1994 STC Salary Survey

Salary Survey, 1994
by Michael Harvey, Data General

This article was originally published in the September-October 1994 issue of the Carolina Chapter Communiqué. Since that time, Michael Harvey has conducted a new survey. You can read more about the 1997 STC Salary Survey.

In the September-October 1994 issue of the Carolina Communiqué, I posted a technical writing employment survey. Of the 310 Communiqué recipients, 67 responded to the survey by the November deadline. I continued to get responses as late as March, but I didn't include their data.

The survey's purpose was to discover the following:

• Who are the members of the Carolina STC? What is the age range of our membership? What is the gender breakdown? What's the highest educational degree we've earned? How much experience do we have? What is our salary distribution? How satisfied are we with our jobs?
• What do we do? What is our breakdown of "permanent" versus contractor? Do we write for end-users, programmers, or system administrators? What type of work environment do we have? Do we work on new or revised material?
• Where do we work? How long have we been there? Where did we work last, and how long were we there? How many writers work in our organization? Why did we leave our last job? Do we think we get adequate training?
• Does a writer's education predict his salary? Does her experience predict salary? Do contractors make more than permanent employees? Do males make more than females? Do older writers make more than younger writers? Do we think there are too many technical writers in the RTP market? Do we think we're overworked? Do we perceive fewer permanent positions opening up than before?

The Durham Tech program graduates around ten graduates a year. When they get jobs, do they get paid less than other tech writers? For that matter, how many tech writers studied tech writing in college or graduate school?

I used the SAS system to statistically test each of the questions posed in the last bullet. I performed a series of Chi-Square tests, which measure how well hypotheses fit observations and which apply to data where observations fall into discrete categories. I also ran analyses of variance, which test the effect of independent variables on dependent variables.

Chi-Square tests showed that of all the variables tested, only experience and education significantly affected salary. An analysis of variance testing a model including years of education and experience, whether an employee was permanent or contractor, gender, and age showed a significant effect on salary. Closer examination of the model revealed that only experience and salary contributed to the effect, experience more strongly than education.

Put simply, the longer you're a technical writer, the more money you make. You're likely to be earning more the more educated you are, but only if you're experienced. Salary differences between males and females, permanent employees and contractors, and older and younger writers are not significant.

Not surprisingly, an experienced technical writer is more likely to have a title such as "Senior Technical Writer" or "Technical Documentation" than someone less experienced. But job title by itself doesn't predict salary

Here's one of the most interesting things to emerge from the data. It's a graphical representation of the distribution of salary across survey respondents.

Salary range		Freq	Cum. Freq	Percent	Cum. Percent
25001-30000	*********	9	9	14.06	14.06
30001-35000	***********	11	20	17.19	31.25
35001-40000	***************	15	35	23.44	54.69
40001-45000	*********	9	44	14.06	68.75
45001-50000	**	2	46	3.13	71.88
Over 50000	******************	18	64	28.13	100.00
	-----+----+----+-----       5    10    15 Frequency

Not responding = 3


As you see, this graph peaks at the salary range of "$35001 to $40000", dips, and peaks again at "over $50000." The distribution strongly suggests distinct groups within the pool of respondents. Considering the results of my statistical tests, I conclude that there's one less experienced group making between $25000 and $45000 and another more experienced group making $40000 and up.

For a future employment survey, we will need to extend the upper boundary of salary. With the currently available data, there's no telling where the salary curve peaks above $50000.

Examining variables such as job satisfaction, professional growth, tools used, and so on, I discovered, not contrary to common sense, that someone who reported a high level of professional growth also reported high job satisfaction. The correlation between the two variables was significant. The correlation between working extra hours and reported job satisfaction, which I thought would be significantly negative, was insignificant. Someone making more money reported that technical writing met their salary expectations and reported higher job satisfaction, but the correlation between salary and job satisfaction was insignificant. All other correlations were insignificant. That it, reported opportunities for training, availability of resources, how often someone had to work overtime, and how much new writing a writer got to do all had no effect on job satisfaction.

