On academic writing: a personal note (2016)

https://sci-hub.do/10.1080/07294360.2016.1172766

by Tomte • 5 years ago

73 56 5 years ago

sci-hub.do

tomrod• 5 years ago

Pdf warning please?

Faaak• 5 years ago

just curious, but why ?

Wowfunhappy• 5 years ago

The site guidelines do request this:

If you submit a video or pdf, please warn us by appending [video] or [pdf] to the title.

amval• 5 years ago

Reading a PDF on my phone is not something I am going to do. So it helps if it's tagged, I will skip it or maybe open it later from my computer.

vaylian• 5 years ago

My impression is that many new academic writers try to imitate the style of established academics. The results are very unnatural and hard to read texts. And journals are fine with terrible writing style, because most academics are not good writers. Furthermore, unclear and convoluted writing is often seen as fitting due to the complexity of what is being written about.

beanjuice• 5 years ago

Also consider that by the numbers, most of academia wasn't even born native English speaking, whether they now live in an English speaking country or not.

A personal note, I'm a native english speaker living abroad, with a non-native-english speaking superiors. While their writing is quite good, i find myself battling constantly for what we might consider 'better, more clear' writing, in favor of the current scientific writing 'trends' in our field.

A successful paper or two with a weird phrase or typo will end up reshaping that field to adopt this language, as authors of subsequent work attempt to align themselves to the original topic.

bluetomcat• 5 years ago

The "concise and clear" style of writing that's prevalent in the Anglophile world isn't nearly as popular in other cultures. In primary school in post-communist Bulgaria, we were given bonus points for constructing compound sentences with 3 or 4 clauses, for using different words for referring to the same entity (rich vocabulary, supposedly). Repeating the same noun in a consequent sentence was a big no-no. Writing in a "concise" way made you look "simple" to the teacher, and complex sentences made a good impression even when the content is factually or semantically unsound.

Sharlin3• 5 years ago

It's all too human an instinct to attempt to signal in-group membership by imitating and adopting the culture of said in-group (see shibboleth [1]). It's also common to go overboard in these attempts to the point of hypercorrection which, if turnover rate is high enough, may then become accepted usage for the next generation…

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth

mellavora• 5 years ago

Former academic here. Have to rather strongly disagree with you.

At least in fields I was familiar with, a lot of Ph.D. training focuses on making people into good writers. Clear communication with both peers and the general population is rewarded; it is damn near impossible to get ahead without these skills.

I don't know what you mean by "hard to read." A good scientific paper is supposed to be very information rich. It condenses 100 other very dense papers into 4 pages, leaving just a few pages for the new contribution of the current work.

Even for a very clear paper, for a field I am well versed in, a good paper takes 10 readings to understand. Because of the information density.

sxg• 5 years ago

I think the argument is that it shouldn't take 10 readings to understand a very clear and good paper in your field. There's likely an easier way to communicate dense information.

billytetrud4• 5 years ago

If something is clearly written, it shouldn't take 10 readings. Information density often is at odds with readability. In programming material, there is a difference between learning oriented explanatory documentation and dense reference documentation. Dense only works after you already understand the concepts of the whole. Before that you need clear, non-dense explanations to learn those concepts. Nearly all academic papers I've read are quite inaccessible to read. So either the phd training you're familiar with is a diamond in the rough, or the training isn't working to help write papers that are written clearly for people who aren't already phds.

Sharlin3• 5 years ago

Unsurprisingly, this applies to programming all too well. A computer program is simply a description of an idea, and the ability to write complex code does not a great programmer make. The best programmers are able to come up with simple solutions to complex problems. The worst programmers are those who devise complex solutions to simple problems.

jkhdigital• 5 years ago

Complex problems often do not admit simple solutions. What I think you are trying to get at is that the best programmers (and writers, etc.) are able to decompose the complexity into digestible chunks, so that each module (or chapter, etc.) can be understood with relative ease.

Sharlin3• 5 years ago

Yes, the concept of "carving nature at its joints" seems apt. As does the quote "everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler". The ability to distinguish between essential complexity and accidental complexity.

Cenk• 5 years ago

If the sci hub link is blocked for you (like it is for me on Hyperoptic in the UK), this link should work: https://paperpanda.app/viewer?doi=10.1080/07294360.2016.1172...

sampo• 5 years ago

Feynman on reading a sociology paper:

So I stopped – at random – and read the next sentence very carefully. I can’t remember it precisely, but it was very close to this: “The individual member of the social community often receives his information via visual, symbolic channels.” I went back and forth over it, and translated. You know what it means? “People read.”

https://thedetectiveshandbook.wordpress.com/2018/08/06/feynm...

