It’s natural for a developer, when writing about software, to gravitate towards overly technical details that only interest people with the same level of knowledge or the same profession. Their language will, by default, be less simple and intuitive. This immediately alienates readers who are simply looking to learn more about the topic or find out about a product.
In this scenario, the developer is the one with the knowledge, but not necessarily the best person to communicate it. As a content writer, I fully subscribe to the idea that you don’t need to be an expert in a field to write about it. On the contrary: in my case, not having enough information is precisely what keeps my curiosity alive, my desire to understand and explain things better, both to myself and to others.
I realise, then, that there is something to be gained from being a learner, someone who is still unfamiliar with the subject and asks questions, which enables me to produce clearer and more effective texts, because I don’t assume that the reader already has prior knowledge. We’re on equal footing.
The research process, step by step
First and foremost, as highlighted in this article, producing good content always begins with a clear brief and open communication between client and writer. This is where I try to understand the content’s objectives, angle, tone, and desired depth, among other details.
Only then comes the research phase. And that’s what I want to focus on today. For a topic I don’t know much about, I typically divide research into three levels:
1. Overview
I focus on grasping the basic concepts and the language associated with the topic. I go through introductory articles, LinkedIn posts, podcasts, or explanatory videos.
2. Specialist sources
I look for studies, scientific publications, official bodies, and industry reports. Often, the client shares relevant resources that become primary sources themselves.
3. Validation
I cross-reference information, identify consensus and contradictions, and try to distinguish established fact from opinion from outdated data.
It’s especially important not to rush any of these stages. Laying the groundwork is just as important as writing. Only then can I build a clear mental structure of the information I want to convey and decide the best way to do so.
How do I assess the credibility of a source?
The same information can be found on dozens of websites. But there’s a significant difference between presenting it based on an “easy” source with little authority on the subject, and investing a little more time in research to find an impartial and reliable one.
In my process, I always evaluate who wrote the information, when it was published, whether it’s referenced by other credible sources, and whether there’s any conflict of interest that might skew the content. A study funded by the very industry it examines doesn’t carry the same weight as an independent study, right?
The basic rule I follow is this: if I can’t answer the question “who is saying this, and why?”, I discard that source.
The client is also a source of information
Especially in more specialised sectors, a lot of potentially relevant information for the final content isn’t publicly available. I mean data about brand positioning, the company’s internal context, product nuances, and similar details.
It’s always part of my process to identify what I need to ask the client versus what I can find out on my own. And it’s often something the client shares with me that unlocks new ideas and contributes to a more distinctive article.
Asking is key. The client doesn’t always know they have that information to give, or doesn’t consider it relevant at first. It’s the writer’s job to know how to ask for it.
How long does all this take?
It always depends on the type of content, the desired depth, the topic, and its inherent complexity. But – and I can’t stress this enough – the research and writing process should never be rushed. Doing so comes at a cost: it’s the difference between an article on, say, finance, based on generalities and easily accessible information, and the same article backed by statistics, figures from financial institutions, and market studies.
It is, of course, possible to write that article more quickly. It is possible to do it in record time. But it’s not possible to make it bulletproof, to sustain and justify it in a way that sets it apart from the rest.
So, my answer to the initial question is always the same: based on the brief, we’ll agree on a deadline that works for both of us.
To sum up…
Writing about the unknown is, for me, one of the most stimulating parts of the work. There’s something fascinating about starting from scratch, with little or no knowledge, and ending up with a text that explains the topic clearly, rigorously, and, above all, usefully.
This approach, which does not make any assumptions about the reader’s level of knowledge, makes the process more meticulous. And texts written with care read differently.
