As they say in France, following Deborah Bosley, academic should not write to express, but to impress. But, fortunately, a movement for a more reader-friendly literature is growing in the US, corresponding to a mutual desire of a broader diffusion of academic texts. A great article about great professors, too, that constantly defend the access to knowledge. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/10/complex-academic-writing/412255/
I personally think academic writings should respect narration rules. Writing under duress always allows new paths to open up. I consider the formal academic writing a form of laziness. It’s easy to be complex, it’s harder to be simple. What's your opinion at the respect?
Bat if Nino is a stupid person because there is no argument for this statement, Nino lose this serious play. Is this good or bad?
Australian scientific researchers tend to be relatively informal, writing directly, often in first person active.
Yes,
I think so. I do not know why the academicians and scientists go for very formal writing with jargons and scientific tools always ! Even poets are same ! I think as like the great poet and Philosoper Rabindra Nath Tagore, ' Writing easy is the most difficult....' Still we have to go for easiest form to reach the message of the write up to the maximum audience. Nothing there is credit of the writer if the readers fail to understand the write up.
I think that this depends on the type of write up& science or subject. Formality& categorization of the write up is necessary for writing mainly a research paper in a complex scientific topic that is directed to specialists (like for example biotechnologists, histopathologists, mathematicians,... etc). However, I do agree that writing a textbook-even when directed to high level students-should be simplified as much as possible.
I think that the academic writing purpose is to convey a certain idea to people that have certain knowledge in specific subject. So, it is not necessary to write in special academic form. But, one must take in the account the scientific secretariat and the rights of publication of others
Md Zafar Alam Bhuiyan I didn't knew the Tagore (a great poet I greatly appreciate) citation, but it doesn't surprise me, just confirms Tagore's accuracy.
In my understanding, complex academic writing is often associated with the circumstance to maximally hide the main ideas on the basis of which the final result was obtained. That is, I want to say that this is done deliberately, so that colleagues would not be able to grasp the very idea as a source for obtaining a result. On the other hand, the presentation of a scientific result is very important for the legitimization of a scientific status. Therefore, scientists often try to confuse the way of getting the result as much as possible and consciously complicate academic writing. For example, for a long time I could not understand how one algorithm works, because the text was laid out on several pages with a large number of concepts and definitions. However, in another article I saw a diagram from several pictures of the change in the state of an object at each next step. Comparing these pictures, I caught the main idea of the algorithm and then I was able to understand the whole algorithm. The second point is to write intelligibly and understandably - this is not a big disadvantage, because in any case, the result itself is important for science. For example, the Nobel Prize winner in physics, Lev Landau, was a brilliant theoretical physicist, but he didn’t have the talent to write clearly and intelligibly. However, he had a friend, Yevgeny Livshits, who was not a genius like Landau, but was quite an ordinary theoretical physicist, but he had the talent to write clearly and intelligibly. Thus, the Landau-Livshits tandem appeared, which created textbooks on Theoretical Physics.
I think academic writing need not be complex but should be written in such a way that grammar, phrase, notations should be expressed in a proper way. The writing should be concise and should convey information in the most decent and systematic way. Hence academic writing is not complex but to write, we need to think, analyze and judge to put in a proper way to convey a good meaning.
Gennady Fedulov To be able to translate a good idea into intelligible sentences is also a form of genius, thus I'm happy to get aware Landau knew it too.
Ask, is reality complex? Many fronts of academic writing attends to complex reality. Attempts at stylization can be misleading (oversimplification). That said, writing is an art and many people struggle with it. However, scholars who understand their subjects well will have picked the art of framing complex spaces, and we should see those frames in their writings. The framing should let readers know the complex aspects of the writing that may not be readily accessible. Incidentally, I am not talking of merely the common practices like using annexes. Good framing is like proper road signage. The markers should flow along the writing.
