only necessary numbers, focus on the numbers only unless calculations are relevant, select the appropriate accuracy, repeat numbers as needed, and present numbers in the most digestible form (narrative or graphically) (pp. 83–85).
At this point, Forsyth addresses persuasion and argues that it is one of the “additional demands” that proposals make on authors: “[Proposals] must earn a reading, they must hold and develop interest.…They must persuade, they must actively work to obtain positive decisions to do business” (p. 95). This position partially contradicts Forsyth’s earlier, foundational statement that well-written reports and proposals facilitate action and understanding. While understanding does not require persuasion, it is my position that persuasion is required to prompt action and is beneficial for reports, proposals, and other business documents. This broad application is evident in the cross-over between this chapter and others.
Many of Forsyth’s recommendations for proposal structure and content echo his earlier advice for report writing, such as remaining reader-centric, focusing on specifics over generalizations, and using repetition strategically. His recommended structure for proposals is also reminiscent of reports: introduction, statement of need, recommendations or solutions, areas of detail, and a summary. Using captions for graphic components, linking paragraphs, and leading with positives over negatives are just three examples of additional recommendations that are applicable beyond proposals. Additionally, while Forsyth tailors his instruction to be useful for prompting specific financial action, such as generating sales or fundraising, the content remains more broadly useful for any authors who want greater reader buy-in for their documents.
In his concluding afterword, Forsyth emphasizes that developing well-written reports and proposals is a skill that anyone can learn, but which we must practice regularly and nurture by deliberate good habits. His parting advice urges all writers to view documents as an opportunity rather than an obligation: “Whatever your current style and standard, there may be new things you can try, old things you can aim to change and improve. Even a little extra thought may give results that surprise you – and make a worthwhile improvement” (pp. 140–141).
Though Forsyth defers credit for much of his book’s content and states that “all the factors that make for success are essentially common sense,” he should be commended for compiling and distilling such a trove of useful information (p. 139). How to Write Reports and Proposals is a useful quick reference tool for anyone who has to (or wants to) write effective business documentation, especially reports and proposals. His tenants and tips for effective communication are applicable across all professional fields and levels of complexity. Whether writing two pages or two hundred, the information Forsyth provides remains ever-relevant and is a valuable, convenient reference for young and seasoned professionals alike.
What is We?
Ragini Tharoor Srinivasan. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Agenda Publishing., 2026. 208 pages, including index.
Index Terms — Isolation, liberation, we
Reviewed by Lauren Rigby, technical writer in Huntsville, AL, 35802(lauren.c.rigby18@gmail.com)
Review posted on 15 April 2026
What is We? by Ragini Tharoor Srinivasan tackles the concept of what the word “we” entails within modern society. The space of discovery created by this discourse is generally meant for an academic audience, specifically for the study of identity politics, philosophy, or discourse-driven academic spaces, offering multiple points that can be analyzed in-depth. For the purposes of this discourse within academic discussion and writing, many points made within each chapter do not reach a firm conclusion but open the door for personal reflection and understanding. This allows the readers to understand what Srinivasan is contending but leaves space for personal application of the concepts of what “we” is.
What is We? opens with the idea “we” being “a method. Not a who to be specified” (p. 1). “We” becomes not just a simple word, but an intermixing of how as a people we use “we,” “I,” “us,” and “they” to group, isolate, understand, and accomplish all that we wish to within various societal settings. Because of this understanding, Srinivasan takes the time to explore “we” as a method within ten paired concepts enveloped into ten chapters that “explores the tension between intentional uses of “we,” on the one hand, and those that reveal a subject’s ideological conscription into some “we,” on the other” (p. 9).
The first pairing of concepts for understanding “we” as a method is within inclusion and exclusion. For Srinivasan, inclusion comes from the idea of community, “a structure of belonging and recognition…collective identification in essentially any terms,” and whether this concept of community is inclusive or exclusive (p. 15). In terms of community building, specifically in a place of ethnic communities, this becomes a place of inclusion, a “we” that becomes the building of a safe space in which persons can relate, help one another, and experience togetherness. Exclusion within “we” comes from an other over self community, such as in a family. In a family unit, the parents choose their children and other family members over self, something which many pride themselves on. However, that “we” should include the “all” of society rather than just a nuclear family; community building into a “we” comes from the choice of others over the “familial others,” the ones who expect support just because they are family and vice versa (p. 34). It should be that “transforming our conceptions of who we want to be to each other” encourages true societal togetherness [p. 35].