Statistical tests aside, I collected a wealth of descriptive statistics. Here's how it all breaks down:

Age	Frequency	Percent	Cumulative Frequency	Cumulative Percent
25	1	1.5	1	1.5
27	3	4.5	4	6.0
28	1	1.5	5	7.5
29	5	7.5	10	14.9
30	3	4.5	13	19.4
32	2	3.0	15	22.4
33	6	9.0	21	31.3
34	3	4.5	24	35.8
35	7	10.4	31	46.3
36	2	3.0	33	49.3
37	1	1.5	34	50.7
38	3	4.5	37	55.2
39	3	4.5	40	59.7
40	2	3.0	42	62.7
41	4	6.0	46	68.7
42	2	3.0	48	71.6
43	4	6.0	52	77.6
44	3	4.5	55	82.1
45	1	1.5	56	83.6
49	3	4.5	59	88.1
51	1	1.5	60	89.6
52	2	3.0	62	92.5
53	2	3.0	64	95.5
54	1	1.5	65	97.0
57	1	1.5	66	98.5
58	1	1.5	67	100.0

Gender	Frequency	Percent	Cumulative Frequency	Cumulative Percent
Male	26	38.8	26	38.8
Female	41	61.2	67	100.0

Highest Degree	Frequency	Percent	Cumulative Frequency	Cumulative Percent
No degree	3	4.6	3	4.6
BA	33	50.8	36	55.4
BS	9	13.8	45	69.2
MA	13	20.0	58	89.2
MS	3	4.6	61	93.8
PhD	4	6.2	65	100.0

Not responding = 2

YrsEd	Frequency	Percent	Cumulative Frequency	Cumulative Percent
14	2	3.0	2	3.0
14.5	1	1.5	3	4.5
15.5	1	1.5	4	6.0
16	28	41.8	32	47.8
17	8	11.9	40	59.7
17.5	1	1.5	41	61.2
18	17	25.4	58	86.6
19	1	1.5	59	88.1
20	4	6.0	63	94.0
21	2	3.0	65	97.0
22	2	3.0	67	100.0

Did you take Technical Writing courses in college?

	Frequency	Percent	Cumulative Frequency	Cumulative Percent
No	56	84.8	56	84.8
Yes	10	15.2	66	100.0

Not responding= 1

Did you get a certificate from the Durham Tech program?

	Frequency	Percent	Cumulative Frequency	Cumulative Percent
No	58	87.9	58	87.9
Yes	8	12.1	66	100.0

Not responding = 1

YrsExp	Frequency	Percent	Cumulative Frequency	Cumulative Percent
1.5	1	1.6	1	1.6
2.5	3	4.8	4	6.5
3	4	6.5	8	12.9
4	6	9.7	14	22.6
4.5	2	3.2	16	25.8
5	7	11.3	23	37.1
5.5	1	1.6	24	38.7
6	5	8.1	29	46.8
6.5	2	3.2	31	50.0
7	2	3.2	33	53.2
8	6	9.7	39	62.9
9	4	6.5	43	69.4
10	5	8.1	48	77.4
12	4	6.5	52	83.9
13	1	1.6	53	85.5
14	2	3.2	55	88.7
15	2	3.2	57	91.9
16	2	3.2	59	95.2
17	1	1.6	60	96.8
23	1	1.6	61	98.4
25	1	1.6	62	100.0

Not responding = 5

How well has Technical Writing met your expectations in terms of job satisfaction?
(1=Very Well, 3=Moderately Well, 5=Not at All)

Job Satisfaction	Frequency	Percent	Cumulative Frequency	Cumulative Percent
1	24	36.9	24	36.9
2	12	18.5	36	55.4
3	26	40.0	62	95.4
4	3	4.6	65	100.0

Not responding = 2

How well has Technical Writing met your expectations in terms of salary?
(1=Very Well, 3=Moderately Well, 5=Not at All)