Fred Amonya I mean scientists should too take course of creative writing. A text is a text whatever is in it. The final goal is communication. So, after making the main research, it should be a simple game to give it another form (one of the exercises of creative writing training). Scientific articles are usually (whatever level or content) so horribly written that I basically manage myself through key words and around, not wanting to contaminate my writings with such horrendous prose, that simply does not consider the reader, and much less, as totally non-existent, the non-initiated reader. On another hand, I'm convinced the fear researchers have to concretely explain in few words their theories because of career competitions works hard for the text unintelligibility.
Simplicity can never go wrong. Keep your sentences short and say exactly what you want to say without mincing your words or circumlocution. Simplicity takes effort whereas complexity can come easily because it is easy to obfuscate and confuse readers with bombastic words and unnecessary jargon just to sound erudite. Just think of the simplicity behind the 17 syllable Haiku concept. The Japanese originators of Haiku believe that 17 syllables fit in a full cycle of in-breath and out-breath. If it takes longer than that duration to say something, don't say it - a good philosophy.
Ok. I'm joining a contest for the worst answer :-)
" I don't want anyone to read my papers. I'm ok to be the only one reading them for the rest of this life " :-)
writings should be follow up by stage presentations, and that is how things should be done in the academics.
Bat if Nino is a stupid person because there is no argument for this statement, Nino lose this serious play. Is this good or bad?
Mercedes Orús-Lacort I saw you're in the great job of simplification of equations. Almost the same job, with words. Suppress all the unnecessary and the redundant to see if it still works. Usually, it works better and the exercise of changing your point of view by changing the form may help you to discover unexpected aspects. Routine is for lazy people.
@Christophe Jouis : your "serious game" is a strange game. Interesting.
--≥ "Today I go to Paris, to play tennis at Trocadéro with a policeman" :)
--≥"Today I go to Palestine, to play tennis at Gaza with an Israelian soldier" :)
Normally writing answers to questions is easy. Writing a text book, research paper, project, thesis etc. should have skill to write. This should be written in such a way to convey the meaning accurately, without repetition and precisely. Then only it appears good.
@Christophe Jouis: i didn't understand your serious game was finished. You lost because you play it. That why @Nino Durglishvili win.
But, in fact, you win all my recommendations because RG is just a serious game.
And also, if a person cannot say something stupid, rigth this person is not able to say something not stupid. So...
is Academic writing needlessly complex? It depends on the writer. From on point of view, the beauty of a scientific work lies on its clear and interesting messages in relatively short sentences.
When I read many stupid discussions and stupid answers (chocolate?), Finally, Christophe Jouis serious game is very pertinent!
I think No. An academic writing means well technical but eco friendly w. r to the subject of research area .
Agnieszka Will geb. Gronek Do you think writers focus on their audience? These are cheap commercial writers. On which audience did focus Potoki to write his marvelous "The Manuscript founded in Saragossa" (https://www.wikiwand.com/pl/R%C4%99kopis_znaleziony_w_Saragossie_(powie%C5%9B%C4%87)? Do you really consider Garcia Marquez, while in Cuba writing "Hundred years solitude", was aiming a Colombian audience? Market laws have very little to do with literature. As a matter of fact, market laws are also a kind of literature, I believe too intentionally exceptionally boring: reserved for specialists.
Fred Romano
Rabindranath Tagore is the first Indian and only the poet who got noble prize in 1913 from India. He was extraordinary caliber in literature. None came in this world with this type of diversifications in the literature. Pls read from Wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabindranath_Tagore
Dear Md Zafar Alam Bhuiyan, I'm glad you've mentioned Rabindranath Tagore here. He was indeed one of the best examples of great wisdom and quite simple and laconic sentences.
You can also read Toni Morisson for a good example of "suppressing all the unnecessary and redundant" in writing.
Such a great example of a scientific text well-written, by Stanley B.Prusiner, 1996 Medicine Nobel Prize. From the first line you know what you're in. In despite of the very complex theme, sentences are short and simple. Unnecessary scientific knowledge is avoided. I think almost anybody can understand it. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC33918/
Academic writing is an effective and really useful expressive tangible activity and evolves a dynamic interaction between writer and readers. Reflection on written naterials is always such a good exercise of mutual benefit.
Qualitative writing in academic is via consistent imagination and participation in social networking or by writing articles in journals and conferences of repute.