This idea of participating in an exclusive versus inclusive environment is further explored through Srinivasan’s next pairing: communion and isolation. The idea of communion in this case comes from “dialogical writing collaborations that produce communion” (p. 39). Though “[c]ollaborative writing as “we” demands the deauthorization of the self in the name of exploration, artistic adventure, and intellectual risk…the writer may be rewarded with a new conception of the self” (p. 46). In contrast to this, in isolation, the concept of “we” within shared digital communication is unpacked, a “we” that “confirms our apartness from others, not our togetherness” (p. 50). While there are moments where it does connect, such as in the COVID-19 pandemic, it leaves many with a false sense of “we,” a “simulacrum of connectivity [that] disappears with the click of an x at the top of a screen” (p. 59). This absence of true connectivity coupled with the power that comes from technology and social media in general, leaves space for the consideration of “we” in a growing digital world.
Again, “we” is not only considered through types of media and the collaborative processes that may exist in them, but also through the incorporation of what “we” does when we assume “all” are “we.” Through the idea of coercion, the “we” being broadcast from those who were not living in the “we,” Srinivasan considers that “‘we’ are not in this together nor do ‘we’ have the tools” (p. 64). However, in some instances, such as the early days of COVID, a “commitment to collaboration, interdependence, and interlocution” were the norm, creating a sense of “we” (p. 67). Within this, we retain the hope of a potential “we”, begging the question, “What do we need to remember – to make that impossible world possible again?” (p. 74). In contrast to this, Srinivasan addresses the idea of liberation, wherein “we” becomes a way to isolate oneself from what “she” or “he” might be feeling or actively living. In advocating for various social rights, does the “we” tend to place what they perceive to be an issue on the one versus taking the cause upon the collective? Could the collective begin to share in what the “one” is feeling, experiencing, understanding?
In tandem with this idea of liberation through “we,” Srinivasan addresses the ideas of division and incorporation. Division, within “we,” “advances an argument about the impossibility of rapprochement” (p. 88). In this case, Srinivasan addresses this with the concept of race, wherein a “we” tends to be divided into a “you,” “they,” or “I.” The concept of “we” does not come to exist because of the association with the “we” versus the correct view of “other[s] as individuals” (p. 97). Because of this blanket use of “we” when referring to a large group of individuals, it is “ignoring and activating histories of difference that suffuse our daily lives and establish the grounds on which we stage our relations” (p. 100). On the contrary, the concept of an inclusive “we” can be made through incorporation, inviting “you” to come with “us.” Through understanding the inner workings of what someone is experiencing, understanding, and living, one can begin to incorporate into a “we”; there is no longer an “other,” but a collective that is contained within a “we.” On the contrary, how do we become a collective that does not create division in the process? With this personal reflection and understanding, dissection of the “we” in this relation can be understood.
Finally, Srinivasan begins to unpack the “we” as a method in forgetting and remembering. “We” in forgetting is a collective that separates the “them” from “us,” an “us” that speaks for the “them” in the name of “we.” In this adherence to the “we,” there is a forgetting of others. Through the eyes of Srinivasan, the best example of this is through a nation. By understanding what the “we” in a nation is, it should be considered that a nation should be “a ‘we’ that honors the existence of other ‘we’s’ with other histories and ambitions that are as essential, fundamental, deeply felt, and vital as our own” (p. 125). In contrast, “we” as a function of remembering offers a recalling of information of those who we once knew; in fact, the most powerful “we” is that of our voices being a mouthpiece for those who have come before us. With our knowledge of ancestors, as Srinivasan puts it, “[t]hey already know who they are – who we are. Which is to say, they know what and how and why to do with ‘we’” (p. 137). In fact, “we might yet use ‘we’ as a method of remembering ‘I’s’ relations across time” (p. 138). We remember who we are, we know who they were, and can contemplate the inclusion of the prior them into who and what we are.
As a whole, What is We? is a well-versed look into the concepts of “we,” something readers may have never explored. I think this discourse is an interesting read for those who want to explore the more academic side of literature and the function of language in society. In addition, it offers an in-depth perspective that can be carried out practically in the workplace as well. A reading of What is We? can certainly be used to help define “we” at the organizational level, working to create a space of a strong use of “we,” rather than one that is thrown around haphazardly in multiple forms of communication. All in all, What is We? is an exceptional discourse for those who are interested in the reasons listed above, but should not be taken lightly throughout the reading process.
