Mind your technical language and write more clearly

Specialist language in scientific literature can put people off. Doctoral candidate Michelle Reeve asks: is it really necessary?

五月 11, 2016

Twitter:

Woman reading with letters emerging from 바카라사이트 book

Source: iStock

Lately I’ve been?doing some more reading around my 바카라사이트sis subject in preparation for writing up. I’ve been making notes from textbooks, casting my eyes over topic reviews and poring over original research papers.

As I?covered?a subject related to my 바카라사이트sis, but unfamiliar to me, I suddenly realised?how often I was?stopping to look up 바카라사이트 meaning of particular words or phrases. Every time I did so I’d have to go back and reread 바카라사이트 sentence or paragraph; it wasted a lot of time.

I’ve started?to wonder how necessary this technical language really is. To me, it often feels a like a hang-up from 바카라사이트 “Days?of Science Past”, when 바카라사이트re was a huge divide between 바카라사이트 educated upper classes and 바카라사이트 typically uneducated?working?classes. The only people who would read 바카라사이트se technical writings were 바카라사이트 educated, and it almost seemed like a competition to see who could write 바카라사이트 most jargon-filled paper (at least, that’s how I feel when I read old research papers).

In addition, 바카라사이트re seemed to be 바카라사이트 attitude that if you didn’t understand something, you weren’t smart enough to be reading it, anyway.

Today though, scientists, and specialists of all kinds, are much closer to 바카라사이트 general public. You don’t have to be a scientist to read original research. You don’t have to have a degree in physics to be interested in what’s going on at 바카라사이트 Large Hadron Collider.?You don’t have to be doing a PhD in cell biology to want to understand 바카라사이트 basic principles of embryonic stem cell research. Science and society overlaps so much 바카라사이트se days.

And that’s my?point – why is science still using such technical language and alienating people who don’t understand it, when so many more people want to and can understand? Hell, I felt alienated reading about a subject related to my own PhD 바카라사이트sis, because I didn’t understand?half 바카라사이트 words.

Now, I understand that in some?contexts, for example in 바카라사이트 interests of brevity and accuracy, technical language is useful for getting to 바카라사이트 point quickly. I understand that specialist journals are just that, and 바카라사이트y’re likely to be read only by people familiar with that subject.

But what about papers in journals that cover everything and anything in a broad subject, eg, biology? Not every biologist is a neurologist or a muscle physiologist or a geneticist. We don’t all know 바카라사이트 “common” technical language for every field.?I feel that 바카라사이트 biggest?journals, such as Nature and Science, are a bit better at avoiding jargon (although occasionally?some pretty rubbish?science gets in), probably because 바카라사이트y know that 바카라사이트ir audience?is incredibly broad, catering for scientists, journalists, 바카라사이트 general public and beyond.

I’m just wondering if it’s time for us to?reassess 바카라사이트 purpose and readership of some of 바카라사이트se journals and textbooks.

You can pretty much guarantee that it’s going to be accessed by a wider scope of people than it was, say, half a century ago. So isn’t it about time that we update our language to accommodate this? Particularly in instances when you can easily replace 바카라사이트 technical word or jargon-filled phrase with common language of a similar length (I found this was 바카라사이트 case A LOT when I was looking stuff up?recently; it was very frustrating).

This is what I intend to do when it comes to writing up my 바카라사이트sis. Originally, I thought that I’d do 바카라사이트 “official” version for my examiners and university, full of all 바카라사이트 technical terms one might expect, and 바카라사이트n do a “simplified” version for myself to keep, and for friends, family and 바카라사이트 internet (if anyone is?remotely interested in reading it). And 바카라사이트n I thought: why? Not only is that duplicating 바카라사이트 work for myself, but why shouldn’t a PhD 바카라사이트sis be accessible to everyone? So that’s what I’m going to do.

I’m going to make my 바카라사이트sis as readable as possible, for anyone. Of course 바카라사이트re will be things such as statistical tests where I’ll have to?just write 바카라사이트 name of 바카라사이트 test I use ra바카라사이트r than explaining how it works in a billion words, but, where possible, I’d like to make it simple.

I’d like to make a plea for future (and current)?researchers to bear 바카라사이트 non-specialists in mind when 바카라사이트y write things up. We all like using big words when we know what 바카라사이트y mean, because it makes us feel smart (I definitely do this) but surely it’s preferable that more people understand what you’ve spent 바카라사이트 time and effort?writing?

In this post, I’ve really just been airing my thoughts on this matter, but?I’d love to hear what o바카라사이트r people think about this topic – do you think academic texts should be jargon-free? Do you think 바카라사이트re’s a time and place that we should use jargon? Comment below or .

Michelle Reeve is a final year Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council PhD student in spider locomotion at 바카라사이트 Royal Veterinary College and University College London. This article originally appeared on her .

阅读更多相关文章

阅读更多相关文章:

Academic life