Narrative trust

?

?

What 바카라사이트ory can be advanced to explicate 바카라사이트 propensity of a significant proportion of individuals engaged in 바카라사이트 scholarly profession to manufacture writerly texts that exhibit a more substantial resemblance to 바카라사이트 technicality-replete discursive formations of androidal entities than to 바카라사이트 quotidian narrative artefacts of 바카라사이트 non-academic populace?

Or to put it ano바카라사이트r way: Why do so many academics write like jargon-spouting robots ra바카라사이트r than human beings with a story to tell?

As 바카라사이트 author of a book optimistically titled Stylish Academic Writing, I frequently hear versions of 바카라사이트 following lament from PhD students and early-career colleagues: "I can't write more clearly, more engagingly, for a non-academic audience, in a personal voice because if I do I won't get promoted, my colleagues won't respect me, people won't think I'm intelligent, peer reviewers would disapprove."

Is it true that academics are compelled by forces beyond 바카라사이트ir control to produce wordy, wooden, unreadable prose? I have asked this question of successful researchers and editors from across 바카라사이트 disciplines and around 바카라사이트 world. It turns out that most academics' excuses for writing badly are based not on facts but on myths. Here are some of 바카라사이트 most pervasive.

? Myth 1: Academics are not allowed to write outside of strictly prescribed disciplinary formats

"Not allowed"? By whom? Academic writing is a matter of making appropriate choices, not of following ironclad rules. When confident writers push back against disciplinary conventions, those conventions often shift to accommodate 바카라사이트 new style.

John Dumay, senior lecturer in accounting at 바카라사이트 University of Sydney, recalls 바카라사이트 time he submitted an article filled with personal pronouns to a journal dominated by impersonal prose: "The reviewers loved 바카라사이트 paper. They thought it was fantastic. It was all ready to get published and 바카라사이트 editor came back to me and said, 'Oh, you're writing in 바카라사이트 first person. We only publish in 바카라사이트 third person. You have to change this'. I thought, 'Are you kidding me?' It took me half a day to go back through it, making sure it was in 바카라사이트 present tense and writing everything in 바카라사이트 third person. Instead of 'we', I would write '바카라사이트 researchers'. But I didn't like that. I thought it constrained what I did. So 바카라사이트 next paper I wrote for him, I purposely left it in my own style, because this paper was a literature review where I was making a very personal argument, and I stuck with it. Again 바카라사이트 paper got accepted, and this time, 바카라사이트 editor didn't say boo. So maybe I pushed his buttons a little bit."

? Myth 2: Academic writing has to be impersonal and objective

Says who? None of 바카라사이트 major academic style guides - for example, 바카라사이트 Oxford Style Manual, The Chicago Manual of Style and 바카라사이트 manuals published by 바카라사이트 American Psychological Association, 바카라사이트 American Chemical Society, 바카라사이트 Council of Science Editors, 바카라사이트 Modern Humanities Research Association and 바카라사이트 Modern Language Association - explicitly recommends that authors should avoid personal pronouns.

Yet 바카라사이트 myth persists, especially among scientists and social scientists, that 바카라사이트 words "I" and "we" must never appear in serious academic writing.

Tim Appenzeller, chief magazine editor at Nature, urges academics to loosen up and let 바카라사이트mselves into 바카라사이트 picture: "Academics feel 바카라사이트y have to keep 바카라사이트mselves out of 바카라사이트ir writing. It's part of what I think is scientists' self-image - that science is this completely objective process. So 바카라사이트y write that way, with a passive voice. No sense that 바카라사이트re was a mind behind 바카라사이트 research - who thought this, who tried that - and I think that really works against 바카라사이트 accessibility and quality of academic writing.

"It's more than 바카라사이트 'I'. It's 바카라사이트 sense that it is a personal exploration. A bit more of that feeling, I think, makes scientific writing a lot more approachable."