None perform in academic without qualitative and quasi quantitative writing and both are dependent.
There is a real art to being to explain complex topics in straightforward or even simple terms and making the subject accessible to all.
Not many people have this skill but when you encounter it the difference in understanding can be huge.
I do think that there is a tendency to indulge in needless complexity sometimes and it can utterly lose an audience.
Mercedes: c'est vrai. Mais en plus les vrais mathématiciens sont des fainéant : ils réfléchissent beaucoup pour en faire le minimum :)
C'est pour cela que La Fontaine avait presque tout compris : dans une course, il ne faut pas partir au dernier moment, donc la tortue gagne parce qu'elle part dès le début et en faisant ce qu'elle peut et gagne. Ok?
Le mathématicien ne partira ni au début, ni au dernier moment : il réfléchira beaucoup pour aller le plus vite possible, à peu d'effort, il partira ensuite en ayant trouvé la solution pour en faite le moins possible, et gagnera!
@Christophe Jouis : yes, at least, you have a goal: EC3 Project.
I see that the EC3 computer code is short (contextual Exploration engine), except input and output (Bin Yang Memory island). And except linguistics data.
Next update suggested for EC3 Project: a Chinese abstract version (with the contribution of Bin Yang)
:):)
La Fontaine est un voleur et comme tous les voleurs, il prend soin de défigurer ce qu'il touche. Esope n'est une victime collatérale, mais au moins lui avait pris soin de citer Stesichore (5ème s a.c.), le poète lyrique de Sicile célébré par les sages d'Alexandrie comme l'inventeur de la fable de contenu politique. C'est justement le côté politique que La Fontaine a supprimé dans ses copies, et on devine pour plaire à qui... au franco-espagnol qui a ruiné la France...
I think that Mathematics is a bit different ( For me it's a real art in numbers). A real mathematician, a genius, cannot and should not make his papers too simple, so that everyone without a background in math could read it. I know this for sure as a person who comes from a family with math and physics background. Mathematicians come from a different world and people should respect this!
Mercedes Orús-Lacort I totally agree with you. The goal isn't to do an universal text that could be read by anyone but letting the information accessible for the ones that wish. I totally disagree with Olga's clannish version suggesting almost a math gene. Apart from this, I often remark in my writings that when I honestly do the cut-off job, it allow true meanings to blossom, by true meanings I mean not the ones I put in, evidences by the own text's logic, almost by inertia, and at times, that's when I discover what my text is about. I think it happens the same with figures and equations.
Here is a depressing truth: Reality is complex and the wider public will not have the lenses to see it. So, we stylize. However, stylization is a compromise. Raw reality is pushed to the background. Yet, in our time, the notion of inaccess is unacceptable. Let us all recall, the first obligation of an academic is to lay out reality, as he or she sees it. Only after, should the academic think of access. That said, academics who have illuminated reality better will make it better visible to the public - yet visibility should not be the primary objective.
PS: You might find some comfort looking at Emmy Noether’s PhD thesis. It is raw reality that has allowed us see the world better. Over the years, people have stylized the thesis. However, the stylized papers remain inaccessible to the wider public. Must we complain about the contribution of Noether and the stylizers? No, we appreciate better the symmetry all around us because of their effort.
Fred Amonya Straight line and symmetry are illusions human-created to accept a frightening reality. I think if we could see reality as it is, we'll turn probably nuts. Just imagine no human no earth sees his own nose, which is in his vision field, but does not appear. So, appreciating symmetry is a way to pay a tribute to our ancestral fears we're not conscientious about. I can't see what's the point. Whatsoever, the goal is not to do an universal text that could be understood by all, but a text whose literary logic helps the non-initiated but wishing to overcome its lacks. What means researchers in search of efficiency should consider their work over the content, purely on the textual form aspect. It gives me the sensation scientists just don't want to consider text as a separate item from the content, just consider text as a neutral vector as can be a teapot. But even a teapot changes its contents and keeps 'unnaturally' heat in. But they are scientist and just don't want to lose time or money on a minor genre: literature. Of course, not all of them, only the best choose to be understandable, such as Nobel prize Stanley B.Prusiner. And to be understandable just demonstrate its absolute dominion of the theme. Because to explain, you have first to understand, better and deeper.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC33918/
An also, this text shows how the creation of a new word "prion" provoked "irate remarkable reactions" among some scientists, firmly opposed to linguistics in science. It's almost comical to my sense but I know the scientist, Prusiner, suffered a lot from those unfair attacks, before being rewarded with Nobel Prize.
