Francois-Xavier Nsenga wrote:
> I was often reminded (is
> the passive appropriate here?) that the rationale to use "nous" (we)
> instead of "je" (I) was not a matter of personal pretention or else, of
> trait of cultural reserve. I was told that to any writing there always
> is more than one person involved. Minimally they are two: the writer and
> eventually one reader,
Nevertheless we have to remember that this discussion is about research
writing where precision is essential. The researcher can say with
confidence "I experienced" something, they might also feel justified in
saying that "some people have experienced" something but they can never
write "we have experienced" since they do not know their future reader
or their situation. The novelist or journalist, in contrast, is allowed
a prototype reader..
I was reminded of something similar in Teena's comments about the use of
full names. I recognise the principle of gendering authors but I note a
weakness of rigour since not all names are clearly gendered ("Chris" is
used by women and men) and not all gendering is recognised by all
readers, especially in an international arena where the majority may be
excluded from the gendering game. If somebody writes, "Chris Rust, a
middle aged male English academic" they may get closer to the facts but
since people perceive "middle aged" "academic" and "English" in a
variety of ways it would take a much fuller explanation to "place" me
satisfactorily.
There is another reason to use full names along with some
characterisation. In some natural science writing there is a tendency to
use citations in a declarative way (eg: "20% of ducks in Istanbul are
pink [Brown & Shah, 2001]) and I have seen my own work cited like this
to assert the existence or truth of something that I have merely
referred to or discussed. Outside the most reductive areas of science it
is very important to characterise your sources and helpful to ensure
that people recognise who you are talking about. In England, there is
another Chris Rust, also a professor and more distinguished than me,
whose work is concerned with education. So it would be helpful and a
sign that you know who and what you are talking about to say, for
example, "Chris Rust (2002) through his research into the impact of
assessment in Higher Education, demonstrated that...". It would be wise
to demonstrate some critical familiarity with the work in question, in
this case the paper concerned was a combination of a broad review of
existing literature leading to a synthesis of some practical policies
for teachers, quite different from what is implied in my simple version
above.
best wishes from Sheffield
(the other) Chris Rust
*********************
Professor Chris Rust
Head of Art and Design Research Centre
Sheffield Hallam University, S11 8UZ, UK
+44 114 225 2706
[log in to unmask]
www.chrisrust.net
Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the
future of the human race. - H. G. Wells
|