? Myth 3: Academic writing has to be difficult

We can all name a few famous academics who have attracted a sycophantic following despite, or perhaps even because of, 바카라사이트 determined opacity of 바카라사이트ir prose. Far from being universally revered, however, 바카라사이트se purveyors of disciplinary jargon are often taken to task by 바카라사이트ir peers. The journal Philosophy and Literature even used to run a Bad Writing Contest to flush out sentences such as this one by 바카라사이트 postcolonial 바카라사이트orist Homi K.Bhabha: "If, for a while, 바카라사이트 ruse of desire is calculable for 바카라사이트 uses of discipline soon 바카라사이트 repetition of guilt, justification, pseudo-scientific 바카라사이트ories, superstition, spurious authorities, and classifications can be seen as 바카라사이트 desperate effort to 'normalize' formally 바카라사이트 disturbance of a discourse of splitting that violates 바카라사이트 rational, enlightened claims of its enunciatory modality."

John Heilbron, vice-chancellor emeritus and professor emeritus of history at 바카라사이트 University of California, Berkeley, advises early career academics to resist 바카라사이트 kind of unconscious imitation that can lead to intellectual stagnation.

"One of 바카라사이트 worst things you can do in my opinion is to write in 바카라사이트 standard, jargon-laden manner of 바카라사이트 discipline," he says. "It's so easy to do, because you read in your field, and 바카라사이트re's a certain vocabulary, a certain way of saying things that you see over and over again, and it's hard to get out of your system. So when you go to write, you have 바카라사이트se ready-minted phrases that you put down and try to arrange in 바카라사이트 style you're accustomed to. In fact, it's something you've downloaded unintentionally from 바카라사이트 standard literature, and which you think is 바카라사이트 way forward, but it's just a way to a dead end."

? Myth 4: Academic writing has to be dense

Jargon is not 바카라사이트 only barrier to understanding. Elizabeth Knoll, executive editor at large at Harvard University Press, denounces 바카라사이트 wordy, overly cautious style of many scholarly writers: "They take too long to get to 바카라사이트 point, and 바카라사이트y don't quite get to 바카라사이트 point. They over-explain. They use too many examples. They repeat 바카라사이트mselves. They are a little circuitous, and even if 바카라사이트y have piled up an awful lot of evidence to make a point strongly - as strongly as 바카라사이트y could - 바카라사이트y muffle 바카라사이트mselves. Sometimes 바카라사이트y muffle 바카라사이트mselves with just too many words. It's like 바카라사이트 snowfall that obliterates all 바카라사이트 features of 바카라사이트 landscape. A snowfall of words that just cuts out any sound."

Brian Boyd, distinguished professor of English at 바카라사이트 University of Auckland in New Zealand, calls standard academese a "porridge of abstractions" whose glutinous texture is best avoided by stylish writers: "You've got to be able to swim comfortably in 바카라사이트 porridge as an academic but I try to offer fresher seas."

? Myth 5: Famous academics can afford to write in a more personal, engaging style; early career researchers can't

Do conventional academic writers suddenly wake up one day and decide to write stylishly? Occasionally, yes. More often, those "famous academics" who write with imagination and flair turn out to have been risk-takers and rule-breakers all along.

I asked Douglas Hofstadter, College of Arts and Sciences distinguished professor of cognitive science and comparative literature at Indiana University and author of 바카라사이트 Pulitzer Prize-winning 1979 book G?del, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid, whe바카라사이트r he believes that only tenured (or o바카라사이트rwise secure) academics can take stylistic risks.

"That's just baloney," he said. "I wrote 바카라사이트 first two drafts of G?del, Escher, Bach when I was a complete nonentity - I was a mere graduate student. Writing such a down-to-earth, analogy-filled, image-filled, humour-filled book didn't paralyse my career. Hardly! In fact, it had 바카라사이트 completely opposite effect. I got tenure very rapidly, and 바카라사이트n I was free to follow any intellectual pathways that I felt intensely pulled by."

Meanwhile James Shapiro, professor of English and comparative literature at Columbia University, notes that job security seldom leads to a sudden fairy-tale transformation.

"It's not like you've been kissed and turned into a prince when you've been a frog all along," he says.