This is part of a story in the book (Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!) and from the book I understand it happened in the 1950s.

jcranberry• 5 years ago

If you take the benefit of the doubt on the part of the author of the verbose sentence, then it could be that each of the abstractions in it is relevant. In that case, beginning with "People read" means you have to bring the reader around to the idea that it's relevant for contrasting individuals with collectives, social communities with non-social communities (?), and visual or symbolic types of learning with other types of learning.

Basically what I'm saying is that starting point of "people read" actually might end up verbose enough that it's equally distracting. If those generalities are relevant to the study then the error of the original writer wasn't that she was too wordy, it's that she was too terse. Essentially it would have all these relevant concepts jammed into one sentence and it takes for granted that the reader is already comfortable working with these concepts.

Of course this is not necessarily an error from the perspective of people in the field--this is all from the perspective of the author of the note.

munificent2• 5 years ago

If you take the benefit of the doubt on the part of the author of the verbose sentence, then it could be that each of the abstractions in it is relevant.

I get Feynmann's point, but you are absolutely right. I took a sociology class in symbolic interactionism years ago and what that original sentence is trying to stress is that:

* We see symbols whose meaning and interpretation is socially determined.

* Those symbols are visual but not always textual.

The original sentence explains why when a person in a blue outfit with badges on the shoulders and a peaked hat yells, "Get down!" you lay on the ground with your hands over your head, but when a person in a spandex jumpsuit and wraparound shades says the same thing you start dancing. Feymann's sentence loses that meaning.

xenonite• 5 years ago

Link to the publisher's page: https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1172766

m12k• 5 years ago

People who want to be clever use language to make simple things complicated. People who are clever use language to make complicated things simple.

billytetrud4• 5 years ago

The problem is that academia seems to encourage and reward this kind of hypercomplex writing

dr_hooo• 5 years ago

Treating academia as one homogeneous group isn't helpful. In my field (CS) good authors do use concise and easy to understand language to get their points across. Of course domain specific jargon is included, but that is not surprising, as you can convey much more information this way (as you don't have to explain all known concepts over and over again). The target audience is usually well familiar with the language. Scientific writing is not usually meant to be consumed by readers outside a certain community.

chakkepolja• 5 years ago

Sounds true. Only place where I like to use complex language intentionally is comedic / sarcastic purposes.

scott_s5• 5 years ago

"Your words are expensive." Said to me by my graduate advisor when he said I had not stated something, and I pointed out I had, once, in an earlier section.

My writing style, even my academic writing style, is a result of how I was trained as a writer: as a journalist, from spending so much time on my high school newspaper. I have long felt this was an advantage. I was trained as a writer to write straight-forward prose. And I was trained as an editor to eliminate unnecessary words and try to find the simplest way to say something.

My advisor was right, of course. Academic writing is not journalistic writing. I still try to keep my prose as simple as possible, but now I will repeat important sentiments throughout the paper. People don't read academic papers the same as news stories; readers expect to be able to read sections in relative isolation. If something is important, repeat it! But repeat it simply.

exo-pla-net3• 5 years ago

You represent a small intersect of people who are both good writers and academics, so your advice is rare and valuable to people seeking to follow in your footsteps.

Any other tips or strange adaptations you've had to make, in order to make good writing work in academia?

scott_s5• 5 years ago

I don't think of it as making good writing work in academia. Good writing is an advantage in academia. Reviewers are more likely to accept your paper, and readers are more likely to read more.

iamcreasy2• 5 years ago

Just to make sure I got it - you advisor is asking you to repeat important stuff in different section even it feels redundant?

scott_s5• 5 years ago

Not exactly. My advisor, an experienced researcher who already knew what I was writing about, missed an important thing that I said. That meant I failed to communicate something to a very sympathetic reader. That's a big miss. From that, I learned that if something is important, find multiple ways to say it in multiple places.

I only really know academic computer science papers, and even then, papers that tend to have a systems component. Your most important claims, conclusions and results should be stated in your abstract and introduction. Some things are fundamental enough to repeat in your design/analysis and results, and some others will only end up in one of those sections. Don't use the same literal sentence, over-and-over, but reinforce important sentiments. If restating something all over your paper doesn't feel right, then it may not be as important as you think it is.