Salary Expectations	Frequency	Percent	Cumulative Frequency	Cumulative Percent
1	18	27.7	18	27.7
2	12	18.5	30	46.2
3	26	40.0	56	86.2
4	6	9.2	62	95.4
5	3	4.6	65	100.0

Not responding = 2

How well has Technical Writing met your expectations in terms of professional growth?
(1=Very Well, 3=Moderately Well, 5=Not at All)

ProfGro	Frequency	Percent	Cumulative Frequency	Cumulative Percent
1	13	20.0	13	20.0
2	13	20.0	26	40.0
3	31	47.7	57	87.7
4	6	9.2	63	96.9
5	2	3.1	65	100.0

Not responding = 2

Why did you become a technical writer?

Freq	Reason
17	Good use of my skills
15	No response
14	Enjoyed tasks
14	Money
8	Accident
5	Recommended
4	Answered an ad
4	Marketable skills
3	Lack of alternative
1	Not applicable

Would you recommend technical writing to a friend?

	Frequency	Percent	Cumulative Frequency	Cumulative Percent
No	7	11.1	7	11.1
Yes	56	88.9	63	100.0

Not responding = 4

What's the biggest change you've seen in the profession over the last five years?

Freq	Change
14	No response
12	Emphasis on online doc
11	Technology
8	Emphasis on technology skills rather than writing
8	More contractors
8	More demanding
7	Tool changes
6	Get more respect
5	Growth of field
4	More competition
4	Other
3	Diminished morale
3	Less qualified peers
2	Get less respect
2	Internationalization
1	No change

Job Title	Frequency	Percent	Cumulative Frequency	Cumulative Percent
Technical Writer	23	35.4	23	35.4
Sr. Tech Writer/	15	23.1	38	58.5
Documentation Sp	7	10.8	45	69.2
Project Leader	8	12.3	53	81.5
Manager	11	16.9	64	98.5
Other	1	1.5	65	100.0

Not responding = 2

	Frequency	Percent	Cumulative Frequency	Cumulative Percent
Contractor	11	16.7	11	16.7
Permanent	55	83.3	66	100.0

Not responding = 1

Who is the audience for your current assignment?

Freq	Audience
32	End users
17	Programmers
7	Managers
7	System administrators
6	Medical personnel
6	Scientists
5	Engineers/Scientists
4	No response
4	Technicians
2	Government personnel
2	NA
2	Sales/Marketing
2	Technical writers
1	Trainers

What publishing and graphics tools do you use most often?
(Respondents could name as many as they wished.)

Freq	Tool
28	Word
17	WordPerfect
16	Other
14	Framemaker
11	Bookmaster
11	Pagemaker
10	CorelDRAW
8	Interleaf
6	In-house tools
4	Excel
4	No response
4	PowerPoint
3	AmiPro
3	Framebuilder
2	Adobe Illustrator
2	IPF
2	Photoshop
1	Micrografx Designer
1	NA
1	SGML

What percentage of the time do you work alone?

Freq Mean Std Dev Median Minimum Maximum
------------
Work alone 63 39.079 27.057 30.000 0 100.000


For your last project, did you revise existing material or write new material?

	Frequency	Percent	Cumulative Frequency	Cumulative Percent
Revise	37	59.7	37	59.7
Write new	25	40.3	62	100.0

Not responding = 5

If you revised material, how extensively did you rework it?
(1=Complete rewrite, 3=Moderate revision, 5=Light Edit)

Rework	Frequency	Percent	Cumulative Frequency	Cumulative Percent
0 19	30.2	19	30.2
1	11	17.5	30	47.6
2	13	20.6	43	68.3
2.5	1	1.6	44	69.8
3	15	23.8	59	93.7
4	2	3.2	61	96.8
5	2	3.2	63	100.0

Not responding = 4

Some respondents reported that they did both: wrote new and revised existing material. If they did both but did not report to what extent they revised material, I scored the response 0.