The Moderator’s Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide for Facilitating Panels
Katrina Dudley. New York: Columbia University Press. 2025. 234 pages, including index.
Index terms – Communication, leadership, moderating
Reviewed by Siobhan Patterson (skgehrs@gmail.com).
Review posted 11 March 2026
Approachable, actionable, and accessible. These three words define the experience of reading The Moderator’s Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Facilitating Panels by Katrina Dudley. It is evident how important success is to Dudley. Whether it’s moderating her own panels or preparing readers to lead their first ones, she leaves no stone left unturned. Anyone who reads this book and mirrors these lessons is bound to feel confident and prepared to lead a panel, whether in person or virtual.
In the first chapter, she makes it clear that this book isn’t to be read in order and that it’s written in three parts: before the panel, during the panel, and after the panel. The first part, before the panel, is designed for the project managers. This is ensuring everything is in order and the prep work is underway. The second part, during the panel, focuses on troubleshooting and checklists. This is where she provides advice to panelists and organizers. The third part, after the panel, is about the lasting impact. This is where she encourages moderators to continue relationships beyond the hour and create opportunities for future moderating events.
Audience analysis is a central theme to Dudley’s writing. This includes the panel’s audience, as well as the panelists. She shared that the two main goals for any panel are that the audience must have a positive experience and get what they came for and for the panelists to also have a fun, positive experience. The book’s organization and included chapters reflect these two goals as she takes the time to explain the moderator’s role and all the work necessary in preparation and execution. By defining the moderator, she makes it clear that this isn’t an individual who arrives on the day of an event to share their opinions and have conversations with a group of people on a stage. Instead, she focuses on the importance of research, event coordination, question preparation, and pre-panel meetings.
A prepared moderator can make for a more consistent, controlled environment. Through multiple chapters, Dudley provides the reader with checklists. These checklists range from panel troubleshooting tips to reminders of what to bring the morning of the event. The checklists are designed as suggestions, but the level of detail might make for the perfect first run-through for a new moderator.
A focus area that felt critical was working through technical logistics. It’s important to consider what technology is needed and work to ensure everything is operating properly and that everyone has what they need. Especially when it comes to audience engagement. Dudley walked through the different options of how to handle microphone access during the Q&A portion of the panel. One option is to use a microphone stand, which doesn’t allow for continuous conversation or immediate follow-up questions as individuals are single file in a line. Another is to have the audience pass the microphone amongst themselves. Dudley identifies this as a potential issue since likeminded or connected individuals might be sitting near each other and the microphone might not leave their side of the room. Another option is to have audience members submit questions before the event. This gives time to review and organize the information, with the moderator reading the questions.
How microphones are available to panelists is also an important consideration. Using lapel microphones comes with a few additional considerations. One being aware of the seating arrangement. If a panelist is sitting at the end of the row and will be turned toward fellow panelists in conversation most of the time, it’s best to keep the lapel microphone on the side where the conversation is. If the microphone is positioned out toward the audience and away from where the speaker is talking, it’ll be difficult for the audio to pick up correctly. This level of detail in logistics planning, even mentioning how placing a lapel microphone on a tie causes issues due to its movement, shows the care and concern in Dudley’s presentation of how best to moderate a panel.
The adaptability of her experiences is demonstrated throughout, but she leaves the reader with a quick chapter toward the end dedicated to potential hiccups. This grounds the handbook in reality and acknowledges that unexpected moments do happen. There is no perfect event, but by following these tips and checklists, you can get close and when things go awry, there’s a way to keep moving things forward. There could be a glitch in a virtual stream, a disruptive audience member, or a disengaged audience. However, Dudley has experienced it all and does her best to keep you from feeling alone on stage in those moments.
As a moderator, the goal is to be an audience advocate. There’s no hidden agenda or taking sides. The moderator is there to build and manage relationships while ensuring engagement from all parties. Dudley shares that a key benefit to moderating a panel is how it shapes you into a leader and showcases both public speaking and executive presence skills.
I would recommend The Moderator’s Handbook to anyone who is tasked with leading panels or plans to attend panel discussions. It’s interesting to take these lessons and watch live panels, evaluating how the information shared in these pages could strengthen the experience or how the panel follows similar shared patterns. The real-world application is easy to replicate and reflect on in everyday events.