Academic papers are not novels, and they certainly are not mysteries. Don't hold out on a reveal until the end: say the most important stuff upfront. People often will not read your paper end-to-end, and usually only some of the sections. It's not possible to make your sections truly self-contained, but it's worth repeating fundamental things. If your experimental results are confirming your theoretical analysis, restate that theoretical result in your experimental results as context. If your experimental results demonstrate that a particular design decision you made in your system truly does provide better performance, restate that design decision.

psychomugs2• 5 years ago

As a student of a former journalist and journalist myself (mainly photojournalism for the independent student paper, but I wrote for the high school paper), I don't agree with the sentiment that they are dissimilar, specifically because of their mutual emphasis on clarity and efficiency. Can the reader still understand the contribution from the abstract or first sentence of every paragraph? What if they just skimmed over the figures and captions? Does the title reflect the content of the work? I have this same attitude as a photojournalist: could a reader understand the event if they were to look at an uncaptioned image?

karaterobot• 5 years ago

why is it that a profession so fundamentally involved in the business of writing ... pays so little attention to this aspect of its work?

I came to a different conclusion shortly before leaving my humanities graduate program: that the bad writing was covering for an absence of valuable insight. If you don't have anything to say, say a lot of bullshit. Nothing I've seen about the field in the last 15 years has made me reconsider that position.

teddyh• 5 years ago

I have found this video very helpful:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtIzMaLkCaM

LEADERSHIP LAB: The Craft of Writing Effectively

Do you worry about the effectiveness of your writing style? As emerging scholars, perfecting the craft of writing is an essential component of developing as graduate students, and yet resources for honing these skills are largely under utilized. Larry McEnerney, Director of the University of Chicago's Writing Program, led this session in an effort to communicate helpful rules, skills, and resources that are available to graduate students interested in further developing their writing style.

maire• 5 years ago

I also found this video helpful.

A key point in the video is that when you are a student the reader is paid to read your paper.

When you are not a student - the reader pays to read your paper (or book). Is it worth their time or money?

PaulHoule• 5 years ago

I never really found my voice writing for academic literature.

Anyone who clicks my profile will find I have no problem generating vast amounts of text in my own style or even as a character, but writing for a journal ties me into knots.

tunnuz• 5 years ago

More importantly: how did this link open without my provider blocking it?!

JPLeRouzic• 5 years ago

If you are in EU (as myself), you can use Google's DNS or another non EU DNS provider.

rtbtobi2• 5 years ago

humanties and nat. sciences should agree to a common root: reflection https://github.com/rene-tobner/unity

lasagnaphil• 5 years ago

To be honest, that document is a prime example of what a manifesto shouldn't look like. I can't understand what you're trying to say from the beginning sentence:

No other re-ligion (lit. “back-binding” [one etymological analysis of the word /religion/] to some ideas to rely on for humans) is necessary for a society, but only reasoned about principles: reflection, symmetry, cooperative construction (by too many CAs -> 1CA).

I'm never explained as to how the etymology of re-ligion relates to the whole thesis, much less what the etymology actually means. That first sentence will already make 90% of the people in the humanities to close their tabs. Please explain concepts like these in full sentences, than rather jot out abbreviations and notes that only you could decipher. I'm actually intrigued about this etymology, but I can't understand! What is "CA"? What do you mean by morality relating to symmetry?

Evolved religions like Christianity also abide to following principles. Their followers do:

  1. think/reflect about the world (our thinking: one instance of reflection)

  2. they are in search of beauty, of beautiful/good actions/deeds (symmetry (1))

  3. they try to establish one text, one book, as core of their religion.

Now you're making very, very huge sweeping generalizations about the nature of religion right away at the second sentence, which would now make the remaining 10% of the humanities people to run away. The particular qualm I have (disclaimer: though as a non-humanities person) is the third part: religion is not operated only by what is explicitly written in the texts, but are also implicitly defined by the cultural norms of that society (which is why some religious people often try to "find" things in the text in support/opposition to current cultural norms (such as women's rights in the Bible or the Quran), rather than interpreting the text and then create a top-down cultural norm based on that!) And the "singular text" thing might just be a byproduct of you thinking Christianity is the only religion in the world... (more specifically, a product of Protestanism) Also you really need to be careful when using the term evolved: I'm not saying you shouldn't use it, but you're now adding a evolutionary view of "progress" in religion that you have never explained!

Ah, I don't have the energy to read the rest of this, people deserve a more legible manifesto than that.

rtbtobi2• 5 years ago

Thanks for your comment! [edit] Did explain short term CA in abstract. And regarding my sweeping generalizations, well, I cannot do without (it's about math, too, see last remark of this paragraph). You're right, there's much fighting over interpretations of holy books' content and cultural norms, but anyhow a base text is made available. Regarding symmetry as beauty and good deeds, I had my headache about including it, but as mutual reciprocity/respect of citizens, that has some validity. The real reason, though, I included symmetry is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_relation : Symmetry is the second relation. I am not going abstract without a reason. In principle #1, you see THE foundation of math.

* Uniting humanities and natural sciences by the principle of reflection #+BEGIN_SRC One single root of natural sciences and humanities: reflection. #+END_SRC See Principle #1 below.