To what extent do you feel you have adequate resources to do your job (in terms of persons assigned, time allowed, tools)?
(1=More than adequate, 3=Adequate, 5=Inadequate)

Resource	Frequency	Percent	Cumulative Frequency	Cumulative Percent
1	3	4.6	3	4.6
2	7	10.8	10	15.4
3	30	46.2	40	61.5
3.3	1	1.5	41	63.1
3.5	1	1.5	42	64.6
4	17	26.2	59	90.8
5	6	9.2	65	100.0

Not responding = 2

How often do you have to work beyond normal work hours to get a job done?
(1=Often, 3=Now and then, 5=Never)

ExtraHrs	Frequency	Percent	Cumulative Frequency	Cumulative Percent
1	8	12.5	8	12.5
1.5	1	1.6	9	14.1
2	13	20.3	22	34.4
3	30	46.9	52	81.3
3.5	2	3.1	54	84.4
4	7	10.9	61	95.3
5	3	4.7	64	100.0

Not responding = 3

Where do you work now?

	Frequency	Percent	Cumulative Frequency	Cumulative Percent
Computer company	28	41.8	28	41.8
Pharm company	2	3.0	30	44.8
Research institute	4	6.0	34	50.7
Contract house	9	13.4	43	64.2
Bank	1	1.5	44	65.7
Hospital	2	3.0	46	68.7
Self	9	13.4	55	82.1
Other	11	16.4	66	98.5
Unemployed	1	1.5	67	100.0

How many years have you worked there?

YearsNow	Frequency	Percent	Cumulative Frequency	Cumulative Percent
0.08	1	1.5	1	1.5
0.16	1	1.5	2	3.0
0.25	1	1.5	3	4.5
0.3	4	6.1	7	10.6
0.4	1	1.5	8	12.1
0.5	1	1.5	9	13.6
0.58	2	3.0	11	16.7
0.6	1	1.5	12	18.2
1	7	10.6	19	28.8
1.5	4	6.1	23	34.8
1.6	1	1.5	24	36.4
2	4	6.1	28	42.4
2.25	1	1.5	29	43.9
2.5	6	9.1	35	53.0
3	3	4.5	38	57.6
3.5	1	1.5	39	59.1
4	3	4.5	42	63.6
5	5	7.6	47	71.2
5.5	1	1.5	48	72.7
6	4	6.1	52	78.8
7	2	3.0	54	81.8
8	1	1.5	55	83.3
9	1	1.5	56	84.8
10	3	4.5	59	89.4
12	3	4.5	62	93.9
18	2	3.0	64	97.0
20	1	1.5	65	98.5
28	1	1.5	66 100.0

Not responding = 1

How many writers/editors are in your organization?

NumWriters	Frequency	Percent	Cumulative Frequency	Cumulative Percent
0	1	1.7	1	1.7
1	13	22.4	14	24.1
2	4	6.9	18	31.0
3	2	3.4	20	34.5
4	4	6.9	24	41.4
6	1	1.7	25	43.1
7	2	3.4	27	46.6
8	2	3.4	29	50.0
10	3	5.2	32	55.2
12	4	6.9	36	62.1
14	1	1.7	37	63.8
15	2	3.4	39	67.2
19	1	1.7	40	69.0
20	1	1.7	41	70.7
21	1	1.7	42	72.4
28	1	1.7	43	74.1
30	1	1.7	44	75.9
40	1	1.7	45	77.6
45	1	1.7	46	79.3
50	5	8.6	51	87.9
52	1	1.7	52	89.7
60	1	1.7	53	91.4
65	1	1.7	54	93.1
70	2	3.4	56	96.6
100	1	1.7	57	98.3
175	1	1.7	58 100.0

Not responding = 9

Where did you work before?

