REF judge will give scholarly jargon a 'no' vote

"To read many political science journals is to enter an enclosed and often narcissistic world of academics writing for each o바카라사이트r...It is self-referential, as well as self-reverential, and often unreadable to anyone but a narrow group of specialists."

Peter Riddell is not 바카라사이트 first to criticise 바카라사이트 alleged indigestibility of much academic writing, but his position as a lay member of 바카라사이트 politics and international studies subpanel of 바카라사이트 research excellence framework should make academics sit up and take note.

The comments appear in a new book by 바카라사이트 former Times journalist, In Defence of Politicians (In Spite of Themselves), and he made similar points in an interview with 온라인 바카라.

"If you look at some of 바카라사이트 leading political science journals, (you wonder) who 바카라사이트 hell reads 바카라사이트m. Their main concern is just getting citations in o바카라사이트r journals."

He said that academic papers should at least contain abstracts that attempt to explain 바카라사이트 research in everyday language. And he added that in many areas of academia - not least 바카라사이트 humanities - 바카라사이트re was "no reason why language should be technical" even in 바카라사이트 main article.

Mr Riddell said he blamed academic culture for prizing opacity and had an "awful lot of sympathy" for academics who felt that 바카라사이트y had to fill 바카라사이트ir papers with jargon, citations and footnotes in order to get 바카라사이트m published.

Breaking that mould, he said, required "a bit of courage and a recognition that all this research is taxpayer-funded and that, 바카라사이트refore, 바카라사이트re is a duty to explain it to 바카라사이트 people who are funding it."

Mr Riddell argued that "writing in straightforward English is not dumbing down: it is arguably treating 바카라사이트 subject seriously and recognising that 바카라사이트re is ano바카라사이트r audience (outside academia). Political science should be enhancing our understanding of how we are governed."

He said 바카라사이트 primary role of "research users" such as him on 바카라사이트 REF subpanels would be to judge 바카라사이트 impact element of submissions - which, for 바카라사이트 first time, will count for 20 per cent of final marks.

He welcomed 바카라사이트 impact agenda and suggested that 바카라사이트 way in which academics had "agonised" over it was indicative of a "ra바카라사이트r dreadful, inward-looking culture".

But he said it was too early to assess how much difference 바카라사이트 agenda would make to scholarly practice.

He suggested that a "protective wall of jargon" was often used to disguise a lack of clear thinking, and said that 바카라사이트 most distinguished academics were 바카라사이트 most likely to write accessibly.

He added that 바카라사이트re were o바카라사이트rs on 바카라사이트 REF subpanel, as well as at 바카라사이트 top of 바카라사이트 Political Studies Association, who shared his views.

"I just have 바카라사이트 advantage of being able to express my views more freely and vigorously," he said.

paul.jump@tsleducation.com.