* How to unite and manage the world by a natural/logical religion

abstract

No other re-ligion (lit. "back-binding" [one etymological analysis of the word /religion/] to some ideas to rely on for humans) is necessary for a society, but only reasoned about principles (prin-ciple: the thing to grasp first , primus+capere): reflection, symmetry, cooperative construction (by too many Central Authorities [too-many-CAs] -> only 1 Central Authority [1CA]; see Cultural Principle below).

Evolved religions like Christianity also abide to following principles. Their followers do: 1. think/reflect about the world (our thinking: one instance of reflection) 2. they are in search of beauty, of beautiful/good actions/deeds (symmetry (1)) to form a sustainable society 3. they try to establish one text, one book, as core of their religion: an instance of a CA (among other religions with their corresponding CAs)

(1) Seems like rather a far fetched argument, but who is not in search of beauty? The necessary association of beauty with symmetry anyhow is clearly shown in arts education about proportions, geometries of the human face or body. Good deeds and mutual respect/reciprocity of citizens, showing off characteristics of symmetry, too?!

Uncovering an abstract core of every human religion is our goal here for the betterment of education and world management. (Respect for every evolved religion is granted, but having different people adhering to different religions is not a good way to start thinking about a unity of humanity -- despite the potential of tolerance in various religions.)

The priciples reflection, symmetry, and cooperative construction are elaborated below.

msp_yc• 5 years ago

Calvin, of Calvin and Hobbes:

"I used to hate writing assignments, but now I enjoy them. I realized that the purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a litte practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog!"

https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1993/02/11

olooney• 5 years ago

Here's a quote from the creator of Calvin and Hobbes that's particularly relevant to the above passage:

Calvin’s vocabulary puzzles some readers but Calvin has never been a literal six-year-old. Besides, I like Calvin’s ability to precisely articulate stupid ideas.

- Bill Waterson

rkp8000• 5 years ago

Good, simple writing often goes unnoticed or looks easy, since it "gets out of the way" and doesn't confuse. It can take a whole lot of writing on one's own to appreciate just how much patience and effort that takes, though.

Someone posted this quote by Edsger Dijkstra yesterday: “Simplicity is a great virtue but it requires hard work to achieve it and education to appreciate it. And to make matters worse: complexity sells better.”

haroldship• 5 years ago

This Coursera Course (Writing in the Sciences, Stanford University, Dr. Kristin Sainani)

https://www.coursera.org/learn/sciwrite/home/welcome

psychomugs2• 5 years ago

"...you see students' work where the point, whether it's stated or not, is basically that they're clever." [1]

As a grad student, I've found explaining my work to non-academic laypersons to be a useful exercise. It's similar to those "Expert X explains Topic Y to N Levels of Education" videos and is good sanity check as to whether anyone cares about your work beyond the cloistered ivory tower of academia.

[1] https://youtu.be/w5R8gduPZw4?t=164

munificent2• 5 years ago

Criticisms of academic writing are a popular and well-justified trope, but I have yet to see any speculation of why otherwise intelligent people acting in good faith would produce writing that everyone dislikes.

My hypothesis is this. In a single piece of academic writing, the author has several competing goals:

1. Get the ideas of the paper into the reader's head.

2. Persuade the reader to believe those ideas and that they are objectively true.

3. Give the reader the impression that the author is a prestigious, intelligent person doing difficult, original work.

When people argue for clearer writing, they are advocating disregarding the latter two, but authors don't have that luxury. In particular:

A big part of academic style, I think is an over-correction for a failure mode of 2. As we can see in the popular media today, often the best way to persuade people is to child-like appeals to emotion stated boldly and repeatedly. But that is also effective at persuading people of things that aren't actually true.

Academics are seeking truth, so they are rightly suspicious of any style that veers too close to unjustified proclamation and verbal strong-arming. Thus a style that is more passive and hedges its bets also comes across as more trustworthy. That is a necessary goal for the author too. A paper that is understood but not believed is no more useful than a paper that is incomprehensible.

The other part of persuading people is the impression of the merits of the author themselves. If some rando parent at your kids' soccer match tells you that wearing fabric on your face prevents disease, you might rightly disregard it. When a highly reputable epidemiologist does, you pay attention because they have earned your trust.

We grant more prestige to people, especially people professing novel insight, if they have a reputation of doing hard things. If the writing makes the idea seem too obvious or easy, we might wonder why it hasn't been discovered before? And if not, perhaps there is some fatal flaw?

All of this means that authors have real incentives to write in a more complex, less clear style, even though it has negative consequences for other goals. Choosing a style always involves trade-offs and our style is always intepreted in a certain social context that affects how it will be read.

On academic writing: a personal note (2016)

Related Stories