	Frequency	Percent	Cumulative Frequency	Cumulative Percent
Computer company	13	20.0	13	20.0
Pharm company	1	1.5	14	21.5
Research institute	6	9.2	20	30.8
Contract house	24	36.9	44	67.7
Bank	1	1.5	45	69.2
Hospital	1	1.5	46	70.8
Self	2	3.1	48	73.8
Other	17	26.2	65	100.0

Not responding = 2

How many years did you work there?

Cumulative Cumulative
Yearsbef Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
--------------
0.5 3 4.8 3 4.8
0.75 1 1.6 4 6.3
0.8 1 1.6 5 7.9
1 3 4.8 8 12.7
1.5 2 3.2 10 15.9
2 12 19.0 22 34.9
2.5 2 3.2 24 38.1
3 9 14.3 33 52.4
4 8 12.7 41 65.1
4.5 1 1.6 42 66.7
5 10 15.9 52 82.5
5.5 2 3.2 54 85.7
6 2 3.2 56 88.9
6.5 1 1.6 57 90.5
8 1 1.6 58 92.1
9 3 4.8 61 96.8
15 1 1.6 62 98.4
16 1 1.6 63 100.0

Not responding = 4






Other places of employment.

Freq	Place
43	NA
3	Telecommunications (now)
2	Engineering (before)
2	Environmental (now)
2	Manufacturing (before)
1	Agricultural Chemicals (before)
1	Cargo airline (before)
1	Computing Services (before)
1	Electronics firm (before)
1	Environmental (before)
1	Financial (before)
1	Government (before)
1	High school teacher (before)
1	Manufacturing (now)
1	NA (previous)
1	Not specified (now)
1	Research (before)
1	Restaurant chain (now)
1	State of N.C
1	Student (before)
1	Telecommunications (before)
1	Training (now)
1	U.S. Navy (before)
1	Utility (before)
1	Utility (now)

Why did you leave your previous employer?

Reason Frequency Percent
----------
Better job 25 36.8
Job dissatisfaction 10 14.7
Job ended 16 23.5
NA 2 2.9
No response 3 4.4
Relocate 11 16.2
Uneasy about company 1 1.5





Before you start on a project, to what extent do you get adequate training to do the work required?
(1=More than Adequate, 3=Adequate, 5=Inadequate)

Cumulative Cumulative
Training Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
--------------
0 1 1.6 1 1.6
1 2 3.3 3 4.9
2 6 9.8 9 14.8
3 24 39.3 33 54.1
3.5 2 3.3 35 57.4
4 18 29.5 53 86.9
5 8 13.1 61 100.0

Not responding = 6




Give examples of training.

Freq	Training
33	No response
13	OJT
11	Classes
9	No training provided
7	Self-directed
4	Meetings
4	Reading
2	NA
1	Training irrelevant

Why did you leave your previous employer?

Freq	Reason
25	For a better job elsewhere
16	Job ended
11	Relocate
10	Job dissatisfaction
3	No response
2	NA
1	Uneasy about company's future

This was touted as an employment survey, but it really only shows what employees think about what's going on in the marketplace. It's important to understand how workers perceive their market, but in future, we should survey employers as well as employees to really understand what types of writing jobs will be offered.

The descriptive statistics pose tantalizing questions in their own right. Most responses about the biggest change in the field alluded to technological changes. It's curious, but understandable, that writers should be preoccupied with technology and tools. A future survey should determine what members think core technical writing skills ought to be, technical or writing skills. Don't strong writing skills provide us with the wherewithal to keep up with rapid changes in technology? Respondents also reported a concern about a growth of contract, and implicitly less secure, positions in the field, yet the permanent employees responding outnumbered the contractors. Were the contractors too busy to respond? Or do they not belong to STC?

It seems the more answers you collect, the more you new questions you find.

---

Michael Harvey (harveym@rtp.dg.com)
Data General
Documentation
62 T.W. Alexander Drive
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
(919) 248-6059

Data owned by Michael Harvey. Please contact him regarding questions about the survey.

---