Lars has dealt with one aspect of this very succinctly and well.
I would like to go further and say that researchers producing their
primary publications cannot make any assumptions about their reader
apart from expecting them to have some understanding of research itself.
(researchers may go on to write specifically for particular audiences)
As a researcher you are writing for anybody who may wish to stand on
your shoulders now or in the future. Your reader may be in any place and
their experience and knowledge may be quite different from yours. That's
why I reject the concept of "we" as in author+reader. As a writer you
cannot provide a complete explanation that will allow any reader to
understand your work in full but the conventions of academic writing
give you tools to point the reader in the directions they need to gain
that understanding for themselves. We have all benefited from exploring
the rich seam of knowledge indicated in other people's bibliographies.
best wishes
Chris
Lars Albinsson wrote:
> Umberto Eco uses the concepts of "model author", "empirical author", "model
> reader" and "empirical reader" to discuss the relationship between writers
> and readers.
>
> My example would be: In scientific writing the "empirical reader" has a
> notion of the "model author" being a researcher, which implies certain
> assumptions. In the same way the "empirical author" has to decide which
> "model reader" s/he or they are addressing. Non-researchers as "empirical
> readers" seldom match the "model reader" of science. And so forth. (Of
> course Eco goes on to note that in fiction the "empirical author" may
> introduce a fictive "model author" in the text, and so forth.)
>
> In science writing some appears to argue that the "model author" is
> invisible, which creates problems in situations where the "empirical
> authors" needs to report on hers/his own choices, observations and
> interventions. And so forth.
>
> Satoshi's question, which I think is very important, can be put as: Can
> scientific (both model and empirical) authors choose a "model reader" that
> is not a researcher?
>
> In my own doctoral project my main supervisor advices me not to, the
> dissertation is to have the scientific community as "model readers", but I
> am still hopeful that future research will take on a broader audience.
>
> /Lars
>
> Eco, U. (1994). Six walks in the fictional woods. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
> University Press.
>
>
>
> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> Från: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
> research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] För Francois-Xavier
> Nsenga
> Skickat: den 1 april 2008 02:24
> Till: [log in to unmask]
> Ämne: Re: I, We, The Author
>
> Satoshi wrote:
>
>
> "Academic authors tend not to think of the readers. If authors are
> trained to place readers in the first place, the legibility
> (understandability) will be greatly improved."
>
> In my French composition lessons (long ago!) 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, this latter being willingly or otherwise engaged
> by the former, which is the purpose of writing anyway!
>
> But even more so, to any artifact, in addition unknown but potential
> future end-readers, there are draft reviewers, peer reviewers, proof
> readers, editors, librarians, collectors, etc. who all will somehow read
> the artifact for one purpose or another. I was told that a good writer
> (designer) should aim at addressing his message to all those eventual
> readers (users) and enroll all of them into his discourse (into using
> his artifact). These latter are the only judges of clarity and
> accountability...
>
> I entirely agree with Satoshi. Like in case of any other design output,
> the quality of a written artifact should ALSO be measured by the numbers
> of readers (users) the author (designer) has satisfactorily engaged.
>
>
|