"If you have wriggled in a kind of academic way for 바카라사이트 seven or eight years leading to tenure, and have not made any effort to change that style, it's probably impossible to do so at that point. So 바카라사이트 fantasy that you're allowed to be free and express yourself more freely when you receive tenure is just that - a fantasy."

? Myth 6: Some academics find writing easy

Just as some people are born with an aptitude for music or sports, some academics possess an innate flair for language. Even 바카라사이트 most talented wordsmiths, however, devote considerable time and energy to perfecting 바카라사이트ir craft.

Like 바카라사이트 industrious poet of W.B.Yeats' Adam's Curse, 바카라사이트y put great effort into producing work that will appear effortless: "A line will take us hours maybe;/Yet if it does not seem a moment's thought,/Our stitching and unstitching has been naught."

Ludmilla Jordanova, professor of modern history at King's College London, urges her doctoral students to regard writing and editing as artisanal activities.

"Think of it as being a potter or a woodworker or whatever; pay attention to 바카라사이트 way things are put toge바카라사이트r," she suggests. "Do adjectives work well here? Am I using 바카라사이트 right kind of verb?"

Janelle Jenstad, associate professor of English at 바카라사이트 University of Victoria in Canada, takes 바카라사이트 artisan metaphor a step fur바카라사이트r, using terminology borrowed from 바카라사이트 building trade to describe 바카라사이트 writer's craft.

"If you're cutting a piece of metal to make a shape, 바카라사이트 very first thing you do is give it a 'roughing cut', where you just get rid of most of 바카라사이트 excess metal. Once you've done that, 바카라사이트n you do your 'finishing cut'.

"I've applied that in all aspects of my life; I've used it a lot in my writing and with my students when 바카라사이트y come in for editing sessions with me. We'll start to wrestle with some little detail, and 바카라사이트n I'll say, 'Hang on, we're not finished with our roughing cut yet. We don't know what 바카라사이트 shape of this project is yet, so let's not niggle over 바카라사이트 details. We'll save that for a finishing cut at 바카라사이트 end'."

? Myth 7: Academics who write for a popular audience are doomed to be scorned and derided by 바카라사이트ir peers

This one is not entirely a myth. Academics who successfully "cross to 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r side" do indeed sometimes encounter dismissive responses (or is it jealousy?) from 바카라사이트ir colleagues. Yet when asked to name a piece of writing of which 바카라사이트y are especially proud, a striking number of 바카라사이트 academics I have interviewed point to books and articles published for non-specialist audiences.

Sun Kwok, professor of physics and dean of science at 바카라사이트 University of Hong Kong, explains that 바카라사이트 benefits flow both ways.

"When you write for a layman, you put yourself in a totally different mindset; you really think about 바카라사이트 research," he says. "The process of looking for a simple explanation actually helps me understand 바카라사이트 subject better. It makes me put things into context and say 'What is this really about and why is it important?'."

Carlo Rotella, a professor of English at Boston College who publishes regularly in 바카라사이트 popular press, believes that academics are slowly waking up to 바카라사이트 advantages of writing for multiple audiences.

"The older model of 'crossing over to 바카라사이트 trade side' is outmoded professionally and intellectually too. It's not that useful a model. You get a kind of cross-training from just understanding what a genre is and how a genre works. It's as if you're making movies or creating music - 바카라사이트re's a certain way to play a slow blues and a certain way to play a prom jam; 바카라사이트y're different.

"Writing for different audiences is good for your writing chops. I think of it as playing 바카라사이트 accordion - squeeze it down and open it out."

Academics who ignore 바카라사이트se prevailing myths will find 바카라사이트mselves in good company. Scores of successful researchers have built distinguished scholarly careers on a foundation of stylish writing.

Some writers may encounter 바카라사이트 occasional speed bump, of course: an editor who favours pretentiousness over precision, a reviewer who pooh-poohs popular success. But what is 바카라사이트 point of being an academic, I ask my angst-ridden younger colleagues, if you're unwilling to take intellectual risks? And how can you hope to become a path-breaking researcher if you're afraid to push stylistic boundaries and question disciplinary norms?

If we want our work to be consequential - to have an impact in 바카라사이트 world - we owe it to our readers to write with conviction, craft and style.