Fred Romano: La Fontaine est un voleur d'idées, c'est d'accord. Il n'empêche que il fallait un sacré culot pour dire la vérité au roi, qui des fois, le lui a bien fait comprendre. La Fontaine a quand même bien rendu des services au roi, parce qu'il était entouré de minables qui ne cherchaient que des faveurs.
Mais ce n'est pas l'essentiel de mon propos, merci de le relire, sans vous focaliser sur un nom. Coluche n'aurait jamais fait ça....
Mercedes : René Huyghe (French Academy, College de France, Louvre), do exactly the contrary. I hope Christophe Jouis will develop my idea.
Euh... Justement j'expliquais dans mon post que La Fontaine a évité d'asséner toute vérité au roi Louis XIV. La fable du cerf, du cheval et de l'homme le démontre. Presque intégralement copiée sur Stésichore, la Fontaine n'a évité que le contenu politique dans sa fable. Stésichore dit qu'il ne faut pas se laisser monter par ceux qui prétendent nous aider, La Fontaine le remplace par une "chiquillada" ne chatouillant aucun puissant et littéralement "anesthésiant" l'essence de la fable. Je n'aime pas l'époque Louis XIV parce que c'est l'époque où la France institutionnalise la copie. Avant, il y avait des français comme Montaigne, l'un des rares penseurs européens à avoir dévellopé dans son coin une pensée originale, à la manière d'un artisan d'excellence. Et pour finir avec Coluche, car ça fait lgtps que je vois passer des allusions bordant le people voire, le torchon de nenième classe, laissez-moi vous dire que je suis ravie que vous le rameniez ainsi en milieu scientifique. Trop de fois, les spectateurs se sont laissés abuser par leurs propres idées reçues. Mais à quelle recherche vôtre Coluche participe-t-il? Il y a tant à dire à son sujet et aucun article sérieux n'a été écrit. Félicitations.
Pour Coluche, que vous connaissiez très bien, imaginons le devant les bêtises de RG :)
Je présume qu'il aurait été bien meilleur que tous ces diplômés, bon:)
Il était pratiquement illéttré mais possédait une puissante logique et cohérence. Le problème étant qu'il avait beaucoup souffert en tant qu'enfant d'italien (d'ennemi) et avait donc construit ses propres structures depuis l'enfance. Face à un discours "intellectuel" dont il saisissait instinctivement les faiblesses, il avait tendance à verser dans la provoc', aussi par sentiment d'infériorité.
Christophe Jouis Let's imagine you answer questions, so here comes the dialogue about explaining Big Bang Theory to uncivilized monkeys.
MC: -Then, after the Big bang, any Big Crush coming?
CJ - I should explain you first the laws of logic, so you'll be able to understand.
MC : - But didn't Hubble demonstrate universe is flat and endless? I prefer this anarchist but optimistic version of the universe.
CJ- My God! I got aware I forgot to take my Valiums! Wait a second, or I may suffer a fatal stroke... By version of the universe, would you exclude Cosmos Redshift 7 Galaxy and similar?
MC:- American scientists recommend to take cannabis instead of Valium, because it's much less addictive and does not provokes counter effects neither moody ups and downs. Your problem is you've been probably abused once in your life, so you don't let the most positive Christophe coming out, because you believe him so naive. Maybe what you miss is just love. As 4/5 of humanity. Gimme a kiss, stupido... (Michel was so gifted to unlock placards)
And please, never try to write novels or theater, you have such a painful miserable sense of improvisation, showing all your broken wings, spoiled feathers and received ideas.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Psychology
- Attitude